D&D is not a world simulator

[2D8HP]

Using sales as a benchmark: Was 4e as successful as 3e? Was it as successful as 5e? Was it (over the lifetime of 3e end to 5e beginning) as successful as pathfinder? Not from what I've read. But did it 'bomb' before essentials was released because the system sucked? No. That's false.

Edit: disclaimer: I've played and liked every version of D&D since BECMI (and some AD&D 1e). I didn't have any more love or hate for 4e than any of the other systems. I like them all at the time of release.

Something I wonder:
Dungeons & Dragons seemed to get the most popular around '83 after Tom Hanks, and Steven Spielberg spread the word, and of course when there was the Saturday morning cartoon!, but the version of Dungeons & Dragons that seems to have the most current players is 3.5/Pathfinder.

Why?

While 3e did have the movie, and 3.5 and Pathfinder seem largely compatible with 3e, 4e and 5e mostly aren't, so there's only been 16 years of 3e/3.5/Pathfinder, and from 2008 on you have competition from 4e and 5e Dungeons & Dragons.

In contrast TSR D&D's biggest change came early with 1975's "Greyhawk" supplement, and despite numerous rewrites over the next 25 years, the different versions of TSR Dungeons & Dragons seem much more compatible with each other than with 3e, and 3e seems even less compatible with 4e, and 4e doesn't seem very compatible with 5e Dungeons & Dragons, so many more changes in a shorter period of time, which I think would lessen the game's popularity but while TSR Dungeons & Dragons rules reprints are at the most comprehensive local game shops, if they have games at comic book stores Pathfinder seems most prominent, and the last time I was at Barnes and Noble this year I saw Pathfinder, 4e D&D, 5e D&D, and 3.5 reprints! No TSR rules reprints, and maybe One Ring as another RPG.

While 3.x has more PC options for player's than other editions of D&D, GURPS and HERO have plenty of options as well, 3.x looks to be the most complex edition to DM, and this thread has plenty of mentions of how "non-sensical" D&D is (and when they give examples it seems to be predominantly 3.5 that they reference).

Despite all that 3.x is not only popular, it seems to be the most popular RPG.

Any ideas why?

[Darth Ultron]

Despite all that 3.x is not only popular, it seems to be the most popular RPG.

Any ideas why?

Easy, it's the old edition that attracted both the new and old gamers.

You have the older gamers from 0E/1E/2E and D&D that moved to 3X as it was 75% the same game, with some tweaks and improvements.

You have the new gamers who have the groups of video gamer players that got to level 100 like three times in a row or people that were just looking for a new fun game to play.

And 3X got both of them groups.

4E only got a a handful of old gamers and a couple new ones.

5E only got a a handful of old gamers and a couple new ones.

But the vast bulk of 3X gamers never moved on. The vast majority of older gamers just don't like the 4/5 E mindset so they are never going to waste time playing those games. So they just get the trickle of new gamers and the occasional other gamer.

And on top of that....times have changed. 2000 ish or so was a great time for RGPs. First there were tons of book stores and game stores everywhere. So not only was it easy to find rpg stuff, but you could also find other gamers and games. Also prices were nice and cheap.

2016...well retail stores are a wasteland. Few bookstores or games stores still exist. And prices have sky rocketed through the roof.

[pwykersotz]

I think 3.5/Pathfinder are the most popular because in many ways they represent the best of D&D design. 3.5 has real depth of options and playstyles to tinker with, and it's easy to understand the underlying mechanics. There is no out of bounds for 3.5, it runs from peasant to overdeity in power and scope and presents it in a fairly accessible way. And as pointed out, it was perfectly primed to gather both old and new supporters.

Also, the flaws of 3.5, while glaring, are unifying in their own way. I hated the timesink that was custom NPC's, but I loved tinkering with custom NPC's. I hated the minute +/- system that demanded a spreadsheet to track, but I made that spreadsheet and was incredibly proud of it. Surpassing the flaws of the system were their own game, their own triumph.

Nowadays I'm all but done with the system, and I still remember it fondly. Even with all the suffering I went through, trying to be a good DM and compiling whitelists of spells, hybridizing feats, revamping skills, and memorizing rules. I celebrate every time I roll for advantage instead of adding that +1+3+2+5-6+2. I breathe a sigh of relief when I can build a custom monster in 5 minutes. But in the back of my mind is always the system that taught me how to play and that gave me the curiosity to parse those mountains of splatbooks. Like a great D&D story, it's not a draw because it's perfectly tuned and balanced. It's a draw because it's a thousand boxes of dynamite stacked on top of each other and begging you to take it on. That is the greatness of 3.5.

At least, that's my perspective.

[HidesHisEyes]

I think 3.5/Pathfinder are the most popular because in many ways they represent the best of D&D design. 3.5 has real depth of options and playstyles to tinker with, and it's easy to understand the underlying mechanics. There is no out of bounds for 3.5, it runs from peasant to overdeity in power and scope and presents it in a fairly accessible way. And as pointed out, it was perfectly primed to gather both old and new supporters.

