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

[Ovinomancer]

Here's what was generated fir my Stonetop PC:

Before play-
Playbook: Light bearer (effectively a chosen of tge Sun god)
Background: auspicious birth -- what portent occasioned Dap's birth and how is he marked? He was born as the sun emerged from a total eclipse and has a shock of fire colored hair.

Instinct: Hope

The worship of Helior is:
An old forgotten thing, brought forth anew
Worshipped through joyous song
Helior's shrine has been recently restored by Dap
The previous Lightbeaer lived long ago and died facing one of the Things Below, and left behind tomes of sublime poetry
Dap cane to his powers through a visit from oe of Helior's servants (an angel)

In play, 1st session:
Dap is the village chandler, and has some holy artifacts (pages of poetry)

Dap's heart is kindled by the public house owner's daughter, and plain-faced girl with a beautiful voice.

Dap and Gavin (another PC) are good friends, although they differ on philosophy. Trys (another PC) will need Dap's guidance soon.

That's it. Lot's of questions (all of this is kargely open to question -- it's what Dap believes, not necessarily what is true) and very little story in any common understanding. No timeliness, nothing about childhood. As we expanded Stonetop, the village, we discovered Dap's father is the tanner and the village midwife is resentful of Dap (why tbd).

ETA: all of this was chosen by me -- I provided it, except those parts told to me by other players when they had the authority (relations with others).

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

Your recap is so far off the mark of our exchange that I have to question if the real CL was captured and replaced by aliens in the last few hours.

Anyone actually interested in getting the exchange correct (including you Alien CL…I’m onto you…give us back the real version) can view the actual exchange in post 446 here.

Of relevance:

* If you’re using the term “incorporate” or “weaving” (not used in that post but used often…and I think is Critical Role 101) then the question is “into what?” If the answer is Big Metaplot or Big Setting (basically setting or NPC as protagonist or tourist device or vessel for delivering or curating story), then it’s not Story Now.

* If you’re using “elaborate backstory” (separate from tight backstory featuring a few statements, tags, and/or theme, often an expression of or outgrowth of Pc build or character gen procedures) then you either (a) have a high resolution conception of PC so you can’t be curious, “let go”, and play to find out who this PC is and/or (b) you’re expecting your GM to deliver Power Fantasy based on your elaborate conception (and perhaps the GM sees that as their job to deliver on that). If (a) or (b) is true, then it’s not Story Now.

And that is totally fine. It’s not a value judgement. There are lots of ways to skin an TPG cat. But if someone wants to play or wants to avoid Story Now (like @Micah Sweet ), then they should know what it is and what it features/doesnt feature.

EDIT - Also note that I asked you what you’re “incorporating (the elaborate backstory) with” and I asked you not to double down on “the game” because that tells me about as much as citing “the fun.” Yet you rejected my request and doubled down on “the game” so I still don’t know what your “incorporating (the elaborate backstory) with.” One is left to infer “the preconceived metaplot + the high resolution preconceived setting + weaving with other PC elaborate backstories.” I agree that is Critical Role (along with a heavy focus on performative aspects and color, heavy curation, power fantasy, and high production value). That is exactly the type of play that a huge swath of D&D players are looking for…but that is not Story Now play.

If the inference of what you’re meaning by “the game” is wrong I’m more than happy to be corrected on this 2nd go around of the question.

 

[Malmuria]

re: player-driven quests

For those of you who played/play 4e, what do you think of the implementation of player-driven quests? Does it work fine as is (i.e., as a section in the dmg), or would you rather it took some different form? I'm not familiar with these books, but I can imagine that if a game really wants to focus not just on quests but quests that are player driven, it could be more fundamentally integrated into the play advice and mechanics. It's very clear to me how this works in Blades in the Dark, for example, because the mechanics (such as players choosing which type of action they are going to take, being able to manipulate the dice pool in a variety of ways, xp for desperate rolls) match up with the play advice (fall in love with danger for players, asking questions for GMs). So that makes it very clear what player-driven means.

