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

[niklinna]

What?! It's not about the kobolds? I can't follow how you arrive at that. The questions raised are raised because they are questions for the characters. Reciprocally, I don't see how you miss the protagonism there.

To join the dots. We have two characters C1 and C2 in worlds W1 and W2. C1 has a prior commitment to "never harm innocents" or something like that, in tension with their duty to "protect the points of light". C2 lacks the first prior commitment.

In W1, C1 had to decide what way to resolve the conflict. Okay, they spare the kobolds. The piper to be paid is likely some problem now or down the line with protecting the points of light, their order, whatever. It's fundamentally who they are and what they want.

In W2, C2 decides to spare the kobolds. They lacked a prior commitment but nothing prevents them learning something about themselves and that being true going forward. They realise that protecting points of light is not as important to them as their newfound awareness that they cannot bring themselves to harm innocents. This is a golden opportunity for the piper to play a tune. It's fundamentally about who they will become and hereon what they will want.

[EDIT And to spell it out, alignments provide context or grounding for players to decide whether they have those sorts of commitments. Good for example makes it likely a character will discover in themselves an aversion to harming innocents.]

Again, I believe that in Edwards's Story Now, something needs to be at stake for the character (or player), and now in the decision to spare the kobolds or not. C1 knowing in the moment that there will be a specific future consequence, such as losing the support of their order, may suffice, but ideally for Story Now some bigwig of that order will be present on the scene (for example), and the screws can be turned further if that bigwig has just been shown to be not at all innocent. Maybe they show up and just whack a human NPC on the blatantly false assumption they've been collaborating with the kobolds.

For C2, nothing is at stake so there's no Story Now going on. Their decision may lay the ground for a later Story Now-type moment, however, as you indicate.

I'd like to reiterate that these modes of play are momentary, and that saying a game or a player is GNS Narrativist is really a shorthand for "features/prefers primarily* moments of GNS-Narrative play". I believe it's possible to embed Story Now moments in otherwise primarily GNS High-Concept Simulationist, or other, play—but you want to know which is which, the specific ways in which they differ, and how much of each all the folks at the table prefer.

* "Primarily" can be stretched toward "exclusively", but I have a strong suspicion there are limits there.

Edits for clarity.

 

[niklinna]

Incidentally, part of the above is why I separate these categories. G&S design seeks to enable, as much as possible, such rational analysis, hence upthread someone mentioned wanting to play something that's like a "supers" game (which would normally be C&E), but instead ends up more like a deconstruction of a "supers" game, seriously examining the (often negative) consequences that would be expected in a world where superpowered individuals exist. C&E design instead proposes a tone or theme, and seeks to take what actions are necessary to portray or fulfill that thing. A "G&S supers" game would be designed to examine the consequences and results of living in a world where superheroes exist. A "C&E supers" game would be designed to portray classic superheroes, encouraging superheroic behavior and, if necessary, actively enforcing classic supers tropes (e.g. secret identities are mostly kept secret, catching someone falling off a building won't break their spine, etc.)

Both things can, at a really abstract and superficial level, be summarized as "articulation of a concept," but the former treats the concept as immutable fact and then procedurally determines what else has to be true based on what is known to be true, even if the consequences might be undesirable (consider how most folks feel about the Tippyverse, if you're familiar with that). The latter, meanwhile, treats the concept as the target to shoot for, and takes what steps are necessary to bring that about, even if some of those steps involve doing irrational or foolish things "in-universe." Simulation derives. Emulation imitates. There are similarities between deriving new truths from known ones and attempting to match the form or structure of something, but they move in extremely different directions.

This is very informative and enlightening for me with regard to Edwards's distinction of Process Simulation vs. High-Concept Simulation (which term I recently asked you about vs. your Conceit-and-Emulation!).

It also shines light for me on how & why some have been talking about "emulation" or "evocation" instead.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, I believe that in Edwards's Story Now, something needs to be at stake for the character (or player), and now in the decision to spare the kobolds or not. C1 knowing in the moment that there will be a specific future consequence, such as losing the support of their order, may suffice, but ideally for Story Now some bigwig of that order will be present on the scene (for example), and the screws can be turned further if that bigwig has just been shown to be not at all innocent. Maybe they show up and just whack a human NPC on the blatantly false assumption they've been collaborating with the kobolds.

