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

[niklinna]

But what else are we talking about that I could reflect GDS about? Why D&D isn't GDS Sim? That one is pretty straightforward, as long as you don't get bog down in the "how much abstraction is too much?" question. Why isn't it GDS Drama is more complex, and less clearcut, because as I noted, it turns on whether you're talking the game as a whole, or its mechanical support (D&D's mechanical support for dramatist concerns is, as has been noted, is pretty minimal, in part because big parts of the game's fanbase is, honestly, pretty hostile to it.

If the Drama thing is more complex, I'd be happy to see that elaborated on.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If the Drama thing is more complex, I'd be happy to see that elaborated on.

I'll try and go into some more detail tomorrow when I have more time, but in an abbreviated form: Since at least AD&D2e there's been a strong thread of Dramatist concerns that ran through it, starting from the more fiction-emulation parts of the hobby that came in from SF/fantasy fandom, and probably started cresting hard in D&D as a whole because of, well, Dragonlance. It was particularly noticeable because some of the old-school Fantasy F**** Vietnam types got really soggy about it when it started to happen, and still, in some cases, speak about it with disdain.

But that concern only modestly touched the actual mechanics of the game. At most it may have made some of the pseudo-Simulationist elements in prior editions become less prominent, but the closest thing to Dramatist mechanics you got was the integration of some things to provide more character distinction (the kits, the more full-blown integration of Non-Combat Proficiencies). I'd speculate this is because for all that parts of the fandom who wanted an experience more like the fiction they took in, they were still seeing it mostly through a Gamist sort of lens; that was late enough that people for whom something more on-target for them had other options starting to show, and they'd started to migrate off to them.
(As an example of this, consider how late in the day it was until there was even a basic metacurrency in the game, and that's a pretty minimalist plot-steering tool). For the most part any input in steering plot outside of in-character actions was done in an ad-hoc fashion. On the other hand, the game progressively was shedding anything but relatively superficial (in GDS terms) Simulation elements. (These were always kind of secondary to the actual mechanics in the game which weren't notably simulationist, but several of us went into that in the other thread so its probably not useful to repeat it).

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not familiar with GDS. Is it normal to self identify as one category or another? All this I'm a Gamist. I'm a Simulationist. stuff seems kind of weird to me. In my book play agendas are not or least should not be an intrinsic part of who you are.

Never underestimate people’s ability to misunderstand, misconstrue, and co-opt typologies to serve as a form of personalized self-validation and identity.

 

[clearstream]

Now this I'm going to disagree with.

Say you want to do a Ticking Clock scenario. The PC's must travel from Point A to Point B or Bad things Will Happen. Looking at the three approaches does highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each one.

I just want to play around with some alternative takes, to see what that might suggest.

In a heavily Sim game, these scenarios don't really work very well. After all, it's mostly just a basic math question. The train leaves at 5:25 traveling at 50 Km/h. Can it reach the next stop, which is 100 km away in under 2 hours? Well, yes. It can. And, in a Sim based game, the DM shouldn't be adding things to the game specifically to slow that train down because that's not really sim anymore. Anything that slows that train down should arise from the setting itself and if there isn't any reason (outside of dramatic tension ones which are off the table) for the train to slow down, then the train doesn't slow down.

I love this scenario for my train sim game. I need to work out a timetable, buy tickets, get to the platform. What engine is pulling the 5:25 to Oxford today?

In a more Gamist game, the question actually changes. It's not Can the PC's arrive in time? No. The question is now, "What resources will it cost to reach the destination on time and will the PC's be able to deal with the challenge at the destination after having spent resources?" It's all about resource management and whatnot. Which in turn, inspires different possible approaches - maybe a sort of gauntlet challenge where the point of play is to make it to the end; or maybe some sort of resource attrition to make the final challenge more challenging. Or some combination of the two. It's entirely possible that the players will never reach the destination, or, may reach the destination too weak to resolve the challenge, or maybe will blow through the entire thing by clever play. It's one long challenge with lots of moving parts.

Forget resource management, it's all about finding our way efficiently through the maze of transfers between us and our destination. Is it better to change at Reading, or ought we to stay on and change at Didcot Parkway? It's all or nothing. What, there's no sequence that gets us there on time? But... gamist... w...

