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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Yes. I know. But in D&D the expectation definitely is that there is a pre-authored setting, even in 4e. WotC literally sells them to people and gives advice on building your own.

And establishing dramatic needs of the character doesn't automatically necessitate extensive setting authority. A game can give the player both, but they're still largely separate things and I don't think that in discussion they should be casually blurred together.

 

[Hussar]

Yes. I know. But in D&D the expectation definitely is that there is a pre-authored setting, even in 4e. WotC literally sells them to people and gives advice on building your own.

And establishing dramatic needs of the character doesn't automatically necessitate extensive setting authority. A game can give the player both, but they're still largely separate things and I don't think that in discussion they should be casually blurred together.

And... D&D is not, nor has it ever been a Nar game. At best, 4e leans a bit into Nar, but, D&D has always been Gamist first. What's your point?

Is anyone here trying to claim that D&D is anything other than Gamist? Maybe High Concept Sim, but, even that's a bit dodgy. D&D is, at its core, a Gamist game. As a ratio, I'd say it was GAMIST:simulationist. Nar play is largely absent from D&D, and any attempt to add it in has been met with very vocal hostility.

But, if "establishing dramatic needs of the character doesn't automatically necessitate extensive setting authority", then why are you concerned with placing the Iron Ring into the setting? If the dramatic needs of the characters isn't tied to setting, then, as far as dramatic needs are concerned, setting is unimportant.

Which is more or less the point that Nar play is trying to make. That when you are playing, it's not necessary to follow the traditional route of the DM creates the campaign world, populates it with adventure locations, then doles out the plot hooks to see what the players want to do. That's all that's being claimed here. The only claim that is being made is that there are other options. There are other ways of doing things.

And, this is useful to players as well. As someone who just left a group because the playstyles that most of the group were working with, while being perfectly suited to a strongly gamist game, is not something I find myself enjoying. I'm finding that high concept sim is actually probably a better fit for me to be honest. The players hand me broad hooks, and it's my job as the DM to bring that into the game in a coherent manner while at the same time presenting the campaign I have created (or, currently, am using).

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Naw, you can have setting. It just can't be secret setting.

 

[Malmuria]

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.

For you, does "high concept sim" always involve some degree of illusionism then? For example, do 5e adventure paths require/allow for combat-as-sport (tactical mini-game) or combat-as-performance (illusion of a game when in reality the dm fudges things in view of the story)?

 

[Campbell]

For you, does "high concept sim" always involve some degree of illusionism then? For example, do 5e adventure paths require/allow for combat-as-sport (tactical mini-game) or combat-as-performance (illusion of a game when in reality the dm fudges things in view of the story)?

What's important here is the overall aim of play. That is all creative agenda is - the why. It's not the how. The same tools can sometimes be employed for very different creative agendas if used in different ways. I do think there are absolutely games that are High Concept Sim where the rules get played straight - GUMSHOE or Fate played according to the text for instance. I think Classic Deadlands (which I am currently playing) applies as well.

If really played straight within the context of a combat encounter, at least during that encounter your creative agenda is probably Step On Up.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And... D&D is not, nor has it ever been a Nar game. At best, 4e leans a bit into Nar, but, D&D has always been Gamist first.

Yes.

Is anyone here trying to claim that D&D is anything other than Gamist?

Yes.

Maybe High Concept Sim, but, even that's a bit dodgy. D&D is, at its core, a Gamist game. As a ratio, I'd say it was GAMIST:simulationist. Nar play is largely absent from D&D, and any attempt to add it in has been met with very vocal hostility.

This relates to player created quest in 4e, which some feel are narrative concept.

But, if "establishing dramatic needs of the character doesn't automatically necessitate extensive setting authority", then why are you concerned with placing the Iron Ring into the setting? If the dramatic needs of the characters isn't tied to setting, then, as far as dramatic needs are concerned, setting is unimportant.

Of course they can be tied to the setting even if the player didn't author the setting element! The dramatic need will simply be tied to already established setting elements. I can establish that my character wishes to find her missing brother and despises a certain organisation, because when she was little her family was driven of their land, and her brother taken by said organisation. But I don't need to actually invent the whole organisation to establish this dramatic need, I or the GM can merely choose an organisation that already exists in the setting and is suitable for the purpose.

