D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[Crimson Longinus]

@Manbearcat I'm thinking about what you said about system's say and story now. Would you say following is correct:

All the information/content/fiction whatever you want to call it, that ensues in the process of playing any RPG comes from one the three sources:
1. GM. 2. Player. 3. System.

Further, the information generation in each case may happen 'now' or it may happen 'before.'

So for example GM prepping content is GM's say before, the GM making decision/improvisation at the moment is GM's say now and so forth. System's say before would be things the system requires to be defined before the play begins, whilst system's say now is the system producing results in the moment (the dice rolls and their results etc.)

And further, different games have different ratios on which they rely on these six methods of information generation (though, I'd argue, almost all include at least some of each.)

Does this make sense to you? Or to anyone for that matter?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I just want to play around with some alternative takes, to see what that might suggest.

Your phrasing and posting style seems to indicate otherwise. That is, you pretty clearly seem to be doing some Socratic questioning, which is necessarily an attempt to poke holes in things, not to generate fresh looks with fresh eyes.

I love this scenario for my train sim game. I need to work out a timetable, buy tickets, get to the platform. What engine is pulling the 5:25 to Oxford today?

Worth noting, while I think such a scenario, if backed up by structure (whether that be "DM wrote the train timetable" or "this system has rules for how train timetables are constructed") is naturally what I call Groundedness-and-Simulation in purpose, it can be relatively easily tuned to Score-and-Achievement because there are natural, objective metrics of success present, if one wishes to emphasize them. There's the simplistic "do you make it to your destination on time," but there can be much greater fineness of strategic play, e.g. making it to one's destination the fastest, or with the least money spent, or with the fewest transfers, or in a way that can't be traced (this last one being a non-numerical form of Score, to emphasize that Score need not always be literal numbers to still be semi-objective). In general though, people who really deeply love S&A-driven gameplay are going to find a "train timing game" that goes all in for G&S-driven play disappointing, because (as is the case with so many things IRL), there is little to no real strategy, and little to no benefit between near-perfect optimization and solutions which simply get the job done. Conversely, if you switch it to G&S lovers in S&A gameplay, they're very likely to get annoyed by all the "illogical" or "unrealistic" assumptions, and find the lack of concreteness unrewarding. (Though I DO NOT want to discuss the argument itself, consider the complaints about "combat as sport" vs "combat as war," which specifically highlight artificiality designed to make engaging strategy/tactics.)

Forget resource management, it's all about finding our way efficiently through the maze of transfers between us and our destination. Is it better to change at Reading, or ought we to stay on and change at Didcot Parkway? It's all or nothing. What, there's no sequence that gets us there on time? But... gamist... w...

And this would be why I said what I said above. In fact, you have specifically dismissed "process" Sim with your first three words, "forget resource management," and then imported "Gamism" with the following phrase, "it's all about finding our way efficiently."

The instant you do that, you are setting aside the physical metaphor of the activity (at least loosely related to what I call "Groundedness") and concerns with the causal chain (ditto for what I call "Simulation"), and instead setting a metric by which success may be semi-objectively judged ("Score") and focusing on a Situation/Challenge which the player(s) may either overcome or fail to overcome ("Achievement.") You have specifically made the leap from "process" Sim to "Gamism," and even called it out with your own words. Indeed, in so doing, you have shown how there is tension between these things; in order to really make it a satisfying challenge to overcome, you chose to set aside the context or nature of the play-actions in order to focus on ways they can be evaluated and promoting skillful/strategic play.

Such a turn seems to lend credence to the idea that, whether or not the GNS creative agendas are mutually exclusive, pursuing one within a particular context has a tendency to pull one away from the others.

Why I am I being shoehorned into going to point B? I want to play out my life as a Saville Row tailor in love with a Chelsea undertaker (who doesn't notice him). GM, why are you asking me what I will sacrifice to get to point B? Ask me what I will sacrifice to get the attention of the undertaker! No? Well I'm leaving your pointless game...

