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

[Lanefan]

Ideally. But that word is doing some massive lifting here; I don't think I've ever seen a GM who conveys that sort of thing in a consistent fashion.

Which is also fine, as different people are going to have different "tells" if-when they are lying and each listener is likely going to be differently attuned to those tells.

For example, the bartender keeps glancing over his shoulder while talking to you.

One person might correctly interpret this to mean he's lying (or at least taking cues from someone else).
Another person might incorrectly interpret this to mean he's checking to make sure no-one else needs his bartending services.

 

[Lanefan]

The idea is that if the character is likely to be a group, situation or campaign wrecker, maybe the player could have taken time to pick a character concept that wouldn't be likely to do that. And some people either can't be bothered or actively pick ones that will do that. Either out of malignity, or just being natural chaos gremlins.

Oh, I'll gladly admit to being a chaos gremlin.

Not with every character, but certainly with some. And I'm far from the gremlin-iest in our crew.

Never mind that sometimes two well-intentioned players just end up with otherwise perfectly decent characters who, when put together, instantly become a powderkeg. Usually but not always, one of them is a Paladin...

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. Except for all those people who play disruptive or abusive characters or lone wolves and refuse to engage because "it's what their character would do."

Because you're not just playing your character. Unless it's a one-on-one game, or the characters are supposed to be antagonistic towards each other, you're playing a character who is working with a group--the other players. So make a character who will actually work with everyone else and isn't an expletive-deleted.

I'm playing a character - or maybe more than one, depending on situation - and that's it. That character is, I hope, an individual free-thinking inhabitant of its setting who maybe does or maybe doesn't consider itself bound by the internal laws of that setting or elements within it (e.g. secular law, temple doctrine, faction loyalties, etc.). The character is not a robot, nor is it part of a machine or navy-seal unit.The character lives and exists independently of the other characters, even if those other characters are its friends or relatives, and I-as-its-player get to choose its ethics and-or morals (or lack thereof) and-or how it goes about living its life (but once having chosen such, I'm somewhat bound to remain consistent with that choice).

And all this applies equally to all the other players and characters in the game.

That's player agency.

And if it turns out that, ater being thrown together by whatever means are used, the characters can't, or don't, or won't get along well enough to function as a party then play it true: if they fight, they fight; if one or more leave or get tossed, let it happen; if they hang each other out to dry, so be it. Sooner or later they'll set a tone for themselves and largely only accept new characters who vaguely fit with that tone, and things will settle down. Leastwise, that's how it's happened every time I've seen it thus far.

And before you say "but what about the DM?", this is what I also want to see when I am the DM.

 

[Lanefan]

That's odd, but true! I would have thought someone somewhere would have named their town Reality. We have Hell, Weed, Toad Suck, Catfish Paradise, and even Scratch Ankle(probably lots of fleas there). Someone needs to found a new town and call it Reality.

I thought there'd be several, but no luck.

 

[clearstream]

It can't be true both that Baker's rejection of big model analysis is correct, and that it is meaningful to talk about "narrativist" approaches to play having been inspired by "simulationist" approaches.

In considering Baker's rejection of big model analysis, it's meaningful to talk about that being rejected. It'd be awkward to deny the existence of ghosts were we not permitted to mention them. My specific thought is that if X and Y are proposed as labels for distinct activities, but then I see that Y comes out of X and one may readily segue between them, then a view that the labelled activities are not distinct along the lines of X and Y seems somewhat more plausible.

A worry I have about Baker's take is: what would replace them? What if any harm does it do to retain them as convenient high-level labels, particularly if they facilitate game analysis and design? One answer is perhaps that Baker's not saying that there aren't recognisable differences between games. He's saying there are differences and those are being obscured by assuming games fall into G, N or S.

Edwards' observations about The Dying Earth to me reinforce this. To say "previously-Gamist methods" begs the question of whether those methods were rightly labelled G in the first place, given they turn out to be usable for N? More recently, Edwards restated a view he formed that S doesn't really exist. It might be that he means that S (exploration) is the underlying foundation for the two 'true' modes of play G and N.

