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

[Crimson Longinus]

All RPGing involves creating fiction. The point of "story now" RPGing is for the participants - most of whom are players - to create fiction that has a "point". Which one typically does - given how RPGs work - by creating a character with dramatic needs. (There has also been discussion, in this thread, of setting-oriented "story now" play. Although a famous game - HeroWars/Quest - exemplifies this, with Glorantha as the setting, it's the less common approach.)

Could you please elaborate on this? I think it might be illuminating. My problem with getting story now is that it seems weirdly arbitrarily limited about it's subject matter, but this indicates that it is not necessarily the case.

Also, are you talking about that other Glorantha system that is not the old percentile one? Called Hero Quest..? Or something... (Not to be confused with the old boardgame.) I have played it. (Can't say I'm a fan, though mostly due the mechanics being convoluted on technical level.)

(Also, the pedigree and naming of various Glorantha games is confusing.)

That's not obfuscation, it's just setting the thing out. For reasons I don't get, you keep picking out one component of what I'm saying (eg authorship; "point"; "dramatic needs") and focusing on that while seeming to ignore the relationships that I have posited in respect of it.

I guess I am trying to figure out the defining feature and get confused. Not getting why these specific things going together is significant.

To illustrate the contrast between merely creating a fiction, and playing "story now": A player who describes their PC sitting in a pub ordering beers, or wandering around a bazaar buying things, is creating a fiction, but is not involved in "story now" play. (That sort of play I think is normally a type of high concept simulationism which strongly deprioritises situation.)

You don't think "Will Ser Geralt buy a scarf" is a dramatic need? And yes, this is the sort of play that happens, but it's hardly the focal point of any style.

You don't go the extra step and consider whether or not the system or setting dictate an answer to the choice. But if they don't, then what we have is "story now" RPGing. As I've already posted, there's probably some of it happening using 5e as the rulebook. I just don't see anyone on ENworld posting about it!

Ok. Good. It of course absolutely happens. I'd argue that it at least in small degree happens in most games, even though the dramatic needs being tested might not be very clearly articulated, but part of the general mental image of the character that the player has.

The issue isn't whether or not they're tested. It's whether or not an answer is dictated by system, or setting, or social contract/social pressure. See further immediately below.

On alignment: I see many posters insisting that evil PCs become NPCs, that PCs must be heroes, etc.

Alignment is silly and should be ignored but the notion of course is broader than that.

In practice, any gaming table probably has some limits. It may be an actual agreed upon premise or it might simply be that the participants find certain things distasteful ands don't want to explore them in the game. This in may limit the scope of answers the dramatic needs can have, but this is not the same than having a predetermined answer.

On railroading: the only poster I know of besides me who regularly espouses a notion of "railroading" that includes what I mentioned is me!

For instance, if the action in question is to look at or into something, or even to ask someone, it is common practice for that to be determined by reference to GM's notes: so eg "I look in the box for such-and-such documents" will fail, if the GM prep indicates the documents are elsewhere. Or "I ride full tilt to the mountain to stop the ritual" in circumstances where the GM prep indicates that the ritual is happening in the valley.

Ah, I see what you mean. No, wouldn't consider that railroading. But yes, this actually is similar to the previous point. It is typical that games have some things that are predetermined, and some which are determined in play. Different games may have different ratios of these things and categorise them based on differing principles. You have a good example of this later on.

It's not just about who authors the NPC, although that can be relevant. It's about who establishes the status of the NPC, as ally or antagonist; about who orients the choices and projects of the PCs.

It seems fairly clear to me that most D&D play involves the GM doing those things: it's part and parcel of the idea of a plot hook.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'plot hook' here and what you mean by GM deciding whether someone is an ally or antagonist etc. For example I decide what sort of people the NPCs are and what their motivations are etc. But I don't predetermine whether they're allies or antagonists, that is determined by their interaction with the PCs during the play. Sure, in some times it is pretty clear what sort of outcome is likely, but surprises are not uncommon. However, I assume you mean more extensive player input than this.

In the rulebook for In A Wicked Age, Vincent Baker gives the example of a character (protagonist) who is a young woman, and whose best interest (=, more or less, dramatic need) is to become pregnant to a stone idol. He asks, in the voice of the rules author, is such a thing possible? And tells use to play to find out. And by "us" he doesn't mean players, he means all participants. The system does not foreclose the possibility of fulfilling that dramatic need, and does not assume that the GM has some special role in either deciding that it is possible or not, and/or in deciding whether or not it happens.

There are other RPGs that can handle that sort of dramatic need in a somewhat similar fashion - in 4e it might be a skill challenge that includes Arcana or Religion; in a suitably re-flavoured Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic it could be about establishing, or eliminating, a Distinction (depending on how it was set up: there are often multiple ways to do something in that system); I haven't fully thought through how I would handle it in Agon, and I don't have access to my rulebook right at the moment, but I'm pretty confident it could be done.