Well, I'm not the person you asked. But my answer would be: "If you don't actually care about it (whatever 'it' was), then it was never Point B to begin with. If you DID care but stopped caring, then you 'got to' Point B because of that realization: the Issue was resolved by way of letting go of the Value you thought you cared about. If you DIDN'T care but at some point started caring, then that is a new Issue that has arisen naturally in the course of play, which may resolve separately or concurrently with the current Issue. If you cared all along and reached a resolution that satisfied you, then you reached Point B (and also why are you complaining?!)"

It's subjective, right? I value GNS concretely for going to bat for story and bringing to light important considerations that historically have been powerful in some types of story-telling. I kind of like the now part, but I don't get why it is welded to story? Every agenda might be run in now. Sim-now. Game-now. Rejection of that intution arises from commitments that are tautological (it can't be like that, because the model says its not like that). And that sort of intuition is why I keep coming back to wanting a model that is multidimensional rather than just three-nodes. The three-node pattern is far too limited to describe the space.

I'm not really sure 'Sim Now' and 'Game Now actually do make much sense in context though. As noted, 'Game Now' is something like Calvinball, or for "real" games, things like Nomic and Mao; these games look almost nothing like roleplaying games and are so much more niche than TTRPGs they make "Story Now" look broadly popular. As for 'Sim Now,' well, you haven't even articulated what that would look like, and I will admit up front that I am skeptical it can even happen. How do you make consistent physical metaphors for the activity and

This thread was a question about D&D / gamist. Legions of pixels have fallen to nar. Suggestive of just how much the model has of worth to say about gamist.

I mean...others have already given their answer here. But mine would be "because Gamism is pretty much cut and dried and doesn't require much discussion." I articulated in a prior post what seemed to me to have been a very clear consensus on the topic of GNS Gamism. No one objected, and several folks who have been discussing GNS here reacted positively. Since the "Gamism" conversation seems to have largely run its course, apart from flare-ups like "what would 'Game Now' look like?", the discussion has focused on stuff that's, y'know, still up for discussion.

Even among gamists, system isn't automatically important. Note that there were a lot of gamist elements in old school D&D that had no systemic support at all; they were entirely about narrating actions on the part of players that the GM assessed as to their viability and outcomes.

That seems to belie the actual things Gygax said though. His absolute ironclad adamant stance that it was "impossible" to run a game where strict time records were not kept is an openly Gamist prescription (though one that, as with the train example above, could be turned to "process" Sim ends if that is what one finds valuable).

And there are still people of that bent who expect the GM to take matters in hand if the system is not doing proper support, which in practice means they don't really consider the system important for their gamist preferences.

Again, I'd dispute that. Firstly, everyone generally agrees that it is possible for even very well constructed systems to go wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean they "don't really consider system important," it means they are being realists about the quality of actual games made by imperfect humans. If, however, the response is very literally "nah, do not MAKE a rule, just figure it out fresh each and every time," then yes, I would call that "system doesn't matter." E.g. even in 5e, which wears its (alleged) "system doesn't matter" on its sleeve, we've seen much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the (oh-so-feared) removal of alignment, or removing fixed ability score bonuses from ancestries, or the bitter and acrimonious debates about "broken" options like coffeelocks and one-level Hexblade dips and such. If system didn't matter, no one would ever complain about these things. Because they're pure system, and yet they matter! Likewise, even really simple things come up, like the fact that spears and tridents are perfectly identical other than tridents being heavier, more expensive, and harder to use (spears are simple, tridents are martial). A Gamist "system matters" critique of this is, "why even print it if it's totally useless?! No one would ever willingly use a trident if a spear would do the job!" Which is something I have in fact actually seen. I have also seen, much more rarely, a more "process" Sim critique, more or less "it's illogical that a weapon would exist that is in all ways equal or inferior to another, so why doesn't the trident have something to justify its use in the world?" Many "system matters" "process" Sim folks will just provide that justification, codifying it as a house rule.

Because house rules aren't a declaration that system doesn't matter. House rules just mean system matters and the default system was (in some way) wrong for the table. Actual "system doesn't matter" play would be to shrug off even openly inconsistent rulings, which very few D&D players are willing to tolerate.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So if we are evocating the flavour of a genre we are not emulating a genre? What are we doing then? Are genre evocation and genre emulation now in different GNS baskets?

