Opinion: But It's So Gamist!!

[catsclaw227]

Wow -- I have been DMing D&D for a long time, and after reading this, I really have no idea how anyone could ever have fun playing D&D with all this heavy game-philosophy hanging over them.

Quite frankly, I could care less if a campaign or system or play-style is gamist, simulationist or narrative. Mostly, all the games I have played are an amalgam of the three.

It's sad.... my game table is full of D&D mutts. I can't imagine that 99.9% of the players and DMs out there really care one way or another. If it's fun to play, and the story is good, then all is well in RPG Land.

 

[apoptosis]

Wow -- I have been DMing D&D for a long time, and after reading this, I really have no idea how anyone could ever have fun playing D&D with all this heavy game-philosophy hanging over them.

Quite frankly, I could care less if a campaign or system or play-style is gamist, simulationist or narrative. Mostly, all the games I have played are an amalgam of the three.

It's sad.... my game table is full of D&D mutts. I can't imagine that 99.9% of the players and DMs out there really care one way or another. If it's fun to play, and the story is good, then all is well in RPG Land.

Honestly many dont and have might good games never thinking about it. Most people dont play in a single style but in a mixture of the three.

But it can be helpful to think in these terms when starting a game as it gets everybody on the same page.

Also it can impact the choice of game you might want to play. These ideas are to help players pick games and agree on agendas so they enjoy the game more, not to create issues (thought they sometimes do).

Honestly if all you play is D&D, it is less likely this stuff comes up. If you play a lot of different games with different gam/sim/nar perspectives you start noticiing this stuff more.

People were enjoying D&D long before game theory developed. But after reading though it, I can say that my gaming now is more fulfilling than it was beforehand (of course this could be completely colored by my present perceptions)

 

[rounser]

If Tolkien isn't a genre assumption for at least 1/2 the gaming populace, I have no frakking clue what is.

That distinction you're reporting is so subtle I'm unaware of it.

Like probably the majority, I assumed all the Rings of Power were usable by anyone, simply because the One Ring was. I think you'll find the man on the street makes the same assumption - nowhere in the movies or books do I remember them out and out saying that e.g. the rings of the nine, or galadriel's ring etc. cannot be used by Joe Schmoe.

I'm prepared to accept that you're correct, but I pay more attention to such things than your average person, and didn't know this. The One Ring makes you assume otherwise.

 

[apoptosis]

That distinction you're reporting is so subtle I'm unaware of it.

Like probably the majority, I assumed all the Rings of Power were usable by anyone, simply because the One Ring was. I think you'll find the man on the street makes the same assumption - nowhere in the movies or books do I remember them out and out saying that e.g. the rings of the nine, or galadriel's ring etc. cannot be used by Joe Schmoe.

I'm prepared to accept that you're correct, but I pay more attention to such things than your average person, and didn't know this. The One Ring makes you assume otherwise.

yeah there was stuff in the books that stated that how powerful the ring was, was based on how powerful the user was. Though not that others couldnt use it (bilbo and frodo used it to become unseen)

 

[Doug McCrae]

As Gary says in the 1e DMG, D&D's always been a lot more gamist than simulationist. 4e's game looks like it will work better than any previous edition.

 

[Hussar]

Friggin' YES.



I wonder when people will stop making accusations based on 3e rules. It's totally, completely possible for 4e to reconsider the dryad as a combat monster who still fills the role of "pretty girl in the woods." Honest. I mean, look at that big 4 right before the little e. That means "new edition."

It's not an accusation. It's simply the truth as I see it. Non-combat monsters, such as the dryad, pixie, brownie, rust monster, piercer et al are much more difficult to use than combat monsters. It requires more work. That's all I'm saying here.

There is no "THE" narrative concept. There are actually many narrative concepts of various items, some of which are more or less archetypal than others. The dryad as "horrible bush monster" is a narrative concept. It's just an unnecessary narrative concept given the fact that the pretty forest girl concept can STILL make for an interesting, powerful encounter (e.g.: a good game).

I mean, D&D is predicated mostly on the idea that good stories and good games can and should go hand-in-hand.

Sure, "horrible bush monster" is a narrative concept. I'll buy that. But, when I'm designing an adventure and I want to use a dryad because I'm making an adventure set in a semi-sentient magical forest, I shouldn't have to spend the next two hours rewriting the dryad so I can actually make it fight.

I don't have to spend time making an ogre not fight. The reverse should be true.

Level limitations = a way to support a narrativist play ??? Explain me this one !



In many opinions, VtM is more sim than nar.

Thousand appologies. I seem to have caused more problems than solved by misusing the terms. Like I said above, assume that I'm using the right term and go from there. I was thinking Narativist=making the game follow certain genre and story conventions. My complete and utter bad. :'(

Maybe I should go back and do some editing.

In any case, it does appear that I have gamist right. I still stand by the idea that I can come up with decent flavor for any crunch, but, coming up with crunch for flavor is much, much more difficult.

 

[apoptosis]

I
In any case, it does appear that I have gamist right. I still stand by the idea that I can come up with decent flavor for any crunch, but, coming up with crunch for flavor is much, much more difficult.

That is true.

I am stuck with the difficulty that flavor for me is paramount and finding crunch to match flavor can be difficult.

 

[Hussar]

Finished a bit of light editing.

Catsclaw - I agree actually. For most games, it's not an issue. The group finds a happy medium and goes with that. My argument is that by staying closer to a gamist rules first approach, it becomes much easier for groups to find that medium.

If a group is constantly having to struggle with rules because the rules don't work, then you cannot find a common ground for the group. Having rules that are wedded to particular simulationist or narrativist concepts (if I'm using that right) makes it more difficult. Or rather, game rules that are say, simulationist in nature, make deviation more difficult.

If the rule work and is robust, that's all I want from the ruleset. I'll worry about everything else.

 

[LostSoul]

I was thinking Narativist=making the game follow certain genre and story conventions.

"Narrativist" is play centered around the players making moral choices and everyone getting their kicks out of that.

In any case, it does appear that I have gamist right. I still stand by the idea that I can come up with decent flavor for any crunch, but, coming up with crunch for flavor is much, much more difficult.

If the rules support making gamist choices they may make simulationist choices hard to deal with.

Does your Wizard take a level of Rogue because that's what makes sense in the gameworld, or Wizard again because multi-classing as Wizard sucks?

 

[Hussar]

"Narrativist" is play centered around the players making moral choices and everyone getting their kicks out of that.



If the rules support making gamist choices they may make simulationist choices hard to deal with.

Does your Wizard take a level of Rogue because that's what makes sense in the gameworld, or Wizard again because multi-classing as Wizard sucks?

See, I'd much rather have solid gamist mechanics so you get the best of both worlds. I can take a level of wizard or rogue because multi classing spellcasters no longer sucks. With rules first mechanics, both options should be mechanically viable.

That was the failing in 3e. It might be that it makes perfect sense in game to take a level of rogue. But, if you do, you're screwing yourself with a very sub-optimal choice.

If, for instance, every class had a "Base Casting Bonus" that added to any class that had spell casting ability, then you could take a level of rogue without hosing yourself.

Hopefully, that's what we'll see in 4e.