D&D 5E (2014) Wandering Monsters: You Got Science in My Fantasy!

[Tovec]

If you know the rules to Chess you can spot people playing it without them needing to tell you so. Games aren't labels. They are their definitions, their particular diversity. And character performance isn't necessary to play D&D (which is the definition I assume you're using for RP).

Okay, first, D&D isn't Chess. Never has been never will be. That horse has been beaten to death, turned into glue, eaten by first graders who have now graduated university. D&D =/= Chess.

Second, you can spot people playing D&D by all the books, dice, roleplaying (using voices and stuff to communicate) and generally talking of fictional worlds. It is possible they could be playing another RPG but you will recognize D&D by the specifics of what you see and hear - they don't have to tell you.

Third, D&D is best described (to be unique from a board game) as a roleplaying game. People exemplify this by saying ROLEplay over ROLLplay. So, Mistwell is right here - the mechanics/game aids the story.

I went into length about distinguishing the three for D&D in my last post. I guess you could say the rules and the performance of the rules are game elements. The Class roles as defined within those rules and their performance within the game are role playing. And the story element isn't important at all. It's trying to treat a game as theater, which is actually kind of insulting to any gamer in the way claiming actual wrestling is fake like WWE. To further claim all wrestling (role playing) is fake and about the narrative result is not about being pro-narrative or celebrating storytelling. It's anti-game play.

Well, I think you did a semi-decent job of defining the elements, though I think it ultimately failed as both Mistwell and I didn't understand the central word you were using for your definition.

Part of the problem is you are defining it when Mistwell asked for examples. Where you draw the lines are therefore not clear. You can say what qualities of X are but it doesn't help us to tell where the lines between X are from Y let alone for where W are.

I mean, you use the WWE line here (again right?) but I still have no idea what you think defines a story element.

 

[howandwhy99]

Okay, first, D&D isn't Chess. Never has been never will be. That horse has been beaten to death, turned into glue, eaten by first graders who have now graduated university. D&D =/= Chess.

Just because there was a prior discussion doesn't mean one side "won" or gets the decisive definition. D&D is a game, not a story. It is about strategizing to achieve one or more objectives within the game as defined by the rules. Chess has different rules. So yeah, D&D isn't Chess as they are different rule sets. But they are both games and therefore are built for the behaviors of game play.

Second, you can spot people playing D&D by all the books, dice, roleplaying (using voices and stuff to communicate) and generally talking of fictional worlds. It is possible they could be playing another RPG but you will recognize D&D by the specifics of what you see and hear - they don't have to tell you.

Sure, if you know the rules to D&D, then you can spot people playing. Other RPGs are very, very similar, but not exactly. I'm the one saying games are their rules. People playing an instance of a game are not a game themselves. And the actions, like character performance or storytelling, within the game are done because of mechanics. They aren't the mechanics themselves.

Third, D&D is best described (to be unique from a board game) as a roleplaying game. People exemplify this by saying ROLEplay over ROLLplay. So, Mistwell is right here - the mechanics/game aids the story.

D&D is a board game with the board hidden behind the screen, fog of war style. Roleplay vs. Rollplay was a derogatory distinction from the late 80s for everyone who played the game of D&D rather than engaging in fictional personality performance. It was effective enough to manipulate the leftovers in TSR to throw away the game they had and write in 2e's DMG that telling stories and acting in character was "the point of the game", however poorly the ruleset was a misfit for doing so. (Like trying to drive a ham sandwich to work). D&D is not a story game or about storytelling nor was it ever designed to be. It was called roleplaying as that is playing at and learning a role via pattern recognition. The term is used according to the definition widely understood from post-WWII through the mid-80s. Only then did "improvisational acting" become the popular definition commonly used.

Well, I think you did a semi-decent job of defining the elements, though I think it ultimately failed as both Mistwell and I didn't understand the central word you were using for your definition.

