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

[clearstream]

Worth noting, while I think such a scenario, if backed up by structure (whether that be "DM wrote the train timetable" or "this system has rules for how train timetables are constructed") is naturally what I call Groundedness-and-Simulation in purpose, it can be relatively easily tuned to Score-and-Achievement because there are natural, objective metrics of success present, if one wishes to emphasize them.

In that case you would be generating a new take. In my take there is no tuning to score-and-achievement, and the interest in play is the immersion in British rail of a certain epoch. I'm envisioning a highly faithful to its reference experience. There's nothing wrong with your fresh take, but it is non-identical to my take.

And this would be why I said what I said above. In fact, you have specifically dismissed "process" Sim with your first three words, "forget resource management," and then imported "Gamism" with the following phrase, "it's all about finding our way efficiently."

The instant you do that, you are setting aside the physical metaphor of the activity (at least loosely related to what I call "Groundedness") and concerns with the causal chain (ditto for what I call "Simulation"), and instead setting a metric by which success may be semi-objectively judged ("Score") and focusing on a Situation/Challenge which the player(s) may either overcome or fail to overcome ("Achievement.") You have specifically made the leap from "process" Sim to "Gamism," and even called it out with your own words. Indeed, in so doing, you have shown how there is tension between these things; in order to really make it a satisfying challenge to overcome, you chose to set aside the context or nature of the play-actions in order to focus on ways they can be evaluated and promoting skillful/strategic play.

Again, in my take, we resist the impulse to score completely. I call my take gamist because it is focused on solve a problem: find the sequence that takes us through the network to B within the time. Were I criticising my own take I would argue I was substituting time or tempo as a resource. Tempo should be one of the fundamentals of gamism... hence the implied question at the end of my take on this one.

Such a turn seems to lend credence to the idea that, whether or not the GNS creative agendas are mutually exclusive, pursuing one within a particular context has a tendency to pull one away from the others.

Just to restate that I call attention to a doubt about the GNS take on gamism. It's that take that is problematic here (if anything is, which I intentionally leave in doubt).

Well, I'm not the person you asked. But my answer would be: "If you don't actually care about it (whatever 'it' was), then it was never Point B to begin with. If you DID care but stopped caring, then you 'got to' Point B because of that realization: the Issue was resolved by way of letting go of the Value you thought you cared about. If you DIDN'T care but at some point started caring, then that is a new Issue that has arisen naturally in the course of play, which may resolve separately or concurrently with the current Issue. If you cared all along and reached a resolution that satisfied you, then you reached Point B (and also why are you complaining?!)"

Yes! We needed premise or character commitments, and would then be looking toward player authorship. The example was silent on such matters and so might have been impossible to parse from a narrativist perspective. Hence the right response might be perforce tangential. I don't actually mind grasping it as @Hussar did. I just wanted another way of looking at it.

I'm not really sure 'Sim Now' and 'Game Now actually do make much sense in context though. As noted, 'Game Now' is something like Calvinball, or for "real" games, things like Nomic and Mao; these games look almost nothing like roleplaying games and are so much more niche than TTRPGs they make "Story Now" look broadly popular.

Story now requires that moves are tested against the fictional positioning, which maintains an ongoing consistency (for example, once we know there is on Mondays a 5:25 timetabled to Marlowe, we can generally rely on that fiction on an ongoing basis). Gamism now requires a similar test against principles and ongoing consistency. It's not Calvinball, and needn't be all or nothing.

As for 'Sim Now,' well, you haven't even articulated what that would look like, and I will admit up front that I am skeptical it can even happen. How do you make consistent physical metaphors for the activity and

Sim now resists the urge to believe causality the only path to fidelity to reference, and relies on the participant's deep knowledge and faithful commitment to their references to drive the play. They may spend more time studying sources on and from the period, than game rules. They resist the urge to preestablish anything, because they possess expansive knowledge and want to be able to explore in any direction. They want to be surprised by uncovering through play truths about their reference (e.g. an "Aha" moment when they realise exactly why some custom or other detail made sense to folk at the time.)

I mean...others have already given their answer here. But mine would be "because Gamism is pretty much cut and dried and doesn't require much discussion."

...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This seems to me to be another illustration of the point that it is principles and expectations, rather than techniques per se, that are fundamental to the difference between the different creative agendas.

