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

[Ovinomancer]

It could also be those other agendas have their own jargon, which acts as a shibboleth for in-group membership. Using different jargon (e.g., GNS jargon in an OSR community) identifies you as an out-group member, which can illicit negative responses regardless of how useful the other jargon is. Eventually, one just stops trying to engage.

A neat summation of most of this discussion.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It could also be those other agendas have their own jargon, which acts as a shibboleth for in-group membership. Using different jargon (e.g., GNS jargon in an OSR community) identifies you as an out-group member, which can illicit negative responses regardless of how useful the other jargon is. Eventually, one just stops trying to engage.

It isn't on RPG.net (though there's a general tendency for some parts of the user base to be generally hostile to theory is a thing, but at least they don't dominate there), but it still tended to be brought up primarily through the lens of Nar (obviously this is a generalization, not a universalization; obviously people like Permerton's self-note earlier aren't nonexistent). I used to think that was simply because the part of the hobby that was Sim in the old day had shrunk to functional invisibility, and Gamists are so generally used to getting dumped on in discussion that bares on story focus that they just stayed out. Now that its been made clear to me quite how narrow Nar is, and how much of the old Dramatism got shoved into Sim, I conclude its more that most people who's agendas belonged in either of the old GDS D or S likely found it usefulness minimal, so unless they're just coming in to bitch about it, they stay out completely.

 

[Aldarc]

It could also be those other agendas have their own jargon, which acts as a shibboleth for in-group membership. Using different jargon (e.g., GNS jargon in an OSR community) identifies you as an out-group member, which can illicit negative responses regardless of how useful the other jargon is. Eventually, one just stops trying to engage.

I'm not even sure, however, that GNS sees much use in "Narrativist circles." GNS helped people identify a play agenda that had not been acknowledged before* and designers have since created games that better address that agenda, though not necessarily using said terms. IME, I mostly encounter GNS now from Simulationists rather than those with Gamist or Narrativist agendas, I suspect also drawing heavily from GDS understandings.

* Insert the usual counter-argument plugging The Elusive Shift.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not even sure, however, that GNS sees much use in "Narrativist circles." GNS helped people identify a play agenda that had not been acknowledged before* and designers have since created games that better address that agenda, though not necessarily using said terms. IME, I mostly encounter GNS now from Simulationists rather than those with Gamist or Narrativist agendas, I suspect also drawing heavily from GDS understandings.

* Insert the usual counter-argument plugging The Elusive Shift.

I can speak to my learning of how it works. I had seen GNS theory and bounced off of it hard. During the time I was waking up to the possibility of story now I didn't ever look at GNS theory. I did get a few quoted snippets from Edwards talking about Story Now specifically, but I can't say they really helped. What did help was @pemerton seeming like a reasonably smart person that kept saying things that I didn't understand, and so I, one day, said, "self, pemerton doesn't seem like a liar or fool, so maybe start by assuming what he said is true and figuring out how that could be? What assumptions of mine need to change to make what is said be true. Now, does that hang together and make sense?" It was later that I went back to GNS (because it was linked or talked about, I don't recall) and reread. Then it made much more sense because I understood how it was working to categorize intent of play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No. You're doing an is/ought thing. GNS isn't saying how games ought to be, but rather classifying what is. That doesn't require any kind of symmetry to avoid bias -- in fact, often a forced symmetry is a sign of bias! To give the obvious example of life taxonomy, there are far, far, far more things under the phylum Arthopoda in the Kingdom Animals than there are under all of the rest of the Animals phyla combined! This isn't showing bias. Your premise here is badly flawed.

The lack of subcategories on narrativism indicates that it is not of the same taxonomic rank than the two other baskets.

No. Dramaticism's definition denies narrativism. Narrativism isn't a subset of dramaticism, it's a different objective thing. Dramaticism is focused on telling a good story. Narrativism doesn't care about that at all. Saying narrativism is a form of dramaticism is denying narrativism.

First of, none of these are objective things. They're vague social constructs trying to classify other vague social constructs. And narrativism cares about character drama, which is a dramatic concern. Now narrativism amusingly doesn't care about the narrative, but that is merely one aspect of a story.

