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

[Thomas Shey]

My complaint about the gamism in rules-minimal games is my observation over the years is it all too easily stops being about playing the game and becomes about playing the GM, either fitting his prejudices or otherwise just dealing with the human-factor issues with him rather than the situation.

 

[clearstream]

If you do, you’ll be able to swing above your weight compared to what the baseline says. Again, “smart play” = “skilled play” = gamism

A risk as @Thomas Shey points out, is that "skilled play" could just mean the group rolling with their conceits. Proud as punch to be playing so "skillfully". Crunch-rich designs like TB2 represent a possible response to that. A greater holding to account against a game-state.

 

[kenada]

A risk as @Thomas Shey points out, is that "skilled play" could just mean the group rolling with their conceits. Proud as punch to be playing so "skillfully". Crunch-rich designs like TB2 represent a possible response to that. A greater holding to account against a game-state.

Yeah. For something like the OSR approach to work, the GM really needs to play their role as a referee with integrity. If you start second-guessing how mechanics should work (e.g., for “realism” reasons), and the players start having to “play the GM”, then play stops being gamist and starts taking on other priorities.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My complaint about the gamism in rules-minimal games is my observation over the years is it all too easily stops being about playing the game and becomes about playing the GM, either fitting his prejudices or otherwise just dealing with the human-factor issues with him rather than the situation.

I guess the counterpoint to that is this is sort of true even of a game like chess, where after a while you kind of reach a balance of skill in terms of making chess moves, and a lot of the play devolves down to 'psychological warfare'. I mean, you can find many famous instances of this in high level play!

 

[Manbearcat]

I guess the counterpoint to that is this is sort of true even of a game like chess, where after a while you kind of reach a balance of skill in terms of making chess moves, and a lot of the play devolves down to 'psychological warfare'. I mean, you can find many famous instances of this in high level play!

The difference here being “what is permissible” and “how do collisions (mechanically) resolve” and “what is the gamestate” is always known and always table-facing for all participants in Chess.

That is the crux of it; the symmetric, consistent relationship opposing sides have with respect to those three things in Chess vs the potential alternative.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah. For something like the OSR approach to work, the GM really needs to play their role as a referee with integrity. If you start second-guessing how mechanics should work (e.g., for “realism” reasons), and the players start having to “play the GM”, then play stops being gamist and starts taking on other priorities.

Well, the other part of it is that there has to be a continuously evolving set of challenges. I mean, within a few months of starting to play D&D I drew up a sheet, it was the 'door protocol', and it stated what was meant when the character's would 'sniff and listen'. It was a whole fairly elaborate process with various contingencies which accounted for all the silly things that DMs had thrown at us, and our extrapolations thereof. So it included an examination of the area in front of, above, and around the door for all sorts of possible factors, followed by inspection of the door itself, listening (with an ear horn, no ear seekers allowed, thanks). There was also a rot grub inspection and protocol, etc. etc. etc. We even verified that the door was not a mimic.

The point being, it wasn't much of a skilled game at that point, unless the DM invented some new twist that was calculated to fall outside the sniff and listen protocol. DMs in that sort of paradigm cannot stand still, they must invent ever more preposterously elaborate and unlikely challenges. You can see the outlines of this arms race in the rules themselves. In the start a door with orcs behind it was probably enough, then it needed a trap that did a bit of damage, and then a lock, and then a bar, and then poison, and then an ear seeker, and then a rot grub, and then finally doors that were mimics, etc. etc. etc.

So, again, like the example of chess, the gamist avenue of the DM challenging the players MUST eventually devolve down to merely a contest of mental fortitude and such between the players and the DM. This obviously creates a strong impetus for unprincipled play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The difference here being “what is permissible” and “how do collisions (mechanically) resolve” and “what is the gamestate” is always known and always table-facing for all participants in Chess.

That is the crux of it; the symmetric, consistent relationship opposing sides have with respect to those three things in Chess vs the potential alternative.

Yeah, there are surely differences. An RPG of the classic D&D sort offers a very wide range of ways to play the opposition, where in a chess tournament the possibilities are rather restricted. People are creative though, they find ways.

