D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[clearstream]

I don't think this is right at all. As @Campbell in this thread has pointed out, it's easy to have "simulationist" or "exploratory" play where what is explored is "problems of the human condition".

Those who love Planescape in D&D often laud it for this, too.

Maybe so. I was thinking about how to get around dividing them on qualities relating to realism and immersion (not that I think either mode of play necessarily excludes an element of the other.) Some options that came to mind were what might be counted proper subjects, and how play is oriented toward those subjects.

Narrativism seems to choose (or often choose) as its proper subjects problems of the human condition. The orientation looks like dramatic resolution of connected premises.

Simulationism can focus on human condition (so admittedly that part's wrong) but typically seems interested in something beyond that. Or perhaps is interested in the human condition only in the context of or how it plays out given something beyond it (Planescape could fall into that.)

Play is often about what we do in and how we are affected by the subject. The appreciating and elevating isn't achieved through contemplation alone, but through pretending to inhabit it. As others (e.g. @FrogReaver) attempted to get at, something is going on where it matters to pretend that subject exists independently of characters. Would exist even if characters did not.

The above isn't, I would say, well thought out. More mulling over various observations and worries.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, but the article does tease them apart as being distinct techniques. They simply both fall under the umbrella of Simulationism, which has a host of various techniques under it, just as Gamism and Narrativism do.

Yeah, but I can't help but think "different techniques" and "work against each other" aren't really the same thing.

It's certainly difficult to do genre emulation and world simulation at the same time (not without weakening both to the point of making one or the other now worth the bother); it's even difficult to do them with the same system.

Yup.

But the blog post is definitely not saying that they're both the same thing despite both being part of the Sim creative agenda, no more than we would assert a mouse and a whale are the same despite both being mammals.

Frankly, I think the mouse and the whale are closer. I really just can't see those two belonging in the same agenda, given one require an active effort on a player's part to keep the structure out of the character's headspace (otherwise as you say, it pretty much is destroyed) while the other is in many ways about the character engaging with it as much as possible.

Frankly, it comes across to me as when they didn't want genre emulation in nar (in the old days, it absolutely would have been in dramatism) they had to put it somewhere, and it made no sense at all in game, so sim got it by default.

 

[Faolyn]

Yea, I have a very different view, such as I don't think there's an obvious compromise. A game oriented around delivering a planned final outcome (like an AP) is very distinct from a "play to see what happens" type of game.

Now, obviously you don't know for sure what's going to happen in an AP (the party might TPK, or might go through certain sections in a non-obvious fashion), but the output can generally be framed in reference or relation to an expected outcome (usually save the day and beat the final bad guy).

That's not what I was talking about. You're still telling a story, whether you're telling it as it unfolds or only after everything is over.

 

[Enrahim]

But the sort of game you play wouldn't have "weird entanglement", would it?

I'm asking what RPG actually exhibits this "weird entanglement", where (i) skill rolls are intended to have no meaning or consequence in the fiction except how well the PC performs the requisite bodily motions and (ii) failure is narrated in terms of an unhappy encounter or other unhappy outcome.

If there is no such RPG, why are people posting as if there is? And if there is such a RPG, I'm curious to know what it is.

Ah! That is the context you are missing! The context was bringing fail-forward techniques into traditional games with no regard for any possible incompatibilities.

So we are for instance talking about a D&D 5ed game with a slapped on house rule that say that if the character doesn't pass the DC, the DM can narrate whatever they want as long as it is somewhat complicating and brings the action forward.

 

[TwoSix]

Narrativism seems to choose (or often choose) as its proper subjects problems of the human condition. The orientation looks like dramatic resolution of connected premises.

Simulationism can focus on human condition (so admittedly that part's wrong) but typically seems interested in something beyond that. Or perhaps is interested in the human condition only in the context of or how it plays out given something beyond it (Planescape could fall into that.)

From the comments on the blog post:

OK, so the psychological basis for Narrativism is artistic self-realization, right? I think that the best argument for the CA modes not being distinct modes all around is probably in this territory: the distinction between Narrativist self-realization and Simulationistic elevated understanding is sort of subtle; it’d be credible to argue that they in fact can cohere creatively in the right circumstances. (This would be distinct from technical Hybrid design; this is saying that Nar and Sim overlap as CA categories rather than there being some technical trick to make creative needs align in play.) The modes can be much more distinct if you specifically contrast subject matters, but a Simulationistic game about human psychology and a Narrativist game about human psychology can seem awfully similar. I think that the distinction lies solely in whether you’re pursuing an understanding of the subject or a personal artistic pronouncement; that is, if you’re looking to learn, or to transform yourself.

 

[TwoSix]

That's not what I was talking about. You're still telling a story, whether you're telling it as it unfolds or only after everything is over.

I wouldn't phrase it that way. A story is the result of what happens, but only in some cases is the point of play trying to make that result interesting or more "literary".

Like, if I livestreamed myself for the next 6 hours, you could tell a story about what I did, but what I am doing is not any attempt to tell a story. (Assuming I don't change my behavior because I know I'm being recorded.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think they can be useful in some cases--the taxonomy at the end of that article is great, for example--but they also try to do too much with too little. You can see the cracks in the structure with the discussion of hybridization. It's like a lot of other Big Theories in that way; its need to explain everything nicely means it has to impose categories which don't quite fit.

A lot of this comes from the goal of GNS, which is prescriptive rather than descriptive and ends up smuggling in the preferences of its authors. People pick up on this, and I think it's why the Forge gets so much pushback.

Yup. If they weren't so clearly biased towards the "N" in GNS, I might take them more seriously.

 

[TwoSix]

Ah! That is the context you are missing! The context was bringing fail-forward techniques into traditional games with no regard for any possible incompatibilities.

So we are for instance talking about a D&D 5ed game with a slapped on house rule that say that if the character doesn't pass the DC, the DM can narrate whatever they want as long as it is somewhat complicating and brings the action forward.

Right, exactly.

And I think importantly, I don't know of any published games that actually attempt that willful incompatibility. Its occurrence is the result of people bringing in assumptions from other games; for example, that because skills are internal in one game, they must necessarily be internal in another game, because "that's just how skills work in RPGs".

 

[Micah Sweet]

4e D&D actually works best - in my view - played somewhat similarly to Burning Wheel. I learned a lot about how to GM 4e D&D from the BW rulebooks.

There is an example that, at the structural level, is basically identical to the screaming cook in the example skill challenge in the 4e D&D Rules Compendium: the players fail the last check in a skill challenge, and the consequence that is narrated by the GM is that an NPC whom the PCs crossed earlier in the challenge comes back with a gang, ready to beat them up.

IMO, 4e is less related to other forms of D&D than a lot of games produced by neither TSR nor WotC

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think this is right at all. As @Campbell in this thread has pointed out, it's easy to have "simulationist" or "exploratory" play where what is explored is "problems of the human condition".

Those who love Planescape in D&D often laud it for this, too.

That could certainly be one of the things explored, but even Planescape was about more than that.