Its not how LARGE it is... its HOW its used.

[silva]

A response from David Prokopetz over at rpgnet that I found interesting enough to share..

1. It's not a new phenomenon for games to make assumptions about how they ought to be played. OD&D has specific assumptions about how it ought to be played baked into its rules. However...

2. Most older games - and by "older" I mean pretty much "pre-1990" - either didn't bother to explicitly articulate those assumptions, or did so very badly. This was compounded by the fact that, prior to the mainstream availability of Internet service, many gamers never had direct access to the text of the games they played, relying entirely on their GMs and on more experienced players to teach them how to play.

3.  The fact that games typically didn't state their baked-in assumptions doesn't mean that those assumptions didn't have an effect, however. Most groups playing OD&D and other games of its generation tended to independently arrive at very similar procedures of play. The shape of the rules themselves suggested a particular shape of play, and folks were able to derive that shape without too much trouble.

4.  The difficulty arises when one tries to break away from the OD&D mould. Because OD&D's conventions of play had to be derived from the rules without being explicitly stated, many groups internalised those conventions not as "how to play D&D", but as "how to play tabletop RPGs". When presented with games that didn't make precisely the same set of how-to-play assumptions as OD&D and its peers, this clash of expectations would often lead to frustrating and dysfunctional play.

5.  Early-generation indie games attempted to combat this by making their assumptions painfully explicit. By modern standards, the text often comes across as harsh and inflexible; at the time, however, this forceful presentation was necessary in order successfully communicate. If you didn't shout your basic assumptions from the rooftops, most groups would approach your game as a weird D&D variant, and become frustrated when they discovered that it didn't really work that way.

The landscape's a little different these days. There's sufficient variety in mainstream tabletop RPGs that it's no longer necessary to be quite so in-your-face about it. Many indie RPGs do so anyway, though, because a strident authorial voice has become traditional at this point, in much the same way that having separate stat lines for nine different varieties of polearm has become traditional for D&D and its descendants.

[tussock]

David there's talking shit though, isn't he? Vampire told you all sorts but everyone I knew played it like D&D because that's how the mechanics worked best, ignore the angst and build a killer who kills all his problems, preferably using bigger guns (or nuking it from space).

Yes, other games told you bluntly to play certain ways, but the mechanics were actually just some guy's D&D house rules in disguise, and still played D&D better than anything else. "Everyone was stupid and just tried to play D&D with it, and then said it didn't work" is a cop out. Old games were crap at everything, including D&D.

Newer games are somewhat less forceful in their language because they're being truthful. They have mechanics that actually promote different play styles now.

[silva]

newer games are somewhat less forceful in their language because they're being truthful. They have mechanics that actually promote different play styles now.

While I generally agree, I think there were always exceptions to this rule, no ? Games like Ghostbusters, Pendragon, Amber, Risus, Over the Edge, Everway, etc kind of tried to break the mold established by D&D in different ways. The problem is what David put above: when people learn that "the way to play D&D = the way to play all roleplaying games" you end up with potentially dysfunctional plays.

[Orion]

Silva,

I hope you won't find this overly petty, but my biggest problem with your argument this thread is that I can't figure out how the dick joke is supposed to fit in.

[silva]

Orion,

Its not how mathematically sound your ruleset are, but the WAY you use this ruleset.

Which kind of alludes to the difference between traditional games ("Here, I created these cool and math-precise resolution rules for you to use as you wish") and these newish games ("Look, the dice are important, but its only half the pot - this procedures Im telling you are as important as the dice to achieve the intended experience Ive envisoned as author")

Or something like that.

[Cyberzombie]

No. If your character ever charged in 3.5 then you weren't playing 3.5. If you put $500 in the middle of the board as a prize for whoever lands on FREE PARKING, you are not playing MONOPOLY.

House ruling has been at the heart and soul of D&D since its inception, even the creators of D&D used house rules. Even when you're not outright changing rules, the games rely on DMs to make on the fly interpretations and rulings.

DMs homebrew rules, settings, classes, races and magic items. And that adds to the game, not detracts from it or creates some kind of D&D heresy that needs to be stamped out.

Unplayable is objective. Fun to play is subjective. I've had fun playing shitty games, but that doesn't make them not shitty.

