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

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, this is a very good point. Nobody is entirely in character. You are rolling dice, and listening to narration, and going around the table managing focus and there IS going to be thinking about mechanics and such as well. Now maybe @Maxperson and his group have perfected never dropping even a bit out of character, I don't know. But I agree with you very much, if it happens anyway, why not reap all the great benefits that accrue from doing it? Like, there are times when it is important to be in character, but it is kind of a 90/10 rule.

If the point is that because you are not in character 100% of the time that anything not in character should be acceptable then that’s an illogical conclusion.

Saying I dislike being out of character doesn’t imply there are no exceptions where you feel the benefits outweigh the costs or that ooc is otherwise necessary at that moment. The mistake is treating the dislike as an always without exception kind of statement.

 

[FrogReaver]

What feels like less travelled ground in the conversation to hand is

the way in which these games mechanics (rough as they were) helped to achieve a heightened understanding of characters' internal states​

a legacy of embedding character mentality into the mechanics of the game to help us immerse into our characters those games brought to the table that inspired Narrativist designs [Campbell]​

​

I look at how I play Aedhros and Thurgon, and the pleasure that I get from that inhabitation, and think about where it fits in this "simulationist"/"narrativist" contrast. I think I'm mostly on the "out of Sim" side of things, because of a degree of proactivity about emotional thematic issues, but I don't think it's a huge distance that we're talking about here. When it comes to Aedhros, I can almost pin it down to one moment of play [your good self]​

​

To say "poof, you're out of Sim" of course implies that you were in Sim. So while suggesting that

One job of the game mechanics is to provoke and frame proactivity about an emotional issue​

One job of the game mechanics is to represent and demand engagement faithful to the subject [me]​

​

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... 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.) [also me]​

I asked

Does narrativism wind up being a subset of simulationism? Simulationism in the dramatic mode, so to speak?​

[and later, rhetorically] is there no way to recognise a set of rules that would support some set of interests above others? [ditto]​

Other posters wrote

what is discussed on EnWorld generally as 'simulation(ism)' is at best unrelated to Narrativist play goals. Like in our 1KA game we use elements of historical Sengoku politics and whatnot as inputs, but they simply exist like any other fiction to structure play, to create constraints and obstacles, etc. And while our depiction of characters, RP, has authenticity as a constraint as well, we're not really interested in simulating people that might have actually existed in 16th Century Japan. [AbdulAlhazred]​

​

If this (Tuovinen's] blog post is correctly describing the situation system doesn't matter.​

That would explain why the system matters focus of forge failed to grasp the creative agenda, and the current difficulties with "classifying" existing systems.​

The key issue - if this is right curiosity about the system is a valid creative agenda. As such any system is supporting the creative agenda of examining itself as the subject matter.​

I realised that me being very into competative games, narative games and simulations isn't an expression of a split agenda. All of them are fueled by my completely dominating simulationist agenda. [Enrahim]​

​

Using the terms for convenience, the notion that narrativist approaches to play might have been inspired by simulationist approaches, and that a group may segue from one to the other without changing ruleset or campaign, all seems to stand in confirmation of Baker's view that

every RPG, like every other kind of game, is its own. You can taxonomize them if you want, but then you're constructing artificial categories and cramming games into them, not learning or finding out something true about the games themselves.​

you can, if you want, assign a given instance of gameplay to G, N or S more or less consistently, you do so by asserting false similarities and ignoring some true similarities between other instances of gameplay [Baker]​

I like where this is going. One thing I might add is that while the gameplay may feel different depending on the resolution method chosen, what you are exploring/simulating/emulating shouldn’t be any different. Because the output of fiction is the focus of (probably) all RPG’s and not the method it’s arrived at.

(I’m thinking dm decides it all vs roll to determine whether success/consequence then dm determines consequence, but really this is applicable to differences within these categories and other categories as well).

Thus, I think where pretty much all the discussion really lies is in what gameplay is most appealing and that’s always going to be a matter of taste. The most general takeaway being, don’t use game mechanics/systems that produce gameplay you dislike.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's a really antagonistic and jaundiced view of what I wrote. Like that is actively reading the most hostile things into what I said. Are you sincerely believing that the things I wrote make that claim?

Because I don't really feel like engaging with something that sounds like it's trying to pick a fight. This sounds like "come at me, bro". I'm not really interested in doing that.

So: Would you be willing to rephrase this in a way that isn't so overtly and unnecessarily hostile?

Fair enough. Your posting history indicates to me that you are very concerned about GM authority being abused, to a degree that the role feels to me vilified in your comments, or at best a necessary evil. Since making a world for the players to explore through their characters, whose players trust me to provide a fun experience (and who know I listen to their concerns when they have them), this attitude is troubling for me, especially as your candor can IMO sound rather charged (not that mine never does, of course). Hence the assumption on my part. Since you are saying I have misrepresented you in this, I apologize. Do you not then feel that GMs need to be strictly controlled to prevent abuse in a way that players don't or can't?