My questions about mechanics that recognisably support one or other kind of play were intended to get at this sort of doubt. It really doesn't seem like there are G mechanics and N mechanics. Maybe the labels should be counted applicable to whole games... but that lets fall through the cracks play that shifts between modes without changing games. It could also be pointed out that G and N aren't intended to label mechanics, but rather player agenda or interests. What then happens when my interest is political? Must I pursue P only through developing G or N interests, or are there other ways.

Edwards' associated the lusory-trinity (i.e. player as actor, author and audience) with N. In background game studies a lusory-duality or -trinity has been observed as a significant feature of videogames (Sherry Turkle observed a form of it reasonably early on, which Miguel Sicart expanded on, although I think "lusory-duality" as a label is my own)... it doesn't seem to be private to N in RPG at all. It isn't really a creative agenda, it's more a distinctive mode of engagement with games as a medium (one can argue that it is seen in human engagement with narratives generally and just most pronounced and perhaps necessitated with games.) I wonder too if about N being apparently attached to a Western dramatic tradition, when surely whatever one calls narrativism ought to encompass narratives of all kinds. Perhaps it would be better to have stayed with D (dramatism), for that narrower interest.

What I observe going on seems more complex than can be adequately described with a two- or even three-fold labelling. That doesn't yet mean that such a labelling isn't doing any useful work unless, as Baker seems to worry, it gets in the way. I'm not sure on that score: those labels certainly have been convenient.

 

[Enrahim]

Holy smoke! @clearstream , @Maxperson , @pemerton . I am tagging you because you seem to be the ones most into the GNS part of this discussion. In light of pemerton's very enlightening correction of me I suddenly realized there is a seemingly obvious and simple model for play that has a structure that seem very close to my new understanding of GNS. I would be extremely happy if you try to evaluate the merit of this model, and separately the proposed connection to GNS.

1: Play starts as the participants align on a question to address.
2: In order to address it the participants need to establish:
2a: What answers are possible?
2b: What answers are preferable?
3: Which of the possible and preferable answers should we establish?

Step 2a and 2b can be done in any order, or back and forth (like suggest a preferred solution, then evaluate if it is possible, and if not go back to find a new preferred solution)
Each of step 2a, 2b and 3 can spawn new questions that need to be addressed using this structure before returning to this initial question.
Each of 2a 2b and 3 can be addressed trough (role)play.
Once the root question has been resolved, the group need to align on a new question to resolve.

Constructed example of play:
We are having a traditional setup of D&D. The DM describes the characters entering an underground library. The implicit question is are they going to do anything meaningful there, or if not where to go next?
Play proceeds to the players asking question like "what sort of books are here?" "I am looking for other exits" "I search for traps on the sliding bookshelf secret door we found" This play revolves around 2a, trying to figure out what is possible.

After having found that the bookcases only contain boring fan-fiction of known works, there is a locked (untraped?) door with sounds of small feet running around behind and a secret door with a nasty trap they were unable to disarm the characters enter a heated debate over which way they should go next. The fighter want to open the door, while the rogue want to try a long shot at triggering the trap without anyone getting hurt. They bring up relevant experiences from their background supporting their stance. This play revolve around 2b, trying to figure out which option is preferred.

They finally agree to try the door if the rouge manage to pick the lock, otherwise go for the trap plan. The rouge describes how they reluctantly still are doing their best with the tools; the cleric is casting the mandatory guidance, and the fighter make a remark it would have been nice to have a bard around. They then roll a check, and it show the open lock succeeds. This play was quite quick, but revolved around step 3, figuring out which option actually happens.

As the core question is resolved, a new question need to be brought into play. The GM describes how a pack of starving giant rats swarm the PCs clearly intent on getting as much meat as they can get from them. The players immediately responds with lethal force. The question is what will the outcome of the conflict be? No time is wasted playing trying to determine the possible and preferred outcomes - we go straight to playing out the resolution!