Part of the problem is you are defining it when Mistwell asked for examples. Where you draw the lines are therefore not clear. You can say what qualities of X are but it doesn't help us to tell where the lines between X are from Y let alone for where W are.

I mean, you use the WWE line here (again right?) but I still have no idea what you think defines a story element.

There no are elements that are story or game or science or art. Those things partly come from you in the manner in which you engage with them. The designs of the world around you are more or less equipped to to be engaged with in one way or another. Story isn't art, yet stories can be treated as art just as art can be treated like stories. But some are more difficult to treat as such than others. They were meant for a different addressal.

The game elements are the rules. For D&D, the story elements are the stories you tell your friends about the game you saw or took part in afterwards (as you could do for anything ~ which doesn't make the entirety of existence a story). The role playing is the role you perform as defined by the rules of the game. In the case of D&D, the role is defined by the code behind the screen. You, the player, learn, puzzl it out, and master it as you play. Just as a chess player can gain greater mastery at chess or an MtGer at Magic the Gathering.

 

[Mistwell]

D&D is a board game with the board hidden behind the screen, fog of war style.

I think you are alone in this view. It's not a board game. You don't role play with a board game. There are many fine tactical war games and board games that would suit that purpose far better than D&D. D&D, at it's heart, is a role playing game. That is an inescapable fact, a distinguishing feature, and it's the game that invented the genre in the modern era.

I get the sense you're confusing a story game, with a story element in a role playing game. The fact that role playing games have story elements, like a setting and a history of the setting and notable characters and adventures with lots of descriptive text explaining parts of the world, none of that makes it a story game despite those all being story elements. Story games involve disassociative mechanics, player control of narrative, and a host of things that are not generally found in RPGs. For more on that difference, I like this article.

It's simple to ditch tropes. Just quit storytelling.

There no are elements that are story or game or science or art.

You're going to have to pick a position here. Either the designers of the game are using tropes, which you claim is a storytelling element, in which case you will have an example of an element in the game that is such. Or, there are no elements in the game which are such, in which case there is no point to this entire discussion as your initial objection was meaningless. Pick one. I'm going to drill down on this again...

I went into length about distinguishing the three for D&D in my last post.

Let's focus on this. I am not asking for any theory with this question. I am not asking for analogy. I am not asking for what the distinguishing analysis is, or generalizations. I am asking for examples of the three things you said were different. Specific examples from the game. That's it, give me three specific examples, one that matches each of the elements you referenced, from D&D (any version). That, for me, will clarify things far better than all the rest of your analysis.

If they don't exist, then what exactly was the point of your objection, and this entire discussion? And please, answer that question directly and succinctly, if possible. Because right now I feel like we're not communicating.

 

[howandwhy99]

Let's focus on this. I am not asking for any theory with this question. I am not asking for analogy. I am not asking for what the distinguishing analysis is, or generalizations. I am asking for examples of the three things you said were different. Specific examples from the game. That's it, give me three specific examples, one that matches each of the elements you referenced, from D&D (any version). That, for me, will clarify things far better than all the rest of your analysis.

I see 3 different types of game called RPGs:

The first is about creating a story. The ruleset is small and usually about defining who gets to tell the story next. Game play is people expressing themselves in the activity of inventing a story. Rules support this by clearly delineating who is the one who gets to tell the story at any given point. Story telling happens in this game when people express a fictional story for the others to share. Game play happens when each player games the rules to gain more story "rights". Role Playing happens when a player is inventing a story specifically about one or more characters. Everyone is engaged in storytelling at all times as the current theory proclaiming this style of design defines all previous acts as storytelling first and foremost.

The second is kind of a broken design (IMO). These are games with incomplete rules sets where the DM invents stuff whenever any player goes outside the rules. Game play is both strategically building a character with the "crunch" and using those builds whenever rules apply during the game. Story telling happens when the rules run out and the DM invents whatever is needed on the fly. Some newer versions allow the players to invent things too. Role playing is considered making decisions like your character would, not necessarily as you would in the game. This may also mean affecting the character's mannerisms and demeanor engaged with DM as another character.