Also, the flaws of 3.5, while glaring, are unifying in their own way. I hated the timesink that was custom NPC's, but I loved tinkering with custom NPC's. I hated the minute +/- system that demanded a spreadsheet to track, but I made that spreadsheet and was incredibly proud of it. Surpassing the flaws of the system were their own game, their own triumph.

Nowadays I'm all but done with the system, and I still remember it fondly. Even with all the suffering I went through, trying to be a good DM and compiling whitelists of spells, hybridizing feats, revamping skills, and memorizing rules. I celebrate every time I roll for advantage instead of adding that +1+3+2+5-6+2. I breathe a sigh of relief when I can build a custom monster in 5 minutes. But in the back of my mind is always the system that taught me how to play and that gave me the curiosity to parse those mountains of splatbooks. Like a great D&D story, it's not a draw because it's perfectly tuned and balanced. It's a draw because it's a thousand boxes of dynamite stacked on top of each other and begging you to take it on. That is the greatness of 3.5.

At least, that's my perspective.

That's a really great defence of a system that, while I loved it when I first got into it (through Neverwinter Nights) I have come to think of as irredeemably clunky. The end of your post, in particular, is very interesting. If you have the time and inclination to reply to this thread that I just made - http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...s-GM-led-games - I'd be very interested to know what you think.

[Quertus]

For instance: How would you mechanize the common anime trope where the death of a comrade causes a boost in power for everyone else, and do so in a way that doesn't make it optimal to have a "Guy Who's Job It Is To Die?"
I had a discussion about this in a game design chat room for two hours before I had to go to work.
We had a lot of different ways, each weak in their own ways. Because it's hard to translate.

And why didn't you just go with a +x to y, whenever a PC dies, where x times the number of other PCs z is less than than the dead PC would have contributed by being alive in the first place?

Many skill challenges were, frankly, designed poorly for their goals. If you want a system that encourages the Strong Fighter, Dextrous Rogue, Wise Cleric, and Smart Wizard to all contribute to a challenge, you need to have ways for all of them to contribute. They don't all have to be contributing in the same way; my example upthread about a Barbarian holding the door shut against a demon is an example. But if they don't have options to contribute with skills they're actually good with, yeah, most players aren't going to contribute.

If you want the focus to be on Strong Fighter, Dextrous Rogue, Wise Cleric, and Smart Wizard , then the system failed. If, instead, you want the focus to be on weak wizard, dumb fighter, clumsy cleric, and foolish rogue, and screaming at them to stop helping!, then the system accomplished that.

Personally, I prefer to identify more with strengths and successes when designing a character.

To use an analogy, Alignment is a system in D&D which help differentiate different ethical outlooks. It is entirely possible to describe every D&D Character ever written or played using it, albeit often with some debate. It's also entirely possible to describe them without it. In fact, in some ways doing so is superior. There's no muddling of concepts, you don't get people disagreeing about whether they have "enough LG qualities to count as LG or they're NG insteaqd; they just have the qualities they do. Does that mean that Alignment should be scrapped altogether?

Note: I do in fact think that Alignment as a mechanical tool should be scrapped, and I'm glad 5e did so. As a roleplaying aid and convenient descriptor though, it's good enough for what it is.

Alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs, so, yes, it should be scrapped. although the growing trend of letting something inferior to the human mind determine how a character should respond to a given situation is quickly coming in a close second.

Incidentally, during the change from Dark Eye 4th to 5th Edition (Dark Eye 4th is a rather simulationist game, 5th less so (But still quite a bit)), one of the points of edition wars was from the proponents of 4th, paraphrased "I cannot play 5th, because it fails to simulate the world, because a number of things are not yet playable" (Different kinds of magical traditions and Blessed ones of a number of gods, mostly). So at least in some contexts, "You cannot play X while X is part of the setting", has in fact been used as a complaint that a system isn't simulationist enough.

Interestingly, if one were to take a very non-simulationist game, and create a new, extremely simulationist version, but leave out pieces (like, say, certain core classes), one could very easily receive the same complaint. So either the complaint is mislabeled, or GNS breaks down here.

And as we've seen on this thread, it can also be a hindrance, as people talk passed each other based on different understandings of the term, make presumptions about each other based on labels, and so on.

The real world has the toxin of identity politics, the gaming community evidently has "identity" issues too.

So... use labels when they facilitate conversation, throw them away when they are a hindrance? And, because there is obvious evidence, even in this thread, of these particular labels hindering the discussion, we should throw them away, and start fresh?

3.5/Pathfinder are the most popular because in many ways they represent the best of D&D design. 3.5 has real depth of options and playstyles to tinker with, and it's easy to understand the underlying mechanics. There is no out of bounds for 3.5, it runs from peasant to overdeity in power and scope and presents it in a fairly accessible way.

