D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Campbell]

I like it because i like games that do xyz and it does xyz. I'm not sure much more can be said about preferences. Maybe if you elaborated on the kind of response you wanted to see?

In general I would like to see a lot more specificity when people make claims or state particular preferences. For example when it comes to comparative claims of flexibility I would like to see people claim in which particular ways they believe D&D is more flexible compared to other games and which games in particular.

I also do not want to hear what other people think. I want to hear what you (the poster who makes a given claim) think and why you think it based on the actual games in question. I cannot have a conversation with a multitude of people who are not here to speak for themselves. I can have a conversation with other posters as long as they focus on games and game design rather than cultural norms and/or beliefs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In general I would like to see a lot more specificity when people make claims or state particular preferences. For example when it comes to comparative claims of flexibility I would like to see people claim in which particular ways they believe D&D is more flexible compared to other games and which games in particular.

I also do not want to hear what other people think. I want to hear what you (the poster who makes a given claim) think and why you think it based on the actual games in question. I cannot have a conversation with a multitude of people who are not here to speak for themselves. I can have a conversation with other posters as long as they focus on games and game design rather than cultural norms and/or beliefs.

Well, in the spirit of that request...

I like roleplaying games because of those two words: roleplaying and game.

The "roleplaying" portion involves things like narrative and symbolism, portraying a character both earnestly and with integrity (the character does not need to have integrity, but their portrayal does), employing structural elements to support and reinforce the narrative content,* exploring the logical consequences of established events, discovering the unknown, engaging in extemporaneous improv theater/dialogue, etc. As a result of my love of roleplay, it gets extremely disheartening, to the point of easily ruining my game experience, if my character is unceremoniously ripped from me with little to nothing I could have done to change that (other than being prescient or the like.) Hence, I favor systems which give enough space to make some mistakes without making those mistakes immediately lethal.

This leads to the "game" side. I enjoy solving puzzles and working out highly effective answers to difficult open-ended questions. I find it dull when there are clear and obvious power differentials that require no effort to pursue. Instead, I find it exciting and invigorating when my choices matter mechanically, but not in a way that is a simple matter of calculation--where I must make value judgments, and my ability to discern and pursue that value is key to the process. This means I need to be able to (a) make informed decisions, (b) observe the consequences, (c) learn how the former produced the latter, and (d) re-evaluate and revise my understanding. If any one of a, b, c, or d is missing, then I don't feel like I'm playing a game. Hence why I put so much emphasis on informed decision-making and being able to learn from past actions, not just having to start all over from square 1 every time.

This is why I love systems that provide solid, reliable mathematical structures, which have been tested and found to produce the desired results. It's why I love systems that have put in the work to make mechanics be, in and of themselves, flavorful. Since flavor is often hard to specifically nail down, I favor systems which focus on "reskinning" over systems that prioritize a 1:1 synonymy between flavor and mechanics: it is better, in my opinion, for a single set of mechanics to have several different valid flavors associated with it than for us to try to make every single possible flavor-element have one and ONLY one representation in mechanics. That way lies madness (e.g. rulesets which try to give a rule for truly every single thing, rather than capturing categories of things with common traits.)

Hence, despite their great differences, I love both 4e D&D and Dungeon World. The former has the mechanical crunch I desire, and is thus closer to my preferences, but Dungeon World does an extremely good job of emphasizing the interplay between fiction (which always takes primacy) and mechanics (which are secondary, but should always be followed as written when they apply.) I also like 13th Age, and appreciate the depth but not always the complexity of some other systems like Werewolf: the Apocalypse and Shadowrun 5th Edition.

It's also why I generally do not like systems like 3rd editionD&D/Pathfinder 1e. That's a game that is needlessly complicated, self-contradictory, poorly designed, and absolutely chock-full of perverse incentives and broken rule interactions. I will play them, but only in a game that goes knowingly "gonzo," because then I can just sort of let my imagination run wild and do whatever I want, consequences be damned. It's the balls-to-the-walls wish-fulfillment edition, and when the DM embraces that, it can be fun for a temporary fling.

