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

[EzekielRaiden]

I see that I've introduced a term that requires defining. Flow is the state and experience of effortless performance.

Then I would consider that a player desire, rather than a game-purpose. Player desires include several things that either can't be (or are extremely hard to be) directly designed for but still result from design (effortless performance, strategic depth, cleverness in design), or are as much or more a matter of what the players do with it (humor, "awesomeness," poignancy). These things are emergent properties. One can strive hard toward them and simply fail, and one can be oblivious to them and succeed. I don't think that's possible for any of the things I've defined.

I like this, but it unfortunately responds to an artifact of posting on my mobile, where I glossed over a detail that I didn't realise was at issue. Yup, for sure system (or some experts or authorities) define what skill is. There are then one or more "arenas of proof", where skill (as defined) may be expressed, tested, displayed.

One thing I like about your binary is that it doesn't commit to pretend violence, threat, kill conflicts.

Yeah, I'm very much against conflating "are you a bad enough dude to save the president?" play with exclusively violent conflict. Score can be applied to almost anything, cooperative or competitive. A game about being chefs where the players are cooperating (to win awards for their restaurant) and competing (to win top prize/top position within it) should theoretically involve no violent conflicts at all, despite the presence of many knives, but can still be thoroughly Score-and-Achievement focused with only a thin veneer of the other things.

Here also I seem to have introduced a term requiring definition. In this case I thought others would already know it. For a primer, perhaps start with how the term is used in Chess. You should see how it applies in any game with resources and/or action economy and/or gearing in the mechanics. At its simplest, it is the ratio between players, of opportunities to affect the game state. It relates to rate or access to information.

Well then, as stated, this seems like less a purpose, in the sense that I'm not really sure people set out to design a game for the purpose of having a really good ratio of actions-taken to opportunities-to-influence-state. Instead, this seems like a useful experience that can arise from a well-designed game which features resources, action economy, and varying amounts of available information.

A lot of mystifying likes if I am the only one here who knew what those terms meant!? The question I was anticipating is - where might we see a tempo-flow binary in an existing RPG? In what cases does it already arise, or is it speculative?

As I mentioned before, from what I had surmised of those meanings...I see it everywhere. Like, I'm struggling to think of a game where there is no tempo-and-flow experience whatsoever. Consider, for a non-TTRPG example, Doom 2016. If you try to play it as a cautious sniper-style affair where you never expose yourself to risk, you're going to have a really bad time, because you'll be constantly pushed out of your intended play-space (entering an arena that was peaceful and suddenly fills with demons) and you'll struggle with health and ammunition. The intended tempo-and-flow of the game is almost more like a brawler than a shooter, because the "glory kill" mechanic causes the killed enemy to spurt out a veritable shower of health, ammo, and even armor (IIRC that requires a rune though). This tempo-and-flow is extremely well-designed for its purpose, to the point that even I, someone who generally doesn't care for shooters, legit enjoy playing it.

This is part of why I struggle to fit this dichotomy into the same space as the ones I have already. For this dichotomy, it seems to be something fundamental to game design generally; pacing and fluidity are vital components of seemingly all "active" media things (that is, music, movies, games, performances) and even some forms of "passive" media (literature and poetry). That obviously means it is something worth including in one's design, but this seems a matter of polish, rather than one of purpose. A well-made game (of any kind) should have good tempo so that it flows.

Inspired by @EzekielRaiden's binaries, I wanted to get down something I felt could fall within what others might also recognise as gamist.

Skill - Arena
System or some authorities define skill, which is then tested or expressed in some arena of proof (can be multiple). This is a satisfying and thrilling aspect of gamism, that we see everywhere. Balance is most at issue to this binary. Nod to @EzekielRaiden for this one of course.

Offer - Risk
An offer made for the consideration of some stakes at some odds. A good example is the likelihood of terminating use of a character costing at least the time invested in developing it, in exchange for increased future power. Often connects with Skill - Arena, but isn't Skill - Arena. For example, high Skill may produce a confidence that the odds are better. Or risk taking in the Arena may result in the Skill display becoming more thrilling. Noticeable sympathies with Edwards' performance with risk.

