Author Topic: The Feeling of D&D (Read 6697 times)

FlaminCows · « **on:** October 09, 2012, 01:58:26 PM »

One thing that's talked about oten, whether in designer blogs for Next or in discussions throughout the Internet, is the "feel" of D&D. When people play D&D and think about D&D, there is something else beyond mathematics and representation, something that is hard to describe. But I want you to try. What does D&D feel like to you?

Please, be as detailed as you can. Don't be afraid to ramble or rant or write wall-of text stories or whatever your mind leads you to. Anything that helps describe it will go a long way, and whatever you write will be read.

FlaminCows · « **Reply #1 on:** October 09, 2012, 01:59:04 PM »

I'll start.

Like many in my generation, I was introduced to D&D through my PC. I played a variety of games as a kid: puzzle games, racing games, strategy games, the works. The first cRPG I played was RuneScape, although that isn't what got me interested in RPGs. I used Runescape as little more than a chat program with built-in theme music and puzzles, it didn't make me 'feel' anything. What really got me into RPGs was Diablo II.

My friend recommended D2, it wasn't new so I got it cheap and installed it. I paid rapt attention to the opening cinematic, as I always did when I played strategy games before it. I chose a character (barbarian), listened to all the NPCs, got my quest, and went out of the encampment.

and It was raining.

I hadn't felt anything like that, before. The feeling of immersion, of being in a place you aren't. The simple yet well-done sprite graphics, the ambient sounds, the story, and even the action made me forget that I'm a person playing a game. I didn't get that from any game before that, and when I finished the ending cinematic I felt hollow. I could still play the game for the challenge, like any other game, and I could still play other games, but I couldn't get that feeling back, not nearly as strong.

It was years before I felt that feeling again, and each time it was fleeting. I looked for other games in the same genre and played them all, one after the other, gratuitously pirating and emulating. Some were great at creating that feeling, some weren't. I consumed fantasy fiction by the boatload. I tried finding a D&D game during that time because several of the better cRPGs had D&D's logo on it, but RPG groups are fairly scarce nowadays so it was a while before I really got to play.

When I finally got to sit on a table and play D&D (4th edition), I was disappointed. It wasn't a bad game, but it didn't give that feeling of immersion that I was looking for, the kind the best fantasy games and stories gave. It was essentially just another puzzle game. I spent some time on various online forums and, after about a dozen non-starters, played a few real games online: WFRP, AD&D, RuneQuest. Each died before the campaign was over, but at least it convinced me that tabletop RPGs could give that feeling of immersion after all. I found a FLGS and played a couple of games there too, though they weren't run in the style I've come to understand as creating that feeling. I decided that 3.5 is the closest thing to the game I wanted, and it became my game of choice ever since. There's something about the way characters are built in 3rd edition that makes me imagine them as people, and if the DM and the players run and play the game seriously it can give me that feeling of immersion, of disembodiment, that I am looking for.

I had that feeling before even Diablo, I realise, long ago. D&D, to me, feels like my mother reading stories of old Russian legends, while an early autumn rainstorm beats against the window. The window is slightly open, not enough that the floor gets wet but enough that the sound of the wind and rain gets through.

(click to show/hide)

I won't ever be as good of a storyteller as Pushkin, yet I find that the act of building the character and making the character's decisions serve the same purpose: making you think like you're there. That, to me, is what feels like D&D.

I mostly DM now, for a small group of friends. I won't pretend I'm good at it, but DMs are scarce, and DMs that run the way I prefer are scarcer. Most DMs seem to run joke-filled humour campaigns or short strategy combat games, both of which are fine ways to enjoy the game but don't give me that feeling of D&D.

Prime32 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 12, 2012, 10:45:22 AM »

I think one of the best ways to find the feel of D&D is through the filter of things based on/inspired by it (which are all feel and no mechanics), and watch for things which the mechanics would contradict. Note that official D&D/FR/etc. novels aren't a great source for this since the writers are forced to stick more closely to the mechanics as part of their contract; you're actually better off if the writer doesn't know the rules that well, since they'll go with whatever feels most natural.

