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

[Thomas Shey]

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.

You've got to watch this; I've seen some people in trad games are extremely hostile to backstory, especially of any extent. I've seen in in particular among OS proponents.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not sure. In my opinion, some of the participants is what causes fractures. Don't get me wrong, I get the need for classification, I just think sometimes classification forgets the need of most of its participants.

Well, the problem with that is the heavy lifting "most" is doing in this sentence.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You've got to watch this; I've seen some people in trad games are extremely hostile to backstory, especially of any extent. I've seen in in particular among OS proponents.

'Traditional game' here merely meant one where the GM has almost sole setting authority, (like D&D 5e) and that such games can have players generating meaningful backstories, not that it is always done or that it must be done.

But now that you mentioned it, why are OS people hostile to having backstories?

 

[clearstream]

I am not talking of admiring 5th Edition's design or not. And there is plenty of praise for 5E on this forum, more so than either scorn or indifference combined. I would hardly call this forum allergic to praising 5e's design. But maybe that happens when any slight is construed as the greatest of all possible slights. It's worth considering, however, that my self-professed tongue-in-cheek post was not meant to be a springboard for your apology of 5e, as I was criticising not 5e, but the gamist attitudes of its more fervent fanbase that views criticisms of 5e in terms of "winning" or "popularity."


I am talking of people. Neither 5e nor the theoretical analysis are persons who can feel discomfort.

I will personally say that my greatest discomfort stems from your unwarranted attempts to try to reverse my statement and project discomfort on to me, @clearstream.

As a tongue-in-cheek aside, I am beginning to believe that D&D's "gamist" character can also be evidenced in how D&D is seemingly discussed by its more fervent fans in terms of "winning" and "popularity," which is likewise used to deflect unwelcomed criticism of the game or subject it to the discomfort of theoretical analysis. This is to say that there is an underlying sentiment that any and all game analysis doesn't matter because "D&D won."

Foremost, and most importantly, I am sorry that my words projected discomfort and can absolutely reassure you that I did not mean to reverse your statement. I failed to fully appreciate the tongue-in-cheek characterisation your words were prefaced with, and thus I misread them: responding to their literal meaning. Thank you for drawing that to my attention: I'll look out for such flags in future.

While I will accept due criticism, I will also not don a hair shirt: I am not construing any slight as the greatest of all possible slights. Also, where you spoke of subjecting "the game"" to the discomfort of theoretical analysis, I continued in similarly figurative language. To discomfort a game or theory as I meant my words (and as I read yours) would be to show it to be embarrassed in some respect: reveal a fault of some sort.

I'm aware I can be a blunt interlocutor, and regret causing discomfort. I hope we can set this aside and continue an otherwise fruitful conversation.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Whilst I disagree that 5e combat system generates "almost no fiction," I agree that as sims go, it is not great. But it probably also wouldn't be a choice of people who wish "realistic challenge" in the first place. I was not talking just about D&D. Having more robustly simulationistic system doesn't need to conflict with providing an interesting challenge (though of course this depends on the sort of challenge you desire) and it can even support it. Basically the desire in such a simulation would be for the system to create simulation of the challenge the action being simulated would have in reality (or in the source fiction.) Like how the purpose of some wargames is to realistically to simulate the sort of command challenges the general leading a real army would face. In such a situation sim and gamist agendas have intertwined to basically become one.

Sure. It's your conjecture that this can happen, so you need to provide the example and show how it works. Go, do your own homework!

Nope what? What part of what I said you actually disagree with? You do not think thank that different creative agendas that GNS places under one banner can conflict with each others? You don't think that process sim and genre emulation desires can conflict? Because like the discussion about superheroes in some recent threads show, they absolutely can.

