D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[Charlaquin]

The problem is that I have not been able to find a definition of "story now".

I think “Story Now” is best understood in contrast to “Story Before” and “Story After.”

“Story Before” is I think what most people are used to in D&D, where story elements are planned out in advance, and players play to experience them. Not necessarily that they’re playing out a pre-scripted plot (though “Story Before” can end up feeling that way when done poorly), but the GM has already planned out things like the backstory of the adventure, the villain and their motivations; the pieces have already been put in place and the players are dropped in the middle. Published adventure modules are basically always “Story Before,” almost by necessity.

“Story Now” is where you make those story elements in the moment, as you’re playing. Maybe the GM improvises in response to the players’ actions, maybe the players have some role in defining these elements, whether formally or informally.

“Story After” is more what you see in Classic and OSR play, where the gameplay is primarily focused on things other than story, such as challenge, and the story emerges only in retrospect, as you reminisce about that time in Tucker’s campaign where the kobolds were the scariest thing in the dungeon.

 

[Charlaquin]

The fellowship aesthetic is so broad that anything absent pure, hateful competition triggers it in a game. I play competitive games quite often to play with others.

Sure, someone who values fellowship as a play aesthetic can find it in games that aren’t specifically cooperative, but a game that aims specifically to appeal to an aesthetic of fellowship can include mechanics designed to foster it. That’s the point.

Expression isn't at all implicated, because you're not trying to put yourself in the game (that would be... concerning).

Expression is the primary appeal of mechanics that involve the players in creating the story. That’s… literally inviting the players to participate in creative expression. You don’t have to be literally putting yourself into the game to be expressing something.

Narrative isn't implicated because the structure of Blades is the opposite of experiencing a story. That's more like running through an AP and learning the nifty plot twists as you play. Blades works on the Story Now premise -- there's no story to experience in that sense, you're playing for right now and not to create or enjoy the story but to drive your character's dramatic needs as hard as possible.

What the GNS model calls story now, story before, and story after are all different ways a game can appeal to a narrative aesthetic.

Fantasy I touched on -- perhaps useful in a broad sense, but RPGs are make-believe games, where you are always engaged in Fantasy. Nothing to separate from any other RPG here, just like Fellowship.

Yeah, RPGs appeal to a fantasy aesthetic pretty much as a matter of course.

And looking at it broadly, it has some merits to evaluate boardgames and video games and such. But, once you even open RPGs as a subgenre of games, most of the utility of the model dries up because things are either always implicated in any RPG, or there's not enough detail to discern the differences between RPGs and what that RPG cares about.

The value of the model as it relates to RPGs in in analyzing how an RPG’s mechanics create dynamics that satisfy the different aesthetics. Yes, pretty much every RPG’s dynamics will satisfy fantasy, fellowship, and narrative. But it’s valuable when delving into a game’s mechanics to think about what they are doing that creates those dynamics. Could they be doing it better? Is a mechanic harming the game’s appeal to a particular aesthetic, and if so, is that worthwhile to increase the appeal to another aesthetic? The point isn’t to say “this game is a Narrative and Submission game; that game is a Challenge and Discovery game.” It’s to consider the different things that people want out of games and if/how a game will appeal to people who favor a given aesthetic.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure, someone who values fellowship as a play aesthetic can find it in games that aren’t specifically cooperative, but a game that aims specifically to appeal to an aesthetic of fellowship can include mechanics designed to foster it. That’s the point.

That's all RPGs, though. All RPGs are cooperative at some level. They all feature shared imagination.

Expression is the primary appeal of mechanics that involve the players in creating the story. That’s… literally inviting the players to participate in creative expression. You don’t have to be literally putting yourself into the game to be expressing something.

I understand Expression being defined as self-exploration within the game -- ie, inwardly focused at the player. The example given is creating an avatar that looks like the player (a video game reference) so that the player feels involved personally in the game. That's not what shared setting creation does, though, it's not about self-exploration. Nor is normal Blades play, or, at least, I really hope not. It's not designed to be a journey of self-exploration, at least.

What the GNS model calls story now, story before, and story after are all different ways a game can appeal to a narrative aesthetic.

The Narrative aesthetic is described as a story that brings the player back. This doesn't align with Story Now, because there is no story that the player is being pulled back to continue enjoying. It's created in play, it's not experienced like you would in a video game.

Yeah, RPGs appeal to a fantasy aesthetic pretty much as a matter of course.

The value of the model as it relates to RPGs in in analyzing how an RPG’s mechanics create dynamics that satisfy the different aesthetics. Yes, pretty much every RPG’s dynamics will satisfy fantasy, fellowship, and narrative. But it’s valuable when delving into a game’s mechanics to think about what they are doing that creates those dynamics. Could they be doing it better? Is a mechanic harming the game’s appeal to a particular aesthetic, and if so, is that worthwhile to increase the appeal to another aesthetic? The point isn’t to say “this game is a Narrative and Submission game; that game is a Challenge and Discovery game.” It’s to consider the different things that people want out of games and if/how a game will appeal to people who favor a given aesthetic.