If you want to look for one rule that doesn't work in RPGs, you're going to find it. I don't care if you're looking at AD&D, 3E, Dungeon World, World of Darkness or GURPS. RPGs are such giant machines with so many variables that you will find bugs in it. Do we say that Windows is an unusable Operating System because certain things can crash it?

For all the people on the internet claiming that one system is godawful or another doesn't work, I've yet to see anyone show me a perfect system. All they can really do is trade flaws for other flaws. If you keep chasing the perfect RPG system, you won't be doing a lot of gaming.

[Voss]

Or indeed, nothing like that. I have no idea how you're defining 'traditional' games, but there are quite a few that are mathematical balls of fuzzy shit, have been around a couple decades, and the creator will still rant at people for 'playing it wrong' and not following the author's intent. Rifts is a good example of this, since the rulebooks actually include incoherent rants from the author about players fucking things up.

Hell, Gygax went into foaming bone-twisting rage about the 'intended experience' and players 'doing it wrong' on a regular basis. And angrily issued execution orders to DMs for any characters that dared try to be monsters PCs or poison-using paladins.


To sum up, your ignorance of RPGs as a genre is a roadblock in the way of your interpretation of 'modern games' as something different and new. They might be fetishizing something that other games didn't, but they aren't using new ways to do it. 'Decrees from on high' are really old hat, and frankly their personal fetishes aren't all the special or unique either.

[silva]

Voss, I dont know Rifts nor early D&D. But I know games like Shadowrun, Gurps, D&D 3.X, Runequest, World of Darkness and almost everything from late 80s forward never presented: 1) a strong authorial voice on HOW those games should be played*, but most importantly 2) actual elaborated procedures and methods for structuring play (like the already cited ones from Sorcerer and Apocalypse World).

*notice this isnt the same as the typical (discardable) GMing advice found on those books. Compare the playing advice on Vampire with, say, the "playing advice" on Apocalypse World - "There are a million ways to GM games; Apocalypse World calls for one way in particular. This chapter is it. Follow these as rules. The whole rest of the game is built upon this (Page 108)."

If you want to look for one rule that doesn't work in RPGs, you're going to find it. I don't care if you're looking at AD&D, 3E, Dungeon World, World of Darkness or GURPS. RPGs are such giant machines with so many variables that you will find bugs in it. Do we say that Windows is an unusable Operating System because certain things can crash it?

Perfectly put.

[DSMatticus]

House ruling has been at the heart and soul of D&D since its inception, even the creators of D&D used house rules.

How is that a response? Sure, D&D has a rich history of houserules. That's mostly because D&D has a rich history of being unplayable out of the book, suffering from massive rules schizophrenia, and having a "you don't have to use this if you don't want to" disclaimer before every single rule in every single book, but sure; it's true enough.

But how does the fact that people can make up new rules address the issue of whether or not the rules in the book (that thing you paid for specifically to get the rules inside of it) are good or bad? Hint: it doesn't. You know that. If I released a 100 page RPG titled "The Best TTRPG Ever" with one sentence on the first page reading "Rule 1: You can add your own rules if you feel the ones contained in this book are inadequate," you could houserule my game into anything you wanted and then play it and have a wonderful time. But the book I released is still a worthless piece of shit and a waste of money, because you could have done that anyway. No matter what game you pick, the MC/ players already own the contents of their own minds, and anything valuable contained therein comes with them to every game they play. If your TTRPG doesn't offer them some useful foundation to start with, then you sold ice to an eskimo.

Do we say that Windows is an unusable Operating System because certain things can crash it?

If you write your own Windows patches, then you are not using Windows. You are using Cyberzombie's modified windows. If you have to write your own Windows patches in order to be able to use Windows on your computer, then Windows is unusable. You are pulling a (hopefully accidental) sleight of hand here; people can houserule TTRPG's on the fly while barely even noticing they're doing it (quick, what are the 3.5 stealth rules?), but operating systems just crash. If you were playing a videogame that implemented 3.5 stealth rules as written, then everytime you clicked the stealth button the game would crash. But when the game is being processed by humans instead of computers, they just make something up and the game keeps going. But at the point they do that, they aren't playing the game anymore; they're playing their modified, houseruled version of the game.

