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

[Jer]

Just wanted to clarify that the linked thread was not intended to be about whether or not D&D is simulationist, but was instead explicitly asking what games are simulationist.

I think in retrospect the title of that thread should have been somewhat different. Even though I know what the thread is and what it's about, I keep wanting to put an "it" at the end of the title and I think some of the folks who posted there wanted to answer that question instead of the one that was actually asked.

 

[Oofta]

I think in retrospect the title of that thread should have been somewhat different. Even though I know what the thread is and what it's about, I keep wanting to put an "it" at the end of the title and I think some of the folks who posted there wanted to answer that question instead of the one that was actually asked.

That's kind of the problem, isn't it? This isn't a topic related directly to D&D, it's game theory as defined on The Forge. So you get yokels like me getting on here assuming people are speaking standard English when really they're speaking in very specific coded verbiage.

Take this sentence that I grabbed at random from The Forge site:

A description of role-playing procedures as embedded in the social interactions and creative priorities of the participants. Each internal "box," "layer," or "skin" of the model is considered to be an expression of the box(es) containing it.​

Umm ... I know all the words are English but it might as well be Greek to me.

I don't really find any value in the frameworks and theories, GNL theory and related don't really help clarify anything outside of academic discussions. Which is not meant to be dismissive of the discussions or people who value them, just that I'm not sure this even belongs on this particular forum.

I don't think RPGs fall into neat categories, especially not for games like D&D where there's such broad implementation of styles and preferences in actual play. If you do, more power to you. Maybe we just need a different label? Or move this type of discussion to TTRPG general?

 

[Jer]

That's kind of the problem, isn't it? This isn't a topic related directly to D&D, it's game theory as defined on The Forge. So you get yokels like me getting on here assuming people are speaking standard English when really they're speaking in very specific coded verbiage.

Jargon is, unfortunately, a thing. Every field has it.

But I personally find the jargon created at the Forge to be ... I'll come right out and say it - ridiculous. It isn't the kind of jargon that clarifies, it's the kind of jargon that muddies up the waters. The only people who really, truly understand it are the folks who were immersed in the Forge's design discussions back when it was a going concern - and even then I'd argue that many of them end up with different understandings of what the terms actually mean when you start trying to have conversations about it.

(Seriously all of the Forge-created jargon reminds me of the worst parts of academia from the late 90s. If you told me that the Forge was created by a bunch of out of work English PhDs trying to put their academic training into practice I'd believe it because it's the exact kind of writing for an in group audience without concern for trying to bring your ideas to a wider population outside of your niche specialization that was popular around that time.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is why GNS is not a good model for discussion. Not enough people know exactly what the theory means by the very natural language words it uses. Its disguised jargon. Metacurrency is very narrativist to me. Story Now is just useless jargon as far as I'm concerned.

Assuming people have a natural understanding of narrativist seems more like disguised jargon. I mean, I have no idea what you mean here. I mean, by this assumption, hitpoints are metacurrency and a narrativist device.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Is Story Now synonymous with narrativism? Isn't it rather just one way one can approach narrativism?

Yes. No.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes. No.

Why this jargon has two terms that mean the same thing? Seems very confusing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Why this jargon has two terms that mean the same thing? Seems very confusing.

Yes.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's kind of the problem, isn't it? This isn't a topic related directly to D&D, it's game theory as defined on The Forge.

I mean we are all online geeks playing RPGs how bad can it be?

Take this sentence that I grabbed at random from The Forge site:

A description of role-playing procedures as embedded in the social interactions and creative priorities of the participants. Each internal "box," "layer," or "skin" of the model is considered to be an expression of the box(es) containing it.​

Umm ... I know all the words are English but it might as well be Greek to me.

wait what?? what box? what is a layer or skin? does this set of sentences make sense to anyone ON the forge, I mean or was this just some nonsense?!?!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One would be the adroit instantiation of classes within the design-space that ensures each major niche is occupied, informing in a very deliberate fashion their features at various levels. An interesting fingerprint of which is seen in the generally uniform power watersheds and its highlight by rogues as an exception. The way diverse approaches to combat are instanced in class basics, features and feats is also a nice piece of work and subtle enough that one rarely sees all its pillars discussed. Sneaking Bo9S in as a subclass was rather cute!

Two others I find fascinating are the writing of fiction-first ideas into the basic pattern and the system for ability checks, and the faint nods to story-now in TIBFs and Inspiration. Speaking of backgrounds, the game purpose of backgrounds (in distributing skills) is rather neatly disguised as colour. It's intriguing to observe a nod to FitM in bardic inspiration, or the neat little piece of ludic self-awareness in the divination mechanic.

The technical language (the legal wording of rules) is remarkably consistent all through, and continually echoes specific themes. (DM power being one of them.) 5e is a sophisticated and amazingly robust piece of design given it's breadth and ambition. One may well feel vexed at its centricity - or refusal to take a stand - while still admiring the feat of designer engineering that accomplishes it.

Anyway, I am sure that the perceptive reader will be able to find the many more subtle arrangements, threads, and patterns throughout the rules

Being perhaps blunt to the point of curt, I find 5e to be the second least-subtle edition of D&D ever published, second only to the self-contradictory mess that was 3e.

Its technical jargon is in fact quite sloppy due to its variable insistence on natural language (e.g., as I have complained before in other threads, "attack with a melee weapon" and "a melee weapon attack" are two almost totally distinct categories, despite sharing essentially all the same words and, by natural language, being perfectly synonymous). Ability checks are literally not different from what they were in previous editions, unless the difference is so subtle it's escaped me after several thorough readings (which, I admit, is 100% always possible, but I would be surprised if this is true). BIFTs are less subtle and more superfluous, with many DMs (including every single one I have personally had with 5e) totally ignoring that they exist, and many more struggling to find ways to use them and to make Inspiration actually something worthwhile. (Doubly so because, exactly as I predicted back during the playtest, 5e massively over-uses Advantage, making Inspiration worthless in any situation that already offers Advantage.) I don't personally see any "ludic self-awareness" in the divination mechanic, but perhaps there is something I have missed there too.

And finally, well, I can't really agree with your assessment of the "adroit" use of classes. The bugaboo about there being no Warlord (and the closest options, the Battle Master and especially the Banneret, being painfully inadequate), for example, or the ongoing lack of psionics, or the failure to bring forward class concepts like 4e's Avenger, Warden, and Shaman, or the dearth of super-simple casters and even mildly complex martials, reflects instead a rather clumsy kludging together of archetypes and concepts solely to avoid annoying people who were already upset that 5e didn't go full bore hyperreductionist.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Assuming people have a natural understanding of narrativist seems more like disguised jargon. I mean, I have no idea what you mean here. I mean, by this assumption, hitpoints are metacurrency and a narrativist device.

If natural understanding is disguised jargon, and not natural understanding is disguised jargon, I don't know what we're doing here. What terms are we discussing here, and what do they mean? Serious questions.