Looking at Slayers, and some notable things it has:

The party consists of three spellcasters and one mundane, but each of the spellcasters specialises in different fields, meaning they still fall into the roles of blaster wizard (focuses on Black Magic and Elemental Shamanism), cleric (focuses on White Magic and Astral Shamanism) and skill-monkey/BFC (focuses on Elemental and Astral Shamanism, has a bunch of mundane skills). They are also briefly joined by a caster who is completely specialised in shield and healing spells; while she can cast basic blasts, they're too weak to actually inflict damage.
Area spells produce knockback. Allies never get caught in them unless it's dramatically appropriate (or funny).
Spells don't use up any of the caster's personal energy, and a reasonably skilled spellcaster could cast spells non-stop for an hour without getting tired. There are only two spells in the series which cause the protagonist to become physically drained, and both of them are unique to her (one is a sword that can cut anything even dimensional barriers, the other is a plot device).
Everyone in the party can wield a sword proficiently (except for one character who prefers their fists), but the fighter type knows all kinds of parries, feints and improvised attacks, with the skill-monkey being almost as good. Astral Shamanism contains spells which enchant weapons to let them harm spiritual beings, used by the cleric and skill-monkey. Conversely most NPC spellcasters don't have much martial training, since they're not adventurers.
The party fighter has an obscenely powerful ancestral weapon that can destroy ghosts and high-level demons, absorb enemy magic and fire it back at them, and extend in length to strike large numbers of enemies at once. When one of the spellcasters use it, their lack of martial ability means they can use the first function (since it's passive) but not the others.
Treasure is plentiful, but all magic items fall into either "weak utility item anyone could make" or "artefact". The party's only magic items are the Sword of Light above, and a set of magic-boosting talismans which were treated as a major upgrade to the protagonist. When the Sword of Light was lost, the fighter found an equally powerful weapon to replace it.

Unbeliever · « **Reply #3 on:** October 12, 2012, 11:12:40 AM »

Nothing in FlaminCows post strikes me as particularly D&D-esque. All that stuff about dialogue and immersion applies to any good RPG, I think. I do think that 4E probably went a little too far in one direction by making combat so much of the focus (I'm mostly thinking about how non-combat spells got relegated to Rituals and how skills got squished into being less open-ended), but that's totally debatable.

I think the core conceits of D&D are probably pretty straightforward. Some people, notably D&D designers, will point out things like class roles and what have you. But, I think as we have all seen, you can play a perfectly recognizable D&D game while breaking down all those preconceived notions. Very few of my campaigns nowadays consist of Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Thief (probably b/c we don't have that many players), and they all feel very D&Dish to me. Likewise, some of the great settings like Planescape or Dark Sun (or Diablo, for that matter, which I've always thought would make a great setting for a D&D game, they both share the same DNA to be sure) do away with the common fantasy conventions of elves, et al.

I think the essence of D&D is a high action/adventure game with an emphasis on character advancement and rewards (XP and treasure) and fighting monsters. Pregenerated villains, who are often interesting and certainly in abundance, is one of D&D's big selling points as a game.

Various pieces of the rules support this. For example, between combat healing is very easy in D&D, as is healing in general, meaning that PCs can get into a bunch of scrapes in a short period of time. That emphasizes the high action quality of the game. A grittier system (for lack of a better term), one that more accurately simulated GRRM's Game of Thrones, would not work. After each combats half the PCs would have to spend a month recuperating from broken arms, etc. Likewise, other great games don't focus as much on character advancement (e.g., M&M).

I'll agree with Prime32 on D&D novels being a pretty terrible source to work from. I recently listened to a Dragonlance book on tape out of idle curiosity and ... well, yeah ...

