D&D 5E The Illusion of Experience Points that Everyone Disbelieves

[Emerikol]

I think maybe one distinction here might help
everyone on all sides to understand the other side better.

As I live my life in the real world every day I am in one form of
the word creating a story. In most peoples cases though the
purpose of living life is not to create a story. It is just a byproduct
of life.

Some people view D&D the same way. It is a game about being a
character. Any resulting story is coincidental. We don't do things
with the intent of telling a good story. We are not joint authors.

Other people see it differently and their objective is the creation
of an interesting story. So what is allowed in the form of narrative
control is different from what I described in the previous
paragraph. In that style only the DM has narrative control outside
of character actions. And for some, even that is highly curtailed.

 

[Cadence]

Some people view D&D the same way. It is a game about being a character. Any resulting story is coincidental. We don't do things with the intent of telling a good story. We are not joint authors.

Other people see it differently and their objective is the creation of an interesting story. So what is allowed in the form of narrative control is different from what I described in the previous paragraph. In that style only the DM has narrative control outside of character actions.

Thanks for the food for thought.

I've never really thought about the distinction between (a) running a character in a game and having the story arise incidentally and (b) narrating the characters actions, words, and thoughts in a jointly told story (in D&D games where the DM has narrative control outside those things). On the other hand, I think (b) is definitely different from what happens in something like Fate or even 13th age where the character's player has direct control over other parts of the story.

In (b), you can be telling a story even if you don't know where it's going, right? Doesn't the person doing (a) want to be participating in something interesting?

Hurm.

 

[Balesir]

I've never really thought about the distinction between (a) running a character in a game and having the story arise incidentally and (b) narrating the characters actions, words, and thoughts in a jointly told story (in D&D games where the DM has narrative control outside those things). On the other hand, I think (b) is definitely different from what happens in something like Fate or even 13th age where the character's player has direct control over other parts of the story.

In (b), you can be telling a story even if you don't know where it's going, right? Doesn't the person doing (a) want to be participating in something interesting?

I think there's a good point here. Although there is a style of play that involves either the GM, the players or all of them consciously aiming to author a story during play, there is also a more subtle style where they try to assure that a good story will happen by selecting the starting parameters (e.g. the characters, the mission(s), the setting, the opponents), and then actually play out the situation in the roles selected without any attempt to author a specific story in play.

I think there is another style, somewhat similar, too - and it might be what [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] was trying to express. This is where those participating select the starting parameters (same as above) to make a good game rather than to make a good story. Here the setup is aimed at making fun puzzles and challenging/interesting strategic and tactical situations rather than a dramatic story; it is then played out focussing purely on "winning" (i.e. solving the puzzle, winning the battle, overcoming the obstacle, etc.).

One confusing aspect, in my view, is that these two aims can look superficially very similar. Most good games will generate exciting stories - hence the popularity of watching sport and quiz games, both live and on TV. The two play styles are thus entangled inescapably with one another, despite the very different aesthetic desires that spawn them.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think there is another style, somewhat similar, too - and it might be what [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] was trying to express. This is where those participating select the starting parameters (same as above) to make a good game rather than to make a good story. Here the setup is aimed at making fun puzzles and challenging/interesting strategic and tactical situations rather than a dramatic story; it is then played out focussing purely on "winning" (i.e. solving the puzzle, winning the battle, overcoming the obstacle, etc.).

As I am putting forth there are two major ways of looking at a game. The post-structuralist Forge theory seated squarely in critical theory and games as they were understood for about a thousand years up until that point. IOW, as patterns players decipher, at least in part, to accomplish objectives within them. This is why puzzles are basically the same thing as games historically and held in -abashedly- low regard from the other perspective. No one should un-ironically solve a puzzle from that point of view. And games are best designed when quit of that thinking. As well, game rules have been changed to always be agreements between two people rather than patterns of behavior (Laws of the Universe in D&D). So playing Chess on a computer isn't playing Chess at all as now there are no rules players are following with other people. It becomes a fundamentally different act as there is no self-similar pattern that is the game of Chess making play of it basically the same thing. At least, that's the hardline stance.

D&D doesn't have resolution mechanics as the rules are for a massive reality simulation hidden behind a screen. That description is closer the start of the hobby as any of hundreds of computer emulations of near-D&D demonstrate. Players get hooked on the pattern recognition aspect of games and puzzles. And while they don't "win" they certainly can improve enough to call for tournaments.

