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

[clearstream]

Gamism is Step On Up. The core conceit of gamist design is that the game exists primarily to challenge the players. Mechanics are developed to reward players for navigating a challenging play space. In D&D's case (as it was originally designed) this means rewarding XP and magic items for separating monsters from their treasure. It also includes puzzle box monster design, wandering monster tables, exploration turns and the like to put pressure on the PCs to navigate the play space with skill.

One common sign you might be seeing a gamist design is large lists of discrete mechanical elements (monsters, magic items, spells, feats, etc) because they help to create an environment where knowledge of the game's overall meta is crucial to success. Classic D&D's monster and dungeon/module design is the prime example of the sort of play where high level knowledge acquired through experience in the game is rewarded.

Contrast this with a game like Marvel Heroic Roleplay where players are rewarded not for overcoming challenges, but instead for complicating their character's lives in character specific and thematic ways. Also has minimal discrete mechanics and does not require any knowledge of the game's overall meta to achieve character success.

Gamism is at heart all about rewarding skill at playing a game and overcoming challenges.

One criticism of 5e hit points from the point of view of a cohort of challenge-minded gamers is that they are crafted to reduce the challenge. 5e hit points and healing is far more forgiving than many other games. Does that mean that 5e hit points are not gamist?

 

[Dausuul]

It doesn't mean anything. Narrativism exists because it was intentionally created. Gamism and Simulationism don't and weren't.

The whole notion of "gamism," "simulationism," and "narrativism" emerged from the brain of Ron Edwards, who was evolving a very particular vision of what kind of RPGs he wanted to play--specifically, Narrativist. This gave rise to a movement of people (first Edwards and then others) consciously and purposefully designing Narrativist games, and so the concept of "narrativism" has developed a coherent meaning.

But "gamism" and "simulationism" are just Edwards trying to explain why other people might play games he didn't like, and... well, to put it bluntly, he didn't have a clue what he was talking about. Nobody designs or plays RPGs with those agendas in mind, there is no "gamist" movement or "simulationist" movement, and so you will never find an RPG that can be cleanly classified as Gamist or Simulationist. D&D certainly can't. About all you can say about D&D is that it isn't a Narrativist game, because it doesn't follow the design approach of that movement.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Do you feel that is distinctive of gamism? Would you say that narrativist and simulationist players don't mind feeling left out?

I would say that nobody likes feeling left out, so the desire for equality must be balanced against the other factors around which the game is built. A more simulationist player might be willing to compromise their ability to contribute to the game if having their character be less capable than another players' character feels more realistic.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So I wondered, if we say that D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

D&D prioritises moment to moment fun at the table over more long term concerns. It's a mix of not sweating the small stuff (yes, hit points work. Deal with it.) and challenge-based play where seeing if you can beat the challenge is part of the plan.

The big problem with GNS is that it was as much a position piece as anything else. If I were to summarise the GNS essays it would be:

• Simulationist is what games like Vampire: the Masquerade do. But you can't simulate everything, you can never out-simulate a computer, and it's essentially a dead end unless you are trying to create a simulation of a very simplified reality e.g. using cartoon physics.
• Narrativist is what games like Vampire: the Masquerade promise to give us. They don't - and we should try and make games that do.
• Gamist is games like D&D. It's actually pretty cool even if it's not what most of us want. Please stop mocking D&D.

It's a theory that has generated a lot of discussion over the course of , much of it useful, but was obsolete by the end of 2010. And about all GNS has to say about D&D is "Please stop dunking on it" - it was written at the end of the 90s, just before the launch of 3.0 and when the World of Darkness really was a significant competitor to D&D to an audience that were on the White Wolf side of that divide.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To elaborate a bit on D&D being gamist vs simulationist (it's absolutely not narrativist, outside 4e which is gamist or narrativist), almost all of the core systems of D&D are gamist. They're creating a game foremost are are largely unconcerned with internal cause in their approach. You can easily play it in this mode with no problems. Again, B/X is the cleanest example of this gamist approach to system.

However, there's always been a strong drift to many tables in D&D towards wanting simulationist games. Where the point of play is to experience the fantasy world, where the world operates in a coherent and causal manner. So, from an early point, many of the gamist elements of D&D were reified into having some fictional world existence and causality. And this grew. The entire point of a "living world sandbox" is simulationist. However, the D&D system is bad at producing this from play, so the growth of the role of the GM changed from neutral arbiter of the rules to resolve odd corner cases or conflicts to having authority to override the rules when they "don't make sense." And what made sense got progressively blurred into wider categories such that you see modern arguments that the GM can just do whatever and they have this authority because the rules hint at it. And the rules only hint because they are trying to not push players that want this out. But what this means is that the GM is replacing the system, effectively becoming the system, and then relying on the GM's ideas of cause/effect in the system to generate play. It's abandonment of the existing system to replace it with GM as system to create the simulationist play desired. This, though, gets weirdly attributed to D&D as a feature of D&D -- that you can ignore it.

