OSR vs. Fantasy Heartbreaker

[Talakeal]

What is the difference between those terms? They both seem to refer to the same sort of game, but one comes with a positive connotation vs. the other a negative.

Both games seem to be "An older edition of D&D, only better!"

The only real difference is that an OSR game embraces this role, while a heartbreaker tries to find its own identity. But surely the motivation of the author can't have that big on impact on the quality of the game, can it?


Is the term Fantasy Heartbreaker just outdated? Back in the 2E and 3E days you would compete against TSR / WOTC and their imitators, while now the only edition of D&D that is in print is the extremely "gamist" 4E, which is a VERY different game from any of the Indy fantasy games I have seen. Will this change with the eventual release of Next?

[Frozen_Feet]

I'd say a lot of OSR games double as fantasy heartbreakers. The difference is that the former seems to have formed into sort-of unified front of retrogaming, while the latter was just a lot of newbie game designers stumbling in the dark.

[Airk]

What is the difference between those terms? They both seem to refer to the same sort of game, but one comes with a positive connotation vs. the other a negative.

Both games seem to be "An older edition of D&D, only better!"

The only real difference is that an OSR game embraces this role, while a heartbreaker tries to find its own identity. But surely the motivation of the author can't have that big on impact on the quality of the game, can it?


Is the term Fantasy Heartbreaker just outdated? Back in the 2E and 3E days you would compete against TSR / WOTC and their imitators, while now the only edition of D&D that is in print is the extremely "gamist" 4E, which is a VERY different game from any of the Indy fantasy games I have seen. Will this change with the eventual release of Next?

The terms ARE dated - to some extent, the idea of a "fantasy heartbreaker" requires that you try to publish & sell it in an old model that basically dooms you to lost money (Rather, than, say, getting it up as a PDF for five bucks on DriveThruRPG or something). At this point, to some extent, you can't have a TRUE "fantasy heartbreaker" because you're not going to be paying thousands of dollars to get a bunch of books printed that will then sit in your basement because no one orders them.

But there are also fundamental differences in the way the games are built. You're looking at this on too shallow a level. As I understand it, the meat of the difference lies in the understanding of the craft, and therefore the ability to make informed decisions that support a specific gaming style.

OSR games are designed with an understanding of the desired game type (Generally, a sort of gamist/simulationist hybrid with a strong emphasis on fairness and no interest in story or drama except as it arises through random chance), and the kinds of design decisions that need to be made to bring about that kind of game. They will also generally have rules designed to move things along as elegantly as possible while maintaining a moderate degree of 'crunch'. They generally don't come with any particular setting. These are games by people who know a lot about games who are designing to a specific end.

"Fantasy Heartbreaker" games are instead approaching this from the other side - looking at D&D, without really understanding on a conscious level what kind of game they want to play, and saying "Well, D&D would be better if only it did X, Y and not Z.". So the creator ends up making a game which is D&D with X, Y and Z changed, but without really understanding -why- they changed those things, what effect it has, and what other changes might also support that type of game. They also tend to be ignorant of the advances in game design that are already out there. Sometimes they even arrive at the same conclusions, and then think "This clever idea that no one has ever thought of before will draw people to my game" when, in fact, that idea has been out there and improved upon and used by games for half a decade. These games are usually created by people who've only played D&D, and maybe some D&D Alikes (GURPs, Palladium, lots of others) and concluded that they represent all their is to know about in the field of RPGs.

[Knaight]

I'd say that the biggest difference is that fantasy heartbreakers tend to be big original creations that the makers poured their heart into - but they clearly only played D&D and as such they aren't actually remotely original. The OSR movement consists either of complete retroclones or old style games, usually written by people who actually have some idea of other RPGs.

Basically, what makes a Fantasy Heartbreaker a Fantasy Heartbreaker is that it was a big ambitious project that someone poured their heart and their work into, that still manages to be a D&D clone because that is all the authors knew.

[Airk]

I'd say that the biggest difference is that fantasy heartbreakers tend to be big original creations that the makers poured their heart into - but they clearly only played D&D and as such they aren't actually remotely original. The OSR movement consists either of complete retroclones or old style games, usually written by people who actually have some idea of other RPGs.

Basically, what makes a Fantasy Heartbreaker a Fantasy Heartbreaker is that it was a big ambitious project that someone poured their heart and their work into, that still manages to be a D&D clone because that is all the authors knew.

Pretty much what I was trying to say, only much more succinct. Good show sir.

[WbtE]

I'd say that the biggest difference is that fantasy heartbreakers tend to be big original creations that the makers poured their heart into - but they clearly only played D&D and as such they aren't actually remotely original. The OSR movement consists either of complete retroclones or old style games, usually written by people who actually have some idea of other RPGs.

Basically, what makes a Fantasy Heartbreaker a Fantasy Heartbreaker is that it was a big ambitious project that someone poured their heart and their work into, that still manages to be a D&D clone because that is all the authors knew.

Agreed. There's also a difference in pitch. An OSR says, "This is how I play D&D, you might learn something from it." A Fantasy Heartbreaker declares, "This is the best way to play fantasy games, I just know it!"

[Loki_42]

I think they're two different things. To me, a Fantasy Heartbreaker is any D&D killer, whereas OSR is distinctly old-school. You can have an OSR Fantasy Heartbreaker, but the terms are different.

I think games like Legend or 13th Age or hell, even Pathfinder are Fantasy Heartbreakers, while also decidedly not being OSR.

[kyoryu]

I'd say that the biggest difference is that fantasy heartbreakers tend to be big original creations that the makers poured their heart into - but they clearly only played D&D and as such they aren't actually remotely original. The OSR movement consists either of complete retroclones or old style games, usually written by people who actually have some idea of other RPGs.

Basically, what makes a Fantasy Heartbreaker a Fantasy Heartbreaker is that it was a big ambitious project that someone poured their heart and their work into, that still manages to be a D&D clone because that is all the authors knew.

Fantastic way of putting it.

I'd also say that a heartbreaker is a game that actually *does* have something interesting in it (hence the heartbreaking), but is weighed down with D&D assumptions that *do not fit*, rather than working from first principles. This means that the actual cool stuff in the game gets buried and diluted.

I'd also say that many heartbreakers are attempts, at some level, to "fix" D&D. OSR games, at most, will attempt to "clean up" D&D.

[Segev]

Mild nitpick, but GURPS is in no way a D&D-alike. It actually does fantasy rather poorly, in my experience, and is a points-based system with a completely different resolution mechanic.


I also don't know what "OSR" stands for; could somebody please enlighten me?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Ron Edward's essay (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/) is foundational to the meaning of the term; I think it's where it originated? The idea of it, though, is that a fantasy heartbreaker is an attempt to innovate on D&D (or another traditional, older fantasy RPG) by taking its basic skeleton and introducing a wild new design element to change things up. Heartbreakers might also tout elements as innovative when they've actually been around in other games for years.

I would agree that it stems from not understanding how D&D works, and that you'd be better off writing from scratch and reading/playing other games to understand what's out there and what's been done.

OSR (Old School Renaissance, for those who didn't know) is the attempt to streamline and clean up older editions of D&D, and to play them "by the rules" as precisely as possible, to see what emerges. It's a fundamentalist form of D&D.

[LibraryOgre]

While I agree with the general trend of conversation, I'll also point out that "Fantasy Heartbreaker" tends to be at least a bit pejorative, while "OSR" tends to be, if not laudatory, more neutral in character, unless the speaker intends it to be pejorative due to their own prejudices.

[1337 b4k4]

I don't think they're directly comparable. The OSR is a movement of sorts, where as a Fantasy Heartbreaker is a product. You can have a Fantasy Heartbreaker that is done in the OSR tradition, but not all OSR products (or even most) are Fantasy Heartbreakers. A good example might be Dark Dungeons, Darker Dungeons and Darkest Dungeons. The author created Dark Dungeons as a strong clean up and clone of the Rules Cyclopedia version of Dungeons and Dragons. Even with the minor changes made, the goal was largely a clone of the original rules. Darker Dungeons is D&D + the author's normal house rules. Darkest Dungeons was (although it appears the author no longer is working on it) an attempt at the author's "what D&D should have been" and falls much more on the Fantasy Heartbreaker side of the spectrum. But all of these were OSR games in the sense that they subscribed to the general goals of playing D&D in the "traditional" way. Like most things, these are hard to pin down to specific definitions, but you're better off thinking of OSR as a style and tone rather than a specific item, especially since a number of adventures and modules that have come out of the OSR movement are OSR but are clearly not Fantasy Heartbreakers.

A final thought: All new games which spawn from the general idea of "Hmm, I like D&D, but it could be better if..." are Fantasy Heartbreakers at the start. You stop being a Fantasy Heartbreaker when people start looking at it and going "that's a fun game" rather than "that's some neat house rules". ACKS would have been a Fantasy Heartbreaker if it never got popular enough (and differentiated it enough) for people to suggest it as a game in its own right.

[Knaight]

Mild nitpick, but GURPS is in no way a D&D-alike. It actually does fantasy rather poorly, in my experience, and is a points-based system with a completely different resolution mechanic.

It's a traditional rules heavy game where you have one GM and a set of players who each play one character, where there are no GM duties meaningfully distributed, without any narrative style mechanics (e.g. Aspects) at all. It's really quite a bit like D&D, particularly in comparison to something like Fiasco or Microscope.

It's a fair bit further away from D&D than any edition of D&D is from another, and a fair bit further than Palladium's fantasy works, but it's still pretty close.

[kyoryu]

without any narrative style mechanics (e.g. Aspects) at all.

While there's nothing 'narrative' about it by most modern definitions, a number of advantages/disadvantages edge in on areas where narrative mechanics usually live. It's kind of proto-narrative in some ways.

Defining character traits in a way that has mechanical impact, setting authorship via creation of enemies/etc., even down to defining wealth and status as advantages to be paid for with character points - again, not *truly* narrative, but kind of a stepping stone *towards* narrative games, I think. And several rules variations have proposed ideas like using unspent CP as luck points, etc.

Obviously it's nowhere near Fiasco or PTA, but in some ways it's not *that* far removed from something like Fate or possibly AW, both of which are frequently lumped into the 'narrative games' bucket.

[Jay R]

It's a traditional rules heavy game where you have one GM and a set of players who each play one character, where there are no GM duties meaningfully distributed, without any narrative style mechanics (e.g. Aspects) at all. It's really quite a bit like D&D, particularly in comparison to something like Fiasco or Microscope.

