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

[clearstream]

"Fiction First" is probably the singlemost guiding principle (or dare I say "Rule 0") that permeates throughout a lot of non-D&D games that commonly get swept together as "narrativist" or "story" games (e.g., Fate, Cortex, PbtA, FitD, BW, etc.). That the common trend involves lumping these "fiction first" games together despite their differences is, IMHO, quite telling about the norm.

If followed, the game text for the 5e basic pattern entails fiction-first

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

Contrast DW's basic pattern

1. The GM gives the setup of a threat, but not the conclusion.
2. Thee player responds and probably rolls some dice.
3. The GM narrates the results, based on the player's roll.

The way I see it, the differences lie elsewhere. So not so much in being fiction-first, but perhaps in choices like task resolution versus conflict resolution (although this isn't as guaranteed a divide as it can appear on surface IMO.) So we see GM describes world, versus GM describes conflict. Also in concerns such as distribution of roles (GM-curation versus shared-authorship, although again I am not sure the two are guaranteed to conflict right down the line.)

 

[Aldarc]

If followed, the game text for the 5e basic pattern entails fiction-first

Contrast DW's basic pattern

The way I see it, the differences lie elsewhere. So not so much in being fiction-first, but perhaps in choices like task resolution versus conflict resolution (although this isn't as guaranteed a divide as it can appear on surface IMO.) So we see GM describes world, versus GM describes conflict. Also and very palpably, distribution of roles.

Here is a comparison of my own. Edit: And I apologize if it comes across as flippant.

5e's pattern: blah blah blah - roll some dice - blah blah blah

In contrast that with the pattern found in other games...

Dungeon World's pattern: blah blah blah - roll some dice - blah blah blah
Burning Wheel's pattern: blah blah blah - roll some dice - blah blah blah
Savage World's pattern: blah blah blah - roll some dice - blah blah blah
Call of Cthulhu's pattern: blah blah blah - roll some dice - blah blah blah
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay's pattern: blah blah blah - roll some dice - blah blah blah
Vampire the Masquerade's pattern: blah blah blah - roll some dice - blah blah blah
Forbidden Lands' pattern: blah blah blah - roll some dice - blah blah blah
The One Ring's pattern: blah blah blah - roll some dice - blah blah blah

On the basis of this comparison, we can safely conclude that they are all about "rollplaying and not roleplaying."

This is all to say that if you opt for such a broad comparison and/or cast such a wide net as the basis for comparison, then every TTRPG will be fiction first, but they're not by most people's understanding of the terms, which is why I don't find your comparison particularly helpful or insightful. Despite that and your comparison, however, 5e D&D is not conventionally considered a "fiction first" game by the hobby. Why might that be?

IMO, and others are welcome to chime in, the comparison ignores a lot of guiding principles, procedures, and play/design elements that are present and/or absent in supporting that fiction first loop. It also fails to understand what is meant by "fiction first" and how that interacts with rules in place. "Fiction first" amounts to more than players engaging in a call and response with the fiction that the GM frames.

Take for example your earlier bit in discussion with @AbdulAlhazred about Jumping using a Strength/Dexterity (Athletics) ability check. How likely will a Jump ability check in D&D 5e result in HP loss or a debilitating injury like a sprain or fracture that follows from the fiction? The HP loss is more likely if fall damage is involved, likely from a failure, but that entails the GM consulting the mechanics of the fall damage chart. The consequences of falling are dictated by the mechanics of the fall damage chart. The fiction matters in-so-far as determining how much falling damage from the chart applies. Contrast this with other games. The fiction of the situation may dictate from the resolution (failure, success with failure, complicated success, etc.) that the character takes a consequence that bypasses usual stress: e.g., sprained ankle. Now that the consequence of "sprained ankle" is a real issue for the character in the fiction as well. And the future fiction of the game must take that sprained ankle into account.

 

[Manbearcat]

If followed, the game text for the 5e basic pattern entails fiction-first


Contrast DW's basic pattern


The way I see it, the differences lie elsewhere. So not so much in being fiction-first, but perhaps in choices like task resolution versus conflict resolution (although this isn't as guaranteed a divide as it can appear on surface IMO.) So we see GM describes world, versus GM describes conflict. Also in concerns such as distribution of roles (GM-curation versus shared-authorship, although again I am not sure the two are guaranteed to conflict right down the line.)

I'm going to c/p Strandberg's core loop for Stonetop as what you've got above for DW is missing quite a bit. This is basically the exact same thing for Apocalypse World and Dungeon World. What is inherent to the below will do a decent bit of work to engage with the exchange between you and @Aldarc . I ran a very chunky Stonetop session last night for @hawkeyefan and @Ovinomancer so they or I could map some of that play onto this loop and it should be pretty clear the extremely divergent experience from a 5e game (as a result of the differences in the loop and how it is informed by Agenda, Principles, Best Practices, Structure). Stonetop's (and AW and DW) core loop (italicized parentheticals are mine for clarification):

1) Establish the situation

• Frame the action
• Describe the environment
• Give details & specifics
• Ask questions, ask for input
• Portray NPCs and monsters
• Answer questions, clarify

2) Make a soft GM move: provoke action and/or increase tension.

