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

[pemerton]

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.

Well, on this we disagree.

A paradigm story now game is Robin Laws's HeroWars. And it involves a pre-authored setting: Glorantha.

Edwards has a good essay on story-now setting, but it doesn't seem to be linkable any more. (I'm not good on wayback/archive-y type stuff. The pdf is called "setting dissection" and it used to be hosted on the Adept Press website.)

In setting-oriented story now the thematic pressure comes from, and radiates out into, the setting rather than the characters themselves. This requires separating control over the setting from the GM alone! Almost as if the player might make a decision about the Fortress of the Iron Ring, and where their PC's parent's remains are!

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.

It's not a coincidence that 4e D&D uses "points of light" as its setting, and - by D&D standards - sketches the setting with a very light touch. And puts most of the setting information in the PHB (especially in the race descriptions).


EDIT:
In this thread on BWHQ, Luke Crane talks about the role of setting in Burning Wheel play: "The Wheels of Change" - How do you GMs handle big events going on in the background?

 

[pemerton]

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.

That depends on the role played by setting.

If the game is about a socialist occultist encountering a mute, republican non-conformist minister, then some bits of setting aren't relative to dramatic need (as GM, I set the game in London because I have a bit of familiarity with London, but in principle anywhere in England could have worked). But the player of the socialist occultist needed to be able to establish that he worked at a bookshop selling both sorts of wares.

In D&D, setting and theme are generally intimately connected - B2 Keep on the Borderlands being a posterchild for this - and 4e D&D doubles down on this feature of the game. The player getting to establish that it is the Fortress of the Iron Ring, and not the Temple of Pelor, where their parent's remains are to be found, is not a small thing.

 

[pemerton]

For you, does "high concept sim" always involve some degree of illusionism then?

I'm not @Campbell, but can express my view:

If the system includes fortune elements, and calls for them to be used at key moments which will determine whether or not the simulation "works", then the answer is "yes". CoC is a classic for this - either the GM fudges the rolls to find the clues, or manipulates the backstory to reintroduce the clues if the check is failed, because otherwise the game grinds to a halt.

But GUMSHOE solves this problem and so doesn't need illusionism.

Another example is AD&D played DL-style. The game will grind to a halt if the PCs die to the first random encounter with Draconians, and so the GM has to fudge. 5e largely solves this problem by making it mechanically hard for players to lose once their PCs are above 1st or 2nd level, and so probably doesn't need much illusionism to work for AP/DL-type play.

Fate largely solves these sorts of problems by giving the players Fate tokens to manipulate outcomes while reinforcing character concept.

 

[Hussar]

Yes.

Who? Who is claiming that D&D is anything other than mostly gamist at it's heart?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Who? Who is claiming that D&D is anything other than mostly gamist at it's heart?

I am? Some editions are tilted towards gamism. OD&D, for sure, AD&D, and 4e very much. 2e, and 5e are heavily slanted to sim. 3e is a mixed bag. Only 4e even comes close to touching narrativism.

 

[Hussar]

Well, on this we disagree.

A paradigm story now game is Robin Laws's HeroWars. And it involves a pre-authored setting: Glorantha.

Fair enough. I misspoke.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not @Campbell, but can express my view:

If the system includes fortune elements, and calls for them to be used at key moments which will determine whether or not the simulation "works", then the answer is "yes". CoC is a classic for this - either the GM fudges the rolls to find the clues, or manipulates the backstory to reintroduce the clues if the check is failed, because otherwise the game grinds to a halt.

I'm trying to make sure I understand what you're saying here, so I'm going to ask a question here: if the GM has tokens to alter the rolls at need, and uses them to steer success for the PCs, is it still illusionism (to be clear, I'm not aware of a system that overtly does this, rather than providing ones for use on the part of NPCs, so its a hypothetical)? What if the fortune elements are used, but instead of pass/fail instead are matters of degree (this one is not a hypothetical; Chill 3e does this, where even a fumble gives some information, it just gives it mixed with red herrings)?

It seems neither of these are illusionism, since in both cases the players are aware its occurring. So I'm thinking I'm missing something in what you're saying.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Who? Who is claiming that D&D is anything other than mostly gamist at it's heart?

I've made the claim that post AD&D2e versions have strong Dramatist elements, they're just ad-hoc rather than systemized for the most part.

 

[Hussar]

I am? Some editions are tilted towards gamism. OD&D, for sure, AD&D, and 4e very much. 2e, and 5e are heavily slanted to sim. 3e is a mixed bag. Only 4e even comes close to touching narrativism.

