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

[AbdulAlhazred]

In light of many extremely gamist games prioritising hidden information (Starcraft for e.g.), can you expand on why you or @Campbell might see hidden information as an obstacle to gamism in an RPG?

Sorry, maybe I'm not being clear, it was a fairly 'raw' thought. I am not saying anything about hidden information making gamist agendas impossible. In fact I was merely commenting on what I observe in terms of expectations/assumptions underlying many posts I've seen (not just in this thread). I don't think there's much connection between hidden information and gamism, really. There is a perception however that D&D's style of challenge architecture can ONLY exist when the GM controls all backstory/setting, and the players only get information from the character perspective and nothing else. I'm not the one putting this forward, every thread is replete with instances of statements along these lines. It is practically 'D&D Gospel'.

EDIT To improve that question, I have noted concerns around hidden information for narrativism that have possibly overlapped with concerns around hidden information generally (therefore impinging gamism). What is your take on that? How, concretely, does hidden information impinge narrativism, and is hidden information an obstacle to gamism (where as a gamer, I might anticipate it to be a driver) and if it is, in what ways?

As I say, I don't see how hidden information impedes gamism, except as it may enable some sort of unprincipled play on the GM's part. That is something we might think about, but I don't believe it really has much bearing on agendas. In terms of Narrativist play, if there is hidden setting/backstory, then how do the players fully advocate for the PCs and realize their goal of exploring the game's premise? I think there CAN be a place for certain types of secrets where they are revealed in a 'moment of truth', but I don't think in that kind of play they arise from deep hidden backstory, they are things that are framed in by a GM pretty much in the moment. At most a GM might plan such a possibility (IE in Dungeon World the GM might imagine "what if the ranger is actually in league with the orcs?" and decide to make up combat stats for the character in case such a reveal happens and there's a fight, which he deems fairly likely). This differs a lot from the classic hidden backstory thing where the GM has designated the NPC to be a traitor from day one, and she's going to reveal this plot twist at a certain preordained point in play. In the DW game, this would be, probably, a hard move triggered by some sort of combination of dice and player declarations. It is only allowed if it addresses some character concern, like a bond, etc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

How does Free Kriegsspiel (not FKR) fit here? I think some argue that its purpose was training, and I've pointed out that one of its stated goals was greater realism.

I think though that Score - Achievement could have been at issue. Playing to do as well as possible: win the encounter. That is how FK wargaming sessions have felt to me (especially PvP.)

I don't think that FK, as practiced by its inventors, had a gamist agenda at all. It was purely a training exercise. If anything it was pure simulationist play with the intent being an authentic near-life experience, at least in regards to learning command and control skills.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This helps clarify, but I would still disagree somewhat, though it may help backtrack a bit. Earlier Campbell wrote,

I agree with this, but I also pointed out how fiction first tends to be incredibly common among these sort of games, but also games like Cortex, Fate, and others. It's often a guiding principle of weight on the level of the oft-cited Rule 0.

Despite their differences, these games are commonly lumped together as "story" or "narrativist" games on this principle. I agree that separating by "fiction first" alone is superficial. However, I don't think that it's entirely meaningless that they are. Let's call this a subconscious awareness of difference or otherness.

This is why I point out how it's telling about the presumed norm that these games would be lumped together on this basis. This is to say that there seems to be some awareness that "fiction first" (and other overlapping principles) makes them distinct from games that operate more along the lines of D&D (5e).

Admittedly, my point is less about hidden backstory vs. fictional positioning not mattering, and more how many games that are less wedded to hidden backstory are nevertheless inextricably rooted in the fiction, often via the guiding game principle of Fiction First.

However, the fiction that most concerns "Fiction First games" is immediate and palpable for the characters. It doesn't sit waiting, hidden off-stage to make its grand entrance to the audience or, in some cases, never showing up in the play at all. "Fiction First games," IME, tend to dispense with "Crouching Setting, Hidden Backstory."

I suspect that there may be a lack of agreement on the fundamental definition of 'Fiction First'. If you don't define it carefully, then EVERY RPG IN EXISTENCE has a play loop that starts with:
1. The GM says something about what pickle the PCs are in now.
2. ...
Step 1 is obviously FICTION, and it comes FIRST, so this must be a fiction first game! Right?

Now, as I understand it, Fiction First means that whatever the action/conflict resolution system is, it is fundamentally rooted in fiction. Thus in Dungeon World there is no combat system whatsoever. Players simply declare, in a fictional sense and with regard to the already declared fiction, what their character does. NOTHING WHATSOEVER can happen without a very explicit reference to and use of the fiction. Even in the thinnest case a player must describe his character as battling with the orc that's in his face. In fact, since there's no turn structure, the mere fact that he's NOW recounting what he's doing is already drawn from fictional considerations (IE whatever anyone else does must logically come later in time based on the GM's judgment of fictional position). Mechanics MAY then be invoked. This contrasts heavily with games which possess comprehensive combat systems where things like position, and what actions are available to the character, when they get used, etc. are all mechanically derived.