Right, you could play a PbtA game without any actual mechanics. It would simply be a statement of principles and agenda and a description of play. You don't even HAVE to have any spelled-out types of moves. You can even forgo dice. In that case an intent is expected to succeed, but the GM can use their move in response to temporarily thwart it or add some twist to it. Mechanics will DEFINITELY make this easier, but the lowest possible core level of PbtA games is the conceptual framework, not any specific technique. One way to DESIGN such a game would be simply to play and construct a mechanical framework around that core as-needed. I mean, the quality of the types of moves and whatnot that resulted might vary a good bit depending on how deft the participants are, but it would seem like that would work pretty well.

 

[clearstream]

@Manbearcat I'm thinking about what you said about system's say and story now. Would you say following is correct:

All the information/content/fiction whatever you want to call it, that ensues in the process of playing any RPG comes from one the three sources:
1. GM. 2. Player. 3. System.

Further, the information generation in each case may happen 'now' or it may happen 'before.'

So for example GM prepping content is GM's say before, the GM making decision/improvisation at the moment is GM's say now and so forth. System's say before would be things the system requires to be defined before the play begins, whilst system's say now is the system producing results in the moment (the dice rolls and their results etc.)

And further, different games have different ratios on which they rely on these six methods of information generation (though, I'd argue, almost all include at least some of each.)

Does this make sense to you? Or to anyone for that matter?

System say now could include regulatory rules for doing a thing, that may have effect in the (ongoing) present, and constitutive rules that are invoked in given circumstances.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

@Ovinomancer and @Crimson Longinus - if you two cannot get yourselves out of your antagonistic exchanges, this thread will be closed. Neither one of you will win.

Please be better to each other.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It is about AGENDA. What is the GOAL here? Are we playing IN ORDER TO generate an apocalyptic genre story, or is the genre in this case simply subordinate to and supporting the primary goal? If there are rules and process of play, and/or ephemera, which produce apocalyptica for its own sake, then I'd say those represent an agenda falling into something like High Concept Simulation. If on the other hand, the reasoning is "apocalyptic scenarios really bring out the qualities of character and conflict best." (or something along the same lines) then we have Narrativist Story Now. The most powerful argument in favor of one or the other position would be where one yields to the other. If story trumps apocalypse, then we CERTAINLY have Narrative trumping Simulation, right?

To me this whole dichotomy seems highly artificial. These genres are not so tightly defined and the players are primed to think in genre appropriate terms to begin with, so it isn't at all likely that any sort of obvious conflict would ever even arise. Like I said earlier, it's like if we would divide songs into categories based on whether they really were about music or lyrics. Most are about both, and that's not weird.

Who said it was about one thing and one thing ONLY? Presumably when you get people to play Apocalypse World those people are interested in the genre in SOME degree, correct? I mean, they could play Dungeon World, or Stonetop, or one of various Sci-Fi themed PbtAs just as easily, just to name some that are squarely in an 'action/adventure' sort of motif. So, I don't think we have to posit that the genre/tone of AW is purely a convenience serving story. I think the author made it pretty clear that his reason for selecting the genre WAS because he thought it would produce some rich story now gaming, but if he really disliked the genre or there was another that he really favored, then he'd have probably gone that way instead, don't you think?

Yes, sure, absolutely. So I really don't understand what the problem is with saying that it can fulfil the story now priorities and evoke the setting at the same time and that these things are not in conflict but rather support each other. The system and setting are explicitly chosen to complement each other. Now if you for example wanted to evoke the genre of Agatha Christie style sophisticated murder mystery with Apoc World rules you might be in trouble!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right, you could play a PbtA game without any actual mechanics. It would simply be a statement of principles and agenda and a description of play. You don't even HAVE to have any spelled-out types of moves. You can even forgo dice. In that case an intent is expected to succeed, but the GM can use their move in response to temporarily thwart it or add some twist to it. Mechanics will DEFINITELY make this easier, but the lowest possible core level of PbtA games is the conceptual framework, not any specific technique. One way to DESIGN such a game would be simply to play and construct a mechanical framework around that core as-needed. I mean, the quality of the types of moves and whatnot that resulted might vary a good bit depending on how deft the participants are, but it would seem like that would work pretty well.

I'm going to violently disagree here. I see what you're trying to say -- that the principles and goals of play are important and different from other play -- but you cannot have Story Now without mechanics. This is, simply put, because there's always mechanics. Those mechanics may be Bob says, or consensus resolution (where all parties have equal input and then agree to the resolution of a question about play) or something else, but there's SOME method of resolving conflicts about what's going on in the fiction. So, at an extremely simple level, there's always mechanics involved in play even if they're entirely ad hoc. But, on a different point, a key part of Story Now is that no one has their thumb on the scale -- there's no ability to direct play that isn't 100% obvious and assigned by the game. And if we're using some ad hoc resolution method, like Bob Says, then we aren't finding out what happens but rather what Bob thinks should happen. A neutral resolution mechanic is a very important part of Story Now play.

