What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Imaro]

I think D&D HAS evolved more than MOST games though. A lot has indeed stayed roughly the same, but over time the game has diffused and branched into various flavors, all within an overall genre. As you say, mostly niche games have simply come and gone and been replaced by more polished or different games, vs evolving in and of themselves. That's kind of what I was talking about. There's not a huge amount of point in evolving niche RPG #12 when you can just write niche RPG #13 and steal as much from #12 as you care to, within reason.

I always find it interesting when the argument that D&D hasn't evolved is made... I look at OD&D and IMO it's nothing like 5e in play or in much of it's design. Usually I find this argument to mean D&D hasn't evolved in the way I would like it to have done... or specific editions are used to create a "road" that supports this assertion are cited while those that don't are conveniently forgotten, and even then the argument doesn't seem to hold much water.

 

[pemerton]

what is the "fun" that Sorcerer provides and have you ever been in a mainstream game where the GM/Dm was actually trying to provide this experience? From what I can remember Sorcerer is a game about bartering away one's humanity to attain power. Why would a game centered around this theme not be possible in D&D? I'm not claiming it is, but at first glance it certainly seems possible. What about D&D makes it impossible to explore this theme?

I'm not [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION], but here's my take: he's not just talking about theme (colour, flavour); he's talking about actual game play.

As soon as the experience depends on the GM trying to provide this experience - eg by making certain choices within much broader (or even non-existent) constraints around world-building, encounter design, establishing scenes, and resolving action declaraions - then the play of the game takes on a different character. I don't know how Campbell would describe it; for me it is a certain type of insipdness, because the GM is not him-/herself playing full-tilt within the parameters established by the game, but rather making the rules at the same time that s/he purports to follow them.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not @Campbell, but here's my take: he's not just talking about theme (colour, flavour); he's talking about actual game play.

As soon as the experience depends on the GM trying to provide this experience - eg by making certain choices within much broader (or even non-existent) constraints around world-building, encounter design, establishing scenes, and resolving action declaraions - then the play of the game takes on a different character. I don't know how Campbell would describe it; for me it is a certain type of insipdness, because the GM is not him-/herself playing full-tilt within the parameters established by the game, but rather making the rules at the same time that s/he purports to follow them.

Can we get more concrete here? Using Sorcerer as an example what is the actual gameplay that can't be provided by a mainstream game?

EDIT: I don't know if you've actually played Sorcerer but much of the game relies on the GM and players shaping it (such as defining the nebulous Humanity in the game) towards it's intended gameplay... I don't see how this is different from what I am stating. In fact I fail to see how a DM or GM who makes choices to provide a specific experience in a much broader game must, by default, provide an "insipid" experience. There's quite a few assumptions in what you are stating above and I'd like to explore them in a more concrete manner as opposed to in the abstract. I also am not so sure a GM has to make up rules in order to do this as opposed to re-purposing or using rules that are already provided...

 

[Aldarc]

Did you ever follow up on this? Just curious... since I don't think the fact that you haven't experienced something personally to be anywhere near ample evidence to discount its possibility.

I too would enjoy a follow-up from [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]. I suspect there is an interesting conversation topic there waiting to erupt.

what is the "fun" that Sorcerer provides and have you ever been in a mainstream game where the GM/Dm was actually trying to provide this experience? From what I can remember Sorcerer is a game about bartering away one's humanity to attain power. Why would a game centered around this theme not be possible in D&D? I'm not claiming it is, but at first glance it certainly seems possible. What about D&D makes it impossible to explore this theme? Also what type of gameplay besides this theme of humanity for power does Sorcerer support?

Your post here seems focused heavily on the matter of "what," but I think that the underlying nature of Campbell's post was about a "how" issue. You could have multiple board games be about sorcerer player-characters "winning" by acquiring the most amount of power at the end of the game's turns, but these board games will play out very differently in terms of how they approach that premise through their rules and the sort of play experiences those rules engender. Can't you run a pirate game in D&D? Sure. But the "fun" of that pirate game will play differently if I am using D&D, 7th Sea, Savage Worlds, Burning Wheel, Powered by the Apocalypse, or GURPS.

 

[Imaro]

I too would enjoy a follow-up from [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]. I suspect there is an interesting conversation topic there waiting to erupt.

Your post here seems focused heavily on the matter of "what," but I think that the underlying nature of Campbell's post was about a "how" issue. You could have multiple board games be about sorcerer player-characters "winning" by acquiring the most amount of power at the end of the game's turns, but these board games will play out very differently in terms of how they approach that premise through their rules and the sort of play experiences those rules engender. Can't you run a pirate game in D&D? Sure. But the "fun" of that pirate game will play differently if I am using D&D, 7th Sea, Savage Worlds, Burning Wheel, Powered by the Apocalypse, or GURPS.

