D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[slobo777]

Speaking of connotations, I get the sense that 'railroad' is pretty negative compared to 'sandbox,' yet there are circumstances in which a tightly scripted or directive 'railroad' style is a very good approach.

I've definitely experienced negative styles of "sandbox" play, where the game world was uninteresting so players start to instigate petty crimes, often escalating to full on conflict with the alleged "good guys".

I'm not sure if DMs that touted this kind of laissez-faire "so boring, we burninated everything" style ever got a suitable derogatory term? Edit: I am pretty certain the term would apply to me on every aborted attempt I made to run Traveller . . .

 

[Sadras]

I've definitely experienced negative styles of "sandbox" play, where the game world was uninteresting so players start to instigate petty crimes, often escalating to full on conflict with the alleged "good guys".

That reminds me of my very early days of D&D, except most of the crimes done by the characters were not petty. A mix of bad dming, poor roleplaying and frustrated teenagers.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure if DMs that touted this kind of laissez-faire "so boring, we burninated everything" style ever got a suitable derogatory term? Edit: I am pretty certain the term would apply to me on every aborted attempt I made to run Traveller . . .

Agreed that Traveller is hard to run.

 

[Bluenose]

I've definitely experienced negative styles of "sandbox" play, where the game world was uninteresting so players start to instigate petty crimes, often escalating to full on conflict with the alleged "good guys".

I'm not sure if DMs that touted this kind of laissez-faire "so boring, we burninated everything" style ever got a suitable derogatory term? Edit: I am pretty certain the term would apply to me on every aborted attempt I made to run Traveller . . .

Sandbore was used locally to describe one particular GMs games, by at least some of his players.

Traveller's problem is that it's very, very, very broad in scope. You've really got to pick a campaign type before you start, and run with that, else you find you've got a bunch of people with wildly disparate skills and a bunch of worlds where anything might happen. And since no GM can really cope with everything that might happen on a single world let alone a subsector, it's very easy to wait for the players to take the initiative. Which since some are likely to have guns and little skill with anything else, can quite easily turn into shooting things, blowing things up, and running away. Pick a focus - Zhodani counter-intelligence tracking down the Vargr who was charismatic enough to get followers to raid the Consulate, and making an example of him - and your PCs suddenly have a goal which isn't make enough money to pay their mortgage.

 

[slobo777]

Sandbore was used locally to describe one particular GMs games, by at least some of his players.

Sandbore sums it up nicely. Consider it nicked as a term.

I think it could apply equally to "nothing really there or prepped" and "nice stable little self-contained worlds" full of nothing but happy villagers who have come to trade arrangements with the orcs living in the mountains. The latter reminds me of an xkcd: xkcd: Borders

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm okay with that.

I also learned physics that Newton wouldn't understand, watch Batman movies that Bob Kane probably wouldn't like, and am currently watching sports that Babe Ruth wouldn't believe. I'm sure this Gygax guy was intelligent, a pioneer even (though not on the level of those above), but I'm not looking at his will as dogma (and I seriously doubt that you've captured it anyway).

I'm not taking his will as dogma. I'm taking his will as something that needs to be included in the bounds of RPGs.

And I seriously doubt your claim about the majority of players are doing things.

As for your illustrations, I've seen in my lifetime the power of Tour de France athletes first rise by 10% then fall by 10% again. I've seen Teller and Paul Daniels perform stunts I didn't believe.

You know what was happening in all those cases? Something I wasn't being told about. Teller and Daniels are both incredibly skilled illusionists. And their art is not telling me about things. And the Tour De France riders were cheating like . And it's back down again because much better methods of catching the drug cheats.

You claim not to have gamism. And I'm going to post the challenge to you I always do. If your life and possibly the fate of the world is on the why are you not trying the hardest you can to win? In what way are you in character when you won't even take what edges you can to protect your life and those of your loved ones (unless one of certain character concepts). In what sense are you roleplaying in character by not taking in character threats seriously?

That being said...
Of course not. Those groups have enjoyed D&D for a while as a compromise between philosophies, and if I wrote a new edition, they'd probably enjoy it more. I don't believe in throwing them out, but I also don't believe in throwing out everyone else in a vain and futile effort to satisfy one particular minority.

And who's talking of throwing anyone out other than you?

 

[green slime]

Sure, DND fanbase is splintered, and has been, ever since year 1.