Although that's not what I think of when I hear "design", I think you've covered most the big points. Any future 6e developers want to pay attention here?

[Max_Killjoy]

If you want the focus to be on Strong Fighter, Dextrous Rogue, Wise Cleric, and Smart Wizard , then the system failed. If, instead, you want the focus to be on weak wizard, dumb fighter, clumsy cleric, and foolish rogue, and screaming at them to stop helping!, then the system accomplished that.

Personally, I prefer to identify more with strengths and successes when designing a character.

Part of the problem there is the very idea of archetypes being the defining elements of characters. Maybe if the origin of the PC wasn't as a derivation of a "playing piece" in a wargame, we'd never have been burdened with the idea of characters classes.

Of course, something like the Cypher System doubles down on this archetypes nonsense, and mechanically designs every character around three tags -- "I'm a _____ _____ who _____."

Alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs, so, yes, it should be scrapped. although the growing trend of letting something inferior to the human mind determine how a character should respond to a given situation is quickly coming in a close second.

Not a fan of alignment, here -- as a rule, as a descriptor, as anything.

The second part -- what are you referring to specifically? Systems of a certain bent that have "behavioral" stats and rolls? "Your character would do this because of this stat, or this roll, or this expectation"?

So... use labels when they facilitate conversation, throw them away when they are a hindrance? And, because there is obvious evidence, even in this thread, of these particular labels hindering the discussion, we should throw them away, and start fresh?

I'd throw them away and come up with model that focuses on technical issues rather than trying to tribalize gamers by a set of grossly oversimplified preferences and associated assumptions and presumptions.

[kyoryu]

I'd throw them away and come up with model that focuses on technical issues rather than trying to tribalize gamers by a set of grossly oversimplified preferences and associated assumptions and presumptions.

Pretty much this.

[Kami2awa]

You... do know that one of the first applications of the steam engine was to pump water up mine shafts....

Actually, the maximum distance a perfect surface pump can pull water up a pipe is only 34 feet (at normal atmospheric pressure), and this is a theoretical maximum so the reality is less. This is because a surface pump relies on generating a partial vacuum and atmospheric pressure to force water up. 34 feet would be the maximum for a pump which generated perfect vacuum, beyond which it is not possible to improve (you can't have "better than perfect" vacuum, and you can't generate high vacuum over water anyway or it will boil). To increase this you need a submersible pump at the bottom of the flooded mineshaft rather than the top, which is harder to make (especially if it's steam powered, and so reliant on combustion!) A "ladder" arrangement of multiple pumps at 25 foot depth intervals is an alternative. 25 feet is good for a surface pump, and a lot better than drowning!

[Tanarii]

Something I wonder:
Dungeons & Dragons seemed to get the most popular around '83 after Tom Hanks, and Steven Spielberg spread the word, and of course when there was the Saturday morning cartoon!, but the version of Dungeons & Dragons that seems to have the most current players is 3.5/Pathfinder.

Why?

Thats easy. It was released when the Internet was exploding in popularity allowing light gamers (ie not hardcore only) to form easily accessible online communities for the first time, and it was released and marketed by the same company that produces Magic the Gathering, which was hugely popular at the time. And lastly, online gaming (particularly WoW) was creating a quickly growing acceptance & reputation of gaming as not just for isolated nerds.

So while two small generations of gamers grew up on TSR AD&D and its precursors, a huge number of millennials grew up on WoTC 3e and spin-offs. So for a large chunk of TRPG players, 3e was the edition they grew up with, and think of as D&D.

Edit: to put it another way, the Internet and gaming in general going mainstream allowed 3e D&D to go mainstream too.

[2D8HP]

So while two small generations of gamers grew up on TSR AD&D and its precursors, a huge number of millennials grew up on WoTC 3e and spin-offs. So for a large chunk of TRPG players, 3e was the edition they grew up with, and think of as D&D.

Ah that's it!
While I grew up being outnumbered by "boomers", and am used to that, I forgot that we "X'ers" are also far outnumbered by the"millennial's" (an extraordinarily cheerful and accommodating generation as far as I can tell).
Thanks!

[Tanarii]

Ah that's it!
While I grew up being outnumbered by "boomers", and am used to that, I forgot that we "X'ers" are also far outnumbered by the"millennial's" (an extraordinarily cheerful and accommodating generation as far as I can tell).
Thanks!

Well the larger point is that a larger proportion of the generation is accepting of gaming in general, and TRPG. Not that the generation was larger, although that's (as far as I know) true too so it's a good point.

