B/X D&D on balance

[pemerton]

Having both is certainly a possibility. Its known as a giveaway or Monty Haul campaign. The PCs reap disproportionately large rewards from not too tough encounters and thus level quickly.

We did this for a few games and had a good time power mongering just for the heck of it and it was good fun. That kind of game didn't hold my interest for very long.

Is it possible to run a game that has the pace of Monty Haul, but sets up the scenarios/situation so that interest is maintained?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Is it possible to run a game that has the pace of Monty Haul, but sets up the scenarios/situation so that interest is maintained?

I guess it depends on what the players enjoy. For the most part things that come too easily won't remain interesting in the long haul. Some players will find this entertaining for longer than others.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Wait wait wait.

Are there... not just one, but two people in this thread actually arguing that 4e is Sim in any way, shape, or form? That 4e is incapable of Gamist play?

Apparently I've stepped into some bizarre alternate universe.

The goal isn't for the PCs to see if they can overcome the challenge, but to see HOW they overcome the challenge, with all of their neat tricks and cool techniques for using those tricks. It's just expected that the 4E players will need to deal with these encounters (it's how you get XP after all) and overcome them.

...

4E is like a Haunted House, with all these cool sets and scares and so on. You're expected to go through each and see the neat stuff that happens and get scared, sure, but mostly come out at the end.

This is not a description of Sim. It is a description of Gamism. Or "Step on Up" since we're apparently using Edwards' subtitles for the articles on each category rather than referencing the category itself?

 

[Libramarian]

Wait wait wait.

Are there... not just one, but two people in this thread actually arguing that 4e is Sim in any way, shape, or form? That 4e is incapable of Gamist play?

Apparently I've stepped into some bizarre alternate universe.



This is not a description of Sim. It is a description of Gamism. Or "Step on Up" since we're apparently using Edwards' subtitles for the articles on each category rather than referencing the category itself?

Three including me. How do you figure that is a description of gamism rather than sim?

 

[Andor]

Three including me. How do you figure that is a description of gamism rather than sim?

My reading of P1nback's statement is what I would call gamist rather than sim because the expectation is that the goal is to see how the PCs overcome the challenge rather than if. In a sim style game there is no guarantee of victory. Even though you might have a safty net to reduce the chance that failure = death, success is by no means promised. In a gamist setup however, victory is almost assured, it's merely a question of what it costs you.

One is that no option is suggested for groups that want rich character development and rapid advancement.

Out of curiosity, is that even possible? By any interpretation rich character development takes time. It's a matter of roleplaying, and roleplaying little things. Evenings around the campfire, discussions with friends (and enemies), haggling with a vendor over favorite foods, stopping mid-quest to go visit a grave or an art museam. What made Bilbo and Frodo richly developed character what not how many Orcs they killed but the long, cool, song filled evenings in the Shire and Rivendell, the breakfasts of seedcake and tea, the after dinner conversations while watching smoke-ring duels.

I suppose you could hand out another level after every good dinner party, but I'm not sure what purpose it would serve, or even what it would mean.

 

[Libramarian]

My reading of P1nback's statement is what I would call gamist rather than sim because the expectation is that the goal is to see how the PCs overcome the challenge rather than if. In a sim style game there is no guarantee of victory. Even though you might have a safty net to reduce the chance that failure = death, success is by no means promised. In a gamist setup however, victory is almost assured, it's merely a question of what it costs you.

Gamism by GNS means "Step On Up" like step on up to the plate -- the real-world players are presented win/lose type challenges by the game (or the game facilitates the players challenging each other) and thereby exhibit game skill and/or cajones in their willingness to trade risk for reward.

Some people use Gamist to mean elements that don't even try to have an in-world justification, like healing surges (note: not actually interested in arguing this point atm). But I think this should be called a mistake, both because the GNS creative agenda of gamism is quite a useful and interesting concept, and because I don't actually think immersion-breaking elements should be called anything -- it makes it seem like there's some sort of positive philosophy behind them, when I think they're just lazy design. It's easy and lazy to not give a nod toward simulationism. Going meta-game is not good in itself, it is a trade-off that may or may not be worth it. At least, I would suggest using "gamey" for this sense of gamist.

