Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist

[LostSoul]

I don't see the XP system in 4E as a "reward" system, really - and it was often a dubious one in earlier editions, too, I think. I see it rather as a pacing mechanism; a way to keep characters powers changing and fresh (and thus a continuing challenge to use well) and to provide an outlet for the "character and party building skill" as the game progresses.

As far as I understand it, that is a reward system:

You have what you like doing - showing off your skill, pushing hard against the system's limits - and when you do those things you get XP. You level up from XP gain, which changes your abilities and how they interact with the rest of the game. Now you have new ways to do what you like; that leads to more XP, which leads to more changes, etc.

 

[Balesir]

As far as I understand it, that is a reward system:

You have what you like doing - showing off your skill, pushing hard against the system's limits - and when you do those things you get XP. You level up from XP gain, which changes your abilities and how they interact with the rest of the game. Now you have new ways to do what you like; that leads to more XP, which leads to more changes, etc.

Yes, fair enough, but the point [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and others make is that you will likely get the XP anyway (albeit with more extended rests, or whatever) in 4E (or 3E, in my experience).

In practice, the main medium of reward I see happening is the kudos and congratulation going on between the players during play.

 

[pemerton]

Balesir is right about my view, and I agree that level gain in 4e is a pacing mechanism of the sort that Balesir describes.

Particularly once you include the "XP for driving the game forward" rule from DMG 2, essentially you get XP just for turning up and actually playing - about one encounter's worth per hour or so.

In my "light narrativist" version of 4e, this means that the situation is constantly changing in its context - it escalates from its heroic stakes, to its paragon stakes, and (in due course) to its epic stakes. That's why I regard my narrativist 4e as pretty vanilla - what the system is doing, basically, is giving me (as GM) the resources to frame the situations I want, and both me and the players the action resolution tools that will let us focus on the important stuff, and otherwise getting out of the way (in particular, by not dragging in a whole lot of operational/exploratory stuff that would be a distraction from the main action of the game).

It is this last feature - the mechanics not tending to drag play back into operational and/or sim concerns - that I think is probably the main point of contrast between 4e and AD&D/3E.

 

[LostSoul]

Yeah, I agree with that. My point is that this sort of system is what I'd call a reward system. You have your fun stuff, the stuff you want to do, and by doing it the game changes so that the fun stuff never gets stale - to the contrary, it gains depth and complexity.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm a fan of the original GDS - Gamist, Dramatist, and Simulationist. But those were rules for the DM to follow - decisions should always add to at least one of the three categories.

GNS as far as I can tell has no empirical grounding and no real rational one either. If I want to classify players it's the more empirical Thinker, Storyteller, Character Actor, Power Gamer from WoTC empirical research. Or the Robin Laws motivations.

 

[Consonant Dude]

GNS has a specific meaning. It has a very specific meaning, and that is the types of interaction people have with rules system. It's iterative, it's situational, and it changes from person to person, moment to moment.

Then maybe you should spend less time arguing with me and more time questioning a poll that doesn't let people vote for more than one option if they feel like it.

These three styles of interaction are mutually exclusive.

As straightjackets, they are. In the course of a casual session of the average roleplaying game, all these interactions (and many more) occur in seamless fashion. What makes this hobby fascinating to most people is the cohesive (yet chaotic) whole of these various interactions.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are people out there who read these essays and recognize themselves as predominantly one type or the other. I also know there are people who appreciate games that veer toward one agenda above the others. I object to Edward's musing because:

1-Ron Edwards' breakdown into three categories (some of which he admits not even understanding) is lame.
2-His whole shtick around "incoherent games" is bull.

DnD is a game where his three GNS straightjackets, read in any light, are present and lead to wholesome fun. And it kicks ass because it is about so much more than just G or N or S.

 

[Bedrockgames]

DnD is a game where his three GNS straightjackets, read in any light, are present and lead to wholesome fun. And it kicks ass because it is about so much more than just G or N or S.

exactly.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I'm wondering if the real message here is that, while the three styles are different and have different (exclusive) goals, the synergy between the differing styles creates the complexity we're all familiar with.

