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

[pemerton]

@Crimson Longinus

A player cannot give the GM "ingredients" without (what you have called) "setting editing powers".

 

[clearstream]

I think you can make a strong argument that post-Gygaxian D&D is the poster child of GNS incoherence, and that the history of edition wars and arguments over GM fudging are primary symptoms of that. You have essentially two sides, both of which have seen what D&D 'should be' and have drifted or cultivated their own implementation to make that vision work. Both sides are playing functional games, but they cannot necessarily see the work they have done to get there and are thus not talking a common language when they speak to the other side.

The 5e designers appear to have successfully followed an alternative analysis, based on their own systematic research, that showed that an RPG will be more functional if it incorporates multiple play priorities.

The dysfunctional claim is a weakness of GNS (commented on by many), but I also don't feel there is any necessity for GNS evangelists to die on that hill.

 

[Aldarc]

Incoherence =! Dysfunctional

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Crimson Longinus

A player cannot give the GM "ingredients" without (what you have called) "setting editing powers".

Yes they can, as the 'ingredients' might be character's traumas, desires, aspirations and attitudes. But yes, sure, even in traditional game players can offer a bit more than that, as they can establish their backstory. But it is rather different thing for the player to establish very generic elements (the character has mother who has died whose remains they wish to retrieve from a creepy hard to reach location) than very specific elements that are significant in their scope (That there is a specific named fortress, and perhaps that there is a specific named cult worshiping specific named entity related to that.) I don't think it is wise to just casually muddle all this together. And personally I feel that for dramatic needs establishing the emotional and dramatic significance of the matter is far more important than establishing the specific material parameters related to it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Incoherence =! Dysfunctional

This is an important point. What incoherence means is "doesn't align." When you have two different goals of play -- like high-octane challenging combat and a storyline where characters are tightly integrated -- you get competing agendas: challenge the players but keep characters alive. Usually, this incoherence gets resolved by choosing one or the other in play, so the fact you have these two competing agendas is most often solved without problem in play by the table choosing one or the other in the moment. They "toggle" as they need to. But the incoherence is pointing out that you cannot do both things at the same time -- there has to be a choice.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes they can, as the 'ingredients' might be character's traumas, desires, aspirations and attitudes. But yes, sure, even in traditional game players can offer a bit more than that, as they can establish their backstory. But it is rather different thing for the player to establish very generic elements (the character has mother who has died whose remains they wish to retrieve from a creepy hard to reach location) than very specific elements that are significant in their scope (That there is a specific named fortress, and perhaps that there is a specific named cult worshiping specific named entity related to that.) I don't think it is wise to just casually muddle all this together. And personally I feel that for dramatic needs establishing the emotional and dramatic significance of the matter is far more important than establishing the specific material parameters related to it.

If the player cannot have any input into the setting, then they have to get the GM's setting information to describe their trauma, or their desires, or etc, because they can't create anything in regard to this, right? They have to go to what the GM has provided, find a bit in there that they think they can use, craft something around that, and then submit it to the GM for approval and rewrite as needed according to GM feedback. How can this process then be described as giving the GM ingredients? They can only select from the GM's pantry, or submit a request for the GM to figure out what ingredients are available or even for the GM to just do it for them.

 

[pemerton]

And we can instantly see that the last is not like the others. It is much narrower and more specific.

Why? Why is it "narrower" to want play to be about authoring fiction with a "point", rather than to want it to be about "winning"? I don't even know how one would begin to judge what is broad or narrow here.

If you gave these to some random person who knows nothing off the theory, they would grok the first two

Well, there seem to be a number of people posting in this thread who knew nothing of the theory, and then read it and understood all three. I know that I was such a person, somewhere between 15 and 20 years ago.

How doesn't a high-concept sim have 'a point?' Do participants of narrativism not enjoy the fiction they produce?

Simulationism means enjoying the fiction for its own sake. This is not the goal of story now play.

And high-concept sim may have a point. But that point is not authored via play. It is introduced prior to play, as @niklinna (I think I'm remembering right) has posted about already in this thread.

What are these 'points' like?

Edwards has used various sorts of descriptions.

Here's one:

Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements [character, system, setting, situation, colour] provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).​

A year or two later he tried it this way:

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:​

​

• Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place.
• Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.
• Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances.

Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. The Now refers to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying attention to one another as they do it. To do that, they relate to "the story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays, and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments. Think of the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of input and emotional feedback among one another. The Now also means "get to it," in which "it" refers to any Explorative element or combination of elements that increases the enjoyment of that issue I'm talking about.​

​

There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s). Story Now has a great deal in common with Step On Up, particularly in the social expectation to contribute, but in this case the real people's attention is directed toward one another's insights toward the issue, rather than toward strategy and guts. . . .