In a more Narrativist game, the question changes again. Getting to the end isn't really in question at all. You WILL get there in time. The question is, "What are you willing to sacrifice to do so?" Is your shining knight on his trusty steed willing to kill his horse to get there on time? Are you willing to forced march through the night, leaving companions behind, knowing that they will likely die, to weak to defend themselves from the dangers pressing in? Are you willing to make a deal with some Bad Thing and succeed at some great personal cost? And the answering of those questions is the point of play. Getting to the destination and stopping that Bad Thing isn't really the point. That's (most likely) going to happen. The question is, at what cost?

Why I am I being shoehorned into going to point B? I want to play out my life as a Saville Row tailor in love with a Chelsea undertaker (who doesn't notice him). GM, why are you asking me what I will sacrifice to get to point B? Ask me what I will sacrifice to get the attention of the undertaker! No? Well I'm leaving your pointless game...

So, no, I think the threefold model does a really good job when it's used the way it's meant to be used. It identifies strengths and weaknesses in approaches and suggests possible ways forward. Which is exactly what a model should do.

It's subjective, right? I value GNS concretely for going to bat for story and bringing to light important considerations that historically have been powerful in some types of story-telling. I kind of like the now part, but I don't get why it is welded to story? Every agenda might be run in now. Sim-now. Game-now. Rejection of that intution arises from commitments that are tautological (it can't be like that, because the model says its not like that). And that sort of intuition is why I keep coming back to wanting a model that is multidimensional rather than just three-nodes. The three-node pattern is far too limited to describe the space.

 

[clearstream]

Sigh.

Always the problem with using examples. People would rather pick apart the example rather than attempting to understand the point.

It's true, but shouldn't we then admit it is subjective? Folk can commit to GNS and do their thing staying within the lines it draws. Others can smudge out those lines and draw them in different places. Both can work.

The point I'm making is that using the model, we can see pretty clearly that the different agendas will lead to very different experiences from the same starting point. Absent the model, all we can really do is talk about our personal experiences and play dueling anecdotes all the while beating each other over the head with dictionaries as overly pedantic discussions mire down in impossible positions.

Committing to the model will take those committed to it roughly where they might expect.

If we were discussing GDS, then FANTASTIC. Let's use that model. You like that model better. Great. We get that. We understand your point. Mission accomplished.

But NO ONE ELSE IS USING THAT MODEL IN THE DISCUSSION. So, at the end of the day, what are you trying to accomplish? People are telling you that they are using THIS model and NOT THAT model. Insisting that everyone else must use THAT MODEL because you happen to like it better isn't contributing to the discussion after the fifteenth time that you've been told that no one else is using your model.

I directly referenced GDS, GNS and GEN in my OP. As @Thomas Shey noted, nar enthusiasts have a way of hijacking the conversation. Firmly rejecting every other possibility, usually at length, and using their model to prove itself righteous. This thread was a question about D&D / gamist. Legions of pixels have fallen to nar. Suggestive of just how much the model has of worth to say about gamist.

 

[Manbearcat]

Here is why Edwards bins High Concept and Process into the same bin; Simulationism:

Its because the apex priority of play is about the experiential quality of exploration which is underwritten by a type of causality (which the examination of it and leveraging of it/focus upon it is nearly always front-and-center as it either sufficiently facilitates the experiential quality or it doesn't and it becomes a failure state of play); (i) Genre/Trope/Drama Logic or (ii) a kind of Classical Causality formulation where internal causality consistency leads to navigation via system observation and deduction (Process Sim for short).

Almost universally, folks who say "system doesn't matter" are saying it because the above is their apex priority for play. (a) They are concerned overwhelmingly or wholly with a matrix of that italicized bit above + one of those two bolded bits and (b) they feel that you can just free form your way through play with a GM fulfilling the role of "causality coordinator and mediator", governing action declarations based on their personal sense of things. When things go wrong, they'll mash those two together and who the hell knows at any given point what form of causality will govern a given collision of imagined space meets player action declaration. This is a failure condition because it injures the experiential quality of the exploration and the reliability of the causality of the system.

Almost universally, these folks talk about "actor stance exclusivity" and use the terms "(high) immersion" or "verisimilitude" as a precursor to play at all.