Simulationism means you have the "Right to Dream" without being distracted by gamist concerns like build-optimizing and/or haggling with the DM for in-game advantage in a grubby, unheroic old-school way. Like the gamers who are all "I hate it when the game forces me to choose between building the character I have in my head and building an effective character" -- they're simulationists (short for: expressing a simulationist desire at this time). They don't like having their Right to Dream threatened by gamist challenge.

So challenges where you're pretty much guaranteed to win, and you get to choose how you defeat it and what you look like while doing it, seem more simulationist than gamist.

 

[Andor]

So challenges where you're pretty much guaranteed to win, and you get to choose how you defeat it and what you look like while doing it, seem more simulationist than gamist.

I must have a poor understanding of the GMS terminology then, as I thought what you just described was textbook narrativism.

Simulationism, as I understood it, is portraying the world as the world and responding to it in as "realistic" a manner as possible. And so if your "vision" is to become the worlds undisputed master of q-tip combat then you can, but you'll still get beaten up by a peasant with a club because a q-tip just isn't a very good weapon and the game/world is under no obligation to pretend it is.

 

[Balesir]

I must have a poor understanding of the GMS terminology then, as I thought what you just described was textbook narrativism.

Simulationism, as I understood it, is portraying the world as the world and responding to it in as "realistic" a manner as possible. And so if your "vision" is to become the worlds undisputed master of q-tip combat then you can, but you'll still get beaten up by a peasant with a club because a q-tip just isn't a very good weapon and the game/world is under no obligation to pretend it is.

Well, it's to some extent a matter of understanding and debate, but my own understanding is as follows:

It's about what the player(s) is/are concentrating on at the moment in which they actually play the game - i.e. not after the session, not during character generation, not over pizza - but while actually playing.

If they are concentrating on beating the challenge before them using their character's actions and abilities, Gamism is going on.

If they are concentrating on how the conflict they are involved in/pushing towards relates to/challenges/butts up against the narrative/moral themes being addressed in the game, it's Narrativist.

If they are concentrating on what the events that are transpiring say about the game world, what they mean for the story and characters and their understanding of what makes the game world "tick" - that's Simulationism.

If they are concentrating on what flavour pizza they want - well, that isn't really relevant to the model...

 

[P1NBACK]

I must have a poor understanding of the GMS terminology then, as I thought what you just described was textbook narrativism.

Simulationism, as I understood it, is portraying the world as the world and responding to it in as "realistic" a manner as possible. And so if your "vision" is to become the worlds undisputed master of q-tip combat then you can, but you'll still get beaten up by a peasant with a club because a q-tip just isn't a very good weapon and the game/world is under no obligation to pretend it is.

Andor, it's perfectly reasonable to be confused about it. There's a big reason "GNS" was replaced by the Big Model (Right to Dream, Story Now, Step On Up), and I presume it's because people bastardized "simulationism" and "gamism" and whatnot to mean something else.

I didn't "grok" simulationism for the longest time. I thought, as you do, that simulationism meant "simulating" the world or whatever. Most people on this forum use it that way. That's fine.

But, when people are talking about Right to Dream and Step On Up, that's not what it means at all.

So, here's my take on defining each:

Step On Up ("gamism") is focused on players coming to the table expecting a challenge and the goal of the session is to see if they can overcome the challenge or not. This method often has scoring and victory conditions (short or long term), which may be overt or subtle (bragging rights). But, ultimately the goal is for the players to express themselves in a way that shows they have "won" the game. Note that this playstyle can totally "sim" a world. In fact, that can often be preferred, as the simulation gives players a solid foundation on how to overcome challenges. If we know fire works like fire does in the real life, then it's easy to harness that to our advantage. Knowing that "falling damage" will kill someone and is realistic, can help us achieve our goals or overcome certain challenges. I think the height of Step On Up play is a sandbox old school D&D campaign where the players are actively choosing challenges and using their XP as a judge of how far they've gone.
​

