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

[Crimson Longinus]

It doesn't have to be just one, but for this particular subsystem (and most of its subsystems), Torchbearer shows its gamist priority quite openly. Weather in Torchbearer is the equivalent of a thinly-disguised wandering damage table (except with other mechanical effects such as bonuses or penalties to particular skill tests). The express pupose is to challenge the players and their characters. That thin disguise is, of course, simulation/emulation, a mere rationalization or justification for the random gamist effects, not an effort to evoke the feel of being out in wild nature in rich sensory detail. Not that any given GM couldn't embellish that layer for mood for more simulation/emulation, but the book just gives you dice-roll tables and lists of mechanics.

While some have argued for inherent exclusivity of gameplay goals/agendas (see below the next quotation block), what @Manbearcat is doing here is simply describing the design choices Torchbearer made. Torchbearer does include agendas other than gamist, but it does so in other ways and to (much) different degrees.


While I agree it's possible for an RPG to serve multiple agendas at the same time just fine, it is not the case that there's no conflict. That is, just because these goals/agendas aren't fundamentally incompatible, doesn't mean they are trivially compatible (that is, there can be conflict). As for deciding which [potentially plural!] you're "really" doing, that gets things backwards: Quite a few GMs and players come to a system/group with their preferences established, those preferences may well differ, and a given system/group either meshes with a participant's preferences, or doesn't.

To get back to the issue of exclusiviity, it was Edwards who harped on about incoherence and incompatibility of creative agendas (all his terms). While I agree that can—and often does—happen, I don't believe it is inevitable. In fact, the GEN 2-tier model* talks about deliberate blending of goals as a necessity and gives an example:


Note that even this short excerpt highlights that participants can support their own agendas when faced with something that may have been motivated otherwise (by the rules, the GM, or another player). That's actually a pretty radical view, which I haven't seen fronted so clearly before. The thing is, the rules, the GM, or another play can make that easier, or harder, and all this theory stuff is helpful in figuring out how and why that happens, so that we can avoid conflict or friction, and enjoy gaming together.

All that said, weather as presented by the Torchbearer rulebook is primarily gamist—but you can add your own dramatic weight to it if you like.

* I very recently learned about the GEN 2-tier model, and while the article linked is incomplete and rather a mess (and unapologetic about being so), I found it an interesting response to, and critique of, the Forge GNS model.

Edit: Added a bit of emphasis.

Thank you, good post. I’ll read the article later when I have more time, but I think your post had two important points I strongly agree with: that blending can be non-disruptive or even desired and that the agendas are at least party in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Edwards's characterisation of two sorts of simulation as simulation is not arbitrary. In both cases the goal is a certain experience of the fiction for its own sake. He is very clear that they use different techniques.

But that's the problem; I also think they serve different purposes. For the most part, the kind of people interested in genre coherence are almost entirely separate from those interested in setting coherence. They frequently work at active cross-purposes.


On the other hand, people concerned with genre coherence are also often, if not always interested in some degree of dramatic consistency.

I'd read Edwards explanation. I simply don't buy it. It places two things in the same bucket that serve too radically different purposes, and separates off one of them from the category that shares purposes with it. He shows the same lack of understanding of the desires those pursuing simulationist concerns do that the simulationists in r.g.f.a. did for those pursuing gamist concerns.

Edit: to make it extremely clear, I do not think that the Forgeite version of Simulationism works even as a guidance tool for writing good simulationist games, because it contains two targets within it that are not only not the same, they are actively opposed in likely the majority of cases (though this is dependent on my argument that there are hard and soft genres, and presenting one is far from presenting the other).

 

[Thomas Shey]

If I show you a list of failed painters and their work, does that tell you how to paint masterpieces, or even how to avoid making bad paintings?

At least in the latter case, I'd answer "to some degree." You might happen to find a collection of painters who's failure states were all different, but my experience in the arts does not suggest that's the likely case; bad writing is not an entirely new failure state every time, why would this be different.

If I give you the collected poems of William Topaz McGonagall, the worst poet to ever grace the English language, does that tell you how to avoid writing bad poetry?

There's a difference between a single sample and multiples.

If I give you a list of failed attempts at coining new phrases, does that give you any information about how to predict whether your coinages will succeed?

Slightly different issue; your former two are mostly about art and presentation; your later is about sociology.

 

[Campbell]

@Thomas Shey

Dramatic consistency can be (and often is) part of High Concept Sim. I think you are trying to smuggle in your understanding of Dramatism into Story Now. Story Now is about narrative tension and potential in the moment, not consistency. The entirety of Dramatism is contained in High Concept Sim.

 

[Thomas Shey]

@Thomas Shey

Dramatic consistency can be (and often is) part of High Concept Sim. I think you are trying to smuggle in your understanding of Dramatism into Story Now. Story Now is about narrative tension and potential in the moment, not consistency. The entirety of Dramatism is contained in High Concept Sim.

No, I'm arguing that even calling that "Sim" is an attempt to fob off some elements that weren't tidy in Nar. In other words, I'm disagreeing with the utility of most of the model in the first place. To my POV, Edwards took the flawed but still useful GDS model and made it in almost every way (other than stopping the r.g.f.a. coyness about the fact that these are often used in outright design decisions, which I argued was true back in the day but got ignored) worse and less useful, while trying to look like its more principaled. All the latter ended up doing for the most part was create errors of function without actually making it more useful.

 

[Campbell]

All the Forge Big Three model did was add an additional category to account for the new things they were trying to do that did not fit under the previous model. There is no Dramatism in Forge Narratavism. Nothing was taken away.

I am sympathetic that they made some classification mistakes when it came to High Concept/Dramatism, but a model that does not count for and basically erases Story Now would be way worse in my estimation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But see, I don't think GDS Dramatism couldn't include "Story Now"; I think that assumption was flawed from the get-go. There were people in the original Dramatism camp who probably didn't think so (I'd have been surprised if Berkman acknowledged the possibility), but there was absolutely discussion of what was sometimes called "drama on the fly" which, far as I can tell, is identical. Where people get the idea that it wasn't I've never understood.

 

[overgeeked]

And I nearly forgot the question I wanted to ask you! What do you mean by player-authored quests? I couldn't find any info on it in the DMG, and when I look for info on this online, what comes up is people complaining about 4E making quests much more overtly gamist with things like index cards...

It's a throw-away line that a few people have blown into massive proportions.

From 4E DMG, p103.

"Player-Designed Quests. You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!"

That's literally it. The whole thing right there.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's a throw-away line that a few people have blown into massive proportions.

From 4E DMG, p103.

"Player-Designed Quests. You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!"

That's literally it. The whole thing right there.

I don't know if I'd consider it a throwaway line. It seems like a fantastic bit of GMing advice.

 

[Ovinomancer]

All the Forge Big Three model did was add an additional category to account for the new things they were trying to do that did not fit under the previous model. There is no Dramatism in Forge Narratavism. Nothing was taken away.

I am sympathetic that they made some classification mistakes when it came to High Concept/Dramatism, but a model that does not count for and basically erases Story Now would be way worse in my estimation.

Is there are argument that Dramatism is Narrativism? Because that's a deep misunderstanding of what those two are defined as under tge different models. GDS doesn't account for Story Now at all -- dramatist isn't that.