Bauglir · « **Reply #4 on:** October 16, 2012, 01:15:25 AM »

I've never played pre-3.5, so take this with a grain of salt. My feeling is that you need to have:

Monsters to be killed for
Magical loot, most of which isn't exactly unique,
As a group with
Different, specialized, roles (though the Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Thief paradigm need not define them),
In an open-ended environment that doesn't require One Right Answer to every problem,
Governed by a fixed RNG with special results on the caps (in this case, the d20, with critical hits and, optionally, critical fumbles),
In a high fantasy setting.

Libertad · « **Reply #5 on:** October 16, 2012, 01:24:29 AM »

"Does this game have Dungeons? Does this game have Dragons? If so, then I wanna play this game!"

~The Dungeon Bastard

veekie · « **Reply #6 on:** October 16, 2012, 03:17:15 AM »

Quote from: Prime32 on October 12, 2012, 10:45:22 AM

I think one of the best ways to find the feel of D&D is through the filter of things based on/inspired by it (which are all feel and no mechanics), and watch for things which the mechanics would contradict. Note that official D&D/FR/etc. novels aren't a great source for this since the writers are forced to stick more closely to the mechanics as part of their contract; you're actually better off if the writer doesn't know the rules that well, since they'll go with whatever feels most natural.

This really does the trick. The reflected image of D&D captures the feel more closely than the actual rules and scenarios, because that is the idealized image of D&D that sparked of legions of derivative media. Particularly for rules-free media, they can cleave to that feel without being constrained.

What I get out of that:
-The spirit of adventure, of going out and doing something. Whether lighthearted or serious, the whole point is the activity. Skipping to the outcome is something that results from flaws in the system.
-Teamwork, you have a group of strange people with different special skills, putting it all together to succeed. Whether it's simply from a combined force beatdown or more involved collaborations, you are a team. Possibly more importantly, everyone needs someone else to do things they cannot. Though these 'things' can be pretty lame.
-Heroes of legend and their iconic gear. Less the regalia of magic items, they may or may not be present, but everyone has their Thing of Power/Plot.
-Weird people and weird things. The heroes are strange people ,and they regularly handle things ordinary people cannot. They aren't necessarily good at making or keeping money, or even ordinary life, but their expertise lies in the things nobody else can nor WANTS to do.
-Flexibility in development, you can be whatever combination fits you best.
-Pseudo-organic growth. Characters develop in ways which have a fairly close approximation to the fluff's training 'path'. Where possible, things develop on origin traits(like physical strength) as opposed to resultant traits(like attack bonuses).

Most of that has only a passing acquaintance with the rules though. it's how the rules fit together, and what they encourage/allow. Some of that even works against game balance and precedent rules. Feel is not logical.

Agrippa · « **Reply #7 on:** October 16, 2012, 11:09:25 PM »

I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time talking about what I think the feeling of D&D is, yet. With that said I have noticed quite a few people linking it with picaresque adventure. That's not how I think D&D is at it's core, aside from lacking an overarching plot, which seems to be a common part of tabletop RPGs in general.

veekie · « **Reply #8 on:** October 17, 2012, 01:29:28 AM »

It happens to be the way a lot of people play. Makes sense that it would be their feel of how D&D works. The metrics I described above only covers 'Feel as experienced by derivative works', which granted helps reinforce and concentrate that feel, making it common to a lot of people. The game itself is an interaction between many factors, player types, DM styles, favorite media, etc all changes that.

kitep · « **Reply #9 on:** October 17, 2012, 02:08:41 AM »

To me, one of the feels is ..... leveling up.

I've played other RPGs, where you get some points after each adventure and little by little your character becomes a little better (eg Champions, Torg). Or after a campaign, you get to roll vs skills you used to see if you improve (eg, Cthulu). But after the improvements, you still basically the same, just a little better. Even after a year of playing, you're still playing basically the same character. But in D&D, leveling up is a big event. And you can tell a big difference between a 10th level character vs a 1st level character. But I may be biased since I like playing wizards, and gaining a new spell level is a big event

Scottzar · « **Reply #10 on:** October 17, 2012, 03:14:55 AM »

To me D&D is about the mechanics and optimisation. 4th ed had simpler CO, and 1st and 2nd had high reliance on DM fiat, but in all of them there are clear choices which are better, and there are character path lines which are roughly equivalent in power.