So it's like D&D in the same way that it is like Traveler, or Champions, or Bushido, or Toon, or many other games that are nothing like each other except that they are role-playing games written before 2000.

[Knaight]

So it's like D&D in the same way that it is like Traveler, or Champions, or Bushido, or Toon, or many other games that are nothing like each other except that they are role-playing games written before 2000.

I'd call it closer than quite a few of them even. Role playing games have been gradually getting broader and broader, and GURPS has a lot of similarities to D&D simply because the system is fairly old. It's also similar in that it has a substantial chunk of market share, even if D&D and WoD are both much bigger.

It's still different enough that I strongly suspect most fantasy heart breaker writers have no familiarity with it, but classing it with D&D makes sense in the context.

[Segev]

It's a traditional rules heavy game where you have one GM and a set of players who each play one character, where there are no GM duties meaningfully distributed, without any narrative style mechanics (e.g. Aspects) at all. It's really quite a bit like D&D, particularly in comparison to something like Fiasco or Microscope.

It's a fair bit further away from D&D than any edition of D&D is from another, and a fair bit further than Palladium's fantasy works, but it's still pretty close.
I think you're painting with way too broad a brush when you say "no GM duties are shared makes it like D&D." You have to reach pretty far afield to find games that give any sort of shared GM duty. Fiasco and Microscope are very much non-mainstream (to the point that I've never even heard of them, and while I'm no gaming guru, I usually have at least HEARD of a game if it's even close to widely-played in the overall gaming community).

BESM, GURPS, L5R, any White Wolf game, Eclipse Phase, Shadowrun, Iron Kingdoms's most recent edition (its first WAS a d20 product), Mutants and Masterminds 3e...

All of those have wildly different mechanics from D&D's. BESM and GURPS are heavily points-based systems and use just one die mechanic. L5R has a very unique "roll and keep" die mechanic, and its hybrid points- and class-and-level system is quite distinct. White Wolf is a points-based game with heavy structure around certain non-points choices, and has its own unique universal resolution mechanic, and each of its sub-game systems are different enough that it can be tricky to integrate them; its Exalted system has "narrative" rules in that players can stunt for bonus dice, but it's still got a well-defined Storyteller who runs the game. Eclipse Phase I don't know the mechanics off well enough to discuss, but is definitely "GM-and-players." Shadowrun may be the closest to D&D in style, but its mechanics are very much non-D&D, while Iron Kingdoms moved from d20 to their own system based more strongly on the War Machine tabletop game's mechanics in its recent edition. Mutants and MAsterminds 3e is still techincally d20, but the build system is so different and the underlying combat mechanics have enough distinctions that calling it D&D would make anybody who is familiar with D&D scratch their heads at you.

All of them are heavily GM-run games.

I think trying to classify them as "D&D-like" based on that alone is like saying fish are "human-like" because both humans and fish intake "food."

[Delta]

I'd call it closer than quite a few of them even. Role playing games have been gradually getting broader and broader, and GURPS has a lot of similarities to D&D simply because the system is fairly old. It's also similar in that it has a substantial chunk of market share, even if D&D and WoD are both much bigger.

How are age and market share valid arguments in this? I agree with what has been said, if you consider GURPS "D&D-like", then almost every game is, Segev's list could be continued ad infinitum.

[erikun]

Fiasco and Microscope are very much non-mainstream (to the point that I've never even heard of them, and while I'm no gaming guru, I usually have at least HEARD of a game if it's even close to widely-played in the overall gaming community).
Fiasco isn't much of a roleplaying game, at least not by the standard pen-and-paper definition we're typically used to. It's much more a storytelling game or an acting game, where you do roleplay a particular character but within scenes of the game and then roll to see what happens to them in the end.

One good example of the difference is that you can't "keep playing" a character after a game of Fiasco. The game is done. You'd either need to start an entirely new game, or make up the character in some other game (including possibly freeform).

[Airk]

I dunno; I cited GURPs as a D&D-alike because it FEELS very similar to D&D to me. It's not trying to do anything new and creative - GURPS fantasy is basically D&D reskinned to a new rule mechanic (but somehow still retaining a 3-18 ability score range?). Yes, some of that is just "this product was designed during a time period where games were all designed the same way" but just having a "merits and flaws" system or a point buy character creation system doesn't really differentiate it very much in my mind. GURPS fantasy attempts to model basically the same things D&D does in a similar mindset. The fact that you're rolling a different kind of dice doesn't make it not a D&D-alike.

Basically what I'm saying is that it's not necessarily the low-level mechanics ("what dice you roll" "how you make a character" "what the stats are" etc.) that make a D&D-alike. It's when you make a game that models all the same sorts of behaviors as D&D does, using a similar binary style success model, and a similar "adventuring gets you XP!" advancement model that you have a D&D-alike, IMHO. Someone with a better vocabulary for game design terms could probably define it better than I am.

You can break away from being a D&D alike by changing the theme of your game (Vampire), the tone of your game (Cinematic vs simulation), the 'style' of your game (narrativist vs gamist/simulationist) or the goal of your game (drama/roleplaying creates advancement vs adventuring for XP). But changing what dice you roll and such isn't enough, IMHO.

The way GURPS keeps itself from REALLY being a D&D-alike is the fact that it's not just a fantasy game. I should have specified GURPS Fantasy.

[Segev]

The GURPS fantasy setting probably feels like D&D because anything that is generic fantasy will. D&D set itself firmly on the "generic fantasy" world design space.

GURPS mechanics have a superficial resemblance to D&D in that stats range from 3 to 18. That's literally the extent of it. The stats aren't even directly analogous on a 1:1 basis.

Being points-based rather than class-and-level based is a pretty big step away from D&D, mechanically.

And GURPS magic is definitely NOT Vancian.

There's really no comparison that holds water in a serious way, to me.


And I'm not sure I'd count Fiasco as "an RPG" in the sense that most people mean when they use the term, by that description. It sounds more like a party game designed for RPG and acting enthusiasts.

[Scow2]

There are a LOT of similarities between D&D and GURPS.

Both have characters divided into the same four areas: Large commanding Stats, Specialized task-specific Skills, and auxiliary declarative traits/feats, and Gear.

Exhaustive and granular

A broad, Setting-agnostic core system (Unlike White Wolf's games), with supplementary splats that specialize for theme, setting, and narrower scope, that are all largely compatible with each other.

Character creation complex enough to be a game in itself.

"Crunch before Fluff" gameplay.

... there are a lot.

Ultimately, what makes them the same is that they are large, rules-heavy and broadly-encompasing "Toolbox systems" that dominate the marketplace or at least discussion boards. I can use D&D to play a game set in 1920's New York. I can use GURPS to play a game set in The Forgotten Realms.

[Airk]

The GURPS fantasy setting probably feels like D&D because anything that is generic fantasy will. D&D set itself firmly on the "generic fantasy" world design space.

GURPS mechanics have a superficial resemblance to D&D in that stats range from 3 to 18. That's literally the extent of it. The stats aren't even directly analogous on a 1:1 basis.

Being points-based rather than class-and-level based is a pretty big step away from D&D, mechanically.

And GURPS magic is definitely NOT Vancian.

There's really no comparison that holds water in a serious way, to me.

See, these are all much more fiddling little details than I care about when defining a D&D-alike. A D&D-alike isn't defined by its rules set - D20 Modern is not a D&D-alike - but by the somewhat more abstract characteristics of the game described above.

I mean seriously, if I took a game that was EXACTLY D&D and made the following changes:

Stats are now Potency (Strength/Health analog), Wits (Int, Perception), Speed(Dex and other stuff), and Heart (Wisdom/Charisma).
All stats are now point buy.
Magic is now an "Mana Point" system.

But the game is still about going through dungeons, killing monsters for magic items, getting XP and levelling up, how is that not still a D&D alike? Adding merits and flaws doesn't change that either.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

One good example of the difference is that you can't "keep playing" a character after a game of Fiasco. The game is done. You'd either need to start an entirely new game, or make up the character in some other game (including possibly freeform).
Technically, there are extended rules for playing a short-run campaign. :smallwink: (It's in the "American Disasters" supplement, which offers multiple alternatives for running different Fiasco sessions in the same continuity.)

[Segev]

See, these are all much more fiddling little details than I care about when defining a D&D-alike. A D&D-alike isn't defined by its rules set - D20 Modern is not a D&D-alike - but by the somewhat more abstract characteristics of the game described above.

I mean seriously, if I took a game that was EXACTLY D&D and made the following changes:

Stats are now Potency (Strength/Health analog), Wits (Int, Perception), Speed(Dex and other stuff), and Heart (Wisdom/Charisma).
All stats are now point buy.
Magic is now an "Mana Point" system.

But the game is still about going through dungeons, killing monsters for magic items, getting XP and levelling up, how is that not still a D&D alike? Adding merits and flaws doesn't change that either.

See you're not discussing the game system anymore. You're discussing "what the GM is running at the table."

D&D can be run as a traditional dungeon crawl, as a sandbox semi-military campaign, as courtly intrigue, or as a slice-of-magical-medieval-life simulation about building a community. It depends on what the DM wants to do.

The same is true of just about ANY game. Some mechanical systems lend themselves to one better than others - GURPS lends itself to gritty modern more than to medieval fantasy (and does low- better than mid- or high-fantasy), and D&D works best with medieval mid-to-high fantasy - but what KIND of game you play at the table is a function of who you're playing with and what the GM wants to run, not a function directly of the system choice.

[Blacky the Blackball]

I don't think they're directly comparable. The OSR is a movement of sorts, where as a Fantasy Heartbreaker is a product. You can have a Fantasy Heartbreaker that is done in the OSR tradition, but not all OSR products (or even most) are Fantasy Heartbreakers. A good example might be Dark Dungeons, Darker Dungeons and Darkest Dungeons. The author created Dark Dungeons as a strong clean up and clone of the Rules Cyclopedia version of Dungeons and Dragons. Even with the minor changes made, the goal was largely a clone of the original rules. Darker Dungeons is D&D + the author's normal house rules. Darkest Dungeons was (although it appears the author no longer is working on it) an attempt at the author's "what D&D should have been" and falls much more on the Fantasy Heartbreaker side of the spectrum.

Actually, as the author of Dark (and Darker and Darkest) Dungeons I'd kind of disagree there.

