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

[clearstream]

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.

Thus questions about mechanics recognisably supporting one or other of the labelled interest-sets ought be said to be inapplicable. The model can offer no such guidance.

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.

I read the way that he identifies it as crucial, as associating it specifically with that interest-set. I see it can be read another way (and agree with that reading, actually.)

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

It warms my heart to see sustained our commitment to agreeing only by disagreeing I might have forgotten to uphold that in recent posts.

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.

If there are ways of arranging play that indeed do include the mechanics used in play, it's hard to see how that cannot amount to recognising certain mechanics (or arrangements of them) as better or less well supporting certain interests.

 

[FrogReaver]

Thus questions about mechanics recognisably supporting one or other of the labelled interest-sets ought be said to be inapplicable. The model can offer no such guidance.


I read the way that he identifies it as crucial, as associating it specifically with that interest-set. I see it can be read another way (and agree with that reading, actually.)


It warms my heart to see sustained our commitment to agreeing only by disagreeing I might have forgotten to uphold that in recent posts.


If there are ways of arranging play that indeed do include the mechanics used in play, it's hard to see how that cannot amount to recognising certain mechanics (or arrangements of them) as better or less well supporting certain interests.

Might I offer an ‘out’? A single mechanic on its own may not recognizably support one interest-set (leaving aside whether GNS or GN or something else entirely are the best ways to categorize interest sets). I believe most of the ‘work’ is done when combining mechanics together to form a system. So an individual mechanic may be usable for any interest-set (though maybe not all mechanics have this property), but how all the mechanics interact together, that I think can make them better suited for one interest than another.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Is it right to understand that when you say "question" that is akin to when I wrote upthread of play's proper subjects? What we want our play to be concerning or about. And here to question may be to speak, to act, to narrate character actions, to write and sketch etc, including in advance of or between sessions of play? That is, the question might not be articulated in the form of a question, but rather in what players lean in to address etc.

Why must participants align in advance? Further on you suggest that

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.

Which gets at a nagging doubt I have about GNS, i.e. observing players moving between modes within a session or across a campaign. But doesn't this mean that questions can develop during play, meaning that we should be less worried about aligning on questions at the beginning. As were we worried about having different questions in mind, we should also worry about players going off-piste during the session. And were we worried about having no questions in mind to form our play around, we can still be confident of their arising?

Elsewhere I've proposed that games are tools (and note in that respect their concrete characterisation as tools in contemporary game designs such as Daggerheart) and that they are used to fabricate play. (There is a paper by Aarseth on games as mechanisms that is worth reading in connection with this.) So in saying that I am saying that play is that which emerges only on account of the specific player engagement with the specific game, with tremendous variation possible even with the same game.

Obviously the questions (or interests) players have in making that engagement -- especially with a complex tool, one with many parts that can be used in whole or part, and with different emphasis on parts -- will inform what game is played at their table. And equally obviously, that play can change over time without changing game.

 

[clearstream]

Might I offer an ‘out’? A single mechanic on its own may not recognizably support one interest-set (leaving aside whether GNS or GN or something else entirely are the best ways to categorize interest sets). I believe most of the ‘work’ is done when combining mechanics together to form a system. So an individual mechanic may be usable for any interest-set (though maybe not all mechanics have this property), but how all the mechanics interact together, that I think can make them better suited for one interest than another.

Yes, I too have that "out" in mind. And see my comment on game-as-tool just above: I suggest that the picture is complete only when the game-as-tool is in use by the interested-player. So that play is in a sense fabricated between interested-player* and game-as-tool.


*I'm ignoring here some quite interesting possibilities around disinterested-players.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, I too have that "out" in mind. And see my comment on game-as-tool just above: I suggest that the picture is complete only when the game-as-tool is in use by the interested-player. So that play is in a sense fabricated between interested-player* and game-as-tool.


*I'm ignoring here some quite interesting possibilities around disinterested-players.

By game do you mean something approaching ‘collection of mechanics’?

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Then that means being disruptive or a "chaos gremlin" is part of your table's social contract.

The bigger point is that "but that's what my character would do" is not a valid rationale for violating the social contract.

 

[AlViking]

It's really not worth arguing over, since it amounts to semantics. For me, that would fall under DM abuse, not metagaming, but your mileage may vary.