 

[Micah Sweet]

But the Chaosium Stormbringer doesn't really pose order vs chaos as a premise. It's more like background colour.

I agree. It's less that the game is about that and more that the game is about exploring a world that's about that.

 

[Maxperson]

When talking about the core reward cycle: "You are joined together by the curiosity towards the subject matter."
"Moving on, let’s grant for now that I’m correct about the underlying human motivations and Simulationist play is indeed engaged in for the purpose of, well, study: a Simulationist creative agenda is one that seeks inspiration and understanding in the process of Exploration."

And when contrasting with narrativism: "The fundamental issue is that a true Sim play will never, ever care about you the person, and your self-expression"

It appear to me like you cannot have coherent simulationistic play if one of the key participants enters with no curiosity, but rather just a wish to express.

One of my major issues with The Forge is that games are not Simulationist or Gamist or Narrativist. I have yet to see an RPG that isn't all three to varying degrees.

What you will see when you play a game is that his game over here is 60%(N), 30%(S) and 10%(G), while that one over there is 45%(G), 30%(N) and 25%(S).

What that means is that you can in my experience have coherent simulationist play where one player has narrativist priorities and the others do not. That player will just express himself in ways that explore his character, but within the larger framework of the simulationist majority game. While a game where the highest percentage is narrativist will focus on the narrative, often or usually avoiding mundane things like travel or shopping if those things aren't important to character in some way, the simulationist game will still primarily engage those mundane activities. The narrative focused player will have to find ways to explore and express character within the simulationist framework, which I've seen done.

In one of the example @pemerton provided upthread we saw something similar happen in one of his narrativist games. He mentioned how one of the players would make decisions that allowed his character to progress at a more rapid rate than @pemerton's character, and then justify the actions that enhanced progression speed later. That's gamist behavior, and the example didn't speak of that gamist priority disrupting the narrativist play. Neither does a player who engages in narrativist behavior in a simulationist forward game generally disrupt play.

 

[Maxperson]

It is absolutely metagaming. It is the insertion of an incredibly convenient captive in the very next room of the dungeon, not because that character should realistically be there, not because it is required for the game to function, but simply because it is a gameplay convenience. Doing something because it is a gameplay convenience IS metagaming--it's not metagaming knowledge, sure, but knowledge is far from the only form of metagaming. You aren't playing the game, you're playing the context which surrounds the game. Other examples of non-knowledge metagaming include the GM inserting a cleric who just happens to know the spell (or just a scroll of a specific spell) needed to break a magical effect that would otherwise screw over one of the players permanently, a player's character being demoted to "mute sidekick who doesn't contribute but fights in combats" when that player can't attend a session, or currencies like Inspiration or "luck points" that can be spent by the player (examples chosen because both appear in 5e.)

No, he's right. It's not metagaming in any sense. There is no player knowledge being brought into the game through his PC inappropriately.

Metagaming is when anyone--GM or otherwise--plays the context surrounding the game, rather than playing the game itself. Quantum ogres (and quantum haunted houses) are two other examples of GM-specific metagaming. Likewise, the GM intentionally including out-of-context opponents which are related to the party's strengths--whether resistant to or weak to those strengths--would be an example of GM metagaming. Frex, Paladins with their Divine Smite do extra damage to fiends and undead, so if a random cluster of fiends shows up for no reason in the middle of a densely-populated city with no known fiendish incursion, that's GM metagaming to push the Paladin into the spotlight. Conversely, going back to 3rd edition rules, creating adventures chock full of undead for no reason other than to have undead, which were immune to sneak attack damage in 3rd edition, would be metagaming to take away a Rogue character's niche.

Much like cheating, metagaming isn't something that the DM can do. The DM can abuse authority, but not cheat. The DM is not a player, so cannot be bring out of character knowledge into the game.

The DM can use the metagame, but cannot engage in metagaming. It's sort like the DM being a player, but not a Player, and roleplaying being in I guess it would be actor stance, but Roleplaying is just playing a role in the game however you do it.

If the DM contrives to get Bob the XXIII(his player makes lots of bad decisions) into the game, he might be engaging the metagame to get him in earlier than makes total sense, but the DM cannot be metagaming, because he has no character through which to bring in player knowledge, and wouldn't be bringing in such knowledge in any case.

 

[AlViking]

No, he's right. It's not metagaming in any sense. There is no player knowledge being brought into the game through his PC inappropriately.

Much like cheating, metagaming isn't something that the DM can do. The DM can abuse authority, but not cheat. The DM is not a player, so cannot be bring out of character knowledge into the game.

The DM can use the metagame, but cannot engage in metagaming. It's sort like the DM being a player, but not a Player, and roleplaying being in I guess it would be actor stance, but Roleplaying is just playing a role in the game however you do it.