Dark Dungeons is specifically a clone with some clean-up of the rules. The vast majority of the changes were ones that are simply to clear up ambiguities or to resolve contradictions. There are a small number of house-rules that made it in there, but they're deliberately kept to a minimum. I consider Dark Dungeons to be a retro-clone.

Darker Dungeons, on the other hand, is the game-as-it-is-played-at-my-table. It contains a large numbers of changes and house rules. This is the game I jokingly refer to as my Heartbreaker - because it is an attempt to "fix" the "problems" with the version of D&D that it's based on. Having said that, it's not a true Heartbreaker because it wasn't written with the naivety that a true Heartbreaker needs. I was fully aware that it was simply a variant of D&D house-ruled to my tastes and I never thought it would be the best game ever and a "D&D Killer" (an attitude that seems to be key in identifying a true Heartbreaker).

Darkest Dungeons (which I did finish by the way - but I released it under its original title of "Blood, Guts & Glory") is something else. It's certainly not an attempt to "fix" D&D or to write "what D&D should have been". I refer to it as a Mash-Up, since it's explicitly a blend of two sets of rules (D&D and Rolemaster) rather than a house-ruled version of one set of rules.

In summary:

Dark Dungeons = Retro-Clone
Darker Dungeons = Heartbreaker
Darkest Dungeons = Mash-Up


But all of these were OSR games in the sense that they subscribed to the general goals of playing D&D in the "traditional" way. Like most things, these are hard to pin down to specific definitions, but you're better off thinking of OSR as a style and tone rather than a specific item, especially since a number of adventures and modules that have come out of the OSR movement are OSR but are clearly not Fantasy Heartbreakers.

I'd actually argue that none of my games are OSR games. I agree with you that the general goal of the OSR is playing D&D in the "traditional" way - but the "traditional" way that the OSR enshrines is actually only a very limited subset of the variety of ways that D&D was played back then. It's not the way I ever played, and it's not the way that Dark Dungeons is designed to play.

[Black Jester]

I had the impression that the two terms describe a similar type of game, but add a different set of values to it; to me, the term 'heartbreaker' has always, a slightly patronizing or condescending tone to it, while retroclone is a term chosen by people who actually like that sort or game and chose this lable for themselves, and as a result, is the more positive term. This is by no means universal, but I had the impression.

And if you brush over the details and regard it from a more superficial point of view, all games have significant similarities. That doesn't tell you much over the games in questions however, because, more often than not, it is the details that are actually important and form the major differences. So, for me, that statements of two games being alike has less to do with the games, and more with the person who makes the comparison.

[obryn]

Dark Dungeons is specifically a clone with some clean-up of the rules. The vast majority of the changes were ones that are simply to clear up ambiguities or to resolve contradictions. There are a small number of house-rules that made it in there, but they're deliberately kept to a minimum. I consider Dark Dungeons to be a retro-clone.

Darker Dungeons, on the other hand, is the game-as-it-is-played-at-my-table. It contains a large numbers of changes and house rules. This is the game I jokingly refer to as my Heartbreaker - because it is an attempt to "fix" the "problems" with the version of D&D that it's based on. Having said that, it's not a true Heartbreaker because it wasn't written with the naivety that a true Heartbreaker needs. I was fully aware that it was simply a variant of D&D house-ruled to my tastes and I never thought it would be the best game ever and a "D&D Killer" (an attitude that seems to be key in identifying a true Heartbreaker).
I just wanted to chime in and say that I really love the presentation in both of these, and I've been a fan. :smallsmile: As a fan of RC D&D (ask me sometime about the $5 Rules Cyclopedia I got on Amazon), I think Dark Dungeons is generally a superior way of presenting a lot of the material. (OSRIC, likewise, for AD&D.)

-O

[1337 b4k4]

Actually, as the author of Dark (and Darker and Darkest) Dungeons I'd kind of disagree there.

...

In summary:

Dark Dungeons = Retro-Clone
Darker Dungeons = Heartbreaker
Darkest Dungeons = Mash-Up


My apologies, for Darkest I was going off of what little I remembered back when you had all 3 described on your old site.



I'd actually argue that none of my games are OSR games. I agree with you that the general goal of the OSR is playing D&D in the "traditional" way - but the "traditional" way that the OSR enshrines is actually only a very limited subset of the variety of ways that D&D was played back then. It's not the way I ever played, and it's not the way that Dark Dungeons is designed to play.

I'd say at the very least, since Dark Dungeons is a retro-clone, it is by definition an OSR game.

And yes, allow me to echo obryn in mentioning my enjoyment of the work you did with Dark Dungeons.

[Airk]

See you're not discussing the game system anymore. You're discussing "what the GM is running at the table."

D&D can be run as a traditional dungeon crawl, as a sandbox semi-military campaign, as courtly intrigue, or as a slice-of-magical-medieval-life simulation about building a community. It depends on what the DM wants to do.

No, I'm sorry, you're not correct here. I used to think this way, then I read some less "traditional" RPGs. There are LOTS of things that are inherent in the D&D "system" that are distinct from what are traditionally thought of as its "mechanics". This is as simple as reward mechanisms. "You get XP for killing stuff and finding treasure". Or more broadly, "You get XP for overcoming challenges". Similarly, what is important in D&D is overcoming challenges - can you roleplay if you want? Sure, but it doesn't directly influence your character's advancement or power in any way unless the GM decides to basically make an ad hoc outside-the-rules call. And the goal of the game, as written and implied, is to become more powerful. Not to roleplay your character. Not to create interesting situations. To win. Fundamentally, D&D is a game about "your guy" winning.

Can you change these mechanisms? Sure, but you could also run D&D where the stats go from 4-24 if you want. You can change anything, but after a while the houserules outnumber the core ones. And at the end of the day, most people don't even realize that the game is encouraging them to play that way, because at this point, that's just how they expect to play.

Also, I wonder how many people who say "D&D can be run as a game of courtly intrigue" have ever actually done so (I have not, and I travel in fairly progressive roleplaying circles). It seems to me that at that point you have thrown away so MANY of the rules that you might as well just scrap the entire system.


but what KIND of game you play at the table is a function of who you're playing with and what the GM wants to run, not a function directly of the system choice.

Sure, you can rewrite any game system from the ground up if you want and still pretend you're "playing D&D" but even then, many of the base assumptions survive astonishingly unquestioned.

Game systems can incentivize behavior. D&D and GURPs incentivize similar behaviors. In fact, virtually all RPGs from that era, with a few exceptions (Toon being the most notable, because it's one of the few that clearly knew it had a different design goal in mind) are designed with a similar set of baseline assumptions and incentives. This becomes clear on looking at some similar products that work in the same thematic space but with different design assumptions. An obvious one here is Burning Wheel, in which success is decoupled from Advancement for the most part.

[Segev]

No, I'm sorry, you're not correct here. I used to think this way, then I read some less "traditional" RPGs. There are LOTS of things that are inherent in the D&D "system" that are distinct from what are traditionally thought of as its "mechanics".Okay, let's examine your examples and see where they fall with the "D&D-alikes" you named.


This is as simple as reward mechanisms. "You get XP for killing stuff and finding treasure". Or more broadly, "You get XP for overcoming challenges". Similarly, what is important in D&D is overcoming challenges - can you roleplay if you want? Sure, but it doesn't directly influence your character's advancement or power in any way unless the GM decides to basically make an ad hoc outside-the-rules call.True, for D&D. GURPS may or may not have that formula; my (admittedly limited) experience playing it was that the DM handed out CP at the end of the session just for playing. In most game systems that I named that I said are NOT D&D-alikes, in fact, the assumption is that you'll hand out a few to a handful of CP or exp at the end of every session, with possibly some bonus for doing something clever, amusing, or role-playing really well during the session. The advancement mechanic is basically a cross between the GM's sense of narrative pace-to-competence and a desire to reward people's RP.

BESM, honestly, I've played in 3 games where the GM almost never handed out CP. At all. He handed out a "mid-season upgrade" when characters hit certain plot arc points, and even those were tightly controlled. It was just the kind of game he was running.


And the goal of the game, as written and implied, is to become more powerful. Not to roleplay your character. Not to create interesting situations. To win. Fundamentally, D&D is a game about "your guy" winning. I'd argue that D&D is about the PARTY winning, but your core point stands.

Again, you've failed to demonstrate that it's true of GURPS, BESM, L5R, M&M, etc. I would say that most White Wolf games do carry a bit more of the inherent "your goal is to get stronger," if only because they tend to be games where that NOT being the case is a ticket to your characters becoming less important, narratively, as plots ramp up in potence. But that's also a function of the kinds of stories White Wolf games are designed to tell. (Exalted, in particular.)

And White Wolf is the king of "hand out 3-5 XP based on how much you think happened in the game tonight, and 1-2 bonus XP for good RP." Exalted also gives the occasional bonus XP for super-cool (i.e. 3-die) stunts.


Can you change these mechanisms? Sure, but you could also run D&D where the stats go from 4-24 if you want. You can change anything, but after a while the houserules outnumber the core ones. And at the end of the day, most people don't even realize that the game is encouraging them to play that way, because at this point, that's just how they expect to play.Sure, but this doesn't support your point that "GURPS is a D&D-alike."


Also, I wonder how many people who say "D&D can be run as a game of courtly intrigue" have ever actually done so (I have not, and I travel in fairly progressive roleplaying circles). It seems to me that at that point you have thrown away so MANY of the rules that you might as well just scrap the entire system.Why throw away rules? I'm not going to dispute that there are games with better mechanics for handling the things that will take front-and-center in a court intrigue game, but D&D CAN handle it, and if that's the system everybody's comfortable with, it's not going to ruin the game.


Sure, you can rewrite any game system from the ground up if you want and still pretend you're "playing D&D" but even then, many of the base assumptions survive astonishingly unquestioned.I get the feeling you've shifted the point you're trying to make. Are you no longer trying to claim that GURPS and BESM and L5R and Iron Kingdoms and M&M et al are "D&D-alikes?" If so, then I don't really have an argument with you.

That's the only thing I was objecting to. You were claiming that all of them are D&D-alikes because people can and do run dungeon-delving fantasy in them. (I wouldn't recommend it, personally; D&D is well-designed for running dungeon-delving fantasy and those others are not. In fact, it's yet another reason that I argue that they're not D&D-alikes.)


Game systems can incentivize behavior.Agreed.


D&D and GURPs incentivize similar behaviors.This claim has not been supported by any point you've made.