We had a similar discussion in a different thread about how consensus resolution (defined clearly above) cannot support Story Now play. And I maintain this, because it places a thumb on the scale -- you have to agree to whatever compromise is reached and not fully speak for your character when you do so (unless you convince all others involved in the conflict to agree with you, but then they're not supporting their PCs/NPC agendas fully).

So, yeah, I can't agree with your premise here at all.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So I've noticed. Evocation, too.

OK, so, perhaps if you wish you can label the use of the term 'genre' to reflect a certain desired or intended juxtaposition of Edward's 5 elements as being a bit sloppy if you wish. I would still answer that if a game aims to simulate a Wild West narrative of gun fighters, indians, lawmen, etc. that this is an attempt to achieve play within a certain genre, true? So in that sense it could be a useful term. I take Edwards' to mind about how slippery this can be (IE in the Wild West are Native Americans to be portrayed realistically, as 19th Century 'noble savage' stereotypes, or as simple cartoon bad guys). Obviously an actual game has to come to terms with the possible answers to these things, or spell them out clearly at the very least.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To me this whole dichotomy seems highly artificial. These genres are not so tightly defined and the players are primed to think in genre appropriate terms to begin with, so it isn't at all likely that any sort of obvious conflict would ever even arise. Like I said earlier, it's like if we would divide songs into categories based on whether they really were about music or lyrics. Most are about both, and that's not weird.

As has been cleared earlier, GNS dispensed with genre as a concept and actively told readers to not consider it. So, in consideration here, the only way genre could be considered would be as the focus point of play in a high-concept sim. You call this an artificial requirement, and of course it is -- this isn't making any useful point. All taxonomies are artificial! Your intent seems to be to say it's not a useful requirement, and here I could not disagree more. Looking at what the focal point, the main point, the primary agenda of play is very useful. It says exactly what is hoped to be most achieved in play. Simulationism says that this primary desire from play is to generate play that adheres to a specific and known internal cause (this term is defined in the essay). It's about this kind of cause and effect, in other words. So if the primary point of play is to recreate the feel and type of story from Mad Max, then you're engaged in a kind of high-concept sim of a type of post-apoc story. If there's a question in play about what happens, adherence to that genre set of tropes is the trump card -- you will go with that. This is what high-concept sims do. So, looking at this, it is useful to identify if this is the primary agenda -- if adherence to this genre emulation is the trump in any conflict in play.

And, in AW, it's absolutely not. In a game like Gamma World, it much more is -- the mechanics bend to produce this resolution and the GM is authorized to override the rules when they result in outcomes that violate this premise.

As for genre as trappings -- set dressing if you will -- this is pretty much all games. They all have some set dressing. The question isn't if it's present, because it always is, but if the set dressing is the most important part of play. Take Star Wars games -- there's a lot of effort to make sure that it's the setting that has the primacy of place. You're playing a Star Wars game, it feels like Star Wars, and you tell Star Warian stories. If the game doesn't feel like Star Wars, this gets called out as a problem (and we've seen this with the d20 Star Wars, corrected a good deal with SAGA, but done much better with WEG or the newer versions of the game).

Yes, sure, absolutely. So I really don't understand what the problem is with saying that it can fulfil the story now priorities and evoke the setting at the same time and that these things are not in conflict but rather support each other. The system and setting are explicitly chosen to complement each other. Now if you for example wanted to evoke the genre of Agatha Christie style sophisticated murder mystery with Apoc World rules you might be in trouble!

Evoking setting isn't simulationism, though. I'm wondering how many people have to say this how many times before it starts to resonate with you. Set dressing isn't it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I imagine it's because people looking for G or S were already well-served by existing games and presumably happy in their gaming. The people consuming theory were (and are) people looking for something not already being catered for effectively. GNS in articulating N play gave shape to what that might be.

By the same token, people attending garages overwhelmingly own vehicles that need to be repaired.