 

[Emerikol]

I think there's a good point here. Although there is a style of play that involves either the GM, the players or all of them consciously aiming to author a story during play, there is also a more subtle style where they try to assure that a good story will happen by selecting the starting parameters (e.g. the characters, the mission(s), the setting, the opponents), and then actually play out the situation in the roles selected without any attempt to author a specific story in play.

I think there is another style, somewhat similar, too - and it might be what @howandwhy99 was trying to express. This is where those participating select the starting parameters (same as above) to make a good game rather than to make a good story. Here the setup is aimed at making fun puzzles and challenging/interesting strategic and tactical situations rather than a dramatic story; it is then played out focussing purely on "winning" (i.e. solving the puzzle, winning the battle, overcoming the obstacle, etc.).

One confusing aspect, in my view, is that these two aims can look superficially very similar. Most good games will generate exciting stories - hence the popularity of watching sport and quiz games, both live and on TV. The two play styles are thus entangled inescapably with one another, despite the very different aesthetic desires that spawn them.

Good points. I've recently had a long discussion on the D&D boards with some guys who expressed eloquently their model of play which is close to being the opposite of mine. So I suppose I was thinking about those sorts of things.

Here is an example. If the players are authors as well as the DM, a player would feel free to make up a fact about the world on the fly during the game and the rest of the group would roll with it. So I could suddenly have a long lost cousin arrive from the north and be sitting in the bar when I walk in. I tend to use the term storygame for these approaches but it's all roleplaying of course. Roleplaying is such a broad category that it's usefulness as time progresses will become less than less. In these sorts of games too, the DM tends to prepare less and allow the players and himself to flexibly create the world based upon whatever is happening in the game.

I think that some games facilitate the authorial approach better but I'd think any roleplaying game could use that approach.

Personally I am more in the other camp in my preferences. I like the "living world" philosophy where the DM with the rules tries to model a fantasy world and the players are merely actors in that world. I think stories as outcomes are great but I prefer them to occur organically. I always have tons of plots coming and going in my world and the players can pick up any thread they like but that doesn't mean after doing so that an interesting story doesn't result. It's just that a story is not our ultimate objective. The game itself with it's challenges and planning and strategy are what it's about.

 

[Balesir]

As I am putting forth there are two major ways of looking at a game. The post-structuralist Forge theory seated squarely in critical theory and games as they were understood for about a thousand years up until that point. IOW, as patterns players decipher, at least in part, to accomplish objectives within them. This is why puzzles are basically the same thing as games historically and held in -abashedly- low regard from the other perspective. No one should un-ironically solve a puzzle from that point of view. And games are best designed when quit of that thinking. As well, game rules have been changed to always be agreements between two people rather than patterns of behavior (Laws of the Universe in D&D). So playing Chess on a computer isn't playing Chess at all as now there are no rules players are following with other people. It becomes a fundamentally different act as there is no self-similar pattern that is the game of Chess making play of it basically the same thing. At least, that's the hardline stance.

I'll try to answer from understanding, but you are making some assumptions that I don't really follow and come to some conclusions I definitely don't agree with.

I disagree that a "game" and a "puzzle" are the same thing, but your computer example highlights that every game has, in a particular sense, puzzle elements. Let me deconstruct the "computer chess" situation: I take it you do consider this to be a "game"? If so, so do I. And it contains a puzzle element - but we can argue that all games do. The game element is, well, "chess". This brings a set of assumptions (an 8x8 squared board and 2 sets of 16 pieces of particular types) and a set of rules (one side designated "white" moves first and the sides then take turns moving one piece per turn - generally - with particular pieces allowed only to move in specific ways and so on).

The "puzzle" element is the fact that the computer has been programmed to play chess using a set of heuristics. Trying to identify the "pattern" of those heuristics might be considered part of the game.

The thing is, though, that the "trying to fathom the pattern of the heuristics" is enabled by the fact that the computer must abide by the rules of the game.

If the computer suddenly starts moving bishops as if they were rooks (a really rather minor deviation from the rules, in the great scheme of things) most would agree that the game was no longer "chess". The rules of the game are what enable the human player to attempt to fathom out the heuristic the computer is using. The rules do not tell the player what the computer will do, but they do tell them what the computer may do and what it may not do.

Even games such as "20 questions" have rules. 20 questions is a guessing game, but there are still fixed rules that both the querents and the respondant must abide by if it is to be a game of 20 questions:

- The querent may ask up to 20 questions of the respondant, after which they must state what they believe the mystery "thing" is; if their statement is correct, they win - if it is not, they lose.