 

[niklinna]

Well, the other part of it is that there has to be a continuously evolving set of challenges. I mean, within a few months of starting to play D&D I drew up a sheet, it was the 'door protocol', and it stated what was meant when the character's would 'sniff and listen'. It was a whole fairly elaborate process with various contingencies which accounted for all the silly things that DMs had thrown at us, and our extrapolations thereof. So it included an examination of the area in front of, above, and around the door for all sorts of possible factors, followed by inspection of the door itself, listening (with an ear horn, no ear seekers allowed, thanks). There was also a rot grub inspection and protocol, etc. etc. etc. We even verified that the door was not a mimic.

The point being, it wasn't much of a skilled game at that point, unless the DM invented some new twist that was calculated to fall outside the sniff and listen protocol. DMs in that sort of paradigm cannot stand still, they must invent ever more preposterously elaborate and unlikely challenges. You can see the outlines of this arms race in the rules themselves. In the start a door with orcs behind it was probably enough, then it needed a trap that did a bit of damage, and then a lock, and then a bar, and then poison, and then an ear seeker, and then a rot grub, and then finally doors that were mimics, etc. etc. etc.

So, again, like the example of chess, the gamist avenue of the DM challenging the players MUST eventually devolve down to merely a contest of mental fortitude and such between the players and the DM. This obviously creates a strong impetus for unprincipled play.

It seems to me that the DM could have, perhaps, considered other locations for hazards than doors. Sheesh, that must have been boring.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It seems to me that the DM could have, perhaps, considered other locations for hazards than doors. Sheesh, that must have been boring.

Well, shall I describe the entirety of our evolved dungeon exploration protocol? LOL! Lets just say that there's a reason things like "Tucker's Kobolds" had to be invented, and those little buggers wouldn't have stood a chance against what we brought to the fray. Yes, DMs are inventive, but it is one mind against several! Lets just say that our main party had a whole crew of 20 carpenters and laborers attached, and a transport dept that possessed several mules, a couple ox carts, etc. We even employed a surveyor to inspect all the above-ground areas around the big dungeon and identify bolt holes, air shafts, etc. I won't go on, suffice it to say we soon moved on to other types of play. I mean, imagine what a modern government would do if it found a dungeon? That's basically how we proceeded, thorough, systematic, controlled exploration without any need to go too fast, etc. It was closer to archaeology at that point than adventuring!

Actually I would relish playing out that scenario nowadays in a more narrativist mode. Something like Dungeon World would make it quite fun, the PCs can totally rule at the level of kicking the dungeon's butt, until IT happens, and then the fun starts!

 

[kenada]

Well, the other part of it is that there has to be a continuously evolving set of challenges. I mean, within a few months of starting to play D&D I drew up a sheet, it was the 'door protocol', and it stated what was meant when the character's would 'sniff and listen'. It was a whole fairly elaborate process with various contingencies which accounted for all the silly things that DMs had thrown at us, and our extrapolations thereof. So it included an examination of the area in front of, above, and around the door for all sorts of possible factors, followed by inspection of the door itself, listening (with an ear horn, no ear seekers allowed, thanks). There was also a rot grub inspection and protocol, etc. etc. etc. We even verified that the door was not a mimic.

The point being, it wasn't much of a skilled game at that point, unless the DM invented some new twist that was calculated to fall outside the sniff and listen protocol. DMs in that sort of paradigm cannot stand still, they must invent ever more preposterously elaborate and unlikely challenges. You can see the outlines of this arms race in the rules themselves. In the start a door with orcs behind it was probably enough, then it needed a trap that did a bit of damage, and then a lock, and then a bar, and then poison, and then an ear seeker, and then a rot grub, and then finally doors that were mimics, etc. etc. etc.

So, again, like the example of chess, the gamist avenue of the DM challenging the players MUST eventually devolve down to merely a contest of mental fortitude and such between the players and the DM. This obviously creates a strong impetus for unprincipled play.

I wonder what’s the bongcloud opening equivalent in the door protocol?