Also I always forget that the term millenial is loaded. Just pretend I said "third generation of gamers". The first two being the older folks who started when the game started (like you). And the second generation (like me) being those who started in the mid to late 80s with BECMI / AD&D 1e as Tweens, or a bit later with 2e in the early 90s. (ie we're from the 'lost generation' between Gen X and Millenials)

[2D8HP]

Well the larger point is that a larger proportion of the generation is accepting of gaming in general, and TRPG. Not that the generation was larger, although that's (as far as I know) true too so it's a good point

D&D influenced media is also more prevalent now. Yeah there was "Seventh Yoyage of Sinbad", and "Jack the Giant Killer", before D&D, "The Hobbit" (cartoon) as a TV special, and the "LotR" cartoon film in the '70's, and in the '80's there was "Conan", and "Hawk the Slayer", but nothing approaching the prominence of the Jackson films or "Game of Thrones", plus now there's Geek/Nerd pride (yesterday I saw a bumper sticker that said "I speak Nerdy")!
Yes I did, and could bring the "blue book" to class in 6th grade, but you kept that predilection quiet in high school if you didn't want to risk a beat down!
Different times indeed.

[Lacuna Caster]

Alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs, so, yes, it should be scrapped. Although the growing trend of letting something inferior to the human mind determine how a character should respond to a given situation is quickly coming in a close second.

This is a little like complaining how we use tools inferior to actual broadswords to resolve fantasy combat. If there's no mechanical separation between player and character intent, disagreements between characters tend to be interpreted as disagreements between players. People get hurt that way.

(Besides, even when there are explicit rules for modelling character responses, there's still a good deal of human interpretation involved in when and how to invoke them.)

Interestingly, if one were to take a very non-simulationist game, and create a new, extremely simulationist version, but leave out pieces (like, say, certain core classes), one could very easily receive the same complaint. So either the complaint is mislabeled, or GNS breaks down here.

I don't quite understand what you're driving at here?

[kyoryu]

Interestingly, if one were to take a very non-simulationist game, and create a new, extremely simulationist version, but leave out pieces (like, say, certain core classes), one could very easily receive the same complaint. So either the complaint is mislabeled, or GNS breaks down here.

My money is on Door #2.

[Lacuna Caster]

I ask because GNS theory is concerned primarily with group dynamics, not with system per se, and certainly not with kneejerk complaints about system revisions derived from emotional sunk-cost effects.

[Max_Killjoy]

I ask because GNS theory is concerned primarily with group dynamics, not with system per se, and certainly not with kneejerk complaints about system revisions derived from emotional sunk-cost effects.

Perhaps part of the problem is that some people DO -- very vocally -- present GNS as about systems, and use it as a hammer to pound on what they view as "badwrongfun".

[Lacuna Caster]

*shrug* I'm not saying that system doesn't help to optimise certain play styles, but I'm not sure I can weigh in without knowing who, specifically, is saying what about it.

[kyoryu]

I ask because GNS theory is concerned primarily with group dynamics, not with system per se, and certainly not with kneejerk complaints about system revisions derived from emotional sunk-cost effects.

What?

The central statement of GNS is that a game *system* should be "cohesive" - that is, it should follow one of the three creative agendas laid out by GNS theory to the exclusion of the other two.

GDS, etc., may be more about groups, but GNS is *very, very* concerned with system.

[Lacuna Caster]

Where are you finding this central statement? (Bear in mind that System Does Matter is over ten years old by now, and the theory has developed since.)

GNS does have things to say about system, but it's not the foundation of the theory. (I say this because particular groups are, apparently, capable of taking systems which are not well optimised for a given GNS mode and playing in that style anyway. It just tends to take more work, rules-drift, and/or natural aptitude.)

[kyoryu]

Big Model is the *successor* to GNS. (Edwards himself has abandoned GNS).

Look for some of my posts earlier in this thread for references to GNS making these statements.

[ComradeBear]

I'm wondering if it is better to look less into play styles and more into component parts of RPGs that draw interest or don't, and are emphasized or arent.

My current sort of theorem of the component parts of any TRPG is what I'm currently calling Three Coins Theory.
Essentially, TRPGs are made of three things with two sides each. Namely:

Characters
Setting
Events

Each of these has two sides.
Mechanics and Fiction

So to give some examples of each:
Characters as Fiction = the character as an agent within the fictive layer of play. When you say "Ragnar scoffs at these accusations" that is the character in its Fiction state. (Games that focus here include Fall of Magic, RISUS, and many PbtA systems)

Characters as Mechanics = Everything on the character sheet. The numbers, the feats, the countdowns, the spells, etc. Everything mechanical about the character. (Games that focus here include D&D and Mutants and Masterminds)

Setting as Fiction = the way the setting is described and how it behaves when mechanics are not invoked. The declaration that the Leopold Dynasty is still in power is Setting as Fiction. (Games that focus here include Microscope and Fall of Magic)
.
Setting as Mechanics = rules-based means of enforcing the setting's logic or general goings-on. If you have a specific roll to see how much Coin the king has in his treasury, you are invoking Setting as Mechanics. If you use a system such as Stars Without Number's GM Turn to determine Faction conflict outcomes, that is also Setting as Mechanics. (Games that focus here include D&D and Stars Without Number.)