In fact, virtually all RPGs from that era, with a few exceptions (Toon being the most notable, because it's one of the few that clearly knew it had a different design goal in mind) are designed with a similar set of baseline assumptions and incentives.Again, you've not supported this claim. Your post outlined how D&D does this, and even went so far as to say D&D can't do anything else well, but you never actually pointed to how GURPS (let along any other RPG I've mentioned) is "designed with a similar set of baseline assumptions and incentives."


This becomes clear on looking at some similar products that work in the same thematic space but with different design assumptions. An obvious one here is Burning Wheel, in which success is decoupled from Advancement for the most part.
The same can be said of GURPS, BESM, White Wolf, Iron Kingdoms, M&M, L5R, etc.

Honestly, the only games I can think of where "success" or "challenge" is directly coupled to exp awards are D&D and Paladium. I'm sure there are others, but I'd also expect most of those to be, like Paladium, heavily D&D-based.

GURPS? Much as I'm no fan of the system (I like BESM much, much better), it's reward mechanics are completely optional (there's no "you'll never get to use xyz toys if you don't level up") and are often just "hand out some CP at the end of each session based on how well you think the session went in advancing an interesting narrative/the plot."

No arguments made in the quoted post seem to support the claim that GURPS is D&D-like.

[kyoryu]

There are a LOT of similarities between D&D and GURPS.

Both have characters divided into the same four areas: Large commanding Stats, Specialized task-specific Skills, and auxiliary declarative traits/feats, and Gear.

Stats? Yeah, and common in just about *every* roleplaying game.

Skills? Depends on the version of D&D. AD&D (1e) had no skills, and 2e had them as a secondary mechanic, while in GURPS they are the primary mechanic.

Traits/Feats? Again, these did not exist in AD&D at all. They only entered D&D in 3.x.

Gear? Again, if inclusion of "what my character has" is a trait of similarity, then 99% of roleplaying games are the same thing. Even many more narrative systems - until you hit Fiasco and the like - include gear.

If your point is that later versions of D&D became GURPS-like over time, I couldn't disagree with you. But to argue that B/X or AD&D 1e are the same game as GURPS is a stretch.


Exhaustive and granular

3.x more than previous versions, again.


A broad, Setting-agnostic core system (Unlike White Wolf's games), with supplementary splats that specialize for theme, setting, and narrower scope, that are all largely compatible with each other.

That's a huge stretch, given that D&D started with a pretty specific implicit setting, when it wasn't explicit - Tolkien-esque fantasy.


Character creation complex enough to be a game in itself.

3.x and above.


"Crunch before Fluff" gameplay.

3.x and above


Ultimately, what makes them the same is that they are large, rules-heavy and broadly-encompasing "Toolbox systems" that dominate the marketplace or at least discussion boards. I can use D&D to play a game set in 1920's New York. I can use GURPS to play a game set in The Forgotten Realms.

3.x and above.

I mean, really, using D&D to play 20s New York? With all the mages that were running around then? That's a stretch without serious refluffing and likely some house-ruling.

Saying that they're very similar is a big stretch, and one that's only even remotely credibly if you're specifically comparing 3.x to GURPS. If you view the systems as contemporaries, and compare GURPS to B/X or 1e, it's a very different story.

And for any version, there's a *ton* of differences:

GURPS has no classes. Experience is *primarily* based on roleplaying. Various character traits are modeled as part of the character - D&D has little concept of common concepts like "Honesty" except in special cases of certain classes. GURPS has no rewards for either killing or gaining treasure. GURPS has generally accessible mechanics for fame, companions, etc. GURPS also, mechanically, has far less focus on traditional "dungeon-crawling" than D&D did, especially earlier versions. GURPS doesn't have the 'zero to hero' character advancement curve without bending the system significantly.

I'm sure I can think of more. But really, they're not similar, except superficially.

[kyoryu]

Game systems can incentivize behavior.

True.


D&D and GURPs incentivize similar behaviors.

False.

Mechanically, GURPS does nothing to incentivize combat or treasure-gathering, unlike D&D. Experience is, in GURPS, generally a function of two things:

1) How much was "accomplished" in the session, however "accomplished" is defined for the game.
2) Extra XP for roleplaying.

Additionally, while GURPS does have an optional very complex combat system, the default combat system isn't much more complex than old D&D combat, and in some ways may be simpler. Also, combat abilities are not considered "special" in any way - all abilities are just skills. The ability to convince people, or to drive, isn't considered to be fundamentally any different than the ability to swing a sword.

So not only does the system *not* mechanically incentivize the activities that D&D does, it doesn't even set aside combat abilities as being 'special' in any way.

Even if playing a non-combat-centered game, D&D sets aside the things that you do in combat as being somehow different than the things you do out of combat (or, more broadly, adventuring). Diplomacy is a 'skill'. Hitting things, or sneaking, or opening traps are 'class abilities'. They're fundamentally different things. GURPS makes no such distinction.

Case in point: One thing I've heard about D&D is people being proud that they can make a totally non-combat character. It's possible in 3.x, but takes some system mastery. In GURPS, it is completely trivial to do so, because the system makes no assumption that characters should be combatants, or that they should be traipsing through dungeons or other assorted dangerous locations.

[obryn]

I like the term "traditional RPG" more than "D&D." There's a lot of room in RPGs' Big Tent, and to call every trad game "just D&D" minimizes their differences in unhelpful ways.

D&D set the basic structure for a trad game, mind you. Many games are very similar to D&D in their basic structure - characters have numbers representing their capabilities, dice are used for conflict resolution, a GM who dictates the setting and NPCs, etc. But that's just what makes them a "traditional RPG," as opposed to a Narrative RPG like FATE or Dungeon World, for example.

But arguing over whether or not GURPS is "basically just D&D with different numbers" is glossing over the really important stuff. And it's a very internet sort of argument.

[kyoryu]

D&D set the basic structure for a trad game, mind you. Many games are very similar to D&D in their basic structure - characters have numbers representing their capabilities, dice are used for conflict resolution, a GM who dictates the setting and NPCs, etc. But that's just what makes them a "traditional RPG," as opposed to a Narrative RPG like FATE or Dungeon World, for example.

Fate and Dungeon World have all of the things you mentioned, with the exception that players have *some* influence on the world and certain NPCs.

[Segev]

Even FATE uses FUDGE dice, IIRC, and has a specific GM.

You have to get into REALLY experimental "RPGs" to find one that doesn't use the "GM + Players" paradigm.

[obryn]

Fate and Dungeon World have all of the things you mentioned, with the exception that players have *some* influence on the world and certain NPCs.
Yeah, that's true. I was probably a bit too general. :smallsmile:

[Airk]

Fair enough; It's been a long time since I went near GURPS. (Left a baaaadd taste in my mouth a long time ago). Apparently it's in the "no goal" for this system category.

That said, a point that was raised that deserves addressing:


Why throw away rules? I'm not going to dispute that there are games with better mechanics for handling the things that will take front-and-center in a court intrigue game, but D&D CAN handle it, and if that's the system everybody's comfortable with, it's not going to ruin the game.


Because essentially, all you are playing with at that point is skill tests. And maybe saves vs poison. You've basically thrown away the rulebook, because you're not using it.

You CAN use any rule system to do anything. But that doesn't make it a good idea. Which was part of my gripe with GURPS. It's a rule system that you CAN use to do anything, but why would you? If the entire incentive scheme is "do whatever the GM rewards you for..."

[kyoryu]

Because essentially, all you are playing with at that point is skill tests. And maybe saves vs poison. You've basically thrown away the rulebook, because you're not using it.

And when choosing a system, how much it supports the play style that is desired is a good metric to look at. But so is system familiarity. And for any given group, those two may be weighed differently.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much on the "use a system that makes sense for the game you're running" page. But I also know that's not universal.


You CAN use any rule system to do anything. But that doesn't make it a good idea. Which was part of my gripe with GURPS. It's a rule system that you CAN use to do anything, but why would you? If the entire incentive scheme is "do whatever the GM rewards you for..."

To be fair, many systems do the same thing, including Fate. The key is communication and understanding of what will or will not be rewarded. Whether that understanding comes from the rules in a book, or whether it comes from agreement at the table is pretty much irrelevant.

Though I'll admit that's probably less satisfying if you're into a more (please forgive me for using GNS) "gamist" mode of play.

And there's a lot more to a game than the advancement scheme. GURPS does a lot of things well, and a lot of things not so well. If "well defined, objective advancement" is a requirement of your gaming, then GURPS isn't a very good choice. But it does a lot of things really well around "tactical combat", "character flexibility" and "character as *character*, not collection of abilities".

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: We're getting a little far afield here, folks.

[Segev]

Because essentially, all you are playing with at that point is skill tests. And maybe saves vs poison. You've basically thrown away the rulebook, because you're not using it.

Nonsense. I assure you that a bard or sorcerer will have plenty of non-skill stuff to do with casting spells and manipulating emotions. Warriors may not fight as often, but their sheer presence and the threat of force they imply is impactful. And if push comes to shove, combat can break out in a dark alley or the chambers of a noble in need of assassination.

Combat may not be the focus of such a game, but it can happen.

And magic...oh, magic will ALWAYS be useful.

[Talakeal]

Nonsense. I assure you that a bard or sorcerer will have plenty of non-skill stuff to do with casting spells and manipulating emotions. Warriors may not fight as often, but their sheer presence and the threat of force they imply is impactful. And if push comes to shove, combat can break out in a dark alley or the chambers of a noble in need of assassination.

Combat may not be the focus of such a game, but it can happen.

And magic...oh, magic will ALWAYS be useful.

I tired running a political intrigue game once. It was TERRIBLE. The players spent the entire time complaining about how they never got to use any of their cool combat abilities. I suppose it depends on the group though.

[Segev]

I tired running a political intrigue game once. It was TERRIBLE. The players spent the entire time complaining about how they never got to use any of their cool combat abilities. I suppose it depends on the group though.

That it does. I won't say D&D is the best system for that kind of game. Merely that you CAN do it and it can be quite successful. (Political intrigue games are HARD to run.)

[Scow2]

I tired running a political intrigue game once. It was TERRIBLE. The players spent the entire time complaining about how they never got to use any of their cool combat abilities. I suppose it depends on the group though.Yes, it does depend on group. However, we know you, and, no disrespect to you, but most of your problems were largely unique to your group.

[Talakeal]

Yes, it does depend on group. However, we know you, and, no disrespect to you, but most of your problems were largely unique to your group.