So true. You have taken the words practically right out of my mouth. If you are running dungeon crawls you really don't need much theory about how story focused narrative play would work. Whenever there's some 'role play' as opposed to challenging the dungeon to see what loot you can get, its either simply a specific type of player challenge (IE can you RP Dwarfian IV well enough to convince the orcs they need to give you the treasure map) or its a side thing or mere framing device (a lampshade) to get the action moving to the next dungeon delve. Later on that might get drifted into a type of what RE calls 'sim' where there's a more complicated GM produced meta-plot and the action might focus more on intrigue or politics, but rarely, if ever, will it revolve around some psychological point, or inner character conflict, or anything like that.

So, up until people started actually trying to focus their attention on how to produce an RPG experience that was primarily ABOUT what was going on in the character's head, the choices they had to make, the impact of their experienced on their values and psyche, there wasn't really a need for 'N' to exist as such. At best it was 'color'. In something like classic D&D a player could say "my character feels bad for the baby kobolds and spares their lives." but THE MOST that would follow from that would be some impact on their alignment, and even that depends on who's interpretation of alignment you're using! It surely isn't central to play!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In fact, I would argue that the whole point was that it wasn't prominent. It was, in fact, a niche within a niche within a niche, hard to design for, hard to exploit as a product (the other agendas welcome creator-made elaborations in a way Story Now does not), certainly not easy to get into the headspace so you can do it, etc. But it was something a niche audience wanted, which wasn't being served.

It makes me think of horizontal market segmentation, Dr. Howard Moskowitz, and the "a large group of people really wanted Extra Chunky but literally did not know it" thing. GNS was a tool for drawing out, naming, and explaining a desire that had gone unserved, and in so doing, prompting the kind of thinking and preparation that would prepare someone to serve that desire. It was a product of its time, and it shows, as I've said earlier. I think it was heavily shaped by the fact that Gamism dominated the TTRPG market (and still does), while Simulation looms large in the public consciousness even if it isn't necessarily well-served in the dominant games.

I will not call my four-part approach a "Fourfold" model, because I do not take seriously the idea that my four purposes--more or less formal causes, in the Aristotelian sense--are the only ones. But I have laid it out the way I have because I see patterns, symmetries between the four purposes that actually do reveal something, not merely label things. Every "game-purpose" I've proposed has a driving concept (the first part of the pair) and an action-space (the second part). Score is the driving concept of "Gamist" play, the idea that performance can be evaluated and ranked in some semi-objective way, and Achievement is its action-space, where one attempts tasks that are worth doing in the hope of proving one's skill. (As noted before, the reason why someone might attempt this could be "prestige," but I consider that a final cause, not a formal one.) Conceit is the driving concept of "emulation" play, the desire to explore an idea or a theme to see the tone and/or results it produces, and Emulation is the action-space where that idea is examined and displayed. "Groundedness" is (what I consider) the driving concept of "simulation" play, the idea that the play-experience should be fully rooted in rational explanations and naturalistic causal relations, free from (so-called) artificial manipulations; "Simulation" is the action-space where that commitment can play out, the metaphorical turning of the crank, the "rules as physics engine" idea. "Values" are the driving concept of "Story Now" play, the idea that the players themselves choose what things are worthy of pursuit or dedication; "Issues" are the action-space, where those (player-defined) values become subject to conflict, and the resolution thereof.

Well, maybe it deserves its own discussion. I honestly can't easily follow your whole thesis in the midst of this thread that easily.

We can draw on real behaviors to see some of this stuff in action. For example, many GNS Gamist players (though often not ones that would call themselves that) have said that the person running the game is the "referee" or that they're disappointed that that isn't how GMing is viewed today. That's a deeply, fundamentally S&A attitude, reflecting the role the game fulfills via the role the person running it is supposed to fulfill. The antipathy for "metagame" knowledge and mechanics, meanwhile, shows how prevalent G&S is as a general interest, even though (as I have been well-schooled in this very thread!) many games are not actually that good at supporting it more than superficially (e.g. 3.x/PF). Fudging as a necessary, even vital GM tool seems to be one of the main C&E interests in the community at large--essentially the counter-claim against opposition to "metagame" mechanics, the idea that no Simulation can be totally perfect, so a little bit of (in general, carefully concealed, to avoid upsetting the players) entirely non-Grounded GM behavior that supports the desired Conceit is warranted. (And this would, again, be a place where I consider C&E to diverge from G&S: really hardcore "process" Sim should be adamantly opposed to any form of fudging, whereas C&E is perfectly comfortable with fudging to ensure the theme or tone plays out the way it "should." Treating it as something to use sparingly, and secretly, is a sometimes-dubious compromise between these two game-purposes.)