The third is the oldest and least remembered design. Game play is paramount including strategic thinking, analysis of game situations, setting objectives, making and enacting plans, noting moves as you go, and so on. It relies heavily on the players' abilities to remember, project forward along the game timeline for potential consequences of actions, be organized, work together, and plenty of other activities too. Role playing is selected by each player prior to play in order to focus on one particular aspect of play, the manner in which they will address the game. The game rules include a system for each class, increasing difficulty levels as each class is mastered over time by a player, and any other elements the players might address outside these scopes. The previous rules are hidden as a code behind a screen, generated into a game scenario like ones found in wargames, and deciphered by players during game sessions when players actually play. The DM is an impartial referee who refers to the design behind the screen as players take their turns. Storytelling happens afterwards when the players tell their friends about their exploits just as any pro athlete might tweet after a sports game. DMs never reveal what is behind the screen or tell what happened in case they might reveal detail as of yet undiscovered.

 

[Mistwell]

I see 3 different types of game called RPGs: [cut a whole bunch of stuff that does not answer the question]

OK, so I am going to take this as no, you do not have any examples from D&D, which means your objection concerning the use of tropes in the game rules was meaningless.

You didn't reply to most of my post, and didn't pick a position, but whatever. At this point I think it's pretty darn clear you're dodging and never had any intention of supporting your claim with specific examples.

 

[howandwhy99]

You're going to have to pick a position here. Either the designers of the game are using tropes, which you claim is a storytelling element, in which case you will have an example of an element in the game that is such. Or, there are no elements in the game which are such, in which case there is no point to this entire discussion as your initial objection was meaningless. Pick one. I'm going to drill down on this again...

It simple to ditch tropes. Don't treat them as such and the aren't. You and I are the ones engaged in storytelling or game play. Quit them and we aren't. Don't treat what you are dealing with as narrative and it won't be. Same with game mechanics. Posters were treating tropes as "the sound of inevitability, Mr. Anderson", as inescapable, and they aren't. If you're stuck in an absolute, ditch it.

To get rid of tropes in D&D stop treating storytelling as relevant to it.

EDIT: You edited before I responded. I'm not ignoring it.

 

[howandwhy99]

OK, so I am going to take this as no, you do not have any examples from D&D, which means your objection concerning the use of tropes in the game rules was meaningless.

You didn't reply to most of my post, and didn't pick a position, but whatever. At this point I think it's pretty darn clear you're dodging and never had any intention of supporting your claim with specific examples.

All I did was include elements from D&D in that last big post. 3 different varieties of D&D. What more do you need?

Give me examples so I can speak to what you want.

 

[howandwhy99]

So am I now to think you're dodging?

 

[Libramarian]

James Wyatt coming across as arrogant and one true wayist, as usual.

Re "this isn't fantasy it's science"...what about all of that scientific philology in LOTR? Would it be a more pure fantasy if Tolkien hadn't bothered developing such realistic fantasy languages? AFAICT they have no direct importance to the "mythic resonance" of the work--they're pretty much pure nerdery in JRRT's area of scientific interest. If we're going to hold up LOTR as the paragon of "classic fantasy" then I don't see why we should discount the work of another fantasy author/RPG designer/DM merely for substituting as the simulationist, supporting element a bit of nerdery in biology or geography or psychology or whatever else for JRRT's linguistics nerdery.

Re the orc baby dilemma, I think the way to solve it is to simply never have the adventurers run into any orc babies. Only a small minority of players are going to have their sense of verisimilitude thrown off if they don't encounter any orc children in an orc lair. They should be told to forget about it and if they persist they should not be played with.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That should be easy to do. Just play Fourth edition!

We can do this without the edition wars, or we can not do this. The choice is yours.