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

[Micah Sweet]

It's a game that consciously wants to be centrist. It gives a nod to many styles. I feel it is easy to overlook that the designers employed by WotC are typically incredibly well informed and among the best in the field. They have a highly sophisticated and often subtle touch.


Again, in 5e's case it's not confused, it's intentionally left open. I'll also nod toward reasons for skepticism about determining what any human-moderated game is prior to interpretation.

That's interesting. What about 5e's design do you see as "subtle"?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Inspiration. Definitely a metacurrency.

Metacurrency is not a hallmark of Story Now. It may or may not be present in many approaches. Inspiration, as enacted in 5e, isn't Story Now in the least.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Inspiration. Definitely a metacurrency.

so to are the fighter superiority dice

 

[clearstream]

That's interesting. What about 5e's design do you see as "subtle"?

One would be the adroit instantiation of classes within the design-space that ensures each major niche is occupied, informing in a very deliberate fashion their features at various levels. An interesting fingerprint of which is seen in the generally uniform power watersheds and its highlight by rogues as an exception. The way diverse approaches to combat are instanced in class basics, features and feats is also a nice piece of work and subtle enough that one rarely sees all its pillars discussed. Sneaking Bo9S in as a subclass was rather cute!

Two others I find fascinating are the writing of fiction-first ideas into the basic pattern and the system for ability checks, and the faint nods to story-now in TIBFs and Inspiration. Speaking of backgrounds, the game purpose of backgrounds (in distributing skills) is rather neatly disguised as colour. It's intriguing to observe a nod to FitM in bardic inspiration, or the neat little piece of ludic self-awareness in the divination mechanic.

The technical language (the legal wording of rules) is remarkably consistent all through, and continually echoes specific themes. (DM power being one of them.) 5e is a sophisticated and amazingly robust piece of design given it's breadth and ambition. One may well feel vexed at its centricity - or refusal to take a stand - while still admiring the feat of designer engineering that accomplishes it.

Anyway, I am sure that the perceptive reader will be able to find the many more subtle arrangements, threads, and patterns throughout the rules

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's intriguing to observe a nod to FitM in bardic inspiration

What's FitM in this context?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Metacurrency is not a hallmark of Story Now. It may or may not be present in many approaches. Inspiration, as enacted in 5e, isn't Story Now in the least.

Is Story Now synonymous with narrativism? Isn't it rather just one way one can approach narrativism?

 

[clearstream]

What's FitM in this context?

The player sees the number rolled and in my experience everyone can well guess the probable outcome, but we do not terminate the process with that roll. Instead we (may) insert an additional piece of fortune (the inspiration die). The process isn't a tennis ball arcing to the opponent's raquet. That ball can bounce once (or twice, in some cases) according to additional player choices, based on what they saw rolled.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The player sees the number rolled and in my experience everyone can well guess the probable outcome, but we do not terminate the process with that roll. Instead we (may) insert an additional piece of fortune (the inspiration die). The process isn't a tennis ball arcing to the opponent's raquet. That ball can bounce once (or twice, in some cases) according to additional player choices, based on what they saw rolled.

I mean what does the acronym mean lol? Also TIBF!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Metacurrency is not a hallmark of Story Now. It may or may not be present in many approaches. Inspiration, as enacted in 5e, isn't Story Now in the least.

This is why GNS is not a good model for discussion. Not enough people know exactly what the theory means by the very natural language words it uses. Its disguised jargon. Metacurrency is very narrativist to me. Story Now is just useless jargon as far as I'm concerned.

 

[niklinna]

I found it not very enlightening because the statement effectively boils down to the conversation between Antony and Lepidus:

LEPIDUS: What manner o’ thing is your crocodile?
ANTONY: It is shaped, sir, like itself, and it is as broad as it hath breadth. It is just so high as it is, and moves with it own organs. It lives by that which nourisheth it, and the elements once out of it, it transmigrates.
...

"This thing is a perfect simulation of itself" is, in fact, literally an actual joke made by SMBC. Almost a decade ago, in fact. Likewise things like "Buffyspeak." Hence I found it not very enlightening. Telling me the game simulates itself, that it works how it works because that how it worked before, and that changing it makes it "stop feeling like D&D," just...doesn't give me much information to work with.

Well there's your problem. Trad D&D is not trying to simulate itself. It's trying to simulate—or perhaps, emulate—D&D (rather, the Classic culture of D&D), taking the familiar trappings while catering to a different agenda. It's more like somebody saw the crocodile, skinned it, and tried to fit that skin over a hippo.