Its about "the sensory experience of being there (like causality, color is deeply and pretty much universally foregrounded in our deep interest in setting, characters, and the situations the world affords the characters or what situations they get into)."

Its about "the focus upon the internal logic/causality of the system (not RPG...the world) your character is inhabiting and interacting with (the experience of it and the reliance upon it)."

Conflict is not consistently (certainly not relentlessly) foregrounded. Its foreground/background orientation skews dramatically toward the latter (its simmering, its sought, its revealed and uncovered via exploration). In High Concept Sim it will skew more toward foregrounded than backgrounded, but they both relatively skew as backgrounded. On a thematic neutrality : themed to premise, they both skew toward neutrality though High Concept Sim will skew more "themed to premise" than Process Sim.

---

With Gamist play and with Narrativist play, none of the above are true.

1) Pretty much universally, Gamist and Narrativist priorities come lock, stock, and barrel with an orientation of "system (totally) matters" and "system's say" is incredibly important. You can't just freeform your way to successfully resolve the agenda of these two types of play with a GM fulfilling the role of "causality coordinator and mediator." First off, the experiential quality of being there isn't the thing.

2) The experiential quality of exploration underwritten by a type of (in the cross-hairs) causality is not only not the point of play...its entirely possible (maybe even likely) that such an orientation to play is barely a passing parameter in any given individual participant's or the table collective's mental model. You won't see this preoccupation with "actor stance exclusivity" or "(high) immersion" or, on the rare occasion that this interest ticks above normal, it certainly won't be considered a failure state if you or the table collectively aren't ensconced in/observing either of these (preconditions for play). Your orientation to stance and immersion is typically multivariate across the through line of play and even at any given moment!

3) The only time causality focus enters into it is when you're relying upon it to manage your OODA Loop (Oberve > Orient > Decide > Act) to make an inference for a skillful play in Gamism. Causality is a means to an end in Gamism...it isn't an end unto itself. The concern for some kind of incoherent red-pilling isn't because "it draws you out", but rather because the procedural integrity of play (its ability to distill skilled play from poor play) is compromised.

4) The orientation to color and situation in Gamism and Narrativism are entirely different from Simulatonism. Color is overwhelmingly backgrounded in Gamism and Narrativism. On occasion when Color is foregrounded that means its relevant to distilling skillful play from poor play or provoking a protagonist to act or to fold (and learn about the nature of their inner workings and their place in the world as a result). This is also what the vehicle of situation is for in these games. Its not a vehicle for ensuring the (first person exclusive) experiential quality of exploring a system underwritting by a certain sort of logic/causality (immersion). Its a vehicle for distilling skillful play from poor play or provoking a protagonist to act or to fold (and learn about the nature of their inner workings and their place in the world as a result).

5) Conflict is everything to Gamism and Narrativism. Its constantly, relentlessly foregrounded. Damn near every moment of play is bursting/rife with it. While thematic neutrality vs themed to premise isn't the overwhelmingly massive ordeal it is in Narrativism, Gamism still features this profoundly more than Process Simulation (because detecting theme/premise will be a parameter for the calculus - causality is means...not end - of a Gamist players ability to play skillfully).

 

[clearstream]

Here is why Edwards bins High Concept and Process into the same bin; Simulationism:

Its because the apex priority of play is about the experiential quality of exploration which is underwritten by a type of causality (which the examination of it and leveraging of it/focus upon it is nearly always front-and-center as it either sufficiently facilitates the experiential quality or it doesn't and it becomes a failure state of play); (i) Genre/Trope/Drama Logic or (ii) a kind of Classical Causality formulation where internal causality consistency leads to navigation via system observation and deduction (Process Sim for short).

Where would you place journalling RPG's like Thousand Year Vampire? How important really is causality to the experiential quality of exploration? What about setting details that are present acausally? It's horses in barding, say, rather than flying cars. I think one can play sim based on model alone (in the sense of model + rules = simulation) with freeform resolution. It's not that causality cannot support sim, only I think one can have the experience without causality (in system), too.

[EDIT Perhaps this can be leveraged to split immersionist out from simulationist? The latter care about systematic causality.]

