D&D General Why the resistance to D&D being a game?

[Micah Sweet]

That is absolutely my experience with 5E. Most of the players I've run games for that are new to the hobby treat it like a limited video game (you can only select from a short menu of options, you can only go where the GM allows you to go, etc) instead of the open-ended wonder that is a tabletop RPG. This isn't helped by GMs who actively run their games as if it were a limited experience. "Nope, sorry. I want you to fight this ogre now, so no matter where you go, this ogre is there and will fight you." Etc.

So if that's the state of play now, what is lost by actually treating the game like a game, designing it well, and running it like a game?

Depending on the edition and the GM, yes.

It's not about making it more computer gamey.

I see no value in accepting the travesty you described as the current "state of play".

 

[Incenjucar]

What is the relevance of it being a game?

It's a game, and thus what?

 

[Shiroiken]

D&D is a game. So why do people object to it being treated like a game?

Because it's more than just a game. People generally don't object to the gamist nature of boardgames or videogames, because they are simply games. RPGs are interactive storytelling, which can sometimes conflict with the rigid confines of the rules. This is partially why RPGs need a GM: to provide a balance between the narrative needs and rules of the game.

 

[Oofta]

D&D is trying to take a fictional genre of a subset of fantasy literature and provide rules for people to emulate that fiction. For a lot of people, the games should invoke stories and feel of that fiction. It's gone a fair way from it's original roots of Lieber, Tolkien, Howard and become it's own subset but it still has a certain look and feel.

For example if I'm watching an action film, I have certain assumptions and certain ideas of what's "allowed". If Dwayne Jonson is portraying a character, I'm not too surprised if he can survive blows that would disable a normal person, they have a certain amount of plot armor when people are shooting at them, they can leap farther and punch harder than normal. But, if in the middle of the movie he suddenly transformed his left arm into a gatling gun or started flying (without a jetpack) it would feel out of place. Meanwhile if it were a Marvel extravaganza people would just go with the flow.

So if D&D gets too "gamey", it's because it's stepping outside of the fictional genre that I've become to expect. It's doing something that I envision that just doesn't fit the expected fictional narrative.

 

[Cadence]

That is absolutely my experience with 5E. Most of the players I've run games for that are new to the hobby treat it like a limited video game (you can only select from a short menu of options, you can only go where the GM allows you to go, etc) instead of the open-ended wonder that is a tabletop RPG. This isn't helped by GMs who actively run their games as if it were a limited experience. "Nope, sorry. I want you to fight this ogre now, so no matter where you go, this ogre is there and will fight you." Etc.

I am so glad this has never become a thing with my son's play group!

Although it takes some work to parse the "I cast a flame cantrip on my swords and backflip onto its back and cut its head off" in a way that flows with everything. (Letting them regularly cast cantrips that hang on someone else's weapon or for set up the next turn on their own was an easy fudge to run with, as is narrating the result if they actually did kill it with that blow - as opposed to when it still had dozens of hp).

 

[jmartkdr2]

I see no value in accepting the travesty you described as the current "state of play".

It’s a weird thing to try to learn when you’ve been trained to optimize within the rules your whole life - which is how both video games and US schools work.

Once someone gets the idea that they can try anything that “makes sense” the game really opens up.

As for the OP - I think people object to DnD being equated to the ‘wrong’ kind of game. Like, not too video-game-y, because ttrpgs are distinct in important ways. (But also similar in important ways.)

 

[Ondath]

Why? Because TTRPGs aren't simple board games. I'm playing them for something beyond simple ludic enjoyment. I'm playing TTRPGs for immersion.

Immersion means that the game's fiction isn't just a pretext to have some fun. There's a genuine element of escapism, of feeling like I am transported to that game's world and actively experience it. One thing I bring up when I'm trying to sell TTRPGs to friends is the idea that you don't just imagine a fantasy avatar do cool stuff, like in a video game or a novel with a self-insert protagonist. You experience and remember these events as if you did them, and having a referee means that a live human being can actively adjudicate your decisions and make the game even more immersive. When you reminisce about a video game you played, you might say "Kratos was really badass, it was fun killing all the gods playing as him". But when you reminisce about TTRPG sessions, you say "Remember when you threw that goblin across the chasm to help get her to the treasure?". If you're truly immersed in a TTRPG, you stop imagining your character as a bundle of stats and inventory items, and start imagining yourself as that character, trying to guess what decisions they could take as a living resident of that world.

And leaning too heavily on the gamist aspects of TTRPGs breaks that immersion. When I realise I can trip a gelatinous cube because the game's rules say nothing about oozes being immune to my trip attack, despite the ooze having no side to be tripped, it takes me right out of that feeling of living in that world and makes the whole thing look like a chessboard. Some degree of gamism is of course alright, especially in areas where I or the referee have no real world experience (such as combat or spellcasting), in which case the gamist rules can provide the kind of abstraction that leads to an interesting encounter. But when that gamist façade is too strong, and I can see that the two-sentence flavour text they tacked on the rules box actually means nothing about how my powers interact with the world, then it's no longer a TTRPG for me.

