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

[clearstream]

Now go back and look at Harper's diagrams, Harpers words on the different loops, and Bakers words on Task vs Conflict resolution. The nexus of all of this should yield the following:

* Torchbearer is System-Player-GM (in that order)-directed engine for Gamist priorities.

* The inverse (some kind of D&D) is a GM-directed engine for High Concept Simulation priorities.

I like this way of diagramming it. So then

• The "inverse" (some kind of D&D) is a GM-Player-System (in that order)-directed engine...

This is especially true of 5e. This does come back to some arguments that I've identified that you dislike. It is not accurate to say that player and system don't count in D&D. Even in light of rule 0.

Can you accept that contention? Perhaps even think GM-System-Player (although I believe that is less frequently observed.)

 

[Campbell]

Beautiful, I like the switch to socially enforceable. I'm saying that the rules of D&D are socially enforceable, and Rule 0 therefore operates within that social contract.

For something to be socially enforceable it is essential that other players can hold us accountable. Accountability relies on transparency. When a mechanic is GM facing rather than table facing there is no way to establish accountability. It's the way that transparency and accountability interact to create a sense of powerful expectation that gives a mechanic its bite or teeth.

 

[Manbearcat]

I like this way of diagramming it. So then

• The "inverse" (some kind of D&D) is a GM-Player-System (in that order)-directed engine...

This is especially true of 5e. This does come back to some arguments that I've identified that you dislike. It is not accurate to say that player and system don't count in D&D. Even in light of rule 0.

Can you accept that contention? Perhaps even think GM-System-Player (although I believe that is less frequently observed.)

It depends on what work "count" is doing here. For one of value of "count", it may very well be true. For another value of "count", it may very much not be true.

Same goes for GM, Player, System. These aren't 1/3 spreads, so some kind of value or coefficient has to represent the contribution of GM, P, and S. Its not sufficient to just put them in order of impact. And you have to identify the actual priority you're evaluating.

For instance, if the total value of GM, P, and S = 10 and the priority is Gamism, Torchbearer and 5e might look like this:

Torchbearer = S 5, P 4, GM 1.

5e = GM 6, S 2, P 2.

If that is the evaluation for Gamism, the presence of Rule 0 (which can trivially turn that P 2 into a P 0 at any given moment of play) + that general spread may yield "player input (effectively) doesn't count for Gamism priorities."

Now for High Concept Simulationist Priorities? Could be totally different spread and values. A player that has a robust conception of PC and aggressively represents that conception through adding color, adding performative theatrics/flourishes, engages aggressively with the setting and genre conceits and in the appropriate ways? They might turn the above orientation dramatically (maybe GM 4, P4, S 2). On that occasion and for that High Concept Sim priority, the player's contribution 100 % "counts" and does so in a big way.

 

[clearstream]

That is the biggest proverbial tool in the toolbox for GM-directed, High Concept Simulationist play. For Gamist or Narrativist play? Its utter kryptonite.

When I think of gamist, I am thinking of

Score - Achievement
Stakes - Risks
Construction - Perfection
Tempo - Flow (admittedly rarer)

So is GM-curation kryptonite for gamism? It really comes down to the priorities of the group.

Score - Achievement
Can Rule 0 be wielded so that achievement is an empty concept? I think so. Must it be? No. In 5e's case, the gamist needs of players are highly served precisely by not being as demanding as say TB2. I think here there is a strong risk of (mistakenly) conflating difficulty with gamism. Of our regular group, about half loved TB2 (I was in that half) and half didn't wish to play beyond a couple of sessions.

Stakes - Risks
Where DM is an honest broker, Stakes - Risks is preserved. Testimonial in this direction comes from groups who say things like - "We always roll in the open", or "The dice fall as they may." Equally, there are groups who follow "rule of cool" and so on: they're not prioritising gamism.

Construction - Perfection
This can undermined by a DM who doesn't uphold internal scaffolding for value. An example is where a player feels they have earned X, and then DM simply bestows a copy of X on another player. X is thus devalued. Rule 0 has practically no interaction with this: it's a symptom of other errors.

Tempo - Flow
This one can go both ways. Tempo can arise in the cadence of conversation and yield flow. And it can arise in conscientiously applied system. Rule 0 could obviously undermine the latter, and I think a DM would have to grok tempo and see to it that it was upheld to avoid that. Again, I think it's less about Rule 0 and more about the other rules.

I honestly believe that's the slippery thing with DM-curated play: it comes down to what that DM actually does. It is as toothy as the social consensus in that cohort.

 

[clearstream]

For something to be socially enforceable it is essential that other players can hold us accountable. Accountability relies on transparency. When a mechanic is GM facing rather than table facing there is no way to establish accountability. It's the way that transparency and accountability interact to create a sense of powerful expectation that gives a mechanic its bite or teeth.

I agree with that, while again (of course) not agreeing that it is a necessary feature of DM-curated play. It's true that, as I say just above, groups that want toothy games tend to prioritise transparency.

I can say - DM-curated play that is not transparent cannot guarantee accountability so teeth are at risk of being pulled.