All they can really do is trade flaws for other flaws.

It is clearly not impossible to improve rules, and this is absolutely not true in the least.

[erik]

almost everything from late 80s forward never presented: 1) a strong authorial voice on HOW those games should be played*, but most importantly 2) actual elaborated procedures and methods for structuring play (like the already cited ones from Sorcerer and Apocalypse World).

*notice this isnt the same as the typical (discardable) GMing advice found on those books. Compare the playing advice on Vampire with, say, the "playing advice" on Apocalypse World - "There are a million ways to GM games; Apocalypse World calls for one way in particular. This chapter is it. Follow these as rules. The whole rest of the game is built upon this (Page 108)."

I don't even know what this means, other than a prelude to a No True Scotsman argument.

There are actual elaborated procedures for structuring play. Action Rounds. Durations. Turn order. Action Types. Not inserting GM-directed MTP into nearly all conflict resolution mechanics.

As for HOW games should be played, that's the damn rules. X-World isn't special because it has specifications on how to play. Only in that it has the novelty of disguising magic tea party as dice mechanics. And that's only short bus special.

[silva]

erik,

Action rounds, durations, turn orders and action types are tools for adjucating situations, not tools for directing gameplay in specific directions/on a macro scale.

[Kaelik]

Action rounds, durations, turn orders and action types are tools for adjucating situations, not tools for directing gameplay in specific directions/on a macro scale.

Also, micro evolution is different from macro evolution and people were created from scratch 6,000 years ago.

[Voss]

Voss, I dont know Rifts nor early D&D. But I know games like Shadowrun, Gurps, D&D 3.X, Runequest, World of Darkness and almost everything from late 80s forward never presented: 1) a strong authorial voice on HOW those games should be played*, but most importantly 2) actual elaborated procedures and methods for structuring play (like the already cited ones from Sorcerer and Apocalypse World).
t.

The games YOU are familiar with may not. But that is the point. I am trying to cure your FUCKING IGNORANCE, and you keep glossing that over with a bare handful of games and trying to somehow build a comparison out of false assumptions, misunderstandings and, apparently, the lies you tell yourself. Or are spoon-fed you with each copy of Shit World.

You can NOT form a comparison if you are unfamiliar with the subject matter, and you even admit that you know nothing. Whatever you are trying to build here is just wrong. Even the fucker on RPG net that you quoted is explicitly telling you that.

Also, really, GURPS? Of course GURPS isn't going to have what you're looking for. The entire purpose of GURPS is to be the damned anti-thesis to the 'You Must Play This Way' games that preceded it. Generic, in the sense of 'all things to all people' was in the damned name. Crazily (or, actually, rationally, all the games you name are a reaction to the 'early years,' and were pandering to the same audience. In much the same way that the retro clones and the 'modernist' games you're gibbering about are a reaction to them.

Hell, 4e does a lot of what you're talking about, both in limiting options to a set playstyle and forcing players into a specific routine and playstyle (the world can't really be interacted with, powers don't work outside combat time, monsters only exist for combat, and have no stats for non-combat, magic items don't interact with the economy, and so on). They don't do much to explain their vision of play to the players, but they sure as hell do the 'more important' aspect of structuring play to the One True Way- helpfully reinforced by being the only way that actually has rules.

[silva]

Yup, I agree about D&D4. Though it doesnt have the specific play structures of the other games Ive cited (which is the kind of thing Im most interested at here).

Also, thats an interesting take on things. Perhaps this trend of toolkity/non-explicit play assumptions really started with these mid 80s games then ? While the formal play structures began with the "indie" games from late 90s/early 2000s ?

(And finally a constructive answer from you. Wooeeeeee!!!! We´re progressing! )

[Cyberzombie]

How is that a response? Sure, D&D has a rich history of houserules. That's mostly because D&D has a rich history of being unplayable out of the book, suffering from massive rules schizophrenia, and having a "you don't have to use this if you don't want to" disclaimer before every single rule in every single book, but sure; it's true enough.

You're missing the point and overly worried about semantics. The point is that calling an RPG unplayable because of one or two broken rules is pointless, because that's true of all RPGs. Once you find an RPG that doesn't have that flaw, then the criticism might mean something.

