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

No, when I say I want simulationistic superhero mechanics, I mean I want the game mechanics that somewhat realistically represent what a person with hundred times the normal human physical strength and resilience could do!

I'd suggest it wouldn't hurt not to use "superhero" for that; there's semantic loading on that which is going to imply more than just "super" or "superbeing" does. As I've noted superhero settings usually carry a lot of genre convention. Enough so that skipping one of them stands out and is often done for deconstructionist purposes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There already are more than three baskets in the GNS model. Both Gamist and Narrativist have several subtypes that seem very different from one another, even though they do have certain things in common.

Narrativist, notably, does not have subtypes, and that has been a historical critique of GNS. But as @AbdulAlhazred pointed out, Narrativist play was a pretty new idea at the time, and maybe they had only discovered the one (Story Now) approach to it. Maybe there are other approaches to Narrativist play that do contrast with Story Now....

Right. So doesn't this actually reflect to exactly what I've been saying? That the narrativism basket is narrower than the others? That it would make more sense to have the narrativism as a subtype in a larger dramatism basket for the model to be more symmetrical across its three axis?
 
Last edited:

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.
I'm not so sure I agree with this last bit. First of all, the modern understanding of OSR as a thing, and its attributes was certainly not developed in the late 1990s. Nor do I think that the people writing GDS stuff back then had a lot of commonality with the true old time play. Honestly I think what is mostly called 'OSR' today is HEAVILY revisionist and fails to understand a lot of what was going on in mid '70s play and thinking. So I would discount any notion that GDS is especially well informed in that sense. I think it would also be dangerous to assume what experience or attitudes people who have done later work on RPG theory have or had at some point in the past. For all you know Ron Edwards was the hardest core classic dungeon crawl advocate of all times in, say, 1981.
 

I'd suggest it wouldn't hurt not to use "superhero" for that; there's semantic loading on that which is going to imply more than just "super" or "superbeing" does. As I've noted superhero settings usually carry a lot of genre convention. Enough so that skipping one of them stands out and is often done for deconstructionist purposes.
Yes, sure. But it probably is some sort of deconstruction I'm actually thinking about here. Sort of 'what would really happen' kind of a thing.
 

Right. So doesn't this actually reflect to exactly what I've been saying? that narrativism basket is narrower than the others? That it would make more sense to have the narrativism as a subtype in a larger dramatism basket for the model to be more symmetrical across its three axis?
Since this argument seems to be about the GNS definiton of Narrativism, I will be more explicit about that.

Why does any model need to be symmetrical?

What would a dramatism basket be? What subtypes other than GNS Story Now Narrativism would it contain?
 

But this definition of simulationism is so broad that it is literally useless. Is there a RPG that wouldn't be simulationsm by these standards? Apocalypse World absolutely 'simulates' post apocalyptic world this way.

No, when I say I want simulationistic superhero mechanics, I mean I want the game mechanics that somewhat realistically represent what a person with hundred times the normal human physical strength and resilience could do!
It's not useless. I can use it pretty easily to differentiate between gamism and narrativism, for example. What you're saying is that the Kingdom portion of taxonomy is useless because it only says Animal and can't tell me the difference between a platypus and an elephant. Okay, that doesn't make it useless. But the essays on the S in GNS actually do go to a higher detail and talk about different ways it can function while retaining the one large scale differentiable trait.
 

Since this argument seems to be about the GNS definiton of Narrativism, I will be more explicit about that.

Why does any model need to be symmetrical?
That is a weird question. Like sure, like I said earlier, you certainly could define all music belonging to three categories: classical music, popular music and avant-garde jazz, but wouldn't that be weird and make you suspect that the classifier had some agenda?

What would a dramatism basket be? What subtypes other than GNS Story Now Narrativism would it contain?
Genre emulation as well as other concern directly related to drama that do not qualify for Story Now Narrativism. If you want character drama and want explore feeling of the characters then you care about dramatism even if you wouldn't approach it in the Story Now way. Basically get that stuff out of simulationsm, as it has jack-all to do with properly mechanically representing the functioning of a semi-automatic rifle.

Also, I feel that @Thomas Shey might be better qualified to answer this question.
 