And it is not that I am 'concerned'. You can absolutely have players establishing setting element. But players being able to establish dramatic needs of their characters doesn't automatically require it of vice versa. Simply put these are two separate things that can go together, but do not need to. A game can contain one without the other, so in discussion they shouldn't be conflated.

 

[pemerton]

To this day I don't really understand what Forge 'narrativism' is and why a 5e GM using player created backstories to set up situations that dramatically resonate with the characters is not that, but a 4e GM giving XP for a character fulfilling a player declared goal is!

Though hopefully something far more elaborate than the throwaway line in 4e.

Have you read the 4e text on player-authored quests? It's not just a "throwaway line". Here is a reposting of a quote of some of the relevant text.

From the 4e PHB, p 258:

Most adventures have a goal, something you have to do to complete the adventure successfully. The goal might be a personal one, a cause shared by you and your allies, or a task you have been hired to perform. A goal in an adventure is called a quest.

Quests connect a series of encounters into a meaningful story. . . .

Sometimes a quest is spelled out for you at the start of an adventure. . . . Other times, you figure out your quests while adventuring. . . .

You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. For instance, perhaps your mother is the person whose remains lie in the Fortress of the Iron Ring. Quests can also relate to individual goals, such as a ranger searching for a magic bow to wield. Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.​

And from the 4e DMG, pp 102-3

Quests are the fundamental story framework of an adventure - the reason the characters want to participate in it. They’re the reason an adventure exists, and they indicate what the characters need to do to solve the situation the adventure presents. . . .

Thinking in terms of quests helps focus the adventure solidly where it belongs: on the player characters. An adventure isn’t something that can unfold without their involvement. . . .

Quests should focus on the story reasons for adventuring, not on the underlying basic actions of the game - killing monsters and acquiring treasure. “Defeat ten encounters of your level” isn’t a quest. It’s a recipe for advancing a level. Completing it is its own reward. “Make Harrows Pass safe for travelers” is a quest, even if the easiest way to accomplish it happens to be defeating ten encounters of the characters’ level. This quest is a story-based goal, and one that has at least the possibility of solution by other means.

You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!​

Hundreds of words is not a "throwaway line".

And the system of player-authored quests is not a "GM giving XP for a character fulfilling a player declared goal". It is a player "establishing the fundamental story framework of an adventure" by "giv[ing] [their] DM ingredients".

A player playing Keep on the Borderlands can declare a goal (eg I will eliminate the shrine of chaos!). But the content and scope of any such goal is limited by the material prepared by the GM. The player can't declare, as their goal, I will recover the remains of my mother from the shrine of chaos because the shrine has no remains in it, of a PC's mother or otherwise. The player can't establish the fundamental story framework of an adventure.

All this is just thrown together as one package. Having to recover the remains of one's mother is certainly 'a dramatic need' albeit I'd argue we need to establish more about the emotional significance of this for it to truly have dramatic impact. But the further material conditions surrounding that are no longer 'dramatic needs' Yes, the mother's remains must exist (or at least the character needs to believe so) and they need to be in some location that is not readily accessible. And of course the character needs to have some important reason for retrieving the remains. But none of this requires that the player invents the whole Fortress of the Iron Ring and it's place in the setting.

I don't think the significance of recovering one's parent's remains from the Fortress of the Iron Ring, and recovering them from the Temple of Pelor, have the same dramatic significance. They signal different things - different story frameworks, and different thematic contexts for that story, and likely different resolutions.

I seriously doubt that it was ever intended for the players to establish significant setting elements via quests, merely to set goals regarding already existing elements. Or if they intended players to have significant setting authority, then they did piss poor job at expressing it.

I've quoted the text. It gives the example of the mother's remains being in the Fortress of the Iron Ring; and it refers to "contributing ingredients".

And it refers to player creating quests, which are defined as fundamental story frameworks. It's obviously not talking about players looking over the GM's map, seeing "Here be dragons", and saying "Wouldn't it be cool to loot a dragon's lair!" That doesn't involve the players contributing any ingredients, nor establishing any fundamental story frameworks.

 

[pemerton]

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.

And? What are you saying the model is a hindrance to?