If you want mechanical coherency, balance, or good settings with fitting fluff, D&D isn't perfect, and there are a number of better (generally free, because homebrew is actually balanced a fair amount) systems to choose from. But none of them give you optimisation as D&D knows it.

Dkonen · « **Reply #11 on:** October 17, 2012, 02:50:03 PM »

I'm admittedly very picky about my DMs, and I try to run in a fashion like that which I demand. That being said, my biggest sense of immersion comes from choice.

I find it extremely hard to feel that a character is "real" if they're handed a set of "no you can't do that" for no other reason than 1-the DM says so or 2-the book says so. This more often comes up in modules and with railroading sorts, but there are rules sets that act much in the same way, and I find 4th to be one of those.

I do understand that there are reasons for a mechanic to be built the way it is, but I'm not terribly kind on half built/completed rules sets, which I feel 4th always was.

It also fell into the lack of choice. Characters felt too similar, choice was marginalized, it felt like there was no difference what you played, it was merely a copy of something else. It's very hard to have immersion with a personal character if you're always aware of the fact that it's merely the same build as x,y and z, or does the exact same things as A, B and C, just with a coat of paint slapped over it.

Characters can have personal identities, but if they're too similar, it feels contrived and seriously breaks immersion for me. I'm spending more time trying to figure out why character A is different from character B, given that they have the same toolbox available, the abilities are just refluffed to appear different. I feel like I'm being cheated or lied to, and whomever is doing the lying/cheating doesn't think too much of my intelligence, given that they must have thought I wouldn't notice that it's the exact same character if you look beyond the surface. I guess it becomes a stained shirt for me. I know it's there, and I see it, and even if noone else notices, it drives me up the wall and constantly distracts me.

I played 2nd, I cracked the books on 4th (the core set did make it as far as our living room-then lived in the car until we could find a place that would take them back as an exchange), and I'll stay with 3.x. We're running 3.P now, but it's more like pathfinder for some of the streamlining, with all 3.x as source.

Each character I play, each NPC I make, with the wealth of material available, is unique, and not just a version of build A with a fresh coat of paint. There are a huge amount of choices I can follow for character development and I have yet to find myself struggling to reason away why a character wouldn't do something that fits their personality because the rules don't allow for it.

I did find this issue with 2nd, even after the kits and handbooks came out, but a lot of that was fixed with 3.x, I find that the system allows for an elegant integration of just about anything. Not having to patently ignore the fourth wall constraints adds a lot to the "feel" of D&D for me.

Lord Slasher · « **Reply #12 on:** October 22, 2012, 05:04:22 PM »

Quote from: Libertad on October 16, 2012, 01:24:29 AM

"Does this game have Dungeons? Does this game have Dragons? If so, then I wanna play this game!"

~The Dungeon Bastard

This, plus I don't believe in this whole "Feel of D&D" thing that Wizards is throwing around. It just sounds like wizards code phrase for "Were throwing 4th edition (And Tome of Battle) under the bus."

Endarire · « **Reply #13 on:** October 24, 2012, 04:35:47 AM »

To me, I demand these things from D&D. More things = better:

-Real player and character choice! This allows me to be stupid and silly. Just react to it! If you're the GM, don't give me the feeling of, "Are you sure you want to do that?" Just react to it!

-Let me make the character I want. It's not my modus operandi to make my teammates suck compared to my uber character. I just know the rules and want to use my many, many books and my many years of study! If I'm being told "no" regarding something related to character creation, there had better be a good reason for it. (Usually because, seriously, it's too good, or there's a heavy story reason behind it.)

-Let my abilities work! Houserule, book, online article or otherwise; however an ability is described as working, let it work that way!

-I want an immersive, complicated story! I've played my fill of games that don't ask difficult questions of me as a player or a character. I've played games that have a tolerable story or otherwise don't let me get fully into the game, and I feel cheated because it's such a missed opportunity!

