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

clearstream · May 7, 2022

[EDITED Unhelpful post. Immediate regret.]

clearstream · May 7, 2022

niklinna said:
All this theory debate got me rooting around the Web and I found an obscure thing. Not really on topic though so I started a new thread about it: RPG Theory and D&D...and that WotC Survey. Pseudointellectuallize your hearts out, mateys.

I like this insight from the article about the survey

We also have data that suggests that most groups are made up of people who segment differently (that is, monolithic segmentation within a gaming group is rare), and in fact, having different kinds of players tends to make the RPG experience work better over the long haul.

Interesting to contrast 4e and 5e in that light.

They break out the following types

A Thinker is a player who most enjoys the game when it delivers Strategic/Combat Focus. This kind of person is likely to enjoy min-maxing a character, spending hours out of game to find every conceivable advantage available in the system to deliver maximum damage from behind maximum protection, even if the min-maxing produces results that are seemingly illogical/impossible. This kind of person wants to solve puzzles and can keep track of long chains of facts and clues.

A Power Gamer is a player who most enjoys the game when it delivers a Tactical/Combat Focus. This kind of person is likely to enjoy playing a character that has a minimum of personality (often, this kind of person plays a character that is simply an extension of the player). This kind of player enjoys short, intense gaming experiences. The consequences of a failed action are minimized for this player, who will roll up a new character and return to the fray without much thought for the storyline implications of that action.

A Character Actor is a player who most enjoys the game when it delivers a Tactical/Story Focus. This kind of person is likely to enjoy the act of theater; using voice, posture, props, etc. to express a character's actions and dialog. This player will have a character that makes sub-optimal choices (from an external perspective) to ensure that the character's actions are "correct" from the perspective of the character's motivations, ethics, and knowledge.

A Storyteller is a player who most enjoys the game when it delivers a Strategic/Story Focus. This kind of person finds enjoyment from the logical progression of the narrative of the scenario. There should be a beginning, a middle and an end. Characters should develop over time in reaction to their experiences. This player will look for a non-rules answer to inconsistencies or anachronisms in the game experience.

There is a fifth type of player, who does not express a preference along any of the four axis. This person is a "basic roleplayer", who finds enjoyment from strategy, tactics, combat and story in rough equilibrium.

Roughly, each of the four quadrents accounts for approximately 22% of the player community. About 12% fall into the fifth, centric position.

Feels to me a little unclear what the power-gamer wants. What is a short, intense gaming experience? Why does it matter that consequences of failure are minimised? What is it about combat that they love? Is it working through tactics, mainly? How does that connect (if it does) with constructs for "gamist"?

EzekielRaiden · May 7, 2022

Paul Farquhar said:
I'm just here to cast shade and laugh at the endless human capacity to intellectualise made up stuff.

Pomposity needs it's bubble burst.

Perhaps your intent with this was sarcasm, but being perfectly honest, I find this stance (when expressed seriously) to mostly be just another incarnation of pomposity.

Ondath · May 7, 2022

Paul Farquhar said:
I'm just here to cast shade and laugh at the endless human capacity to intellectualise made up stuff.

Pomposity needs it's bubble burst.

Well, this discussion allowed me to understand why some things never worked at my table (like skill challenges or treasure parcels, because I never got into the Story Now/shared narrative power they require), and also allowed me to work them in novel ways now that I have a theoretical understanding of what they are meant to do and what they can do. Like, I really felt uneasy adding magic item crafting to my table because "simulating" the whole process wasn't very interesting, but now I can purposefully add story now elements to my game (because I understand the theory thanks to what you call intellectualising made up stuff) like crafting a magic item requiring a narrativist resolution that will challenge the characters (like "you succeed at a cost, explain what your character has to give up to create a Vorpal Sword"). Thinking theoretically makes my game more coherent and fun. What does casting shade at people who gathered here for a very specific reason get you?

Aldarc · May 7, 2022

Thomas Shey said:
I do think one of the biggest problem with agendas (at least past GNS) is the automatic assumption that having more than one at a table is a mistake. It may make managing the game more complicated, but assuming it isn't going to happen is, well, quite a take.

