R. Thompson : D&D still a sim/gamist RPG

[Revinor]

I'll have to jump in and disagree with your last point. There is absolutely nothing in this rule set that hinders a narrativist playstyle. In fact, I find that it lends itself quite well to both the DM and players developing an interesting narrative.

Maybe we should get some common vocabulary first. Excerpts from wikipedia on GNS theory

• Gamist
  refers to decisions based on what will most effectively solve the problem posed. These decisions are most common in games which pit characters against successively tougher challenges and opponents, and may not spend much time explaining why the characters are facing them.
  
• Narrativist
  refers to decisions based on what would best further a dramatic story or address a central theme.To resolve combat, a narrativist approach might be to consider the thematic implications of the fight, why the fight is important to the characters involved in it (beyond the obvious risk of harm), and what the story would look like if one side or the other won out.
  
• Simulationist
  Simulationist refers to decisions based on what would be most realistic or plausible within the game's setting, or to a game where the rules try to simulate the way that things work in that world, or at least the way that they could be thought of working.

Before we go further, please remember that none of those styles is superior or inferior to others. Also, every game can be completely houseruled into anything, questions is about focus of the system as it is presented in books.

It is very clear that according to this definition D&D has nothing to do with Narrativist type of play. Narrating actions has nothing to do with Narrativist gameplay - key here is trying to resolve the complications by looking at how the outcomes are fitting in the game we want to have, not by comparing Athletics versus DC number.

D&D fits very well for Gamist style of play. Min/maxing combat decisions, creating encounters to provide challenges, instead of telling a story or making a world believable - these are all trademarks of gamism.

As far as simulationism is concerned, it is probably bit there, but not too heavy. D&D was always quite abstract in many aspects, but especially in 4e, designers have focused on fun over realism. If you browse Worlds&Monsters book, almost every sidebar is full of "Is it realistic? Yes. Is it fun? No. So let's change it". My first D&D was AD&D 2nd ed and I can clearly see movement from simulation to gamism/fun over the following editions - with 4e seeming to reach the target finally.

So, in my interpretation, 4e is 80% gamist, 15% simulationist and maybe 5% narrativist in some corner cases (like handling total-party-kill in story mode "you got captured" instead of rolling new characters).

Once again - it is not bad. I'm expecting D&D to be like that. I want my party to defeat the dragon based on their tactics/powers/gear, not on how cool it will be to have the dragon dead. I don't want to have TPK just because somebody pulled wrong rope and dropped tons of rock on their heads.

Other question is how much 4e is a gamist RPG and how much it is gamist boardgame - but this subject is already mentioned in many other threads.

 

[hong]

GNS is only good for facilitating arguments about GNS. Consider instead Robin Laws' scheme. So far, I would guess:

Power gamers: meh on 4E, due to having to relearn the system, but intrigued by prospect of more broken stuff to find

Buttkickers: love 4E, due to polished combat rules, more and varied ways to kick butt

Tacticians: meh on 4E, lots more combat options, but fewer ways to avoid/short-circuit combat, inherent vagueness of conflict resolution system

Character actors: hate 4E, because of dumbing down of skill system, siloing of combat vs noncombat powers, more narrowly-focused classes

Storytellers: love 4E, due to n*rr*tivist elements like per-encounter and per-day powers, flexible definition of encounters/milestones, new conflict resolution mechanic

Specialists: meh on 4E, depends on whether chosen schtick is well-supported

Casual gamers: meh on 4E, depends on whether it's easy to use

 

[DreamChaser]

In my experience, and in reading on these boards, simulationist has nothing to do with role playing and neither does gamist.

Sim = realist / zero suspension of disbelief. Rules are designed to simulate the real world rather than approximate it. This is not to say that sim games cannot have magic but within the physics established by the rules, the rules seek to reflect how a person might experience it in real life.

Gamist = represented in game terms, designed to abstract the system into basic tactical concepts. It is what Risk and Battleship are to war simulations.

"Narrativist" is, in my experience, tends to be a form of a gamist paradigm. After years of playing (and working my butt of to enjoy and ultimately failing) White Wolf games, which claim to be narrative, I came to realize they are simply gamist systems pretending to reward "story" when actually they have created an abstract system to compartmentalize role playing. From the nature / demeanor / clan system of Vampire 2e to the more recent overhauls, the only narrative aspects come from the only place they ever do: the players & DM.

In my experience, simulationist games tend to inhibit rather than support roleplaying because all to often the simpilest actions prove very complex to resolve. The moment the dice come out, it is very easy for the momentum of the scene to be derailed.

While gamist games necessarily require increased suspension of disbelief and "hand waving" they offer more freedom to imagine the scene and continue roleplaying while the dice are out.

In terms of the above example, I think it is specious. The events of a single, combat-based encounter is far from sufficient to establish a lack of narrative motivation on the part of the character.

