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

[Thomas Shey]

One of my own issues is that I think that it ignores how individuals can have various agendas but to varying degrees of priorization and preference. It may be that Person A finds themselves at odds with Person B, because while both Person A and Person B have Simulationist agendas at a table that prefers Simulationist approaches, Person A prefers Simulationist > Narrativist > Gamist while Person B prefers Simulationist > Gamist > Narrativist. An individual likely has hues of competing agendas at play in a game, possibly depending on what the game is engaging or how they are feeling in the moment.

Yup. As I noted, when I was younger I was very much Gamist>Simulationist>Dramatist in preference (which does not, to make it clear, mean Dramatist concerns had no weight), and these days its much more Gamist>Dramatist>Simulationist (which, again, does not mean I don't care about Simulationist issues at all). Young Me and Old Me could very much have some conflicts under some circumstances even though we're both primarily Gamist.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Timing certainly does matter for different sorts of play as well. It's absolutely crucial for challenge-oriented play that challenges be designed ahead of time. Otherwise, it is not a fair contest of skill.

I'm not so sure. As long as they're things the players had no reasonable way to know beforehand anyway it doesn't matter, unless you consider 'guessing well' to be a meaningful challenge and I wouldn't.

But if we accept your premise, in what GNS category would an improvised dungeon delve fall into then, if lack of preplanning disqualifies it from gamism? Let's assume there is no heavy focus on exploring character drama beyond "dungeons are kinda scary" and not heavy emphasis on presenting super coherent fantasy milieu. You classic fight bugbears, avoid traps, get treasure type of an affair.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right. So here the model is again just a hindrance and leads to this sort of siloed "all or nothing" thinking. I can easily imagine a game being more supportive for playing character drama without becoming Story Now.

As I've already said, 5e is already pretty okay for character drama as approved by the GM because it already does high-concept sim well. The confusing thing about your posts is that you keep asserting 5e can do the things it already does while discounting anything else as worth consideration.

 

[Campbell]

I'm not so sure. As long as they're things the players had no reasonable way to know beforehand anyway it doesn't matter, unless you consider 'guessing well' to be a meaningful challenge and I wouldn't.

But if we accept your premise, in what GNS category would an improvised dungeon delve fall into then, if lack of preplanning disqualifies it from gamism? Let's assume there is no heavy focus on exploring character drama beyond "dungeons are kinda scary" and not heavy emphasis on presenting super coherent fantasy milieu. You classic fight bugbears, avoid traps, get treasure type of an affair.

For me if it's about evoking the feeling of "dungeons are kinda scary" or "we barely made it out of there folks" then it's High Concept Sim, which most traditional RPG play fits into in some way. Step On Up to me is about skillfully engaging the play space.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As I've already said, 5e is already pretty okay for character drama as approved by the GM because it already does high-concept sim well. The confusing thing about your posts is that you keep asserting 5e can do the things it already does while discounting anything else as worth consideration.

As I don't believe such things necessarily need a lot or even mechanical support, I agree that it can do it technically. And a lot of people do it that way. We as experienced GMs can do it. But lets say some noob who has never run anything, has seen some Critical Role wants to run a game where the characters have meaningful backstories, traumas and interesting personalities and the content of the game often draws from them in a way that produces dramatic moments. What sort of advice they will find from DMG to producing this? Not much. Barely anything, in fact.

Also, whilst I think the intent of ideals, bonds and flaws as well as inspiration are good, as mechanics they're half-baked and instruction on utilising them is lacklustre. This could be improved.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

They are fundamentally different in a key way. Incorporating anything pre-scripted into something pre-scripted is not Story Now on either end. Story Now play uses established facts about what matters to the players/PCs—typically if not necessarily declared in the moment—to frame and play through a scene that's happening now, in order to discover more about what matters to the players/PCs. As I've said before, you can mix approaches/agendas/modes over time, but it's best to be clear about which one you are using in the moment.

@pemerton's "whole of play" is where I perhaps disagree. It's possible to apply Story Now to the whole of play, but I don't think it's necessary.

