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

[hawkeyefan]

I think that taking the bit of advice about player authored quests, considering it only in isolation removed from many other game elements, and then declaring it as not a big deal because it’s something that’s “always been done” seems an almost willful misinterpretation.

There’s nothing quite like it in any other edition, as far as GMing advice goes. It’s entirely contrary to most GM advice offered by earlier editions.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Elaborating on my post 393, and also of relevance to 395:

It is easy to underestimate what is involved in leaving resolution open at the moment of framing and action declaration.

If the action declaration is I look inside the safe to see if the jewels are there and the GM has notes saying that they're not, and uses those notes to say what the PC finds in the safe, then the resolution was not open.

If the action declaration is we sail to the island and the GM (via prep, or via a random events roll, or whatever) says that the PCs' vessel is washed away to a different shore, then resolution was not open.

Etc.

That's not to say that "story now" can't use prep, or freeform narration of consequences, because not every action declaration is an expression of protagonism. Some is just going back-and-forth with the GM to establish framing, stakes etc. A crucial skill for story now GMing is to recognise when the stakes have shifted, such that we are no longer at that preliminary stage, and now the player's protagonism (and the PC's corresponding dramatic need) is engaged, and hence the resolution has to be open and its time for the action resolution mechanics to do their thing.

This is relevant to 4e D&D and player-authored quests, because 4e's scene-framing approach, and its use of skill challenges for non-combat resolution when the stakes are significant, allows open resolution. Whereas D&D's more traditional reliance on map-and-key/prep-style resolution makes it much harder to leave resolution open.

Right, so when I designed my own follow-on of 4e that takes it a step further, the game explicitly provides 3 modes of play, where 2 of them correspond to 4e combat encounters and SCs, but the third is 'free play'. What that means is, when you're just setting things up, you don't need these formal rules. It is explicit about that too, those parts of play are interludes, and they specifically disallow any checks to be rolled. In fact there's no such thing as an isolated check in HoML, you are either in a fight (technically an 'action sequence' which being D&D-like play is 99% fights) or a Challenge, each of which tells you how and why checks are made as part of encounter resolution, OR its free play, where checks are not allowed. So you would never, for instance, just make a check to sense some danger (like a 4e active Perception check). The GM could take PC perception into account when that is important, or it could be a challenge situation where it bears on success or failure.

 

[Malmuria]

And that's the definition of pedantic. You have a setting, you have a plot and you have characters. THAT'S a story. Granted, you don't know how the story will end until you play through it, but, you absolutely have everything you need to tell a story. At absolutely no point do any of the players have any input into the plot or the setting. They barely have input into the characters.

It's absolutely not Story Now. .

I think the distinction @overgeeked is trying to get at is between a pre-written adventure path story with scripted events and a more neutral setting that can be interacted with in a variety of ways. But I think the point of confusion might just be that the word story is used in all these different ways. For example, in the above, you say that that an sandbox-style dnd setup has a story (setting, plot, characters). The presence of this story is what disqualifies this type of game from being Story Now, which is a specific and more narrowly defined usage of the same word (“story”). Similarly, that sandbox game has a narrative but in a way that prevents it from being Narrativist.

Separate thought, related to OP
Let’s say I have in front of me two books: 1. a modern, very linear adventure path like Descent into Avernus and 2. Stonehell mega dungeon. And now I learn that 5e is a gameist game. What are the consequences of learning that for running either the linear AP or the mega dungeon? Does the fact that dnd is gameist mean that I run both books in basically the same way? Does it mean the players in both campaigns want the same thing out of playing an rpg?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Certainly you can, and it might be useful. My thought was more just that any "culture of play" might have its own internal theoretical framework, explicit or implicit, with GNS being more particular to storygame enthusiasts, in part because of the historical context of their development. Thus that particular idiom (e.g. including terms like gameism) might not be immediately or ever useful to those outside of that play culture (e.g. 5e players).

I would guess that RE has spent more time considering Narrative type games than others, perhaps, as he seems to favor them. However GNS itself was obviously meant to cover all three agendas. Somewhere it was stated (I think some of the GEN discussions stated this) that it doesn't really define Gamist agenda. I don't know that I really agree with that. I think Ron also stated that Gamist and Narrativist systems are likely to be closer in terms of how they are best implemented, and that may be true, but I didn't particularly agree that 'G' was just left as some sort of point on an N<->S continuum. But to address you more directly, at worst I don't see why a framework of the sort that Ron created is inherently inapplicable to some agendas. Culture is a thing too, but I wouldn't call GNS a culture. Culture probably dictates that certain techniques are more likely to be used, or preferred by certain tables, and that will impact which sorts of agendas work well. I mean, with the caveat that nobody can really say "X definitively cannot work for agenda A", as someone will undoubtedly prove them wrong...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Just a second. Let's back up a second.