But there are a number of RPGs which would treat this essentially as a system and/or setting issue - "internal cause is king" - perhaps with the GM's decision-making as a backup. With the possibility (or impossibility) of resolving the dramatic need determined from the get-go. The dramatic need becomes subordinated to whatever ideas informed the system or setting.

Yep. Like I said earlier, different games may categorise open and answered questions differently. It might be that one game there is a set answer to the question of the Stone Idol's virility but not to the honourableness of Ser Geralt. In some other both could be open. And that's fine, these are not all or nothing things.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

[Dons Laconic hat.]

1. GNS moves...but on paths set by 80s/90s gaming. Flawed.
2. Agendas often conflict, but can coexist (layers, embeddings, alt takes).
3. Lumping "emulation" in Sim was incorrect.
4. My categories are "game-purposes," which are designed. Player motives are separate.
5. Purposes: <Concept>-and-<Action>.
6: Not exhaustive list.

Purposes:

• Score-and-Achievement: Define skill, display it. ("Gamism.")
• Groundedness-and-Simulation: Set reality, reason about it. ("Process Simulationism."
• Values-and-Issues: Declare ends, endure trials. ("Story Now.")
• Conceit-and-Emulation: Choose tone, portray it. ("Genre Simulation.")

I am, obviously, trimming this down to the absolute bare-bones essentials, shearing off massive amounts of clarification or context I would normally give. Should something prove confusing, I apologize. I'm trying my hand at being actually concise for once.

 

[Ovinomancer]

[Dons Laconic hat.]

1. GNS moves...but on paths set by 80s/90s gaming. Flawed.
2. Agendas often conflict, but can coexist (layers, embeddings, alt takes).
3. Lumping "emulation" in Sim was incorrect.
4. My categories are "game-purposes," which are designed. Player motives are separate.
5. Purposes: <Concept>-and-<Action>.
6: Not exhaustive list.

Purposes:

• Score-and-Achievement: Define skill, display it. ("Gamism.")
• Groundedness-and-Simulation: Set reality, reason about it. ("Process Simulationism."
• Values-and-Issues: Declare ends, endure trials. ("Story Now.")
• Conceit-and-Emulation: Choose tone, portray it. ("Genre Simulation.")

I am, obviously, trimming this down to the absolute bare-bones essentials, shearing off massive amounts of clarification or context I would normally give. Should something prove confusing, I apologize. I'm trying my hand at being actually concise for once.

It would be useful, since this is aimed at game design and not player wants, to provide what games you think are examples of these and how that breaks down.

 

[niklinna]

Purposes:

• Score-and-Achievement: Define skill, display it. ("Gamism.")
• Groundedness-and-Simulation: Set reality, reason about it. ("Process Simulationism."
• Values-and-Issues: Declare ends, endure trials. ("Story Now.")
• Conceit-and-Emulation: Choose tone, portray it. ("Genre Simulation.")

How is "Genre Simulation" differerent from Edwards's "High-Concept Simulation"? (Not that you were obliged to use all of his terminology!)

I am, obviously, trimming this down to the absolute bare-bones essentials, shearing off massive amounts of clarification or context I would normally give. Should something prove confusing, I apologize. I'm trying my hand at being actually concise for once.

Well, you already did provide massive amounts of clarification & context earlier. I wouldn't be surprised if even then you left some stuff out, though.

Edit: Fixed a typo!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It would be useful, since this is aimed at game design and not player wants, to provide what games you think are examples of these and how that breaks down.

Had I sufficient breadth of experience to do so right away with any degree of confidence, I would, but I'm afraid I do not. Still, I'll see what I can do.

How is "Genre Simulation" differerent Edwards's "High-Concept Simulation"? (Not that you were obliged to use all of his terminology!)

Not entirely sure. I will reread his thoughts on the subject later (preferably after getting a little more sleep. 3 hours may be when my body thought I needed to wake, but it really isn't working for me.)

Well, you already did provide massive amounts of clarification & context earlier. I wouldn't be surprised if even then you let some stuff out, though.

Perhaps! We'll see.

 

[clearstream]

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!

Could it be central to play, even while not central to the rules? The impact being for example in the fiction, and the imagined character's further acts and obligations.

 

[Campbell]

Could it be central to play, even while not central to the rules? The impact being for example in the fiction, and the imagined character's further acts and obligations.

For it to be central to play at very least it needs to be the focus of significant mental energy, something we are all actively working towards. Situations need to be framed specifically to test the player character on this score. if it is accidental or incidental it is not central to play.

For something to be central to play I think it needs to be something we are all expected to engage in with vigor and enthusiasm.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Consider The Dying Earth RPG. I don't know how @EzekielRaiden classifies it. Edwards classifies is it aimed at narrativism/"story now". But it doesn't really fit his formal definition of "story now" - it's not really about addressing a premise in the lit 101 sense.

In The Dying Earth the GM is instructed to come up with situations and scenarios that will get the PCs into trouble. This is guaranteed by a combination of the action resolution rules for persuasion, which means the PCs will be persuaded to do inane things; and the PC build rules for resistances, which make it impossible for a PC to be good at resisting all the temptations of the Dying Earth (gluttony, lust, sloth, etc).