- The respondant must think of one unique "thing" to be guessed - they cannot change it after the first question has been answered. They must answer all questions truthfully to the best of their ability. They must state truthfully whether the querents' final chosen guess is correct or not.

If those rules are not followed, then you are not playing "20 questions".

It seems very much to me that rules perform the same function in RPGs as they do in these games. They tell the players how they can interact with the mystery in order to divine things about it. They state both what might happen and what cannot happen and, as such, form the basis on which the players can understand the game world. In this role, they are essential.

I don't incidentally, think this is any different from what is going on in what is discussed on the Forge as "gamist play".

D&D doesn't have resolution mechanics as the rules are for a massive reality simulation hidden behind a screen. That description is closer the start of the hobby as any of hundreds of computer emulations of near-D&D demonstrate. Players get hooked on the pattern recognition aspect of games and puzzles. And while they don't "win" they certainly can improve enough to call for tournaments.

If D&D has no resolution mechanics then players have no sound basis for interacting with the game whatsoever. If everything is arbitrary then no useful "pattern" can be discerned and no useful purpose is served by "playing the game". Long ago I actually tried playing a game in which there genuinely were no rules known to the player; it was hopeless. Not only did I have no information, I had no basis on which I might conceivably acquire any information. Was I humanoid, amoeboid, quadrupoid or what? I didn't know. Were the "sights" being reported to me correspond with what human eyes might see in the same situation? I could not be sure.

You might assume a lot of the rules - that "real world physics" applies except where it explicitly doesn't, for example - but (a) those things remain rules nevertheless and (b) they are extremely problematic as rules because everyone's conception of how "real world physics" works is wrong.

Some of the rules - or, more correctly, some parameters used in the rules - may very well be unknown to the players. But the rules themselves must, to be useful, be fixed and will be used to resolve the results of interactions between the fictional characters that the players use as tools to explore the game/puzzle/pattern and the pattern itself. They are the point of contact between the players and the pattern. If there are no rules defining how the players get information about the game world and how it responds to the actions their playing pieces ("characters") take, how can they possibly figure out what the pattern is?

Here is an example. If the players are authors as well as the DM, a player would feel free to make up a fact about the world on the fly during the game and the rest of the group would roll with it. So I could suddenly have a long lost cousin arrive from the north and be sitting in the bar when I walk in.

In all RPGs that I can think of that use such concepts, such introductions are governed by rules and often require the expenditure of player resources. I think this links back to my responses to howandwhy, above: there are rules that define how the player is allowed to interact with the game world. These rules sometimes allow the player to stipulate things that the character couldn't. The difference is really quite subtle; since neither the character nor the game world really exist (except as patterns of thought in the participants' brains) one might say it is hardly any significant difference at all.

 

[Emerikol]

In all RPGs that I can think of that use such concepts, such introductions are governed by rules and often require the expenditure of player resources. I think this links back to my responses to howandwhy, above: there are rules that define how the player is allowed to interact with the game world. These rules sometimes allow the player to stipulate things that the character couldn't. The difference is really quite subtle; since neither the character nor the game world really exist (except as patterns of thought in the participants' brains) one might say it is hardly any significant difference at all.

Well actually on the D&D boards there are people who play that way wide open without expenditure of any resources.

I'd say that it's a matter of playstyle preference. I prefer to play and DM games where the players are strictly actor stance. If any metagame thinking goes on I'd rather it not be during the play session. I don't mind some up front discussion about ground rules etc... prior to game start but in session I prefer actor stance alone. It is why I hate dissociative mechanics because they force me into another stance.

I get though that what I like is not the only way to play. It is a way to play. There are many ways to play and I perceive they all have their adherents and in the right circumstances are fun for those people.

 

[pemerton]

I think there's a good point here. Although there is a style of play that involves either the GM, the players or all of them consciously aiming to author a story during play, there is also a more subtle style where they try to assure that a good story will happen by selecting the starting parameters (e.g. the characters, the mission(s), the setting, the opponents), and then actually play out the situation in the roles selected without any attempt to author a specific story in play.

This is what I see as paradigmatic of the approach to play that The Forge calls "narrativist". The best articulation of it that I know of is in this blog.

I think there is another style, somewhat similar, too - and it might be what howandwhy99 was trying to express. This is where those participating select the starting parameters (same as above) to make a good game rather than to make a good story. Here the setup is aimed at making fun puzzles and challenging/interesting strategic and tactical situations rather than a dramatic story; it is then played out focussing purely on "winning" (i.e. solving the puzzle, winning the battle, overcoming the obstacle, etc.).