Almost universally, folks who say "system doesn't matter" are saying it because the above is their apex priority for play. (a) They are concerned overwhelmingly or wholly with a matrix of that italicized bit above + one of those two bolded bits and (b) they feel that you can just free form your way through play with a GM fulfilling the role of "causality coordinator and mediator", governing action declarations based on their personal sense of things. When things go wrong, they'll mash those two together and who the hell knows at any given point what form of causality will govern a given collision of imagined space meets player action declaration. This is a failure condition because it injures the experiential quality of the exploration and the reliability of the causality of the system.

The system isn't reliable, is the counter-claim. The GM - being an expert in life in Georgian London - can say what happens far more accurately than the system. That's the FKR position. One can insist it is a failure condition, but in experience of play it may not be.

1) Pretty much universally, Gamist and Narrativist priorities come lock, stock, and barrel with an orientation of "system (totally) matters" and "system's say" is incredibly important. You can't just freeform your way to successfully resolve the agenda of these two types of play with a GM fulfilling the role of "causality coordinator and mediator." First off, the experiential quality of being there isn't the thing.

I've always found it super-straightforward to see for gamist that system must matter, but for narrativist? No one has ever explained why in a way that accounts for all actual play. GM decides, and the experience is just the same as if we rolled biased dice (i.e. dice with modifiers or pooled). No one can really say why it matters that GM decides some things, except to say that they are passionately against it and it gets in the way of their personal expression. That's subjective.

2) The experiential quality of exploration underwritten by a type of (in the cross-hairs) causality is not only not the point of play...its entirely possible (maybe even likely) that such an orientation to play is barely a passing parameter in any given individual participant's or the table collective's mental model. You won't see this preoccupation with "actor stance exclusivity" or "(high) immersion" or, on the rare occasion that this interest ticks above normal, it certainly won't be considered a failure state if you or the table collectively aren't ensconced in/observing either of these (preconditions for play). Your orientation to stance and immersion is typically multivariate across the through line of play and even at any given moment!

When playing Chivalry and Sorcery, in some places the system would produce results at odds with sim (the magic system is very clunky for example: you feel more like a school pupil doing sums than a mystic of any sort). It's only if we first posit that system is perfect, should we commit to trusting system on every detail. System is never perfect, and our simulations are only ever takes - just enough to convince those around the table.

3) The only time causality focus enters into it is when you're relying upon it to manage your OODA Loop (Oberve > Orient > Decide > Act) to make an inference for a skillful play in Gamism. Causality is a means to an end in Gamism...it isn't an end unto itself. The concern for some kind of incoherent red-pilling isn't because "it draws you out", but rather because the procedural integrity of play (its ability to distill skilled play from poor play) is compromised.

A gamist likes to know that doing X results in Y (or at some likelihood). That reliance is an end in itself (as you describe, the procedural integrity is compromised.)

4) The orientation to color and situation in Gamism and Narrativism are entirely different from Simulatonism. Color is overwhelmingly backgrounded in Gamism and Narrativism. On occasion when Color is foregrounded that means its relevant to distilling skillful play from poor play or provoking a protagonist to act or to fold (and learn about the nature of their inner workings and their place in the world as a result). This is also what the vehicle of situation is for in these games. Its not a vehicle for ensuring the (first person exclusive) experiential quality of exploring a system underwritting by a certain sort of logic/causality (immersion). Its a vehicle for distilling skillful play from poor play or provoking a protagonist to act or to fold (and learn about the nature of their inner workings and their place in the world as a result).

I've been increasingly enamoured of colour in the form of describe to influence what follows. It's very valuable for a gamist because it gives you leverage over the judgements you all will make as to the fictional positioning.

5) Conflict is everything to Gamism and Narrativism. Its constantly, relentlessly foregrounded. Damn near every moment of play is bursting/rife with it. While thematic neutrality vs themed to premise isn't the overwhelmingly massive ordeal it is in Narrativism, Gamism still features this profoundly more than Process Simulation (because detecting theme/premise will be a parameter for the calculus - causality is means...not end - of a Gamist players ability to play skillfully).

Collecting. Building. These too are gamist. They need not involve conflict (although they can also have conflict integrated very successfully with them.) And then there is lyricism, not covered by the model at all.

 

[Manbearcat]

Where would you place journalling RPG's like Thousand Year Vampire? How important really is causality to the experiential quality of exploration? What about setting details that are present acausally? It's horses in barding, say, rather than flying cars. I think one can play sim based on model alone (in the sense of model + rules = simulation) with freeform resolution. It's not that causality cannot support sim, only I think one can have the experience without causality (in system), too..