Right to Dream ("sim") has nothing to do with "simming a world". What is actually important is simulating an experience. I look at a game like Call of Cthulhu, almost a perfect example of RtD or "sim", as a game heavily supporting Right to Dream. The goal of play isn't to necessarily overcome the challenges and "save the day" (Who saves the day against Cthulhu? No one.) The goal is in fact to reflect Lovecraftian fiction. We want our character to solve the crime, realize some terrible truth and go mad. That's how the fiction usually goes. If our character solved the crime, realized the truth, and killed Cthulhu saving mankind, it would kind of be a disservice to the game. Or, if we never solved the crime... there really is no game. Our goal in Right to Dream is to "simulate" what a world, setting, fiction, or genre is about. That doesn't mean it has to be "realistic", right? I mean, Feng Shui is gonzo as heck. But, you're not simulating reality. You're simulating kung fu movies and . We're not trying to use our characters to really overcome a challenge. We're wanting to see them do their crazy kung fu stuff. 4E usually has this sort of feel to it. I see it a lot when people talk about making their game more "cinematic". 4E isn't really about the players "winning" the game in a lot of ways. Instead, it's about seeing the character portray these "action heroes" that go through challenges and twists and turns and ultimately save the day (the reverse of CoC). In most respects, we know the outcome of Right to Dream. We know if we're playing Star Wars the rebels will be outmatched, go through turmoil and ultimately save the day against the Sith (if we're playing it to "sim" Star Wars of course).
​

Story Now ("narrativism") is basically just like Step On Up, except we're not playing to overcome challenges. Instead, we're playing to explore a theme and characters. We don't really know how it might turn out (like Step On Up - where you might "win or lose"). We resolve that in play. We play to "find out what happens". Only, we don't care if the players win or lose. Instead, our goal is to tell a story and develop characters. In this type of game, my character might need to die in order to enhance the game. Not because that's how it's supposed to happen (Right to Dream) or because I played poorly (Step On Up), but because it made the most sense right there for the story or theme. Note we can "sim" reality in this game style too. I want to set this game in 1920s "Boardwalk Empire" setting or something. We're exploring the whole concept of prohibition and its effects on us. And, of course we want everything to make sense and feel "real" in that sense.
​

While I firmly believe that system is important and can help us achieve these goals - most people wanting "Story Now" might not be happy with B/X D&D - I also think you can totally play with any of these styles using nearly any system if you want. You may have to drift the system, but it's possible. That's because like @Balesir said, these sort of things are achieved in play, not outside of it.

Let's take a simple example: some people throw the XP system out of D&D. They just level up the PCs "when it feels right" or "when it makes sense for the story" or "at the end of each session" or whatever. What? If I'm playing for Step On Up, I want to level when I earn it. I want it tied to victory conditions.

So, why do they do this? It's because they have different goals. They don't care about winning their levels. But, it has nothing to do with simulating "reality". It's totally Right to Dream (simulationism) if we're simulating a "cinematic globe-trotting heroic action story where the characters have to tough it out, but get more powerful as time goes on, facing crazier challenges on crazier set pieces, and will ultimately win the day but we're not sure how!" And, of course, we abandon anything that gets in the way of, or detracts from this.

Another example might include how the "dice" turn out. So, the fight was "too hard" or "too easy" - not because as a DM I messed up in planning really - but because the dice went against the players. I rolled three crits in a row and they're rolling . But, this fight... well, it wasn't supposed to really challenge them. And, they won't see the cool BBEG fight I had prepped for tonight if they die... So, I fudge it, right? Of course I do. I shave off some damage and "Oops!" forgot to roll for that recharge. Because why? Because the whole point of the game is to see the PCs kick these dudes asses, get to the BBEG and save the day.

Granted, I don't really fudge dice at my table. I let the dice fall where they may and in 90% of cases roll out in the open. But, that's because we're playing Step On Up and the dice are important arbiters to the game. And yet, you'll find people all the time giving advice to fudge the game. Hell, even WotC said this recently. I can't find the article now, but of course they did. And, that's not necessarily a bad thing. But, it most certainly can be depending on your goals for the game.

Eh. Didn't mean for this post to become a novella! Yikes! Sorry about that.

 

[Andor]

Eh. Didn't mean for this post to become a novella! Yikes! Sorry about that.

No worries, I'm on board now. And yes, that is one justified shift in terminology, especially considering that those terms were all being used, in different ways before the GNS concepts were evolved.

Don't worry about the length either, with perfectly justified irony I have no patience with the TL;DR crowd. <- And having written that, I notice everything after the coma would sound absolutely perfect coming from an Elcor.