We can discuss the wherefores and whys about flavour, and nitpick over which set rules interprets reality best for the game flavour we are trying to create. All good and well.

I started playing in 1982. DMed since 1983. Definitely not the oldest grognard here. I moved / house ruled my way from 1e to 2e, and embraced 3e when it arrived. did the same shennanigans when 3.5 appeared: house ruled. But when 4 came along, I discovered I no longer had the time, energy, and interest to learn yet another whole new ruleset. It doesn't really matter whether the rules are better or worse, the game more or less balanced. I cannot motivate myself to read and understand (never mind memorise) a whole bunch of new details, for a game, when the previous rulesets, are, in all honesty, actually quite adequate for the purpose at hand. Role Playing, with friends.

And sadly, no matter how much I want DnD to succeed as a hobby, I'll not DM anything beyond 3.5, and why I believe, no matter how fantastic a product 5e is, it will ultimately fail to reignite DnD.

 

[Imaro]

You claim not to have gamism. And I'm going to post the challenge to you I always do. If your life and possibly the fate of the world is on the why are you not trying the hardest you can to win? In what way are you in character when you won't even take what edges you can to protect your life and those of your loved ones (unless one of certain character concepts). In what sense are you roleplaying in character by not taking in character threats seriously?

I'm not Ahnehnois... but isn't this sort of like asking why everyone in the world doesn't train and focus to become the top in their profession... their livelihood and the livelihood of their families depend on it so why isn't everyone trying to become the best at whatever they do all the time in real life?

EDIT: As a side note, I think there are a ton of character concepts that can be created in 3.5 but don't fall into the optimized category... in fact I would argue that a group could play for years and not have an optimized party if all they are doing is building the concepts they want to play as opposed to purposefully optimizing.

 

[Balesir]

I'm not Ahnehnois... but isn't this sort of like asking why everyone in the world doesn't train and focus to become the top in their profession... their livelihood and the livelihood of their families depend on it so why isn't everyone trying to become the best at whatever they do all the time in real life?

EDIT: As a side note, I think there are a ton of character concepts that can be created in 3.5 but don't fall into the optimized category... in fact I would argue that a group could play for years and not have an optimized party if all they are doing is building the concepts they want to play as opposed to purposefully optimizing.

People generally do make optimal choices (as far as they understand what they need to do to achieve this) in real life - the social sciences are largely based on this. The difficulty might be that what is "optimal" depends upon their goal, and very often we do not know clearly what their goals are (indeed, many people are apparently unable to clearly explain what their own goals are!).

In a roleplaying game, the goals for characters tend to be rather better defined, thus it becomes easier to say definitively what their optimal choices might be. The goals of the players, on the other hand, are often just as opaque as ever...

 

[Ahnehnois]

You claim not to have gamism.

Wait, what? Where? I have lots of gamism. My current houserules allow far more tactical depth and competitive play than any published version of D&D. Where would you get this idea? Open-ended and noncompetitive doesn't preclude gamism.

I don't really dig metagaming and don't think a game should be designed with that in mind; maybe that's what you're getting at?

If your life and possibly the fate of the world is on the why are you not trying the hardest you can to win

Exactly. Why would you want a system that restricts people's ability to do that in the name of "balance"?

And who's talking of throwing anyone out other than you?

Well, we've seen plenty of posts (and even a thread) to the effect that the entire 3.X and PF fan bases are irrelevent. There was also an entire game released under the D&D label that took the same approach, and lost a majority share of the market to weak competition. Pretty sure that's not just me.

 

[Ratskinner]

I think it's because compromise is built into the system - in both Duels of Wits, the deadliness of combat, and the requirement for failure in order to advance. Compromise + NPCs with BITs of their own (important NPCs are supposed to be "burned" up, I believe) + Artha rewards for play that incorporates BITs means that your PC's BITs are going to be challenged - driven NPCs are going to push you to pick your battles. "Fight for what you believe." Once you make your choices, there's a Trait Vote where other players explicitly judge your choices and change your PC.

Assuming this is accurate, and comparing it to my experiences FATE; The different bit would seem to be the requirement of failure in order to advance. There's no FATE requirement of failing a skill before advancing that skill. The rest is similar, but FATE doesn't usually ask the player to find ways to "push" to failure.* Wishing to exploit such an opportunity, a player need not make any rolls, the consequences of playing up to the aspect are simply narrated and FP collected. Early FATE made this a GM responsibility, but modern versions allow/encourage players to initiate such exchanges.

