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

[Umbran]

Hence, you projecting your wishes onto the text because you, for whatever reason, have decided that the tradition must be protected from even a suggestion that it hasn't always been strictly maintained.

Mod Note:

Making this personal is unlikely to enhance understanding. So, let us all please endeavor to not go such places. Thanks.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To hopefully make this make sense, think of the game as an anthology, either a big book of short fiction or an anthology TV series like Twilight Zone. The important bit is there are various writers, an editor, and that all the stuff should at least roughly conform to a given theme, like say this anthology is about ghost stories...while that anthology is about time travel...and that other one is comic fantasy.

The players are the writers. The DM is the editor. The theme is generally agreed to by everyone involved. "Let's play D&D" followed by "okay" is everyone agreeing to the theme. Roughly: we're playing fantasy adventurers in a fantasy world where magic is real and dragons exist, etc. Or whatever else the theme might be. Ravenloft, Theros, etc. Epic, low-fantasy, sword and sorcery, etc.

But, it's obviously more complicated than an anthology of prose or TV episodes...it's a single game, set in a single game world...that all has to fit together to make any sense at all. The editor picks and chooses what comes in because if they don't, then you have tonal whiplash. Time travelers in faux-Medieval Europe...but it's a fantasy game without scf-fi elements, etc.

The DM isn't the source of the fiction, the players are. The DM and/or the group sets the theme and everyone agrees to engage with it. The DM, effectively, hands the players writing prompts (situations) so the players can write the fiction (engage with the setting), i.e. creating the story of the game, then the DM has to make all the fiction the players generate work together as seamlessly as possible.

So yes, generally, you do need someone in charge of making things work together. Otherwise you have a loose, nonsensical mishmash of whatever. You can share that authority around the table, but that's not how traditional games are set up.

This is thin justification. Players aren't writers, they are actors. They have no ability to assert anything about the fiction. They can approach the actual writer, the GM, and ask for revisions or additions, but tge actual writer can just say no. Instead, the players are presented with a scene by the writer (or, may, on sandbox fashion, pick from a few) and then they just get to act however they want until they go too far in the opinion of the writer and get pushed back. The writer here can be extremely controlling, a la railroad, or very permissive but at no point do players actually get to be writers. You're confusing offering players their choice of scenes and being able to act with writing.

Case-in-point you've gone out of your way to deny 4e's small concession to giving players access to writing by pointing out strongly that it doesn't exist because it requires GM approval. That the GM is firmly on the writer's chair.

 

[Campbell]

Most of the Story Now games I am familiar with have an initial setup process that helps drive into that initial core of who a character is. It's pretty normal to spend a session or two establishing this stuff. Masks, Monsterhearts and Sorcerer for instance have players establish a fair amount about their characters from word jump.

In my Stars That Bind Us (my Mecha horror hack of Lancer) game we spent 2 sessions establishing the initial state of the fiction / world building around the characters.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh, I promise you, it absolutely, positively was. I've had people tell me how preposterous it is that in 4e, everything is core (even though it was), and if you never saw a single thread with people complaining about "Magic Item Mart" or, worse, "Christmas Trees," then frankly I am happy for you, because sweet wounded Jesus they were tedious as hell.

Though I should note I saw plenty of that in 3e days; there were people who were really, really hostile to the idea that you could buy magic items at all.

 

[Thomas Shey]

(For the pedants, yes, that means they won't actually be doing Story Now, but they'll be playing along as best they can so that they can have fun along with everybody else. Dealing further with clashes between agendas during play is a Whole Nother Topic, though.)

I do think one of the biggest problem with agendas (at least past GNS) is the automatic assumption that having more than one at a table is a mistake. It may make managing the game more complicated, but assuming it isn't going to happen is, well, quite a take.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Most of the Story Now games I am familiar with have an initial setup process that helps drive into that initial core of who a character is. It's pretty normal to spend a session or two establishing this stuff. Masks, Monsterhearts and Sorcerer for instance have players establish a fair amount about their characters from word jump.

In My Stars That Bind Us game we spent 2 sessions establishing the initial state of the fiction / world building around the characters.

Yeah, this makes perfect sense to me and how I'd want to do it. And this is basically how I assumed how it usually works in Story Now games, so I was confused by the opposition to the importance of the backstory...

Though come to think of it 'backstory' is somewhat misleading word. Often it actually refers to more than just establishing chronological details of the character's life. I don't need exact details, but I need the gist of who they are (or at least who they think they are) and why.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, this makes perfect sense to me and how I'd want to do it. And this is basically how I assumed how it usually works in Story Now games, so I was confused by the opposition to the importance of the backstory...

Though come to think of it 'backstory' is somewhat misleading word. Often it actually refers to more than just establishing chronological details of the character's life. I don't need exact details, but I need the gist of who they are (or at least who they think they are) and why.

Because what's created doesn't look anything like a D&D-esque backstory.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because what's created doesn't look anything like a D&D-esque backstory.

What does D&D-esque backstory look like and how is Story Now one different?

 

[Malmuria]

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.

