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

GNS is inherently problematic theory, which has hard time if applied to D&D (any edition). That is well known truth due to the great DIY character of the game. One can play it in almost any approach from very "gamist" to very "simulationist" or even "narrativist" one.

For the sake of sanity I really thing Robin Laws approach is much better. And the above mentioned analysis is quite good although I am not sure about character actors. I guess they don't care about mechanics that much...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

skeptic said:
In a long blog post, Rodney Thompson confirm to us that the designers intent on D&D 4E is still to deliver a game that support a twisted gamist/simulationist playstyle.

Why? Because he says that players should be rewarded both for :

1) Using the best strategy

2) Acting in character, or "roleplaying" (I don't like this definition of roleplay, but anyway).

Sorry for everyone who dreamed to have a clearly focused gamist RPG.

Even more sorry for those who were looking to add a narravist* layer on top of it.


*In narrativist play, the players are rewarded to move the story / evolve their character in a original / interesting way.

I don't think that believability has much to do with either 1) or 2).

Strategy comes from the rules. You can have an excellent strategy game with anything from FEW rules to LOTS of rules. What creates good strategy opportunities is how the rules interconnect.

Roleplaying comes from the players (including the DM). A ruleset does not really change how a group of people roleplay. Character material can help a little by providing some character ideas, but most of the time it won't make a bad roleplaying group good, and viceversa it won't hinder roleplay of a group that wants to do it.

Simulation/believability are two different degrees of the same thing. Believability is the basic level, and does not require high realism, it just requires absence of gross "irrealism". Simulationism is more about having lots of realistic details and differentiations. Anyway, these have nothing to do with roleplay and nothing to do with tactics. However they have a lot to do with the rules, it is the ruleset which sets basic believability and the simulationist level.
 

Irda Ranger said:
There's never been a pure gamist D&D, so I don't know what anyone's missing. Pure gamism is Chess, or whatever.
There has never been a purely gamist anything because that isn't how the threefold model is supposed to work.

ETA:
Dausuul said:
Yay for those of us who think GNS theory is extremely dubious as a guide to making good RPGs, and would rather see WotC focus on improving D&D as it's actually played.
I agree that it is extremely dubious, but its creators are quite adamant that it was never intended as a guide to making good RPGs in the first place. What it is actually for, I have no idea. :confused:


glass.
 
Last edited:

JesterOC said:
So if anyone here wants to have a more Narrative D&D game. Can you give me an example of what you mean? I really don't get it, and if I was given a good example maybe I can be enlightened.

Donjon is very good example.

Color of Donjon is very similar to D&D (it is actually a parody of D&D in many aspects). Let' suppose that you have search secret doors statistic. In D&D, you can tell game master you are looking for secret doors, he will consult the map he has done (or make up answer of the fly), probably roll in the secret and answer you "you don't find any".

In Donjon, you roll the dice and get some degree of success (if you fail, nothing happens). For every degree of success you got, you can add one fact to the game. This means, that if you succeed secret door search, it is YOU who describe where they are and how they look. If you have another successes, you may add extra facts - what can you hear from behind them, that bit of light can be seen through the cracks, etc. It is then DM responsibility to continue, getting the facts you have added to game into account.

Then, another player may want to listen on the door. Again - with one success, he can describe he hears 3 orc voices from behind. Or snoring troll. Or whatever.

If you loot the monster/chest for treasure, you roll and you tell game master what you have found. Obviously, depending on the roll, you get different power of item - but it is absolutely up to you to decide on the type/kind of item/treasure you have found.

Obviously, DM can almost always screw players if he really wants to. You have heard 3 orcs voices from behind the door? Cool, but after entering it turns out they also have 30 silent goblin fanatics with them which you have not heard. You have found a door which lead to treasure room? Too bad they are trapped and after opening a cave in happens. Obviously, going this route will kill the joy of the game very fast, but it is still DM who takes player facts and enriches them/puts them into bigger context.

With the single exception of combat, entire system is focused on facts management and player control over game. It is quite specific resolution system - nobody said narrativist systems cannot have mechanical rules. But the very basic idea behind it is that player rolls to control the story, instead of simulating the 'reality'. Combat part in Donjon is probably gamist (it is D&D parody after all), with opposed rolls damaging player/monster statistics. It has a side effect of making people damaged in combat less likely to get high success degrees.