3) Ask, “What do you do?”

4) Resolve their actions

• If they trigger a player move, do what the move says (and what the player says when they have to make choices related to the move).
• If they roll a 6-, make a hard GM move (establish badness).
• If they ignore trouble, make a hard GM move (establish badness).
• Otherwise (if no move is triggered), say what happens.

5) Repeat

• Is the situation clear and grabby? Can the PC(s) act? Back to step 3.
• Is the situation clear, but escalating before the PCs act? Back to step 2.
• Is the situation clear, but needs a nudge? Back to step 2.
• Is the situation unlcear? Does it need clarification, recapping, or updating? Back to step 1.
• Is the current scene or situation over? Wrap up, look for the next one. Back to step 1.

 

[clearstream]

I'm going to c/p Strandberg's core loop for Stonetop as what you've got above for DW is missing quite a bit. This is basically the exact same thing for Apocalypse World and Dungeon World. What is inherent to the below will do a decent bit of work to engage with the exchange between you and @Aldarc . I ran a very chunky Stonetop session last night for @hawkeyefan and @Ovinomancer so they or I could map some of that play onto this loop and it should be pretty clear the extremely divergent experience from a 5e game (as a result of the differences in the loop and how it is informed by Agenda, Principles, Best Practices, Structure). Stonetop's (and AW and DW) core loop (italicized parentheticals are mine for clarification):

1) Establish the situation

• Frame the action
• Describe the environment
• Give details & specifics
• Ask questions, ask for input
• Portray NPCs and monsters
• Answer questions, clarify

2) Make a soft GM move: provoke action and/or increase tension.

3) Ask, “What do you do?”

4) Resolve their actions

• If they trigger a player move, do what the move says (and what the player says when they have to make choices related to the move).
• If they roll a 6-, make a hard GM move (establish badness).
• If they ignore trouble, make a hard GM move (establish badness).
• Otherwise (if no move is triggered), say what happens.

5) Repeat

• Is the situation clear and grabby? Can the PC(s) act? Back to step 3.
• Is the situation clear, but escalating before the PCs act? Back to step 2.
• Is the situation clear, but needs a nudge? Back to step 2.
• Is the situation unlcear? Does it need clarification, recapping, or updating? Back to step 1.
• Is the current scene or situation over? Wrap up, look for the next one. Back to step 1.

I've noticed a tendency to assume there is disagreement and that broader points are being made than intended. @Aldarc suggested

That the common trend involves lumping these "fiction first" games together despite their differences is, IMHO, quite telling about the norm.

I wrote in agreement that separating by "fiction-first" alone is superficial. It's not fiction-first versus not-fiction-first that separates those games, and I gave some examples. I absolutely agree that it is also those other important facets that you rightly call attention to. I did not intend my examples to be taken as exclusive.

Perhaps what is being objected to is that I implied we need to look deeper - at facets like those you mentioned - rather than a superficial "fiction-first" or not - assessment? Note that I do not say that @Aldarc was committed to such a superficial assessment, I agreed with them by pointing out that 5e can be lumped in, too (if applying a superficial assessment.)

 

[Manbearcat]

I've noticed a tendency to assume there is disagreement and that broader points are being made than intended. A poster suggested



I wrote in agreement that separating by "fiction-first" alone is superficial. It's not fiction-first versus not-fiction-first that separates those games, and I gave some examples. I absolutely agree that it is also those other important facets that you rightly call attention to. I did not intend my examples to be taken as exclusive.

Perhaps what is being objected to is that I implied we need to look deeper - at facets like those you mentioned - rather than a superficial "fiction-first" or not - assessment? (Note that I do not say the poster was committed to such a superficial assessment, I agree with them by pointing out that 5e can be lumped in, too.)

My post here is really just two things:

1) Correction on the consequential meat of the AW/DW/ST loop. This is for bystanders as much or more as it is for participants. We have to remember that folks not engaged directly in our conversation may have little acquaintance (or none at all) with the systems being discussed. So it’s extremely important that consequential aspects of things they may not be acquainted with not be omitted, abstracted, or elided.

2) To put all of the loop stuff on the board to compare contrast (your final paragraph on “where differences lie” in the above post I initially quoted.

For instance, beyond codified Agenda, Principles, Best Practices, Play & Conversation Structure, what in that core loop diverges from 5e’s core loop? There are many, many areas that could be put under the microscope for impact on play experience divergence. Easy reference for that work.

 

[clearstream]

My post here is really just two things:

1) Correction on the consequential meat of the AW/DW/ST loop. This is for bystanders as much or more as it is for participants. We have to remember that folks not engaged directly in our conversation may have little acquaintance (or none at all) with the systems being discussed. So it’s extremely important that consequential aspects of things they may not be acquainted with not be omitted, abstracted, or elided.