-I want GMs and fellow players that care! D&D is a social game. I know reality has a variety of distractions. I know people have other desires. Still, I expect that players and GMs will care about their creations and work on them outside of game time, and I expect people to be focused on the game during game time!

veekie · « **Reply #14 on:** October 24, 2012, 05:23:01 AM »

Quote from: Lord Slasher on October 22, 2012, 05:04:22 PM

Quote from: Libertad on October 16, 2012, 01:24:29 AM
"Does this game have Dungeons? Does this game have Dragons? If so, then I wanna play this game!"

~The Dungeon Bastard
This, plus I don't believe in this whole "Feel of D&D" thing that Wizards is throwing around. It just sounds like wizards code phrase for "Were throwing 4th edition (And Tome of Battle) under the bus."

There is actually a "Feel of D&D", the thing is that this feel is an individualized experience. You cannot build a Feel by simply averaging what the fanbase would like, it is more like chemistry than physics, in that lots of things are reacting in a complex manner, and all you can see is the end product, which can be arrived at through a crazy elaborate process.

FlaminCows · « **Reply #15 on:** October 24, 2012, 11:10:13 PM »

Quote from: veekie on October 24, 2012, 05:23:01 AM

There is actually a "Feel of D&D", the thing is that this feel is an individualized experience. You cannot build a Feel by simply averaging what the fanbase would like, it is more like chemistry than physics, in that lots of things are reacting in a complex manner, and all you can see is the end product, which can be arrived at through a crazy elaborate process.

This, exactly this. Its why I made this thread, actually: to find out how it feels for other people. It is easy enough to find people trying to divine or arrange or calculate how D&D is "supposed" to feel like; what is really difficult to learn how it does feel like already, from the perspective of gamers other than myself.

The first few replies kind of missed the point. Not in a bad way, though: it is still very insightful! For example, Prime32's post tells me how other authors see the feel of D&D, but it doesn't tell me what D&D makes Prime32 feel. It isn't about what tropes or mechanics are essential for a proper D&D edition, either. I guess another way to describe what I was asking is "What gets you to keep playing D&D? Why do you love it? What is the emotional boost that you get from D&D that makes it something you enjoy?"

I didn't quite get the answers I wanted, but it was still an interesting read.

veekie · « **Reply #16 on:** October 25, 2012, 01:11:18 AM »

Oh but the tropes and mechanics DO go into the big melting pot that makes a game worth playing. Where a mechanics hinders or aids(even 'bad' mechanics like double 20 supercriticals), all these things help to build and erode tempos for given types of games. At what point does wacky lethality become drama ruining or "oh no kenny died again!", even just how things work(augmented autoattack vs instanced abilities like strikes and spells).

Precisely because it's a composite factor, you should consider all the things going into it. Nobody would be really fully aware of their own preferred compound.

FlaminCows · « **Reply #17 on:** October 25, 2012, 01:16:59 AM »

Quote from: veekie on October 25, 2012, 01:11:18 AM

Oh but the tropes and mechanics DO go into the big melting pot that makes a game worth playing.

Of course they do. That still doesn't make this thread about what tropes or mechanics are "essential for a D&D edition". I'm not asking what D&D should be, I'm asking what it is. To you.

veekie · « **Reply #18 on:** October 25, 2012, 02:09:06 AM »

That is what most replies meant. To many the mechanics and tropes(individually or combined) are the game.

Unbeliever · « **Reply #19 on:** October 25, 2012, 02:26:12 AM »

As I indicated in my initial post, there are things that I believe are iconic to D&D, things that separate it apart from other RPGs. I do think, however, that too many of the posts in this thread have been about RPGs in general, rather than about the key features that separate D&D from other games. That is, things that if were taken out of the game would make it seem "not-D&D" to me at least.

That being said, I do think that when the D&D Next team is throwing the term around they are using it as either an excuse or a fig leaf to justify their kind of dartboard approach to mechanics.

News:

Author Topic: The Feeling of D&D (Read 6697 times)