That was actually a different group. It was years ago, shortly after 3.0 came out. In my experience most people who play d&d are power gamers or hack and slashers, the type of people who prefer social games will probsbly have found a different system.

[EccentricCircle]

Also, I wonder how many people who say "D&D can be run as a game of courtly intrigue" have ever actually done so (I have not, and I travel in fairly progressive roleplaying circles). It seems to me that at that point you have thrown away so MANY of the rules that you might as well just scrap the entire system.

I've done this quite successfully. As you rightly surmise we houseruled the XP system, essentially awarding a Level at the end of each story arc of the campaign. Other than that I can't think of many other houserules beyond a few minor tweeks to character creation (such as dropping some of the multiclassing restrictions, but that wasn't really to make it better for intrigue).

The campaign was very skill focused, most situations were resolved with either skill checks of roleplaying, but we didn't throw away the combat rules in order to make it that way, It was just that fights didn't happen very often (and were almost always with people rather than monsters). When fights happened the stakes were always higher and they were a last resort, because the characters knew that there would be consequences if they killed a bunch of random people. (And indeed there were,. One battle was followed by an arrest, a trail, a jail break, and the party fleeing the city in the dead of night).

Could we have done the game without using D&D? I'd imagine so, certainly the range and variety of combat options available to the typical D&D character weren't exploited to their upmost, but then i've been in few games where they are. There are rather a lot of combat options after all.

But the reason we used D&D for the game was that we wanted vanican magic, undead turning clerics, the typical range of magical items and all the other trappings of a D&D world. We could have used a more rules light system and houseruled in the D&D setting and magic system but I suspect that would have been more work than using D&D, but not always using all of it.

Fundamentally I don't think there are many types of story that D&D can't be used for (if so i've yet to find one). It may not always be the best system for the job, and the campaign may not be to the taste of every D&D player out there. But the proof of the pudding is in it's ability to disolve things with very strong acid. And no matter what sort of game we've tried to use D&D for we've always had fun. What more can you ask?

[Delta]

That was actually a different group. It was years ago, shortly after 3.0 came out. In my experience most people who play d&d are power gamers or hack and slashers, the type of people who prefer social games will probsbly have found a different system.

In theory, they probably should have, but in reality, a lot of people started playing with D&D because that's just the way it is and never bothered to pick up anything else.

[AMFV]

Also, I wonder how many people who say "D&D can be run as a game of courtly intrigue" have ever actually done so (I have not, and I travel in fairly progressive roleplaying circles). It seems to me that at that point you have thrown away so MANY of the rules that you might as well just scrap the entire system.

Also more "progressive" roleplaying circles tend to jump systems every other session in my experience. If you want to see D&D being stretched to it's limits you should find small groups of friends who are too stubborn to shift systems, trust me, most conceptual ideas could be played in D&D with few house rules, at least as far as medieval fantasies go.


That was actually a different group. It was years ago, shortly after 3.0 came out. In my experience most people who play d&d are power gamers or hack and slashers, the type of people who prefer social games will probsbly have found a different system.

But what if I like social games, but I don't want something that's ridiculously depressing, the only other mainstream social type game offering that I'm aware of is white wolf stuff, which I like, except that it is crushingly depressing.

[Talakeal]

Also more "progressive" roleplaying circles tend to jump systems every other session in my experience. If you want to see D&D being stretched to it's limits you should find small groups of friends who are too stubborn to shift systems, trust me, most conceptual ideas could be played in D&D with few house rules, at least as far as medieval fantasies go.



But what if I like social games, but I don't want something that's ridiculously depressing, the only other mainstream social type game offering that I'm aware of is white wolf stuff, which I like, except that it is crushingly depressing.

I didnt say you shouldn't play d&d or are doing it wrong. I just observed that in my experience most people who play d&d are not the type to enjoy low combat games.

[AMFV]

I didnt say you shouldn't play d&d or are doing it wrong. I just observed that in my experience most people who play d&d are not the type to enjoy low combat games.

And I observed that my experience was contrary to that, now we both have contradicting anecdotal experience, so who is right, and who is dead?

Clearly, either I am lying, or I have played in low combat games, so that would make that non-zero chance.

You have not. So if we assume that you have played in many more games than I have, that still makes the chance of meeting people who play D&D not for combat... higher than zero, even combining our experiences.

[Airk]

And I observed that my experience was contrary to that, now we both have contradicting anecdotal experience, so who is right, and who is dead?

Clearly, either I am lying, or I have played in low combat games, so that would make that non-zero chance.

You have not. So if we assume that you have played in many more games than I have, that still makes the chance of meeting people who play D&D not for combat... higher than zero, even combining our experiences.

I too have played low combat D&D games. My assertion though, it that that is a fundamentally less entertaining experience than running the same low combat game in a system that does more interesting things with low combat experiences. After all, your Sword +1, +3 vs Aquatic Enemies probably isn't doing you a lot of good here, along with about 80% of the other magic items in the game, about 50% of the skill list, 75% of the spell list and I don't even want to think about feats.

Honestly, yes, while many groups make decisions based on system familiarity, I think it's a terrible way to select a system - in much the same way that voting for the same political candidate over and over again just because he's "your guy", without ever examining how he votes, is a terrible way to choose your elected representative. Sadly, lots of people do that, too, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

It's the difference between "can" you do something (Nearly always "yes" in RPGland) and "is it a good IDEA" to do something ("yes" much less often.) and, perhaps "What is the best way" to do something with this group?

I think we'd see a lot fewer threads of "How do I stop murderhobo behavior in my game?" if fewer people tried to do things with D&D that D&D does badly. Though yeah, I guess I'm not about 143 furlongs from the original topic.

[obryn]

In my experience most people who play d&d are power gamers or hack and slashers, the type of people who prefer social games will probsbly have found a different system.
...
I didnt say you shouldn't play d&d or are doing it wrong. I just observed that in my experience most people who play d&d are not the type to enjoy low combat games.
In my experience, people who judge other people based on the RPGs they play are misguided.

I would argue that D&D, as a system, isn't particularly good at intrigue; not that the people who play D&D don't like intrigue. I play D&D along with quite a few other games; the point of switching games is to find out what systems are good at, and to explore those themes in those systems.

I agree that D&D is best used for a game full of exploration, treasure, combat, and quests. That's where the rules focus is, and that's what it's best at. But it's pretty insulting to argue that just because my friends and I play D&D (as one of several games) that we're powergamers, don't enjoy low-combat games, etc.

[Talakeal]

I am not trying to judge anyone, there was no value attached to anything I said.

D&D has its root as a war game, and the "kick in the door" style of play seems to be the default emphasis. In my experience people who do not enjoy that style of play tend to move on to game systems with an emphasis that more closely matches their preferred play style.

I never said that anyone was wrong for liking D&D, or liking combat, or wanting to play a particular RPG with a particular style. Nor did I say that "everyone" fell under a particular category. I was merely noting a trend which I have observed based on my limited personal experiences, it wasn't an attack on anyone and I am sorry if it came off as such.

[obryn]

D&D has its root as a war game, and the "kick in the door" style of play seems to be the default emphasis. In my experience people who do not enjoy that style of play tend to move on to game systems with an emphasis that more closely matches their preferred play style.

I never said that anyone was wrong for liking D&D, or liking combat, or wanting to play a particular RPG with a particular style. Nor did I say that "everyone" fell under a particular category. I was merely noting a trend which I have observed based on my limited personal experiences, it wasn't an attack on anyone and I am sorry if it came off as such.
Nobody's talking about "wrong" near as I can say.

I'm saying that you can't say much about a person based on the RPGs they play. (Unless it's something like, say, FATAL.) D&D in particular is tricky here because it's such a default game; the average group member just plays what the group is playing, and the fact that they play D&D says nothing about them preferring hack & slash or whatever.

It's a weird sort of prejudicial thinking on your part. A game someone's playing says very little about who they are.

[Talakeal]

It's a weird sort of prejudicial thinking on your part. A game someone's playing says very little about who they are.

I agree that it doesn't say a whole lot about "who they are", but it does tend to say something about their preferences.

Someone who saw Avengers probably likes Super Hero movies. Hence why the previews before Avengers are for other action / adventure movies rather than children's musicals and romantic comedies. He may well have been dragged into the movie because his friends had an extra ticket, but that would be the exception rather than the norm.

Someone who is eating Chinese food probably likes Chinese food. True, they may only be going there because it is the closest restaurant that is open, but its not likely. And if the Chinese restaurant started serving Italian food they would likely sell less of it than Chinese food as the people who came into the Chinese place probably wanted to eat Chinese food.

I don't think judging someone's interests based on their current activities is in any way a "weird sort of prejudice", and is one of the foundations of marketing.

[Airk]

I agree that it doesn't say a whole lot about "who they are", but it does tend to say something about their preferences.

Yes, but that's not what you said. You WROTE:



most people who play d&d are power gamers or hack and slashers

Emphasis mine.

What you appear to NOW be saying is "most people who play D&D are willing to play in a hack and slash game". Or rather, that's what you should be saying, because what you are actually saying now is "most people who play D&D LIKE hack and slash games." Which is not necessarily a good conclusion.


I don't think judging someone's interests based on their current activities is in any way a "weird sort of prejudice", and is one of the foundations of marketing.

A) You didn't make a statement about people's 'interests', you made a statement about what they 'are'
B) You still seem unwilling recognize the difference between 'preference' and 'willingness'. To use your food example:

If five of your friends showed up at your house, and said "We're going out for Chinese food, want to come?" even if Chinese food wasn't really your thing, as long as you could find something that wasn't too bad, you'd probably go along, even if you might REALLY want Italian that night, because you think hanging out with all your friends is more important than satisfying your craving for fettuccine Alfredo.

You are vastly underestimating how much doing something with your friends makes it more attractive.

[kyoryu]

I agree that it doesn't say a whole lot about "who they are", but it does tend to say something about their preferences.


True, but because of its status as "default game", it says less about their preferences than playing Fate, or Apocalypse World, or just about any other game would.

And with anything like that, you pretty much have to preface any statement with "probably".

[Talakeal]

All i was doing was making a casual observation about the correlation between the themes of games and the preferred style of the people who play them. I never thought that people would be reading so much into it or be personally offended by it, if i had i never would have posted it. I am sorry if it felt like a personal attack or a pronouncement of judgement, that was never my intention, and i apologize for it.

[Airk]

All i was doing was making a casual observation about the correlation between the themes of games and the preferred style of the people who play them. I never thought that people would be reading so much into it or be personally offended by it, if i had i never would have posted it. I am sorry if it felt like a personal attack or a pronouncement of judgement, that was never my intention, and i apologize for it.