This is part of why I find 5e so frustrating. It doesn't permit the gonzo that I would get from something like Pathfinder 1e. It doesn't provide the rigorous balance that I would get from 4e or even its cousins like 13th Age. It doesn't provide the open-ended infinite potential of something like Dungeon World or Masks. It's too rules-heavy to be a total pick-up-and-go game, but intentionally too rules-avoidant (not "rules light" per se) to trigger my "let's solve this mechanical puzzle" reflex. It overtly emphasizes techniques like illusionism (or even outright railroading) and fudging, and gives the DM enormous license but very little assistance. In the end, I'm left with a game that...doesn't really offer any of the things I actually want from a game other than roleplay...and then the game goes full steam ahead on actively supporting attitudes I dislike with regard to DMs curtailing and restricting roleplay when they want, where they want, however they want.

Does that answer the question in the intended direction and structure?

*E.g. 4e Lay on Hands. You literally sacrifice some of your own vitality, to replenish someone else. That's a situation where flavor and mechanics are one and the same.

 

[Oofta]

This is true for every procedure in RPGing, isn't it? Eg the AD&D reaction roll procedure is based on unique specifics like alignment of the interacting parties. The 4e skill challenge procedure is based on the particulars of the situation and the stakes, which shape both framing and consequence narration.

There are systems that do just this. I believe that BitD is one, although that's from reputation not experience.

Although when you say "clocks ticking" I think you are meaning that the GM makes decisions about the offscreen fiction; not a formal or even semi-formal system for advancing the clocks as is found in BitD.

To me, you seem to have just described your system: you as GM decides what happens next based on your imagination about what is happening offscreen.

If "I decide what the different factions are doing and then give people logical reasons they have to act which can be as varied as the challenges that I think of" is a system then I guess. Not sure it has much meaning if that's the definition. It's basically saying "I figure it out" which is true. I base stories and challenges on various movies and TV shows I've seen, novels I've read, personal experience, other games, modules.

While I don't follow one pattern consistently, a pretty common one is the "the hornets nest got kicked over and we have to deal with it". I enjoy The Dresden Files series of novels (a lot of serial novels use the same pattern) where things are going fine and then things blow up and Dresden and Co have to deal with it. There's ongoing threats in the background, threads that sometimes get resolved, sometimes get reinforced. The novel starts with a recap of what's been happening for the last weeks or months of downtime then something happens. The primary time pressure? The poo is hitting the fan and you have to deal with multiple things before things get worse.

For me, I don't want a counter or procedure that follows a static pattern. I find having people doing a countdown or analysis based on information their PCs do not have is detrimental to the immersion and fun of the game.

 

[FrogReaver]

In general I would like to see a lot more specificity when people make claims or state particular preferences.

Sure, but I think there are many pitfalls there. Most people cannot say why they like something more. When they are able to put into words about why they like something better it most often becomes couched in language about their product being better (and such attempted answers are unlikely to do justice to whatever deep down reasons they actually have such preferences). Usually, one of the following things happens after this:

• Others take offense at said poster for implying their preference is inferior
• Others argue about whether whatever was claimed as better is actually true

At the end of the day it doesn't actually matter if what was stated as better about their preference is actually true, it still isn't going to change their preference. So the discussion tends to spin and goes no where, because the 'right' questions aren't being asked.

For example when it comes to comparative claims of flexibility I would like to see people claim in which particular ways they believe D&D is more flexible compared to other games and which games in particular.

I'll answer for me. When I am in discussions about other games, I mostly haven't played or even read them. I rely on 'you' those I'm discussing with to tell me about those other games. The complaints I often hear about D&D from such posters stem from the DM's authority to adjudicate found in the procedures of D&D. This is most often contrasted with games that have non-dm adjudication procedures to avoid some of the DM adjudication. So the picture being painted for me is that these other games have less flexibility because flexibility stems from the DM's ability to adjudicate.

Is that actually true, maybe not to the extent I've gleaned from my window, aka their explanations. I've read quite a bit of Blades in the Dark recently and even have DM'd a few sessions now and I find tons of DM adjudication in that game text. (I'll start a thread on this at some point). I see DM adjudication everywhere in that game. Setting position and effect. Determining consequences for failure. What scores NPC's offer to the party. Deciding the effect of a resistance roll and that chapter even advises: "By adjusting which consequences are reduced vs. which are avoided, the GM establishes the overall tone of your game."