Events as Fiction = The stuff that happens. When Ragnar swings his sword, The Dark Lord unleashes his army of the dead, or Sir Galavant swings from a chandelier, these are the Events as Fiction. (Games that focus here include FATE and Microscope)

Events as Mechanics = The rolling mechanisms and methods of conflict resolution in and of themselves. In essence, the roll that determines if Ragnar is successful at swinging his sword is Events as Mechanics. The Dice Poker minigame in Dogs in the Vineyard is Events as Mechanics. (Games that focus here include Dogs in the Vineyard and Dread)

These parts are not 100% distinct, and much like gears have interlocking parts and may even rely on one another's resources. And the two sides of each coin are intrinsically tied together more solidly than even the ties between the other coins.

Now, this isn't prescriptive, but rather can be used descriptively to describe component pieces of TRPGs and their interactions.

I don't know if other, similar theories are out there, and this one is being described rather slap-dashedly between moments at work, but it does seem to have practical applications without the stigma of convenient and oversimplified labels.

A person can really like Characters as Mechanics more than Characters as Fiction (People who play the game to optimize their characters and find this fun are a good example.) The opposite would be drawn to systems drawn more to the fiction end of characters. (Fall of Magic and Pendragon are pretty good examples.)

A person can really like Events as Mechanics the most, and so like interesting dice rolling and conflict resolution systems more than anything else in the system. They would enjoy Dogs in the Vineyard specifically for the rolling mechanics. The opposite would be mostly concerned with creating interesting sequences of events within the fiction. Systems like Microscope would be good options for them.

Liking Setting as Mechanics is sort of what Max_Killjoy is into, especially when that gear is the biggest and holds the most sway over the other parts of the system. (Note that he likes a high degree of synergy between the two sides of this coin, as well) The opposite also falls pretty well into Microscope, and works well for games that use the setting to support a theme rather than to provide mechanics to make the setting behave in a certain way.

You'll notice that the same game can have multiple focuses, though focusing on all 6 components will be exceptionally rare.

This also speaks specifically to what the System cares about. So a system as Max describes with 0 input about roleplaying or character behavior would have no focus on Characters as Fiction, because the system doesn't care to interject at all, or minimally. (This is how characters behave in the setting, for instance, would be more closely tied to Setting as Fiction than Characters as Fiction, because the Setting is exherting the greater influence. But both pieces are certainly involved.)

Dunno. Wrote this down while on a brief break at work. Maybe it's accurate, maybe it's a "duh" sort of thing. Not sure. Take it as you will.

[Quertus]

Not a fan of alignment, here -- as a rule, as a descriptor, as anything.

The second part -- what are you referring to specifically? Systems of a certain bent that have "behavioral" stats and rolls? "Your character would do this because of this stat, or this roll, or this expectation"?

To oversimplify... in a play / movie, there are many rehearsals. The director gives out scripts, and tells the actors what they want. Then, when the actors invariably do not perfectly emulate the director's vision, the director provides feedback. Actors, attempting to get inside their characters' heads, stereotypically ask, "what's my motivation?". They have to figure out how to pretend to be inspired by the king's speech, or saddened by the loss of a loved one. They have to pretend to be afraid of the cardboard dragon, or the CGI monster they can't even see.

Actors have it easy.

Roleplayers have to constantly be inside their character's head, have to constantly know what their motivation is. Roleplayers don't have a script to go by - they have to understand their character and come up with the script, all in real time. They only get a single take, and have to count on the rest of the group to be inspired by their speech, or terrified of the mini of a dragon they place on the board. Sometimes, the only things the other actors have to go by are a few mumbled words and a "chr 30" from which to determine their character's response.

So one might think I'd advocate and be an early adopter of systems to make roleplayers' jobs easier, by telling them how they should feel. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes, sure, there's the whole "I only get to do one thing" argument, which says that the only thing the players get to do is make choices for their characters. I'm sure many railroading GMs would appreciate removing that pesky free will the PCs have that keeps ruining their stories.

But even ignoring that, even given systems which do not force behavior, but simply advise and encourage, I'm quickly becoming not a fan.

How can someone who claims to care about the role-playing aspect of RPGs not be enthusiastic about role-playing aids, which provide rewards for role-playing? And which will help encourage other players to roleplay? How us this not a dream come true?

Well, for one, I care more about role-playing than I do about a Pavlovian rewards system. Put me in a game that uses such a system, and I'll likely ignore it, or use how often it rewards me to measure how well the designer of the system mapped it to the characters I play.

For example, a system which rewards liking consistent levels of sweet / sour / salty / bitter would probably be obviously too simplistic to model most people's tastes, but might model better someone with a sweet tooth than, say, a pregnant woman, or a lactos-intolerant vegetarian.

The human mind is complex. Show me someone who has written out correct rules to model human behavior, and I'll show you the mother / father of AI.

No, even if someone could write them, rules to model human behavior are way, way too complex to ever see play in a tabletop RPG. The only thing of adequate complexity to model human behavior likely to see use at the gaming table is the human mind.