For C2, nothing is at stake so there's no Story Now going on. Their decision may lay the ground for a later Story Now-type moment, however, as you indicate.

I'd like to reiterate that these modes of play are momentary, and that saying a game or a player is GNS Narrativist is really a shorthand for "features/prefers primarily* moments of GNS-Narrative play". I believe it's possible to embed Story Now moments in otherwise primarily GNS High-Concept Simulationist, or other, play—but you want to know which is which, the specific ways in which they differ, and how much of each all the folks at the table prefer.

* "Primarily" can be stretched toward "exclusively", but I have a strong suspicion there are limits there.

Edits for clarity.

Wait, what? Now it has to be about some concrete material stakes, and answering questions about the nature of the character doesn't qualify as 'a point?'

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To me this whole dichotomy seems highly artificial. These genres are not so tightly defined and the players are primed to think in genre appropriate terms to begin with, so it isn't at all likely that any sort of obvious conflict would ever even arise. Like I said earlier, it's like if we would divide songs into categories based on whether they really were about music or lyrics. Most are about both, and that's not weird.


Yes, sure, absolutely. So I really don't understand what the problem is with saying that it can fulfil the story now priorities and evoke the setting at the same time and that these things are not in conflict but rather support each other. The system and setting are explicitly chosen to complement each other. Now if you for example wanted to evoke the genre of Agatha Christie style sophisticated murder mystery with Apoc World rules you might be in trouble!

Right, GNS is simply cast in terms of agenda, and it illustrates ways in which different agendas can clash. So, in that light, you'd identify the most primary agenda, which in this case is Narrative. Now, genre ALWAYS exists, so the next question is whether or not we care about it at all. How are the ways we could care:

1. we could use genre logic to act as a constraint on the action space (input to fictional position). In AW this might be evinced by say the GM requiring that a PC go through a lot of work to get a tire for his car. In a genre set in the modern world getting a tire is fairly simple unless you're out in the middle of nowhere.

2. Genre can be used to derive challenges, like in AW a freakish giant electrical storm might arise and threaten the character's brother. That probably won't happen in a realistic modern setting.

3. Genre can be a strong constituent of mood, which can then feed into a player's thinking and ability to get in character, or color the way they approach play.

But what would constitute really 'Genre Based Play'. That would focus on exploring the genre, right? It would evoke these genre things, FOR THEIR OWN SAKE. But look at how I've characterized them above, which is how I would see them applying in AW. These elements certainly exist, they provide color/mood/flavor, whatever you want to call it. They could easily be replaced with other things and the game would still work, it would have integrity. The electrical storm could be replaced with Shoggoths. It would be rather jarring in a genre sense, but AW would WORK. OTOH if the game was ABOUT the genre, you cannot have Shoggoths, they don't fit in that genre! If you put them in there people will be upset, right?

So, my feeling is, Story Now doesn't really actually care about genre, except as it provides some logic that is an element of fictional position. I could totally swap out the genre, and AW would still work, just as long as whatever situations were available in the new genre included a similar sort of milieu where there was a lot of conflict and uncertainty. I mean, maybe some of the moves would need changes to their color. Perhaps some playbooks would need wholesale rewrites or not make a lot of sense, I'm not sure. Genre is definitely in there, but simulating it is not the primary agenda, and if for some reason push came to shove, I'd rule in favor of Story Now principles and not worry about the Apocalypse Flavor that much. Things will work out, but the reverse won't work out, I can't take away the Story Now Narrative premise element, even temporarily.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This doesn't really get at the point of Story Now (I'm really growing to dislike that name).

These questions/possibilities are all simple yes or no, independent of one another. If I'm playing in Story Now mode, I want to see those questions collide head-on.

