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

[Manbearcat]

I linked this earlier in the thread because @niklinna asked about it.

But I’d recommend anyone who isn’t deeply acquainted with Story Now play to check out this Stonetop thread. The Judge’s chronicling of the fiction of the game and my breakdown of the actual structure, situation framing, decision-space (both the players and myself), moves made/resolution, and gamestate changes is exhaustive.

If that thread doesn’t convey the deep differences between that type of System-and-Player-directed Story Now play and the GM-directed, High Concept Simulation and curated Power Fantasy that is 5e-typical (and 2e and a chunk of 3.x typical), then I’m not sure what would (besides being a player in this type of game).

 

[pemerton]

As an alternative/supplement to @Manbearcat and friends' Stonetop thread, consider the following (from Burning Wheel):

Thurgon and Aramina travelled north-west along the Ulek side of the Jewel River. The GM wanted to cut through a few days, but I insisted on playing out the first evening - Thurgon and Aramina debated what their destination should be (Aramina - being learned in Great Masters-wise, believes that the abandoned tower of Evard the Black lay somewhere in the forest on the north side of the river, and wants to check it out). Thurgon persuaded her that they could not do such a thing unless (i) she fixed his breastplate, and (ii) they found some information in the abandoned fortresses of his order which would indicate that the tower was, at least, superficially safe to seek out (eg not an orc fortress a la Angmar/Dol Guldur).

I don't have an actual play record of Thurgon persuading Aramina to fix his breastplate, but as I've posted already, my recollection is that it was a Duel of Wits (with the GM scripting - ie declaring actions - for Aramina).

Here are some of the features of this play that exemplify its "story now" character:

* The player has requested the scene - it was not instigated by the GM;

* The scene in fact contains no GM-authored antagonism at all;

* But the scene is not a mere interlude or transition scene - it involves conflict between two characters;

* The broad framing for the conflict has been established via player-authored features of the character builds: Thurgon's Belief that "Aramina will need my protection" and "I am a Knight of the Iron Tower, and by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory"; and Aramina's Beliefs that "I'm not going to finish my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse!" and "I don't need Thurgon's pity".

* The resolution of the conflict will affect both means (does Thurgon have his armour at full strength?) and ends (where will the PCs go and what will they do?); it will also affect characters (what is the relationship between Thurgon and Aramina?);

* The ends are not being chosen from among GM-authored possibilities, but are themselves player-instigated: the presence of Evard's tower has been established via a player-initiated Wises check; the presence of abandoned fortresses of the order has already been established as a component of the setting that flows from Thurgon's backstory and the GM's elaboration on that.​

The stakes are not especially high, certainly not world-shattering. But they are real. And this is not a sidequest or an interlude or a diversion - this is the game!

EDIT: Upthread, @Ovinomancer posted this:

The problem with relating Story Now play is that any example is done Story After -- and it seems like you could have gotten that same thing with another agenda. But, that's the thing, everything that happened happened in the moment of play, and then the next moment of play, with nothing expected or planned. That something occurred is the most trivial analysis. HOW it occurred is the big difference.

It's with this in mind that I've described not just the events, but key aspects of the authorship, and the principles that governed the participants' use of their authority (over scene-framing, in the GM's case, and over action declarations in the player's case).

Which comes back to the contrast between "story now" and "high concept simulation"/"genre emulation"/"dramatism".

Being dramatic or reflecting the characters is primarily a property of the fiction. And as @Ovinomancer points out, any agenda has the potential to produce fiction that is dramatic or reflects characters, and high concept simulation frequently aspires to produce such fiction.

What characterises story now play is who among the participants is expected to make "the point". Everything else flows from this, I think: the need for player action declarations to trump the GM's conception of and desire for the setting; where character dramatic needs come from; the need for an absence of system or social dictation of "right answers" or "right responses.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't see how the original Free Kriegsspiel doesn't. The whole point of dispensing with all the rules (except the very, very basic "roll to determine losses" stuff) was to make it so players would feel like military commanders. The referee rules whatever they feel like ruling, whenever they feel like ruling it; consistency is not a virtue, it's merely a pattern, and it not only can be but should be broken the instant it seems better to do so than to not do so. That is fundamentally antagonistic to what "Simulation" is. Simulation is all about being external to the participants--they may feed in data (e.g. populating a previously-unexamined area with NPCs), but once the data is in, it has a life of its own, it is procedural. Emulation, on the other hand, is performative, a living expression of something, and that expression is more important than consistency for its own sake. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." (Meaning, even if you made a very firm conclusion yesterday, but your intuition tells you you should break it today, do it and never regret it.) That ethos is precisely what FKR-style play espouses, and it is pretty thoroughly opposed to Simulation.