2) To put all of the loop stuff on the board to compare contrast (your final paragraph on “where differences lie” in the above post I initially quoted.

For instance, beyond codified Agenda, Principles, Best Practices, Play & Conversation Structure, what in that core loop diverges from 5e’s core loop? There are many, many areas that could be put under the microscope for impact on play experience divergence. Easy reference for that work.

Certainly. I omitted a great deal from 5e's basic pattern, too.

I have not had a chance to play Stonetop yet, but I am very familiar with Strandberg's articulation of the core loop. In fact, that is down to @Aldarc who drew my attention in another thread to Strandberg's insights, that I had really failed back then to properly appreciate.

 

[Krachek]

In light of many extremely gamist games prioritising hidden information (Starcraft for e.g.), can you expand on why you or @Campbell might see hidden information as an obstacle to gamism in an RPG?

EDIT To improve that question, I have noted concerns around hidden information for narrativism that have possibly overlapped with concerns around hidden information generally (therefore impinging gamism). What is your take on that? How, concretely, does hidden information impinge narrativism, and is hidden information an obstacle to gamism (where as a gamer, I might anticipate it to be a driver) and if it is, in what ways?

What I see is that gamist point of view use hidden information as a fact to be discovered or guess. The information need to be settle and freeze and can be seen as a prize and reward for smart play.

In a narrative point of view, the hidden information may be decided but also may be undecided and the DM make it up or change it as the game go on.

 

[Aldarc]

I wrote in agreement that separating by "fiction-first" alone is superficial. It's not fiction-first versus not-fiction-first that separates those games, and I gave some examples. I absolutely agree that it is also those other important facets that you rightly call attention to. I did not intend my examples to be taken as exclusive.

Perhaps what is being objected to is that I implied we need to look deeper - at facets like those you mentioned - rather than a superficial "fiction-first" or not - assessment? Note that I do not say that @Aldarc was committed to such a superficial assessment, I agreed with them by pointing out that 5e can be lumped in, too (if applying a superficial assessment.)

This helps clarify, but I would still disagree somewhat, though it may help backtrack a bit. Earlier Campbell wrote,

There is a substantial difference between lack of secret backstory impacting resolution and fictional positioning not mattering at all. Fictional positioning within the shared fiction is crucial to Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark. It's just not the same sort of black box because we're all aware of what's going on.

I agree with this, but I also pointed out how fiction first tends to be incredibly common among these sort of games, but also games like Cortex, Fate, and others. It's often a guiding principle of weight on the level of the oft-cited Rule 0.

Despite their differences, these games are commonly lumped together as "story" or "narrativist" games on this principle. I agree that separating by "fiction first" alone is superficial. However, I don't think that it's entirely meaningless that they are. Let's call this a subconscious awareness of difference or otherness.

This is why I point out how it's telling about the presumed norm that these games would be lumped together on this basis. This is to say that there seems to be some awareness that "fiction first" (and other overlapping principles) makes them distinct from games that operate more along the lines of D&D (5e).

Admittedly, my point is less about hidden backstory vs. fictional positioning not mattering, and more how many games that are less wedded to hidden backstory are nevertheless inextricably rooted in the fiction, often via the guiding game principle of Fiction First.

However, the fiction that most concerns "Fiction First games" is immediate and palpable for the characters. It doesn't sit waiting, hidden off-stage to make its grand entrance to the audience or, in some cases, never showing up in the play at all. "Fiction First games," IME, tend to dispense with "Crouching Setting, Hidden Backstory."

 

[Thomas Shey]

In light of many extremely gamist games prioritising hidden information (Starcraft for e.g.), can you expand on why you or @Campbell might see hidden information as an obstacle to gamism in an RPG?

I don't think its intrinsically so, but I expect part of the issue is (as they've referenced later) is that its a potential spot for the GM to make up whatever the hell on the fly once the box is opened. If the GM actually has the situation pre-defined and does not change it, it shouldn't violate a gamist concern, but, well, given some of the more illusionist takes to be found in the hobby, that's a bit "if".

Basically, if the situation is going to end up being adjusted for the convenience of whatever purposes has, the information being hidden veils that, and means the PCs are essentially wrestling with jello. That doesn't mean it isn't necessary for certain purposes, but its kind of, for lack of a better term, a moral hazard.

 

[Thomas Shey]

How does Free Kriegsspiel (not FKR) fit here? I think some argue that its purpose was training, and I've pointed out that one of its stated goals was greater realism.

Honestly, that's part of what makes it not a real game; from the description its going to be adjusted on the fly if needed to produce the necessary training elements. In some respects its more of an immerse teaching methodology than a game in any real sense.

I think though that Score - Achievement could have been at issue. Playing to do as well as possible: win the encounter. That is how FK wargaming sessions have felt to me (especially PvP.)

Since the goalposts are moved, in some cases after the decisions have been made, too much of the output is beyond the trainee's control. It may be a game in a general sense given how broadly its used, but given its one with deliberate built in "gotchas", well...