It is about AGENDA. What is the GOAL here? Are we playing IN ORDER TO generate an apocalyptic genre story, or is the genre in this case simply subordinate to and supporting the primary goal? If there are rules and process of play, and/or ephemera, which produce apocalyptica for its own sake, then I'd say those represent an agenda falling into something like High Concept Simulation. If on the other hand, the reasoning is "apocalyptic scenarios really bring out the qualities of character and conflict best." (or something along the same lines) then we have Narrativist Story Now. The most powerful argument in favor of one or the other position would be where one yields to the other. If story trumps apocalypse, then we CERTAINLY have Narrative trumping Simulation, right?

I see that the projection continues. I have praised the design of Apoc World for it's ability to create a whole in which the parts support and elevate each other. I simply do not subscribe to the idea that the game must be about one thing and one thing only because some bizarre commitment to the purity of some ancient game theory.

Who said it was about one thing and one thing ONLY? Presumably when you get people to play Apocalypse World those people are interested in the genre in SOME degree, correct? I mean, they could play Dungeon World, or Stonetop, or one of various Sci-Fi themed PbtAs just as easily, just to name some that are squarely in an 'action/adventure' sort of motif. So, I don't think we have to posit that the genre/tone of AW is purely a convenience serving story. I think the author made it pretty clear that his reason for selecting the genre WAS because he thought it would produce some rich story now gaming, but if he really disliked the genre or there was another that he really favored, then he'd have probably gone that way instead, don't you think?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, heist as a genre focuses on a large scale robbery or a string of robberies. Blades doesn't do this in any consistent way. Play doesn't have to be about robberies at all. My last game was with a crew of smugglers. We did a few heists, but we also did smuggling, a lot of occult stuff at the end, politics, and flat out beatdowns. So, if Blades was meant to emulate a heist genre, it seems to not do so with surprising regularity. I can do heists, for sure, but it's not a heist emulator.

Smuggling absolutely is in the heist genre. And of course the game has it's own spin of this. It is game about fantasy criminals in a haunted city. It absolutely is trying to paint a picture and evoke very unique the setting. Things which GNS puts in the high-concept sim.

It's also a staple of other genres. It's not at all unique to heists. This was my point -- heist as a genre is fairly specific, but flashbacks are not specific to heists. You can have heist genre without flashbacks.

Read the examples in the book. I'm not going to link long paragraphs of text this time, but it is absolutely about the heisty sort of flashback that set up the means of resolving the situation. It is not about flashbacks revealing the emotional stakes etc which is the common use of flashbacks in other genres.

Seriously, you're full on reality denial mode in here.

But that's not what you're doing. You're saying that agendas do naturally work together and this model, the GNS model, is wrong because it suggests that they do not.

Yes. Some agendas naturally work well together and if GNS suggest that they don't, it is wrong. Absolutely.

Your fixation on genre is weird, especially since the model doesn't really care much about genre

Which would be another way it is lacking.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Smuggling absolutely is in the heist genre. And of course the game has it's own spin of this. It is game about fantasy criminals in a haunted city. It absolutely is trying to paint a picture and evoke very unique the setting. Things which GNS puts in the high-concept sim.

Smuggling is about stealing things? Hmm. Okay, how about Cutters -- gangs that run extortion and drug dens and punch other gangs into giving up territory? Or Cult gangs, which do, wait for it, occult things like try to awaken their dead gods? Or Assassin gangs, that -- assassinate people. Or Hawkers that sell things, like drugs or access?

You're operating on a blurb with no real knowledge of the game. You see that the elevator pitch is about heists, and so are making that argument. Turns out the game is more complex than that. Really, it's about what the PCs will do -- what they will stake, what they care about, what they will risk for what. Play is very much located on the PCs and not the attempt to really get heists right. Or anything else right.

Read the examples in the book. I'm not going to link long paragraphs of text this time, but it is absolutely about the heisty sort of flashback that set up the means of resolving the situation. It is not about flashbacks revealing the emotional stakes etc which is the common use of flashbacks in other genres.