This is so exactly the point about Kriegsspiel! The reason the Prussian General Staff eliminated most of the rules was NOT because it would make a better SIMULATION if some referee made a ruling about how many of the cabbages spoiled before they got to the front, or how many bullets were expended in capturing the trench, or whatever. It was because the referee could better come up with rulings that created GOOD TRAINING for the officers involved in the exercise! Free Kriegsspiel is a BETTER WARGAME, not a more perfect simulation of actual war (I mean, it could be that too in some specific instances, but that wasn't the point). Which is why IMHO 'FKR' totally and completely misses the point of Kriegsspiel. Anyway, they really should be calling what they're doing a 'Braunstein' from what I can see. That was also why I pointed out that these things are not TABLE TOP games at all, they are much closer to LARPs in some respects. I mean I have no idea what people who claim to be doing 'Free Kriegsspiel' and calling themselves FKR are doing, and its not really my business what they call their hobby, but I think the name is rather a misnomer.

 

[pemerton]

the referee could better come up with rulings that created GOOD TRAINING for the officers involved in the exercise! Free Kriegsspiel is a BETTER WARGAME, not a more perfect simulation of actual war

Free Kriegsspiel, as actually practised by the Prussian army, has fairly clear success conditions beyond the merely aesthetic. (EDIT: that condition being, do our officers win wars?)

That's one reason why, like you, I find the FKR nomenclature a bit puzzling. The FKR games, as I understand them, seem to emphasise high concept simulation, with an emphasis on setting, and the principle resolution mechanism being Drama (in Tweet's sense) flowing from the GM's adjudication of the fiction.

 

[niklinna]

I linked this earlier in the thread because @niklinna asked about it.

But I’d recommend anyone who isn’t deeply acquainted with Story Now play to check out this Stonetop thread. The Judge’s chronicling of the fiction of the game and my breakdown of the actual structure, situation framing, decision-space (both the players and myself), moves made/resolution, and gamestate changes is exhaustive.

If that thread doesn’t convey the deep differences between that type of System-and-Player-directed Story Now play and the GM-directed, High Concept Simulation and curated Power Fantasy that is 5e-typical (and 2e and a chunk of 3.x typical), then I’m not sure what would (besides being a player in this type of game).

Yes, I just finished reading that thread earlier today (then had to run out). It was chock full of good examples of all that stuff.

 

[Aldarc]

I think not only is it what people are used to, I think it's what people mostly prefer.

I agree. My partner, for example, prefers curated play. They found that APs were more familiar and comfortable to them, much like (relatively) linear video game storylines that they tend to play (e.g., KOTOR/SWTOR, etc.). They enjoy reacting to story with their character. However, they preferred both Fantasy AGE (Titansgrave) and Homebrew World (a DW hack) over 5e D&D in terms of ease of play.

How is this not true of (say) Agon? Or Dungeon World? Or Prince Valiant?

(I can see how it may not be true of Burning Wheel or High Adventure Roleplaying. They are relatively complex in mechanical terms.)

Or Fate? Or Cortex? Or Numenera? Or Savage Worlds? Or Blades in the Dark? Or Forbidden Lands? Or RuneQuest? Or Gumshoe? Or Dragon Age RPG? Or even B/X D&D?

The "design-space and designability" of many other games are pretty nakedly transparent. So many "bespoke games" (e.g., BitD, AW, Fate, etc.) practically scream their design principles and "why I designed it this way" at readers. I'm not sure why 5e D&D is privileged as exceptional in this regard when so many other non-5e systems that have been hacked, modded, and designed to kingdom come. (I suspect that it's simply a rote matter of being more familiar with the 5e hacking community and its hegemonic market prevalence.)

I would almost go one step further and say against the aforementioned claim that 5e was designed for people to "see throughout the design the patterns and interfaces that create design-space and designability." 4e D&D, IMHO, has a much better claim to that assertion; however, a number of people complained pretty loudly that those "patterns and interfaces that create design-space and designability" were too transparent in 4e. These people wanted more illusionism that obscured that design-space. IMHO, WotC showed people how the 4e sausage was made with pretty full transparency, and after people showed an adverse reaction to it, WotC decided to show the tourist-safe version of the 5e sausage-making that covers-up and glosses over its actual design-space and designability.

 

[clearstream]

How is this not true of (say) Agon? Or Dungeon World? Or Prince Valiant?

(I can see how it may not be true of Burning Wheel or High Adventure Roleplaying. They are relatively complex in mechanical terms.)

I hope that in writing about a positive in one RPG, that is not taken as a comment in any way about another RPG. So here I don't aim to imply that PV or DW are lacking the quality that I observe to be present in 5e.

Where I do intend a direct comparison, I will call that out. Usually to cast light on a contrast that I find meaningful. TB2 can be contrasted with 5e for example. We might homebrew in something like the grind, but there is no grind in 5e, and that has meaningful consequences for the play. Neither is better: they deliver different experiences.

There are RPGs I feel are less successfully designed, and every RPG has facets that against some criterion might be judged a flaw. If I mean to criticise what I see as a fault in an RPG, I will generally do that directly. Like most folk I could write pages on the flaws of 3e. I just happen to believe it was a great AND flawed game, at the same time. I feel similarly about DitV, although for utterly different reasons.

 

[clearstream]

I think not only is it what people are used to, I think it's what people mostly prefer.