So, I get the thought, these other games can be flexible too! I believe that's probably true. Based on some of what I see now, I don't even know if D&D is particularly more flexible - but that's not the way such games are introduced to us here. As noted above, it's usually by touting the benefits of 'no dm adjudication'. So I think the comparisons and contrasts here are being informed by that.

I also do not want to hear what other people think. I want to hear what you (the poster who makes a given claim) think and why you think it based on the actual games in question. I cannot have a conversation with a multitude of people who are not here to speak for themselves. I can have a conversation with other posters as long as they focus on games and game design rather than cultural norms and/or beliefs.

Sorry but I will continue to talk about what I believe other people are saying as I believe it aids in understanding for everyone participating in the conversation. I'm always open to give my sole opinion when asked though.

 

[Oofta]

So would you say your players can play well?

Like how would you say one of your players did a good job? Because he rolled high often? Something else?

I'm not following. At all. The game is it's own reward with plenty of back and forth, mostly between NPCs and PCs.

 

[TwoSix]

So would you say your players can play well?

Like how would you say one of your players did a good job? Because he rolled high often? Something else?

I don't think there's anything wrong with playing in a participatory/thespian-heavy style with mostly FKR adjudication, as Oofta seems to be advocating for. "Game mastery" as a play motivation (where control over "earning a win condition" and "showing knowledge over the system" are desired) isn't actually a super common motivation in TTRPGs, especially as players age.

 

[Manbearcat]

That isn’t what I said, but rereading I can see why a quick read would lead one astray. When I say “that seems just left of a classic Blades game”, I’m saying that it is indeed still Blades. I then explain what would make a game not seem like the same game, to me.

I also think this isn’t actually central to the discussion. What is more significant, to me, is the idea that I mentioned before that repurposing all the mechanics of a game to create a totally different thing…makes it a different game.

Like if someone took the mechanics of D&D 5e, stripped all the fluff, and repurposed it into a game about the Galaxy Rangers, it wouldn’t be D&D 5e just because the mechanics are technically mostly “intact”.

Ravenloft isn’t that different. Spelljammer is further from classic D&D than Ravenloft. Neither requires changing fundamental rules procedures, you don’t need to teach someone how to play again, it’s just D&D set in a horror place using a couple add-on rules. A rogue is still a rogue, a sword still a sword, daylight still stops vampire regeneration, and you still kill a vamp if you deplete his HP while he’s in daylight, like any other vampire.

Cool cool. I think we've got some clarity here and probably as much mileage out of our conversation as we could get!

I don't think there's anything wrong with playing in a participatory/thespian-heavy style with mostly FKR adjudication, as Oofta seems to be advocating for. "Game mastery" as a play motivation (where control over "earning a win condition" and "showing knowledge over the system" are desired) isn't actually a super common motivation in TTRPGs, especially as players age.

Agreed (as I'm sure hawkeyefan agrees as well). But its a nice springboard for conversation. Let me see if I can help!

I'm not following. At all. The game is it's own reward with plenty of back and forth, mostly between NPCs and PCs.

Let me see if I can help clarify what hawkeyefan is getting at. The below are three components of End of Session for Mouse Guard where we collectively evaluate play and give out persona and fate based on play (this is not Advancement/XP...that is another component of the game).

Contrast Embodiment with MVP and Workhorse. Its very clear that your group would have a hefty focus on Embodiment and would be able to suss out that post-session reward.

But lets pretend that you had to do MVP and Workhorse as well. How would your group settle upon who gets those two rewards at End of Session?

 

[gorice]

For me cantrips make casters always feel like casters instead of a dude with a crossbow (3e), or dude chucking darts(1e and I think 2e). They avoid players introducing out of genre flavors and create in genre flavors.

Why not just ban them from using darts? Back in my day, wizards could only use daggers and staves. And we were happier, too!

The rule from the playtest are still there, they're just scattered.

Yup. But they're mangled, and the procedures that hold them together are gone.

This is why I think procedure is important. Consider two scenarios, in which the party declares it wants to go cross country to find a mountain pass that will let them bypass an obstacle.