You say there are no pre-written stories in your campaign. So, you have not created a single dungeon, adventure, or anything other than a setting before the campaign begins. That, without the players, there would be absolutely no adventure to be had in anything you've written? There's no Baron Von Evilton over in Thatland doing dastardly things? There's not Cult of Ickyness threatening the town that the players start in? Hell, there's no town for the players to start in before the entire group as a group activity creates it?

Because if you have any of those things, you're not playing Story Now. You're either doing Sim or Gam play. That's not a judgement at all, simply a label to help understand what's going on at the table.

Well, your play can still be NARRATIVIST, just not Story Now (I mean, definitionally). I mean, I would say that my infamous doomed space station is a pretty narrative agenda kind of a setup. It isn't really gamist, there's no wincons! I guess it could be simulating something, though unless its "simulate a certain very niche genre of Sci-Fi" its pretty lame. I would think of it as catering to a narrative agenda, but with a totally fixed overall story and a predefined setting. The players focus is pretty much just on how their characters deal with the situation, and that can involve various flavors of conflict/dramatic tension. I think the game My Life With Master is pretty similar, there's a pretty set situation there, and it isn't going to radically change except as part of the resolution part of the game, which is totally built into the SYSTEM, not just a setting.

Honestly, Torch Bearer seems set up to work a lot like this too. There's no indication that the world isn't entirely built by the GM beforehand. It still deals with narrative to a fairly significant degree.

 

[overgeeked]

It was never really a big part of the game…

Maybe at your tables. Not at mine. Players frequently wanted to do things beyond the next railroad or linear adventure. Forge weapons of power, raise armies, build castles, etc. That’s all player defined quests. And the notion that players couldn’t do that before it was codified in 4E is ridiculous.

The idea that the Player could not only ask for something, but also EXPECT that that request would be honored is more than enough to send various people into fits.

The word expect is throwing your argument off. Even in the much over-hyped 4E version of player-authored quests, the DM is still the final arbiter. The player cannot expect anything. They can make a request. That is all. And that’s assuming the DM tells the player that’s a thing. Again, the line is tucked away in the DMG…not the PHB.

And that's the definition of pedantic.

Not really, no. The setup to a story is not itself a story. There’s a room full of orcs…isn’t a story. It’s a situation. Only when the characters interact with it does a story happen.

You have a setting, you have a plot…

No, you don’t. The plot is the sequence of actions or events that happens over the course of the story. The characters haven’t interacted with the setting…so there’s no actions, no plot, no story...until they interact with it.

THAT'S a story.

Yes, setting, character, and plot make up a story. The characters are the PCs in this case. The setting is the setting of the game. The plot is the hows and whys of the characters interacting with the setting. So until they do interact…there’s no action or events…no plot…no story. There’s backstory. There’s history. But there’s no story of the characters exploring this setting. Not yet.

Granted, you don't know how the story will end until you play through it, but, you absolutely have everything you need to tell a story…

Yes, you have the potential energy to tell a story. It’s only through play that you turn the potential energy into kinetic energy. Through play you turn the situation into a story.

At absolutely no point do any of the players have any input into the plot…

Plot is what the characters do as they interact with the setting. The players literally define the plot by making declarations of what their characters do. Is this a heist plot a romance plot or a comedy plot? I don’t know until the players start having their characters do things.

or the setting.

My sandboxes are completely constructible and destructible. The players and their characters are free and welcome to define, transform, reshape, and redefine the setting however they wish through their characters’ actions.

They barely have input into the characters.

LOL. You mean beyond a half-dozen books filled with races, classes, subclasses, feats, and spells to choose from. I think you’re reacting to something other than me here.

You are insisting on a definition of story that is not the one being used in this thread…

Lots of words used in this thread are wildly divergent from any recognizable common definition. See: jargon.

A story does not need to be completed to be a story.

Note how you would refer to a story that’s not over. It’s incomplete, in progress, unfinished, etc. Without these modifiers a story is something that’s happened. It’s been told. Past tense. Finished.