If the DM contrives to get Bob the XXIII(his player makes lots of bad decisions) into the game, he might be engaging the metagame to get him in earlier than makes total sense, but the DM cannot be metagaming, because he has no character through which to bring in player knowledge, and wouldn't be bringing in such knowledge in any case.

For the most part I agree, but there is a gray area with GM metagaming. If the GM introduces an enemy, does that enemy know every weakness of the characters and have effective ways of exploiting them? In some cases this may be logical if the enemy has had a reason to be wary of the characters, if this was not their first encounter or perhaps the enemy has some kind of hive mind and adapt like the Borg. It can also happen sometimes simply because the enemy is immune to fire and the wizard only prepares fire based spells. If it happens too often and when there's no in-world justification for it I would consider it bad GMing and metagaming.

 

[clearstream]

I agree. It's less that the game is about that and more that the game is about exploring a world that's about that.

In the chain I was responding to, it appeared that player interest might have been proposed as a divider.

Supposing that Stormbringer rules can be used to present a Young Kingdoms in which play focuses on premises relating to the human condition (which if sim can poof into nar seems open to question) isn't really answered for me by saying that the game is about exploring a world. I'm asking what about the game artifact recognisably makes that so? Or what prevents the authenticity claimed for 1KA or the setting detail of Stonetop being leveraged for sim?

One answer (per Baker) is that simulationism and narrativism are not descrptively up to explaining these games as they are and can be used. In relation to which I wonder: if theatre groups can diversely interpret scripts, perhaps it should not be surprising to find that what is afforded by our instruction manuals is really known only given each play group's use of them. And may be a chameleon.

Even if we should list dozens of playful motives and experiences, surely we can still say something about the motives and experiences some rules lend themselves to (encourage, provoke or demand.) Just as many posters to this thread seem to have testified to. Perhaps the problem is being too general when what is observed is specific, and too fixed when what is observed is flexible?

The strongest experience I had playing Stormbringer was political. Two player characters were pitiful compared to the third player's Melnibonean. If I had to characterise at least that edition of the game, it wasn't exploring The Young Kingdoms or resolving some premises. Our place was to serve in miserable ways. The rules that were productive of that play were the character generation, and the powerful magic rules (toned down in later editions.) But I think we could easily have focused on resolving some premises related to our condition.

 

[FrogReaver]

In the chain I was responding to, it appeared that player interest might have been proposed as a divider.

Supposing that Stormbringer rules can be used to present a Young Kingdoms in which play focuses on premises relating to the human condition (which if sim can poof into nar seems open to question) isn't really answered for me by saying that the game is about exploring a world. I'm asking what about the game artifact recognisably makes that so? Or what prevents the authenticity claimed for 1KA or the setting detail of Stonetop being leveraged for sim?

One answer (per Baker) is that simulationism and narrativism are not descrptively up to explaining these games as they are and can be used. In relation to which I wonder: if theatre groups can diversely interpret scripts, perhaps it should not be surprising to find that what is afforded by our instruction manuals is really known only given each play group's use of them. And may be a chameleon.

Even if we should list dozens of playful motives and experiences, surely we can still say something about the motives and experiences some rules lend themselves to (encourage, provoke or demand.) Just as many posters to this thread seem to have testified to. Perhaps the problem is being too general when what is observed is specific, and too fixed when what is observed is flexible?

The strongest experience I had playing Stormbringer was political. Two player characters were pitiful compared to the third player's Melnibonean. If I had to characterise at least that edition of the game, it wasn't exploring The Young Kingdoms or resolving some premises. Our place was to serve in miserable ways. The rules that were productive of that play were the character generation, and the powerful magic rules (toned down in later editions.) But I think we could easily have focused on resolving some premises related to our condition.

In previous threads we’ve seen testimony that d&d can be played narrativisticly, albeit the system fights against you and I’ve stated that FitD’s Blades in the Dark didn’t feel extremely different to me than D&D. That’s at least some evidence that player interest trumps system, although system can still either work with or work against said interest, mostly via the mechanism of making the gameplay compelling while engaging in that interest and not placing potential obstacles that may either sometimes or even often supersede whatever thing the player interest is in.

 

[Faolyn]

So in my situation with the riddle-door, it would have been fine if the door attacked us every time we didn't answer correctly but not if the door just sits there?

Had the riddle-door attacked us every time we blew an answer we'd have all been stone dead long before we got it right. Either that, or we'd have simply given up on it fairly quickly. That it just sat there quietly meant we could keep trying to come up with the right answer.

So it's a fine encounter when the PCs not only get frustrated but beaten up on blowing an answer but not fine otherwise?

I'm having a hard time making sense of that.

It would have been fine if something had happened. Attacking is one of many, many options out there.