I don't incidentally, think this is any different from what is going on in what is discussed on the Forge as "gamist play".

Agreed.

If D&D has no resolution mechanics then players have no sound basis for interacting with the game whatsoever.

Also agreed.

I would add: in so far as D&D is a roleplaying game, those resolution mechanics must involve reference to an imagined situation. What, upthread, I called the "fiction" of the game.

But the existence of this fiction has nothing to do with the creation of a story: there are all sorts of reasons for creating fictions which don't involve storytelling. One reason is so we can solve puzzles about them.

Likewise, there is no reason to think that the creation of a shared fiction via RPG play should in general produce anything that is recognisably story-like in any sense stronger than involving a sequence of events with overlapping participants. Only under certain conditions (eg the selection of particular starting parameters, as you mentioned above) is that likely to happen.

Some people view D&D the same way. It is a game about being a character. Any resulting story is coincidental. We don't do things with the intent of telling a good story. We are not joint authors.

Other people see it differently and their objective is the creation of an interesting story. So what is allowed in the form of narrative control is different from what I described in the previous paragraph.

All this is true, but it does not cover all the options. I think the most mainstream alternative to the approach that you (Emerikol) prefer is not one in which powers of authorship are allocated differently, but rather in which the rules that govern PC building, GM scene-framing and action resolution are set up so that the result of play is likely to be a satisfying story even though no one either individually or jointly has to take responsibility for authorship. This is the "subtle style" that Balesir refers to.

The reason I say that it is more mainstream than the alternative you mention is because it's allocation of responsibility to the GM is more traditional. Games that fit this description include HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, Marvel Heroic RP, and (I think) Fate. And I'm sure plenty of others too.

(Some of these games do also have mechanics for player co-authorship, but they're not the main focus of play. The main focus of play remains the players engaging the situations the GM has framed via their PCs. It is the PC build mechanics, the scene-framing guidelines and the action resolution mechanics that combine to deliver story in the strong sense of that word.)

 

[Balesir]

Well actually on the D&D boards there are people who play that way wide open without expenditure of any resources.

OK, but I think that is a pretty extreme end of the spectrum. I'm not saying you can't play that way, but it's pretty far from the "mainstream" if you do. Even Universalis - which is quite extreme, having no GM and no setting defined at the start of play whatsoever - uses player resources and fixed rules to ensure that all players participate and that dramatic conflict creation is rewarded.

I'd say that it's a matter of playstyle preference. I prefer to play and DM games where the players are strictly actor stance. If any metagame thinking goes on I'd rather it not be during the play session. I don't mind some up front discussion about ground rules etc... prior to game start but in session I prefer actor stance alone.

Agreed - that is a playstyle preference and a perfectly fine one.

It is why I hate dissociative mechanics because they force me into another stance.

Here, however, I disagree that your experience is universal - depending on what you mean by "dissociative mechanics" (which still seem a rather numinous concept).

Assuming that you mean "mechanics that don't follow an in-world process paralleling route" ("process sim", as it has been labelled sometimes) then I, for one, find many process-paralleling mechanisms impossible to maintain actor/immersive stance with. Take the metronomic weapon swings every 6 seconds apparently envisaged by the D&D combat system (if it is taken to be process-paralleling), as brought up by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] in another thread. I simply could not take actor stance in a game that worked that way - humour and spontaneous ridicule would simply destroy any immersion I might have.

With a more abstract system, on the other hand, that simply dictates what the outcome of 6 seconds of combat are and leaves me to imagine that period of combat in any way that makes sense to me, I can easily maintain actor stance or even immersion. I just imagine the clash and flurry of combatants in a way that leads to the outcome defined.

I'm not saying that this experience will apply to everyone. Different minds will work slightly differently. But I find it intriguing that it is those things that I have some personal experience with (archery, rock climbing, medieval martial arts) that seem to be least plausible to me as process-parallel mechanics. It's a little bit like when I worked in the nuclear industry, early in my career, and noticed how apallingly innacurate/clueless media reporting was on that subject. I soon started to wonder just how reliable media reporting on all those other subjects - where I did not have personal experience to compare with - really was.

This is what I see as paradigmatic of the approach to play that The Forge calls "narrativist". The best articulation of it that I know of is in this blog.

Sure - but the words "the Forge" seem to turn off some folks' reason circuits, so I find it's more helpful oftentimes to parse the ideas I found there in more straightforward terms, without mentioning the site-that-shall-not-be-named...

