• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

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.
Right, 2e talks about stories, and that they're ABOUT PCs to a degree, but it doesn't at any point suggest that the players are making choices about what these stories significant elements are. In fact it is more of a "if you reward all thieves for stealing stuff, then they will act more thiefy" basically. Likewise 1e tried to punish players for not faithfully role-playing their characters, by which they meant emulating the genre elements of being a fantasy fighter, giving color, and maybe at most making a somewhat sub-optimal choice based on character motivation now and then (but don't push it, or you will get ganked). The fundamental paradigm, up to 4e, was ALWAYS that the GM was making some sort of danger-filled gauntlet with treasure at the end and the players job is to navigate it without any foreknowledge. At most the 'treasure at the end' could be replaced with some reward related to the concerns of the character outside of 'get better gear'. Even that would NEVER be put in place by the player!

4e outright gives players license to invent their own motive for delving into situation X, and implies that the GM needs to incorporate elements into the story in order to make it happen. Yes, there's still a thin layer of "well, technically you COULD say 'no', but you really aughtn't do that."
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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?
We have to think about what Edward's 'G' means. It bears on 'Step on up' play, for example. So saying that D&D falls into that agenda implies there is a strong element of focusing on play where players exercise game mastery in some form or another by accepting various challenges and beating them. The focus is on that element, the reward system is tied to that activity, etc. I think that DOES fairly well describe the overall structure of D&D. By surviving and overcoming certain types of challenges gold, XP, and loot/gear/magic are acquired, which then levels the PC, which is a direct indicator of the player's prowess at employing rules, logic, character resources, etc. in an effective manner. Failing players are sent back to the start of the game, or at least given some sort of demerit (IE pay to be raised, etc.). Now, later versions of D&D, the 'WotC' versions, have these much more elaborate characters, and you have more room to construct side goals or work an agenda like creating a certain build or character story. Still, 4e aside, no version of D&D actually puts any actual power in the hands of a player to say "I am pursuing goal X, so Y element appears in game." or anything similar. GMs are not even obliged to try to make that happen.

So I think it is fairly safe to say that in GNS terms D&D is quite gamist.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
What is a Roleplaying Game?

This is a difficult question, because "roleplaying game" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. However, at an extremely high level, a "roleplaying game" is firstly some kind of game--an activity with rules and many different possible outcomes, compared to things like puzzles with only one valid solution, or artistic pursuits where "rules" don't really apply. Secondly, it concerns roleplay, that is, pretending to be someone you aren't in a fictional situation. If these sound like extremely generic terms, that's because they are; a lot of different things are "roleplaying games," and it is difficult to capture all of them in a single description.

So what is Swords Thrown Among Radiant Stars?

STARS is what some call a "Story Now" roleplaying game. This means that, generally speaking, the impetus for the characters to take action, for adventure to happen, for brave deeds or craven crawling...is you, the player. A "Story Now" game is focused on protagonists (you and your fellow players) going after whatever it is they believe worth seeking (their goal), examining and exploring the places they find themselves in and the events around them (their situation), and deciding what they're willing to do or endure to achieve that goal (resulting conflict). You then repeat this process for as long as it remains interesting for you to do so! Through your process of choosing a goal, facing situations, and resolving conflicts, you'll learn about yourselves and your characters, and leave a legacy to be remembered. Or, at least, that's the hope!

Like with many other roleplaying games--some you have most likely already heard of--there is someone there to facilitate this process, the Stargazer or "SG." Unlike the game masters of those other games, however, the intended purpose of the Stargazer in STARS is not to create plot hooks for you to choose from. STARS is not meant to be a game where the players passively accept whatever things the SG tells them are valuable, nor even one where the players simply choose whatever they think is most interesting from a palette of prepared options. Instead, the players have control over what gets served up, with the Stargazer simply setting the stage so that the players can do what they like on it. Of course, sometimes in order for the players to be able to do what they like, certain things have to be on the stage: you can't challenge your fear of heights by climbing a mountain if there's no surface to climb. This process, of furnishing players with the necessary situation elements so they can experience or endure conflict, is called "scene framing" or "framing the scene." It's one of the most important skills for every SG to learn, particularly because it is very easy to accidentally move from merely framing scenes and into writing plots.