 

[clearstream]

Sorry, maybe I'm not being clear, it was a fairly 'raw' thought. I am not saying anything about hidden information making gamist agendas impossible. In fact I was merely commenting on what I observe in terms of expectations/assumptions underlying many posts I've seen (not just in this thread). I don't think there's much connection between hidden information and gamism, really. There is a perception however that D&D's style of challenge architecture can ONLY exist when the GM controls all backstory/setting, and the players only get information from the character perspective and nothing else. I'm not the one putting this forward, every thread is replete with instances of statements along these lines. It is practically 'D&D Gospel'.

As I say, I don't see how hidden information impedes gamism, except as it may enable some sort of unprincipled play on the GM's part.

Right, I better get your thought now. I'd lean a little further into it than your last line there, to say that as a generalisation hidden information measurably increases the challenge of a game (there's some research related to that), so that it should align with gamist purposes.

 

[clearstream]

I suspect that there may be a lack of agreement on the fundamental definition of 'Fiction First'. If you don't define it carefully, then EVERY RPG IN EXISTENCE has a play loop that starts with:
1. The GM says something about what pickle the PCs are in now.
2. ...
Step 1 is obviously FICTION, and it comes FIRST, so this must be a fiction first game! Right?

Now, as I understand it, Fiction First means that whatever the action/conflict resolution system is, it is fundamentally rooted in fiction. Thus in Dungeon World there is no combat system whatsoever. Players simply declare, in a fictional sense and with regard to the already declared fiction, what their character does. NOTHING WHATSOEVER can happen without a very explicit reference to and use of the fiction. Even in the thinnest case a player must describe his character as battling with the orc that's in his face. In fact, since there's no turn structure, the mere fact that he's NOW recounting what he's doing is already drawn from fictional considerations (IE whatever anyone else does must logically come later in time based on the GM's judgment of fictional position). Mechanics MAY then be invoked. This contrasts heavily with games which possess comprehensive combat systems where things like position, and what actions are available to the character, when they get used, etc. are all mechanically derived.

The obvious question then is whether you would say DW play perforce dials down gamism?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The obvious question then is whether you would say DW play perforce dials down gamism?

There's an element of skilled play with PbtA games, potentially. How much that actually exists in a game will depend on the specific game. DW could be said to allow for some skill in that a player can make declarations that are going to produce something like Discern Realities, which can then lead to bonuses you can use later on. Certainly DW doesn't have a focus on skill in terms similar to what would be meant in D&D, particularly.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Right, I better get your thought now. I'd lean a little further into it than your last line there, to say that as a generalisation hidden information measurably increases the challenge of a game (there's some research related to that), so that it should align with gamist purposes.

I'm not sure why that would be. 'Degree of Challenge' would seem to me to be a fairly objective thing, but I would think there are many ways to achieve it. I'm not sure hidden information is really increasing the SKILL required to play a game, though maybe in some cases (IE requiring that the players balance the ability to handle unknown contingencies vs using resources where they already know they are best employed). I think classic dungeon crawl D&D certainly includes an element of trying to decide if you want to, say, burn a spell now, or hold on to it as a hedge against some later problem. OTOH does that actually REQUIRE hidden information? Point is I find the assertion as odd, in that I'm totally certain I can achieve a wide variety of challenge levels in pretty simple direct ways.

 

[Aldarc]

The obvious question then is whether you would say DW play perforce dials down gamism?

I'm not sure if it is about dialing down gamism. My understanding that one reason (among many) for why Vincent Baker structured Apocalypse World as he did was a reaction against 3e D&D (d20 system) style play that often involved players declaring Perception rolls and the like without first engaging with the fiction. (Baker was not alone in regarding this as putting the cart before the horse. I think it also annoyed the growing OSR community.) AW tries to hitch the fiction horse back in front of the game cart. This is why the mechanics are not meant to come into play until they are triggered by the fiction, and the "begins and ends with the fiction" is meant to ensure that the loop circles back.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not sure if it is about dialing down gamism. My understanding that one reason (among many) for why Vincent Baker structured Apocalypse World as he did was a reaction against 3e D&D (d20 system) style play that often involved players declaring Perception rolls and the like without first engaging with the fiction. (Baker was not alone in regarding this as putting the cart before the horse. I think it also annoyed the growing OSR community.) AW tries to hitch the fiction horse back in front of the game cart. This is why the mechanics are not meant to come into play until they are triggered by the fiction, and the "begins and ends with the fiction" is meant to ensure that the loop circles back.

It does make sense. I mean, the original D&D loop for stuff happening outside of combat (thus in exploration turns) involves the DM describing a scene and the caller reacting to that scene by describing PC actions (with the individual players elaborating or breaking in to suggest other courses of action, etc. as needed). The DM would then go through the results of these actions, describing what happens and the resulting situation, which then elicits another round of action declarations, etc. In some cases the DM might also call for dice to be tossed as part of resolving what happens (IE you might make a 'BBLG' check, or a secret door check). This is all very definitely a kind of Fiction First, there's no overarching mechanical structure here, except the somewhat loose idea that eventually a turn will elapse (a few actions like searching have specific time costs assigned to them, most things don't). I'd note that all these various activities don't have really elaborate definitions either.

 

[pemerton]

I am a day or two and about 4 pages behind on this thread.

But anyone who want to see a discussion, "in the wild", that exhibits what high concept simulationist D&D play involves, and reveals some of the challenges, can look at pages 13 and 14 of this thread (beginning from post 254).