That GNS is bad at identifying agendas. That you want a subdivision doesn't mean GNS is bad at identifying agendas. Especially since it does actually list the sub categories that you're requiring, so... seems like it's doing exactly what you said.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In absolute sense that is true. (Though of course further fiction the GM presents is informed by the player responses, albeit not in same degree than in story now.) And I actually think typical story now play has a significant difference in the process here. How the participants contribute to the shared fiction is different. It is just that Edward's waffling doesn't seem to focus on, or highlight this difference in the process, but focuses mostly on subject matter (dramatic needs of the characters etc) which actually is something that can and is explored in other styles, nor it is the only thing one can do with this sort of a process.


Narrativism seem to be defined by what and how, whilst other categories are just defined by what. This to me seems inconsistent.

You haven't read the essays, I see. They're all defined by what with some how. Story Now isn't uniquely set apart in the essays. The "how" in Story Now isn't one that's associated with D&D-style gaming, so it gets talked about because it's different. That doesn't mean there's a lack in others.

 

[Thomas Shey]

'Traditional game' here merely meant one where the GM has almost sole setting authority, (like D&D 5e) and that such games can have players generating meaningful backstories, not that it is always done or that it must be done.

But now that you mentioned it, why are OS people hostile to having backstories?

They seem to think it puts the focus overly on an individual character and/or on the character's past over the present. But that's somewhat speculative in some cases, because they don't always articulate their reasons.

 

[clearstream]

I believe I even mentioned that one of the complaints directed at GDS Gamism that never got acknowledged was the inclusion of "fair" in its definition of challenge.



It depends on how you feel about the early D&D heist play style. A lot of that would be treated as gamist, too, but it wasn't wargamey in the sense most people would see it.

I am thinking also of the matter of degree of challenge. Suppose we take gamism to be just narrowly oriented to challenge: we might then suppose that if I want a tough tactical situation with losing very much on the table, a gamist system is one that must satisfy me. But what if I want an easy tactical situation with winning almost guaranteed? That can be equally satisfied by a gamist system, right, just one dialled to easy. Still, the former player with the gamist agenda is not at all satisfied by the latter game tailored to suit a gamist agenda. An apparent paradox!

Bottomline, I don't think we can say 5th edition is gamist or not gamist, just on the basis of degree of challenge. I am not saying others are doing that, I am speaking here to rule it out (or at least, raise the notion that it should be ruled out). Perhaps the deeper concern, however, is the apparent paradox considering degree of challenge flags up.

 

[niklinna]

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.

I love that whole post, but this bit really inspired me to highlight something. If you always know "what my character would do" and do that (whether because situations make that easy or because you have a very fixed and clear idea of who your character is), that's kind of low on the Story Now scale. If you hit a situation where you don't immediately know what your character would do, and agonize in the moment about the best thing to do relative to your character's values, particularly when the situation pits multiple values against one another, that's the juicy in-the-moment drama Story Now is going for.

 

[Aldarc]

I believe I even mentioned that one of the complaints directed at GDS Gamism that never got acknowledged was the inclusion of "fair" in its definition of challenge.

I agree, so I can acknowlege that you made a salient point about "fairness" here. However, one would hopefully imagine that these challenges can be overcome in some capacity or another by the party. Otherwise it's just the GM playing rope-a-dope with the other players.

You've got to watch this; I've seen some people in trad games are extremely hostile to backstory, especially of any extent. I've seen in in particular among OS proponents.

There tends to be more openness to this among Neo-Traditional Play. However, such games support this to differing degrees. Fate, for example, is honestly fairly High Concept Simulationist / Neo-Trad even though it gets labeled as a "story game" or "gamist" by its detractors.* But it has mechanical support for players to introduce backstory or for the GM to invite the players to do so as a natural part of play.

* I suspect that the source has to do a lot with how some people have differing expectations of what "simulationism" entails particularly in regards to immersion. Some people with simulationist preferences who advocate "Hardline Actor Stance," for example, regard anything that risks taking them out of their character immersion or dispelling the illusion as "(meta-)gamist" and "not roleplaying." So when they see things like fate points, invokes/compels, etc. in Fate that they claim break their personal sense of immersion, then Fate fails the purity test for what "simulationism" is supposed to be (for them).