So, this is going to be a bit of a meandering idea post, but I will try and start with as succinct a central question as I can manage:
When you sit down at the table (virtual or otherwise) to play D&D (any edition or adjacent game) specifically as a player in the game, what is it that you want to be able to do while you are in that chair? I mean this both via your PC but also as a player manipulating the game mechanics themselves. Plus as it relates to interaction with the other participants (players and GM).
What I am trying to get at (and am probably not explaining well) is finding out what is the best possible actual experience of play for you. What do you want out of your 4 hours? What do you want to be able to do?
I will try and explain mine as an example of what I am asking about:
When i sit down to play D&D, I want to be able to playa character that strikes a bonus between ease of use and being complex enough to offer meaningful mechanical decisions. I also want to be able to make meaningful decisions otherwise, both tactical and strategic, as well as "narrative" (not in the "narrative game" sense but in a player agency kind of way). But I also want to be able to experience a coherent flow of events while playing -- not a story per se (it becomes a story after we are done, IMO) but a fulfilling experience at least. I don't mind if the GM is running off the cuff or railroading us if it FEELS like we are making our own choices and things are happening. As a player, I would rather be railroaded than stuck spinning my wheels in a giant sandbox. I also want to be free to make jokes, pop culture references, callbacks and other out-of-character banter. I want to have a few beers and some snacks. I want to be able to know that what we did in those 4 hours will matter for the next time we play, too. I don't mind episodic, but I still want an ongoing campaign.
So, I hoe that kind of helps explain what I am aiming for. I want to know what other people want to be able to do, as players, when they sit down for D&D.
Thanks.
As compactly as possible: I expect to game via roleplay, and to roleplay via game.
Unpacking that: I want,
by design, a good roleplaying experience AND a good gaming experience, inseparably. If I wanted RP only, I could just
do that, systemless, and did for years (though these days, I usually write instead.) If I want just gaming...I have hundreds of PC games I could play, skipping all the complexity of finidng, joining, and playing in a group.
Since neither GMs nor other players are indispensible for TTRPGs, the key benefit they provide, IMO, is that they're both things simultaneously: both roleplaying
and game. Thus, they should reinforce each other. Neither one should ever be seen as an annoying hurdle to get to the other. We should play
wanting roleplay AND gameplay--because there are much, much better tools if you only want one side of that.
That's why I have high standards for game design. It's why I gush about 13A's clever design, and why I run Dungeon World instead of something else. IMO, anyone can (with time/effort) write a good, even great setting. (Many,
many DMs already do.) But designing a good RPG system? That's incredibly hard. Just a good asymmetrically-balanced system is quite hard, let alone one that truly integrates roleplay.
And when you truly get it right? It is beautiful. Because in that limit--when genuinely good asymmetrical balance is achieved--then there is no difference between "optimization" and "roleplay." Because the sincere optimizer can no longer rely on calculation to guide their choices; the conclusions are inconclusive if all you do is compare quantitative things. You must instead make
qualitative choices. You must choose what you
value more, not merely what you
calculate as highest. When you do that, then to roleplay IS to game, and to game IS to roleplay--the two truly become, not simply inseparable distinct things, but
one singular act. No longer a crude weld, nor even a smooth join, they have become truly alloyed together as one single substance.
This is why I am so opposed to unbalanced games. Unbalanced games can generally be
solved. They have clear, degenerate solutions which should always be preferred so long as they're available, and one should always put one's full effort into
making them available if they aren't. Unbalanced games provide perverse incentives which either push players
away from actually roleplaying, or punish them for choosing to roleplay, and they usually even punish engaging with the parts of the game that are meant to be entertaining or interesting to play through.
It's also why I'm opposed to
trivial games. Trivial games are also solvable, and rarely interesting. It doesn't take long for even a relatively young child, say 6-8, to realize that Tic-Tac-Toe/Noughts-and-Crosses is a pretty boring game, because it is fairly trivial. Perfect play is easily achieved, and results in a draw every single time. Games that are enjoyable
for gameplay offer depth, which is incompatible with being trivial, but also incompatible with being unbalanced.
Everything else--story, drama, satisfying progression, etc.--is a downstream concern. That doesn't mean they aren't concerns. They are. But unless and until you have ensured that your game is neither unbalanced nor trivial, those concerns cannot be properly addressed. I do have many other things I care about as part of what I consider engaging gameplay or engaging roleplay. But it is critical that the game be well-made as both a roleplay experience AND a gameplay experience.
