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

[Goobermunch]

GNS Theory is an attempt to apply the methods of critical literature theory to Role Playing Games.

It is a theoretical framework intended to stimulate scholarly discussion.

It is not a good tool for reviewing role playing games or for determining whether a given product is a "good" role playing game.

Much like the debate about whether video games are "art," GNS theory is a distraction from the central issues at hand: whether the game is fun. If it is fun, there is no need to justify it. It has fulfilled its purpose. If it is not fun, there is no need to continue doing it, as it has failed its purpose. As fun is an essentially subjective experience, attempting to place objective, critical labels on it is a sadly futile exercise.

--G

 

[VannATLC]

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

Sorry Tom, I was actually intending sceptic to answer that, not yourself.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I disagree. Gamist != No Exploration (a.k.a roleplay), that is not a gamist RPG but a boardgame.

Gamism = risk, strategies, guts decision, challenges as TOP priority.

Simulationism = Exploration ("roleplay") as TOP priority.

So, a clearly-focused gamist RPG can be made without ending up with Chess.

I think some people are confused because you are (almost) using the GSN definitions.

Among actual gamers, the terms "game", "simulation", and "narrative" are not used like they are in GSN. Most gamers don't take these ideas into account, consciously or sub-consciously, and they don't play according to these ideas and their accompanying strict dichotomies, either. (At least, according to available sociological research.)

I agree that, from what RT said, 4E is not a narrativist game. And thank goodness for that! I like narrative, but I wouldn't like most narrativist games.

 

[marune]

I think some people are confused because you are (almost) using the GSN definitions.

Among actual gamers, the terms "game", "simulation", and "narrative" are not used like they are in GSN. Most gamers don't take these ideas into account, consciously or sub-consciously, and they don't play according to these ideas and their accompanying strict dichotomies, either. (At least, according to available sociological research.)

I agree that, from what RT said, 4E is not a narrativist game. And thank goodness for that! I like narrative, but I wouldn't like most narrativist games.

FYI, I much prefer the "Big Model" broader approach than the old GNS framework.

I can't repeat the definitions in every single post, so I put a link in my sig. That's not perfect of course... However, I noticed that much more EnWorlders are now familiar with "forgespeak".

The agendas (g/n/s) are firstly made to describe instances of play a posteriori.

By extension, they can be used to describe game design that will help players produce play sessions that can be recognized as following one of the agenda.

Again, I never said I want D&D to be a nar game*. I said twice I want it to be a good, focused, gamist RPG.


*In my OP I suggested that some people wish to add a narrativist layer as House Rule on top of 4E.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

GNS Theory is an attempt to apply the methods of critical literature theory to Role Playing Games.

It is a theoretical framework intended to stimulate scholarly discussion.

I'm not sure that's a good description of GNS. There seems to be precious little literary criticism in GNS. Nor is there much scholarly discussion that arises from GNS theory.

It is not a good tool for reviewing role playing games or for determining whether a given product is a "good" role playing game.

That I can agree with.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

*In my OP I suggested that some people wish to add a narrativist layer as House Rule on top of 4E.

I haven't seen this. I've seen people, including me, say that 4E was designed to incorporate the elements of game mechanics into the narrative of the game. In forgespeak, I guess "transcript" is close to what I mean by narrative, and "story" is not what I mean. I accept a broader definition of narrative than GNS or derivative theories.

 

[marune]

I haven't seen this. I've seen people, including me, say that 4E was designed to incorporate the elements of game mechanics into the narrative of the game. In forgespeak, I guess "transcript" is close to what I mean by narrative, and "story" is not what I mean. I accept a broader definition of narrative than GNS or derivative theories.

The difference between "transcript" and "story" is the existence of a developed theme.

In other words, you can't make a proper novel out of a transcript.

The idea behind narrativist play is to actively seek to have a story at the end.

Both sim/gam play can lead to a story, but it is much less reliable.

For example, in both sim/gam play, the party can be TPKed in a "terrain appropriate / challenge appropriate" random encounter without any meaningful reason.

That's not the kind of thing you see in movies/novels as in narrativist play.

 

[marune]

A History check to "create a ancient sewer grate out of thin air as a way of escape" from another thread is a good example of a "conflict resolution system" vs a "task resolution system"*.

Sim/Gamist RPG usually uses the later while Narrativist RPG uses the former.

However, the usage of this single technique doesn't sudenly transform D&D into a narrativist RPG.

Personally, even in a gamist RPG, I prefer it, so it's another good thing in 4E for me.


*The first one cares mainly about intent, the second does not.

 

[VannATLC]

For example, in both sim/gam play, the party can be TPKed in a "terrain appropriate / challenge appropriate" random encounter without any meaningful reason.

That's not the kind of thing you see in movies/novels as in narrativist play.

Tell that to George RR Martin. >.>

I've not been exposed to this sort of discussion before.. in my campaigns, that I DM, I have a story, and background, hashed out, and major events planned on a timeline.. the Players can, if they follow the hooks, etc, change things, if they don't, then they may get caught up in some nasty event that destroys everything around them..

 

[Campbell]

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

Here's where we disagree.

Power Gamers: Slightly down on 4e. The removal of system mastery as a design principle will not sit right with those who enjoy the edge that their system knowledge provides them in the character building process. Still, it's pretty much impossible to completely remove advantages gained from system mastery in any nontrival game system and power gamers that like the challenge of optimizing new systems will enjoy finding out what does and does not work in 4e. Those that like the devil they know will not enjoy 4e.

Tacticians: Depends on the nature of the tactician. Tacticians who take a longer view and tacticians that enjoy the ability to decisively win a given encounter before it even begins will likely loathe 4e. Decreasing the role of attrition and making the game less reliant on countermeasures guarantees that outcome. However, there are some tactically oriented players who are not satisfied with the game as it currently stands. They don't want encounters to be decided before hand, are dissatisfied with the importance placed on single decision points (they want encounters to be decided on the basis of multuple decision points), want to deal with more unexpected variables, and are more focused on the ebb and flow of the game than long term strategy. I'm not sure how common the second group is, but I know they are at least a few of us around these parts.

Specialists: A number will hate 4e. The generalized competence that 4e characters possess is anathema to a large quantity of specialists. Required skill selections and power weapon restrictions certainly don't help. Ninja specialists will be as pleased as pudding though.

Method Actors: No real disagreement here, but I think you failed to mention the element that will really get under method actors' skins - the use of game mechanics that don't have a direct correlation to game setting elements. Stuff like action points, the new skill challenge rules, 'encounter' as a time frame, and abilities that imply a degree of narrative control break the fourth wall in a violent way.