No, I get that this is the point of the model, I just think it's incredibly bad at doing so within the genre of RPGs. There are a few that might land, like Challenge (for a Step On Up game, or OSR and Classic cultures) and even Narrative (for Trad and Neo Trad play). But it doesn't have anything except negative space to differentiate Trad play from Story Now play -- you can say Story Now isn't narrative, or expressive (mostly, I suppose there might be a Story Now game out there about this) while D&D can be (but doesn't have to be either).

I mean, my complaints are exactly mirroring the criticism listed in the wiki article, so I'm not like terribly off base about this.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, I very much disagree with this! OC players are usually called things like munchkins and powergames and needy players by Trad GMs. Trad is about telling the GM's story, or exploring the GM's setting. The GM is firmly in charge, and is putting their imagination to the forefront. Players are engaging what the GM is creating.

OC, though, is about the character having being the star, and the GM is expected to craft play such that the character shines. Challenging the character comes only in very controlled ways, because that's not the point of OC, the point is to have an awesome story where this character gets to take the stage in a familiar setting and be the star. The setting is going to be an IP, have strong canon from that IP, and only the OC is expected to break that cannon.

Maybe I should rephrase: good trad GMs mesh well with OC players. Sure, there are trad DMs who would get upset at the “entitled munchkins” who want to trample all over their story, but they are likely to end up without many players in short order. A good read DM is able to make the PCs heroes within their world and story. Again, look at Critical Role. Exandria is very much Matt Mercer’s world, and he very much drives the story within it. But, the PCs are absolutely the stars of the show, and Matt gives the players the space to make the game about their characters, even as it’s showcasing his world. That’s what a good trad DM with OC players dynamic looks like, in my opinion.

The GM is much less free to alter things, and is really just the MC storyteller for the players. Lots of Vampire hits this mark.

That definitely wasn’t my experience with Vampire. Maybe that was more the case with Masquerade in the 90s and 00s, but my experience of WoD and CofD throughout the 10s was textboook Nordic LARP.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Maybe I should rephrase: good trad GMs mesh well with OC players. Sure, there are trad DMs who would get upset at the “entitled munchkins” who want to trample all over their story, but they are likely to end up without many players in short order. A good read DM is able to make the PCs heroes within their world and story. Again, look at Critical Role. Exandria is very much Matt Mercer’s world, and he very much drives the story within it. But, the PCs are absolutely the stars of the show, and Matt gives the players the space to make the game about their characters, even as it’s showcasing his world. That’s what a good trad DM with OC players dynamic looks like, in my opinion.

Again, I don't really think so, because these are separate cultures for a reason -- they don't mesh well at the same table.

That definitely wasn’t my experience with Vampire. Maybe that was more the case with Masquerade in the 90s and 00s, but my experience of WoD and CofD throughout the 10s was textboook Nordic LARP.

Oh, you can Nordic LARP WoD as well.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's all RPGs, though. All RPGs are cooperative at some level. They all feature shared imagination.

Yes, most games have dynamics that appeal to Fellowship, again, the framework is meant as a lens for understanding what a game’s mechanics are doing that creates those dynamics.

I understand Expression being defined as self-exploration within the game -- ie, inwardly focused at the player. The example given is creating an avatar that looks like the player (a video game reference) so that the player feels involved personally in the game. That's not what shared setting creation does, though, it's not about self-exploration. Nor is normal Blades play, or, at least, I really hope not. It's not designed to be a journey of self-exploration, at least.

All creative expression is self-expression. You may not be literally trying to create a character that’s like you, but you are expressing and exploring something about yourself by being an active participant in the creative process.

The Narrative aesthetic is described as a story that brings the player back. This doesn't align with Story Now, because there is no story that the player is being pulled back to continue enjoying. It's created in play, it's not experienced like you would in a video game.

The player comes back to create more of the story in a “Story Now” game rather than to learn what happens next in a story that was already creative. That’s still a dynamic that appeals to a narrative aesthetic.

No, I get that this is the point of the model, I just think it's incredibly bad at doing so within the genre of RPGs. There are a few that might land, like Challenge (for a Step On Up game, or OSR and Classic cultures) and even Narrative (for Trad and Neo Trad play). But it doesn't have anything except negative space to differentiate Trad play from Story Now play -- you can say Story Now isn't narrative, or expressive (mostly, I suppose there might be a Story Now game out there about this) while D&D can be (but doesn't have to be either).

You’re trying to frame MDA in terms of GNS, so of course it’s going to come up lacking. I’m advocating for using them each as different critical lenses through which to analyze RPGs.

I mean, my complaints are exactly mirroring the criticism listed in the wiki article, so I'm not like terribly off base about this.

I’m not saying you are totally off base, I’m just disagreeing with you about it. I have critiques of GNS that pretty closely mirror the critiques section of the Wikipedia article on it too, that doesn’t mean proponents of the model can’t disagree with me about them.