"I can't be bothered to provide any support, but trust me, the way I'm describing the game from my no experience with it but reading something somewhere absolutely trumps your experience play it. By the way, this, in no way, should be considered denying your play."

Got it.

Seriously, you're full on reality denial mode in here.

Ad hom. Devoid of argument.

Yes. Some agendas naturally work well together and if GNS suggest that they don't, it is wrong. Absolutely.

Assertion, proof not in evidence, you cannot even produce examples of such after being asked multiple time to do so.

Which would be another way it is lacking.

Assertion, proof not in evidence.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That seems to belie the actual things Gygax said though. His absolute ironclad adamant stance that it was "impossible" to run a game where strict time records were not kept is an openly Gamist prescription (though one that, as with the train example above, could be turned to "process" Sim ends if that is what one finds valuable).

Well, there are two things there. The first is that in a sense that doesn't contradict what I said. That's the GM doing the necessary non-system bookkeeping to make his essentially extra-system decisions work. Gygax was assuming a given GM was incapable of keeping that in his head, in part because he assumed a game structure with multiple character groups going about their business in ways that potentially could impact each other. That never seemed to actually apply to the majority of groups, but it wasn't the only place where how Gygax assumed the game would be played, and how the majority of people played it weren't identical.

Again, I'd dispute that. Firstly, everyone generally agrees that it is possible for even very well constructed systems to go wrong.

Yeah, but not everyone considers the fact the system has gone wrong irrelevant. People who expect the GM to handle the majority of the game functions kind of do. Its what the whole "rulings not rules" thing is about.

That doesn't necessarily mean they "don't really consider system important," it means they are being realists about the quality of actual games made by imperfect humans. If, however, the response is very literally "nah, do not MAKE a rule, just figure it out fresh each and every time," then yes, I would call that "system doesn't matter." E.g. even in

See above. That's pretty close to the take some OS proponents have; that extra rules just get in the way. And these are people who are often big into the whole concept of "skilled play" remember.

5e, which wears its (alleged) "system doesn't matter" on its sleeve, we've seen much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the (oh-so-feared) removal of alignment, or removing fixed ability score bonuses from ancestries, or the bitter and acrimonious debates about "broken" options like coffeelocks and one-level Hexblade dips and such. If system didn't matter, no one would ever complain about these things. Because they're pure system, and yet they matter! Likewise, even really simple things come up, like the

I don't think I ever said or even implied that all Gamists were of the "system doesn't matter" school. I'm primarily Gamist and I consider it to matter a great deal. All my claim is is that Gamism, per se, isn't connected one way or another there; its a question of whether a Gamist considers engaging with the rules and import part of the Game element that tells you that. If there wasn't a subset that didn't, the old Braunshweigs would never have been a thing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

"I can't be bothered to provide any support, but trust me, the way I'm describing the game from my no experience with it but reading something somewhere absolutely trumps your experience play it. By the way, this, in no way, should be considered denying your play."

Spoiler: It is what I say it is, but here is the massive quote if you want:

Flashbacks​

The rules don’t distinguish between actions performed in the present moment and those performed in the past. When an operation is underway, you can invoke a flashback to roll for an action in the past that impacts your current situation. Maybe you convinced the district Watch sergeant to cancel the patrol tonight, so you make a Sway roll to see how that went.

The GM sets a stress cost when you activate a flashback action.

• 0 Stress: An ordinary action for which you had easy opportunity. Consorting with a friend to agree to arrive at the dice game ahead of time, to suddenly spring out as a surprise ally.
• 1 Stress: A complex action or unlikely opportunity. Finessing your pistols into a hiding spot near the card table so you could retrieve them after the pat-down at the front door.
• 2 (or more) Stress: An elaborate action that involved special opportunities or contingencies. Having already Studied the history of the property and learned of a ghost that is known to haunt its ancient canal dock—a ghost that can be compelled to reveal the location of the hidden vault.

After the stress cost is paid, a flashback action is handled just like any other action. Sometimes it will entail an action roll, because there’s some danger or trouble involved. Sometimes a flashback will entail a fortune roll, because we just need to find out how well (or how much, or how long, etc.). Sometimes a flashback won’t call for a roll at all because you can just pay the stress and it’s accomplished.

