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

[clearstream]

One thread of this discussion that I'd like to tease out could maybe be stated like this

• through a GNS lense, gamism has as its agenda challenge or competition
• 5e is gamist, but dilutes that agenda so that it satisfies everyone but delights no one

These are consistent with a belief that system matters and mixing agendas must lead to incoherence. Satisfying everyone sustains its broad appeal, but no one sincerely loves 5e. An example of an edition that didn't satisfy everyone, but that was more loved by those it did satisfy, is 4e.

I used the above to form some hypotheses

1. Given gamism prizes challenge, I expect that people who like 5e will normally identify challenge as a key factor in their satisfaction
2. Given 5e is gamist, but not delightfully so, I expect that criticisms of 5e will frequently identify insufficient challenge or competition as a key factor in their dissatisfaction, or they will call attention to their agenda and 5e's failings against it
3. Given 4e delights while 5e only satisfies, I expect that will be reflected in more, but mediocre, scores for 5e, and fewer, but higher scores for 4e (or maybe I should predict they are polarised)

I looked at reddit, two videos, and an blog piece on why folk love 5e. I looked at reddit, quora and two blogs about why folk hate 5e. I collected ratings for three editions of D&D and six other titles from Amazon, and compared those with their ratings on rpggeek. This is clearly just a start on the survey they would ideally be done, but I wanted to report back here on my hypotheses.

First of all, some folk attest to loving 5e. Key factors motivating their love of the game center on community, imaginative play, collaborative story telling. Many love the freedom to be another person. A few mentioned accessibility. A contrast to this was the blog piece, which opens with a statement that they have been criticised by their subscribers for being constantly negative about 5e, so they wanted to post what they like about it. Key for them were simplicity, balance, diversity of meaningful choices, and community factors including inclusivity.

Some folk certainly do dislike 5e! Here I read criticisms around balance, monster variety, wokeness, DM discretion, narrowing of classes. More than one criticised trying to be everything to everyone, and doing nothing well (a complaint also in this thread.) Balance is certainly adjacent to challenge, but I did not find any critic citing lack of challenge as a key (or in my short survey, even one) driver of dislike. Nor did I find any articulating their own agenda and 5e's failings against it.

Okay, so what of ratings. I first surveyed Amazon.com.

5th ed PHB 40k ratings, 91% 5 star, 1% 1-star
5th DMG 23k ratings, 91% 5-star, 0% 1-star
5th MM 23k ratings, 91% 5-star, 0% 1-star
5th core set, 12k ratings, 90% 5-star
On rpggeek 7.633 300 voters

4th ed PHB 600 ratings, 76% 5-star, 2% 1-star
4th DMG 300 ratings, 77% 5-star, 3% 1-star
4th MM 300 ratings, 78% 5-star, 1% 1-star
On rpggeek 6.159 655 voters

3.5e PHB 600 ratings, 85% 5-star, 1% 1-star
3.5 DMG 400 ratings, 88% 5-star, 2% 1-star
3.5 MM 300 ratings, 84% 5-star, 3% 1-star
On rpggeek 6.667 648 voters

Blades in the Dark 800 ratings, 88% 5-star, 0% 1-star / rpggeek 7.839 135 voters
Monster of the Week 900 ratings, 88% 5-star, 0% 1-star
Mork Borg 800 ratings, 89% 5-star, 1% 1-star / rpggeek 6.738 30 voters
Agon 50 ratings, 64% 5-star, 4% 1-star / rpggeek 6.267 32 voters
Fiasco 200 ratings, 76% 5-star, 5% 1-star / on rpggeek 7.879 481 voters
Call of Cthulhu 1300 ratings, 90% 5-star, 0% 1-star

I feel this data doesn't sustain my hypotheses. So far as the ratings go, 5e is liked as much as the highest rated alternative, CoC. There is no evidence of delighted 4e players dragged down by a polarised group of haters. Many reviewers on Amazon wrote lengthy explanations of what motivated their rating. These are worth reading for any doubting that many players feel delighted by 5e - "My group and I were very excited about getting into DnD [5e], and it surpassed all of our expectations."