Separately

Is player-driven gameism ever a thing, or is player empowerment in this way only a feature of Story Now games? There has recently been some talk in OSR spaces about how the 1e dmg assumed that the DMs worlds would be inhabited by several play-groups worth of characters, all operating in competition with each other. I'm not necessarily charmed by such Gygaxian fundamentalism, but for those interested it would seem to provide a model of dnd play that is both 1. very gameist (especially as it leans into the wargames heritage of the game) and 2. very player driven (as a session isn't even scheduled unless a group of players, who each may have several characters, bring some of them together to work on a particular project).

Separately Separately

Is 4e as a Story Now game the way it is typically understood, or is that a particular point of view established on these boards? I've mostly heard it referred to as too gameist.

 

[soviet]

I don't think that no myth or only lightly defined characters are essential ingredients for Story Now play.

I do agree that done badly a detailed background can be abrasive to narrativist play, relegating the core tensions of a character to past events rather than future conflicts we can play out, and creating an overly elaborate but static picture of the character that the player can only try to embody, rather than feeling like a dynamic protagonist that might change and isn't always predictable. This would represent a large dose of Story Before which would absolutely be something to avoid.

But I think there is a way of using pre-planned background and a heavier weight of character detail as a way of reinforcing Story Now play too.

I made a game called Other Worlds that tries to support a Story Now agenda, and does so with PCs that are defined in advance in significant detail in the form of lots of different descriptors based on their culture, profession, goals, relationships, etc. (So freeform traits rather than an essay, but a lot of them.) I feel like in my home games this gave us a really solid grounding in who the characters were, allowing the players to immerse (yeah I said it) in the situation and making it much easier for me as GM to identify what kind of conflicts and stakes I should be throwing their way. The traits as words on a character sheet that can be evoked for a bonus (or penalty) to a roll created tensions for the player in terms of incentivising different courses of action or articulating potential internal conflicts - things like being Merciful but having sworn an Oath of Vengeance, or having abilities like Betray Ally or React with Furious Anger. Simply having to say out loud the traits the character is drawing from in each conflict is also an effective means of characterisation, showing us as the audience what's going on in the character's mind and what previous events have led up to this.

Not saying this more detailed approach is for everyone, of course. But I think it is also a valid approach to Narr play that does lead to some satisfying games.

 

[Ovinomancer]

re: player-driven quests

For those of you who played/play 4e, what do you think of the implementation of player-driven quests? Does it work fine as is (i.e., as a section in the dmg), or would you rather it took some different form? I'm not familiar with these books, but I can imagine that if a game really wants to focus not just on quests but quests that are player driven, it could be more fundamentally integrated into the play advice and mechanics. It's very clear to me how this works in Blades in the Dark, for example, because the mechanics (such as players choosing which type of action they are going to take, being able to manipulate the dice pool in a variety of ways, xp for desperate rolls) match up with the play advice (fall in love with danger for players, asking questions for GMs). So that makes it very clear what player-driven means.

4e's closed scene resolution mechanics (skill challenges) and it's scene/encounter based resource scheme make it easier to do a Story Now approach. The GM never has to curate play towards a larger resource structure and so can go as hard every scene rather than worry about pacing/balance. The flatter distribution of power and resource between characters does the same with curating spotlight time.

Separately

Is player-driven gameism ever a thing, or is player empowerment in this way only a feature of Story Now games? There has recently been some talk in OSR spaces about how the 1e dmg assumed that the DMs worlds would be inhabited by several play-groups worth of characters, all operating in competition with each other. I'm not necessarily charmed by such Gygaxian fundamentalism, but for those interested it would seem to provide a model of dnd play that is both 1. very gameist (especially as it leans into the wargames heritage of the game) and 2. very player driven (as a session isn't even scheduled unless a group of players, who each may have several characters, bring some of them together to work on a particular project).

I don't think gamism or simukationism really concern themselves with player driven or not. People can compete, sure, and that's a facet of gamism.