So-called role-playing aids, then, are a gross oversimplification of personality, and a hindrance to real role-playing.

Worse, they take people who care about role-playing, and teach them to use (and, at times, game) the role-playing minigame instead of using their brain, and learning how to roleplay.

If such systems were honest about their shortcomings, and admitted that they were role-playing baby steps for 2d characters, then I probably wouldn't have much problem with them. But claiming that anything simple enough to actually see play at a gaming table can predict human behavior well enough to be a "role-playing aid" is disingenuous.

And it's a matter of taste. I don't require gritty realism or extreme detail in my combat simulator - d20, for example, is adequate for my needs. But I do care about gritty realism and extreme detail in role-playing - only unhindered role-playing will do. If you can accept less detailed characterization, that's fine - just don't try to claim that oversimplified systems will ever be as good as the human mind.

... Does that answer your question?

This is a little like complaining how we use tools inferior to actual broadswords to resolve fantasy combat. If there's no mechanical separation between player and character intent, disagreements between characters tend to be interpreted as disagreements between players. People get hurt that way.

(Besides, even when there are explicit rules for modelling character responses, there's still a good deal of human interpretation involved in when and how to invoke them.)


I don't quite understand what you're driving at here?

I ask because GNS theory is concerned primarily with group dynamics, not with system per se, and certainly not with kneejerk complaints about system revisions derived from emotional sunk-cost effects.

Well, I was responding to this:

Incidentally, during the change from Dark Eye 4th to 5th Edition (Dark Eye 4th is a rather simulationist game, 5th less so (But still quite a bit)), one of the points of edition wars was from the proponents of 4th, paraphrased "I cannot play 5th, because it fails to simulate the world, because a number of things are not yet playable" (Different kinds of magical traditions and Blessed ones of a number of gods, mostly). So at least in some contexts, "You cannot play X while X is part of the setting", has in fact been used as a complaint that a system isn't simulationist enough.

And saying that the complaint seems misplaced - or, if not, indicative of a flaw in the system.

[Floret]

Well, I was responding to this:

Incidentally, during the change from Dark Eye 4th to 5th Edition (Dark Eye 4th is a rather simulationist game, 5th less so (But still quite a bit)), one of the points of edition wars was from the proponents of 4th, paraphrased "I cannot play 5th, because it fails to simulate the world, because a number of things are not yet playable" (Different kinds of magical traditions and Blessed ones of a number of gods, mostly). So at least in some contexts, "You cannot play X while X is part of the setting", has in fact been used as a complaint that a system isn't simulationist enough.

And saying that the complaint seems misplaced - or, if not, indicative of a flaw in the system.

As the author of that quote:
That might very well be - I, in turn, was responding to something said earlier which I don't quite remember. I also remember my text being meant very much as a sidenote, and not an actual argument. At least not one by myself. Me paraphrasing and translating something someone else I heavily disagree with said on some other message board would be a poor argument for or against anything, in any case. (Also note, for added pedantry: I am not saying that it IS a simulationist complaint. I am saying it has been used in a context arguing that it was. Which is quite a difference )

The human mind is complex. Show me someone who has written out correct rules to model human behavior, and I'll show you the mother / father of AI.

No, even if someone could write them, rules to model human behavior are way, way too complex to ever see play in a tabletop RPG. The only thing of adequate complexity to model human behavior likely to see use at the gaming table is the human mind.

So-called role-playing aids, then, are a gross oversimplification of personality, and a hindrance to real role-playing.

Worse, they take people who care about role-playing, and teach them to use (and, at times, game) the role-playing minigame instead of using their brain, and learning how to roleplay.

If such systems were honest about their shortcomings, and admitted that they were role-playing baby steps for 2d characters, then I probably wouldn't have much problem with them. But claiming that anything simple enough to actually see play at a gaming table can predict human behavior well enough to be a "role-playing aid" is disingenuous.

And it's a matter of taste. I don't require gritty realism or extreme detail in my combat simulator - d20, for example, is adequate for my needs. But I do care about gritty realism and extreme detail in role-playing - only unhindered role-playing will do. If you can accept less detailed characterization, that's fine - just don't try to claim that oversimplified systems will ever be as good as the human mind.

Sure, but rules simulating the world (and including in that the human mind) accurately and in perfect detail is a foolish endevour in any case. The best people can (And try to) do is get "close enough". Now where that "close enough" is, for the respective player (One who cares about simulation, in any case, people not concerned with that might have different opinions) will differ. I don't know where my line is, but I know FATE Core (Skill-wise it does try to simulate something, I feel) satisfies it. FATE Accellerated and its approaches however, do not. They also simulate SOMETHING though. Although the even laxer Los Muertos works again for me - though that, as a one-shot game running big parts of the absurdity of its setting, that might be more difficult to sort.
Likewise there is a line in the other direction - how much complexity is one willing to deal with for the sake of simulation. For me, there is a similar divide between the aforementioned Dark Eye 4.1 and 5.