It's like calling my car undriveable because I have to turn my steering wheel to avoid hitting things.

The point is that people can and do play D&D, Dungeon World and a ton of other RPGs with so called "unplayable" rules. This isn't some elite group of expert game designers, this is everyone who has ever run a D&D game anywhere.

I really don't care about pseudo-philosophical arguments about what is real D&D, and that nobody ever plays or has played the real game. Yeah I realize we're all trapped in a computer simulation like the Matrix where we think we're playing D&D but actually everything is just an imitation. I don't feel like taking Pop Psychology 101 and would prefer to get back to just discussing the real world and the games people actually play as opposed to some idealized theoretical construct.

[DSMatticus]

The point is that people can and do play D&D, Dungeon World and a ton of other RPGs with so called "unplayable" rules. This isn't some elite group of expert game designers, this is everyone who has ever run a D&D game anywhere.

No, that's not the point. The point is that when people houserule a game (which is all the time, sometimes in seemingly minor ways and sometimes in very massive overhauls) because it doesn't work or has failed in some way or just because they want to, they are no longer playing that game as it actually exists. If you play a chess variant, you are not playing chess. It's easy to see how the game you are playing is inspired by and draws from chess, but you are very clearly not playing the thing people call chess.

If a game requires houserules out of the box to be functional (say, because it makes two contradictory statements about what should happen when X occurs), then it is literally unplayable when X occurs. The game cannot actually be played. It does not have clearly or rigorously defined behavior and if it were a computer program it would throw an error at you and halt execution. But because it's played by human beings, they just houserule it on the fly and now they are playing a ____ variant instead of ____.

It's not a semantic point. It's not a trivial point in this context (silva argued that criticizing unplayable rules was a matter of taste, which is wrong given what unplayable actually means). It's not a prescriptive statement (i.e., it doesn't mean "you can't play games that don't have perfect rules!"). It's a simple factual statement about what words mean, because you and silva both used "unplayable" to mean "unfun to play" and fbmf felt like (correctly) pointing out that "unplayable" was the wrong wording and you should have said something else. And that's good, because in silva's case he is using "people have fun with bad rules; therefore bad rules can't be bad" as an argument, and that's terrible and at its most absurd leads to the aforementioned "The Best TTRPG Ever" by DSMatticus. Unplayable does not mean what silva thinks it does, nor is that level of relativism coherent. You can make 3.5 objectively worse, and you can make 3.5 objectively better. There are areas where matters of taste and preference will come into play, but those areas are not all encompassing.

[Cyberzombie]

If you play a chess variant, you are not playing chess. It's easy to see how the game you are playing is inspired by and draws from chess, but you are very clearly not playing the thing people call chess.

Right, the "thing people call chess."

When you houserule charging so it works, people call that D&D.

Nobody plays the version of 3E where the DM blue-screens whenever someone tries to charge.

This is why I made the point that houseruling is an inherent part of D&D. It is not an inherent part of chess.

[Starmaker]

But because it's played by human beings, they just houserule it on the fly and now they are playing a ____ variant instead of ____.

It's not a semantic point.

It *is* a semantic point. If you're playing a variant as soon as houserules appear, there's no playable original D&D, and there's no playable original chess. Beyond "horsies move in a squiggly line", chess variants also have rules governing how long you can think about your turn and how to measure that duration, touching/not touching pieces, outside help, the cost of participation and the prizes, etc.

And once you introduce a definition of "playing D&D" that makes "playing D&D" impossible, thus leaving these two words by themselves a null pointer, you are free to do yet another step and rename "playing a variant of D&D" to "playing D&D". That's semantics.

[DSMatticus]

If you're playing a variant as soon as houserules appear, there's no playable original D&D

"There's no playable original D&D" is a completely different statement than "there's no original D&D." You can totally make a system that explodes when asked to process certain (or all) inputs, and the fact that it explodes makes it unusable/unplayable (for those inputs), but it definitely still exists. A pointer to a function that does not actually work is not a null pointer, and changing the pointer to some other function that doesn't explode and happens to do something you like is not semantics; that is a completely different event with a completely different meaning.