There are going to be many ways to chew over, spit out and reason about this kind of data. One take is that 5e is successful in robust defiance of GNS's predictions. It's worth being aware however that there is a great deal of informed criticism elsewhere that is able to articulate 5e's failings... just not in a way that shows how 5e is gamist and being so makes it as appealing as it is.

One reconciling thought I had was that perhaps gamist contains other important desires within it. A crucial goal of gamism may be to have expressive mechanics, that empower each player's imagination and creativity. Well architectured game mechanics often have a genius for expression. Additionally, mechanics can have a social consequence. Well architectured mechanics can promote collaboration and steer away from fractious behaviour (this is the focus of the emerging field of "player dynamics").

Objective skill, challenge or competition are the circumstances in which traditionally the fair and expressive power of game mechanics has paid out. Perhaps it is the expressiveness of the mechanics and positive player dynamics, that are the true heart of what it is to be gamist all along*? Only in the past, we saw those things only through lenses coloured by mainstream masculine wargaming.


*This is not a definition that would work well in a model where each agenda is to be in conflict with the others.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

One reconciling thought I had was that perhaps gamist contains other important desires within it. A crucial goal of gamism may be to have expressive mechanics, that empower each player's imagination and creativity. Well architectured game mechanics often have a genius for expression. Additionally, mechanics can have a social consequence. Well architectured mechanics can promote collaboration and steer away from fractious behaviour (this is the focus of the emerging field of "player dynamics").

Objective skill, challenge or competition are the circumstances in which traditionally the fair and expressive power of game mechanics has paid out. Perhaps it is the expressiveness of the mechanics and positive player dynamics, that are the true heart of what it is to be gamist all along*? Only in the past, we saw those things only through lenses coloured by mainstream masculine wargaming.

*This is not a definition that would work well in a model where each agenda is to be in conflict with the others.

I like that idea of Gamism, it meshes with my experience of what we like about Pathfinder 2e, and how we played 5e and 4e, and what my players get regularly excited about, the competition or challenge, tends to feel like an opportunity to express in that way, rather than a means unto itself.

 

[Ondath]

So, we called them RPs, <snip>

You know, mentioning freeform RP in this way brought back memories of my roleplaying guild in World of Warcraft, which in hindsight was the first place where I truly encountered RPGs. I mostly forgot any lessons I learnt from those when switching to TTRPGs with D&D 3.5, but all the conventions you describe (there being no rules barring social conventions, games being mostly about lengthy descriptions and dialogues etc.) were there.

What's more interesting is how my current TTRPG tastes clashed with WoW RP guilds when I got into a Night Elf only RP guild in WoW Classic (shoutout to the World Tree!). I now had 5+ years of TTRPG experience and when I had the opportunity to participate in events in the guild, I found myself really put off by the freeform format ("but... how will I know you're not just giving your character buttpull superpowers?!" was a sentiment I found myself having) and even tried to introduce more "crunchy" adventures (I tried running a very simplified D&D-like combat for druids raiding Stormrage Barrow Dens and got everyone to roll initiative and roll and describe results accordingly, for instance). I think the other guild members were as confused at my attempts at giving freeform RP crunch as I was confused at their attempts to run a game solely off of agreements.

All this to say, system clearly matters. And I think looking back on freeform RPs (be they in forums or MMORPGs), the experience they offer is quite narrativist: Everyone shares considerable control over the narrative and you're expected to use this power wisely to see where the story will be led now. I had a hard time appreciating this mode of play after being shaped so heavily by D&D's gamist and simulationist ways.

 

[jasper]

What's a ROG?