Honestly I'm concerned with both but I feel like right now we are in the realm of ill-defined feel or preference (and I admit I could just be reading this wrong) as opposed to...
1. Actually taking a concrete example and looking at what the mechanics are trying to accomplish
2. After defining the what then looking at how the what is accomplished in the different games

 

[Lanefan]

Assuming the "concrete example" is on a whole-rules-system level (e.g. D&D 1e, or 13th Age) rather than a subsystem (e.g. combat rules within D&D 1e), then:

Honestly I'm concerned with both but I feel like right now we are in the realm of ill-defined feel or preference (and I admit I could just be reading this wrong) as opposed to...
1. Actually taking a concrete example and looking at what the mechanics are trying to accomplish
2. After defining the what then looking at how the what is accomplished in the different games

And then:

3. Determining whether those mechanics in fact more-or-less accomplish what they were intended to without too much persuasion by the DM and-or players
4. Determining whether D&D, as the mainstream game, is capable of achieving something close to the same result

For my own part, I think D&D (in one version or another) is or can be made flexible enough to achieve just about any result this side of pure diceless and-or pass-the-conch storytelling.

Lan-"if it doesn't fit, make it fit"-efan

 

[Tony Vargas]

3. Determining whether those mechanics in fact more-or-less accomplish what they were intended to without too much persuasion by the DM and-or players
4. Determining whether D&D, as the mainstream game, is capable of achieving something close to the same result

Is (4) also "without too much 'persuasion' by the DM and/or players?" Or is the first hypothetical game held to RAW, while D&D is let off the leash?

As soon as the experience depends on the GM trying to provide this experience - eg by making certain choices within much broader (or even non-existent) constraints around world-building, encounter design, establishing scenes, and resolving action declaraions - then the play of the game takes on a different character. I don't know how Campbell would describe it; for me it is a certain type of insipdness, because the GM is not him-/herself playing full-tilt within the parameters established by the game, but rather making the rules at the same time that s/he purports to follow them.

I'd describe it as Illusionsim, or committing Freestyle RP under color of authority, or Improvisational GMing, or 'DM Empowerment...' ;P

 

[Aldarc]

Honestly I'm concerned with both but I feel like right now we are in the realm of ill-defined feel or preference (and I admit I could just be reading this wrong)

What I perhaps unfairly hear in your questions to Campbell essentially amounts to an unnecessarily defensive "More 'fun' in Sorcerer with this theme than D&D? Outrageous. How is this possible? You should be able to do this in D&D too" and therefore "Why bother with other systems when we already have D&D that could do that?" in the subtext. ("D&D is mother. D&D is father. D&D, über alles.") And this sort of sentiment does come out quite explicitly with the Lanefan post you liked, so I don't think that my reading of the subtext of your question is that off the mark.

 

[Lanefan]

... "Why bother with other systems when we already have D&D that could do that?" in the subtext.

For me this isn't the subtext, it's the main text.

It's easier, simpler, and all around more intuitive to tweak or kitbash an existing system to suit your tastes than to design a whole new one...assuming, of course, that said existing system is flexible enough to withstand said tweaking, which 0-1-2-5e D&D certainly are. Some think 3e and 4e can handle it too, though I'm not so sure on this.

That way the DM doesn't have to buy and learn a new system as she already knows it inside out, having just rebuilt some of it based on materials she already has. And the players don't have to learn (and-or buy!) a whole new system, they need only brush up on the bits that have been changed from what they already know (based on D&D being the most common entry product).

Lanefan

 

[Imaro]

What I perhaps unfairly hear in your questions to Campbell essentially amounts to an unnecessarily defensive "More 'fun' in Sorcerer with this theme than D&D? Outrageous. How is this possible? You should be able to do this in D&D too" and therefore "Why bother with other systems when we already have D&D that could do that?" in the subtext. ("D&D is mother. D&D is father. D&D, über alles.") And this sort of sentiment does come out quite explicitly with the Lanefan post you liked, so I don't think that my reading of the subtext of your question is that off the mark.

I think you're reading more than my question entails but let me be clear, because @Campbell didn't just claim he could have more fun with said themes playing it out in Sorcerer he instead made the general claim that I was..vastly overestimating the narrowness of the designs of games outside of the mainstream and granting mainstream designs a flexibility that he had never experienced in the real world. whne you make a statement like that... yes I expect you to be able to expound on and explain those broad statements with more than... because I had more fun in Sorcerer. I have no problem with a preference but the statement @Campbell made in the previous post isn't just about preference. Maybe I am wrong and he's right... maybe not but what's wrong with actually looking at the games and trying to determine if the flexibility of mainstream games is being overstated or if the narrowness I attribute to many/most indie games is mistaken (though I've often seemed them praised by fans for exactly this)...

EDIT: On another note didn't we go through this earlier or in another thread? I'm starting to think you're purposefully reading my posts in a negative light... especially since I get called out for challenging Campbell's statement with "unnecessary defensiveness" but you didn't do the same when he challenged my viewpoint. If it wasn't you this happened with before then I apologize but this seems eerily familiar.