D&D General Mike Mearls' blog post about RPG generations

[TwoSix]

Not sure what to tell you other than GNS is technically about classifying the play agendas of players.

I do agree that the 8 Aesthetics of Play is better but it's aimed after the same idea as GNS: what are players hoping to get out of playing this game? However, GNS was modifying the preexisting model of GDS.

What I think a lot of people forget about play agendas is that there was not an assumption that every player had one. A creative agenda was something a group of players could choose to pursue.

A lot of play, perhaps even the majority, is functionally agendaless.

 

[Aldarc]

By the way, I would totally be on board with the 8 Aesthetics of Play if it managed to kill off the terms 'Simulationism' and 'Gamism' as well as the tribalist tendency some people have with identifying with these terms.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Many rules means the DM has to learn a lot.

Few rules means the DM has to be more in sync with the players.

Knowing a lot of rules (You can just feet equal to your STR score)
Vs
Knowing your players (You and your player must have similar ideas of how far you can jump)

A lot of the rules heavy games were both of DMs and Players having different ideas of what's allowed and not wanting to constantly take table time in negotiations.

Grappling and Stealth are common ones because both IRL are complex. In rules light games, you must negotiate how they work. In rules heavy games, you have to know the rule.

I don't necessarily think it needs to be a "rules-heavy" game. Dungeon World isn't rules-heavy. It's smaller than D&D, significantly so. But it does have rules you're supposed to use. Those rules just cover a lot of ground relatively efficiently.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

By the way, I would totally be on board with the 8 Aesthetics of Play if it managed to kill off the terms 'Simulationism' and 'Gamism' as well as the tribalist tendency some people have with identifying with these terms.

The former might, theoretically, happen some day.

The latter 100% guaranteed never will.

 

[Aldarc]

The former might, theoretically, happen some day.

The latter 100% guaranteed never will.

At this point, I would be fine with a change of pace of people identifying as one of these eight aesthetics in a tribalistic manner than with the current G-N-S.

 

[Theory of Games]

What I think a lot of people forget about play agendas is that there was not an assumption that every player had one. A creative agenda was something a group of players could choose to pursue.

A lot of play, perhaps even the majority, is functionally agendaless.

Based on what data? Do you have a link?

Among experienced players, who easily compose the majority of the hobby, there are usually very clear styles and "agendas" of gameplay. Ultimately, this comes down to your exact use of the term "agenda" as it applies to ttrpgs.

Creative Agendas

Creative Agenda One of the most useful and most misunderstood ideas to come out of the Forge is the idea of Creative Agenda. Let’s start this way: think back to a time, when you’ve play…

bankuei.wordpress.com

 

[UngainlyTitan]

What I think a lot of people forget about play agendas is that there was not an assumption that every player had one. A creative agenda was something a group of players could choose to pursue.

A lot of play, perhaps even the majority, is functionally agendaless.

In the sense, that I feel the majority of players of D&D are casual, I would not say that they are agendaless but their agenda at the table (at least in my experience with casual players) is that their character does not suck in comparison to other players.
I would also say that I think there are lot of players just want to engage through the mechanics. They are fairly passive otherwise.

 

[TwoSix]

In the sense, that I feel the majority of players of D&D are casual, I would not say that they are agendaless but their agenda at the table (at least in my experience with casual players) is that their character does not suck in comparison to other players.
I would also say that I think there are lot of players just want to engage through the mechanics. They are fairly passive otherwise.

“Not wanting to suck” isn’t a creative agenda according to the definitions the Forge discussion used. I suppose it could be considered very loosely “gamist”, I guess.

But it lacks the drive and impetus a creative agenda is supposed to have.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In the sense, that I feel the majority of players of D&D are casual, I would not say that they are agendaless but their agenda at the table (at least in my experience with casual players) is that their character does not suck in comparison to other players.
I would also say that I think there are lot of players just want to engage through the mechanics. They are fairly passive otherwise.

"Engage through mechanics" sounds like a really, really, really mild version of gamism. Which generally matches overall with this stuff.

I would say that I agree that gamism is sort of the....how to put it without giving it special privilege....how about "naive" agenda? Because, whatever else these things we call tabletop roleplaying games might be...they wear the "GAME" part on their sleeve. That's the thing everyone knows about, and it carries certain assumptions, especially in this world where we now get commercials about products for adults that are clearly "HEY FELLOW GAMERS, YOU GAME TOO RIGHT? WE ALL LOVE VIDEO GAMES HERE". (15-20 years ago, you'd NEVER have seen these kinds of commercials, it's kinda funny how I dropped out of watching TV for a while and the difference is stark.)

Once players get exposure to what TTRPGs can do, if they become enfranchised, they may decide they really like one agenda or another.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

“Not wanting to suck” isn’t a creative agenda according to the definitions the Forge discussion used. I suppose it could be considered very loosely “gamist”, I guess.

But it lacks the drive and impetus a creative agenda is supposed to have.

Ok, I guess. I pretty much despise the Forge categories. Firstly, I think the definitions have some issues and many of the people that bring them up seem to have divergent view on exactly what is the what.