DC

 

[marune]

Wow, you certainly have low expectations of players! I can easily imagine asking my players to not only pay attention to the complicated set of rules in any edition of D&D *and* that they contribute to the overall narrative of the campaign. I've done so not only in previous editions of D&D, but a fair number of other RPGs.

The problem is a player confused about :

Doing A because it's the best strategy.
Doing B because it's the way a Paladin of Torm would act before a Cleric of Bane.
Doing C because it would make a very good twist in the story.

Of course A, B, C being much different.

Problem is worse then you consider the reactions of the other players and DM. In regards to what they consider the best way to play, they may or may not react well to A, B or C.

 

[tombowings]

What in blue blazes are you talking about?

What other defination of Roleplay, other thank playing a role, exists?

Ok, got it. When a read "I exploration, I thought "exploring the wilderness", not character exploration was roleplay. Sorry.

 

[marune]

What in blue blazes are you talking about?

What other defination of Roleplay, other thank playing a role, exists?

"Acting in character" is certainly part of what Roleplay is, but not the whole of it.

Ok, got it. I thought "exploration," as in exploring the wilderness, was roleplay. Sorry.

It can be exploration of Character, Situation, Setting, System, Color, etc. (look at my sig for more).

 

[Xethreau]

IMO, a system with relatively easy rules, few random complications, and that "encourages RP" through the rules system... encourages narrative game play. I don't see how anybody who read that blog would have gotten a different idea.

 

[DreamChaser]

The problem is a player confused about :

Doing A because it's the best strategy.
Doing B because it's the way a Paladin of Torm would act before a Cleric of Bane.
Doing C because it would make a very good twist in the story.

Of course A, B, C being much different.

Problem is worse then you consider the reactions of the other players and DM. In regards to what they consider the best way to play, they may or may not react well to A, B or C.

This is a issue of milieu / environment and trust.

I have played in groups where I create a totally twinked out character with a token background. In combat, I always made the choice of what was most tactically sound. Why? Because I didn't trust the DM not to penalize me for creative problem solving or "flavor" options that were less idea.

My current group is nothing like that. My character's actions are always driven by his personality and the situation at hand rather than an absolute tactical compass.

Both were 3.5 D&D so clearly this difference did not come from the game but rather from the gamers.

Know what else? Everyone in the first example was making the same types of characters and the same types of choices. The sorcerer pretty much always started with fireball and moved onto scorching ray. The fighter was a greatsword power attacker. The DM was inconsistent at best with anything other than the strictest interpretation of the rules. No one took illusions, no one cast complex divinations (commune...), no one tried much in the way of social skills.

In my current game, every character is suboptimal by comparison but they are all effective ad they are all fun. The DM is more able to support creative decision making and better adjudicates social skills and illusions.

I think I've made my point. The features you're referring to have no strict basis in the rules.

I suppose if anything, 4e may actually improve things by making it harder to create a "suboptimal" character: so flavor decisions become more attractive in the greater scheme of things. Still, it will come down to the group in question but even a less skilled DM may be able to make some progress.

DC

 

[Revinor]

IMO, a system with relatively easy rules, few random complications, and that "encourages RP" through the rules system... encourages narrative game play.

Read the definition of narrativism from GNS. It has nothing to do with describing how the room looks like (narration).

Very simplified examples. You come to meet the king who is supposed to give you the quest. Extreme cases:

Gamist - king gives you the quest correct for your level, because adventure book was bought and you want to play it.

Simulationist - you have to roll Diplomacy to convince the king, if you botch the roll, he executes you, game over, if you fail, NPC party will get the quest and you have to go elsewhere.

Narrativist - game master discusses with players what behaviour of the king will make the story most interesting, one of the player suggest that king should have a daughter which could become a love interest for the player (pop, princess comes into existence and is standing next to the king), everybody agrees on solution that quest will be given in secret by the princess, as king is not really interesting NPC. In fact, relation with princess is probably more interesting that the quest itself.

Do you really think that D&D encourages Narrativist play? How often have you done such kind of cooperative/story-driven brainstorming to solve the conflicts? Even if you did, is it in DMG? Are there rules in D&D helping with such design? Has any of the official adventures even remotely suggested that players are able to influence the reality of the world?

Donjon is probably closest to Narrativist D&D you can get. Look at the solutions there - you will get the idea what is a difference between Simulationist spot checks and Narrativist spot checks.

 

[marune]

Donjon is probably closest to Narrativist D&D you can get. Look at the solutions there - you will get the idea what is a difference between Simulationist spot checks and Narrativist spot checks.

A "dungeon-based" narrativist RPG is perfectly doable, e.g. encounters as situations where players have to make choices about their characters motivations [according to their view of what would give a good story]. (Save the princess or get the treasure?).

However, do not misunstertand me, I don't want D&D to go in this direction. I want a gamist D&D. My hope for 4E was a more complete removal of the sim confusion.

BTW, gamist != combat-based and narrativist = "social stuff"-based.

For example, a "solve the mystery" style of game can be very much gamist-minded and a specific subgenre of narrativism is not named "Blood opera" for nothing.