Yes - I agree, clearly dnd is not story now. My thought was, again let's say I have a linear AP and a megadungeon and I'm planning to run both for my dnd players. And as you just told me, dnd is gamist. Per OP, what does that mean with regards to how I run these games? Does it mean that the players in both groups must have the same creative agenda? Both, after all, will involve overcoming challenges, getting xp and levels, etc, as you mention.

The reason I ask this is that this is a fairly typical topic of conversation for dnd players, including on these boards (linear vs sandbox, etc etc). This seems to be a fairly important set of distinctions, not with regards to Story Now, but just with regards to different types of dnd play, to the point that answers to these questions lead to several distinct "cultures" of play (classic, trad, neo-trad, OC, OSR). Does "gameism" as theoretical term speak to those various differences in a helpful way, and if so, how?

 

[niklinna]

No, I get that your example was intentionally extreme and not necessarily a norm of how these things are actually usually approached*, nor I am dismissing Story Now. But I feel the discussion has taken a weird course. This whole tangent began when @Manbearcat objected me associating backstory with establishing the dramatic needs of the character. And I still feel these are connected. And yes, stating those two things about the character instantly makes me question why, but that is me creating 'the backstory.' The dramatic need and why the dramatic needs exist are directly related and the former lacks weight without the latter.

Any chance you can give me a post # for when the tangent began? It's a long thread!

But yeah, this get's me back to author stance, immersion and those things. And I am bit confused for what Story Now aims here. Perhaps the enjoyment of the style also is dependent on one's ability to immerse into the character whilst simultaneously writing them from the author stance? Because whilst I wouldn't say that this is completely impossible for me, doing so definitely seriously hampers my immersion, so I'd prefer have at least solid starting point and main elements authored before playing the character...

I think I've addressed the nut of this in my previous post, but....

I would not disagree that character immersion in a heavy Story Now game (that is, one in which you start with very little) would require simultaneous, at least alternating, author/actor stances. There is a tension there, and if you don't like that tension, it won't work for you. Some people enjoy that sort of tension though.

*But how are they? What is the typical amount of character definition in the beginning of a Story Now game? And not necessarily on paper, I include things in people's heads as well. I tend to know a lot more about my characters than is written down anywhere.

We'd have to do a survey for that, I'm afraid. I know that when I first started with a game featuring heavy use of Story Now techniques (Blades in the Dark—this is not to say that BidD "is" a Story Now game), we had a few questions on the character sheet to answer, by picking from preset lists: heritage (national origin), background (social class), one friend, one rival ("Mercy, a cold killer"), and a vice. We were instructed to provide one detail about heritage & background. And that was all the book said.

Of course, it being my first such game, I wrote up more, about my character's parents and his relationship with them and all that. And then we started playing and it was 100mph from the get-go and so much emerged from our play that my character's backstory turned out to be not that important. I did try to drag it in at some point but it felt strained because who else had a stake in it? Also, when it precluded taking actions I might have otherwise done, on the spot, well, it interfered with oportunities for action! On the other hand, when something came up involving another character's backstory (made up on the spot), it clearly involved a stake my character had some interest in—but that was a lucky chance and I could have claimed a stake on the spot in any number of ways.

That example right there shows that there's a lot to be gained from looking hard at what is necessary and what isn't necessary. My character's backstory was kind of important to me, but it wasn't necessary for play to proceed. It also closed off play options I might have had, and yet provided one later. None of this is right or wrong, but it does affect enjoyment and gameplay in particular ways.

Aren't we just arguing about timing? [...]

I feel immersion to my character suffers when I am inventing who they are at the same time. Or that's not quite true, once I have a foundational core, I can extrapolate what 'feels true' but at this instance we are basically talking about improvising that foundational core, which sort of feels like lifting yourself to air by your own hair sort of situation.

Totally valid. But see the crack there! What is the size of that foundational core, how large or small does it need to be, what specifically does it contain? What is incredibly shallow to you may be a wide vista of possibility to another.

Most of the Story Now games I am familiar with have an initial setup process that helps drive into that initial core of who a character is. It's pretty normal to spend a session or two establishing this stuff. Masks, Monsterhearts and Sorcerer for instance have players establish a fair amount about their characters from word jump.

In my Stars That Bind Us (my Mecha horror hack of Lancer) game we spent 2 sessions establishing the initial state of the fiction / world building around the characters.

Yeah, this makes perfect sense to me and how I'd want to do it. And this is basically how I assumed how it usually works in Story Now games, so I was confused by the opposition to the importance of the backstory...

I would say the opposition is to the assumption of necessity of (prewritten) backstory. Necessity in the general sense. For you, it is a necessity in order to have fun. Totally valid. But it is not a necessity for others.

As for how it usually works in Story Now games, well, there's a variety of games that put emphasis on the Story Now approach, but they do so to different degrees. Blades in the Dark is pretty minimal, but even then it's more than my stripped-down example.

Though come to think of it 'backstory' is somewhat misleading word. Often it actually refers to more than just establishing chronological details of the character's life. I don't need exact details, but I need the gist of who they are (or at least who they think they are) and why.

That sounds like an insight worth exploring, to me.