If a flashback involves a downtime activity, pay 1 coin or 1 rep for it, instead of stress.

One of the best uses for a flashback is when the engagement roll goes badly. After the GM describes the trouble you’re in, you can call for a flashback to a special preparation you made, “just in case” something like this happened. This way, your “flashback planning” will be focused on the problems that _do _happen, not the problems that might happen.

Limits of flashbacks​

A flashback isn’t time travel. It can’t “undo” something that just occurred in the present moment. For instance, if an Inspector confronts you about recent thefts of occult artifacts when you’re at the Lady’s party, you can’t call for a flashback to assassinate the Inspector the night before. She’s here now, questioning you—that’s established in the fiction. You can call for a flashback to show that you intentionally tipped off the inspector so she would confront you at the party—so you could use that opportunity to impress the Lady with your aplomb and daring.

Flashback examples​

“I want to have a flashback to earlier that night, where I sneak into the stables and feed fireweed to all their goats so they’ll go berserk and create a distraction for our infiltration.”
“Ha! Nice. Okay, that’s seems a bit tricky, dealing with ornery goats and all... 1 stress.”
“Should I roll Prowl to sneak in and plant it?”
“Nah. Their goat stable security amounts to a stable boy who is usually asleep anyway. You can easily avoid their notice.”
“So it just works?”
“Eh... not so fast. When you want the distraction to hit, let’s make a fortune roll to see how crazy the Fireweed Goat Maneuver gets. Three dice.”

“The engagement roll is... a 2. Looks like a desperate situation for you! Hmmm. Okay, so you’re inside the gang’s compound at the docks, slipping up through the shadows next to some huge metal storage tanks. But then all the electric lights come on. The big metal warehouse door rolls open, and you hear a heavy wagon coming in through the gate. Looks like they’re getting a delivery right now, and a bunch of gang members are out to receive it. They’re about to be on top of you. What do you do?”
“Hang on, I want to have a flashback.”
“Okay, for what?”
“Uh. Something... helpful? Damn, I don’t know what that would be. Anyone have ideas?”
“Oh, what if you Consorted with your docker friends yesterday and they blabbed about this delivery, so we rigged it with a bomb.”
“Oh man, that’s hilarious. But kind of nuts. I guess 2 stress for that?”
“Sounds good. But let’s make that Consort roll and see if your docker friends made any demands or complicated anything for you. Then we need to find out how well this bomb works. Who was in charge of that?”
“I did it. I’ll roll Tinker to set the fuse just right. Hopefully.”

Ad hom. Devoid of argument.

Assertion, proof not in evidence.

It certainly is nice that you have started to summarise the gist of your position. Saves time.

 

[pemerton]

Right. So here you are stating the defining factor is the relationship of the person to the subject matter, either audience or the creator.

Obfuscating part is all the talk about points and dramatic needs of characters and all that. If the actual defining part is whether the player is creator of audience of the fiction, then say that. Why would it matter for this whether the created/enjoyed fiction has a point or says something about dramatic needs of the character? Why are things weirdly conflated?

All RPGing involves creating fiction. The point of "story now" RPGing is for the participants - most of whom are players - to create fiction that has a "point". Which one typically does - given how RPGs work - by creating a character with dramatic needs. (There has also been discussion, in this thread, of setting-oriented "story now" play. Although a famous game - HeroWars/Quest - exemplifies this, with Glorantha as the setting, it's the less common approach.)

That's not obfuscation, it's just setting the thing out. For reasons I don't get, you keep picking out one component of what I'm saying (eg authorship; "point"; "dramatic needs") and focusing on that while seeming to ignore the relationships that I have posited in respect of it.

To illustrate the contrast between merely creating a fiction, and playing "story now": A player who describes their PC sitting in a pub ordering beers, or wandering around a bazaar buying things, is creating a fiction, but is not involved in "story now" play. (That sort of play I think is normally a type of high concept simulationism which strongly deprioritises situation.)