The GNS connection
I find the GNS analogy obvious, but as I was the one that came up with this I recognize that might not be the case for everyone. So I will try to spell it out. I think play revolving around figuring out possible solutions correspond to play with a simulation Creative Agenda. Play to evaluate preferences correspond to play with narrative Creative Agenda. Play to resolve correspond to play with gamist Creative Agenda. Incoherence happens when there isn't a common understanding about what mode of play we are currently in - to take a well known example from a different setting: When someone start evaluating while the rest are still engaged in brainstorming.

The setting of the question I guess corresponds to framing the scene. This is generally not decided trough play but rather a function of the social contract. In case of disputes here, using meta channel would be the appropriate way to resolve those.

It seem obvious that there is a correspondence between various components of a game system and which of these modes of play it is supposed to support. For instance the D&D skill system is obviously useful for the resolution step, and some of it might support the determination of possible action play trough modulating what info the DM should reveal. But it is at least for me really hard to see how it could meaningfully be used to establish preferred outcomes beyond possibly some contrived examples. On the other hand the while specifying the ideals element is clearly useful for informing play around establishing preferred outcomes, it is hard for me to see how it can affect the possible outcomes, and appear to only have any relevancy for resolution play indirectly via the inspiration system.

The main difference between the models I can see is that my attempt doesn't introduce any terminology usually associated with with human psychology. This mean that any connection between the preferences of the individual players and the mode of play might become more tricky to formulate and recognize. But given how this language appear to have fueled a lot of hostility and misconceptions since the start (including mine), I think the extra cost of having to try to be explicit about any claims of relationship between these modes of play and player mindset might be very much worth it.

Another difference is that this model emphasizes the way the different modes of play interact and can coexist in the scope of a prolonged session of play. That do not appear to be commonly addressed in GNS, that rather has each segment of coherent play as it's scope of interest.

Finally these two combine to remove the inflammatory interpretation that any game supporting more than one of these modes are flawed, due to the system support not closely matching player preference. Rather it might be the opposite, a game providing support for all of these modes could be easily recognized as preferable for someone seeking a versatile and varied experience from their gaming. While others that are tired of spending time on resolution and just want emotionally meaningful stuff to happen might want to look into games that make step 2a and 3 quick and easy while providing support for making step 2b rich and dynamic.

 

[pemerton]

To say "previously-Gamist methods" begs the question of whether those methods were rightly labelled G in the first place, given they turn out to be usable for N?

Not really. It's like saying that an engine that was previously a truck engine is being used in a plane. In the case of RPG design, Edwards not talking about the inherent nature of the methods (there is no such thing); he's referring to methods previously used with the purpose of supporting gamist play, being adopted and adapted to the support of narrativist play.

Edwards' associated the lusory-trinity (i.e. player as actor, author and audience) with N.

No he doesn't. As he says here,

Narrativist play makes special use of the general role-playing principle that the participants are simultaneously authors and audience.​

Participants as simultaneously authors and audience is a general feature of RPGing. It's what make the "heightened attention/focus" that both he and Tuovinen associate with simulationist play possible.

More recently, Edwards restated a view he formed that S doesn't really exist. It might be that he means that S (exploration) is the underlying foundation for the two 'true' modes of play G and N.

There's no might about it. He expressly says as much in at least one recent video.

It really doesn't seem like there are G mechanics and N mechanics.

Correct. I don't think anyone has ever asserted the contrary. But there are ways of arranging play - which will include the mechanics used in play - which are better or worse suited to different sorts of approaches.

 

[FrogReaver]

Which is why we have parties spending hours or entire sessions, real time, trying to figure out "simple" puzzles.