I don't have any clue as I have no exposure to the system. I'll leave that up to someone like @hawkeyefan to give you some kind of informed answer if he feels so inclined.

I've always found it super-straightforward to see for gamist that system must matter, but for narrativist? No one has ever explained why in a way that accounts for all actual play. GM decides, and the experience is just the same as if we rolled biased dice (i.e. dice with modifiers or pooled). No one can really say why it matters that GM decides some things, except to say that they are passionately against it and it gets in the way of their personal expression. That's subjective.

I've talked about this many, many times.

Why does system (desperately) matter for Narrativist games?

1) Without "System's Say" (I'm sure you've heard me use this before) there can be no "play to find out what happens" which is a foundational tenet of Story Now games. Without principled (transparent and encoded), rules-directed, authority-distributed play, you've got one or more participants (or the whole collective) having a measure of authorial control and variability/constraint immunity over the trajectory of play that the quality of "play to find out what happens" which Story Now is built upon is compromised. It might be compromised for only one person like a GM who directs play even if subtly (by the myriad of ways they can put their thumb on the scales at any given moment of play...even if just through mediation of action resolution that is extremely vulnerable to bias/preconception/designs-upon-play because of little to no constraint placed upon them) or possibly more if play amounts to conch-passing storycraft...no conch-passing storycraft is not Story Now play...it doesn't remotely rise to the "play to find out what happens" threshold inherent to games with intricate and potent "system's say".

Again. NOW is the important word in Story Now play. That means THIS moment is what matters. If the expression of lack of constraint (operationalized by "system's say") lets me just resolve THIS consequential chunk of play how I see fit (unmediated), we've reached the failure state of Story Now.

Yes, single moments of play matter that much. Because NOW.

2) Story Now play was The Forge's answer (and system's before it, but Edwards et al worked to articulate it in an agenda for game design) to the Force-heavy era of the late 80s through the 90s. Principled (transparent and encoded), rules-directed, authority-distributed, binding "system's say" which is expressly hostile to Force was their answer.

And that answer works because (a) Force is kryptonite to "playing to find out what happens (NOW)" and (b) all of that "system's say" stuff yields exactly the type of rewarding moments of premise-addressing, thematically coherent play that they promise on the tin. Its not difficult to produce it if you just play the game the way its meant to be played. It IS difficult to play those games and deploy Force...which defeats the entire purpose of playing them in the first place...

...so why would you (not you...the hypothetical person who might be doing this described thing)?

3) Staying on premise and focusing play is (bare minimum) enhanced by coherent incentive structures. If that array of systemitized incentive structures and conflict/action resolution mechanics and consequences are coherently integrated, they absolutely help to align participant behavior and coordinate the conversation of play so it consistently propels play toward addressing the very questions that play is intended to address.

 

[clearstream]

I don't have any clue as I have no exposure to the system. I'll leave that up to someone like @hawkeyefan to give you some kind of informed answer if he feels so inclined.

Artifact or The Ground Itself could be other examples. Journalling games are pretty diverse.

I've talked about this many, many times.

Why does system (desperately) matter for Narrativist games?

1) Without "System's Say" (I'm sure you've heard me use this before) there can be no "play to find out what happens"

I certainly acknowledge that for some cohorts of players what you say is subjectively true. I've been trying to find analogies to speak for some other cohorts. One is Alan Calhamer's Diplomacy (not an RPG, but bear with me.) There is no chance in Diplomacy - everyone equally judges the situation and decides their moves - and yet every Diplomacy session is one of "play to find out what happens". The analogous case in RPG is that no one player decides the judgements and moves of all the players. What happens emerges only on consideration of all those judgements and moves taken together. Each player "plays to find out what happens", GM included.

which is a foundational tenet of Story Now games. Without principled (transparent and encoded)

Notice the built in definition here. What amounts to principled? Only something transparent and encoded? Transparency is not negated by players decide. Encoding will be a mixture of regulatory and constitutive. As to the former, an ethos grasped deontically can fill that same requirement. As to the latter, anything constitutive said up front is a pre-established constraint on Now, and yet not at odds with Now. Just as it is not at odds with Now to enjoy fabrication in the moment. Can I meld flowers into flower-bombs. Maybe so! Tell us how those work?

