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

[Crimson Longinus]

But to add, it is not that I couldn't see story now principles conflicting with any genre emulation, there definitely are genres where the conflict would be likely. I just don't think that in this instance they conflict, quite the opposite, as apocalyptic fiction as a genre embraces certain chaoticness and unpredictability. And it seems likely to me that this is exactly why Baker chose it, as it complemented his other design desires. Cyberpunk would probably be a good fit too. Is there a Cyberpunk Now game?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's the role of the GM. High concept sim generally requires a strong GM oversight including fudging and overt scene framing to reinforce the genre and make everything feel 'right'. Narr requires a more permissive GM role constrained by rules and transparency expressly in order to avoid that oversight and instead allow play to be driven by the players. Sim is prepared to sacrifice freedom for consistency because the emulation is the point; narr is prepared to sacrifice consistency for freedom because the protagonism is the point.

I can imagine an HCS that focuses on discovering the nature of the players ideas about the subject being simulated. In that sort of a game the process and gameplay would be VERY similar to Narrative games (I would think).

 

[niklinna]

Only if they conflict in the first place! And I claim that in this case they do not! Or at leas the game is very much designed to make it so that it naturally produces genre appropriate action, and written so that it nudges the participant to think in genre appropriate terms, so that such conflicts do not even arise. This is commitment to evoking the genre.

You started this whole line by asking about simulation, and at some point this switched to evocation/emulation.

Evocation is not simulation.

Emulation is not simulation.

You yourself have insistently complained about how simulation must be about how rifles work. Apocalypse World doesn't care about how rifles work. It doesn't care about all kinds of stuff that Simulationism in either GNS or GDS cares about. Anybody coming to Apocalypse World expecting any kind of adherence to Simulation is going to be frustrated.

I think think that this whole "but it must be primarily be about this one thing" simply is a fallacy. Things aren't and they don't need to be. Things can be holistic gestalts whose parts support each other.

I'll grant that Apocalypse World does invoke the tone & feel of a particular film genre. But that is incidental to what it was designed to support and emphasize, which is reflected in the minimal amount of text devoted to the details of genre and the fairly larger amount of text devoted to details of conflict between characters. And if those two ever do conflict, it's the latter that wins out.

But to add, it is not that I couldn't see story now principles conflicting with any genre emulation, there definitely are genres where the conflict would be likely. I just don't think that in this instance they conflict, as apocalyptic fiction as a genre embraces certain chaoticness and unpredictability. And it seems likely to me that this is exactly why Baker chose it, as it complemented his other design desires. Cyberpunk would probably be a good fit too.

I would not be surprised to find out that was the case. A vaguely post-apocalyptic setting is a great backdrop for conflict between characters.

Is there a Cyberpunk Now game?

Maybe The Sprawl? I played it at a con once, had a blast.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Edwards was pretty clear in stating that anything involving desirable outcomes in terms of those things is Simulationist in his model, and that in his model, Narrativism is specifically about not having a decided idea about where or how things should go. That was new, and distinct, and clearly in contrast with GDS's Gamism, Dramatism, and Simulationism. He picked a really bad name for it. Actually he picked two really bad names for it. And then, from what I've read, got really pissy about reaction to his model.

It really seems to me that a lot of this argument has been due to people not being clear about which of the terminology-sharing models they are using, and, frankly, making it sound like the models are subject to revision through criticism, after 20+ years. In the GDS model, the above example clearly goes under Dramatism. In the GNS model, it clearly goes under High Concept Simulationism. Yes, Edwards erased or co-opted or buried the idea of drama and that sucks, but we already knew that. If you don't like it, it's enough to say, "I don't subscribe to GNS; here's where things go in GDS."

I have by accident of history been more familiar with GNS than GDS. I have been reading up on GDS as this thread unfolds, but I am not familiar enough yet to have confidence applying it to D&D (or anything) in detail. I have already noticed critical differences in detail between the two beyond the top-level category names, but I'm not sure I'll have the time to internalize them so as to write another reponse to the OP in terms of GDS. I'd love it if somebody who is well-versed in it would do so!

In terms of Drama and GNS, my feeling is that Drama is a property which EMERGES from play. That is, it is a characterization of the narrative itself, is it dramatic or not dramatic. You COULD talk about things which generate drama, but I would also say that GNS Narrative play SHOULD be dramatic in some sense. At least it should really have some elements of drama.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nope. Process simulation would be that, but genre emulation absolutely is about the flavour.

It's not. You have a misunderstanding.

There is some vigorous projection going on there. I actually read the game holistically, without artificial constraints of ill-defined theories, trying to force it to fulfil just one arbitrary agenda. And that flavour absolutely has meaning. It is not there by accident. It absolutely is there to evoke a genre. Sure, the game is about the characters too, but characters in that genre. These things are not contradictory or conflicting. They support each other and are parts of a coherent whole.