I did say it was a gray area. But ...

 

[FrogReaver]

Is it right to understand that when you say "question" that is akin to when I wrote upthread of play's proper subjects? What we want our play to be concerning or about. And here to question may be to speak, to act, to narrate character actions, to write and sketch etc, including in advance of or between sessions of play? That is, the question might not be articulated in the form of a question, but rather in what players lean in to address etc.

Why must participants align in advance? Further on you suggest that

Which gets at a nagging doubt I have about GNS, i.e. observing players moving between modes within a session or across a campaign. But doesn't this mean that questions can develop during play, meaning that we should be less worried about aligning on questions at the beginning. As were we worried about having different questions in mind, we should also worry about players going off-piste during the session. And were we worried about having no questions in mind to form our play around, we can still be confident of their arising?

Elsewhere I've proposed that games are tools (and note in that respect their concrete characterisation as tools in contemporary game designs such as Daggerheart) and that they are used to fabricate play. (There is a paper by Aarseth on games as mechanisms that is worth reading in connection with this.) So in saying that I am saying that play is that which emerges only on account of the specific player engagement with the specific game, with tremendous variation possible even with the same game.

Obviously the questions (or interests) players have in making that engagement -- especially with a complex tool, one with many parts that can be used in whole or part, and with different emphasis on parts -- will inform what game is played at their table. And equally obviously, that play can change over time without changing game.

If ‘game’ is a construct with alot of human judgement calls, not just about strategies and tactics, but around the exact nature of the opposition, timing, and what precisely occurs next (as every RPG is) then I don’t think such a construct can be analyzed as if it’s one invariable thing, which is what most analysis seems to strive for.

So I think you are mostly right, but it’s not due to its complex tool-like nature IMO, though it’s not an absolutely terrible analogy. It’s because so much of the game is left undefined to only later be defined by the participants. It’s how they feel in those gaps that makes for their unique experiences.

 

[clearstream]

By game do you mean something approaching ‘collection of mechanics’?

I'm thinking of the game-as-artifact, which will can include mechanics, illustrations and examples, setting, relatings of play and so forth. Everything a player receives with the artifact and that can go on to inform their use (including their determination that the game can be used in a way that can satisfy their interests.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's player agency.

It is one version of player agency, yes. There are others. To assert that this is the only possible form of player agency would be incorrect.

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.

Only if everyone at the table is agreed that such events are an acceptable part of the gameplay experience, and is of the specific mindset and approach such that repeated totally preventable setbacks and problems and (etc., etc.) are a good and desirable part of the experience.

This is not only far from universal, I would say it is quite uncommon in most gamers--not totally unheard-of, but certainly far from typical. Just as there are things you agree not to do because it would be crappy inappropriate behavior at the table, others have different standards for what is crappy inappropriate behavior at the table, and some of them see it as a perfectly good and worthwhile agreement to skip over the "sooner or later" part and just start from a group that has "set a tone for themselves" so that things don't need to "settle down" but are in fact settled from the start, unless-and-until something beyond the pale occurs (and even that would probably be addressed, at least partially, through discussion between players (with or without the GM).

For a lot of gamers--I would argue the majority--whining "but it's what my character would do!" when everyone glares at you because you did something that annoyed, frustrated, or upset the other players will get the perfectly appropriate response of, "Well then, because YOU are completely responsible for deciding what character to play, then you chose to be an enormous cowpie, and we aren't really interested in dealing with your bovine feces." Blaming the character as though that somehow removes any responsibility from yourself is ridiculous--100% of the beliefs, thoughts, preferences, and choices belong to and come from you, the player of the character. "It's what my character would do!" acts like, because the character isn't identical to you, you're somehow completely innocent for any dickish things your character does, when...no, you're literally 100% responsible for those things.

"Don't be a dick" is generally a widespread basic minimum of human decency. If we add "to your friends", and then apply that to characters? "Don't be a dick to the other players" means...sure, you can play a character who is just a big jerk in general, but their big jerk behavior better be mostly directed outward, or not so egregious as to invite a death glare from other players.

That, too, is a version of player agency--one that has begun from a different agreement between players, and thus has a different space of play.