D&D is ultimately written as a Gamist RPG. It can be drifted into Simulationist play, but usually by dint of the GM taking over more of the system. It's not really capable of Narrativist play at all. 4e, again, a notable and unique exception.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It doesn't mean anything. Narrativism exists because it was intentionally created. Gamism and Simulationism don't and weren't.

The whole notion of "gamism," "simulationism," and "narrativism" emerged from the brain of Ron Edwards, who was evolving a very particular vision of what kind of RPGs he wanted to play--specifically, Narrativist. This gave rise to a movement of people (first Edwards and then others) consciously and purposefully designing Narrativist games, and so the concept of "narrativism" has developed a coherent meaning.

But "gamism" and "simulationism" are just Edwards trying to explain why other people might play games he didn't like, and... well, to put it bluntly, he didn't have a clue what he was talking about. Nobody designs or plays RPGs with those agendas in mind, there is no "gamist" movement or "simulationist" movement, and so you will never find an RPG that can be cleanly classified as Gamist or Simulationist. D&D certainly can't. About all you can say about D&D is that it isn't a Narrativist game, because it doesn't follow the design approach of that movement.

Edwards quite enjoys other kinds of games, and has an active set of articles and podcasts where he plays them. Yes, he's very interested and very much enjoys narrativist games -- but the idea that it's entirely invented and doesn't mean anything has to completely ignore the very different structure and play of a host of games that it describes -- like Pbta, FitD, Dogs in the Vineyard, Sorcerer, My Life with Master, Trollbabes, Burning Wheel, so, so many amazing games.

Gamist is an attempt to categorize what you want to get out of a game, as is Simulationist, as is Narrativist. None of them are presented in any kind of negative or degenerate light -- they're steelmaned in the articles to present them as strong, independent concepts. Claiming this usual canard that Edwards was just trying to make things he didn't like (not in evidence) look bad is a commonly passed concept by people who were heavily invested in gatekeeping their preferred play primacy. This sentiment is pure transference.

I disagree in many places with Edwards, but I can articulate why I disagree and don't need to resort to an extended ad hominin to discredit Edwards' ideas by casting Edwards as a villain.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would say that nobody likes feeling left out, so the desire for equality must be balanced against the other factors around which the game is built. A more simulationist player might be willing to compromise their ability to contribute to the game if having their character be less capable than another players' character feels more realistic.

That would be exactly so for a player who's agenda is simulationist.

 

[JohnF]

About all you can say about D&D is that it isn't a Narrativist game, because it doesn't follow the design approach of that movement.

I can totally agree with this, but it's still fun to discuss the way some folks approach the game.

Gamism is at heart all about rewarding skill at playing a game and overcoming challenges.

As an admitted 5e gamist, I can also agree with this!

One criticism of 5e hit points from the point of view of a cohort of challenge-minded gamers is that they are crafted to reduce the challenge. 5e hit points and healing is far more forgiving than many other games. Does that mean that 5e hit points are not gamist?

Good question! But I don't think a game-y approach is primarily about hp - it's about the totality of the finite resources available and how best to manage their usage. A little more hp to keep PCs in the fight means more time to employ spell slots or abilities - or more time to consider how to save them for what will surely be a tougher fight before the Day is done.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But "gamism" and "simulationism" are just Edwards trying to explain why other people might play games he didn't like, and... well, to put it bluntly, he didn't have a clue what he was talking about. Nobody designs or plays RPGs with those agendas in mind, there is no "gamist" movement or "simulationist" movement, and so you will never find an RPG that can be cleanly classified as Gamist or Simulationist. D&D certainly can't. About all you can say about D&D is that it isn't a Narrativist game, because it doesn't follow the design approach of that movement.

This is, you know, completely contradicted by Gygax's interviews on the development of D&D. And also by the fact that RuneQuest was created specifically to address the lack of simulationism in D&D. They didn't use that word, but the designers there were very vocal about these exact issues and why they created a different game.

So, no, "simulationist" and "gamist" came from early aughts game design theory, but they're not suddenly new things -- they were codified to describe what had already come about but hadn't be put into any kind of even informal framework of reference.

To claim otherwise is to say that RuneQuest wasn't a reaction to D&D and how it didn't have strong internal causes built into it's play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Let me again, be clear -- I'm not a particular fan of the GNS model. I think that the Edwards essays laying it out are full of thought provoking ideas, and there's lots of good though there. I think that Narrativsim as a concept was well helped, and that we wouldn't likely have such games like PbtA games or FitD games or even Burning Wheel be as good as they are without the good thinking the Forge put together. That said, I tend to find GNS to be most useful as a thinking device rather than a categorization one. That the ideas presented are useful while the framework is too stilted and rigid to be functional. I would hesitate to actually label a game G, N, or S because drift is so very available to many. I think that as design concepts -- what do I want this design to focus on -- the GNS model provides some excellent thinking, but little practical advice for design. It's aimed at the high level and drawing clear distinctions in what is a fairly muddy landscape. It's like naming the highest mountain in three different, adjacent ranges, but that doesn't define the exact boundaries of those mountain ranges, just a defining and relatable peak. So, useful as a navigation aid, but not a detailed map.