D&D General The Problem with Talking About D&D

[Urriak Uruk]

Yeah, I mean, he's not wrong. Look at something like Dragon Heist. A very, VERY different module from, say, Princes of the Apocalypse. And, some very polarizing views of Dragon Heist. You'll see people absolutely loathe this module. It's the worst thing in the world. OTOH, others like it and have a good time with it. It was certainly popular enough saleswise that there's probably a fairly big selection of people who played it. And, judging from the additions to it on things like DM's Guild or Reddit, it certainly wasn't universally hated.

But, I wonder how much of how people judge the module is based on their own group. I have a sneaking suspicion that a large part of what people think about a product is based heavily on the group that that person plays with. We especially saw this in the 4e days when you had a game that was strongly based around the idea that you would be playing with strangers and people with stable groups really reacting very negatively to that. Not because it was bad per se, but, because the solutions the game was offering were to problems they were never seeing.

The interesting thing about Colville's video is that he is indeed, very very correct... but it's also not a super illuminating take? It largely boils down to "each table is different, so a lot of the rules aren't universally useful." Which I think everyone knows.

I guess the most important point (and it's implied in the title) is that when talking about D&D you need to mention the context. So if you give a review of a module, you should say "Hey it worked for my table, which is made up of these players who..."

 

[James Gasik]

Didn't we learn in the 80's that the entire game was immoral?

That's why I started playing in the first place.

Don't refer to that! Someone might get upset!

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Fair enough.

I agree that 5e is best for epic fantasy and things immediately adjacent, that's really all I would personally use it for.

As for 2D20, yeah, they do change it for the various games, but does every game need meta currency dice pools, you know? Also, strongly agree about Dune, it always kind of struck me as Cortex Prime with extra steps and Dune especially so.

I'm a huge fan of metacurrencies in games, as well as using multiple dice to create something like a curve, so I'm super biased. But in theory I agree--if and when Modiphius does a new game that's particularly gritty or realistic, I'd love to see them get rid of Momentum, and maybe limit dice pools in other ways. For now, though, they're running in very pulpy, cinematic circles, so I think that approach works way better (for that tone) than a lot of systems.

What bugs me a little about 2d20 is that I don't think they give the best guidance for GMs to handle one of the main results of all those Momentum-inflated dice pools, which is complications for rolling 20s (or even 19s or 18s, depending on the situation). Since the game is mostly trad in design and approach, I think most GMs default to "Oops, guess you tripped over your spear, bro!" and everyone gets to laugh it up at your dumb critical failure, even though you might have also scored four successes on the roll. There is some guidance about using complications and/or the Doom they generate for narrative events, but that's such an outlier of a concept in most 2d20 games (aside from Dune, I guess) that it doesn't really stick. In other words, I think it's super interesting to have a system where adding Momentum to a roll means you're sort of injecting higher stakes into the entire scene, so you might do something awesome, but something else might happen that makes things more hectic or unstable. That's not really how it's presented though, or at least not clearly enough (imo), so here come the banana peels and oopsie-doodles.

 

[billd91]

The interesting thing about Colville's video is that he is indeed, very very correct... but it's also not a super illuminating take? It largely boils down to "each table is different, so a lot of the rules aren't universally useful." Which I think everyone knows.

Do they? And by that I mean not just pay lip service to the idea that different tables play differently and that's OK, but actually accepting it as truth. Because there are a whole lot of threads on this board, some raging even now, that indicate that not everybody really groks this.

 

[pemerton]

What bugs me a little about 2d20 is that I don't think they give the best guidance for GMs to handle one of the main results of all those Momentum-inflated dice pools, which is complications for rolling 20s (or even 19s or 18s, depending on the situation). Since the game is mostly trad in design and approach, I think most GMs default to "Oops, guess you tripped over your spear, bro!" and everyone gets to laugh it up at your dumb critical failure, even though you might have also scored four successes on the roll.

<snip>

I think it's super interesting to have a system where adding Momentum to a roll means you're sort of injecting higher stakes into the entire scene, so you might do something awesome, but something else might happen that makes things more hectic or unstable. That's not really how it's presented though, or at least not clearly enough (imo), so here come the banana peels and oopsie-doodles.

I'm not familiar with these RPGs except by reputation, but this comes across as an insightful analysis/criticism.

It reminds me of the contrast I felt behind how 4e D&D skill challenges can play (and there were examples in WotC rulebooks that illustrated this, using failure to generate stakes/thematic consequences etc) and how they seemed to actually play at many tables, again because of an apparent failure to communicate the appropriate techniques for establishing compelling fiction on the basis of the dice rolls.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not familiar with these RPGs except by reputation, but this comes across as an insightful analysis/criticism.

It reminds me of the contrast I felt behind how 4e D&D skill challenges can play (and there were examples in WotC rulebooks that illustrated this, using failure to generate stakes/thematic consequences etc) and how they seemed to actually play at many tables, again because of an apparent failure to communicate the appropriate techniques for establishing compelling fiction on the basis of the dice rolls.

Mechanics aimed at emulating anything that can conceivably be role-played in your living room often have trouble getting traction with players.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Mechanics aimed at emulating anything that can conceivably be role-played in your living room often have trouble getting traction with players.

What does the mechanic he was describing, or that I was, have to do roleplaying? These are about using certain kinds of failures to introduce broader narrative beats that aren't "Lol you whiffed!"

 

[Micah Sweet]

What does the mechanic he was describing, or that I was, have to do roleplaying? These are about using certain kinds of failures to introduce broader narrative beats that aren't "Lol you whiffed!"

My bad. I thought they were referring to social mechanics.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Do they? And by that I mean not just pay lip service to the idea that different tables play differently and that's OK, but actually accepting it as truth. Because there are a whole lot of threads on this board, some raging even now, that indicate that not everybody really groks this.

Yeah I guess "everyone" is an exaggeration on my part. I'd still say it's a minority, but yes there are folks who just assume everyone plays D&D "the one true way" which coincides to be the poster's preferred playstyle!

 

[James Gasik]

Everyone who plays D&D plays just like me! Everyone else must be dopplegangers!