Rat of Giant size

 

[Ondath]

One reconciling thought I had was that perhaps gamist contains other important desires within it. A crucial goal of gamism may be to have expressive mechanics, that empower each player's imagination and creativity. Well architectured game mechanics often have a genius for expression. Additionally, mechanics can have a social consequence. Well architectured mechanics can promote collaboration and steer away from fractious behaviour (this is the focus of the emerging field of "player dynamics").

Objective skill, challenge or competition are the circumstances in which traditionally the fair and expressive power of game mechanics has paid out. Perhaps it is the expressiveness of the mechanics and positive player dynamics, that are the true heart of what it is to be gamist all along*? Only in the past, we saw those things only through lenses coloured by mainstream masculine wargaming.


*This is not a definition that would work well in a model where each agenda is to be in conflict with the others.

I think this explains a lot of what I like about the gamist side of 5E, actually! While I appreciated the rulings not rules approach of OSR when I ran it, having fleshed out game mechanics means players as well as the GM can have different ways of satisfying other modes of play. I actually like it when a heritage or culture give clear mechanical systems to play with, because those mechanics can then inspire me to build off my world or lead the story in interesting ways. Come to think of it, this might be one of the reasons why I dislike WotC's current decision to completely disregard cultural traits in game mechanics (in opposition to, say, A5E's division of heritage and culture). I liked having cultural traits because it informed me about the culture, but now it's harder to imagine how I could simulate the cultural traits of upcoming races such as the Giff or the Thri-kreen.

 

[soviet]

D&D occupies a unique space as the ur-example of RPGs. We are told that 5e is the most successful D&D ever - how? Well, seemingly because it has (through Critical Role, greater nerd acceptance, pop culture references) drawn in a whole bunch of people who weren't roleplaying before. Note how the positives you quote for 5e - the freedom to be another person, imaginative play, collaborative storytelling - are non system specific and not even particularly strongly supported by 5e. Those people aren't playing 5e because of how it's designed but because of how it's marketed and its place as a pop culture icon.

I would distinguish that from the people posting on forums like this, as by definition they are more entrenched hobbyists and I assume they have picked 5e at least in part for mechanical reasons.

I'm not trying to gatekeep BTW - new blood is always welcome. Just saying that 5e's apparent success is not necessarily a referendum on its GNS coherence, or lack of.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

You know, mentioning freeform RP in this way brought back memories of my roleplaying guild in World of Warcraft, which in hindsight was the first place where I truly encountered RPGs. I mostly forgot any lessons I learnt from those when switching to TTRPGs with D&D 3.5, but all the conventions you describe (there being no rules barring social conventions, games being mostly about lengthy descriptions and dialogues etc.) were there.

What's more interesting is how my current TTRPG tastes clashed with WoW RP guilds when I got into a Night Elf only RP guild in WoW Classic (shoutout to the World Tree!). I now had 5+ years of TTRPG experience and when I had the opportunity to participate in events in the guild, I found myself really put off by the freeform format ("but... how will I know you're not just giving your character buttpull superpowers?!" was a sentiment I found myself having) and even tried to introduce more "crunchy" adventures (I tried running a very simplified D&D-like combat for druids raiding Stormrage Barrow Dens and got everyone to roll initiative and roll and describe results accordingly, for instance). I think the other guild members were as confused at my attempts at giving freeform RP crunch as I was confused at their attempts to run a game solely off of agreements.

All this to say, system clearly matters. And I think looking back on freeform RPs (be they in forums or MMORPGs), the experience they offer is quite narrativist: Everyone shares considerable control over the narrative and you're expected to use this power wisely to see where the story will be led now. I had a hard time appreciating this mode of play after being shaped so heavily by D&D's gamist and simulationist ways.