It can be helpful to compare "Story Now" games to the two main alternatives, "Story Before" and "Story After." Most roleplaying games today are "Story Before." The players carefully create their characters, perhaps working with other players to do so, and write out comprehensive backstories, which will be used as the seeds for planned-in-advance character developments. The game master creates comprehensive world lore and information, develops various potential enemies and allies, and generally fills up the world with content. This may be a fully pre-written plot where player choice doesn't actually change anything (what some people call "railroading"), or it may be open-ended, where each player choice creates branching paths, but the choices are always whatever the GM provides. But either way, the goals and the situations are mostly determined in advance, and the players react to these things as they see fit.

"Story After" games are relatively rare these days, by comparison to Story Before, but some of the earliest roleplaying games moved in this direction. For this, the GM does not really "plan" any goals or conflicts at all, and may even seem to resemble Story Now play by avoiding any semblance of "plot" or the like. The key difference is that there isn't any effort put to framing scenes at all, or at least not until well after the scene is over. If, for example, one player loses his Wizard character early on, and chooses to play as that character's Fighter sister to quickly get back into play, then after the session is over, the player could look back and describe the successful dungeon run as "my Fighter was avenging her brother's death!" Here, the goal is decided after the conflict is already over, and a progression is developed to explain the events that already occurred in a satisfying way. That is the heart of Story After gaming, and for some folks it is the best part of roleplaying experiences.

Something to keep in mind, however, is that Story Now does not mean that the Stargazer never prepares. Indeed, Stargazers absolutely SHOULD prepare things! But, in general, they prepare less than Story Before game masters do, and the things they prepare should generally take the form of useful tools and resources to draw upon, rather than well-structured, thoroughly planned-out things. So, for example, when you draft up the star chart for your game, leave large areas of it blank--not empty, but unfilled. These areas will be filled in later, through your players triggering new situations due to their choices or the consequences thereof, or through you drawing on your prepared resources to frame a new scene."

That got kind of long, but I was trying to keep it in that "conversational instruction" mode while covering all the basics and providing compare-and-contrast examples.

If I have erred in my descriptions of these things in the estimation of anyone better-versed in these things than I am--such as @pemerton or @AbdulAlhazred or others--then please fault me, not the underlying concept. I am still very new to this stuff.
That is a good explanation of the concepts involved, thank you. It unfortunately also perfectly encapsulates exactly why I have no interest in a Story Now game, and would in fact likely have a negative play experience from either playing or (especially) running it. Not a single aspect of the Story Now concept as you described it resonates with me.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
4e outright gives players license to invent their own motive for delving into situation X, and implies that the GM needs to incorporate elements into the story in order to make it happen. Yes, there's still a thin layer of "well, technically you COULD say 'no', but you really aughtn't do that."
This is where we run into over-selling this one line. It’s buried in the DMG. It is not in the PHB. It doesn’t give players license to do anything. It’s a recommendation to and for the DM. One that’s explicitly optional and that retains the DM’s final say in the matter…and again, it’s something most DMs were already doing for decades. The notion that this line tucked away in the DMG is some liberating lightning bolt aimed squarely at freeing players from DM tyranny is pure BS invented by people pushing their own agenda.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
Ah, now I know what section you're referring to. Reading through that, it does not (to me) read like embracing player-authored quests. Instead, it reads like someone talking about how there are players hungry to be given plotlines and quests and such. Here's the full text of that section, with some particular emphasis added that I'll explain in a bit:


The various bolded portions are what people mean by these things being "GM-authored" even though players are having input on it. Especially the parts referring to it as "using" their contributions, or "adjusting" to their actions, or "a night at the movies," or "your campaign story." The underlined parts are more ambiguous, as they could be read as referring to either GM-authored or player-authored. However, in the context of the several passages referring to clearly GM-authored things or a GM-as-author perspective, it seems pretty clear to me which of the interpretations is relevant.
I don't mind your interpretation, honestly. Perhaps unsurprisingly, parts you found ambiguous (informing your interpretation) I found pregnant with intent (informing mine), to whit

Players drawn by this incentive are simultaneously easy and difficult to please. They are self-starters who provide material for you to work with and take your game in surprising new directions. To make full use of their contributions, though, requires a flair for improvisation.
So if they "provide material", and "take your game in... new directions", forcing you to improvise... that points toward player-authorship to me.

