Whew, a lot of conversation has happened since I logged out, haha. Just wanted to reply to your statement, since there was obviously a lot of time spent in making it. Hopefully I can clear up some of what I was thinking, sense I have a tendency to ramble on and go off on tangents haha.
That first bit about a game with safety rules baked in was more a general question, since I was unfamiliar with a game that had incorporated it. I can see the weakness in having the design work like that, but there are some people that that would work for. That was more a statement of curiosity than a demand for a product.
And again, I’m not stanning dnd, but like RadMad pointed out in a previous interaction, what I’m more against is trojan-horsing “I don’t like x game” (whatever x is) as the end argument of what makes a game “bad”. To respond to your points, though:
1a. The comparison of “crpg but without the AI” is true of a lot of games. That isn’t unique to dnd specifically, although it happens more frequently, given the audience and size of the audience. How many times have you opened a book (usually from the 70s/80s) and it is explained as a game of “make believe but with rules”? It’s the same thing: making someone unfamiliar with a concept familiar with it. People will always try mods, regardless of designer intent, because if you are attracted to the game space, you’re probably a creative person. So you start out using a mannequin on which to hang your experiment.
1b. That sounds like a bad (or at the very least a new) player. Unless you are playing a wargame, I think a tabletop RPG is a collaborative experience that the rules facilitate. Some do this better than others. Guiding a story is not the same as railroading, as I understand it. New GMs do that because, surprise, there’s probably a thing they have prepared and they didn’t account for x or y scenario that the PCs come up with as a solution. It happens. It isn’t good, but it happens, and that is outside of the scope of the rules for a lot of games.
1c. I’m unsure what problematic scenario you’re specifically referring to here. It’s been a minute since I’ve played it, but I feel like skill challenges in 4e were intended to work that way. Now, a lot of the time that they were used, the end result was metagaming hell, where players asked “alright who has the highest x skill” and honestly that’s just bad play. But it isn’t a complete answer to the problem of lack of facilitation to collaboration, either. It’s one of the things that I wish moved onto 5e, maybe combined somehow with advantage/disadvantage, but a lot of the course correction probably meant it was too tied to that one edition and so on. Given the atmosphere that they were trying to move forward on, I can see why they would make a decision to remove something tied to that one, even if I don’t agree with it.
2a. Encounters per day doesn’t JUST mean combat, but honestly, what other resources other than HP or spell slots/powers does the game give? Again, it’s the game’s fault for outlining that and only having those things. You could say money, but that tends to be so inconsequential in the way a lot of people run the game, that honestly they could replace it with blocks of cheddar and it would work about the same haha.
2b. This sounds like a personal interest problem. Torchbearer works similarly; I think I remember a podcast where Crane even said that they took the boring part from dnd that nobody used meaningfully (meaning encumbrance) and made an entire game around it. It’s inventory math and the grind. There’s nothing wrong with just not liking dnd and not playing it (or any game for that matter). There is something wrong with actively telling people who are having a good time with it and tell them that the game they like sucks because you feel that it does. And obviously, though I wouldn’t think I’d have to bring it up, that “having fun” doesn’t include people being abusive or malicious.
Now, if it is a group that you are playing in, rather than faking a good time, it might be the opportunity to say something like “hey, I’m not digging this for x, y, or z reasons. When everything wraps up (or whenever) could we try x, y, or z game?” and teaching whatever that game is to the group. Conversation would solve a lot of problems, regarding player buy-in, or at least has in my experience. Chances are high that if you are feeling bored by certain aspects of the game, you are not the only one, depending on the size of the group. And honestly (and selfishly), speaking as a very tired GM, it’s great to get a chance to play haha.
2c. Yep, they do say that those are the three pillars. No, they are not well-balanced, or at least tend not to be in the wild. I’d argue that, from what I’ve seen/flipped through, the modules they put out do include those things in them. Whether people running those games include them or not is another discussion, but when players willingly remove things from a module, I’m not sure how responsible the publisher or designer is for that. I guess they could have them matter more, but again, people not interested won’t do them. I’d argue that powergaming is a player issue, but I can see how having the exploit in there in the first place is not great design, as well.
- I mean, given its history as coming from a wargame, it makes sense. It’s arguably gotten less simulationist as it has developed over 5 editions, but they could have definitely done some different things with it. Rob Schwalb, who was on design for part of 5e, specifically the DND Next iteration, has talked some about the development side of the game at a panel once. This was several years ago, but my memory of it is that they were moving away from the strict class/multiclass/prestige class advancement and embracing more of the 4e “paths” system (leading to the subclasses that we have now in 5e). What he described was akin to what Shadow of The Demon Lord turned out to be, where you take on traits that make sense in the course of the story, as your character develops. Instead of Fighter>Battlemaster, you could end up with Warrior>Warlock>Apocalyptist. And, I don’t know if you’ve played it, but that isn’t multiclassing, that is just the advancement of your character. But unfortunately, the design team did not ultimately choose that path, obviously haha.