One of my own issues is that I think that it ignores how individuals can have various agendas but to varying degrees of priorization and preference. It may be that Person A finds themselves at odds with Person B, because while both Person A and Person B have Simulationist agendas at a table that prefers Simulationist approaches, Person A prefers Simulationist > Narrativist > Gamist while Person B prefers Simulationist > Gamist > Narrativist. An individual likely has hues of competing agendas at play in a game, possibly depending on what the game is engaging or how they are feeling in the moment.

Micah Sweet said:
'Raises hand'

I have a question. If you were writing the introduction to an rpg, in which you were describing the intended game play of a Story Now game, how would you write it? What words would you use? Because if you wrote it using the language above, I think a lot of people would have a hard time understanding what you're talking about. That was an extraordinarily technical explanation. What's the "I want people to understand and play my game version"?

Take the idea of scene framing. I've seen that term thrown around this board a lot, but I don't think I've ever seen it used in an actual RPG book people read to understand the rules of the game.

The language of "scene framing" or "setting the scene" is definitely a common part of many TTRPGs.

This snippet is from the introduction of the playtest book for Stonetop (a PbtA game that is a Dungeon World hack):

As the GM, you have a special role in the conversation. It’s your job to describe the world, say what happens, and portray monsters and NPCs. You’ll facilitate and make rulings. You’ll ask for input. You’ll frame scenes and point the spotlight. The game invests you, the GM, with a lot of power—and a lot of responsibility.

This point is elaborated with greater depth and breadth in the rest of the book, particularly as part of a GM's responsibilities.

Similarly, while not necessarily using the language of "scene framing," Fate uses similar ideas:

Run scenes: A session is made up of scenes. Decide where the scene begins, who’s there, and what’s going on. Decide when all the interesting things have played out and the scene’s over. Skip over the unnecessary stuff; in the same way that you don’t roll dice if the outcome of an action won’t be interesting, don’t have a scene if nothing exciting, dramatic, useful, or fun will happen during it.

Regardless of the type of scene, the GM will start by setting the essential pieces into place, so that the players know what resources are available and what complications are in play.

As well as Cortex Prime:

GAME MODERATOR
One person at the table doesn’t take a PC, instead playing the role of the game moderator (GM). The GM manages the session and presents exciting scenes, locations, and game moderator characters (or GMCs). Often, but not always, the GM is the person who bought the game and has read the book a few times.

Running Scenes: This section includes how to frame a scene and how to end it, as well as how to run different types of scenes and which game mechanics are used to do so.

Green Ronin's Fantasy AGE Core Rulebook:

When playing an RPG, that’s the question you must ask yourself all the time. The Game Master will describe a situation, framing a scene for one or more of the Player Characters. It is then up to you to decide what your character does and why.

The One Ring 2E:

It is up to the Loremaster to initially frame each scene, especially those that are putting the Company in danger.

Sometimes, however, language of "setting the scene" is used instead of "framing." But "setting the scene" and "framing the scene" are for all intents and purposes virtually synonymous or, if not, at least areas of significant overlap.

The Black Hack 2E:

The GM should start a session by setting the scene, explaining briefly where the Characters are and what they can see - it’s a good idea to quickly recap anything the Characters should know - then ask the question "What do you want to do next?"

Call of Cthulhu 7E Keeper Book:

The Keeper sets the scene, describing the environment, the individuals, and encounters to the players.

Cypher System Rulebook:

The GM sets the scene, the players state what their characters attempt to do, and the GM determines what happens next.

clearstream · May 7, 2022

I have a hair-brained notion of five challenges

Drama - as a player I am challenged to propose and unravel psychological motives (e.g. duties, beliefs, desires)
Story - as players we are challenged to resolve a premise
Simulation - as a player I am challenged to know the world and my place in it
Construction - as a player I am challenged to build something in the game world
Solution - as a player I am challenged to figure something out (e.g. a puzzle)

With four dimensions they can be addressed along

Tactical - position matters, materiel matters
Strategic - policy matters, logistics matter
Cultural - concerns matter, beliefs matter
Magical - relationships matter, appearances matter (is this really separate from cultural? and/or should there be psychological?)

Two tensions

Controversy - your choices will face resistance
Contribution - your choices make change (is "will enhance" better here?)

And finally the two languages in which they are articulated (always both)

Your spoken and written language - maybe English
Ludically extended language - indexes, icons, symbols, and rules bound to them

Each game posits a ludically extended langugage, putatively suitable for its challenges, dimensions and tensions. (I feel like there may be more dimensions available, and perhaps tensions are not comprehensive). None of the above are assumed to be in conflict. In fact, it is assumed a game will be more successfully expressive and engaging, the more challenges and dimensions it successfully weds. And both languages are always required. This doesn't really look into metagame, so there is more to be said. It's just something that came to me based on conversation to this point.