Putting Dramaticism into Simulation in GNS doesn't erase dramaticism because sim in GNS hold to internal cause. Telling a good story holds to good internal causes. These are chosen for the outcome, but a good story has a throughline of good internal cause. This is different from the process-sim or purist-for-system end of simulationism, but that's because that end cares about different sources of internal cause -- they also don't care about story but rather that the system generates logically following fiction.

That's very narrow definition of a story. Whether you feel consistency to 'internal cause'* is an important aspect of story is a matter of taste. There are surreal stories, there are stories that do not follow the usual narrative structures and patters, there are stories which have more emphasis on the character's feelings and experiences, that focuses getting under their skin. And all sorts of other concerns. And most of them have absolutely nothing in common with tech manuals.

* Which itself is a term so vague that it is practically useless.

So, no hyperbole, you're showing you do not understand the distinction of what narrativism is, that or not understanding how dramaticism was defined. And your combining of the two erases one.

Yes, well, when you say that my play must just be me being engaged in pseudo-intellectuallism (ie, false thinking) it's kinda hard to then say it's not a personal insult. You've just engaged in an ad hom again, here. You keep engaging ad homs. At some point, the denials of making it about the people and not ideas stops working.

I'm not like angry or raging or anything. I post forcefully when I'm cheerful. I'm not that, either, here, just tired and frustrated with hearing the same things over again from people unwilling to even consider that I'm not an irrational person engaged in pseudo-intellectualism to lie to myself. I mean, the usually paired accusations of elitism are missing, so kudos on that.

That I don't agree with your preferred theoretical framework is not an insult.

No, because there's not agreement and shared agenda here. This only works because Bob is being good natured and just ignores the GM, and because the GM is using hitpoints in a gamist way (no mechanics changed) and pretending to simulation. Hitpoints are still not actually simulating anything if Bob can freely ignore the narration -- there's no internal cause to the narration that requires Bob to pay attention to it.

But, that aside, we're still in a place where the goals aren't harmonized because no shared agenda. Bob and the GM are playing different games that happen to overlap -- they are not harmonized and working with each other, they're both engaged in their own play and choosing not to have it interfere. If your definition of "harmonize" is this, then I'm okay with 'sometimes you can just ignore a different agenda at the table and get away with it.' People are capable of all kinds of things, and, given so many stories told at ENW that mirror this, it seems like it's a common thing to ignore bits that bother you so you can continue to play.

Preferably they should agree to respect both priorities and they easily can do this even if they would value these priorities at different degrees as they do not actually directly conflict.

You just papered over a conflict by pointing out that, in one configuration, it can be ignored. This is a fairly interesting statement, which I covered above -- the ignoring is because the description of hitpoints as wounds does no further work and has no further meaning so the gamist can just ignore it as flavor. You haven't actually implicated simulationism here. Sorry, didn't really mean to pick a trick example but it seems I have. So let's explore something related but different. Bob's PC takes a major hp hit -- say 90% in one go. The GM narrates that this shatters Bob's arm (using GM fiat to do so). Bob doesn't care, because it doesn't really matter. He goes to swing his greatsword at the foe, but the GM interrupts and asks how he's swinging a greatsword with one hand? NOW Bob is incensed, and now we have a clear conflcit in agenda. The GM has narrated something that adheres to their internal cause assessment, but Bob doesn't want any of that -- he still has hp left so should be at peak fighting condition! You cannot harmonize these things.

In this instance you have invented the GM effectively introducing an unannounced houserule, as D&D normally doesn't have damage penalties and this is causing the issue.

But, if you insist, and since it's your assertion, please do come up with a scenario in play that harmonizes two agendas. If any rules need to be changed or a ruling made to enable it, please call this out.

Bob describes how his character grits his teeth and with the help of the adrenaline rush caused the injury swings his greatsword with one hand and the GM lets him do this as no damage penalties actually exist in the rules.


BTW, the whole 'conflict' assumes that we have two people who have such singular priorities that they care about only this one thing. This in my experience is unlikely. People who care about both of these thing in this example are far more common, so satisfying both priorities in this way is normal and welcome.