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.
Right, this is pretty similar to how our 4e campaign worked. I'd note that 4e is a really good game for this in MANY ways, and while it may not have been presented as THE intended way by WotC, it is sure amazing how well things meshed. It could hardly have been chance! It was stupid easy for instance to just pull an encounter (IE a scene) out of thin air! NO other version of D&D can easily do this (early classic D&D can really do OK, at least at low-mid levels since monsters are very simple and the game doesn't seem to demand a lot of elaboration of other elements to work well). 4e takes this to a whole other level though! Stuff is all keyworded, monsters are almost guaranteed to work in most situations as an appropriate challenge within known levels, etc. You have roles, types of monster (boss, underboss, threat, and mook), and just a lot of other similar stuff. Skill Challenges are even easier in a lot of cases; they can usually be worked through on the fly, and there were even times when I decided RETROACTIVELY that one started 'back there in the hall' so to speak.

4e also speaks really well to things like character motivations. While it lacks anything like DW bonds, FATE attributes, or BW beliefs and such, it has a really rich set of characterizing elements, and they can be mushed together in such a huge variety of ways that it is super easy to surface things ABOUT a character as mechanical attributes OF the character. There are some minor roadblocks here, like you need to level up to add something to a PC (except an item or a disease/condition). Still, given that all the essential GM advice is THERE (again, its fair to point out it is not always front and center, and there are some contradictions) and you can definitely use it.

I just find it highly improbable to suppose this was all some big accident! This gets even more preposterous when you see that there were 4e design team members POSTING ON THE FORGE back in the day. They sure had to know what Story Now and general narrative game design would have to look like! I sort of feel like maybe Mearles later may have regretted it and his weird insistence on classic adventure design was some sort of attempt to 'not go there', but I still cannot believe any of this was an accident. It would require assuming a remarkable degree of blindness and lack of knowledge of RPG design concepts on the part of people who's history confirms they DID have this knowledge.
 

For the sake of argument suppose games are rightly categorised ontologically with tools. Using an appropriate analogy, we could have the following example of your two questions (where we are interested in understanding if they are different or the same question.)
  • What purposes are there for a hammer?
  • Why do people choose to use hammers?
What would be your take on that? (Again, I'd like to respond to more of your post, but let's start here.)
Well....that would be kind of a problem, because I don't actually agree that they are "tools," at least not in the usual sense of the word. But if you would like me to use that starting point, then I would say "hammer" is not at all the kind of "tool" that a game is--at least, not the kind of game that an RPG is. Rather, the kind of tool I think we should be considering is something like a pen or, even better, a paintbrush.

Because "what purposes are there for a pen" and "why do people choose to use a pen" have RADICALLY different answers, mostly because while pens mostly do only two things (write, or draw), there are many, MANY reasons why someone might choose to use a pen. The writing or drawing is a vehicle. The thing that the writing or drawing expresses is the reason people choose it.

Hammers, by comparison, are incredibly simple tools. They do only one thing, and it's really hard to get particularly creative with that one thing. (Things like silversmithing exist, but I think you get what I mean. There's a reason we use the phrase "when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.") Many other tools, however, have a huge variety of specific purposes despite only doing a limited number of things. Actual vehicles for example, as in ones that (in theory) drive on roads, really only work as transportation. But that can mean sports cars, muscle cars, monster trucks, cargo trucks, SUVs, offroading adventure type stuff, work vehicles, motorcycles, RVs...

The "purpose" of a vehicle, in a very brute sense, is to physically move from one location to another. But the reasons people would use a vehicle for moving from one place to another are many. So...the two questions only become a single question when one chooses a tool that is of especially focused utility.

We could also compare games to other "abstract" tools, that is, tools that exist as created rules and ideas rather than as physical objects, to try to keep the analogy as close to the original thing as possible. Which could lead us to questions like:
  • What purposes are there for mathematics?
  • Why do people choose to use mathematics?
In a formal sense, the only purpose of mathematics is to reveal logical relationships between elements of some kind of system. But the reasons someone might wish to use mathematics are incredibly variable, because anything that can be quantified is, in theory, something that you can do mathematics to. People use it for optimization, prediction, verification, communication (as we are doing now), entertainment (as most TTRPG and computer/video game players do), research, crime, law, hell you can argue it's even used in arts because of things like poetry and music! None of these deviate from that fundamental, distilled purpose of "reveal logical relationships between elements of a system," and yet these cover damn near the entire spectrum of human endeavor.
 

Remove ads

Top