We can establish a thing (Ser Geralt is an honourable man) and then either intentionally or emergently test it in play (Ser Geralt ends up in a situation where he must choose between his honour and his other priorities (any good character has multiple priorities.))

You don't go the extra step and consider whether or not the system or setting dictate an answer to the choice. But if they don't, then what we have is "story now" RPGing. As I've already posted, there's probably some of it happening using 5e as the rulebook. I just don't see anyone on ENworld posting about it!

The idea that such things would be set in stone and never questioned or tested seems very alien to me, and I really don't think that is a typical way most people approach these things.

AD&D had rules for alignment change. But the change is dictated by the system: "internal cause is king".

What on Earth would you lead to thinking that 5e play somehow would not include situations in which characters' beliefs, values and commitments would be tested?

The issue isn't whether or not they're tested. It's whether or not an answer is dictated by system, or setting, or social contract/social pressure. See further immediately below.

For instance, if the GM has already decided that the outcome of a particular action declaration will result in defeat for the PC (eg on the basis of prep), then a player who declares that action cannot be testing whether or not following a certain conviction is the only way to succeed. This rules out a whole host of fantasy-thematic-story-now RPGing; and pushes towards expedience-oriented RPGing. This is a very common refrain in the history of D&D play (see eg every thread ever that lamented the prevalence of "murder hobos").

So rail-roading? Well, let's not do that then! As for alignment, it is pretty much vestigial in 5e, and a lot of people simply ignore it. I haven't put it on character sheets at least since the third edition.

On alignment: I see many posters insisting that evil PCs become NPCs, that PCs must be heroes, etc.

On railroading: the only poster I know of besides me who regularly espouses a notion of "railroading" that includes what I mentioned is me!

For instance, if the action in question is to look at or into something, or even to ask someone, it is common practice for that to be determined by reference to GM's notes: so eg "I look in the box for such-and-such documents" will fail, if the GM prep indicates the documents are elsewhere. Or "I ride full tilt to the mountain to stop the ritual" in circumstances where the GM prep indicates that the ritual is happening in the valley.

This goes back to my post, way upthread, about keeping key moments of action resolution open. And it pushes towards different ways of using prep in framing - Vincent Baker has a good discussion in DitV, and one of the best examples I know of is the Prince Valiant scenario The Crimson Bull which I think is a masterpiece of prep-as-framing while leaving the key moment of action resolution open.

The d20 module Maiden Voyage comes close, but forces two encounters with the boat before the epic one. When I used the adventure (in Burning Wheel) it was precisely to avoid the problem that creates that I used only one such encounter.

Has this again been one of your attempts to smuggle in setting editing powers into discussion by wording things vaguely? That if the GM, and not the player, created the NPC which results Ser Geralt ending up in position in which his honour was tested it somehow doesn't count?

It's not just about who authors the NPC, although that can be relevant. It's about who establishes the status of the NPC, as ally or antagonist; about who orients the choices and projects of the PCs.

It seems fairly clear to me that most D&D play involves the GM doing those things: it's part and parcel of the idea of a plot hook.

Pulling together this point, plus the point just above about keeping action resolution open, here are two instances of play to illustrate what I am getting at.

In the rulebook for In A Wicked Age, Vincent Baker gives the example of a character (protagonist) who is a young woman, and whose best interest (=, more or less, dramatic need) is to become pregnant to a stone idol. He asks, in the voice of the rules author, is such a thing possible? And tells use to play to find out. And by "us" he doesn't mean players, he means all participants. The system does not foreclose the possibility of fulfilling that dramatic need, and does not assume that the GM has some special role in either deciding that it is possible or not, and/or in deciding whether or not it happens.

There are other RPGs that can handle that sort of dramatic need in a somewhat similar fashion - in 4e it might be a skill challenge that includes Arcana or Religion; in a suitably re-flavoured Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic it could be about establishing, or eliminating, a Distinction (depending on how it was set up: there are often multiple ways to do something in that system); I haven't fully thought through how I would handle it in Agon, and I don't have access to my rulebook right at the moment, but I'm pretty confident it could be done.

