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

[Charlaquin]

"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.

Naive feels like a good way to put it. A player who has zero experience with RPGs still knows they’re games, and on trying to learn to play will often start with questions like “what’s the object of the game?”

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Probably because the “big model” is quite complex, and was developed through a lot of online discussion over time, but finalized mostly independently of that discussion. So, a lot of people who think they’re familiar with “GNS” haven’t read all that was written on it and have underdeveloped understandings of it. Myself included.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, it is gamist and some examples I know about have being playing rpgs for 40 years. They have had plenty of time to become "enfranchised" they are just not that interested. They would probably be just as happy playing Gloomhaven or a coop online rpg.
Another gamist is about "winning D&D", they want to beat the encounters. Not super into rp. They think they are good at optimisation, but only in big numbers go up. They love 3e and Pathfinder because they prebuild their character but did not like 4e.
And probably would not like a game like Daggerheart. Too many decisions at the table and not enough in the character build.

This gets to the heart of my gripes with the Forge. At best the GNS are axes of a scatter plot with each player a point of in 3d space with some g, some n and some s.
The agendas of play oversimplifies and obscures that most people come at the thing with multiple of agendas in mind and may actually respond to different rules systems with different agenda priorities.

Well, from my understanding, that's like saying that school majors obfuscate the intricate complexity of knowledge, how it doesn't actually cleanly separate into individual disciplines and thus everyone's major should really be "interdisciplinary studies".

That is, I still think there's a place for these things...in the form of "our group is pursuing this specific goal because we want to". Just as a college major is someone pursuing a specific goal in terms of knowledge, and is thus useful even though "physics" proper can't be separated cleanly from math, chemistry, or philosophy.

 

[Charlaquin]

What's the issue with using those terms to describe design philosophies?

Well for one thing that’s not really what they’re meant to describe within the model. For another, the terms are just… inflammatory. Not intentionally so by any means, but. Everyone involved in discussing RPGs online seems to have strong opinions about the forge, GNS, and its creator, and it’s difficult to disentangle those opinions from analysis of the theory. Any time it’s brought up, the likelihood of an argument about the model’s validity is more likely to ensue than anything. Again, not really the model’s fault.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

3. By 1983, "classic" AD&D was complete. The PHB, MM, DMG, Deities & Demigods, and MM2 were out.

This is Fiend Folio erasure. I will be sending a death knight over to discuss the issue with you.

 

[Scribe]

But would you be willing for all of these terms to die?

Absolutely.

 

[Aldarc]

Absolutely.

Same vibes. I'm totally on board with that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't particularly care about the name Narrativism either. I'd be more than willing for Narrativism to die as a term if Gamism and Simulationism also died as terms.

But would you be willing for all of these terms to die?

Sure, but it would have to be all of them.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure, but it would have to be all of them.

Did I stutter?

But if I were a betting man, I would bet that you will still be calling yourself a Simulationist in the next five years at least.

 

[Nikosandros]

This is Fiend Folio erasure. I will be sending a death knight over to discuss the issue with you.

A deadly squadron of flumphs will provide Close Air Support.