FATE wouldn't explicitly require the other players to Vote and wouldn't give them the direct power to change your character, but in a group playing it closer to the Narrative end I would expect effectively similar discussions to take place.

With FATE, I don't think there's as much pressure on your Aspects. You might have an Aspect that says "Honourable" and the DM can offer you Fate Points if you play it up - or drain some if you don't play it - but whatever you do, there's not that same kind of change forced on the character. You still have the Honourable Aspect to draw on, even if your PC doesn't act particularly honourable.

The pressure to play up to aspects is one of FATE's "dials" and is dependent, IME, on what is usually called the "refresh rate" for FATE Points. (Its actually the "Starting" pool of FP for new characters, but with the presumption that between adventures, it will reset to this level.) The FP economy is one of the most important aspects (no pun intended) in FATE, but its also one of the most flexible. Having FP around to spend during important or difficult scenes can really make a tremendous difference in your character's effectiveness. Using "Honourable", if you're drained of FP...well you can't, except to take an honourable dive and earn an FP for it. (You can spend FATE points suboptimally without using an aspect, but you can't use aspects without FATE points.)

So, if the refresh rate is set low, you might start play with 5 (or even 3) FP (Theoretically 0 is possible, but I haven't seen it). You will feel a lot more pressure from the start to play up the "softer" or negative side of your aspects to earn more FP. Conversely, I've seen the refresh start as high as 15 in a convention game...giving almost no incentive to use the aspects early on to generate story. To be fair, that may have been intentional, since that scenario was a pretty straightforward "dungeon-crawl" (despite its modern day trappings).

Which isn't to say that can't happen - changing your Aspects through play - but the system doesn't push as hard toward that end.

Variable in FATE implementations. Some use FP as "experience points" to purchase advancement in skills or additional stunts. That seems to be falling out of fashion, though. (I suspect in-part because long-running FATE campaigns are rarities.) Changing Aspects, though, is a common occurrence. Most FATE implementations recommend that after each scenario plays out, all players review their aspects and alter them accordingly (sometimes restricted to 1/scenario). Additionally, most recommend that if something "big" happens in play, that aspect(s) can be changed immediately. You can also gain a new aspect as part of consequences to losing a contest. In FATE your character can actually lose limbs, etc. Similarly, you could also get aspects like "Banished from Ardia" as the consequence of losing a social contest.

Whether all that amounts to similar pressure as BW, I dunno. It sure seems like a strikingly similar architecture to me, though.


*Dresden Files may have a tweak that does this, but I haven't read or played it yet.

 

[Imaro]

People generally do make optimal choices (as far as they understand what they need to do to achieve this) in real life - the social sciences are largely based on this. The difficulty might be that what is "optimal" depends upon their goal, and very often we do not know clearly what their goals are (indeed, many people are apparently unable to clearly explain what their own goals are!).

In a roleplaying game, the goals for characters tend to be rather better defined, thus it becomes easier to say definitively what their optimal choices might be. The goals of the players, on the other hand, are often just as opaque as ever...

I'm not sure I agree with yoyur first assertion, especially in how it relates to neonchameleon's point. Humans know smoking causes lung cancer yet many continue to smoke. Obesity is on the rise in America, even though we know a healthy diet and regular excercise helps to control it and extend one's life. I would argue that people often make sub-optimal decisions when faced with the information for the optimal choice for whatever reason.

I also don't see how in a roleplaying game the goals for characters are better defined. I've seen games where characters had widely diverging, sometimes conflicting, and often changing goals... just like in real life. The bigger point I'm not agreeing with is that some or even the majority of these goals required the level of combat optimization neonchameleon is talking about as necessary to complete.

 

[LostSoul]

Whether all that amounts to similar pressure as BW, I dunno. It sure seems like a strikingly similar architecture to me, though.

Could be. I haven't played much FATE - Spirit of the Century and Starjammers was it, I think. I never felt the same kind of pressure on my PCs (and their beliefs) as I did in BW, even with the same DM, but it's hard for me to say why. I always had the impression that FATE was best used for Right to Dream play but easily drifted into Story Now.