Yup, sounds about right-- the answer to the buttpull super powers is more or less the other participants, if other people don't enjoy your presence they won't keep you around. More or less, freeform RPs handle Calvinballers the same as how TTRPG groups handle other problem players-- like people who hog the spotlight, or cheat on their dice, or read the module for an edge. I'm not sure I could do it either, that point of contention is actually what I first found cool about tabletop, the fact that we could roll and had abilities that tell me exactly hwo to simulate the results of a fireball in a way that wasn't moderated by the participants, I very much saw using the system as a cool tool to enhance my 'RPs' by being able to roll initiative and actually see what happens as a game.

Its probably why I never had the problems other people had with 4e, our 4e games were roleplay stuffed, because roleplaying and narrative was always just something you did yourself and I knew how to do it and teach it, the system was for combat and got nicely out of the way for all the RP we did.

 

[soviet]

I think this explains a lot of what I like about the gamist side of 5E, actually! While I appreciated the rulings not rules approach of OSR when I ran it, having fleshed out game mechanics means players as well as the GM can have different ways of satisfying other modes of play. I actually like it when a heritage or culture give clear mechanical systems to play with, because those mechanics can then inspire me to build off my world or lead the story in interesting ways. Come to think of it, this might be one of the reasons why I dislike WotC's current decision to completely disregard cultural traits in game mechanics (in opposition to, say, A5E's division of heritage and culture). I liked having cultural traits because it informed me about the culture, but now it's harder to imagine how I could simulate the cultural traits of upcoming races such as the Giff or the Thri-kreen.

I actually think they're smart to limit the mechanical significance of cultural traits because it's a common point of friction between gamist and simulationist agendas. Basically, to satisfy a sim agenda we give each background and race etc a different set of modifiers and benefits. Characters of this type are slow, characters of the other type are good archers, etc.

The issue particularly in a largely gamist-supporting design like 5e is that some of these are going to be better choices than others. So you thumb the scales of which class/race/region combinations are 'correct'. No-one plays a Culture A scout or a Culture B archer because Cultures C and D give you better stuff. And if you do build a Culture B archer there is a feeling that the game is punishing you, either directly with stat penalties and limitations or indirectly with opportunity costs. Better to try to keep these background choices orthogonal to combat effectiveness so as to preserve a wider diversity of viable builds.

A similar dynamic can be observed in 5e, where the likely overpowered great weapon mastery feat puts a lot of pressure on fighter types to use a two-handed weapon over the much less effective but still theoretically cool options like axes, short swords, dual wielding, etc. Ditto 2e with its weapon specialisation rules locking you into a narrow niche while at the same time the random treasure tables turn most magic weapons the players find into longswords. Not a lot of axemen to be found in those games I'll wager.

 

[pemerton]

So, I think that one way that GNS breaks down, is not only that people and games can be good at multiple things, but that the different areas can actually support each other directly. So like, in the case of OSR, the gamism and simulation actually support each other-- the whole point is for the game to be a fun, playable, simulation where the act of making the statistically defined elements interact is enjoyable and engaging, even while they're intended to represent things.

You are describing here the interplay of techniques. "GNS", as presented by Edwards, is a way of analysing creative priorities. The creative priority of most OSR is not the experience of the fantasy for its own sake, but rather "winning" in some fashion or other (at its crudest, beating the dungeon). Hence it is gamist. But of course, as is well known, OSR play relies heavily on unmediated adjudication of the fiction for resolution, and that depends on the fiction conforming broadly to common sense understandings of how things work.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

You are describing here the interplay of techniques. "GNS", as presented by Edwards, is a way of analysing creative priorities. The creative priority of most OSR is not the experience of the fantasy for its own sake, but rather "winning" in some fashion or other (at its crudest, beating the dungeon). Hence it is gamist. But of course, as is well known, OSR play relies heavily on unmediated adjudication of the fiction for resolution, and that depends on the fiction conforming broadly to common sense understandings of how things work.

The interplay of technique is the interplay of priorities-- because the priorities themselves motivate the deployment of techniques, you would be hard pressed to meaningfully argue those aren't both priorities of the people designing OSR games.