 

[JonWake]

I actually agree. What makes D&D unique and *the* RPG isn't just its status as the *first* rpg, it's that it is sort of astoundingly flexible. But while I think Edwards overstates 'system incoherency' it is still a thing that happens. It just doesn't bother most people.

But at the same time, there are people who just play D&D and have no experience with other game systems. Or they have experience with game systems that are very heavily influence by D&D. D&D has always had a certain 'suck it up, soldier' bent to it-- it encourages players to approach the game from a competitive stance. Beat the bad guys, get the gold, save the kingdom. You get XP for killing baddies, your characters are built to have a tactical niche, and back in the old days, you were expected to maximize every environmental advantage you could get. It is a dyed in the wool 'Gamist' game.

But nothing in GNS theory says that you HAVE to play D&D like that. You'll be rewarded if you do, but if the DM wants to run a spooky Ravenloft game where you're heroes overwhelmed by evil and you can only hope for small victories before an ignominious death, he totally can. Now, he might butt heads with some of the mechanics (HP increases, increasing power curves and the like) but nothing prevents him giving XP for story, using Fear and Madness Saves and kludging together a system that encourages his story.

Every game can be played in every way. It's not a straight-jacket. It's just a tendency. Now, what I mean by being mutually exclusive is this: when the player meets the mechanic and dice are being rolled or choices are being made, only one approach can be used at a time. If you are looking at a battle with Strahd as an opportunity to show the DM what your character is made of and beat the bad guy, but the DM is using it to illustrate the hopelessness of your situation, gameplay will break down. Every single player has seen it happen. All GNS does is predict where these breakdown points might occur.

Likewise, if a player thinks that they are a hard bitten adventurer who lives fast and dies young in an uncaring world filled with independent actors and a thousand year old history, she's probably going to bristle when her 4e game starts tripping dragons and her DM tries to tell her 'its all an abstraction'. She doesn't want an abstraction, she wants to live in a character's skin.

When that moment happens, only one of those viewpoints can determine the course of events. Someone will have to compromise. And that's good, that's what RPGs are based on. A mature game table will deal with these breakdowns as they happen.

As D&D has moved from 3e to 4e, the game styles it supports have gotten more and more narrow. A general system can support nearly anything.

 

[Consonant Dude]

I'm wondering if the real message here is that, while the three styles are different and have different (exclusive) goals, the synergy between the differing styles creates the complexity we're all familiar with.

It depends whose message. The original threefold model which Edwards greatly distorted was much more inclusive. He also misused a lot of concepts found in Everway.

On the surface, the goals appear exclusive but in application, even ardent Forge theory supporters can't agree on what's exactly going on. To the point where several (including Ron Edwards himself) wonder if "simulationism" even exists.

ADnD allows you to play a paladin. He kicks ass because he's pretty much like a fighter and he's got cool powers on top of that. However, he's a holy dude. He has to be lawful good. He can't keep excess wealth, he's got restrictions on who he will associate with, what he can do and so on.

Agenda:

A) Gamist

Is the game trying to balance out the cool powers the paladin gets over the fighter with a set of restrictions? Is a player opting for the paladin class looking for a challenge, where you play an adventurer who is really a more potent fighter and do as well as you can despite the additional restrictions?

B) Simulationist

Is paladin really just an implicit DnD default assumption? In the default environment of the game, it's just cool that there are holy warriors and it makes sense that they have powers and it makes sense that they also have a paladin "code" of sorts. It doesn't really make any sense to be this paragon of virtue and not have a code. Could a player be wondering what it's like to play such a character, explore what the implications are in the environment?

C) Narrativist

Is the Paladin code a strong premise for fantasy adventuring? Did the game as written offer a strong story-driving mechanic? For some players, could it be all about the drama and moral implications of adventuring under such a code?

D) Common sense

Could it be about any combination of those things, plus many more motivations and implications?

Note how the three agendas intersect. Note how, as is usually the case even with Forge theorists, simulationism and narrativism blur into each other so much it's often useless to talk in these terms.

You take any DnD concept and distill it and you're likely to get a mix of things. I think the synergy you speak of is present not only in style but also in goals, if that makes sense.