 

[Tony Vargas]

People generally do make optimal choices (as far as they understand what they need to do to achieve this) in real life ...
In a roleplaying game, the goals for characters tend to be rather better defined, thus it becomes easier to say definitively what their optimal choices might be.

What's optimal in an RPG is also so much easier to ferret out and so much easier to implement... I think that's one of the things that makes them so appealing. You may be roleplaying a hero who's undergoing great trials and facing danger and the unknown, but, as the player, you're making some very well-informed decisions for him, since you know the rules, the genre, and may have a fair read on the DM...

 

[Imaro]

What's optimal in an RPG is also so much easier to ferret out and so much easier to implement... I think that's one of the things that makes them so appealing. You may be roleplaying a hero who's undergoing great trials and facing danger and the unknown, but, as the player, you're making some very well-informed decisions for him, since you know the rules, the genre, and may have a fair read on the DM...

I gues I can just agree to disagree with you and Balesir... Though I would definitely love to see what percentage of casual players as opposed to the hardcore type that tend to frequent boards like this are concerned with the level of optimization you all and neonchameleon are speaking of. I dont have any hard evidence but I would guess it's not a majority.

 

[Balesir]

I'm not sure I agree with yoyur first assertion, especially in how it relates to neonchameleon's point. Humans know smoking causes lung cancer yet many continue to smoke. Obesity is on the rise in America, even though we know a healthy diet and regular excercise helps to control it and extend one's life.

You are projecting goals and values onto people that are not, I would guess, ones that they share. People don't smoke in order to get lung cancer, nor do they avoid a healthy diet and regular exercise in order to become obese or avoid extending their lives. They do those things in pursuit of other goals; the lung cancer, obesity and shorter lifespans are just side-effects that they either accept or wilfully ignore until they happen. For the goals that they happen to be pursuing, their choices make perfect sense.

I also don't see how in a roleplaying game the goals for characters are better defined. I've seen games where characters had widely diverging, sometimes conflicting, and often changing goals... just like in real life.

The default or "standard" goals of a D&D character are to kill monsters and take their stuff. Characters exist, in "vanilla" D&D, to loot dungeons. Ergo, their goals are pretty easy to identify.

Now, sure, folks have extended roleplaying to cover a much wider range of character goals - some have even stuck firmly to using D&D systems to do so. Even so, though, these tend to be quite (self-)conscious "breaking of the mould"; they deliberately select goals that are not "loot the dungeon" or "kill things and take their stuff". This tends strongly to kake whatever goals are chosen relatively easy to identify.

The bigger point I'm not agreeing with is that some or even the majority of these goals required the level of combat optimization neonchameleon is talking about as necessary to complete.

For vanilla D&D, characters exist to kill things and take their stuff; ergo it makes sense for them to work toward optimisation of the ability to kill things and take their stuff.

If the character has different goals than this, it makes sense to optimise toward them, too - but I have never seen a D&D game where needing to survive combat is a non-existent or even a rare circumstance.

 

[Imaro]

You are projecting goals and values onto people that are not, I would guess, ones that they share. People don't smoke in order to get lung cancer, nor do they avoid a healthy diet and regular exercise in order to become obese or avoid extending their lives. They do those things in pursuit of other goals; the lung cancer, obesity and shorter lifespans are just side-effects that they either accept or wilfully ignore until they happen. For the goals that they happen to be pursuing, their choices make perfect sense.

That's exactly my point though in addressing neonechameleon's statement he has projected a singular goal and then posited why would someone not do all these things to achieve said goal... when the answer is, that's not their goal.

The default or "standard" goals of a D&D character are to kill monsters and take their stuff. Characters exist, in "vanilla" D&D, to loot dungeons. Ergo, their goals are pretty easy to identify.

No, it's not. The whole point of making a character is to create your own goals, killing monsters may be an ends to said goal but I don't see the default goal being kill monsters and take their stuff in D&D... Otherwise why a Diploomacy skill? Why feats that have no combat application like linguist? I think you're projecting that goal as the default goal of D&D?

Now, sure, folks have extended roleplaying to cover a much wider range of character goals - some have even stuck firmly to using D&D systems to do so. Even so, though, these tend to be quite (self-)conscious "breaking of the mould"; they deliberately select goals that are not "loot the dungeon" or "kill things and take their stuff". This tends strongly to kake whatever goals are chosen relatively easy to identify.