If you have all of these being preconceived by the DM…

According to you. But you’re wrong. That’s not happening. I do not control the player characters, the players do. I do not control the plot, which is the sequence of actions and events that are the interaction of the PCs and the setting. I control only the setting.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think the distinction @overgeeked is trying to get at is between a pre-written adventure path story with scripted events and a more neutral setting that can be interacted with in a variety of ways. But I think the point of confusion might just be that the word story is used in all these different ways. For example, in the above, you say that that an sandbox-style dnd setup has a story (setting, plot, characters). The presence of this story is what disqualifies this type of game from being Story Now, which is a specific and more narrowly defined usage of the same word (“story”). Similarly, that sandbox game has a narrative but in a way that prevents it from being Narrativist.

Separate thought, related to OP
Let’s say I have in front of me two books: 1. a modern, very linear adventure path like Descent into Avernus and 2. Stonehell mega dungeon. And now I learn that 5e is a gameist game. What are the consequences of learning that for running either the linear AP or the mega dungeon? Does the fact that dnd is gameist mean that I run both books in basically the same way? Does it mean the players in both campaigns want the same thing out of playing an rpg?

Its not enough to qualify as a Story Now/Narrativist game to not have a pre-written adventure path. Notice above how I cited just how consequential player-authored quests (and item wishlists and Theme and Paragon Path and Epic Destiny) are in 4e. That is because this allows players to declare dramatic needs which in turn sites the premise of conflict for subsequent play. Players choose what their protagonism is about, not the GM. The GM's job is to then react to that by framing scenes laden with opposition to their evinced dramatic needs.

It is necessary but not sufficient to have open-ended situations where player input + principally/procedurally constrained antagonism/opposition by GM + system's say drives the action and dictates the outcome. If the GM is choosing the nature of the player's protagonism by creating a matrix of setting + situation (even if it yields a diverse menu), the nexus of which isn't player-evinced dramatic needs/premise, then its not Story Now play.

It may be some form of High Concept Sim Sandbox where the GM is pitching a premise/source of protagonism and the players play out and explore the experiential nature of that GM-sited, genre-emulating protagonism. But its not Story Now/Narrativism.

It may be a Process Sim Sandbox (specifically themed or theme-neutral or theme-whole-kitchen-sink) where the players tour and explore and defeat the setting and situation and challenge material the GM has conceived through guts, grit, and guile and internal causality based inferences. But its not Story Now/Narrativism.

In order for play to be Story Now/Narrativism, you need both:

* Open-ended situations where player input + principally/procedurally constrained antagonism/opposition by GM + system's say drives the action and dictates the outcome. This infuses play with the necessary "play to find out" quality.

* Players choosing the nature of their protagonism and dictating to the GM the content that is to follow from that (not the inverse). Or, you might have something like My Life With Master where the players create their antagonism (building The Master) and, by-proxy, create their protagonism-by-opposition. This infuses play with the necessary "the nexus of play is player-evinced dramatic need/premise quality."

 

[Hussar]

I think the distinction @overgeeked is trying to get at is between a pre-written adventure path story with scripted events and a more neutral setting that can be interacted with in a variety of ways. But I think the point of confusion might just be that the word story is used in all these different ways. For example, in the above, you say that that an sandbox-style dnd setup has a story (setting, plot, characters). The presence of this story is what disqualifies this type of game from being Story Now, which is a specific and more narrowly defined usage of the same word (“story”). Similarly, that sandbox game has a narrative but in a way that prevents it from being Narrativist.

Separate thought, related to OP
Let’s say I have in front of me two books: 1. a modern, very linear adventure path like Descent into Avernus and 2. Stonehell mega dungeon. And now I learn that 5e is a gameist game. What are the consequences of learning that for running either the linear AP or the mega dungeon? Does the fact that dnd is gameist mean that I run both books in basically the same way? Does it mean the players in both campaigns want the same thing out of playing an rpg?

Yes, and he would be wrong.

Story simply means you have a situation, a location and a character or characters. That's it. Which means that any claims that a D&D campaign doesn't have story is false. Now, you can ignore the definition that is clearly being used in this context, which is apparently what @overgeeked is doing, but, that doesn't make the argument any better.

By the by, I would point out that this is the pretty much bog standard definition of story used in any literary criticism. This isn't jargon in any real sense. This is the commonly understood meaning of story. The idea that you cannot have story until after play is concluded is certainly not part of any definition of story as it is generally used. If you have setting, plot and character, you have story. Full stop.

I do not need to complete my short story in order to have a story. You do not need a climax to have a story. You do not need a resolution to have a story. Now, granted, you generally have those things to have a GOOD story, fair enough. But, none of them are actually necessary to have a story.