The main point here is: Every rule of every game is a gross oversimplification of what it represents/simulates. Some more so, some less, but all simplify.
To single out "Role-playing" things as a place where you do not want rules is fine, if it lines up with your preference - but your tone is I find a little... unnecessarily smug and/or elitist. I mean... "real" Role-playing? Who is to decide whether what anyone else is doing is "real" roleplaying? If someone is just "themselves, but from a fantasyworld", one might argue that they are failing to play a role entirely. Yet they will be consistent in their actions, and their personality is rather selfevidently that of a real human. So... Talking about "real" Role-play is an incredibly useless thing to do, since this is entirely a matter of opinion and arbitration.
(I also find "role-playing" used in this way to be a slighly misplaced term here. The combatskills, craftsmanship, artistic and other abilites of my character also inform the Role I am playing. My role is not just a personality welded onto a body, not disjointed entirely from the rules that describe my capabilities in-Game. But maybe my perspective is warped by Larping, where everything you do is part of it. I just don't feel like separating the personality, and focusing entirely on that as the only thing truly "Role-playing" is a necessary or even necessarily good things)
(Sidenote: Alignment is, in my view, bull**** and not in any way enough to model anything about human personalities accurately. Though it always seemed to model morality to me, in rather simplistic ways, rather than actual personality, at least not directly.)

[Max_Killjoy]

To oversimplify... in a play / movie, there are many rehearsals. The director gives out scripts, and tells the actors what they want. Then, when the actors invariably do not perfectly emulate the director's vision, the director provides feedback. Actors, attempting to get inside their characters' heads, stereotypically ask, "what's my motivation?". They have to figure out how to pretend to be inspired by the king's speech, or saddened by the loss of a loved one. They have to pretend to be afraid of the cardboard dragon, or the CGI monster they can't even see.

Actors have it easy.

Roleplayers have to constantly be inside their character's head, have to constantly know what their motivation is. Roleplayers don't have a script to go by - they have to understand their character and come up with the script, all in real time. They only get a single take, and have to count on the rest of the group to be inspired by their speech, or terrified of the mini of a dragon they place on the board. Sometimes, the only things the other actors have to go by are a few mumbled words and a "chr 30" from which to determine their character's response.

So one might think I'd advocate and be an early adopter of systems to make roleplayers' jobs easier, by telling them how they should feel. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes, sure, there's the whole "I only get to do one thing" argument, which says that the only thing the players get to do is make choices for their characters. I'm sure many railroading GMs would appreciate removing that pesky free will the PCs have that keeps ruining their stories.

But even ignoring that, even given systems which do not force behavior, but simply advise and encourage, I'm quickly becoming not a fan.

How can someone who claims to care about the role-playing aspect of RPGs not be enthusiastic about role-playing aids, which provide rewards for role-playing? And which will help encourage other players to roleplay? How us this not a dream come true?

Well, for one, I care more about role-playing than I do about a Pavlovian rewards system. Put me in a game that uses such a system, and I'll likely ignore it, or use how often it rewards me to measure how well the designer of the system mapped it to the characters I play.

For example, a system which rewards liking consistent levels of sweet / sour / salty / bitter would probably be obviously too simplistic to model most people's tastes, but might model better someone with a sweet tooth than, say, a pregnant woman, or a lactos-intolerant vegetarian.

The human mind is complex. Show me someone who has written out correct rules to model human behavior, and I'll show you the mother / father of AI.

No, even if someone could write them, rules to model human behavior are way, way too complex to ever see play in a tabletop RPG. The only thing of adequate complexity to model human behavior likely to see use at the gaming table is the human mind.

So-called role-playing aids, then, are a gross oversimplification of personality, and a hindrance to real role-playing.

Worse, they take people who care about role-playing, and teach them to use (and, at times, game) the role-playing minigame instead of using their brain, and learning how to roleplay.

If such systems were honest about their shortcomings, and admitted that they were role-playing baby steps for 2d characters, then I probably wouldn't have much problem with them. But claiming that anything simple enough to actually see play at a gaming table can predict human behavior well enough to be a "role-playing aid" is disingenuous.

And it's a matter of taste. I don't require gritty realism or extreme detail in my combat simulator - d20, for example, is adequate for my needs. But I do care about gritty realism and extreme detail in role-playing - only unhindered role-playing will do. If you can accept less detailed characterization, that's fine - just don't try to claim that oversimplified systems will ever be as good as the human mind.

... Does that answer your question?

In spades.

And I pretty much agree.

[2D8HP]

I've already posted that the most fun I've actually had playing an FRPG was with old-fashioned D&D (and also some of my least fun times), but that I've spent more time playing other RPG'S, and that the FRPG that has looked the most exciting to me for decades, and has rules I can remember is Pendragon, which I have never gotten to play.
Since this thread has what seems to be the biggest minds on the Forum (or it least the biggest vocabularies), please read this post of mine from another thread below, and tell me how my tastes fit the "theories".