SOO then you've answered neonchameleon's question right here... the goal of every character is not to optimize to kill monsters.

For vanilla D&D, characters exist to kill things and take their stuff; ergo it makes sense for them to work toward optimisation of the ability to kill things and take their stuff.

What is "vanilla" D&D?... and no, again character's exist for the reason that a player chooses for them to exist... that's always been a part of D&D. Killing things can be the goal and/or a way to accomplish said goals but the default, IMO, is whatever you want your character's goal to be. This, IMO, is very much a playstyle thing as opposed to something the game can set for you.

If the character has different goals than this, it makes sense to optimise toward them, too - but I have never seen a D&D game where needing to survive combat is a non-existent or even a rare circumstance.

There is being capable in combat and then there is optimizing for combat... they are not the same thing, and I'm sorry the second is not every player's goal, or even the default goal, which is what I was arguing against.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The pressure to play up to aspects is one of FATE's "dials" and is dependent, IME, on what is usually called the "refresh rate" for FATE Points. (Its actually the "Starting" pool of FP for new characters, but with the presumption that between adventures, it will reset to this level.) The FP economy is one of the most important aspects (no pun intended) in FATE, but its also one of the most flexible. Having FP around to spend during important or difficult scenes can really make a tremendous difference in your character's effectiveness. Using "Honourable", if you're drained of FP...well you can't, except to take an honourable dive and earn an FP for it. (You can spend FATE points suboptimally without using an aspect, but you can't use aspects without FATE points.)

So, if the refresh rate is set low, you might start play with 5 (or even 3) FP (Theoretically 0 is possible, but I haven't seen it). You will feel a lot more pressure from the start to play up the "softer" or negative side of your aspects to earn more FP. Conversely, I've seen the refresh start as high as 15 in a convention game...giving almost no incentive to use the aspects early on to generate story. To be fair, that may have been intentional, since that scenario was a pretty straightforward "dungeon-crawl" (despite its modern day trappings).

In BW, the big difference is the advancement, I think, and the way the advancement itself feeds back into the cycle itself. It's theoretically possible to advance in BW slowly without failure, but that would be some extremely improbable rolls combined with some long-term training. In practice, players are going to risk failure often, because trying something risky is the best way to come out ahead, whether you succeed or fail.

Moreover, I don't think it's really possible to appreciate how tight that cycle is until you experience it. People can sort of appreciate it, and have the general idea. Then you play with good beliefs, and think, "Man, they weren't kidding. It really is tight!" (It's also stark if you play with sloppy beliefs first, then do it the right way. Daylight and dark.)

There is a lot of mechanical stuff built up around the BW system to give a dark-Tolkien vibe. If you want to see the reward cycle overtly, try Mouse Guard sometime. MG is nothing but the heart of BW with color changed to map to the source material, and some GM structure provided to help a novice learn the system. (Well, that and beautiful presentation and organization.)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You are projecting goals and values onto people that are not, I would guess, ones that they share. People don't smoke in order to get lung cancer, nor do they avoid a healthy diet and regular exercise in order to become obese or avoid extending their lives. They do those things in pursuit of other goals; the lung cancer, obesity and shorter lifespans are just side-effects that they either accept or wilfully ignore until they happen. For the goals that they happen to be pursuing, their choices make perfect sense.

No kidding. Not to mention that in real life most things worth pursuing take a lot of fairly boring and/or drudge work to accomplish. Very rarely do designers deliberately model that part in a game, though sometimes they manage to sneak it in by accident.

 

[Ratskinner]

Could be. I haven't played much FATE - Spirit of the Century and Starjammers was it, I think. I never felt the same kind of pressure on my PCs (and their beliefs) as I did in BW, even with the same DM, but it's hard for me to say why. I always had the impression that FATE was best used for Right to Dream play but easily drifted into Story Now.

Most folks who bother to discuss it see FATE playing somewhere along the Sim vs. Nar axis. It can quite freely move back and forth along those poles, IME. To me, that makes a lot sense. Fudge was fairly Sim, and FATE is basically a Fudge variant with the Narrativist Aspects/FP stuff tacked on. Different groups will place different emphasis on it.

Its sounding like (from this thread and all the others I've been reading) BW plays along the same axis, but tends strongly towards the Narrative end of things.