Yeah, for instance you can play a strongly gamist tactical combat using 4e, and still play a fundamentally Story Now kind of approach, on the whole. Encounters will play to the Story Now part, but they can be resolved largely in 'tactical space'. Now and then a character motivation or somesuch will dictate a tactical goal, but how it is achieved will mostly revolve around playing the mechanics of the system skillfully.

 

[Thomas Shey]

We're not trying to frame all of RPGing into GNS. But we are having a discussion within that model, as framed, at least in part, by the OP, which explictly said GNS was fair game. If you want to develop another model, that's fine, but don't come to a Myers-Briggs conference and tell everyone their model sucks and they need to use another one.

I think there's a difference between saying its fair game, and saying its the default take, though. I've expressed my opinion that GNS took the GDS model and made it, overall, less useful. I can talk about Gamism and Simulationism with that context and people not wedded to GNS can still understand a lot of my points. People have taken me to task for not getting GNS Nar, and its at least its a fair argument, but I'll claim that's because GNS has wanted to push anything in GDS Dramatism out that wasn't convenient for their model, thus making it less useful overall, because it fills GNS Sim with things that, frankly, make no sense to have together.

(Note: if this was a thread specifically about Narrativism I'd have stayed the hell out for just that reason; its overly specific to my POV and does not interest me even theoretically. Gamism in general parlance, GDS and GNS overlap enough at least useful conversation can be had by those who aren't using it in the GNS sense).

 

[niklinna]

Right. So here the model is again just a hindrance and leads to this sort of siloed "all or nothing" thinking. I can easily imagine a game being more supportive for playing character drama without becoming Story Now.

I think "all or nothing" thinking is pretty much part of human nature. It isn't the model leading to siloed thinking.

But I see a clear disconnect in that you are asking for drama or story, not in any GNS sense, but that people who use the model—perhaps because this thread established GNS as a context?—are taking those terms (and whatever elaboration you've provided) and interpreting them in light of that model. Which you don't subscribe to. The model addresses your desires, but it locates most of what you call "character drama" someplace that you don't like (or don't understand), and yet you and the GNS people refuse to find common ground. But they're the ones with a model and language to frame a discussion.

There are deeper problems than this, particularly with interpration and application of theory & models, but if I have the courage to get into that at all it'll have to wait. I've already alluded to it in comments about how GNS is to be applied to moments and decisions, and not to game systems or players.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For me if it's about evoking the feeling of "dungeons are kinda scary" or "we barely made it out of there folks" then it's High Concept Sim, which most traditional RPG play fits into in some way. Step On Up to me is about skillfully engaging the play space.

I feel you're evading the question. Forget I said anything about any atmosphere. That's not the point. Fighting bugbears etc is. In fact, if you wouldn't know that the GM is making it up on the spot, there is no difference to a preplanned dungeon delve. Any observer or even a player that wouldn't know that wouldn't experience things any differently. Still a sim just because GM is making it up on the spot rather than a day before the session?

Also, I super feel that simulationism in this theory is just "everything else that didn't fit to our other categories we actually care about" category. Both narrativism, and according to you gamism have super specific and strict requirements to qualify, everything else is a sim.

 

[niklinna]

I think there's a difference between saying its fair game, and saying its the default take, though. I've expressed my opinion that GNS took the GDS model and made it, overall, less useful.

Yeah it's a problem. GNS rolled over GDS pretty hard. Speaking of GDS, in my digging I have found multiple versions of that model. Is there a particular one you recommend I start with?

I can talk about Gamism and Simulationism with that context and people not wedded to GNS can still understand a lot of my points. People have taken me to task for not getting GNS Nar, and its at least its a fair argument, but I'll claim that's because GNS has wanted to push anything in GDS Dramatism out that wasn't convenient for their model, thus making it less useful overall, because it fills GNS Sim with things that, frankly, make no sense to have together.

From what I've read, this is a fair criticism! GNS Sim is an unwieldy big umbrella (although I do feel I understand Edwards's intent).

(Note: if this was a thread specifically about Narrativism I'd have stayed the hell out for just that reason; its overly specific to my POV and does not interest me even theoretically. Gamism in general parlance, GDS and GNS overlap enough at least useful conversation can be had by those who aren't using it in the GNS sense).

More or less, yeah.