As an example, what I might expect for a Story Now situation is a scene framed at a dinner party, where Radcliff is about to secure his inheritance so he can marry who he wants instead of having to marry the rich girl. But at that moment, his true love shows up and is about to ruin the whole thing. Does he excuse himself to head her off, possibly pissing off his rich mother so that she denies his inheritance and pissing off his true love for being cowardly, or does he allow his true love to barge in (proving to her his love for her above all else) and scupper his chances at winning the inheritance? Among other potential thorny decisions, which must be dealt with here and now and whose fallout will occur here and now—as well as possibly later, but that seems actually not to be a huge concern of GNS Story Now. At least that's my strong impression, and if true, that's a good reason someone really might not like Story Now.

I'm sorry, I utterly fail to see what in this requires Story Now. This is a scene that could happen basically in any system, or indeed without a system.

 

[niklinna]

Wait, what? Now it has to be about some concrete material stakes, and answering questions about the nature of the character doesn't qualify as 'a point?'

The stakes do not need to be material, but yes, now and since Story Now was first described, they have to be concrete (that is, specific). And they have to be there, in the moment.

I followed the quote chain back several posts and didn't see "a point" being discussed. But, answering questions about the nature of a character totally qualifies as a point—just not the point of Story Now play. In Story Now play, you don't know the answer at the moment the question comes up, and you have to decide it, then and there. Or rather, here and now.

Look back to my example of the character who is afraid of heights and loves her sister. We could answer questions about heights, or about her sister, separately, all day long. But when those two qualities are run into one another, that's a Story Now moment.

Look at the C1/C2 example. Without two issues at stake (protect innocents vs. maintain good standing in the order), in tension in the moment, there is no Story Now moment.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Right, GNS is simply cast in terms of agenda, and it illustrates ways in which different agendas can clash. So, in that light, you'd identify the most primary agenda, which in this case is Narrative. Now, genre ALWAYS exists, so the next question is whether or not we care about it at all. How are the ways we could care:

1. we could use genre logic to act as a constraint on the action space (input to fictional position). In AW this might be evinced by say the GM requiring that a PC go through a lot of work to get a tire for his car. In a genre set in the modern world getting a tire is fairly simple unless you're out in the middle of nowhere.

2. Genre can be used to derive challenges, like in AW a freakish giant electrical storm might arise and threaten the character's brother. That probably won't happen in a realistic modern setting.

3. Genre can be a strong constituent of mood, which can then feed into a player's thinking and ability to get in character, or color the way they approach play.

But what would constitute really 'Genre Based Play'. That would focus on exploring the genre, right? It would evoke these genre things, FOR THEIR OWN SAKE. But look at how I've characterized them above, which is how I would see them applying in AW. These elements certainly exist, they provide color/mood/flavor, whatever you want to call it. They could easily be replaced with other things and the game would still work, it would have integrity. The electrical storm could be replaced with Shoggoths. It would be rather jarring in a genre sense, but AW would WORK. OTOH if the game was ABOUT the genre, you cannot have Shoggoths, they don't fit in that genre! If you put them in there people will be upset, right?

So, my feeling is, Story Now doesn't really actually care about genre, except as it provides some logic that is an element of fictional position. I could totally swap out the genre, and AW would still work, just as long as whatever situations were available in the new genre included a similar sort of milieu where there was a lot of conflict and uncertainty. I mean, maybe some of the moves would need changes to their color. Perhaps some playbooks would need wholesale rewrites or not make a lot of sense, I'm not sure. Genre is definitely in there, but simulating it is not the primary agenda, and if for some reason push came to shove, I'd rule in favor of Story Now principles and not worry about the Apocalypse Flavor that much. Things will work out, but the reverse won't work out, I can't take away the Story Now Narrative premise element, even temporarily.

I feel you have simply build impossible standards for genre emulation. By these standards, genre emulation is not a thing that can actually ever happen in an RPG or probably in a movie either. In any game there always is some other function too, hell, even in movie the trappings support the mood and plot. And that you could change the flavour of one thing and the game would still function is an absurd standard too. You can practically always do that, if we do not care that the end result is thematically jarring.

