D&D, revisited (long)

[Filip Luszczyk]

Simon,

As for the stakes, they do need to be explicit, and tying them to escalation seems a good way to deal with it. Since I don't want to affect the game balance too much, and I need to have some consequences for retreating from conflict anyway, I could present an opportunity for escalation when the group retreats. E.g. players could choose between forfeiting the conflict without resolution (some kind of impasse) on "retreat" or coming back to the conflict after refreshment (a functional equivalent of going back to nearby town for healing). In the latter case, in order to continue with the conflict, a new approach would be needed and the stakes would have to be increased or the consequences of a failure be worsened (possibly, an additional element from the relationships/interests map would have to be included in the stakes).

WRT alignment, I'm struggling to see how, without mechanically reinforcing the idea, you're going to get a significant difference from the existing D&D mechanic.

I'd say it's more about a System (as in Big Model) change than a change in the mechanics. I can see how alignment can be used in a different way than it's supposed to be, but without changing all the class prerequisites and other mechanical dependencies. In vanilla D&D, as I understand it, alignment serves as an indication for the player how to role-play the character (a convenient guideline when incidentally some tough decision needs to be made - basically, the alignment decides for the player). In practice, I remember two approaches to alignment from our games. We either:

a). ignored it completely.

or

b). role-played characters according to our personal interpretations.

In both cases, depending on the GM, we've been sometimes reminded that we don't role-play our characters accurately enough. For example, I've been playing a neutral good character in the Sunless Citadel. Our group made a treaty with the kobolds there, and attacked goblins, killing most of their warriors. The remaining goblin warriors barricaded themselves in some room to protect their non-combatants. I convinced the rest of the party that no more bloodshed is needed, intimidated goblins, tied them, and forced them to go to the town with me. There, I've left them with the surprised local cleric, asking him to take care of little savages and teach them to stop their violent ways. Some sessions later, passing through the village, my character had quite a sense of achievement watching how the goblins work for the good of the community (in fact, being chained and forced to do slave labour on the fields). The thing is, although the deeds and reactions of my character were fitting to the neutral good alignment in my opinion, the GM asked me to changed my alignment to true neutral for some reason.

So, what I'm thinking about I see as turning the system upside down, from

objective alignment definition > player's decisions > character deeds

to

player's decisions > character deeds > objective alignment definition

The second process seems more natural to me, as I've never really enjoyed accurately role-playing my characters according to some predefined outside guidelines. Of course, it won't work if the group is not on the same page about it, or simply cares not.

Callan,

Pity the other didn't work. Try downloading it yet? It's a fun shoot em up.

I suppose it won't install well on Linux anyway, and the only thing I'm getting in my browser is a blank page, even after quite a long wait. Too bad - judging from screens it looks fun (the shopping screen draws my attention). Still, looking at the screens, maybe I could relate it to my experiences with Metal Slug, or Raptor maybe?

In terms of comparing achievements - don't know how to phrase this - can you see the author of the game? Or can you only see the game world? Do you engage the game only thinking of the game, or engage it with some thought that the author laid down this challenge?

I think I can see neither the game world or the author of the challenge there, but only the challenge. Unless by "game world" you specifically understand a 6x6 field of squares with some movement blocking lines, a pawn I can move around and another pawn that follows it. It's different when I play a game with some actual story in the background or graphically rich environment (it gives me a sense of there actually being some broader world there, however illusory it is). I suppose even if the explorer was explicitly named Indiana or Alan Quartermain or something in the game, I'd look at it from a different angle. But in the game as it is, I see no more "game world" than in chess.

Actually, I recall that at some point, I've been wondering whether the stages are randomly generated or maybe randomly selected, as it occurred to me the stage setup changes (hmm, so maybe I've been paying attention to the author after all, if you'd consider it this way).

From the accounts I've seen, that right is then itself used to change the story. The right is still just a means to an end.

Dunno. My experiences with Capes say that most of the time the right is used either to affect other players through the story (e.g. a more elaborate way of taunting, bribing, or saying "pwned, me rulez" - the story isn't an end in such case, anyway) or to express what everyone already expects (to the point when it could be collaboratively narrated just as well). At least, this is how it was looking like in the groups I've been playing with, and since it was fun that way, I suppose we've been playing "correctly".

What value do you see in the D&D powergaming fest? I'm not saying there isn't any to be had, my story is to show one aught to be careful with that beloved old harpy, D&D.

The whole D&D character optimization thing is not possible without classes, feats, magic items and all, and I dig it (well, try to optimize a D&D character not using D&D ). Also, I find D&D combat engaging. So, it's all about playing this specific game, only experimenting with some twists. Otherwise, I'd simply go for DitV, which has all the twists, pretty tactical conflicts and less complexity.