Player-led vs. GM-led?, are just not what I care about.
Try Aimless or Worthwhile instead. I will give a couple of examples.
1) PC's are invited somewhere and the only real object is for the PC's to "introduce" each other, and while sometimes witty banter results, but just as often it becomes back-story monologue's, feather ruffling, and even PvP, all of which (especially when they go on too long) are lame, and player-led.
2) PC's are captured/invited somewhere and then some big-wig forces them into gladiatoral combats and/or contests for the big-wigs amusement or as "tests", or even worst forced PvP. GM-led and lame.

The PC's in an empty room is no adventure at all, and nothing but a one way ticket, with no choices to make or actions of any consequences isn't much better.

Good set-ups?
1) Treasure Island.
Who doesn't want treasure? Have the PC's find a map. Have a rival team compete for the treasure. Maybe the treasure "in the wrong hands", would be catastrophic (think Raiders of the Lost Ark).
Now that's an adventure!

2) Seven Samurai.
The PC's are hired by villagers to save them from bandits.
Perhaps the bandits are tougher than the PC's thought (think the Three Amigo's), do the PC's go back on there word and save their own hides, or do they fight to the death with honor, even if it only means "only the farmers win".
Now that's a story with meaning!

Do the PC's actions and/or choices have meaning for the welfare of themselves and/or anyone else?

The worst ending of all is "it was just a dream".

[Talakeal]

So much truth.

Couldn't agree more.

I wish this forum has a like button.

[Tanarii]

Roleplayers have to constantly be inside their character's head, have to constantly know what their motivation is. Roleplayers don't have a script to go by - they have to understand their character and come up with the script, all in real time. They only get a single take, and have to count on the rest of the group to be inspired by their speech, or terrified of the mini of a dragon they place on the board. Sometimes, the only things the other actors have to go by are a few mumbled words and a "chr 30" from which to determine their character's response.

And one of the best things players can have as a tool to help this is a list of basic motivations unique to their character, ie not them as a player. Alignment was initially both this, and additionally attempt to create Teams (Team Law vs Team Chaos), but also was injected with the writers moral and ethical views. So yeah, it was kind of a mess.

However, a player knowing the character's moral motivation is a good thing, provided it's not the only motivation known, and the ALL in-character decision making is not based around it. In that last case, as was so often the case with Alignment, the character ends up being a caricature of a character.

How can someone who claims to care about the role-playing aspect of RPGs not be enthusiastic about role-playing aids, which provide rewards for role-playing? And which will help encourage other players to roleplay? How us this not a dream come true?

Yes. There is a significant difference between a RP aide that teaches the roots of good roleplaying, ie knowing character motivations to assist with in-character decision making. And forcing a narrow sub-set of motivations and mechanically enforcing them. Or worse, teaching something else like 'talky-time' = Role Playing. There are some that do an okay job in attempting to do both teach players to define motivations and reward playing to them, but focusing on the former is really the key to a good Role Playing aide.

So-called role-playing aids, then, are a gross oversimplification of personality, and a hindrance to real role-playing.

I disagree. Given how very bad experienced TRPG gamers are at roleplaying a believable personality, sometimes gross oversimplification is superior. Not always, but often enough.

For that very reason IMO the very best RP aides are the ones that encourage you to pick a motivations that you can keep in mind for differences between yourself and your character when making in-character decisions. As long as you DO just play as yourself the rest of the time as opposed to a caricature of the motivations, you end up with a believable character. And one that allows the player to react fast in the face of in-character decision making.

Certainly it results in something more consistent and believable than the typical experienced RPers attempt at roleplaying: writing up a backstory, which rarely actually define motivations; thinking roleplaying = talky-time and funny accents; trying to make up in-character decisions on the fly without ever having explicitly defined their character's motivations vs where they can just be themselves, because they don't understand that's what roleplaying actually is.

[2D8HP]

There are some that do an okay job in attempting to do both teach players to define motivations and reward playing to them, but focusing on the former is really the key to a good Role Playing aide.

What are these "role-playing aides"?
Alignment in D&D?
Passions and Traits in Pendragon?
Sanity in Call of Cthullu?
Um..... please let me know, because I don't.

[Tanarii]

What are these "role-playing aides"?
Alignment in D&D?
Passions and Traits in Pendragon?
Sanity in Call of Cthullu?
Um..... please let me know, because I don't.

D&D 5e does a good job of it. The awarding inspiration part is really only coincidental as a reward. But the Alignment and personality system (Personality, Ideal, Bon, Flaw) walk you through the process of creating 5-6 total motivations for your character.

[2D8HP]

D&D 5e......
the Alignment and personality system (Personality, Ideal, Bon, Flaw) walk you through the process of creating 5-6 total motivations for your character.

Oh yeah, that is a pretty good innovation.
I don't like the extra time it adds to character creation (admittedly mostly in just penciling in the words), but they really do help in making a consistent character.
Thanks!