[ishy]

No, that's not the point. The point is that when people houserule a game (which is all the time, sometimes in seemingly minor ways and sometimes in very massive overhauls) because it doesn't work or has failed in some way or just because they want to, they are no longer playing that game as it actually exists. If you play a chess variant, you are not playing chess. It's easy to see how the game you are playing is inspired by and draws from chess, but you are very clearly not playing the thing people call chess.

So En passant was introduced to chess in the 15th century. Were the people pre- the 15th century not playing chess, or the people post the 15th century are no longer playing chess?

- Edit: or even better. When promoting pawns, some players play by the rules that you can only promote into pieces that were taken. Others play with the rules that you can promote the pawn into any non-king piece.
Can you tell me which group is not actually playing chess, so I can go to my local chess group and tell half of them that they are playing it wrong?

But hey, at least we can now claim that no one has played D&D, ever. And with a playercount of 0, I guess we can say that no D&D edition has been successful.

[Kaelik]

Yup, I agree about D&D4. Though it doesnt have the specific play structures of the other games Ive cited (which is the kind of thing Im most interested at here).

No, it doesn't have the specific "play structures" you are interested in. Because it has actual play structures that incentivize the game they wanted people to play, where as you are interested in "play structures" that don't actually incentivize behavior, and instead just tell people to do shit willy nilly.

[silva]

I find the inclusion of games like Chess, Checkers, Risk and other boardgames interesting to the discussion, because I see them having a lot in common with the kind of RPGs I cited in the OP, which present definite playing structures (OD&D, Pendragon, Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, etc) in contrast to the vast majority of RPGs that dont (AD&D2e, D&D3.X, Runequest, Warhammer, Rolemaster, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, WoD, Gurps, Deadlands, etc).

I feel the later group is more okayish about house-ruling, customization, etc, while the former is less okayish about that.

(and I remember another RPG - if we can call it like that - with a definite playing structure akin to boardgames: Polaris)

[Username17]

Wow. The stupid false equivalence and strawmen in this thread is intense. I know you assholes know the difference between:

• Changing a rule because you think it might be more fun to play a different way.
• Changing a rule because you can't figure out what the rules actually say, and you need to come up with something to keep the game moving.
• Changing a rule because the rule as given is literally game destroying, and you have to change it or stop playing.

Furthermore, I know you assholes know the difference between:

• Changing one rule.
• Changing lots of rules.
• Changing all the rules.

Acting like there aren't differences between these things doesn't make you witty, it doesn't mean you're winning the argument by argumento absurdem, it means you're a fucking asshole. Stop shitting into vaginas.

-Username17

[silva]

No, it doesn't have the specific "play structures" you are interested in. Because it has actual play structures that incentivize the game they wanted people to play, where as you are interested in "play structures" that don't actually incentivize behavior, and instead just tell people to do shit willy nilly.

Sorry, dont understand this. What is "shit willy nilly" and how does it relates to the play structures of say, Pendragon or Sorcerer ?

Please, elaborate.

[Username17]

No, it doesn't have the specific "play structures" you are interested in. Because it has actual play structures that incentivize the game they wanted people to play, where as you are interested in "play structures" that don't actually incentivize behavior, and instead just tell people to do shit willy nilly.

Sorry, dont understand this. What is "shit willy nilly" and how does it relates to the play structures of say, Pendragon or Sorcerer ?

Please, elaborate.

OK, let's say a game has a structure that says that a character is "honorable."

• In AD&D, this is handled by the character having a "Lawful Alignment," which if the MC decides they haven't been honorable enough recently, they get hit with big experience point penalties.
• In Vampire: the Masquerade, this is handled by them having an "Honorable Nature," which if the MC notices them portraying the character behaving especially honorably, they get to refresh their Willpower.
• In Pendragon, this is handled by them having an Honor virtue number, which they have to roll under in order to take honorable actions in important scenes and have to roll over in order to take dishonorable ones.
• In postmodern games like 4e D&D, being honorable is something that has no game effects at all, and if you decide to play your character honorably or dishonorably, nothing happens.

Games can provide incentives, which can be positive (Vampire) or negative (AD&D). Games can also provide rule-based mandates (Pendragon). And of course, games can provide completely toothless pedantic instructions that have no effect on anything (4e).

-Username17