Tempo - Flow
Tempo is the ratio among players of opportunities to influence the game state. Flow is the state and experience of effortless performance. The two are connected (in games) by the necessity of becoming one with tempo in order to enter flow. Flow isn't only a consequence of system (or tempo) so it can occur elsewhere. Group flow is also possible.

Construct - Perfect
Perfection is the neurotic satisfaction in a tidy or controlled game state. Construction includes constructing a collection, and is found in all the places that players can make a choice to achieve a satisfying neatness and completeness. In RPG, it's noticeable in choices on offer in a system that "click" together. It can be mistaken for a concern for balance, where it is in fact concern for preservation and fulfillment of pattern.

When I ask, is D&D gamist and why that matters, maybe that could be understood to be a question as to what D&D offers on the left-hand side, oriented toward the desired experiences or purposes found on the right-hand side. Friction has arisen where one poster or another has proposed an exclusive categorisation. That dissolves if we can accept that D&D could be gamist, and fit other characterisations too. This is a skeptical position as to what we might conclusively say taxonomically (i.e. we can't conclusively say anything.)

Firstwise, these seem to me to be...techniques or experiences, rather than purposes. The exception being Skill/Arena which looks like Score-and-Achievement, just using "what the player personally is doing" and "where/when the conflict occurs" rather than "what defines better success(/less failure) vs worse success(/more failure)" and "the pursuit of success." You seem to be proposing, apart from Skill/Arena, either particular ways to implement the purposes (tools), or valuable consequences of good design that successfully implements that purpose (experiences.)

That is, within S&A, one is likely to face Risk (since that is a way to make the process of Achievement meaning), and an Offer is a possible technique for provoking interesting thought in the pursuit of Achievement despite Risk, since humans are overall risk-averse. But you can pursue and earn Achievements even without Risk. My made-up chef game sounds like it wouldn't have much Risk, nor much likelihood of Offers. Instead, the Score (aka "what defines Skillful play") might come from memorization, synergy, creativity, humor (as demonstrated above by that example game where the point is to deploy witty Victorian one-liners in the funniest way you can), etc., and the Arena is already understood as the two-part situation of "the kitchen" (where the player has direct control) and "the table," where their control as a chef is limited, but they may still have softer forms of influence.

So...it seems that the questions you want to ask--"what tools or techniques are involved in a 'gamist' game"--are more specific things than my taxonomy is going for. Where I see (parts of) Edwards' model as too broad in an unhelpful way, I see yours as narrow in a complementary and helpful way. You're doing something useful, deep-diving into this specific narrow part (with openness to the possibility that these tools and experiences could also appear elsewhere). Perhaps that helps frame things better?

If I might add some further dichotomies: Merit/Praise and Depth/Choice. The former is an "experience"-type element, analogous to your Tempo/Flow, just a different experience, as Merit is not really something that can be designed per se but is an extremely likely result of Score-and-Achievement design once the rubber hits the road, though I wouldn't call it inevitable. Merit/Praise is a valued experience that might drive someone toward playing a S&A-designed game or aspect thereof, e.g. tournaments. Here, I define "Merit" as "the character of certain deeds or thoughts as being noteworthy in their excellence," and Praise as "the act of giving or receiving recognition for the Merit of a deed or thought." Many people are extremely motivated by praise in the casual sense of the term, so Merit/Praise is a prime player motive, but it's difficult if not impossible for a game to tell people that they should think a certain deed is meritorious.