 

[kenada]

It isn't on RPG.net (though there's a general tendency for some parts of the user base to be generally hostile to theory is a thing, but at least they don't dominate there), but it still tended to be brought up primarily through the lens of Nar (obviously this is a generalization, not a universalization; obviously people like Permerton's self-note earlier aren't nonexistent). I used to think that was simply because the part of the hobby that was Sim in the old day had shrunk to functional invisibility, and Gamists are so generally used to getting dumped on in discussion that bares on story focus that they just stayed out. Now that its been made clear to me quite how narrow Nar is, and how much of the old Dramatism got shoved into Sim, I conclude its more that most people who's agendas belonged in either of the old GDS D or S likely found it usefulness minimal, so unless they're just coming in to bitch about it, they stay out completely.

I don’t think that follows. Just because a theory lacks popularity in a particular group does not mean it is likely minimally useful for them. There may be other reasons — such as sour grapes over how that alternative theory categorizes things and the seeming slight of their preferred agenda by lumping it in with a seemingly disparate one. Consequently, should one try to engage that group using the ill-favored theory, it will be met with dismissal and hostility. So, again, why bother engaging?

And, to be clear, I’ll again reiterate that I don’t like how Purist for System and High Concept get lumped together under Right to Dream (or Simulationism or whatever). It was a large stumbling block for me for a long time since I lean more towards the former in spite of generally running systems oriented towards the latter (i.e., some form of D&D). It’s only recently that I really started to understand the distinction and how that matters for the “campaign is a science experiment” style of play I’m trying to do.

I should also add that I think it is very unhelpful that what we have to reference are these old essays rather than something reflective of the continued discourse. For example, if not for @pemerton , I’d have no idea that setting-centric Story Now was even a thing. If that were enumerated as another style in the essay, it might also seem less arbitrary that Right to Dream was grouped together the way it is, and Story Now might not seem as narrowly focused either.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The lack of subcategories on narrativism indicates that it is not of the same taxonomic rank than the two other baskets.

Logically flawed. There are tons of taxonomies that have uneven baskets. This isn't even wrong.

First of, none of these are objective things. They're vague social constructs trying to classify other vague social constructs. And narrativism cares about character drama, which is a dramatic concern. Now narrativism amusingly doesn't care about the narrative, but that is merely one aspect of a story.

Strawman. No one has made any argument about objectivity.

Circular reasoning. You declare the structure to be vague and then show that since it's vague it must be vague.

It's also been well covered that the language wasn't the best choice, so unclear what your point in bringing this up again is. Either we're using the definitions as provided or you're still trying to argue definitions. Pick one.

That's very narrow definition of a story. Whether you feel consistency to 'internal cause'* is an important aspect of story is a matter of taste. There are surreal stories, there are stories that do not follow the usual narrative structures and patters, there are stories which have more emphasis on the character's feelings and experiences, that focuses getting under their skin. And all sorts of other concerns. And most of them have absolutely nothing in common with tech manuals.

I didn't define story. I said storied have internal causes and care about them. Surreal stories still function on internal cause, they just subvert that cause into a different form. Internal cause doesn't require a particular structure (although dramaticism is often concerned with creating proper story structure). Tech manuals are not the goal of dramaticism in any consideration, so a red herring.

* Which itself is a term so vague that it is practically useless.

It's not that vague, and also it was defined in the essays. Either we're talking about the model or we are talking about definitions, still. Pick one. This vacillation when it aids your argument is tiresome.

That I don't agree with your preferred theoretical framework is not an insult.

No, of course it isn't. Another strawman. I'd welcome disagreement. So far, most of your arguments are things like "taxonomies must be symmetrical" which is bogus; or they're "I've changed/ignored this definition from that used in the model and now you must defend the model using this new definition, but you can't!" Also largely bogus.

Disagreement would require actually trying to address the model on the premises it's based on and showing how it fails to hold itself up under even those conditions, or directly attacking the premises. You aren't doing the first, mostly just the second, but your attacks are ones of assertion or preference for a different premise, not showing that the premises used are flawed.

Preferably they should agree to respect both priorities and they easily can do this even if they would value these priorities at different degrees as they do not actually directly conflict.

Oh, you mean that preferably they should share the same agenda? Yes, I agree, that does solve the problem because then you aren't worried about how to harmonize different agendas -- you have the same one.

In this instance you have invented the GM effectively introducing an unannounced houserule, as D&D normally doesn't have damage penalties and this is causing the issue.