Such aspects are mostly missing from normal D&D. One example I have given can be TPK in 4e. Instead of rolling new characters, DM can speak with players, discuss the fact that they were defeated and ask for the options. One of the players can propose - "They were bandits, we look rich, maybe they have considered taking us hostage to get a ransom from our friends in the castle?". DM would agree and describe the situation after they wake up in some dark hole in the forest, tied and seeing one more prisoner whom they know from other adventure, etc, etc... I suppose that even if it is not player who comes with this idea and DM just does it, it also smells a bit narrativist. Obviously, having a rule in DMG which says "After TPK, roll d20. On results 1-10, players are captured, on 11-20 they are killed", is again back into other camps. Same rule presented as "After TPK, roll d20. On results 1-10, players can come up with convincing plan of how they survived (pending DM acceptance), on 11-20 they are killed" is already a step into narrativism.

Once again, please note that nobody says D&D should be narrativist game system. It fits it's bill very good as gamist + small simulation system. I prefer 4e over 1st concept of simulation over game (all the overdeadly dungeons killing people for one bad roll just because it is 'real'). But let's not put it into 'narrativist' category, as it is really not a system about that.

Obviously, there are some people who were mixing narrativism into D&D gameplay. I have no problem with joined creation of the world together with players and resolving some of the player wishes/inputs on metagame level instead of in-game-world level. But this is DM, system itself is not giving any tools to make this part a 'game', nor it is encouraging such behaviour in any way.
 

glass said:
I agree that it is extremely dubious, but its creators are quite adamant that it was never intended as a guide to making good RPGs in the first place. What it is actually for, I have no idea.

There is a concept called Four Temperaments in psychology. It describes people behaviour/mindset in the way of combining four aspects - Sanguine, Choleric, Melancholic, Phlegmatic.

It is very good comparison to GNS. All the people are combination of above, just with certain temperaments being stronger. Cholerics are not better than Phlegmatics. Four Temperaments is not a guide[/b[ how to raise a new child. Same goes for GNS and games. It is just a definition of common vocabulary to describe certain ways of structuring the game. It is not perfect (neither are Four Temperaments), but it is something which is reasonably well defined. Thanks to that, in theory, discussions can start already about other parts of game description, not on definition of the terms.

Unfortunately, GNS comes from Forge, and Forge is heavily narrativist. This gives a feeling that GNS suggests narrativism is superior to other game styles. It is not like that - creators of GNS think so, but they have managed to create a description which is quite neutral. Same way, Hans Eysenck (creator of Four Temperaments terminology) may have been Sanguine himself (just guessing), being able to work only with Sanguine/Choleric people (guessing again), but it doesn't mean Sanguine/Choleric people are better than others in Four Temperaments.
 

Hehe, the Four Temperaments was actually adopted and used somewhat in Promethean: The Created. Though they used the more ancient Four Humours.

Just had to comment since it is my favourite game.
 

Campbell said:
Here's where we disagree.
And I have to disagree with you, at least a bit.

Power Gamer: Don't forget that the addition of new shiny powers to his character sheet itself is sort of a draw for the power gamer, and 4E seems to offer a lot more choices per level (it seems you get a feat or a power every level - at least), so power gamers closer to "meh" than "slightly down", I think.

But otherwise... BUTTKICKING STORYTELLING SYSTEM!

Cheers, LT.
 

skeptic said:
In a long blog post, Rodney Thompson confirm to us that the designers intent on D&D 4E is still to deliver a game that support a twisted gamist/simulationist playstyle.



While this may be the focus of the launch of the new edition I guess it will subside in the long run. Truth is that since sweet spot and granularity in a gamist/sim design are opposites, if they want to expand on the game in the long run they will eventualy need to explicitly include narrativism (fluff) hooks to balance it out.

No wonder this focus serves as a promotion for their virtual tabletop services (DDI) and/or minis to D&D fans IMO.
 
Last edited:


xechnao said:
While this may be the focus of the launch of the new edition I guess it will subside in the long run. Truth is that since sweet spot and granularity in a gamist/sim design are opposites, if they want to expand on the game in the long run they will eventualy need to explicitly include narrativism (fluff) hooks to balance it out.

No wonder this focus serves as a promotion for their virtual tabletop services (DDI) and/or minis to D&D fans IMO.
Elaborate on the apparent non-sequitur, please?
 

Remove ads

Top