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

[Imaro]

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.

Does the market really support this conclusion? That D&D should become this tightly focused game that zeroes in on one focus of play. Does the second leader in the market, Pathfinder, support this? Furthermore I'd argue it's relatively easy, due to 3pp support to better focus your specific D&D game into the playstyle you prefer.

 

[Deset Gled]

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

This is not a direct/primary reason, but identity and tribalism are factors. Some people like arguing and RPGs as much as they like playing them. Some people like arguing about RPGs more than they like playing then. At a certain point, people start to develop more extremist or absolutist attitudes that aren't just opinions, they're part of that person's self identity and social group.

 

[Aldarc]

"It's not a doll! It's an action figure!" except here it is "It's not a game! It's a [insert preferred nomenclature here]!"

 

[Ringtail]

I used to see these types of arguments come up when it came to combat and meta-gaming. Questions like: Should players know Monster AC? Hit-Points? Or the absolutely iconic, Do you know a troll has regeneration?

People who argued that players shouldn't know this would often cite "realism" or "fiction" for their reasoning, which I can certainly understand. But my opinion was always: "D&D is a game. Not everything need to be obscured or indistinct to preserve verisimilitude. You can talk about game mechanics openly. " Sharing monster hit-points, AC, or even strategizing with the players doesn't break my immersion, and I personally think makes for a better game experience.

Great example, you can click "Examine" on any Monster in Baldur's Gate 3 and view its whole statblock. I don't see anyone complaining this hurts immersion, but if you say "The Anti-Paladin has AC 20" now its a crime. (IMO sharing monster info does affect difficulty IMO, but that's different.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

My particular answer to the original question should probably not be any great surprise.

We have a number line. On one end is "Long-form cooperative theatrical story improvisation", and on the other end is "strategic board game". And I have an evening free with my friends.

Now I ask myself... if I'm in my basement with them and we have three hours available, what itch does a roleplaying game like Dungeons & Dragons more easily scratch? And the answer of course is "Long-form cooperative story theatrical improvisation". D&D is easily the better alternative to "Long-form cooperative story theatrical improvisation" in my basement with a half-dozen friends, then using D&D as the alternative to playing a strategic board game. If I have the itch to play a strategic board game and a half-dozen friends with me in my basement... we can just play a strategic board game! Why use D&D as the middle-ground option for that?

Which is exactly why the mechanics of D&D have never really mattered to me. If I and my friends want a tightly-controlled, tightly-balanced board game experience when we are all together hanging out in my basement... we will just play an actual board game that was expressly designed for a tightly-controlled, tightly-balanced experience. But I don't know how many of you have ever attempted to do a years-long story-based fantasy improvisation staged in one's basement... but I can assure you that using the rules of Dungeons & Dragons to facilitate that makes things A WHOLE MUCH MORE simple and easy. Which is precisely why we do it and why we use it. D&D and all RPGs scratch that itch more satisfyingly that using it for a tactical board game experience.

 

[Umbran]

It's a metanarrative born from pretentiousness.

Mod Note:
If you want to be insulting, take it to some other venue, please and thanks.

 

[jgsugden]

I don't recall anyone speaking against D&D being treated as a game. I do see a lot of comments where there is criticisim because the mechanics were valued over the storytelling, and the storytelling suffers because of it. In a lot of those areas, we can do better.

D&D is an RPG - a Role Playing Game. To be a role playing game, it should have a story in which characters can play a role, and it should have game mechanics which put part of the story telling out of the control of any one player, making the result a product of capability and luck.

In my experience, D&D is at its best - and most true to what the book describes it to be when:

1.) The mechanics and the story serve each other.
2.) There is uncertainty as to what will happen because of the DM, each player, and luck can change the situation unexpectedly in ways nobody else expected.
3.) The players work together to tell a good story (instead of having a spotlight hog or a DM that insists that the players only do what the DM wants them to do specifically - extreme railroading).

When we introduce mechanics into the game that are more focused on perfect balance and/or certainty than they are on supporting good storytelling, the game suffers. I will point to the resting mechanics as an example where balance and mechanical design was put in front of good storytelling - and we ended up with a system that destroys immersion and results in the "one combat adventuring day", Coffeelock, and other weird scenarios that don't make sense for the story of the game, but do to optimize mechanical advantage.

To that end, I'll point to BG3 as an evolution of D&D where we are clearly still treating the situation as a game, but they prioritized good storytelling (as much as they can in a video game) and introduced variations on the rules/approach that reduced the interference of the rules on the storytelling. For example, they simplified the resting mechanics for short rests, and then they added some storytelling to be tied into the long rest mechanics.

The fighter class is another area where we sacrifice story for mechanics, but probably do not need to do so. There is a great question out there about how to keep the fighter class - that has no magic, usually - balanced with classes that can bend reality. We've limited the capability of those reality bending classes in order to keep the fighter (and rogue) relevant. As a result, we've lost a lot of what made high level play work really well - leaving us with a game system in 5E that essentially ends progression at about the 60% mark of where prior editions went in power capability. Wizards reach the point where they can begin to alter reality ... but not master it. However, if we look at some of our favorite storytelling, they're able to keep characters which are essentially like fighters and rogues relevant and important through good storytelling despite them lacking the power levels of their peers. For example, Captain America, Black Widow, and Hawkeye are essentially fighters and rogues when translated to D&D - but these characters are often at the core of a storyline (in a starring role) where the wizard (Dr Strange), Sorcerer (Jean Grey), Warlock (Johnny Blaze), and Cleric (Moon Knight) are also present. How? By making sure they have a role to fill, and that they bring something nonmagical to the equation that is important and sets them aside from the 'Big Guns'.