Narrativist role-playing is defined by the people involved placing their direct creative attention toward Premise and toward birthing its child, theme. It sounds simple, and in many ways it is. The real variable is the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when a player-character does something. If that emotional connection is identifiable as a Premise, and if that connection is nurtured and developed through the real-people interactions, then Narrativist play is under way.​

In the same essay, he also endorses this drawing of the contrast between high-concept sim and narrativism:

in Simulationist gaming, a long and complex story might come about and be part of play, but only for the express purpose of bringing about all the appropriate genre elements in the game as part of the internal consistency of the Dream. . . . their inclusion in the game, part and parcel as they are to the Dream, isn't Narrativist because no one is creating a theme that isn't already there. In other words, it's just played out as the Situation part of the Exploration; because the Dream calls for it, there just so happens to be a kind of intricacy involved.

In Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless of the genre or setting used. So, to sum up, themes in Nar play are created by the participants and that's the point; themes in Sim play are already present in the Dream, reinforced by the play, and kind of a by-product.​

And that fits with his earlier remark that

In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world . . .​

Story now play involves the participants, in the moment of play and via the processes of play, conveying something that bears upon theme or dramatic premise. It locates the point of RPGing as being the same as most authoring in other media, ie having something to say and saying it. And doing that in the moment of play.

That's why freedom of the player to choose what their PC does, at the moment of crisis and to adopt an evaluative stance towards that is key. As Edwards says, there is no "the story", no pre-determination of what the "proper" or "correct" thing to do is. That's why, if I had to identify a single D&D system element that is hostile to "story now" RPGing, it would be GM adjudication of alignment and associated practices like telling players of clerics (via "roleplay" of the gods) what religion demands of their PCs. Getting rid of alignment was, for me, a crucial preliminary step to playing "story now" AD&D.

If you're asking for examples of "points", well here are some (from my RPGing experiences): what/who will I sacrifice for my brother?; will I save my brother even though he is evil?; what will I do to get revenge?; what will I do to keep the Elven ways?; it's worth setting myself back to show up my rival!; I will destroy the evidence that shows I'm descended from an evil mage, even my mother's childhood letters; I will risk death to defend Aramina; I won't set aside my principles to reach accommodation with my brother; I will give up my own chaos-sourced power to seal the Abyss; I will marry to keep the peace and make an ally; I will choose my marriage over my love; I will redeem the Celtic undead; I will wield my power to defeat the Nazgul!; when forced to choose, I choose the Raven Queen over Vecna, even at cost to myself; "I feel really good about not having killed that bear", said after the PCs tamed it instead.

 

[pemerton]

Yes they can, as the 'ingredients' might be character's traumas, desires, aspirations and attitudes. But yes, sure, even in traditional game players can offer a bit more than that, as they can establish their backstory. But it is rather different thing for the player to establish very generic elements (the character has mother who has died whose remains they wish to retrieve from a creepy hard to reach location) than very specific elements that are significant in their scope (That there is a specific named fortress, and perhaps that there is a specific named cult worshiping specific named entity related to that.)

Here is the actual 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.​

I don't see that this has anything to do with the PC's traumas or desires. The ingredients are clearly things like the existence of the bow, or the presence of the mother's remains in the fortress. You seem to resolutely disregard that a quest is the fundamental story framework of an adventure, and that the system encourages players to create these. I don't see how you a player is going to create a fundamental story framework if they don't get to choose any story elements except those the GM has revealed to them.

 

[pemerton]

The 5e designers appear to have successfully followed an alternative analysis, based on their own systematic research, that showed that an RPG will be more functional if it incorporates multiple play priorities.

What is your measure of the functionality of 5e? Or of designer success?

I see endless threads about problems in 5e, which - as @Ovinomancer has posted just upthread - need to be resolved by making choices about play priorities. And the points on which those threads focus - the relationship between adventure day pacing, resource recovery, GM control over the fiction, player's being able to optimise their play (eg via nova then rest), fudging, whether or not a GM should stick to their prep, etc - are exactly what one would expect from a game that straddles the line between high concept sim with a focus on characters-face-problems, and party-based step-on-up play.

How is this evidence of the game being "more functional"? More functional than what? What is the success, other than commercial?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Here is the actual 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.​

I don't see that this has anything to do with the PC's traumas or desires. The ingredients are clearly things like the existence of the bow, or the presence of the mother's remains in the fortress. You seem to resolutely disregard that a quest is the fundamental story framework of an adventure, and that the system encourages players to create these. I don't see how you a player is going to create a fundamental story framework if they don't get to choose any story elements except those the GM has revealed to them.

Because they have chosen the direction of the game. The story is now about that thing. The thing may have in theory existed in the setting, like "here be dragons" on the map, but because the player chose their quest to be related to that, now it matters.