At the start of a session, players are allocated "taglines" of Vancian dialogue, and the way to "win" the game and get PC advancements is to amuse the table with witty delivery of taglines. (The rules have a scale for grading tagline delivery from zero to 3 points.)

What makes it narrativist in Edwards sense is not revealed by his formal definition, but rather by the fact that the whole point of the game is to enjoy seeing how oneself and one's fellow players respond to absurd adversity and deliver droll witticisms in response. It's about authorship with a "point", even if the point isn't really addressing a premise or theme. (And PCs all have more-or-less identical dramatic needs, which the rulebook is quite clear about.)

I guess one could envisage gamist Dying Earth play, with competitions to see who can be the most witty. I don't think that would involve anything but a slight change of tone among the participants - a bit less sharing and generosity, a bit more of an Ancien Regime royal court vibe and looking down one's nose at those who aren't good at wit.

What distinguishes it from Sim? I mean, the goal of play seems to me to be reproducing the sorts of situations, characters, and utterances which take place in the Vance's Dying Earth stories (I'd note that he did also produce a couple of other series with VERY similar tone, Madouc and the other books in that series being the prime examples). The game is certainly NOT about character development in any substantive sense. That is, it is not expected that Iocouno, Cudgel, or the other major characters particularly change or grow. In fact one of the things that seems to be part of the tone is a sort of fatalism about human nature and personality. I would say that 'playing properly' in the Dying Earth RPG consists of, exactly, producing this sort of obtuse character. The various witticisms and such basically reinforce their LACK of seriousness, depth, and ability to reflect or grow! Consequences may include disruptions of their plans and devices, but I don't think any character's core character traits would ever be challenged by activity within the game. In the literature Rialto the Magnificent does get cleverer and 'wiser' in the sense of gaining a better understanding of and access to magic. He's fundamentally the same person at the end as he was at the start however, from what I can recall. Perhaps he became a bit more jaded and cynical?

So, IMHO, I would call it a type of Simulationist game, as the main activity is exploration of the setting, tone, and genre in general, with a perhaps somewhat gamist competition to see who can come up with the funniest and most droll lines. It is a fairly unique RPG, though I've always thought it was in many respects not too far removed from Paranoia in overall agenda (obviously the specific things that are supposed to happen are different, along with the genre, but dying in silly ways and making silly quips about ridiculous situations are actually not that far removed).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Obfuscating part is all the talk about points and dramatic needs of characters and all that. If the actual defining part is whether the player is creator of audience of the fiction, then say that. Why would it matter for this whether the created/enjoyed fiction has a point or says something about dramatic needs of the character? Why are things weirdly conflated?

There's no weird duplication. You cannot have a game where the players central concern is the protagonism of their character, and yet have the game be centered on a story generated by the GM. Nothing is 'weirdly conflated', you are positing an impossible type of game design! Such a game cannot work, because in order for the players to fully articulate how they exist as protagonists, and how their dramatic needs play out, they need to be able to provide story input in the form of themes and situations that will do that.

Now, its an interesting question as to whether its possible to articulate an agenda that can't comfortably fit within any of G, N, or S. I think you may be trying to posit that a very narrowly focused game could exist in which the GM effectively creates the characters, including their conflicts (or the game system itself does this) and then the players simply work through the consequences that play out within a curated story. I tend to think (and I highly suspect @pemerton will characterize it this way) that such a game is going to be well-described as "the players passively experience the GM's game, with roughly the agency in a chose-your-own-adventure book."

Obviously I'm open to how else it could be, but the above seems like some type of Sim or Gamist agenda, depending on what the players exactly DO and how it is designed. A requirement that they play within some dictated 'needs' created by the GM takes on more the character of fictional position type constraints than anything else, or maybe purely mechanical ones.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is all well and good, but I honestly do not believe that these agendas are as objective and clearly definable as many would think. They are muddy and subjective. Like if I want to experience a visceral protagonism of a space pirate, why I need to decide whether I care more about visceral protagonism or being a space pirate? Why these need to even be two different agendas, I'd see it as one agenda that doesn't really make sense to me if we dissect it.

I would say that genre is subservient to agenda, the same agenda and even mechanics can often serve multiple agendas. Let me give you an example: Up thread Thousand Year Old Vampire was mentioned. As soon as I went and read about it, and @hawkeyefan's nice thread on his play, what I conceived of as a character was something more akin to the protagonist in Altered Carbon, or maybe something like Starship! (where the ship is a living entity which spends aeons traveling back and forth between the stars) or even The Forever War; not vampires, per se. While I don't, yet, have a copy of the game in hand, I SUSPECT it wouldn't be all that big a deal to run something like one or another of those concepts and that I could do it without even rewriting any of the game, aside from possibly some color. The agenda and the premise, at least in this case, don't seem firmly attached at all to the Vampire genre. While I expect ANY analytical framework would yield up my play as being very close kin to Hawkeyefan's I would expect the genre differences to not matter at all, and this is literally true in GNS, where we find that genre, in and of itself, is not even part of the framework.