D&D 5E (2014) Come out and put yourself on the Gygax scale!

[Henry]

I’m probably a G2 — i’ve Been known to bend the rules if it sounds like we get a cool result out of it. I don’t always succeed, but my goal is to “yes, and...” whenever I can.

 

[Aaron L]

G3.5?

I love to have a good story, but I like the story to arise out of the gameplay and interactions between players/characters, not to be forced upon the players by the DM (we've tried campaigns like the latter and they ended up going... poorly.) Emergent storytelling, you might say. But if the mechanics of the game suck, I can not stand to play. I will try, and I'll give a new system several months worth of opportunity to prove itself to me, as I did with 4th Edition (5-6 months trying it), but in the end the system and mechanics just got in the way of my enjoyment of the game and I had to stop for my own sanity; I just couldn't take anymore.

I enjoy role-playing and combat in equal measure, and to me a great game includes equal parts free-form role-playing and mechanical gaming/combat (I like to use the example of spending one entire session taking place in an intense dungeon crawl full of tooth-and-nail combat... and then the very next session we return to the city to spend some time recovering from our adventure and get invited to a grand ball to hobnob with the nobility and spin grand tales of our heroics, without a single die needing to be rolled the entire game session. For me that is nearly an ideal campaign paradigm.)

But I also feel a need to point out that, to me, role-playing and story-telling are two separate things. Related, but separate. Great role-playing can happen without any hint or need of over-arching plot or story, just as real history doesn't actually have any plot, just the interactions of many people creating a grand story that emerges from their interactions. Now, that isn't to say that stories shouldn't be happening around the PCs, or that the PCs enemies shouldn't have plots in motion... if there are stories happening in the background of the world, stories which the PCs crossover into and interact with from time to time, that is a fine thing and makes for a compelling campaign. But when the DM is trying to tell his own private "novel" and force the PCs into filling roles he has envisioned for them, that leads to very frustrated players who have lost agency and control of their own characters.

I enjoy role-playing as a simulation, as in I create a character who fits into the history and background of the world in which he lives, and then play him as logically as I can in accordance with the world and the character's history and backstory (and this is one reason why I love Backgrounds being written right into 5E as a game mechanic, actually determining some of your PC's skills and abilities, and the rules having personality traits and such with actual mechanical benefits to encourage other players to remember and portray such things about their own characters.) I try to play my PCs as real people as much as possible, fleshing them out in my head and giving them likes and dislike, preferred clothing styles, quirks, and long- and short-term goals so that I will know how they would react in any situation (ideally I try to create characters who fit into a setting so well that they could be easily mistaken for a character originally detailed in a sourcebook or novel written for the setting.) If this is a highly detailed setting like the 'Realms this means I will research everything I can about the history and nature of the character's homeland and surrounding area, or if it is a more loosely detailed setting like Greyhawk I will try to anchor the character to a known historical element of the setting, like a war or battle or a kingdom or established family or noble House, and incorporate details such as ethnic dress styles and the like (such as making a character from Keoland who belongs to House Neheli.)

 

[cbwjm]

I think I'd be a G4. I like reading through the mechanics of a game and class and thinking about what I'm going to get at later levels, not necessarily creating a build that I'm going to follow but thinking ahead to my next spell level or ASI. I also play in a game with a great story which can lead to us having 0-1 combat encounters in a session and only a few call outs for a social or exploration pillar skill and have thoroughly enjoyed myself. I thought I may have been a G3 but really speaking, I can easily just go into a game which is just "Here's a dungeon, go explore it."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I like rules because they tell us how the world works, and I hate rules that exist only to gamify the world, or which treat the entire process as an elaborate storytelling exercise. The worst thing a game can have are rules that exist to govern the delegation of narrative control between players.

I'm not sure where that puts me on the scale. G3?

 

[Charlaquin]

I like rules because they tell us how the world works, and I hate rules that exist only to gamify the world, or which treat the entire process as an elaborate storytelling exercise. The worst thing a game can have are rules that exist to govern the delegation of narrative control between players.

I'm not sure where that puts me on the scale. G3?

All of the categories presuppose that the interplay between story and mechanics is a zero sum system. I propose all answers that reject that premise and treat story and mechanics as things that inform each other should be Gi (i here being the symbol for an imaginary number which is the square route of -1.)

 

[Maxperson]

I'm a G1.5 by the original poll choices, and a G1 by the re-worked list in post #13. The mechanics themselves are not a large part of my fun, but they are important in guiding the story, so I'm not indifferent to them, either.

 

[76512390ag12]

Disclaimer: There is no right or wrong answer to this poll, nor should anyone be disparaged for wherever they identify on it. Diversity is awesome! Understanding each other is important to productive dialogue! There is plenty of room in the hobby for all!