 

[niklinna]

I'm sorry, I utterly fail to see what in this requires Story Now. This is a scene that could happen basically in any system, or indeed without a system.

It doesn't require Story Now. It is an example of Story Now.

And yes, the scene could happen basically in any system, or indeed without a system!

Systems as such are not Story Now, or Gamist, or any other play mode/agenda. They support, enable, hinder, or are silent on play modes, in particular and different ways.

I would prefer not to say Apocalypse World is a Story Now game. It has tons of formal support for Story Now play, gobs of informal support for High-Concept Simulationist play (or genre emulation or Conceit-And-Emulation), and is pretty antagonistic to Gamist play. I've already written up my characterization along those lines for D&D, but it offers at best token support for Story Now play, so you can totally do it, but the rules don't offer much help.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Right. Makes sense. But not what I meant. Can we have game where the player is 'authoring fiction' but that fiction is not about dramatic needs of their character? It can be about, say, being amusing, or responding to challenge or something completely else. Perhaps that Dying Earth game you and @pemerton were talking about would be like that. (Though you don't seem to think so.) Or some other form of setting-oriented Story Now that was mentioned? I guess I'd like to unpack a bit what 'player authorship with a point' entails. Can we make bad or trivial points for it to count?

Well, @pemerton is the real guru on all things GNS, so it seems like he may be right that RE categorizes Dying Earth as a type of setting oriented Story Now where the 'drives' that the characters experience are drawn out of setting conceits rather than something else, and thus are dictated by the setting or maybe the GM or the system instead of being player determined. I mean, there are definitely RPGs that fall into that space. So, I think the answer to your question is 'yes', at least to a degree.

But yes, I can certainly see how the dramatic needs of the characters probably is a good place to have the player authorship at for producing an intense and enjoyable game.

Actually could we unpack this 'dramatic need' a bit as well. What constitutes a dramatic need? It certainly must be pretty subjective.

Well, I think the definition is pretty conventional. Hamlet's dramatic need is to get vengeance for the murder of his father. Note that there are better and worse choices for a dramatic need. One could posit that their character is very hungry, and then some drama could be generated which involves the character's quest for sustenance. This is probably less rewarding in a character development sense than choices which speak more to morals/ethics/beliefs and such. I can certainly posit a situation where a PC has a choice between going hungry and murder. Probably less interesting than Hamlet's choice to either let his Uncle and Mother get away with murder, or butcher his own family members as an act of revenge (or possibly justice I guess). So at a basic level almost any need can be 'dramatic', but some will undoubtedly be better choices for RP.

 

[niklinna]

So, my feeling is, Story Now doesn't really actually care about genre, except as it provides some logic that is an element of fictional position. I could totally swap out the genre, and AW would still work, just as long as whatever situations were available in the new genre included a similar sort of milieu where there was a lot of conflict and uncertainty. I mean, maybe some of the moves would need changes to their color. Perhaps some playbooks would need wholesale rewrites or not make a lot of sense, I'm not sure.

Why should a play mode (creative agenda) care about genre? The two are independent qualities, like color and shape.

Apocalypse World, however, puts a premium on Story Now play as set in a postapocalyptic world. The specific game combines its specific priorities on play mode/agenda with a specific genre. Any specific game has to do that.

You could swap out the genre, and the rules of Apocalypse World would still work, but then you'd have a PbtA game, and not Apocalypse World itself. If you swap out the genre mid-play, well, I just hope your players are on board with that.

Genre is definitely in there, but simulating it is not the primary agenda, and if for some reason push came to shove, I'd rule in favor of Story Now principles and not worry about the Apocalypse Flavor that much. Things will work out, but the reverse won't work out, I can't take away the Story Now Narrative premise element, even temporarily.

This is where @EzekielRaiden's recent clarification of simulation vs. emulation has particular relevance. To me, at least. Apocalypse World is actively hostile to simulation of anything, but it has gobs of flavor and inspiration for emulating the window dressing and setting tropes of certain post-apocalyptic genres. As long as the emulation is about those things and not about dictating events or event resolution, agenda conflict is unlikely.