I played fighters, barbarians, cavaliers, and thieves in AD&D - in long campaigns. I was not the most powerful PC in terms of my capabilities - but my PCs always played a central role in the story. I played paragons of virtue that would not allow the groups to fail on their watch. I played scoundrels that outsmarted the enemy. I played comic relief that made everything fun. I played characters that became kings (with one PC I played in the early 1980s STILL the king of an empire that runs to this day in a friend's game despite me not really playing in it since the early 1990s ... I still get the occasional email asking me what the king would do in a given situation... and I even Skyped in a few times as the King for his newer groups).

What does that have to do with this discussion? You don't need to focus on the game over the story for players to have a real good time in D&D as written. However, if you focus on the game over the story, you can mess up the storytelling in ways that people complain about for a decade and hamper immersion. To that end - as this is a role playing game - we should treat it as a game - but as a game that supports the storytelling.

And - in the end - if you don't give one little darn about the storytelling at all - I suggest you consider looking at some board games like Frosthaven, Gloomhaven, Kingdom Death Monster, Descent, Oathsworn and Tanares Adventures. These games do not ignore story, but they are designed as games first and the story is the connective tissue ... and they are all phenomenal games. This is not me telling you, "If you don't want to play the role playing in D&D get out", this is me telling you that these are phenomenal games that will really appeal to people that put mechanics first and you're missing out if you're not playing these as many people prefer these to D&D for the very reason that they don't want to act - they want to fight.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

The short answer is suspension of disbelief.

When I play Monopoly, I don't pretend I am a Real Estate Tycoon. I don't make rational choices based on market trends, negotiate hostile takeovers or attempt to bribe government officials, I just roll the dice and do what the game rules say I can. It only simulates its namesake in the abstract.

Roleplaying games can be played like that too, but most play it with the intention of interacting with a fictional world rather than a game. The game supposedly encourages that when promoting immersive RP or clever problem solving. A gamist take would be to play within the rules of the game: no actions not prescribed by the game, social action resolved via dice rolls, etc.

Which is why when the two styles clash, it can be hard to square them. If (for example) the game said rogues can only move in straight lines, clerics only move in diagonals, and fighters only move in L shaped turns, that might be good to balance the game rules but it's pretty poor at simulating how people actually walk. Belief is broken, no matter what the rules do to balance it.

Of course, everyone has a different level before they suspend disbelief. What is a fine gamist rule needed for balance is another's straw that breaks the game from immersive to boardgame. It's like stage magic or the uncanny valley, everyone's threshold is different.

Which of course is why some people are fine with 8 hour rests bringing you back to full health and others aren't. Or why Come and Get It was narrative function or martial mind control. You're never going to get the perfect mix.

 

[Composer99]

I don’t get it.

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

I'm prepared to assert that, to a certain extent, it is about a sense of exclusive ownership.

Because of its share of the TTRPG player base, D&D has multiple player constituencies with gameplay preferences that are often at odds with each other. That's fine as far as it goes - as long as you (in the general sense) are (a) willing to accept that the attempt to satisfy as many player constituencies as possible won't be especially satisfying to you personally, and (b) willing to share.

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.

I don't get the impression that very much of (a) or (b) are happening. What a lot of the anti-game argumentation comes across as is asserting an unwillingness to allow the game to be developed in an effort to better satisfy anyone else's preferences - even if it could then also be developed to better satisfy their own preferences. Likewise, "edition warring" comes across as a plain and simple unwillingness to share the game with other player constituencies.

I am sure the "anti-game" arguers will disagree with this assessment, but, bluntly put, when the rubber hits the road and I advocate for including more gameplay elements that I want to see in the game that aren't there now (or someone else advocates for stuff they're interested in), those same people will be right there to argue that we can't have it because "immersion" or "realism", or what-have-you.

This is not to say that immersion, realism, or whatever else people say motivates them to argue against D&D-as-game aren't also very real motivating factors! But I think if it was just about immersion (etc.), we wouldn't be getting these debates. I just don't think we can get from "having a set of gameplay preferences with respect to playing D&D" to "continually arguing against other people with different gameplay preferences getting more of what they want out of D&D" without a need or desire to have a sense of exclusive ownership over the game.

Edit to add: I'd also go so far as to assert that part of it is also the natural tendency to treat one's own gameplay preferences as "objective metrics of gameplay quality", at least to a certain extent. Post 47 in this thread strikes me as an example of this sort of thing. This works together with a sense of ownership. If you're already playing D&D "the best" way it can be played or the way it is "meant" to be played, why would you want to compromise?

---

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.

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.)

 

[Umbran]

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

Because D&D isn't only a traditional game. It is is both functionally and socially more than that to many players.