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

[Don Durito]

Really GNS exists as a way to carve out space for narrativism. I've always thought of it as sort of like a weird manifesto presented as a taxonomy.

 

[FrogReaver]

Really GNS exists as a way to carve out space for narrativism. I've always thought of it as sort of like a weird manifesto presented as a taxonomy.

Yes. Exactly this! If viewed as trying to differentiate narrativism from every other style of play it makes a lot of sense.

Essentially it’s saying these games we want to play don’t rely on ‘beating the scenario (gamism) or ‘simulating the world (simulationist)’.

That we can achieve this kind of game by doing the following kinds of things.

And in that sense it’s a complete design success. It worked.

Where it goes too far is in its treatment of non-narrativist playstyles.

 

[hawkeyefan]

A lot of them. All of them have simulations within them, but to be a simulationist RPG, simulation has to be the main focus of the game.

Okay, then to @Hussar ’s point, would you put 5e in that category?

 

[Maxperson]

What I’m saying is that simulation isn’t the primary goal of simulationist play, it’s just a necessary component.

I didn't say primary goal. I said primary method between gamist, narrativist, and simulationist). Simulation is necessary to every game, but it isn't going to be the biggest portion of those three in non-simulationist games.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, then to @Hussar ’s point, would you put 5e in that category?

I've already said no in this thread at least three times. D&D is the odd banana in the bunch. It has all three in about equal amounts, which makes it easy to tweak for just about any style you want to run and do decently to really well at them. It just won't be great at any of them.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn't say primary goal. I said primary method between gamist, narrativist, and simulationist). Simulation is necessary to every game, but it isn't going to be the biggest portion of those three in non-simulationist games.

Okay, so simulation isn’t the goal, it’s the biggest method in simulation games.

Which then brings me back to my question, shouldn’t ‘agenda’ be the goal and not the ‘method’?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it’s very clear when used that way it refers to people who prefer the one creative agenda over the other.

I guess I could see come confusion if one didn’t understand simulationist and narrativist is primarily meant to refer to play instead of people and maybe there’s been some of that occurring here (not sure), but it’s not weird shorthand or deeply confusing when understood with the right context. IMO.



On a different note, I don’t think simulationist does a good job of describing a play agenda. My agenda in playing d&d isn’t to simulate, even though simulation is essential to the experience I desire. My agenda is extremely nuanced, in no particular priority and definitely not exhaustive.

1) embody my character
2) make strategic decisions
3) solve tactical puzzles
4) see how my actions/choices impact the world
5) learn more about my character as he faces tough decisions
6) etc

So maybe the notion that simulationist is a play agenda at all is a little off.

Or maybe we can stop trying to tell people their playstyle isn't real. Seriously, please stop. It's incredibly insulting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've already said no in this thread at least three times. D&D is the odd banana in the bunch. It has all three in about equal amounts, which makes it easy to tweak for just about any style you want to run and do decently to really well at them. It just won't be great at any of them.

Olay. Which mechanics in D&D are not simulative based on your definition? Like which rules are examples of the other two types (I’m assuming you mean gamist and narrativist here, but perhaps I’m wrong?)?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Shouldn’t Player goals be THE agenda?

Don't GMs have goals too though?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay, then to @Hussar ’s point, would you put 5e in that category?

The version of 5e I play? Absolutely yes.