Incidentally, I think this is also why narrativist games don't appeal to me that much. Both as a referee and a player, I want to feel like I'm immersed in that world's fiction. But the narrativist conceit of "Let's approach die roll results like a writers' room, and modify the fiction to lead the story to an interesting place" takes me right out of that.

To top it off, I'll give an actual video game example where the lack of gamist conceits is what made the game for me. Last week in Baldur's Gate 3, my party triggered a building's self-destruct mechanism, and we needed to get out of the building in 4 turns or die horrible deaths. The game immediately plopped me in turn-based mode, where I got everyone Dashing and jumping to get out as quickly as possible. On the last turn, the party reached a chasm - and if they could somehow safely land, they'd be safe. Incidentally, my Wizard was wearing Boots of Featherfall, so he activated it, after which the Cleric and the Rogue jumped off. However, the Wizard activating the boots and running to the edge of the chasm meant he no longer had the time to jump off. But my Barbarian came right by him, grabbed him and threw him straight on the ground. She then proceeded to jump down herself, and the party safely watched the building crumble.

Despite being a CRPG where every possible possible action has to be somehow coded in by the devs, this was one of the most immersive TTRPG experiences I've ever had. I came up with the solution to several problems the game provided on my own, and there are probably a few dozen other ways I could've solved the issue (I know one solution I could've taken was destroying the mechanism that self-destructed, for instance). That moment when I realised my Barbarian could toss my Wizard and that would bring them all to safety - that was a moment of pure "inside the world" thinking, and the game was fun because it did not feel like a coded explicit game. It felt fun to the extent that the gamist conceits did not get in the way of my immersion. If the game had explicit, "balanced" rules about how to escape that self-destructing building, that would've just felt like an extended Quicktime Event. Don't get me wrong, those can also be fun, I'm a big fan of the Tomb Raider games which use them heavily, but that's not why I'm playing TTRPGs.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sure, but that results in a badly designed game. And in games like 5E, where it's a big tent that everyone wants to work in a dozen different ways, the result is a game that can't do any of the dozen things it's "designed to do" well. So focus the design. Make a better game that serves one of those goals well. Make a different game, or even a branch of the same game, that serves a different one of those goals well. A well-designed game with a tight focus is going to be more fun than one that's trying to be all things to all gamers while doing it all badly.

If this is your real underlying premise for your question... then I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

I find zero value in D&D choosing one direction to go in and making it the absolute best in that one direction, rather than going partway in a dozen different directions so that it can be "all things for all people". Because that basically is singling out one style and type of D&D player and saying "You are the right one. Everyone else is wrong."

Why does D&D need to "pick a lane" and just focus on that? Those that want it that way... I presume... want it because they wish to say they play the legacy game system that is Dungeons & Dragons, but play it exactly the way they want to. And anyone else who wishes to be a part of the sandbox of 'Dungeons & Dragons players' has to conform to that direction.

That is an attitude that does not need to be in Dungeons & Dragons.

If anyone wants to play roleplaying games in a particular style, a particular format, a particular genre, a particular focus... there are games out there for them. Hundreds, if not thousands, of roleplaying games exist to scratch whatever itch a particular player or table of players might have-- all of them designed and built to go in that one specific direction full-speed ahead. If you want it... it's out there for you to find.

But it's not Dungeons & Dragons. And at some point you have to accept that it's not and it will never be. That's never going to be what Dungeons & Dragons is. D&D IS "the big tent". It is all games to all people... even if it's not the best game for any individual person. But there is absolutely no reason why it needs to be. And if someone doesn't like that D&D isn't the best game for what they want... they can just choose not to play it.

But that would require the person to admit they are "no longer a Dungeons & Dragons player". And many of them can't accept that. The idea of being a D&D player is more important than playing a specific game with a specific ruleset they actually enjoy... and as a result they are stuck just constantly upset and bemoaning on places like EN World that the game isn't what they want to play, but they just can't bring themselves to quit playing it. But that ain't our or WotC's problem.

 

[pointofyou]

Because there are people who object to the players being able to use the rules to make decisions. Lots of play that gets denigrated as "gamish" seems to me as though it's basically "the player knows the rules and uses them."

 

[Oofta]

Sure, but that results in a badly designed game. And in games like 5E, where it's a big tent that everyone wants to work in a dozen different ways, the result is a game that can't do any of the dozen things it's "designed to do" well. So focus the design. Make a better game that serves one of those goals well. Make a different game, or even a branch of the same game, that serves a different one of those goals well. A well-designed game with a tight focus is going to be more fun than one that's trying to be all things to all gamers while doing it all badly.

I disagree with the bolded. I don't want a tight focus for my TTRPG, if I did there are plenty of other options. Sometimes I want a pirate theme other times dungeon crawls other times urban mystery, maybe throw in gothic horror. Frequently in the same campaign since my campaigns can take years to finish.

Then again I don't think D&D is "badly" designed for it's intended purpose even if other games might handle those tight focuses better.