Red herring. Doesn't matter if it was announced or not -- if we assume it was announced, it's still causing problems; we just move Bob's objections to the time at which the rule is announced. We still aren't harmonizing anything here -- a solid and hard conflict exists.

Bob describes how his character grits his teeth and with the help of the adrenaline rush caused the injury swings his greatsword with one hand and the GM lets him do this as no damage penalties actually exist in the rules.

RIGHT. The description has no effect at all, so it's not simulationist because we've established an internal cause -- major blow breaks arm -- that aligns, but then have to immediately discard it in favor of the gamist imperatives of the agreed play. Bob wins, no harmonizing.

BTW, the whole 'conflict' assumes that we have two people who have such singular priorities that they care about only this one thing. This in my experience is unlikely. People who care about both of these thing in this example are far more common, so satisfying both priorities in this way is normal and welcome.

I'd be Bob in this case. I'm effectively recreating an issue I had with a GM that decided that damage needed to be more simulationist and so he'd assign lasting injuries and penalties for them. At the time, I was still pretty green, and didn't immediately assert my arguments, but I can 100% tell you that it sucked hard for me in that game. I certainly didn't feel any harmonizing going on.

But, again, I entreat you to find your own examples. It's your assertion, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Campbell]

@Crimson Longinus

What is meant by High Concept Simulation does not conflict with Visceral Protagonism? Do you mean conflict neutral exposition scenes do not conflict? Do you mean serial exploration of the game setting does not conflict? Do you mean a strong focus on transition scenes does not conflict? Do you mean intricately plotted NPCs with detailed histories and specific goals do not conflict? Do you mean playing tropes or playing to specific arcs does not conflict?

Please be specific here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don’t think that follows. Just because a theory lacks popularity in a particular group does not mean it is likely minimally useful for them. There may be other reasons — such as sour grapes over how that alternative theory categorizes things and the seeming slight of their preferred agenda by lumping it in with a seemingly disparate one. Consequently, should one try to engage that group using the ill-favored theory, it will be met with dismissal and hostility. So, again, why bother engaging?

I'm not actually sure we're saying different things. If they think the things you mention above, they're unlikely to think its useful to them.

And, to be clear, I’ll again reiterate that I don’t like how Purist for System and High Concept get lumped together under Right to Dream (or Simulationism or whatever). It was a large stumbling block for me for a long time since I lean more towards the former in spite of generally running systems oriented towards the latter (i.e., some form of D&D). It’s only recently that I really started to understand the distinction and how that matters for the “campaign is a science experiment” style of play I’m trying to do.

I should also add that I think it is very unhelpful that what we have to reference are these old essays rather than something reflective of the continued discourse. For example, if not for @pemerton , I’d have no idea that setting-centric Story Now was even a thing. If that were enumerated as another style in the essay, it might also seem less arbitrary that Right to Dream was grouped together the way it is, and Story Now might not seem as narrowly focused either.

And as an additional data point, note I didn't understand quite how Story Now centric Nar was until literally this thread. I admittedly hadn't burrowed super deep into it (because honestly, I find a lot of Edwards writing kind of turgid) but I'd discussed this with a number of other people in trying to see the difference between old school D and Forgeite N, and somehow none of them managed to convey that to me. And that was with me doing at least some side reading.

Of course this is complicated by the fact that GNS was apparently considered just a piece (and I gather from some respondents in the past, not necessarily the biggest piece) of what I've seen called The Big Model, and that even that is kind of--obsolete? I don't know that's an accurate way to put it, but at least old news.

 

[clearstream]

@Crimson Longinus

What is meant by High Concept Simulation does not conflict with Visceral Protagonism? Do you mean conflict neutral exposition scenes do not conflict? Do you mean serial exploration of the game setting does not conflict? Do you mean a strong focus on transition scenes does not conflict? Do you mean intricately plotted NPCs with detailed histories and specific goals do not conflict? Do you mean playing tropes or playing to specific arcs does not conflict?

Please be specific here.

Wouldn't the burden more rightly fall on those believing they conflict? Compelling examples that all readers will easily apply to their own experiences.

I mean that @Crimson Longinus can surely rest on - they see no conflicts. Then if others do see conflicts, it is up to those others to articulate them.