For your betters list:
- Sure, I’ve said before that BW is my favorite game. No arguments there. BITs are designed purposely to push interaction and in-character drama. The math can be swingy, combat almost too lethal, etc. depending on the situation. Which you could argue is the point; getting stabbed with a longsword probably takes the piss out of someone very quickly haha.
2a. In terms of design, if you’re using dice, they still follow a curve, so anything like that is going to be swingy here and there. You can mitigate it to some extent, like with Artha, but that swing will still be there. I’d argue the attrition in this case is designed to make your spending of it part of the point, in which case scarcity and attrition IS the point of that mechanic. Otherwise it wouldn’t mean anything to spend those Artha.
2b. See above. I’d also include that “taking 20” is a similar idea in That Other Game. Maybe I’m a bad GM, but if I’m running a dnd game, and it’s something that a dnd character could do reasonably (like a character who has proficiency in thieves tools picking a lock) and there is no consequence (the room isn’t relevant to the story or no security/no one is around), yeah, I let ‘em open that lock without a roll. There’s no point in wasting table time rolling a dice to have a missed throw dampen someone’s interest. They’re interested in a section of the world that I didn’t specifically plan for, they got curious, yeah, they’re now in a room that wasn’t available to them before, and they got to use the tools of their profession, which they would reasonably be able to use in the circumstance. Based on the situation, it’s the equivalent of them asking “can I take 20?” and me saying “yes, you can” except I’ve automated it so we don’t do the break in immersion.
- I mean, I guess so. I’ve only played Fiasco 1e, at a con, when it came out and then a handful of times since then. I can say that your group dynamics still matter way more than some people would like, based on how this thread discussion has gone haha. Since there’s no GM in the game, there’s no GM fiat, but there’s opportunity for player fiat in distribution of dice. It’s swingy, but it’s also an emulation of a Coen Brothers movie, and bills itself as such. The question I would have there is “is that good design or good marketing?” Now, I don’t know if Fiasco 2e is much different, since it’s card based (or looks like it), but 1e is not my favorite game. It’s fun, I can see it being people’s favorite game, I’ve had more good times than not with it. I’d also say don’t play it at a con based on my experience with it haha.
Regarding safety tools, like other people have pointed out, yes, they aren’t perfect, but it’s a tool available to make sure everyone is having a good time, not one to be abused. And in apreche’s example, makes some situations more interesting and unique! I don’t want to belabor the point, but I wasn’t advocating against using an x-card by any stretch of the imagination, so I hope that was clear. I was saying that, in my experience, lines and veils are a more proactive way of running a group, so that’s the one I tend to default to. Throwing an X, T-ing a time out, using a stoplight, whatever you want to call it, should always be an option, especially if someone is being harmed. I’ve never seen a situation where someone was gaming a safety tool, but it seems like a discussion should be had with that player. Otherwise, like it was pointed out previously in the rules of the x-card, maybe a private conversation, taking the onus and framing it as “how can I run this situation better?” rather than “what’s your problem?” And like what apreche said, you don’t need specifics, because it’s none of your business. One of your players needs some help, so help in the least intrusive capacity that you are able to.
And I get it, that’s rough to have to do. I’m very conflict-averse in my own interpersonal life; a lot of the time, I inconvenience myself rather than disappoint someone else. That’s a very difficult conversation to have, but if you have someone throwing an X that consistently (or perhaps unclearly), then it’s definitely one that needs to happen. If they are using it to harm people, or I guess make a point about people using it “for no reason”, then like SkeleRym said, yeah, kicking them out would be my reaction. You see a lot of the edgy OSR and horror guys talking a lot about how safety tools are beside the point for their thing and horror is supposed to push buttons and whatever. Those people are assholes. Don’t be like those people. Doing that sounds like the action that one of those people would do.
As a general aside, I might be overly semantic with what people are saying or misunderstanding intent of some statements, but it seems like there’s an argument to be made that there is one game out there that is the best game, and I don’t know if there is one. I don’t intend to take the wind out of the sails of this conversation, because it has been a good discussion and I’m not intending to derail. But I don’t think that there is a way to create a bullet list of criteria that a game has to tick every single one of the boxes for. I don’t think you could even do that within genres of game. The way I am envisioning this is not necessarily a bullet list but maybe a set of overlapping Venn diagrams? Like, yes, this game has deep social interaction, which is kind of like this other game that has “survival horror” aspects, but this other one has both of things and is ALSO a sci-fi game, but without the spooky scary monsters like the first two games. I think that because roleplaying games ask for more of a personal interaction, they’re going to be more flawed and have loopholes that people exploit, etc. In some ways, some of what people have described sound more to me like a board/card game or maybe a video game than a roleplaying game, but again, that may be me misunderstanding the statements being made. I haven’t played every single game, but a lot of them definitely fall short. It’s just that some of them just fall less short than others.
.