To give an example of something very player-authored in my campaign (apart from my previous example): Our party bard. The player told me he wished to play a tiefling. I was hesitant, at first, because tieflings can carry some...baggage, as I'm sure you know, and I wanted to de-emphasize demons and devils early on (to help play up the Arabian Nights setting dress). So I asked him what he was going for, why this was interesting. On the one hand, it's just because it's something he thinks is cool; on the other, after some digging, he said he liked the idea of someone who has some questionable connections that he didn't choose. So I said okay, and then asked, "Which of your parents is or was a tiefling?" He thought about it for a sec and said, "Y'know what...let's say both of them!" And that specific interaction suddenly meant there were so many possible framings I could give so that this player could explore all those questions of lineage and inheritance, of defying others' expectations, of family history and the intertwining of bloodlines and all sorts of other things.

And that's how we got our surprisingly moral, upstanding, non-philandering Bard. The player brought in minority communities of tieflings and their personal struggles against prejudice (mild, as my world is relatively bright, but prejudice nonetheless), and the ways he differs from his siblings, his "reformed" succubus great-grandmother, etc. I have since furnished the player with situations that frame his ancestry, and the mystery surrounding part of it, in all sorts of lights, so that he can decide what these things mean, where they will go. Because of the player's authorship, we have explored genealogy with disturbing implications (his great-to-the-Nth grandparent on his dad's side is either Glasya herself or the pit fiend Baalzephon), twice had the player investigate (and successfully pursue) the possibility of taking the fiendish power away from others so they can live free, and seen him tackle the (OOC and IC) uncomfortable issue of being seen as a religious icon (by some...dubious folks) because of who he's related to Down Below.

I would honestly call the second of those "take the evil power away" moments one of the coolest events in our campaign. I was able to leverage something the player had told me (the assumed name that succubus great-grandma went by, given to her by her husband) into a heartwarming moment.* Events like these--like the time the Druid summoned a devil and very unexpectedly made a pact with him, or the time the Ranger had his world flipped upside-down for a bit because his hated rich-bitch grandfather had begun a genuine change of heart after Ranger rescued his young granddaughter, the Ranger's cousin--are some of the best and most memorable parts of my campaign. I have done a fair amount of work to also provide my own, DM-authored story and plot elements for the players to enjoy. But it's these moments of crisis, of transition, of the player having to choose what their character truly values and where things really could go almost any direction, that are the crowning glory of my game, at least in my eyes. The combats are fun (especially if the players respond positively afterwards), the roleplay is a treat (especially from the relatively shy player), and hearing my players speculate about what I've written (or, more often, sweating bullets as I fear they will feel disappointed at an overly-predictable plot) is always cool. Those moments of...revelation, though? Of players putting a Value before me and seeking out Issues in which it might be tested? That's solid gold.

*In brief: great-grandad's name meant "moon," and (for her sweet singing voice) he called her a name that means "Nightingale." When she tried to give her powers to the party Bard, the ritual failed and she couldn't figure out why...until she realized her true name had changed...specifically to the name her husband gave her. She's a new kind of being now, and might get to join her husband in the afterlife. After giving our Bard all her powers, she somehow kept just one: her beautiful singing voice. She sees this as proof that her contrition was accepted.
Again, I'm not strongly resisting your interpretation. What you describe however could well fit what the DMG2 text outlines. I think I would like further evidence to buttress the position before wanting to say I'm confident of seeing in D&D game text any firm suggestion of player authorship. You agree though that the text seems to envision an existing style of play - the player type described exists, here's how to handle it - sort of thing?
 

This stuff (Story Now) is fairly easy to explain.

Players : Create dynamic characters who want things. Go after those things like you are driving a stolen car.
Super carefully to not draw any attention to yourself? ;)
Be a fan of each others' characters.
GMs : Create dynamic situations that relate back to the aims of the player characters and introduce fun complications, keeping the focus solely on them. Be a fan of the player characters.
Everyone : Play to find out what happens. Bring it.

It only gets complicated when we smuggle in how we expect this stuff to work.

Yeah, but the thing is what you describe happens in a lot of RPGs and they still are not Story Now. I'd argue that without knowledge of what buzz-phrases such as "play to find out" etc refer to, your description would for example apply to huge chunks of Critical Role.

So I don't think this manages to encapsulate the what makes something Story Now.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
Something like:

“You know how other games tell you to be a neutral referee?

Forget all that.

Attack.

Your players will tell you what to attack.

When they go on the offense?

Oppose.

Here are the ways you attack and oppose (what moves you can make and the principles that will guide you in choosing the appropriate type/amount of opposition) and here are the rules you must follow when doing so.

You know how other games tell you to plan and plan and plan?

Forget all that.