[EDIT Note edits, with apologies to @Ondath!]

Ondath · May 7, 2022

clearstream said:
I have a hair-brained notion of five challenges

Drama - as a player I am challenged to propose and unravel psychological motives (e.g. duties, beliefs, desires)

Story - as players we are challenged to resolve a premise

Simulation - as a player I am challenged to know the world and my place in it

Construction - as a player I am challenged to build something in the game world

Solution - as a player I am challenged to figure something out (e.g. a puzzle)

With three dimensions they can be addressed along

Tactical - position matters, materiel matters

Strategic - policy matters, logistics matter

Cultural - concerns matter, beliefs matter

Two tensions

Controversy - your choices will face resistance

Contribution - your choices make change

And finally the two languages in which they are articulated (always both)

Your spoken and written language - maybe English

Ludically extended language - indexes, icons, symbols, and rules bound to them

Each game posits a ludically extended langugage, putatively suitable for its challenges, dimensions and tensions. (I feel like there may be more dimensions available, and perhaps tensions are not comprehensive). None of the above are assumed to be in conflict. In fact, it is assumed a game requires multiple challenges and dimensions, and both languages, to be successful. This doesn't really look into metagame, so there is more to be said. It's just something that came to me based on conversation to this point.

I remember you mentioning hard sciences earlier in the "predictive vs other uses of models" discussion, but the way you have expressed ideas feels very much like analytical philosophy to me! I feel like this model would have some outliers like any, but it's a fairly robust system.

Paul Farquhar · May 7, 2022

Ondath said:
Well, this discussion allowed me to understand why some things never worked at my table (like skill challenges or treasure parcels, because I never got into the Story Now/shared narrative power they require), and also allowed me to work them in novel ways now that I have a theoretical understanding of what they are meant to do and what they can do. Like, I really felt uneasy adding magic item crafting to my table because "simulating" the whole process wasn't very interesting, but now I can purposefully add story now elements to my game (because I understand the theory thanks to what you call intellectualising made up stuff) like crafting a magic item requiring a narrativist resolution that will challenge the characters (like "you succeed at a cost, explain what your character has to give up to create a Vorpal Sword"). Thinking theoretically makes my game more coherent and fun. What does casting shade at people who gathered here for a very specific reason get you?

D&D was invented long before all this game theory nonsense was invented, and is all the better for it. My game has always worked for me, because like the original designers, I go with my gut. It's no use to me, because it makes no sense to me. It would be as useful if it was in Elvish. Just a bunch of made up words.

What theory says people do has little relationship to what people actually do (you can say the same about educational theory too). Trying to apply it to D&D was why 3e and 4e were so f-ed up.

Ondath · May 7, 2022

Paul Farquhar said:
D&D was invented long before all this game theory nonsense was invented, and is all the better for it. My game has always worked for me, because like the original designers, I go with my gut. It's no use to me, because it makes no sense to me. It would be as useful if it was in Elvish. Just a bunch of made up words.

What theory says people do has little relationship to what people actually do (you can say the same about educational theory too). Trying to apply it to D&D was why 3e and 4e were so f-ed up.

And here are 33 pages of people proving not only that they like using this theory, but that this theory makes their games richer. More power to you if you don't need it, but it is patently absurd to think just because you never experienced the need for it, it can be of no use to anyone. There are others in this thread who might think similarly to you and find the theory in useless in some ways, but at least they show the courtesy to listen to others' explanations and engage with them in good faith.

So once again, if you are not engaging with others in good faith and the people here are congregated for the sole reason of discussing this topic, what are you doing here? If it is just to make fun of us, that feels very much contrary to the spirit of the community (not just the people discussing here but EN World at large) and I'd reckon you'd be invited to feel superior elsewhere if all you will contribute to the conversation is "lol you guys are silly for discussing this and I am superior let me point out my superiority unprompted".

Paul Farquhar · May 7, 2022

Ondath said:
If it is just to make fun of us

More than that, I think it's actively harmful, as is the elitism that goes with it.

Using terminology that is not understood by a majority "feels very much contrary to the spirit of the community" to me.