G0 – I am 100% engaged with the story, game mechanics only get in the way of that
G1 – I’m here for the story; I don’t care about mechanics as long as they don’t infringe on story
G2 – I’m here for the story, but good mechanics are a big part of my enjoyment as well
G3 – Story and Mechanics are equally important to my enjoyment
G4 – I’m here for the mechanics, but good story is a big part of my enjoyment as well
G5 – I’m here for the mechanics; I don’t care about story as long as it doesn’t infringe on the mechanics
G6 – I’m 100% engaged with the game mechanics, story only gets in the way of that

For the record, I'm a solid G2 myself and DM for a G2, G3, G4 and a G5.

G1.5

Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk

 

[OB1]

Current results below. Thanks everyone for your answers and for keeping the discussion of a somewhat delicate subject on the positive side.

G0 - 0
G1 - 5
G2 - 13
G3 - 11
G4 - 6
G5 - 0
G6 - 0

Gotta say I'm not surprised at not having any G0s or G6s, those are supposed to be extremes that wouldn't be seen very often, but I am a bit surprised by the lean towards the Story side of the scale.

I think using the terms role-play and game-play as anything other than synonymous is highly problematic. If you are playing the game, you are by definition role-playing. To say otherwise is a synecdoche, by which I mean it's to confuse the whole of the game for one of its parts.

Can you suggest better terms? I thought about Crunch/Fluff and previously had Story/Mechanics. Again, the point isn't that one way or the other is right/wrong, but that people have different preference regarding how important those functions are to them and that informs their expectation at the table and how they relate to other players...

I couldn't bear to be at the same table as a G5/G6 player, they irritate the hell out of me both during the game, and outside of it blethering on about balance this, and balance that...

...And rather than be judgmental about players with different preferences, to understand those differences and find ways for everyone to have fun. You're not going to change someone's preference, so why not understand it and look for ways to make playing enjoyable for both.

I like rules because they tell us how the world works, and I hate rules that exist only to gamify the world, or which treat the entire process as an elaborate storytelling exercise. The worst thing a game can have are rules that exist to govern the delegation of narrative control between players.

I'm not sure where that puts me on the scale. G3?

Only you can define where you are on the scale! Start with what you like best, story or mechanics. If those are equal, you land at G3, if not, the more important one leans you to one side and then it's a matter of how important the other is to you for your enjoyment of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

I consider role-playing to be playing your character, which is how you play a role-playing game. You decide what your character thinks, what actions your character attempts, and what your character says. Saying that one way of doing that is more "role-playing" than another is one-true-way-ism.

That's simply untrue. It's not one true wayism, nor is there only one degree of roleplaying. Roleplaying is a general category, like money. Trying claim that there is only one degree of roleplaying is like saying that there are no denominations of money. Playing the bare mechanics and nothing else is like a dollar bill. Not caring about mechanics and just going with story over everything would be like a one hundred dollar bill. Everything else in in-between. That doesn't mean that the $100 is the only way to play, or that the $1 is bad, but there are greater degrees of roleplaying than what you describe above.

A statement doesn't achieve one true wayism unless that person is telling you that you have to do it their way.

 

[Hriston]

Current results below. Thanks everyone for your answers and for keeping the discussion of a somewhat delicate subject on the positive side.

G0 - 0
G1 - 5
G2 - 13
G3 - 11
G4 - 6
G5 - 0
G6 - 0

Gotta say I'm not surprised at not having any G0s or G6s, those are supposed to be extremes that wouldn't be seen very often, but I am a bit surprised by the lean towards the Story side of the scale.

I don't think it's too surprising. By pitting story/"role-play" against mechanics/"game-play", the scale equates players who don't care about creating a story and players who like to engage with the mechanics with people who are not even role-playing. Since we're talking about a role-playing game, the transcript of which is very likely to result in a story whether one wishes it to or not, I doubt very many are going to want to self report as not role-playing because, to me at least, that would suggest they aren't playing the game right. You've made it clear that your intent is not to judge, but I think the idea of a scale like this is inherently judgmental, especially when "role-play" is on one end of the scale.

Can you suggest better terms? I thought about Crunch/Fluff and previously had Story/Mechanics. Again, the point isn't that one way or the other is right/wrong, but that people have different preference regarding how important those functions are to them and that informs their expectation at the table and how they relate to other players...

I can think of no better terms than those formulated by Ron Edwards in the early years of the last decade at indie-rpgs.com for the different priorities, or creative agendas, that different players bring to the table. They are Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism. "Story" on your scale seems to correspond to Narrativism, but Narrativism doesn't necessarily involve a lack of interest in mechanics. I really see no reason to put the two factors you've identified on a scale together, actually. I think it would be better expressed as two questions: "How much do you care about Story?" and "How much do you care about the mechanics?"

Only you can define where you are on the scale! Start with what you like best, story or mechanics. If those are equal, you land at G3, if not, the more important one leans you to one side and then it's a matter of how important the other is to you for your enjoyment of the game.

I think what you're missing here, which is an impression I have from previous interactions with and reading the posts of @Saelorn, is that this particular poster has unabashed, hardcore Simulationist priorities. (@Saelorn, please correct me if I'm wrong here.) By asking only about Story, which is anathema to Simulationist goals, and mechanics, which are good if they support those goals and bad if they don't, you aren't really asking anything relevant to that creative agenda.