I like @Aldarc's "curation" phrasing, too. I think it speaks well to some benefits that the designers are going after consciously, and I would be quite unsurprised if it was also cherished as a marketing advantage!

Free Kriegsspiel, as actually practised by the Prussian army, has fairly clear success conditions beyond the merely aesthetic. (EDIT: that condition being, do our officers win wars?)

That's one reason why, like you, I find the FKR nomenclature a bit puzzling. The FKR games, as I understand them, seem to emphasise high concept simulation, with an emphasis on setting, and the principle resolution mechanism being Drama (in Tweet's sense) flowing from the GM's adjudication of the fiction.

As I've discussed elsewhere, I feel a sense that the reference doesn’t quite fit the movement. On the other hand, if a group want to self-identify a certain way, maybe they have their motives.

In this case, maybe it is a point of inspiration and a way to feel validated? Perhaps there are clues in the historical practice that have meaning for the contemporary?

Of course, it could be just a product of confusion or misappropriation; but perhaps not...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My biggest objection to a/d (but its a huge one) is it say, not only nothing is worth paying attention to until its This Tall, but it then says after one of them applies, no others matter. I really can't describe what a blunt object I find that to be.

It reflects many of the design weaknesses (not faults per se) of 5e: wanting a single mechanic to meet two opposing goals, and thus ending up with something that falls short of both.

E.g., they wanted to preserve the feeling of progression in monsters without having their defenses grow much, and also make quick, not particularly tactical fights. This resulted in monsters that can only meaningfully get harder by giving them more HP and which can't have complicated tactical abilities (unless they're spells...), producing a game that is full of "ugly bag of HP" enemies that aren't interesting to fight.

Advantage(/Dis) was meant to fulfill both the weapon-of-first-resort so that they could eliminate the profusion of modifiers, and the weapon-of-last-resort as a chunky, powerful benefit without being game-breaking. As a result, we ended up with something where there's no room to grow or do better, it's just "get advantage, done." (Unless you're an elf or half-elf, in which case Elven Accuracy gives you special super-advantage because that's totally fair and reasonable.)

Similar concerns apply to resting patterns (meant to balance classes and meant to give bite to the adventuring day, ended up just re-encouraging the 5MWD), healing, and some other things. Some of these things are getting direct address in "5.5e" (or whatever they're going to call it), but it reflects the design issues, some of which were things people gave feedback on back during the Next playtest....mostly because I know I did, and I discussed it with a number of other playtesters who also gave that feedback.

 

[clearstream]

I agree. My partner, for example, prefers curated play. They found that APs were more familiar and comfortable to them, much like (relatively) linear video game storylines that they tend to play (e.g., KOTOR/SWTOR, etc.). They enjoy reacting to story with their character. However, they preferred both Fantasy AGE (Titansgrave) and Homebrew World (a DW hack) over 5e D&D in terms of ease of play.


Or Fate? Or Cortex? Or Numenera? Or Savage Worlds? Or Blades in the Dark? Or Forbidden Lands? Or RuneQuest? Or Gumshoe? Or Dragon Age RPG? Or even B/X D&D?

The "design-space and designability" of many other games are pretty nakedly transparent. So many "bespoke games" (e.g., BitD, AW, Fate, etc.) practically scream their design principles and "why I designed it this way" at readers. I'm not sure why 5e D&D is privileged as exceptional in this regard when so many other non-5e systems that have been hacked, modded, and designed to kingdom come. (I suspect that it's simply a rote matter of being more familiar with the 5e hacking community and its hegemonic market prevalence.)

I would almost go one step further and say against the aforementioned claim that 5e was designed for people to "see throughout the design the patterns and interfaces that create design-space and designability." 4e D&D, IMHO, has a much better claim to that assertion; however, a number of people complained pretty loudly that those "patterns and interfaces that create design-space and designability" were too transparent in 4e. These people wanted more illusionism that obscured that design-space. IMHO, WotC showed people how the 4e sausage was made with pretty full transparency, and after people showed an adverse reaction to it, WotC decided to show the tourist-safe version of the 5e sausage-making that covers-up and glosses over its actual design-space and designability.

I found that "privileged as an exception" wording jarring. For me, describing a quality in one game is silent on its presence or lack in others.

It's fairly common knowledge among game designers that a system can be built for expressiveness and designability. PbtA is a great example, although it's approach is very different from 5e. Expressiveness isn't the same as designability, and 5e and PbtA have both.

Designability let's you prototype deftly. So that there is a high probability your design will work. 5e carries over some bad habits from 3e: it's modularity isn't quite as modular as it looks. Not all RPGs are equal on these qualities. Possibly of greater interest are the different ways it can be achieved.

But anyway, I wanted to say that I can appreciate that if I disliked 5e it could vex me to have it dominate the discourse! This is a thread on D&D so it naturally is very relevant here. If I mean a contrast in the form "Y does thing better than X" I will try to make that obvious.

[EDIT In several responses I sense a shared concern for a dichotomy. Game quality is not a dichotomy: the presence or degree of a quality in one game doesn't make it any less available to others.]