"touching narrativism" is hardly claiming that 4e is a Nar game. 4e is about the closest D&D has ever come towards Nar play and even then, it's not really all that close. It's still a heavily Gamist game in presentation and intent. Sure, that doesn't mean you couldn't lean harder on the Nar elements - things like Skill challenges, and player authored quests for example. Fair enough. But, even then, the rest of the game was still very heavily Gamist and one has only to look at the modules to see that.

I think it's a pretty fair point to say that D&D isn't really a Nar game, nor has it ever been. 4e flirted with some Nar elements, but, the toxic reaction to anything even smacking of drifting D&D away from Gamist play nipped that in the bud. Heck, the fact that most of the Nar element mechanics are still present in 5e, but, without any issue, mostly because it's buried so deeply behind very traditional verbiage shows just how deeply embedded gamist elements are in D&D.

Heck, the absolute head 'sploding that goes on when we suggest that maybe we don't need to tie races to specific classes to give advantages and disadvantages in play based on the race you take shows just how ingrained Gamist priorities are. Being able to create a character that fits a player's particular narrative needs takes a FAR backseat to forcing everyone to prioritize in-game advantages.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm not @Campbell, but can express my view:

If the system includes fortune elements, and calls for them to be used at key moments which will determine whether or not the simulation "works", then the answer is "yes". CoC is a classic for this - either the GM fudges the rolls to find the clues, or manipulates the backstory to reintroduce the clues if the check is failed, because otherwise the game grinds to a halt.

But GUMSHOE solves this problem and so doesn't need illusionism.

Another example is AD&D played DL-style. The game will grind to a halt if the PCs die to the first random encounter with Draconians, and so the GM has to fudge. 5e largely solves this problem by making it mechanically hard for players to lose once their PCs are above 1st or 2nd level, and so probably doesn't need much illusionism to work for AP/DL-type play.

Fate largely solves these sorts of problems by giving the players Fate tokens to manipulate outcomes while reinforcing character concept.

@Malmuria , I just posted this on Discord not long ago (and it was agreed with generally by the players including @Ovinomancer ) regarding the PBtA game The Between.

The Mastermind angle "wants" to be My Life With Master-ish, but it is losing everything from My Life With Master (the players actually making the protagonist and through that process + working to wrest the trajectory of play from the protagonist Master so they, in turn, end up being the protagonists) that makes it Story Now and gains nothing in return. It is sort of this mish-mash of High Concept Sim + conch passing color generation + Story Now mystery creation and resolution + this mish-mash of Story Before and Story Now personal Threat (each playbook has their own threat which, like the Mastermind, is out of the hands of the player to dictate a lot of the consequential particulars).

There are dramatic needs which the players have a fair bit of authority over. The bulk of play is procedurally generated by following the fiction > deploying the rules > observing the principles. So there is an undercurrent of Story Now.

But it has enough drift there into High Concept Simulation/Story Before at two of the most consequential and personal aspects (Mastermind and Threats) + the conch passing color generation that trying to slot it becomes extremely difficult.

The High Concept Simulation aspect of The Between features no Illusionism whatsoever. But, in my experience, Illusionism is quite often (due to system "not quite getting there") a hefty rider for HCS play (sufficient to control the trajectory of play much of the time.

As far as D&D editions go, I've played everything but OD&D. This is where I come down on them:

Moldvay Basic - Gamism

RC - Gamism OR High Concept Simulationism

1e - Gamism OR High Concept Simulationism + (very poor man's or retrograde) Process Simulationism

2e - High Concept Simulationism

3.x - Gamism possible at very low levels (E6) OR (very poor man's or retrograde) Process Simulationism + High Concept Simulationism

4e - Gamism OR Gamism/Narrativism hybrid (actual integration of the two)

5e - High Concept Simulationism


* Of note. Gamism in Moldvay Basic and RC and 1e are kindred (no surprise), with (IMO) the Gamism in MB and RC being superior to 1e. The Gamism in Moldvay Basic/RC/1e is somewhat different than what low level 3.x offers is quite different than what 1-30 4e offers.

2e doesn't offer Gamism because it stripped out most of the important tech that offered Gamism prior, is just a pile of kitchen-sink stuff, and embraces so deeply the Dragonlance/White Wolf Storytelling zeitgeist (which is anathema to Gamism and competitive integrity).

5e doesn't offer Gamism because it strips out so much of important tech that offered Gamism prior, has a horrific Encounter Budget paradigm and Adventuring Day balance paradigm, noncombat action resolution is deeply deeply GM fiat governed by a lot of storyteller impetus or content curation/spotlighting impetus (or arbitrarily so even if it isn't done uniformly), and the PCs are just so overwhelmingly powerful at the beginning of the game with all the resources they could possibly want due to Cantrips and Rituals.