I'm not sure anyone is actually offended or feels attacked. I think they're just feel you're wrong.

Lots of people on the internet seem to feel that when someone tells you "You are wrong." they are doing it because they have some stake in whatever is under discussion. When in actuality, people on the internet just like to tell you when you are wrong. ;)

[AMFV]

I'm not sure anyone is actually offended or feels attacked. I think they're just feel you're wrong.

Lots of people on the internet seem to feel that when someone tells you "You are wrong." they are doing it because they have some stake in whatever is under discussion. When in actuality, people on the internet just like to tell you when you are wrong. ;)

Yep, I was stating that in my experience both of you are wrong, D&D players are often as comfortable with low combat intrigue things, and it can be as much objective fun as regular D&D (inasmuch as "objective fun" exists).

[obryn]

I'm not sure anyone is actually offended or feels attacked. I think they're just feel you're wrong.
Yep, that's where I'm coming from.

[Jay R]

I tired running a political intrigue game once. It was TERRIBLE. The players spent the entire time complaining about how they never got to use any of their cool combat abilities. I suppose it depends on the group though.

I don't buy the idea that a political intrigue game doesn't need cool combat abilities.

Let's look at movies and books. The Three Musketeers revolves around court intrigue, but it's certainly an action-packed book. The Count of Monte Cristo is absolutely a political revenge story, but the combat is there. True Lies, RED and the Die Hard movies are political thrillers, packed with action.

The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Princess Bride, The Court Jester, Scaramouche, and the second and third Pirates of the Caribbean movies are all focused on political intrigue, and are all great fighting movies.

If you can find them, get the adventure books written for Flashing Blades, especially An Ambassador's Tale. They are political intrigue stories that always seem to require fighting past the bad guy's guards once or twice to complete.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Cersei Lannister would have a word with you. :smallwink: Varys the Spider as well. The best political intriguers get others to fight for them.

And, as I recall--Edmond Dantes doesn't actually do very much fighting in the book at all, save the one pivotal duel (wait, my memory was fuzzy--did he even wind up doing the duel?)--and that was only because the social norms admitted dueling.

Political intrigues can permit combat scenes, but those scenes are by no means required. I'd say that they are "tolerated". You certainly don't need combat abilities.

(Most of the examples you give aren't really intrigue stories so much as they are swashbuckling stories, and a certain amount of courtly intrigue finds its way into swashbuckling stories.)

[Airk]

I don't buy the idea that a political intrigue game doesn't need cool combat abilities.

Let's look at movies and books. The Three Musketeers revolves around court intrigue, but it's certainly an action-packed book. The Count of Monte Cristo is absolutely a political revenge story, but the combat is there. True Lies, RED and the Die Hard movies are political thrillers, packed with action.

The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Princess Bride, The Court Jester, Scaramouche, and the second and third Pirates of the Caribbean movies are all focused on political intrigue, and are all great fighting movies.

If you can find them, get the adventure books written for Flashing Blades, especially An Ambassador's Tale. They are political intrigue stories that always seem to require fighting past the bad guy's guards once or twice to complete.

I think you are mistaking politically DRIVEN stories for political "intrigue" stories. Almost all of your examples are stories that are started by political maneuvering, but in which the main characters don't really do any themselves. That's a completely different beast.

Anyway, once again, I think that while people can be satisfied with intrigue games run in D&D (PARTICULARLY if those people aren't familiar with any of the alternatives), I don't think those games are as "objectively fun" as they would be run in a system that actively facilitates cool stuff in an intrigue setting. It's like people who grew up eating meat & potatoes with the occasional french fry. They're perfectly happy with their diet, but that doesn't mean that something with more spice doesn't actually have more flavor.

And to continue that line of reasoning before someone tries to use a bad counterexample, you'll also note that it doesn't necessarily mean that all intrigue games run in "more intrigue focused" systems are better than all intrigue games run in D&D, in much the same way that putting sriracha on white bread doesn't produce something with more flavor than a masterfully prepared hamburger with no seasonings, but it DOES mean that all other things being equal, the game in the more appropriate system WILL be better than the game in the less appropriate system. So yeah, a bad GM running a game in an appropriate system will still result in a less fun game than an awesome GM running one in D&D, but what if that awesome GM were to run a game in an appropriate system? Then you have a game that is EVEN MORE awesome.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think the main point of this is that every RPG needs a little sriracha.

[Jay R]

Cersei Lannister would have a word with you. :smallwink: Varys the Spider as well. The best political intriguers get others to fight for them.

Of course. And since the PCs in this case want to fight, that's who would do it. This isn't a roadblock; it's the solution.


And, as I recall--Edmond Dantes doesn't actually do very much fighting in the book at all, save the one pivotal duel (wait, my memory was fuzzy--did he even wind up doing the duel?)--and that was only because the social norms admitted dueling.

It's been a long time since I read it, so the only fighting scenes I remember (not counting the descriptions of battles) are these: Luigi Vampa wins a knife fight. Albert or Franz (I forget which) is captured by bandits. Caderousse fights Busoni with a dagger. Benedetto kills Caderousse. Albert challenges Monte Cristo; they meet on the field but don't fight.. Fernand challenges Monte Cristo, but flees when he learns the Count's true identity.

But it isn't just fighting. The story involves sailing, swimming, horsemanship, and many other fun and interesting physical skills.


Political intrigues can permit combat scenes, but those scenes are by no means required. I'd say that they are "tolerated". You certainly don't need combat abilities.

"Political intrigues can permit combat scenes" is exactly my point. The problem we are addressing is players who want to use their combat abilities. I'm pointing out that you can always involve combat in a political intrigue, and that it's usually there.


(Most of the examples you give aren't really intrigue stories so much as they are swashbuckling stories, and a certain amount of courtly intrigue finds its way into swashbuckling stories.)

Correct, except that you have it backwards. Unless it's just mindless fighting like The Duellists, a swashbuckling story is, at heart, a political intrigue.


I think you are mistaking politically DRIVEN stories for political "intrigue" stories. Almost all of your examples are stories that are started by political maneuvering, but in which the main characters don't really do any themselves. That's a completely different beast.

D'Artagnan goes of to Paris to join the musketeers and carve a name for himself in the political circles there, carrying a letter addressed to a political player. The three musketeers attempt to save the Queen's honor from the Cardinal's plot, then D'Artagnan plays a double role with Milady De Winter to ferret out information. Athos is hiding from a political issue in his past, while Aramis is scheming with the Duchess de Chevreuse. Porthos is attempting to form an alliance with a rich widow (complicated by the fact that she isn't a widow yet). Planchet is sent to London to attempt to prevent a political assassination. Even a dressmaker is involved in the politics. (And in the next two books, Twenty Years After and The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later, the politics is far more direct.)

The Count of Monte Cristo returns to Paris to conduct an extremely convoluted set of political machinations.

True Lies is a spy thriller. It's politics from beginning to end.

RED is the story of several ex-CIA agents trying to thread their way through a plot in the agency.

Robin Hood is trying to raise the ransom to free King Richard, and protect the poor from Prince John, raise awareness among the people, and rescue John's political prisoner Marian.

Westley is trying to break up Prince Humperdink's marriage. Vizzini, Fezzik, and Inigo are trying to start a war

Scaramouche began by failing to kill the Marquis in a duel. He started a political riot in Nantes, and then avoided politics for awhile as a thespian and a fencing master. But he then joins the parliament specifically to fight politically-motivated duels

In the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie, the pirates are gathering to protect the seas from the political machinations of the East India Trading Company. Elizabeth, Capt. Jack and Barbossa are involved in a hugely political meeting of the Pirate Lords, while Will Turner is betraying them to try to save his father.

Die Hard is the only story I mentioned that doesn't directly contradict your point.

And my final point remains untouched, and even unremarked. The adventure books written for Flashing Blades are political intrigue stories that always seem to require fighting past the bad guy's guards once or twice to complete.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I may have mistaken your point. I saw "I don't buy the idea that a political intrigue game doesn't need cool combat abilities." and took it to mean that you were claiming cool and detailed combat as an essential feature of an intrigue game.

[Airk]

Of course. And since the PCs in this case want to fight, that's who would do it. This isn't a roadblock; it's the solution.



It's been a long time since I read it, so the only fighting scenes I remember (not counting the descriptions of battles) are these: Luigi Vampa wins a knife fight. Albert or Franz (I forget which) is captured by bandits. Caderousse fights Busoni with a dagger. Benedetto kills Caderousse. Albert challenges Monte Cristo; they meet on the field but don't fight.. Fernand challenges Monte Cristo, but flees when he learns the Count's true identity.

But it isn't just fighting. The story involves sailing, swimming, horsemanship, and many other fun and interesting physical skills.



"Political intrigues can permit combat scenes" is exactly my point. The problem we are addressing is players who want to use their combat abilities. I'm pointing out that you can always involve combat in a political intrigue, and that it's usually there.



Correct, except that you have it backwards. Unless it's just mindless fighting like The Duellists, a swashbuckling story is, at heart, a political intrigue.



D'Artagnan goes of to Paris to join the musketeers and carve a name for himself in the political circles there, carrying a letter addressed to a political player. The three musketeers attempt to save the Queen's honor from the Cardinal's plot, then D'Artagnan plays a double role with Milady De Winter to ferret out information. Athos is hiding from a political issue in his past, while Aramis is scheming with the Duchess de Chevreuse. Porthos is attempting to form an alliance with a rich widow (complicated by the fact that she isn't a widow yet). Planchet is sent to London to attempt to prevent a political assassination. Even a dressmaker is involved in the politics. (And in the next two books, Twenty Years After and The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later, the politics is far more direct.)

The Count of Monte Cristo returns to Paris to conduct an extremely convoluted set of political machinations.

True Lies is a spy thriller. It's politics from beginning to end.

RED is the story of several ex-CIA agents trying to thread their way through a plot in the agency.

Robin Hood is trying to raise the ransom to free King Richard, and protect the poor from Prince John, raise awareness among the people, and rescue John's political prisoner Marian.

Westley is trying to break up Prince Humperdink's marriage. Vizzini, Fezzik, and Inigo are trying to start a war

Scaramouche began by failing to kill the Marquis in a duel. He started a political riot in Nantes, and then avoided politics for awhile as a thespian and a fencing master. But he then joins the parliament specifically to fight politically-motivated duels

In the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie, the pirates are gathering to protect the seas from the political machinations of the East India Trading Company. Elizabeth, Capt. Jack and Barbossa are involved in a hugely political meeting of the Pirate Lords, while Will Turner is betraying them to try to save his father.