Separately Separately

Is 4e as a Story Now game the way it is typically understood, or is that a particular point of view established on these boards? I've mostly heard it referred to as too gameist.

No. I didn't at the time, though I liked it very much. I approached it in a gamist way, although I wasn't even aware of the distinction at the time. I definitely did not approach it the sane way I did 3.x.

It's not at all particular to these boards, though, the SN approach to 4e.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Dap and Gavin (another PC) are good friends, although they differ on philosophy.

Really? Gavin?

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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?

It may help you understand why your group struggles with playing (1). For instance, you may notice that (1) will tend to break down if all the PCs die and so a new party is needed, because then the players don't have the clues and story context to start again at the "save point" but the players do have the spoilers that will make playing through from the start a bit of a chore. Hence you may feel some pressure to to fudge dice or use deus ex machina techniques to avoid TPKs.

You might also notice that (1) breaks down if the players miss clues etc and so can't have their PCs move to the next scene/location, and hence (as GM) you may introduce new clues etc to make (1) work; but you might also notice that this tends to defeat the purpose of challenging the PCs to find the clues.

In other words, (1) works better for a characters-face-problems-high-concept-sim agenda than a gamist one, but aspects of D&D's resolution system (combat and how clues are discovered) tend to be challenge-oriented rather than experience-oriented. Hence the possible frustrations that one regularly sees discussed on these boards. Having a terminology or a conceptual framework to appreciate what is going on may be useful to someone wanting to understand and resolve those frustrations. (In parentheses: notice how CoC has some similar issues, and GUMSHOE resolves them by reconciling the system in favour of high-concept-sim, eliminating the challenge aspect of finding clues.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think that no myth or only lightly defined characters are essential ingredients for Story Now play.

I do agree that done badly a detailed background can be abrasive to narrativist play, relegating the core tensions of a character to past events rather than future conflicts we can play out, and creating an overly elaborate but static picture of the character that the player can only try to embody, rather than feeling like a dynamic protagonist that might change and isn't always predictable. This would represent a large dose of Story Before which would absolutely be something to avoid.

But I think there is a way of using pre-planned background and a heavier weight of character detail as a way of reinforcing Story Now play too.

I made a game called Other Worlds that tries to support a Story Now agenda, and does so with PCs that are defined in advance in significant detail in the form of lots of different descriptors based on their culture, profession, goals, relationships, etc. (So freeform traits rather than an essay, but a lot of them.) I feel like in my home games this gave us a really solid grounding in who the characters were, allowing the players to immerse (yeah I said it) in the situation and making it much easier for me as GM to identify what kind of conflicts and stakes I should be throwing their way. The traits as words on a character sheet that can be evoked for a bonus (or penalty) to a roll created tensions for the player in terms of incentivising different courses of action or articulating potential internal conflicts - things like being Merciful but having sworn an Oath of Vengeance, or having abilities like Betray Ally or React with Furious Anger. Simply having to say out loud the traits the character is drawing from in each conflict is also an effective means of characterisation, showing us as the audience what's going on in the character's mind and what previous events have led up to this.

Not saying this more detailed approach is for everyone, of course. But I think it is also a valid approach to Narr play that does lead to some satisfying games.

Yeah, you can do Story Now in high resolution settings. I think it's much harder to do so because that means everyone has to absorb and integrate the high resolution. SN play cannot abide Secret Backstory directing resolutions, so setting has to be open to all. So it's harder to both get that buy-in and avoid secret backstory as resolution of setting increases. This is why most attempts are no/Low Myth and/or narrow in setting.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Really? Gavin?

I couldn't resist. I just. Could. Not. Resist.

 

[soviet]

Player-driven gamism I guess would be something closer to Arnesonian play, in the sense of actively inventing your own missions ('We're going to go and rob the temple of that snake cult the GM mentioned') and then relying on Calvinball style tactics and lateral thinking to achieve those goals outside of excessive dice rolls or actual combat (flooding the dungeon and so forth).