(scenario a, with the actually existing DMG) The DM rules that it takes 6 hours, based on the listed travel speed of 3 miles an hour. She might decide to make a wandering monster roll, and/or require someone to make a survival check for navigation, foraging, or surviving a snowstorm, but this is a matter of fiat, based on what they she feels should happen, and whether it occurs to her to consider those things.

(scenario b, with the playtest rules) The DM asks the party their marching order, travel pace, and which activities they will be making during travel. Mountains are difficult terrain, which will halve travel speed. That means it will take 12 1-hour turns to cross the mountains. Each turn, she must roll for random encounters and bad weather like blizzards. Above the snowline, the high altitude requires the party to make CON checks each hour or suffer exhaustion -- and anyone without warm apparel will automatically fail. Finally, as the party nears the end of their journey, they run into the time limit on marches (hours equal to CON), and need to consider whether take a rest early or risk further exhaustion.

I've played with these rules, and frankly they're a bit finicky (I'm not actually a fan of hexcrawl procedures). But, having some kind of structure like this creates all kinds of unexpected challenges, and forces players to make tough decisions. It also means that everyone is on the same page about how things work.

 

[FrogReaver]

If "I decide what the different factions are doing and then give people logical reasons they have to act which can be as varied as the challenges that I think of" is a system then I guess. Not sure it has much meaning if that's the definition. It's basically saying "I figure it out" which is true. I base stories and challenges on various movies and TV shows I've seen, novels I've read, personal experience, other games, modules.

While I don't follow one pattern consistently, a pretty common one is the "the hornets nest got kicked over and we have to deal with it". I enjoy The Dresden Files series of novels (a lot of serial novels use the same pattern) where things are going fine and then things blow up and Dresden and Co have to deal with it. There's ongoing threats in the background, threads that sometimes get resolved, sometimes get reinforced. The novel starts with a recap of what's been happening for the last weeks or months of downtime then something happens. The primary time pressure? The poo is hitting the fan and you have to deal with multiple things before things get worse.

For me, I don't want a counter or procedure that follows a static pattern. I find having people doing a countdown or analysis based on information their PCs do not have is detrimental to the immersion and fun of the game.

FWIW I would classify that as a system/procedure. I think it's worth contrasting systems that rely on such judgmental elements and ones that define a non-judgmental process of reaching an answer.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why not just ban them from using darts? Back in my day, wizards could only use daggers and staves. And we were happier, too!


Yup. But they're mangled, and the procedures that hold them together are gone.

This is why I think procedure is important. Consider two scenarios, in which the party declares it wants to go cross country to find a mountain pass that will let them bypass an obstacle.

(scenario a, with the actually existing DMG) The DM rules that it takes 6 hours, based on the listed travel speed of 3 miles an hour. She might decide to make a wandering monster roll, and/or require someone to make a survival check for navigation, foraging, or surviving a snowstorm, but this is a matter of fiat, based on what they she feels should happen, and whether it occurs to her to consider those things.

(scenario b, with the playtest rules) The DM asks the party their marching order, travel pace, and which activities they will be making during travel. Mountains are difficult terrain, which will halve travel speed. That means it will take 12 1-hour turns to cross the mountains. Each turn, she must roll for random encounters and bad weather like blizzards. Above the snowline, the high altitude requires the party to make CON checks each hour or suffer exhaustion -- and anyone without warm apparel will automatically fail. Finally, as the party nears the end of their journey, they run into the time limit on marches (hours equal to CON), and need to consider whether take a rest early or risk further exhaustion.

I've played with these rules, and frankly they're a bit finicky (I'm not actually a fan of hexcrawl procedures). But, having some kind of structure like this creates all kinds of unexpected challenges, and forces players to make tough decisions. It also means that everyone is on the same page about how things work.

Yes, but the ideal for many people is that players focus more on the fiction than on the mechanics. In a game adhering to such preferences the fiction will present unexpected challenges, force players to make tough decisions, etc. The DM will tailor the mechanics and/or adjudications toward the fiction. Now it is harder to get everyone on the same page here and that's a significant downside but the upside can be immense.