Die Hard is the only story I mentioned that doesn't directly contradict your point.

Actually, I feel that you just proved MY point. All those stories are politically MOTIVATED, and virtually none of those stories involve politicing or intrigue on the part of the participants, beyond "Oh hey, I've been screwed over by politics."



And my final point remains untouched, and even unremarked. The adventure books written for Flashing Blades are political intrigue stories that always seem to require fighting past the bad guy's guards once or twice to complete.

Haven't read it, so I'm not going to talk about it.

[Thrudd]

A story where the main characters are participating in political intrigue would be like the PC's playing as Varys, Tyrion, Cersei and Peter Baelish in ASOIAF. D&D does not do this well. It can be simulated with 3e skills somewhat, but a campaign focusing on this would be ignoring the vast bulk of the D&D system. You might as well play free-form, for all the depth the skill system gives you. Yes, you can compose compelling intrigue stories in a fantasy setting, but D&D really isn't designed for it.

[Jay R]

Actually, I feel that you just proved MY point. All those stories are politically MOTIVATED, and virtually none of those stories involve politicing or intrigue on the part of the participants, beyond "Oh hey, I've been screwed over by politics."

Simply false. D'Artagnan spends many chapters seducing Milady under a false name to try to get information from her. Aramis is working with the Duchess de Chevreuse on several political threads. Even the fights are there for specific political purposes.

The entire plot of The Count of Monte Cristo once he leaves the prison is his long detailed political intrigues.


I may have mistaken your point. I saw "I don't buy the idea that a political intrigue game doesn't need cool combat abilities." and took it to mean that you were claiming cool and detailed combat as an essential feature of an intrigue game.

Actually, I'm saying that a political intrigue game in which combat skills aren't needed is leaving out a crucial part of virtually all political intrigue stories.

The musketeers' purpose for the major combat scene of holding the bastion at the siege of La Rochelle was for the specific purpose of getting where they could discuss their political situation without being overheard.

The fights along the road to Calais are for the political purpose of returning the queen's diamonds (on D'Artagnan's part) or preventing their return (on Richelieu's part).

Any political intrigue scenario I set up for a role-playing game will have combat required at several points, to get the necessary information, diamonds, dressmaker, or whatever.

But whether you agree with me about how swashbucklers work or not, the person I was replying to said that his players didn't like the political intrigue game because it didn't include combat. I suggested including combat. While not the only possible solution, surely that's a reasonable solution.

[Frozen_Feet]

I don't remember who said it first, but war is simply continuation of politics through force of arms. I'd turn this argument upside-down: any game that includes combat above the level of a bar-room brawl, but doesn't include the social and political aftermath of said combat, is a poor combat game. Your characters bloody well should answer their deeds in court, or negotiate with the enemy, or at minimum talk to their superior officers. Even archetypical adventure stories like Conan and the Hobbit had their share of social intrigue.

[Airk]

Simply false. D'Artagnan spends many chapters seducing Milady under a false name to try to get information from her. Aramis is working with the Duchess de Chevreuse on several political threads. Even the fights are there for specific political purposes.

The entire plot of The Count of Monte Cristo once he leaves the prison is his long detailed political intrigues.

So two out of the whole list. And one could argue only one that involves much combat? Okay then.


Any political intrigue scenario I set up for a role-playing game will have combat required at several points, to get the necessary information, diamonds, dressmaker, or whatever.


I think at the end of the day though, a political intrigue game should be more about the political intrigue fiction and less about "I hit for 8 points of damage and he is dazed." Which means more Houses of the Blooded and less D&D.

[AMFV]

So two out of the whole list. And one could argue only one that involves much combat? Okay then.



I think at the end of the day though, a political intrigue game should be more about the political intrigue fiction and less about "I hit for 8 points of damage and he is dazed." Which means more Houses of the Blooded and less D&D.

And there are people who disagree with you, or for whom the abstraction of D&D combat isn't that troubling. All combat systems and social systems are by necessity abstractions. Just because D&D is one that tends to be more number-oriented in it's abstractions doesn't mean that they aren't as useful or as easy to resolve. Period.

As I said I've seen people use D&D and D20, in particular for thousands of game concept, well not technically thousands, but many divergent game concepts, and I don't think the system is poorly designed for that. I've seen people use WoD for many game concepts. I don't think that most systems are poorly designed for that sort of thing.

Replicating true political intrigue in a real world roleplaying game is practically impossible, mostly because other players are at the table, watching you do things, secrecy in any real form is going to be cumbersome, or obvious, which makes political intrigue very difficult, and betrayal tends to be inappropriate or not fun, also a problem.

[Jay R]

So two out of the whole list. And one could argue only one that involves much combat? Okay then.

No - only two I went through carefully again. I've provided actual specific evidence in the form of examples from the story several times. You simply deny these facts without providing any facts in return.

[Knaight]

What you appear to NOW be saying is "most people who play D&D are willing to play in a hack and slash game". Or rather, that's what you should be saying, because what you are actually saying now is "most people who play D&D LIKE hack and slash games." Which is not necessarily a good conclusion.



A) You didn't make a statement about people's 'interests', you made a statement about what they 'are'.


That's not a cut and dry distinction in English. I could say that someone is a superhero movie fan, which is almost the exact same thing as saying they are very interested in superhero movies. The same thing applies to playstyles in RPGs, where you can say that someone is a playstyle-favorer of some sort and it's not meaningfully different than saying that they are more interested in a particular play style.

[Airk]

No - only two I went through carefully again. I've provided actual specific evidence in the form of examples from the story several times. You simply deny these facts without providing any facts in return.

What facts do I need to present to explain that Robin Hood, Westley, Jack Sparrow and Harry Tasker don't do any politicing? Seriously?



As I said I've seen people use D&D and D20, in particular for thousands of game concept, well not technically thousands, but many divergent game concepts, and I don't think the system is poorly designed for that. I've seen people use WoD for many game concepts. I don't think that most systems are poorly designed for that sort of thing.

You are STILL missing the subtlety of the point. CAN you use D&D for anything? Sure. I could run Star Trek in d20 if I wanted to. That doesn't make it the best choice.


Replicating true political intrigue in a real world roleplaying game is practically impossible, mostly because other players are at the table, watching you do things, secrecy in any real form is going to be cumbersome, or obvious, which makes political intrigue very difficult, and betrayal tends to be inappropriate or not fun, also a problem.

There are systems that do an effective job of working around these sorts of issues, because they are designed with the idea that everyone knows everything but cannot necessarily act on it. Oh, and also on the idea that people are mature enough to separate OOC knowledge from IC knowledge. Of course, d20 does none of these things, but it's still "just fine for intrigue" even though it doesn't try to address any of these issues, right?

[AMFV]

You are STILL missing the subtlety of the point. CAN you use D&D for anything? Sure. I could run Star Trek in d20 if I wanted to. That doesn't make it the best choice.

The problem is that the "best choice" for anything is typically the system that I enjoy the most, it is easier to convert a system I enjoy using and am familiar with than it is to play in a system that may be "better suited" which I like less. At least that has always been my personal experience regarding the matter.

[Yora]

A story where the main characters are participating in political intrigue would be like the PC's playing as Varys, Tyrion, Cersei and Peter Baelish in ASOIAF. D&D does not do this well. It can be simulated with 3e skills somewhat, but a campaign focusing on this would be ignoring the vast bulk of the D&D system. You might as well play free-form, for all the depth the skill system gives you. Yes, you can compose compelling intrigue stories in a fantasy setting, but D&D really isn't designed for it.
There's a difference between "not supporting", and "prohibiting". I recently switched to Castles & Crusades and that game does "not support" a huge amount of things. In fact, it provides rules only for very few things. Which in many regards is a great strength of almost all OSR games, if you enjoy the relative weighting of story development and tactical combat these games offer.

As I see it, when it comes to PCs talking to NPCs and taking in the sights (as I describe them to them), there isn't really a lot of randomness involved. I know what the NPCs know and I have an idea of what they think of the PCs and what their motives and desires are. Based on that, I feel like I can make a descision if the things the players say would convince the NPC or not.

However, when it comes to combat, nobody of us really has any clue how to use melee weapons and how armor works, and even the people who do will tell you that combat is pure chaos. Combat is a great deal about physical strength, muscle memory, and instinctive reflexes. Give that there are often a dozen or more creatures involved in a fight, all running and screaming and swinging blades, I, as a GM, can't really make the descision to arbitrarily declare that combatants A, D, and E land a hit, and that B should take 10 points of damage and F 3 points of damage. That's where the dice come into play. To create randomness. When nobody can really tell what's going to happen and a considerable part of it is pure luck or chance.

It's very common among OSR GMs and even rulebooks to preach again and again, that you don't need to role dice when the result of the roll doesn't matter or the chance of something significantly happening seems infinitely small.
For example, there would be no need (if you follow the assumption) to role dice when a character wants to climb up a tree. D&D 3rd Edition has a Climb skill and can also present you a DC for the skill check and AD&D has a special climb ability for thieves. But climbing up a tree is easy and almost everyone can do it, and even if you climb trees a thousand times, there is a very low chance that you will ever fall and recieve a meaningful injury. Rules-lighter games simply assume such things always work and no dice are roled. Is it arbitrary? Yes it is. But that's not a problem. GMs make arbitrary descisions about the type and number of enemies the PCs face all the time.
GMs are perfectly capable of using common sense and judgement to decide when something will work automatically, when it will fail automatically, and when there might be a good time to make a dice roll.

I think even when playing 3rd Ed., Pathfinder, or something like that, there's nothing wrong with not using available rules like diplomacy or bluff.

[Chaoticag]

If I may add my two cents to this?

I think that what makes the difference between a heartbreaker and an OSR/retro-clone is less a question of well, content, but more a result of writing direction. Both have the same roots, but they approach a rewrite from a different perspective, namely that of their audience. A heartbreaker's audience is a bit more narrow than that of an OSR, one is aimed at the people the writers gamed with, while the other is aimed at people who enjoyed second edition AD&D, so it's less a question of whether the system allows for court intrigue but more whether the writers considered who'd be really playing their games since it sounds that on an objective level, heartbreakers are able to be, well, not bad, but they're a product of some shortsightedness on who'd enjoy the material while the OSR knows who is going to be playing theirs.