By comparison, Depth/Choice is a tool one can use to enrich and enliven S&A design. Depth is a characteristic of systems rather than an emotional state or performative process induced by systems, so it's more design-able (hence tool, rather than experience). I would call a system that has Depth one that has a high density of strategic options with valuable differences, but a comparatively low density of minutiae involved in expressing them. This contrasts with your Construct/Perfect dichotomy (more of an experience), in that Constructing tends to be about collecting together disparate things, the goal being to do so with novel finesse, hence Perfecting, whereas Depth is about having relatively few options but being able to do a great many things with them, enabling both diversity and subtlety in Choices. You could think of it as the option-design equivalent of Tempo/Flow, as well; it is very difficult to intentionally design a deep game, but if your design is in fact deep, it will be a very satisfying experience for many people.

Is that useful to you?

Have you read Miguel Sicart on virtue ethics in games?

I have not, but I'm not at all surprised to hear there's work on the subject. I very much see fiction-in-general serving (often, not exclusively) as a testing ground for moral behavior; we read about heroes partly in the hope that, should we ever be hard-pressed, we will follow their fictional example. Games heighten this even further by actually having us making choices, not just witnessing others do so. Play-acting, as opposed to reading.

 

[Campbell]

I understand that differences in degree can effectively become differences in kind when large enough. I also understand that intentionally aiming for something as one's main objective is rather different than merely using that thing as a supplementary ingredient or accidentally stumbling upon it. But one should still be able to admit the similarities. I find the doubt @pemerton expresses about there being moments in 5e play when the characters' dramatic needs are challenged or where the players can makes significant impact to the direction of the emerging story utterly baffling. Of course there are such moments! And for illustrative purposes "look at that thing that occasionally happens in your vanilla game, it's like that except more and almost all the time" might work way better than "No, mate, they have nothing in common."

I can only speak for myself, but I am generally loathe to acknowledge similarities because the framing of those similarities often feels deceptive to me. Not just in the degree of similarity implied, but also in how it positions the sort of play typified by something like Critical Role. The basic framing of this is basically a heliocentric model of RPG play. It holds up Critical Role as the generalized form of RPG play with others sorts of play basically rotating around it as more specialized or narrow forms of play. This fails to account for two things :

1. The degree of similarity that Critical Role D&D shares with other forms of play typified by games like Apocalypse World, RuneQuest and B/X D&D.
2. How specialized the High Concept play it promotes/typifies really is. The degree to which fidelity to narrative expectations, genre tropes, and especially preconception of character and setting elements are considered valuable represents what I consider to be an extremely specialized form of play. An extremely popular form, but one no less specialized than Apocalypse World, RuneQuest or B/X in my book.

I should clarify that I do not think the argument is made deceptively. It merely feels deceptive because the degree to which genre tropes, narrative expectations and preconception of character/setting are valued is considered a baseline part of RPG play (within the scope of the argument) when those things are not valued nearly to that extent in other forms of play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, I'm talking about my own play experiences, so they're real and not platonic abstractions.

So your games do not have, say stated or implied premises, that might either explicitly or implicitly limit and guide what sort of 'judgments' the players will make? They do not have social conventions about how the shared time is used that might do the same?


But let's look your three points, you mean these right:

Having said all the above, here are some signs that play is not story now:

* The players' actions that they declare for their PCs don't change the setting in any significant way, but leave it largely untouched unchanged and/or reaffirm its status quo (a lot of FR play looks like this to me; there are various ways of doing this, including limiting PC capabilities relative to the gameworld, or the GM using deus-ex-machina techniques to ensure PC failures (or successes) don't engender dramatic change, or framing situations that simply don't matter relative to the larger setting);​

​

What does it mean to 'change the setting?' I feel it is very common to have games where the character's actions have a significant impact. Now perhaps one can argue that it is common to set up things so that the PCs are so positioned that they do not so much make a choice about the change, but it is merely their success or failure that dictates the change or lack thereof (I.e. typical save the village/kingdom/world thing) an I agree that situations where the players can take more initiative and genuinely make choices between attempting to achieve various outcomes is far more interesting. But the latter of course commonly occurs in games too, though obviously generally not in ready-made modules which by their design are far more inflexible. But such modules are specific form of play and should not be conflated with more freeform play that exists using the same system. "Prep situations, not plots" is the common advice, which is aimed for generating less linear play.

