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

[Micah Sweet]

So, hitpoints.

Hit points count, sure. Your move.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Hit points count, sure. Your move.

Alright, so then as a tool to talk about ROGs, you're definition of Narrativism includes any game with hitpoints and FATE and, well, anything with a metacurrency for any reason.

Is this useful in any way? Rhetorical -- it's very clearly not a useful definition to discuss RPGs.

 

[pemerton]

Gamist to non-Forge folks would mean "like a game". Simulationist would mean "like a simulation". And narrativist would mean "like a narrative".

Why? Isolationist doesn't mean "like being isolated". That would be isolation-like. Isolationist means (of a person) advocating isolation or (of a policy) pursuing isolation.

So Gamist means (of a RPGer) advocating the gameplay, ie win-lose, aspect of RPGing or (of a RPG) pursuing or emphasising the gameplay, ie win-lose, aspect of RPGing.

Likewise for simulationist: it means (of a RPGer) advocating the simulation-like, ie exploration or experiential, aspect of RPGing or (of a RPG) pursuing or emphasising the simulation-like, ie exploration or experiential, aspect of RPGing.

As I think @Campbell mentioned upthread, the choice of "narrativist" - which, as I posted, Edwards adopted because the word drama had already been taken, by Jonathan Tweet in Everway, for a different and useful purpose - is a bit unfortunate. On the same pattern as the preceding, it means (of a RPGer) advocating the narrative-like aspect of RPGing or (of a RPG) pursuing or emphasising the narrative-like aspect of RPGing. The problem is that many RPGers think of the narrative-like aspect of RPGing as being told a story; whereas Edwards intends to pick up on the narrative-like aspect of RPGing that is telling a story.

If one is being told a story, the measure of the thing is was it entertaining, enthralling, etc. But if one is telling a story, the measure of the thing is was there a point to it?, or did I really have something worthwhile to say? That is what Edwards intends by narrativist RPGing.

One could add: it's not a coincidence that most RPGers think of being told rather than telling, because that reflects some typical authority structures in mainstream RPGing. The fact that Edwards' notion of narrativism takes for granted that those authority structures can be departed from is, I think, one reason why adherents of the more traditional authority structures regard The Forge as "insulting" or "dismissive" or "disruptive".

One of the most irritating things about GNS Theory is that there are some good ideas in there - and some folks have been able to pull them out and do good things with them - but actually trying to talk about it to anyone who doesn't already understand it is an exercise in frustration.

That last sentence is also true of (say) existentialism, or constitutional law. Most bodies of theory aren't transparent and self-revealing.

I don't think that's a reason not to have bodies of theory!

 

[Micah Sweet]

What you are describing here is a technique - a way of establishing the content of the shared fiction.

I don't think you've fully specified your technique. For instance, building my PC with a high Pick Pocket skills is the use of a mechanical lever to try and influence the game toward a particular story result, namely, pockets being successfully picked by my PC - but I dobut you'd call that "narrativism". I think you are meaning mechanical levers that are "pulled" at the point of resolution, to generate departures from raw dice rolls and their modification by pre-determined bonuses or circumstance-generated modifiers.

Here you describe one goal that might be achieved by using the technique.

But here's another: in OGL Conan (published by Mongoose), a player can spend a Fate Point to create a minor advantage for their PC (eg if their PC is in prison, a servant working in the prison is a friend of a friend and so secretly brings the PC a dagger). That would most likely be used not with the aim of emulating a story genre, but with the aim of having the PC escape from prison. The fact that it somewhat resembles Conan stories is a plus - we are playing OGL Conan, after all! - but the player isn't aiming at genre emulation. That's just a byproduct.

Or consider a supers-type game, where the player spends the points so that their Iron Man-level PC can beat the Thanos-level NPC in the final confrontation. That's consistent with the genre - sometimes weaker heroes beat stronger villains - but the player's goal is to beat the challenge, not to emulate the genre.

Ron Edwards uses the labels simulationism, gamism and narrativism to describe overall creative/aesthetic goals, not particular techniques.

For me, that is consistent with what I posted in my earlier reply to you (post 187, not far upthread).

One thing Edwards is interested in is talking about the problems people have with the RPGing, as a precursor to trying to solve those problems.

Edwards thinks that there are two sorts of problem you are likely to encounter: broken simulation, ie when the mechanics don't really do a good job of telling you what is happening in the fiction and so someone (probably the GM) has to step in and ad hoc patch things up; and "munchkin" players, who aren't interested in seeing the world unfold via the mechanics but just want to focus on beating the opposition. The worst problem, he thinks, is when those two problems come together: so a real munchkin or power-gamer who seizes on the broken simulations and uses them to break the game! That sort of player is likely to generate a lot of at-the-table conflict, as the GM has to step in and try and patch-as-they-go and/or put their foot down on the munchkin behaviour.