V:tM is supportive, in some fashion and to some extent, of playing character drama. And Edwards wasn't unaware that V:tM existed. One very natural way of reading the Forge, and Edwards's GNS essays - given the time at and context in which they were written - is as a massive reaction to V:tM and "storyteller" RPGing more generally.

Part of the point of talking expressly about "story now" is to work out what has gone wrong in V:tM rules text and V:tM play. It's not hindering, it's facilitating!

 

[pemerton]

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.

Why?

There is much more pop than classical music listened to. Does that mean that classical, folk, etc should all be bundled into "acoustic" while we need a dozen different categories of "pop"?

Edwards's essays aren't fielding sports teams. They're attempting to analyse a creative activity through an aesthetic lens that is appropriate to the activity.

There are a number of things that he takes as given about the activity:

* That it involves a shared fiction consisting of setting, characters and colour;

* That there are distinct participant roles, such that much of the action involves one participant presenting situations (or scenes) in which characters who are controlled or directed by other participants find themselves;

* That the activity involves a system (some bundle of techniques, principles etc) for adding to and changing that fiction, with the way that situations are handled being especially important (but not the sole way of adding to or changing the fiction).​

He then considers reasons why someone, or a group of people, might engage in this activity. He sees three reasons:

* To enjoy and experience the fiction for its own sake - he calls this simulationism;

* To show that one can "win" by using one's character in the fiction to overcome challenges that occur within the fiction - he calls this gamism;

* To author fiction with a "point" via the play of the game, just like other storytellers in other mediums do - he calls this narrativism.​

The labels are largely inherited from prior discussions (he is very clear why he changes "dramatism" to "narrativism" - because the word "drama" already has another important use, coined by Jonathan Tweet, in talking about action resolution procedures). They may or may not be good ones. But the phenomena they label are clear enough.

Are there many possible ways to enjoy and experience the fiction? Yes. Compare a RQ player to a CoC player, for instance. Edwards coins sub-categories (purist-for system, high concept simulationism) to try and capture that.

Are there many possible ways to think about "winning" by overcoming challenges? Yes. Compare cooperative old-school dungeon-crawling to an arena-combat style game. Edwards coins sub-categories (his two dials of competition which can be tweaked independently: my two examples are low on both dials vs high on both dials).

Are the many possible ways to author fiction with a "point"? Yes. Compare, say, Apocalypse World to The Dying Earth. Edwards coins sub-categories (for instance, high vs low risk) to try and capture that.

None of it is mysterious. Are there other reasons for engaging in RPGing as an activity? I don't think I've seen one presented - given that RPGing is gameplay that involves a shared fiction, the three Edwards identifies - of experiencing the fiction for its own sake, winning the game, and authoring with a "point" - seem fairly comprehensive. Perhaps we could imagine someone who enjoys the mechanics or the maths for its own sake? But then why are they bothering with the shared fiction, rather than playing (say) chess or go or a complicated boardgame or computer game?

The fact that the number of RPGers who play for one rather than the other of these reasons is different isn't itself a reason to distort the analytic taxonomy. As I said, it's not about fielding teams.

EDIT: What is the difference between "GM referencing player-authored backstory" and "story now". Perhaps none - that can be one mode of setting up a story now situation! But most often I think it's not. Most often the "point", if there is one, has already been established, and when it happens in play it is about the experiencing and perhaps evincing of that established point. The "point" is not being established and tested in play. (A similar though non-backstory-related example is playing out one's PC's descent into insanity in CoC.)

 

[pemerton]

We're not trying to frame all of RPGing into GNS.

Well, just to be clear for my part, I think that all of RPGing can be identified as oriented towards "step on up", "story now" or some mode of "simulationism" ie exploring the fiction for its own sake. I'm open to being shown further creative agendas, but I don't think that's yet occurred (see my post just upthread of this one).

I don't think knowing a creative agenda tells you all that it is interesting to know, of course. To elaborate on my post just upthread: T&T and classic D&D share many tropes, but I find it easy to imagine someone loving one and hating the other, because of the different role that luck and skill play in the resolution systems of those two RPGs.

So talking about techniques, tropes, how authority is allocated in the moment and over time, etc, are all useful too. (For myself, I think Vincent Baker is the most insightful author on the techniques issue.)