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

[Imaro]

To my mind, being willing to think of D&D as a game at the meta level would also entail accepting the idea that it can be designed with just the sort of modularity that was discussed during the Next playtest in order to make (a) less onerous (because each player constituency can have rules "modules" that are more robustly designed to satisfy its preferences) and (b) easier. To my mind there is little to be lost - and much to be gained! - from that sort of mindset.

Do you have an example of a ttrpg that has accomplished this? I mean theoretically anything is possible until it's time to actually make it happen.

EDIT: To better clarify what I'm asking... is there an example of a ttrpg that is modularly designed to accommodate *through robust support) a multitude of playstyles?

 

[Maxperson]

Basically as the other poster suggests, that acknowledging it’s a game so designing it like a game some seem to object to. Vehemently. Arguments about realism and verisimilitude, etc. We can’t have fighters with cool stuff because that’s “not realistic” while the wizard is casting fireballs and has a wish in their back pocket for later. It’s not limited to that. But that’s the one that comes to mind right now.

Fighters can have nice things. The problem is that most people want the fighter to be able to leap tall mushrooms in a single bound, move faster than a locomotive, and cut buildings in half with a single slice without it being supernaturally(magical) honed skill. They want to keep things that are clearly beyond the mundane as mundane, which doesn't work for a lot of us.

 

[FallenRX]

Because its a roleplaying game.

What is a roleplaying game.

Playing a role is about making choices as if you were that character, so for a game to be a roleplaying game, the mechanics of the game have to be about making and resolving choices as if you were the character.

When the mechanics of the game require you to make choices which are dissociated with the character and the choices made by the character, then your not roleplaying in a roleplaying game.

Im not saying you need a heavy level of association for this to work out, but on some level ever mechanic must reflect "something" a aspect or thing about the character in someway, to inform choices as your character, so when you go too gamist and completely dissociate, the issue is, in the moment you are using mechanics like that, which are dissociated from your character and more about the game, you are not roleplaying in a roleplaying game, you ripped the "rp" out of something that is "RPG". And that is what bugs a lot of people.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So... does writing your class (a game construct to contain the mechanical features for a specific archetype) name on your sheet also take the 'rp' out of RPG?

Like, my dude is a Knight, not a fighter, a servant of Xoltrar, not a warlock, etc, etc.

 

[Ondath]

I don't want to dispute the sincerity, but this really comes across as special pleading. Like, you had an immersive experience playing a game that is explicitly designed as a game by people who deliberately design games as games, using explicitly gamist mechanics (the turn-based system). But somehow D&D can't be allowed to be more deliberately designed to more robustly support its core player constituencies?

(Also, I must needs point out that the immersivity of video games these days follows from the fact that video game designers have put in an awful lot of work researching and designing it.)

My point was that the game achieved immersion despite it being a video game with a lot of gamist mechanics. And what made it a great moment was not the turn-based system or having explicit game rules. It was the fact that I could think like a Barbarian whose weak Wizard friend is stuck on the roof, and that the game allowed me to go "Down you go, soldier!" and plop the Wizard down the chasm safely. It wasn't the mechanics that made me immerse myself in the game, it was the freedom and the ability to think in the fiction's logic.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think that there is a cohort that thinks of an RPG as a world simulator and there is a cohort that thinks of an RPG as a character simulator and a cohort that thinks of an RPG as a story simulator and all three will forever be at odds. I'm not sure that we can pin "anti-gamism" on any one of them. Rather, people have their preferences and broadly speaking they bristle when the mechanics of a game run counter to those preferences.

They’re all wrong. It’s not an anything simulator, it’s a roleplaying game. An activity involving imagining one’s self as another person and/or in another scenario and making decisions as one imagines they or that person would in that scenario, which had goals, obstacles, and constraints.

 

[Charlaquin]

There's another part

Recognizing, playing, and designing D&D as a game can result in recognizing that your realism or narrative preferences make bad gameplay or isn't fun.​

It's the old "wizard with 1 spell and 3 HP" problem. It might makes sense in your idea of the story or reality. But few people see this is fun. So enforcing it makes you unfun unless you are one of themost convincing salesmen on Earth.

Amusingly, I think there are cogent arguments that could be made as to why "wizard with 1 spell and 3 HP" could be good game design - depending on the game’s design goals, of course.

 

[pointofyou]

So... does writing your class (a game construct to contain the mechanical features for a specific archetype) name on your sheet also take the 'rp' out of RPG?

Like, my dude is a Knight, not a fighter, a servant of Xoltrar, not a warlock, etc, etc.

I don't think it does. I also tend to think that if the players around the table talk about "fighters" or "warlocks" that there are in-world parallels the characters could plausibly be talking about.

 

[pointofyou]

Amusingly, I think there are cogent arguments that could be made as to why "wizard with 1 spell and 3 HP" could be good game design - depending on the game’s design goals, of course.

I don't think "good game design" correlates 100% with "fun." I certainly have encountered games I thought were well-designed that I didn't think were fun.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would argue that it’s more of a pastime than a game. True “games” have built in objectives, like checkmating a king, that you deploy the rules and materials to achieve.

True, the D&D core rules do not contain a game per se; rather, they contain a game engine and the tools for a DM to create a game using that engine. Also, adventure modules and adventure paths are prepackaged games that use the D&D game engine.