Again, if the previous paragraph doesn't resonate at all, that will reinforce your scepticism. If it does make sense, it demonstrates exactly why Edwards and friends were developing the terminology and framework that they did.

Ok, that all makes sense, thank you. I have experienced both of the problems you described (fortunately separately), and my house rules are aimed at improving the simulation rules. Lucky for me munchkin players are pretty rare at my table.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Alright, so then as a tool to talk about ROGs, you're definition of Narrativism includes any game with hitpoints and FATE and, well, anything with a metacurrency for any reason.

Is this useful in any way? Rhetorical -- it's very clearly not a useful definition to discuss RPGs.

What's a ROG?

 

[pemerton]

Ok, that all makes sense, thank you. I have experienced both of the problems you described (fortunately separately), and my house rules are aimed at improving the simulation rules. Lucky for me munchkin players are pretty rare at my table.

I don't know how old you are, but from your list of game and also your description of how you like to play, I'm going to guess that you started RPGing in the early-to-mid 80s.

For the sort of RPGing you're interested in, I think the Forge can help identify likely problems (like in my post) but I don't know if the Forge directly inspired RPGs (or possible house rules, techniques, etc) that would address them any better than what you're already doing. I think a lot of discussion around Rolemaster, HERO/Champions, and even 3E D&D - so conversations that began in the mid-80s and probably lasted until some time in the 3E era - would have addressed the sorts of problems you might have, and I imagine you've probably taken part in plenty of those discussions and used some of them to inform your house rules and your general approach to GMing.

I think the focus of mainstream RPGing has shifted from that 2-decade heyday for your sort of approach, so I don't know if you find much these days that is innovative in ways useful to you. My tentative guess would be that you don't, but that might just be my ignorance of those domains of the hobby.

 

[pemerton]

What's a ROG?

@Ovinomancer can correct me, but I think it's a typo for RPG.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know how old you are, but from your list of game and also your description of how you like to play, I'm going to guess that you started RPGing in the early-to-mid 80s.

For the sort of RPGing you're interested in, I think the Forge can help identify likely problems (like in my post) but I don't know if the Forge directly inspired RPGs (or possible house rules, techniques, etc) that would address them any better than what you're already doing. I think a lot of discussion around Rolemaster, HERO/Champions, and even 3E D&D - so conversations that began in the mid-80s and probably lasted until some time in the 3E era - would have addressed the sorts of problems you might have, and I imagine you've probably taken part in plenty of those discussions and used some of them to inform your house rules and your general approach to GMing.

I think the focus of mainstream RPGing has shifted from that 2-decade heyday for your sort of approach, so I don't know if you find much these days that is innovative in ways useful to you. My tentative guess would be that you don't, but that might just be my ignorance of those domains of the hobby.

Good call. I am 46, and did indeed start my gaming around 1984 with the Mentzer box.

The new hotness of gaming is definitely past where I'd prefer, which is why I'm trying to mod the current D&D so that I can enjoy running it more. The types of games the Forge seemed to be advocating for (and pretty much got) are not my style, but I won't disparage anyone who likes different gaming than I do.

For the record, while I have played a few PBtA games, the only one I really enjoyed was Monster of the Week. Probably because I love most of the sources the game pulls from. It made playing a system I was uncomfortable with more palatable to me. I'm going to use a similar technique to see if I can run Star Trek Adventures. Try to ease my way into techniques developed and popularized more recently than my usual.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Alright, so then as a tool to talk about ROGs, you're definition of Narrativism includes any game with hitpoints and FATE and, well, anything with a metacurrency for any reason.

Is this useful in any way? Rhetorical -- it's very clearly not a useful definition to discuss RPGs.

I don't like metacurrency in general, but sometimes (like with hit points) you just have to put up with it and fiddle with it a little where you can.

I'm not a fan of FATE-style aspects either, and tend to equate them with metacurrency. @pemerton has been clearing up some stuff for me though, so I think I have a better picture.

 

[pemerton]

I don't like metacurrency in general

An interesting thing about Apocalypse World is that it has (almost) no metacurrency. (I've used "almost", because there are a couple of particular playbook moves that come close, but are easily avoided.) On the surface, its allocation of functions to the GM and the players is very "traditional".

But as soon as we drill below the surface, we can see that it upends that "traditional" approach completely, because of the expectations it puts on the players to drive play through their PCs (a bit like a classic sandbox, but even moreso, and with emotional connections and relationship really being foregrounded) and on the GM to keep buiding up the pressure via those soft moves, which will eventually explode into trouble, because someone is going to roll 6- some time soon.

So to really make sense of a RPG, we have to look at all its components - its mechanical techniques (like metacurrencies), and the sort of principles or expectations it sets up for GMs and players, and how these are going to interact with its tropes and setting and stuff, and how that whole package is going to produce an overall play experience at the table.