[Filip Luszczyk]

Hmm, I've just realised that I'm making mental circles thinking about Capes and the place of story in it. I find it amazing how the game manages to turn story into a form of currency, and pumps it through the whole flow. No wonder I have problems pinpointing its place - it circulates constantly, so to say Oddly enough, now I'm starting to look at player's interests in the game the same way. It's a fricking self-perpetuating hydraulic system!

[jerry]

Hey, Filip. Just a quick note on map elements. The question of whether or not map elements need to have a mechanical purpose, will, I think, get to the heart of what your purpose is in using D&D for this experiment. In some forms of D&D, they'll have to, or there isn't any emotional attachment to them.

You might look at Adam Dray's Character Bonds. Dray allows players to buy emotional attachments using experience points.

For setting stakes in a D&D-like game, you might also look at Donjon. Basically, success or failure determines whose version of the future is drawn forward.

[Callan S.]

Hi Filip,

Yeah, your experiences with metal slug would be good (for others, its an arcade game where your a gun bunny commando with a hell of a lot of enemies to shoot). And you played raptor? The one where your a mercenary flying a jet!? Cool, that was a favorite of mine at the time and still is a bit, any account is welcome

I think I can see neither the game world or the author of the challenge there, but only the challenge.

Ah. I get you on not seeing the game world - its bare bones, like a chess board I agree.

Okay, this is how I see it (I'm defining a different use of the word 'challenge' here) - there can't be a challenge by itself, absent of anyone having thrown down that challenge. It's like a get well card - if no one sends you a get well card, it isn't a get well card, it's just some cardboard with get well written on it. Without the human element of someone sending it to you, it is not a get well card.

I think the same applies to challenge (as I define it here), in that if no one sends you the challenge, it is NOT a challenge - its just a piece of cardboard with challenge written on it. Or a disk with some data written on it. The human element is essential if it is to be a challenge.

Now another use of the word challenge that I could recognise is, well, when I was younger we'd go out on the weekends and walk the dogs in various rugged areas. We did a lot of poking around in swampy ponds with sticks, looking for tadpoles and other bits of life. In fact there was quite an art to hunting down the right wet places and looking through them.

I think one use of D&D can be like working through a pool, using various techniques while looking for funky signs of life. But while the techniques can be quite complicated and even hard to complete, they do not fit my definition of challenge (where the human element is essential)

That said and assuming some amount of mutual ground,

The whole D&D character optimization thing is not possible without classes, feats, magic items and all, and I dig it (well, try to optimize a D&D character not using D&D ). Also, I find D&D combat engaging. So, it's all about playing this specific game, only experimenting with some twists. Otherwise, I'd simply go for DitV, which has all the twists, pretty tactical conflicts and less complexity.

I think those 'twists' are part of the 'pool' exploration. Do you want to share that exploration with others - cause your working out how to switch the mechanics to social conflict here, when it might actually be fun to make that the point of play - play would be to work out how to do the switch with friends. You don't even have to get to playing the switched rules, the switching may be fun enough itself.

[Filip Luszczyk]

Jerry,

You might look at Adam Dray's Character Bonds. Dray allows players to buy emotional attachments using experience points.

Well, however interesting these might look, when it comes to d20 I'm rather wary about adding additional layer of complex rules to the game, especially if they can potentially mess with balance. What I'm currently considering is actually getting rid of carrying capacity altogether and treating map elements as repositories for items and gold. After every encounter players will have to distribute their loot between map elements, in the form of gold, fame, emotions or whatever they want to have invested in a given element. Acquiring new items will later require some interaction with these elements (e.g. visiting a home town and talking with the significant other there in order to cash in emotion points invested in these elements and exchange them for being given a new sword). Losing in a conflict in which an element is at stake will cost the player either all stuff invested in it, or some part. I'll probably allow carrying some small amount of items that have any mechanical use or are otherwise important (aside from the equipped items, that is). However, it certainly won't be possible to carry gold and equivalents around between encounters. In our games carrying capacity was rarely an important factor anyway, and such approach lets me add some mechanical value to the map elements (as currency repositories to be protected) by affecting only a bit more than color.

Then, I can toy with session structure, e.g. for every encounter give players a choice between deciding on its CR or the map element at stake, with the GM deciding on the other thing.

Callan,

Yeah, your experiences with metal slug would be good (for others, its an arcade game where your a gun bunny commando with a hell of a lot of enemies to shoot). And you played raptor? The one where your a mercenary flying a jet!? Cool, that was a favorite of mine at the time and still is a bit, any account is welcome

Raptor I've been playing as a kid, and I don't remember it well - but I recall I really liked the shopping feature, and it motivated me to try accumulating as much cash as possible in every mission.