But there are a number of RPGs which would treat this essentially as a system and/or setting issue - "internal cause is king" - perhaps with the GM's decision-making as a backup. With the possibility (or impossibility) of resolving the dramatic need determined from the get-go. The dramatic need becomes subordinated to whatever ideas informed the system or setting.

Second example: when I ran a session of Wuthering Heights, one of the PCs ended up in prison. His actions started a riot; Barry, a NPC who had been the object of the PC's (unrequited) affections, and who was now a fellow prisoner (due to the actions of the other PC having resulted in his arrest), was beaten to a pulp; the PC picked up Barry's blood-stained shirt and with that as his red flag (on the end of a prison mop) led the rioting mob out of the prison. Wuthering Heights made this easy to frame and resolve (we used the rules for warfare to resolve the riot). A lot of RPGs, though, would turn this into a technical exercise in task resolution (Persuasion, Oratory, etc) and/or would need the GM to do a lot of management of fiction and pacing to find out what happens to the PC, whether he can avoid/escape/defeat the guards, etc. Instead of the dramatic need being at the forefront, "internal cause is king" and the focus of action declaration and resolution becomes engagement with (i) a pre-authored setting that is being narrated to the players by the GM, and/or (ii) the GM's conception of how things should go.

As I've posted - and on this I have a modest history of being less sceptical of the possibility than @Ovinomancer - I think 5e could be used to play a more-or-less vanilla narrativist game, much as I did with AD&D 35 or so years ago. It's not the ideal vehicle, but if the appropriate principles and expectations are adopted the endeavour needn't be a total failure. But as I've also posted, if this sort of play is happening in 5e I'm not seeing evidence of it from ENworld posters.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The issue is when you're focused on creating dramatic outcomes without caring about the Now element particularly. Where does that go? Because there are absolutely games and game groups that are about the former while being hit of miss about it being Now (they won't resist it but if it gets in the way of what they're doing they'll abandon it in a moment).

I cannot say without knowing WHY this is happening... If the "you're" is the GM, then it seems to me it is basically Simulationist play, the GM is simulating a drama. There's a FEELING of drama, just like in a TV show, but just like in the show, the people experiencing it are an audience, they are not CREATING the drama, so the agenda, IMHO is a type of simulationist agenda (and this is where the chosen name for this may create issues for people). I think it might have been better for 'Simulationist' to have been called something like 'Modeling', because that's what it does, its goal is to model something in play. Drama is a bit different from say 'a certain kind of dialog' in that it is a trait, not a thing, and thus you cannot say that modeled drama is just a model OF drama, it is itself dramatic in character. Still, fundamentally, from an RPG perspective it falls into the category of RPG play which attempts to evoke a specific kind of situation, trait, or character in play.

And this is really why IMHO, and @pemerton strongly supports this here in post 975 that GNS is HIGHLY coherent in terms of placing things in bins which share deeply significant attributes. After some study of both GDS and GEN material I could not find anything like the same level of coherence in either of those models. In fact they seem almost more like exercises in calling out traits of games/play styles and attaching labels to them than anything else. That's a PART of constructing an analytical framework, but IMHO GNS moved to another level in terms of grouping things together according to attributes which are really distinct and predictive.

This is not to say that we can't take from other models and use some of their labels and observations, nor that any given model is a 'last word' on the subject, by any means. At the very least, even if GNS was super successful in one sense, it isn't necessarily fit to all purposes, far from it. I mean, I'm pretty well educated in physics. I would never try to apply Relativistic Quantum Field Theory (even if I could handle the math) to a problem of celestial navigation which is far better handled using classical Newtonian Mechanics (and maybe a damned Hamiltonian or three, curse that).

 

[pemerton]

Sure. This guy here for example:

Those posts aren't about amount of control. They're about what the player is able to do using the authority that they have.

Story now doesn't require revising authority structures. It does require revising principles and expectations, if those treat AD&D 2nd ed or similar games as the baseline.

In DL/AD&D 2nd-ed style play, and in Story Now play, the player is free to declare actions for their PC. But the principles that govern how the GM exercises their scene-framing power, and their power to narrate consequences of the declared actions, are different.