I cannot say - DM-curated play cannot guarantee accountability.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which is fine, but we need to move beyond this to actual implication on the design of system and experience of play.

Rule 0 was conceived of and implemented (design) to achieve Simulationist Priorities (during play). From White Wolf and Dragonlance onward, this has been overwhelmingly about (a) High Concept Simulationist priorities and (b) at any time (when it happens) is as relevant as change outcomes (what happens and why) in the formulation because of its capacity to wrest the trajectory of play from player to GM. And its not just the implications of that in the moment, its the chilling effect that this paradigm inculcates all subsequent moments of play with (Player: "...in that moment of play, was my input subordinated there or was it honored...I don't know because the process is GM-pacing").

That is the biggest proverbial tool in the toolbox for GM-directed, High Concept Simulationist play. For Gamist or Narrativist play? Its utter kryptonite.

I think, again, this makes some assumptions about perceived usage in the field that I don't think always follows. And I think it turns on an important issue of GM process in those cases that players are usually relatively aware of if they've been playing with a given GM for any length of time.

The question is "Is the GM making a rule 0 style decision to address output or input?"

What I mean here is that, even if they're doing so for the reason you suggest (and I remind you again that I'm not happy with calling this "sim" when it includes a number of to many people unrelated things, but that doesn't directly impact your statement other than to remind you where I'm coming from), it makes a great degree of difference whether it is to control output or to frame input and process. In other words, is it changing the process because it looks too easy/too hard in general, or for that player. In the case of the latter I agree with your assessment; in the former, not so much. And I think transparency on the part of a GM as to why he's doing that (and possible input from the players in it) makes a big difference.

Put simply, from a gamist point of view, if the GM is going to change a set of processes or simply some numbers because he had not realized how poorly they represented the situation as he sees it, as long as I know its the case I can still engage with it on a gamist level in most cases because I can still know whether the thing I'm attempting to do is the most sensible choice given my character's abilities and aims. Its Campbell's "black box" that destroys this, and the black box is not an automatic element that goes with the ability to engage "rule 0". It may, in a few cases be a necessity to engage with process in a way that seems appropriate on both a game and story level (unless one knows at least a bit about the quality of guards one is sneaking past, one should generally commit to doing so or not without knowing exactly what their perceptual ratings will be--but even here there should be a range of possible cases unless in-fiction one is going into the situation very blind). But those are, for the most part, specialty cases outside of some extremely information-tight old school approaches where players having any information of a usable level is considered anathema (as you can tell, I'm not a fan).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree with that, while again (of course) not agreeing that it is a necessary feature of DM-curated play. It's true that, as I say just above, groups that want toothy games tend to prioritise transparency.

I can say - DM-curated play that is not transparent cannot guarantee accountability so teeth are at risk of being pulled.

I cannot say - DM-curated play cannot guarantee accountability.

Yeah, I mostly agree. It seems to say the games of Fragged Empire I run are gamist-priority destroying, which would be a great surprise to my pretty highly gamist players.

 

[Thomas Shey]

For something to be socially enforceable it is essential that other players can hold us accountable. Accountability relies on transparency. When a mechanic is GM facing rather than table facing there is no way to establish accountability. It's the way that transparency and accountability interact to create a sense of powerful expectation that gives a mechanic its bite or teeth.

I can't agree. The numbers I'm applying are not entirely pulled out of thin air; for the most part my players have a good sense of the range of expected problems they can expect to encounter and deal with, and certainly know the specifics in most cases where any dice are to be rolled. Its entirely within their capability to look at what I've presented and note if something seems outside the expected range and question what I'm doing; it happens with some regularity. I realize there's a tendency in the hobby for GMs to view such things as tantamount to lese majesty, but it isn't intrinsic.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's not a GM thing, that's an RPG thing. The only teeth in any RPG are those the participants by their prior and ongoing consent give teeth.

You think something in AW has teeth? Nope, not unless everyone at the table agrees it has teeth.

I think the difference is that in a game with secret backstory and other unrevealed fiction/setting a GM who is empowered to keep things to himself, which is a process of play consideration, has the ability to unilaterally decide what does and doesn't 'have teeth'. This is why moving stuff to the player facing side of the game (IE 4e) gives the players decidedly more say in how the game works, because they can now enforce things. The fact that quite a few D&D GMs were upset by this speaks reams about the mindset. I mean, you obviously can, and will, point out that "I'm just a player" is a thing, and so some people may be happier without responsibility for 'making it fun'. So, its not WRONG for things to be 'toothless', but it is what it is, why then try to call it something else, or make it sound like its some trivial observation that it isn't?

EDIT: I think a few posters above have already made these points, probably better than I am.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

He is talking about the nature of the system that is established. And his point is that any system that depends upon the GM deciding when the situation resolves is one in which the player-side mechanics lack real teeth. They might decide things in a moment of play - to use Baker's examples, whether the safe gets opened or whether the duelling PC disarms him and kicks his butt - but they don't decide which way the situation resolves. The GM has to decide that.

This is also exactly why I called 5e's skill system nothing but a prompt.