* The GM established the characters' dramatic needs, via an in-media-res plot hook or via a quest-giver, with the players' focus therefore being on "how to we achieve the goal the GM has set for us" rather than on expressing judgement by acting on dramatic needs in the sort of open fashion I've described (most post-1984 module-based play looks like this, on the surface at least);​

​

Again. Perhaps stop talking about modules? They're not limited because of D&D, they're limited because they're pre-written modules. It is not relevant.

* There are a lot of social cues or signals or pressures, or there are overt directives in the rules of the game itself, that dictate answers or responses to questions of value that the fiction of the game might generate (alignment and associated notions are the poster child for this, and even when the rulebook says alignment doesn't matter its clear that their are social pressures at work at many D&D tables; and there are many non-alignment-related social pressures that can operate here too, like pressures to make choices or declare actions that will reinforce the cohesion of the party/team, that will follow up on the material the GM is presenting, etc).​

Yes. And I don't believe there realistically can be situation where such incentives do not exist at all. Now what amount of such one feels detrimental to their enjoyment is a matter of taste. I for example have on many occasions expressed my distaste for alignment and other such dictated 'objective' moral standards that limit how the players can make their own moral assessments. But some people are fine with such limits, and I in turn am fine with some limits you might not.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I can only speak for myself, but I am generally loathe to acknowledge similarities because the framing of those similarities often feels deceptive to me. Not just in the degree of similarity implied, but also in how it positions the sort of play typified by something like Critical Role. The basic framing of this is basically a heliocentric model of RPG play. It holds up Critical Role as the generalized form of RPG play with others sorts of play basically rotating around it as more specialized or narrow forms of play. This fails to account for two things :

1. The degree of similarity that Critical Role D&D shares with other forms of play typified by games like Apocalypse World, RuneQuest and B/X D&D.
2. How specialized the High Concept play it promotes/typifies really is. The degree to which fidelity to narrative expectations, genre tropes, and especially preconception of character and setting elements are considered valuable represents what I consider to be an extremely specialized form of play. An extremely popular form, but one no less specialized than Apocalypse World, RuneQuest or B/X in my book.

I should clarify that I do not think the argument is made deceptively. It merely feels deceptive because the degree to which genre tropes, narrative expectations and preconception of character/setting are valued is considered a baseline part of RPG play (within the scope of the argument) when those things are not valued nearly to that extent in other forms of play.

What other standard for 'baseline' there could be than how commonly it occurs when talking about these sorts of social constructs? I don't think there is any neutral vantage point from which we can start to judge what is 'specialised.'

In any case, when conceptualising to general audience to what you're talking about it probably is useful to compare and contrast things to something they're familiar with.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So your games do not have, say stated or implied premises, that might either explicitly or implicitly limit and guide what sort of 'judgments' the players will make? They do not have social conventions about how the shared time is used that might do the same?


But let's look your three points, you mean these right:



What does it mean to 'change the setting?' I feel it is very common to have games where the character's actions have a significant impact. Now perhaps one can argue that it is common to set up things so that the PCs are so positioned that they do not so much make a choice about the change, but it is merely their success or failure that dictates the change or lack thereof (I.e. typical save the village/kingdom/world thing) an I agree that situations where the players can take more initiative and genuinely make choices between attempting to achieve various outcomes is far more interesting. But the latter of course commonly occurs in games too, though obviously generally not in ready-made modules which by their design are far more inflexible. But such modules are specific form of play and should not be conflated with more freeform play that exists using the same system. "Prep situations, not plots" is the common advice, which is aimed for generating less linear play.


Again. Perhaps stop talking about modules? They're not limited because of D&D, they're limited because they're pre-written modules. It is not relevant.