And, if you need evidence, I point you to 5 word stories.

Now, to answer your question. Yes, both books will be run in a fairly similar fashion. Neither will feature Story Now elements and any simulationist elements will largely be incidental. The point of both games is to "defeat" the challenge. They both have win conditions - getting to the end of the AP in once case or largely defeating the dungeon in the other.

 

[Hussar]

Maybe at your tables. Not at mine. Players frequently wanted to do things beyond the next railroad or linear adventure. Forge weapons of power, raise armies, build castles, etc. That’s all player defined quests. And the notion that players couldn’t do that before it was codified in 4E is ridiculous.
/snip

According to you. But you’re wrong. That’s not happening. I do not control the player characters, the players do. I do not control the plot, which is the sequence of actions and events that are the interaction of the PCs and the setting. I control only the setting.

Sorry, @overgeeked, I have zero interest in fisking. I cannot parse what you are trying to say. Can you please rephrase to clarify your point?

Just to add a bit to what I wrote above though.

The problem with these discussions is that narrativism is really unintuitive. It is almost an inversion of how games are understood to work. When you play a game, it's pretty natural that you are rooting for your "team". If I'm playing Chess, I'm generally not happy when you take my queen. That's, by and large, how games work. Even cooperative games generally work this way (outside of traitor mechanics) where the cooperative players are trying to work together towards some goal.

Imagine, for a second, a chess game. A serious chess game where the two players sit down, have that clock thing ready, and whatnot. Not some pickup game, but a serious game between two players of roughly equal skill. Imagine the reaction if one player then picks up his or her queen, hands it to the other player and says, "Wouldn't this make the game more interesting? This sounds like fun!"

I imagine that's a pretty quick way to get a punch in the mouth.

But, that's the goal in a Narrativist game. Not to overcome a situation. Not to cheer the team. But, much more like how fiction writing works - a grinder through which to see just how much punishment and joy you can cram into this character. "Kill your darlings" is very much good advice in a Nar game. The player isn't really advocating for his or her character like you do in a Gamist or Sim game. The player is advocating for drama - defined as play that generates strong feelings. It's not the thrill of rolling that crit, killing that baddie just before it kills your character. That's a fantastic thrill and lots and lots of games deliver that. But, instead its the thrill of creating play, collaboratively, that hits you in the feels. Might be happy, might be sad, might be something else. But, that's the point of play.

At least, that's how I understand the difference.

 

[Aldarc]

@overgeeked, there is overlap between Narrativist and Simulationist agendas. For example, reading this page on GNS, where it says:

Like Narrativists, Simulationists are highly intolerant of obvious railroading, but for different reasons: because it betrays the implied agreement that "internal cause is king".

However, Narrativist agendas amount to more than the GM having a hands-off approach to the story.

Narrativist play relies heavily on outlining or developing motives for the characters, putting them into situations where those motives come into mutual conflict, and making their decisions in the face of such stress the main driving force behind events. For example, a Samurai character sworn to honour and obey his lord might have that loyalty tested when directed to fight against his own rebellious son. A compassionate doctor might have his sense of charity tested when an enemy soldier comes under his care. On the lighter end of the spectrum, a schoolgirl might have to decide whether to help her best friend cheat on an exam.

The Samurai example can happen in FKR, but, IMHO, I don't think that anyone would honestly argue that the gameplay is intentionally oriented around that agenda in the way that it likely would be for a PbtA Samurai game or even (as I would imagine) a Samurai version of Pendragon would be. One could find nothing like the above in Ben Milton's introduction to FKR.

However, when I read about FKR, especially what you posted in the FKR thread awhile back, a lot of its play priorities, agendas, and philosophies seem almost obviously oriented towards simulationism, albeit with the viewpoint that rules impede the table's sensibilities of the simulated reality. Here is Ben Milton's post on FKR:

2.) FKR strips out most of the rules in order to increase realism. FKR places a high priority on immersion and realism by giving the DM a lot of authority over the rules. They can decide what to roll, when to roll, the range of possible outcomes, etc. The idea is that a human being is better able to adjudicate a complex situation than an abstract ruleset. And they can do it faster.

Not to mention:

6.) Boardgames (and some very crunchy RPGs) derive their fun from manipulating abstract rules to your advantage. FKR derives its fun from manipulating an imaginary (but logically consistent) world to your advantage. It plays worlds, not rules.

But I think that it would be helpful to dislodge the idea of equating "Narrativism" with "(Emergent) Story."