Well there’s the gap in communication. I’m not saying your implementation of fail forward does that. I’m saying why isn’t that technically/definitionally one implementation of it? I don’t think @Maxperson is right that it has to be something interesting. Most of my blades in the dark successes with consequences weren’t particularly interesting., take some heat or stress or click a clock or something. What each of these things did was interact with the rules in such a way as to mean we were one step closer to the complication building up into a major problem. That the particular thing we were trying to accomplish that invoked this roll was resolved and in the rear view mirror. But Blades in the Dark also had outright failure and in those instances it could very much be result in you tried to hit the enemy he blocked it and counterattacked landing a solid blow. Take a trauma. The enemy is still there and needs dealt with. But mechanically the game the game moved one step closer to resolving said conflict either in your favor or the enemies.

This seems to be your definitional requirement, that the consequence failure not drastically reshape the fiction, but that it brings resolving a conflict one way or the other one step closer. This explains why the riddle example doesn’t work for you. It’s not about change per se, but about steps closer to resolution.

Except for d&d combat, which is different than the rest of the game, most d&d actions aren’t going to necessarily bring you a clear step closer to resolution (and even in combat it’s not uncommon to miss entirely and change absolutely nothing on your turn). I think it might be interesting to touch on why d&d doesn’t do that kind of thing. But I think that’s probably best for another post.

 

[FrogReaver]

The “but it’s what my character would do!” defense is offered up almost universally as a “stop judging / being angry at me folks” for behavior that makes the experience crappy or goes against what the rest of the party had decided / wants to do in an obnoxious way.

If you’re simply acting according to your character’s drives and beliefs and it’s accepted by the table you Dont have to offer a defense.

Edit: instead, like in many of my games you get highlighted by others for playing your character to the hilt in a provocative or thoughtful way that enriches the entire experience.

Right I once played a large dumb brute of a barbarian, he once seen the small goblin wizard cast shield and block the attack of a stone golem. He proceeded to call the wizard ‘blocks rocks’ and pick up said goblin and try to use him as a shield the rest of the encounter. If I recall correctly he deflected all the attacks with shield that encounter.

Some tables wouldn’t have appreciated that. Mine found it enriched the experience. They remember that to this day.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don's eee it as dreck, but if I'm running all experienced players then sure, they can know this stuff. If I'm running a brand new player, however, as far as possible I want that player to experience and enjoy the same learning process we all went through at one point or another.

Yeah, even then, you have to be aware of the entire group. Now, I have young kids, and so if they joined us to play, my players would be far more willing to indulge this type of play. But otherwise? It’s easy to get a more compelling game that just avoids the monster as puzzle trope.

My bad experiences more often come from players meta-knowing things about what another character is doing and acting on that knowledge even though in-character they have no way of knowing or gaining that info.

The classic here is the lone PC scout who gets in trouble: had the other players not known he was in trouble they'd for sure have waited the hour he told them to wait, but when half an hour in he falls into a ravine and is laying there in danger of dying the other players just can't resist "suddenly deciding" to follow the scout early.

Nope. For me, the scouting should be done by secret note or similar such that the other players - just like their characters - don't and can't know what's happening to the scout at any given time until-unless he returns to tell them. Also, doing it this way allows the scout's player to report in their own words, thus providing the opportunity to forget something, embellish something, get something wrong, intentionally skip something, or whatever.

See I’ve found that just letting the players know works just fine. If they want to go and help the PC who is now in trouble, I let them. Usually, it’s at the cost of not doing what they were doing… so that’s a choice they make that may have consequences.

Ideally my roleplaying of the bartender doing those things while he talks to the PCs should be enough to get that across, shouldn't it?

If the ideal situation is that they get that information, then I think it’s probably a good idea to simply give that information rather than leaving it up to the quality of my performance.

Once a character's been played for even just a few sessions, it usually becomes fairly obvious what to expect from it to the point where you can almost predict what that character is going to do in amost typical situations. And yes, this includes those characters whose usual modus operandum is "do the unexpected".

This makes it fairly easy to tell when someone's playing a character true* or not.

* - or true enough; characters aren't robots (sorry, all you Warforged fans) and would thus have mood swings just like we do, this represents the "almost" in almost predict.

I expect there may be great variation in this from game to game. Very often, a few sessions worth of play means we’ve barely scratched the surface of the character.