[Jay R]

What facts do I need to present to explain that Robin Hood, Westley, Jack Sparrow and Harry Tasker don't do any politicing? Seriously?

There are no facts you can present to defend a falsehood.

Robin Hood is supporting King Richard against Prince John, attacking tax collectors to return money to the poor, trying to pay Richard's ransom, and working to prevent Prince John's coronation - all 100% political actions.

Wesley is trying to prevent the Prince's wedding. He eventually allies with Inigo and Fezzik, who had been hired to start a war. But while he is involved in the politics of this situation, he is not primarily a political intriguer. The only politics he ever get involves in are the only story we have about him.

Jack Sparrow makes an alliance with Will Turner against the British navy, parlays with Barbossa to betray Will, bargains with Elizabeth to betray Barbossa, etc. In the third movie, he makes the crucial political action of voting for <spoiler> to become the Pirate King.

Harry Tasker is a spy - a position that is 100% political. He dances with somebody to gain information, uses his position to terrorize a used car salesman, invents a political task to involve his wife, tries to find information about stolen nukes, and works to stop a political movement from nuking Miami for political purposes. These are all political actions.


You are STILL missing the subtlety of the point. CAN you use D&D for anything? Sure. I could run Star Trek in d20 if I wanted to. That doesn't make it the best choice.

I'm not missing a point that is completely irrelevant; I'm ignoring it. I said that if a political intrigue game was boring because it didn't have combat, that it was easy to add combat to political intrigue games, and provided examples.


There are systems that do an effective job of working around these sorts of issues, because they are designed with the idea that everyone knows everything but cannot necessarily act on it. Oh, and also on the idea that people are mature enough to separate OOC knowledge from IC knowledge. Of course, d20 does none of these things, but it's still "just fine for intrigue" even though it doesn't try to address any of these issues, right?

I have made no statement for or against the d20 system. For all of your attempts to change the subject to the suitability of the d20 system, I'm going to continue to talk about solving the problem of lack of combat by adding combat.

[Thrudd]

There's a difference between "not supporting", and "prohibiting". I recently switched to Castles & Crusades and that game does "not support" a huge amount of things. In fact, it provides rules only for very few things. Which in many regards is a great strength of almost all OSR games, if you enjoy the relative weighting of story development and tactical combat these games offer.

As I see it, when it comes to PCs talking to NPCs and taking in the sights (as I describe them to them), there isn't really a lot of randomness involved. I know what the NPCs know and I have an idea of what they think of the PCs and what their motives and desires are. Based on that, I feel like I can make a descision if the things the players say would convince the NPC or not.

However, when it comes to combat, nobody of us really has any clue how to use melee weapons and how armor works, and even the people who do will tell you that combat is pure chaos. Combat is a great deal about physical strength, muscle memory, and instinctive reflexes. Give that there are often a dozen or more creatures involved in a fight, all running and screaming and swinging blades, I, as a GM, can't really make the descision to arbitrarily declare that combatants A, D, and E land a hit, and that B should take 10 points of damage and F 3 points of damage. That's where the dice come into play. To create randomness. When nobody can really tell what's going to happen and a considerable part of it is pure luck or chance.

It's very common among OSR GMs and even rulebooks to preach again and again, that you don't need to role dice when the result of the roll doesn't matter or the chance of something significantly happening seems infinitely small.
For example, there would be no need (if you follow the assumption) to role dice when a character wants to climb up a tree. D&D 3rd Edition has a Climb skill and can also present you a DC for the skill check and AD&D has a special climb ability for thieves. But climbing up a tree is easy and almost everyone can do it, and even if you climb trees a thousand times, there is a very low chance that you will ever fall and recieve a meaningful injury. Rules-lighter games simply assume such things always work and no dice are roled. Is it arbitrary? Yes it is. But that's not a problem. GMs make arbitrary descisions about the type and number of enemies the PCs face all the time.
GMs are perfectly capable of using common sense and judgement to decide when something will work automatically, when it will fail automatically, and when there might be a good time to make a dice roll.

I think even when playing 3rd Ed., Pathfinder, or something like that, there's nothing wrong with not using available rules like diplomacy or bluff.

Yes, there's no disagreement. D&D and clones should have some free-form social interaction, it's lots of fun. All I am saying is that if a particular campaign is all social interaction and almost no combat, it is pointless to even call it D&D, since so few game rules are even being used. You have a character sheet and a bunch of dice which have no impact on the game at all. For an isolated session now and again, it is expected. As the main focus of a campaign, where every session is all politics and manipulating and dealing and seducing and plotting, using D&D is basically the same as free-form systemless roleplaying. You've rolled up a character, filled out the sheet, and it sits there never looked at again except to upgrade your level and HP at various intervals arbitrarily determined by the DM (since a game of all social intrigue normally would not award much or any XP by the RAW, definitely not in OD&D). There is probably a better system to use, if you want a campaign full of social maneuvering with maybe one big fight at the end. D&D is great for a game with occasional social maneuvering with fights and adventuring at regular intervals.

[Talakeal]

Yes, there's no disagreement. D&D and clones should have some free-form social interaction, it's lots of fun. All I am saying is that if a particular campaign is all social interaction and almost no combat, it is pointless to even call it D&D, since so few game rules are even being used. You have a character sheet and a bunch of dice which have no impact on the game at all. For an isolated session now and again, it is expected. As the main focus of a campaign, where every session is all politics and manipulating and dealing and seducing and plotting, using D&D is basically the same as free-form systemless roleplaying. You've rolled up a character, filled out the sheet, and it sits there never looked at again except to upgrade your level and HP at various intervals arbitrarily determined by the DM (since a game of all social intrigue normally would not award much or any XP by the RAW, definitely not in OD&D). There is probably a better system to use, if you want a campaign full of social maneuvering with maybe one big fight at the end. D&D is great for a game with occasional social maneuvering with fights and adventuring at regular intervals.

How about setting? If you wanted to do social intrigue in forgotten realms or dragon lance org greyhawk? Is the system relevant then?

Which kind of goes back to the original question. In my experiance heartbreakers have an explicit setting, while osr games tend to only have an implied setting. Or is this incorrect?

[AMFV]

Yes, there's no disagreement. D&D and clones should have some free-form social interaction, it's lots of fun. All I am saying is that if a particular campaign is all social interaction and almost no combat, it is pointless to even call it D&D, since so few game rules are even being used. You have a character sheet and a bunch of dice which have no impact on the game at all. For an isolated session now and again, it is expected. As the main focus of a campaign, where every session is all politics and manipulating and dealing and seducing and plotting, using D&D is basically the same as free-form systemless roleplaying. You've rolled up a character, filled out the sheet, and it sits there never looked at again except to upgrade your level and HP at various intervals arbitrarily determined by the DM (since a game of all social intrigue normally would not award much or any XP by the RAW, definitely not in OD&D). There is probably a better system to use, if you want a campaign full of social maneuvering with maybe one big fight at the end. D&D is great for a game with occasional social maneuvering with fights and adventuring at regular intervals.

D&D works fine for social interactions, the skills to that effect work acceptably if used. There are multiple magic spells that could be used to that effect. There are certainly rules for arbitrating social interactions in D20, rules which I think can be used to good effect in this respect, a skills based character can work well for this.

[Airk]

{{scrubbed}}

[Thrudd]

How about setting? If you wanted to do social intrigue in forgotten realms or dragon lance org greyhawk? Is the system relevant then?

Which kind of goes back to the original question. In my experiance heartbreakers have an explicit setting, while osr games tend to only have an implied setting. Or is this incorrect?

I think a "heartbreaker" doesn't necessarily have an explicit setting. What makes something a "heartbreaker" is that it is derivative of D&D and ultimately fails to attract much attention, even if it includes some good ideas for improving on the old system. I think Pathfinder would have been a heartbreaker if D&D 4e hadn't been such a departure from the previous edition.

If you create a system to support a primarily social intrigue game specifically in a published D&D setting, I don't think you could publish it at all without the copyright holder's permission. If it never gets published, it isn't a "heartbreaker", it is a personal homebrew game.
You could absolutely homebrew a D&D derived system which has more support for social intrigue and is specifically intended for a particular published setting. You could give it away for free, maybe, but I don't think you could legally sell it. Now, if you made your D&D-like+more social intrigue system with a custom or generic fantasy setting, you could publish it and it might be called a heartbreaker if it failed to become successful.
OSR means specifically going back to AD&D and OD&D rules. It also does not mean there is or is not a specific setting. ACKS is OSR, and it comes with a custom setting, though it of course can be adapted to other settings.

Yes, 3.5 skill system lets you arbitrate social situations more mechanically than the freeform of OD&D, but if the game is all social then the characters should just dump everything into Int and Cha and all will be human for the extra skill points. A game of mainly social intrigue is still ignoring the vast majority of the D&D game, with many classes being largely irrelevant. Rogues and bards will rule, arcane casters with the enchantment school will be game changers, High Cha clerics could be relevant. All the combat focused classes who don't get many skill points will be worthless.

[Eulalios]

I personally like to run intrigue in DnD, using WIS and CHA and appropriate skill checks to establish (a) what the PCs perceive; (b) how others perceive them. I throw weight on the dice, based on how the players' brilliant or utterly stupid plans translate into the setting.

[Yora]

How about setting? If you wanted to do social intrigue in forgotten realms or dragon lance org greyhawk? Is the system relevant then?
I would actually run games that are half interaction half combat. Like Indiana Jones, or Star Wars. There's enough fighting happening for a decent combat system to be relevant, but also spontaneous heroic antics of such prominence that the rules should be quick and allow for easy improvisation. You can't have the PCs strolling into the throne room, dump the head of the traitor at the kings feet and shout to the guards to arrest the treacherous court wizard, and then suspend the action for 5 minutes while the GM looks up the appropriate skills and modifiers for the role that determines whom the guards will actually arrest. I much rather tell the lead player "Roll charisma at +2!" and set an arbitrary target number. If I later realize I gave the player only a 30% chance when I actually had something like 75% in mind, it's not a big disaster because the scene will continue to develop in a thrilling way regardless.

[Scow2]

Pathfinder would have been a heartbreaker if it hadn't:
1 - Been published by a company that made several D&D 3.5 adventure paths and official D&D publications.
2 - Been written and developed by several of the developers of 3rd edition
3 - allowed people to continue using 3rd edition material with greater compatibility than with 4e material.