rules-directed, authority-distributed play,

Authority distribution is orthogonal to Now, as it can be asymmetrical (unequal) without harm to it.

you've got one or more participants (or the whole collective) having a measure of authorial control and variability/constraint immunity over the trajectory of play that the quality of "play to find out what happens" which Story Now is built upon is compromised. It might be compromised for only one person like a GM who directs play even if subtly (by the myriad of ways they can put their thumb on the scales at any given moment of play...even if just through mediation of action resolution that is extremely vulnerable to bias/preconception/designs-upon-play because of little to no constraint placed upon them) or possibly more if play amounts to conch-passing storycraft...no conch-passing storycraft is not Story Now play...it doesn't remotely rise to the "play to find out what happens" threshold inherent to games with intricate and potent "system's say".

Any good system is biasing the outcomes: that's the point. In choosing Weird +2 in MotW I am biasing my outcomes to make my Weird-related stuff figure more highly in our play. The issue is not the bias, and I do not agree that other means by which biased outcomes may be achieved of necessity negate Now.

Again. NOW is the important word in Story Now play. That means THIS moment is what matters. If the expression of lack of constraint (operationalized by "system's say") lets me just resolve THIS consequential chunk of play how I see fit (unmediated), we've reached the failure state of Story Now.

Agreed on Now. Nothing I have said negates it. It's just selection of an option for Story. A kind of Story that is very exciting, but not the only kind of Story, not the only location for Now, and not the only way to achieve Now. Definitionally, you can say my Story Now must have Story and Now. I'm not denying that.

Yes, single moments of play matter that much. Because NOW.

2) Story Now play was The Forge's answer (and system's before it, but Edwards et al worked to articulate it in an agenda for game design) to the Force-heavy era of the late 80s through the 90s. Principled (transparent and encoded), rules-directed, authority-distributed, binding "system's say" which is expressly hostile to Force was their answer.

And that answer works because (a) Force is kryptonite to "playing to find out what happens (NOW)" and (b) all of that "system's say" stuff yields exactly the type of rewarding moments of premise-addressing, thematically coherent play that they promise on the tin. Its not difficult to produce it if you just play the game the way its meant to be played. It IS difficult to play those games and deploy Force...which defeats the entire purpose of playing them in the first place...

...so why would you (not you...the hypothetical person who might be doing this described thing)?

3) Staying on premise and focusing play is (bare minimum) enhanced by coherent incentive structures. If that array of systemitized incentive structures and conflict/action resolution mechanics and consequences are coherently integrated, they absolutely help to align participant behavior and coordinate the conversation of play so it consistently propels play toward addressing the very questions that play is intended to address.

I understand that is what some cohorts of players experienced and developed opinionated positions about. They had some bad experiences with Force I am guessing. But is your commitment on this diluted to saying what can help achieve Story Now, or is it what is necessary for Story Now?

 

[Campbell]

As @Thomas Shey noted, nar enthusiasts have a way of hijacking the conversation. Firmly rejecting every other possibility, usually at length, and using their model to prove itself righteous. This thread was a question about D&D / gamist. Legions of pixels have fallen to nar. Suggestive of just how much the model has of worth to say about gamist.

This is a phenomenally bad take. It was not Story Now enthusiasts who made this thread about Story Now. It was the folks who tried to argue that D&D is well suited to everything under the sun and questioned the validity and separate existence of Story Now pretty as a means to deflect from the point of the thread. I think those of us who enjoy Story Now probably should not have taken that particular bait. It is difficult not to because it is so tiring to deal with all these unfounded attacks on our right to exist in this space and the string of bad takes that always entails - confusing Story Now with "narrative" game mechanics, narrow play, accusations of elitism, the idea that we are involved in some sort of conch passing thing. It's tiresome because of the amount of virtual ink that we have all spilled explaining these things in detail to the same posters who keep questioning the validity of the whole thing. It's frustrating beyond belief because there are a litany of folks telling me what my play is like despite having no real intellectual grounding or direct experience of Story Now play (over more than 1 or 2 sessions).

Don't make it a thing and it will not be a thing. I was more than happy to discuss Step On Up.