Have only as much as you need (places, people, backstory) to give the players stuff to act upon and against. The players will tell you the rest of the stuff you need to inform your opposition. This process will repeat as you play. The PCs will evolve, wilt, and grow (see advancement and retirement section) and all the places and people and backstory will fill out and come to life.

Trust the process. It’ll be cool to take part and bear witness at the same time.”

EDIT - or

You’re not a neutral referee.

You’re not a planner.

You’re not a storyteller.

Here’s how that works and what comes of it.
You're mostly an improvisational attacker, am I right?

It's all about the attack. The opposition. The challenge!

A bit gamist, really.

(I am mostly kidding.)
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
This is where we run into over-selling this one line. It’s buried in the DMG. It is not in the PHB. It doesn’t give players license to do anything. It’s a recommendation to and for the DM. One that’s explicitly optional and that retains the DM’s final say in the matter…and again, it’s something most DMs were already doing for decades. The notion that this line tucked away in the DMG is some liberating lightning bolt aimed squarely at freeing players from DM tyranny is pure BS invented by people pushing their own agenda.

This is because of the expectation built over decades and multiple editions of D&D that all authority lies with the DM.

This isn’t BS invented by anyone. It’s right there in the text. Again, you’re looking at it in isolation rather than the larger context of the overall design of 4e, so you’re failing to see it.

But that doesn’t mean that others are lying or that it’s imagined. That’s you cherry picking evidence that supports only your desired conclusion.
 

This is where we run into over-selling this one line. It’s buried in the DMG. It is not in the PHB. It doesn’t give players license to do anything. It’s a recommendation to and for the DM. One that’s explicitly optional and that retains the DM’s final say in the matter…and again, it’s something most DMs were already doing for decades. The notion that this line tucked away in the DMG is some liberating lightning bolt aimed squarely at freeing players from DM tyranny is pure BS invented by people pushing their own agenda.

THE AGENDA

DUNDUNDUN

What exactly is

THE AGENDA

DUNDUNDUN

Overgeeked?

Related, guess where Fail Forward is in Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, and Torchbearer (and 4e)?

GM Section.

Where is “Don’t play the story…there is no story…play the towns” (4e has an iteration of this), “say yes or roll the dice” (4e has an iteration of this), “at every play drive play toward conflict” (4e has an iteration of this) in Dogs in the Vineyard?

GM Section.

Where is “play to find out what happens” in Apocalypse World?

GM Section.

Conflict/threat rules for pretty much all the games above?

GM Section.




I’ve never understood this assumed opt-in/opt-out paradigm based on where rules text is. So if something is in the PHB or players’ section of a book it’s this giant ownership/authority issue that desperately vexes GMs because MINE (like how OMG GET OUT THE TORCHES SND PITCHFORKS subversive 4e was when it put Magic Items in the PHB rather than DMG).

So Magic Item Wishlists was this giant subversive piece of player entitlement (a D&D iteration of indie tech kindred to player authored kicker) because it was in the PHB. But actual player-authored kickers in the form of player-authored quests are a big nothingburger because they’re in the DMG?

What sort of vile sorcery is this?

Can I roll to disbelieve?
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
THE AGENDA

DUNDUNDUN

What exactly is

THE AGENDA

DUNDUNDUN

Overgeeked?

Related, guess where Fail Forward is in Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, and Torchbearer (and 4e)?

GM Section.

Where is “Don’t play the story…there is no story…play the towns” (4e has an iteration of this), “say yes or roll the dice” (4e has an iteration of this), “at every play drive play toward conflict” (4e has an iteration of this) in Dogs in the Vineyard?

GM Section.

Where is “play to find out what happens” in Apocalypse World?

GM Section.

Conflict/threat rules for pretty much all the games above?

GM Section.




I’ve never understood this assumed opt-in/opt-out paradigm based on where rules text is. So if something is in the PHB or players’ section of a book it’s this giant ownership/authority issue that desperately vexes GMs because MINE (like how OMG GET OUT THE TORCHES SND PITCHFORKS subversive 4e was when it put Magic Items in the PHB rather than DMG).

So Magic Item Wishlists was this giant subversive piece of player entitlement (a D&D iteration of indie tech kindred to player authored kicker) because it was in the PHB. But actual player-authored kickers in the form of player-authored quests are a big nothingburger because they’re in the DMG?

What sort of vile sorcery is this?

Can I roll to disbelieve?
To be fair, wouldn't you think the idea of player-authored quests would be best presented in the book intended to be read by players? How would they even know about it otherwise?
 

Remove ads

Top