Likewise, there is no reason to think that the creation of a shared fiction via RPG play should in general produce anything that is recognisably story-like in any sense stronger than involving a sequence of events with overlapping participants. Only under certain conditions (eg the selection of particular starting parameters, as you mentioned above) is that likely to happen.

Here I refer you to an excellent little book entitled "Why?" by Charles Tilly. In it, he argues quite convincingly that a "story" is largely a particular type (one of four) of account of a set of events or circumstances. It is perfectly possible to relate any set of events or circumstances in any of the four styles; which style is chosen is a social and cultural phenomenon that complies with social and cultural rules, rather than anything inherent in the set of events or circumstances themselves. The styles are used when someone either explicitly or implicitly asks the question "why?". Who asks the question will factor strongly in deciding which style of account is rendered in answer.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'll try to answer from understanding, but you are making some assumptions that I don't really follow and come to some conclusions I definitely don't agree with.
SNIP

The rules of Chess define a finite set of outcomes based upon the board, the pieces, and the rules for their operation. Thus Chess is a pattern and what people seek to decipher when playing. People do not need to be performing those operations for Chess to be played. Computers can perform those operations without the interference of people.
That computer codes, also patterns, based on theories in heuristic computer science may be programmed into computers to allow people to play against them as well means the underlying pattern of Chess remains while a new pattern has taken the place of an opposing player. This second pattern has up until this point in history always been less complex, less difficult to decipher than Chess itself as we have not solved Chess, its underlying code. We do however have the code the programmers use to play against.

It seems very much to me that rules perform the same function in RPGs as they do in these games. They tell the players how they can interact with the mystery in order to divine things about it. They state both what might happen and what cannot happen and, as such, form the basis on which the players can understand the game world. In this role, they are essential.

Rules in RPGs are the patterns players are attempting to decipher and should be hidden behind the screen. Should there be rules all parties know, referees and players, before play begins? I totally agree, but these aren't in the books. However, literally thousands of games in RPG history are game engines defining the operations of a fantasy universe. They do not inform the player what actions a player may take within the game, but rather define the underlying pattern players are their to decipher. They should fundamentally be unknown to players at all times.

I don't incidentally, think this is any different from what is going on in what is discussed on the Forge as "gamist play".

Forge "gamism" is game play; its "narrativism" is story play. These are not the same thing in the way theater doesn't require anyone tells the truth or a lie. The intent is to tell a story. Can you act honestly for yourself? Honestly act to deceive? Act to create something? My go to example is high school wresting. Players follow the rules of wrestling to win, to achieve objectives as defined in the game. They are playing a game, not "gamism". WWE wrestlers are seeking to put on a show, to tell a story with wrestling occurring in it, but it's fake. It's not real because they are not playing a game.

If D&D has no resolution mechanics then players have no sound basis for interacting with the game whatsoever. If everything is arbitrary then no useful "pattern" can be discerned and no useful purpose is served by "playing the game".
SNIP

There are no resolution mechanics in D&D because there are no conflicts between varying narratives put forth by different players. Resolution mechanics only ever exist for storygames. D&D players learn how to interact with the game through trial and error just like computer gamers. Should there be shared rules, ones everyone knows when playing D&D for the breadth of conversation referees and players can engage in about the game? I'm okay with that, but the rules of D&D have never been explicitly stated. They would be rather small indeed, though the suggested rules for referees to use to construct the code behind the screen would be almost every rule printed in our hobby's history until storygames.

If there are no rules defining how the players get information about the game world and how it responds to the actions their playing pieces ("characters") take, how can they possibly figure out what the pattern is?

They never do, not wholly. Just like Chess, grandmasters of the game may appear to have grasped great knowledge about the game, but never in any single case can they know what their actions mean within the whole scope of the game. They are always limited to their own memories of experience. And yet all the while every new game is fresh and every new player has new insights to offer. In this way D&D players can also improve at the D&D game: they can judge for themselves their improvements, make judgements about their own excellence and seek to keep improving. And new players can be added to an old group at first level and still help more than any scripted NPC would.

Players tell the referee what they want their character to do and the referee tells them the results based upon the rules hidden behind the screen. That's the basic operation of D&D. There is an outside and an inside. It cannot be played solo though hundreds of CRPGs have substituted computers in the referee's place. And yes, the code the referee uses behind the screen must definitely be fixed prior to playing an instance of the game, the campaign. But that code actually grows through play due to player descriptions. And all printed rules are only suggestions to the effect of possible versions for a referee to run.