Heh. Okay, man, sure. You've dismissed what the designer says above, claiming effectively that it's only to do with the mechanics, which means you're discounting the agenda and principles as part of the system and game rules. But, I'm the one reading improperly.

This has been fun, but it's 100% clear that you are utterly uninterested in discussion or learning, but instead only in asserting that whatever assumptions you already hold are true for any game you happen to look at -- they all do emulation of something, somewhere, and that's all that simulationism means, so all simulationism and therefore you can discount all of the GNS model because useless. That you're incorrect on the definition is of no matter, you can dismiss that. That the games actually say something different is of no matter, you can dismiss that as well. That the designer of the game says your read is incorrect is of no matter because, well, you can just arbitrarily state it only applies to this small piece of the game and so can be dismissed. You're working super hard to deny how other people play.

 

[niklinna]

In terms of Drama and GNS, my feeling is that Drama is a property which EMERGES from play. That is, it is a characterization of the narrative itself, is it dramatic or not dramatic. You COULD talk about things which generate drama, but I would also say that GNS Narrative play SHOULD be dramatic in some sense. At least it should really have some elements of drama.

What about pre-scripted story lines, then? Where do all of those adventure paths fit to that?

In any case, I think Edwards really crapped in the punchbowl when he shoved GDS Dramatism aside and co-opted the language for his shiny new thing. It's a cool thing! It can be very dramatic in particular ways. But it doesn't encompass all of what the generic regular old English word "drama" does. Or "narrative" or "story". In fact, it's antithetical to the latter two in key ways.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You started this whole line by asking about simulation, and at some point this switched to evocation/emulation.

Evocation is not simulation.

Emulation is not simulation.

I agree. GNS doesn't.

You yourself have insistently complained about how simulation must be about how rifles work. Apocalypse World doesn't care about how rifles work. It doesn't care about all kinds of stuff that Simulationism in either GNS or GDS cares about. Anybody coming to Apocalypse World expecting any kind of adherence to Simulation is going to be frustrated.

Process simulation, yes. But in GNS genre emulation and even a lot of dramatism is in simulationism. So here we are. :shurg:

I'll grant that Apocalypse World does invoke the tone & feel of a particular film genre. But that is incidental to what it was designed to support and emphasize, which is reflected in the minimal amount of text devoted to the details of genre and the fairly larger amount of text devoted to details of conflict between characters. And if those two ever do conflict, it's the latter that wins out.

The flavour is basically in every paragraph of the book. Calling it 'incidental' is a great disservice to the writer! No, it is quite intentional.

I would not be surprised to find out that was the case. A vaguely post-apocalyptic setting is a great backdrop for conflict between characters.

Indeed. And this actually makes it unlikely that there is a conflict between story now principles and the theme, and they actually support each other, so talk about 'which would win' is besides the point.

Maybe The Sprawl? I played it at a con once, had a blast.

Ah, seem like it! Thank you!

 

[Campbell]

The flavor is not incidental. It is however subordinate to the larger point of play. Just like the setting is subordinate to the overall protagonism.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's not. You have a misunderstanding.

So if we are evocating the flavour of a genre we are not emulating a genre? What are we doing then? Are genre evocation and genre emulation now in different GNS baskets?

Heh. Okay, man, sure. You've dismissed what the designer says above, claiming effectively that it's only to do with the mechanics, which means you're discounting the agenda and principles as part of the system and game rules. But, I'm the one reading improperly.

This has been fun, but it's 100% clear that you are utterly uninterested in discussion or learning, but instead only in asserting that whatever assumptions you already hold are true for any game you happen to look at -- they all do emulation of something, somewhere, and that's all that simulationism means, so all simulationism and therefore you can discount all of the GNS model because useless. That you're incorrect on the definition is of no matter, you can dismiss that. That the games actually say something different is of no matter, you can dismiss that as well. That the designer of the game says your read is incorrect is of no matter because, well, you can just arbitrarily state it only applies to this small piece of the game and so can be dismissed. You're working super hard to deny how other people play.

I see that the projection continues. I have praised the design of Apoc World for it's ability to create a whole in which the parts support and elevate each other. I simply do not subscribe to the idea that the game must be about one thing and one thing only because some bizarre commitment to the purity of some ancient game theory.

 

[niklinna]

Process simulation, yes. But in GNS genre emulation and even a lot of dramatism is in simulationism. So here we are. :shurg:

Funny how you can distinguish process simulation from high-concept simulation, when it suits you.

The flavour is basically in every paragraph of the book. Calling it 'incidental' is a great disservice to the writer! No, it is quite intentional.

Flavor is not detail, just like emulation is not simulation. I agree the flavor is intentional, and it's very well written, but I maintain that it's incidental to the purpose of dealing with conflict between characters, in that many other genres would work as well.

Ah, seem like it! Thank you!

Actually Forged in the Dark would be a better fit for cyberpunk stuff.