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

[Thomas Shey]

I agree with this. But there is a point where the terms crossover so much, and the bleed-togetherness is so fluid, that the label becomes more of a hinderance than a help. Perhaps this is one of those times?

Its more that the term agreement is not strong here, which is always a problem outside of formalized settings. There's not much help for that, but with terminology at least some of the participants are talking about the same things. Without it, you have to go back to first causes on everything every time, and even hobbyists rarely have the energy for that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I have to say that to me the GDS model seems way more coherent and intuitive than the GNS model. I'm sure it has issues too like any such simplified categorisations, but at least it is not so obviously lopsided than GNS and manages to identify elements that actually exist in most RPGs to some significant degree.

Regarding D&D, what I've basically been saying is that WotC would be wise if they offered more support for people who are interested in increasing dramtism in their games.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have to say that to me the GDS model seems way more coherent and intuitive than the GNS model. I'm sure it has issues too like any such simplified categorisations, but at least it is not so obviously lopsided than GNS and manages to identify elements that actually exist in most RPGs to some significant degree.

The biggest issues with GDS other than the broad-strokes were things like the fact the Gamism assumptions were mostly written by non-Gamists and as such sometimes caught their foot on things (assuming to be a proper Gamist setup that it had to be fair for example; some people might prefer that, but its not like there aren't asymmetrical games in other forms, there's nothing says a given situation can't be unfair and still Gamist) and things like the genre emulation question (it seemed to always most logically land in Dramatism to most of us because for the most part genre conventions at least (as I noted, some genres don't require anything special because of most of what makes them distinct was time/space choice and concerns, not any special "how things work" beyond that) were dramatic conceits. This was anything but non-controversial even then because of disagreement of use of Simulation and what "World" meant in its context). There was also a recurrent question of whether Social concerns were a corner themselves, or something orthogonal.

Regarding D&D, what I've basically been saying is that WotC would be wise if they offered more support for people who are interested in increasing dramtism in their games.

Yeah, while there are a lot of dramatist concerns in D&D and have been at least back to AD&D2e, they're not formalized in any particularly meaningful way.

 

[Campbell]

I have to say that to me the GDS model seems way more coherent and intuitive than the GNS model. I'm sure it has issues too like any such simplified categorisations, but at least it is not so obviously lopsided than GNS and manages to identify elements that actually exist in most RPGs to some significant degree.

Regarding D&D, what I've basically been saying is that WotC would be wise if they offered more support for people who are interested in increasing dramtism in their games.

How is this not calling for basically excluding the OSR and indie portions of our community?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How is this not calling for basically excluding the OSR and indie portions of our community?

How would it be?

 

[Campbell]

How would it be?

Because it fails to capture the unique appeal of those play spaces and combines things that are nothing alike.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because it fails to capture the unique appeal of those play spaces and combines things that are nothing alike.

Any model that tries to condense all RPG priorities under just three banners will do that. But at least one should aim the pillars to be roughly equally broad. I don't know what the concern with OSR is, how would be positioned differently under these two models? And narrativism in GDS would of course be a subsection of dramatism.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Because it fails to capture the unique appeal of those play spaces and combines things that are nothing alike.

I'm not clear if you were referencing his comment about supporting more dramatism, or the general GDS comment.

If its the former, you can supply optional tools. If the OSR folks are going to get offended at that, well, at that point they've self-excluded because they've basically decided what they don't want isn't even acceptable as an option, and that's on them at that point.

If its about GDS--well, GDS came into development when a lot of what the OSR folks are emulating was still the gig. Its not exactly uninformed by that playstyle.

 

[Hussar]

I think it's quite useful. This discussion has helped me articulate exactly why I don't like narrativist games. Now that I understand what their agenda is and the various approaches intended to achieve it, I can reject it personally with a clear conscience, or even dabble in it knowing why those mechanics exist.

For example, I have spent a lot of time recently examining Star Trek Adventures with an eye towards running it for my friends. While not really a Story Now game, it does have some mechanical elements that lean that direction (more than most versions of D&D, anyway). Understanding the agenda behind those mechanics will inform my running of the game, hopefully for the better.

Much, much respect.

So much respect.

 

[Hussar]

But none of this requires that the player invents the whole Fortress of the Iron Ring and it's place in the setting.

That's because in Story Now games, there is no setting. Full stop. There is no "it's place in the setting". That, as a concept in that style of game simply doesn't exist. It might become part of things if it is brought up in game. But, otherwise, it has no place in the setting because there is no pre-authored setting.

This is why you keep running into the brick wall here. You are insisting on elements that simply don't exist in this style of play. One could very easily play 4e this way. Five players author individual quests, hand them to the DM, and the DM then attemps to weave those five quests together. When one quest is resolved, that player authors another quest.

But, you don't need a pre-authored campaign setting to do that. All the elements of the setting, other than very bare bones necessity, are created during play.