 

[Charlaquin]

Again, I don't really think so, because these are separate cultures for a reason -- they don't mesh well at the same table.

I think the cultures can and do combine at just about every table. Every individual player (and GM) has their own unique blend of preferences that must be synthesized to result in a satisfying gaming experience for all. Granted, some of these cultures are harder to synthesize than others, but they are not meant to be understood as siloed categories. They are tendencies, and most people have tendencies towards multiple, sometimes many, of these cultures. And most gaming groups are made up of people who don’t have exactly the same tendencies.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, most games have dynamics that appeal to Fellowship, again, the framework is meant as a lens for understanding what a game’s mechanics are doing that creates those dynamics.

Okay, how does that work. Apply the lens to, say D&D, and tell what it says about the game's mechanics that are doing this work.

All creative expression is self-expression. You may not be literally trying to create a character that’s like you, but you are expressing and exploring something about yourself by being an active participant in the creative process.

The player comes back to create more of the story in a “Story Now” game rather than to learn what happens next in a story that was already creative. That’s still a dynamic that appeals to a narrative aesthetic.

You’re trying to frame MDA in terms of GNS, so of course it’s going to come up lacking. I’m advocating for using them each as different critical lenses through which to analyze RPGs.

I’m not saying you are totally off base, I’m just disagreeing with you about it. I have critiques of GNS that pretty closely mirror the critiques section of the Wikipedia article on it too, that doesn’t mean proponents of the model can’t disagree with me about them.

I'm not trying to frame MDA in those terms, I'm responding to you saying that games have these aesthetics and how that's either a general case for all RPGs or fails to actually hit home with the descriptions of the aesthetics given for Blades.

I read the actual paper for MDA. There's merit in it's model, but it's the same merit that's built out in systems engineering -- know your requirements and make sure you're designing to them. It doesn't actually offer any usefulness in how to identify if your game provides a given aesthetic or even how to design for the aesthetics. It's really just treating them as design goals and saying that you can, if you consider reaching the goal via system and rules (the dynamic and mechanic respectfully) you may do a better job of it. System engineering is more robust, here, and offers more steps and more concrete things but still, like MDA, stops at one point and says "engineering the system here." Because doing that -- designing a game or building a system -- is not really covered by the framework. It's more an evaluation tool to help define requirements from customer statements and how you need to make sure you test against those requirements in an iterative fashion during design. It doesn't offer much for categorization of analysis of existing games, really.

I better understand the criticism mentioned in the wikipedia article, though.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think the cultures can and do combine at just about every table. Every individual player (and GM) has their own unique blend of preferences that must be synthesized to result in a satisfying gaming experience for all. Granted, some of these cultures are harder to synthesize than others, but they are not meant to be understood as siloed categories. They are tendencies, and most people have tendencies towards multiple, sometimes many, of these cultures. And most gaming groups are made up of people who don’t have exactly the same tendencies.

I get this is a nice thing to think, but your Nordic LARP is going to wreak havoc with my OC play. What's wanted from play is just too different. Trad and Neo-Trad seem like they're most likely to mesh, but there's some stark differences, and you see them repeated on ENW in complaints about player entitlement, mostly. Here's a great example -- 3.x was mostly Neo-trad in it's approach. Players were given extremely strong tools to build powerful characters, and GMs were expected to follow encounter math such that PCs would rarely ever be in great threat, so PCs tended to be the stars of the show, so to speak. The pushback on this was by GMs that abandoned the rules on encounter building and/or severely limited what players were allows to use. This was the trad pushback. You see it clearly in E6 mod designs. Now look at 5e, which absolutely centers the GM and makes the system largely subservient to the GM. PC power envelopes are curtailed into a smaller power package, and the GM has many dials and levers inside the system to do what the GM wants. This is Trad, again. The pushback is by players trying to "powergame" and create characters that obviate the encounter guidelines. Heck, even the rest/recovery cycle is friendly to GMs pushing story (like in APs) where the goal is to complete the plotline rather than roll up characters all the time. 5e is also hostile to classic play, and offers nothing at all for Story Now. Nordic LARP requires you to play at a table where the GM is really trying to evoke emotion, which isn't most of 5e's bag as it lacks a lot of hooks here that are common with Nordic LARP.

Yeah, if you really dig into the cultures, they're not that friendly with each other. Almost all of the ENW thread complaints can be laid at the feet of the cultures and how they're clashing for that player/GM doing the posting.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is very true, however, trad DMs tend to mesh pretty well with OC players. I’d argue that Critical Role has exactly such a setup.

That was basically my point.

I've gone back to the essay and I'm now getting confused by what's meant by the author by OC/Neo-Trad and how it differs from Storygames other than that the Neo-Trad group seems to be largely using Trad-designed games while the Storygames crowd prefers games designed for the purpose. The points on the pure vision linked in every case apply much better to e.g. Apocalypse World than they do to Vampire.