Metal Slug is a different matter - I've been playing it a lot with my friends in the last years. Now, none of us was hardcore enough to complete any part of the game without losing a whole lot of lives, so we've been using free play option and we've been paying attention to lives only when it came to comparing who tends to die more often. There was some amount of competition when it came to scoring points, too (playing alone, I didn't pay attention to the score at all). Still, I'd say the main point of play was exploring the environment for us - there was enough crazy stuff in the game's stages to keep us interested for a long time, and with every game we've been discovering new fun details.

I think the same applies to challenge (as I define it here), in that if no one sends you the challenge, it is NOT a challenge - its just a piece of cardboard with challenge written on it. Or a disk with some data written on it. The human element is essential if it is to be a challenge.

You mean, the presence of the challenge creator's as a person, in some way? Cause, it seems to me that the fact every game is authored by someone out there is one of those things so obvious they are generally simply taken as a given and not thought about. Disks alone don't write the data on themselves, just as get well cards are unable to send themselves alone, after all. There can't be no human element.

I think those 'twists' are part of the 'pool' exploration. Do you want to share that exploration with others - cause your working out how to switch the mechanics to social conflict here, when it might actually be fun to make that the point of play - play would be to work out how to do the switch with friends. You don't even have to get to playing the switched rules, the switching may be fun enough itself.

Hmm, not really. I want to provide enough structure so that we wouldn't have to spend play time figuring out how to do the switching in the first place. The specific color reinterpretations I can leave for play itself, but I want to make sure there will be enough skeleton already present to weave the reinterpretations around, so that we could focus on actually playing the thing without stumbling on some potential problems in the middle of the session. If the switching was my priority, I could just as well stop at this thread here, as I wouldn't need actual play at all - the mental exercise would be enough, as AP wouldn't be much more. But then, as I already stated, I'm not interested in art for art's sake (e.g. as far as the activist's example goes, I suspect the interest of people involved ended on the switching part, and I doubt there was any reason for them to continue play once the switching was done).

[Callan S.]

I think the same applies to challenge (as I define it here), in that if no one sends you the challenge, it is NOT a challenge - its just a piece of cardboard with challenge written on it. Or a disk with some data written on it. The human element is essential if it is to be a challenge.

You mean, the presence of the challenge creator's as a person, in some way? Cause, it seems to me that the fact every game is authored by someone out there is one of those things so obvious they are generally simply taken as a given and not thought about. Disks alone don't write the data on themselves, just as get well cards are unable to send themselves alone, after all. There can't be no human element.

Well, with a get well card, if you ignore who sent it or don't care who sent it, it's just some cardboard with get well written on it. There's no way the sender of the card can force you to recognise the human element (by what they write on the card or what card they choose, etc).

Hmm, not really. I want to provide enough structure so that we wouldn't have to spend play time figuring out how to do the switching in the first place. The specific color reinterpretations I can leave for play itself, but I want to make sure there will be enough skeleton already present to weave the reinterpretations around, so that we could focus on actually playing the thing without stumbling on some potential problems in the middle of the session. If the switching was my priority, I could just as well stop at this thread here, as I wouldn't need actual play at all - the mental exercise would be enough, as AP wouldn't be much more. But then, as I already stated, I'm not interested in art for art's sake (e.g. as far as the activist's example goes, I suspect the interest of people involved ended on the switching part, and I doubt there was any reason for them to continue play once the switching was done).

So figuring out the switch would take time and be a problem? What if it didn't take time and didn't turn into a problem, would you want to share its creation then?

If not, is there something your trying to get to, beyond just switching stuff around? Like a group switch would just get in the way of that thing?

For instance, if I wanted to run a gamist or narativist game, I'm not going to do a bunch of setting switching stuff as part of play - I'll have a question or questions in mind and will outline them in advance of play. That way whoever does want to turn up, just gets into those questions and doesn't smudge or overwrite the questions while switching around the game world.

[Filip Luszczyk]

Callan,

So figuring out the switch would take time and be a problem? What if it didn't take time and didn't turn into a problem, would you want to share its creation then?

Dunno, maybe, but not with this. As far as play is concerned, I'm not interested in centering it around the switch here. Color reinterpretations can be left for play, but I'd prefer to have the general concept determined before.

If not, is there something your trying to get to, beyond just switching stuff around? Like a group switch would just get in the way of that thing?

Well, I outlined these in the first post. I'm aiming for a 5-6 session mini-campaign of D&D, in which physical combat wouldn't be the default solution for dealing with problems (but without getting rid of all the engaging tactical combat stuff or affecting game balance by adding additional subsystems), and that would have more dramatic and emotional charge. The whole color switch is just a means to an end here, and as far as mechanical changes are concerned I'm careful not to change things that make D&D play as it plays (on the level of mechanical choices, that is). So,  think my goals are different than the goals of those hippie activists' players, and focusing on the switch in the first place could get in the way.

In fact, I think that what I want to do is quite similar to changing the setting in D&D. With a change of setting from, say, Forgotten Realms to Planescape the game feels completely different, but still plays the same.