Yes. And I don't believe there realistically can be situation where such incentives do not exist at all. Now what amount of such one feels detrimental to their enjoyment is a matter of taste. I for example have on many occasions expressed my distaste for alignment and other such dictated 'objective' moral standards that limit how the players can make their own moral assessments. But some people are fine with such limits, and I in turn am fine with some limits you might not.

This is why I kept saying you're denying play. Here you are not asking questions to investigate play, but to refute it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is why I kept saying you're denying play. Here you are not asking questions to investigate play, but to refute it.

These are questions and statements regarding what actually takes place in the games. If someone feels that I have misunderstood what goes on in their game, they can of course correct me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

These are questions and statements regarding what actually takes place in the games. If someone feels that I have misunderstood what goes on in their game, they can of course correct me.

They have, multiple times. Your response above is in response to someone correcting you. You chose to tell them they must still be wrong.

I've told you that I run 5e in a way that is pretty normal, but that it has very little in common with how I run BitD. I've told you that my play of 5e looks very different from my play in BitD. I have experience in both. You insist that there it's not that different. Hence, you're denying my experience -- which is particular -- and you've denied @pemeton's experience -- which is particular -- and you've denied @Campbell's experience -- which is particular. So, either all of us are delusional in exactly the same way and are lying about our experiences in the same way, or maybe you should step back and stop denying our play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've told you that my play of 5e looks very different from my play in BitD.

I don't doubt this.

I have experience in both. You insist that there it's not that different. Hence, you're denying my experience -- which is particular -- and you've denied @pemeton's experience -- which is particular -- and you've denied @Campbell's experience -- which is particular. So, either all of us are delusional in exactly the same way and are lying about our experiences in the same way, or maybe you should step back and stop denying our play.

I am merely trying to pin-point where the difference lies. And if someone claims that difference is that X doesn't happen in 5e play, but to me it seems obvious that it does, then I either have misunderstood what they mean by X or they have mistaken what kind of things occur in 5e play. In either case it is better to clarify the matter.

Now, I responded to you again, but I have no interest in this sort of meta discussion about how to discuss, so either address my actual points or let it go.

 

[Campbell]

What other standard for 'baseline' there could be than how commonly it occurs when talking about these sorts of social constructs? I don't think there is any neutral vantage point from which we can start to judge what is 'specialised.'

In any case, when conceptualising to general audience to what you're talking about it probably is useful to compare and contrast things to something they're familiar with.

I'm not sure what value a singular baseline has. Why not treat various forms of play on equal footing without regard to their popularity? We don't do this in pretty much in other form of media. We do not treat Sons of Anarchy like a specialized form of Law and Order. We don't treat romance anime as a specialized form of shonen anime. We do not treat Soulesbourne games as a specialized form of first-person shooters. We don't trat horror comics as a specialized form of superhero comics. Things that try to do different things should be treated as such.

It certainly has not helped reach any kind of real understanding of differences. It often increases animosity (all that unfounded elitism/narrowness BS), creates outgroups within the larger play culture and causes people to make all sorts of assumptions about other forms of play that are baseless. It can also cause a lock-in effect where people position themselves culturally either for or against a certain form of play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not sure what value a singular baseline has. Why not treat various forms of play on equal footing without regard to their popularity? We don't do this in pretty much in other form of media. We do not treat Sons of Anarchy like a specialized form of Law and Order. We don't treat romance anime as a specialized form of shonen anime. We do not treat Soulesbourne games as a specialized form of first-person shooters. We don't trat horror comics as a specialized form of superhero comics.

It certainly has not helped reach any kind of real understanding of differences. It often increases animosity (all that unfounded elitism/narrowness BS), creates outgroups within the larger play culture and causes people to make all sorts of assumptions about other forms of play that are baseless. It can also cause a lock-in effect where people position themselves culturally either for or against a certain form of play.

Fair enough. Though I'd think the 'specialisation' is a notion invited by models such as GNS, as that sort of implies that there are things the game can 'specialise' into. But I'd rather just get past the definitional/semantic quagmire and discuss the things that concretely happen in games regardless of how exactly they're classified.