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

[Thomas Shey]

Tangentially, can you even exit genre-emulation to arrive at reality modeling? I feel as though the layer of interpretation intrinsic to RPGs would necessitate that 'reality' be a genre in and of itself, where your impressions of what's realistic would shape the constraints of the emulation.

Usually. Few genre structure are so vastly diverse from our world that no part of it looks like our world and follows observable laws to those within it. Its just that there are parts, usually having to do with certain sorts of probabalistic or behavior events that are cooked in certain ways and cannot be examined in a simulation sense because they are, as of necessity, not things anyone in setting can examine without, effectively, destroying the intended structure they produce. They're dramatic conceits by nature.

(Note this is not true of absolutely ever genre; some are simply constrained by types of settings and situations they handle. Westerns for example, while they have some conventions, they're ones that are more of a case of selecting what part of the setting and what events you're looking at than anything else).

Separately, is it weird that I think I would consider genre emulation to be 'gamism' because it seems to manifest itself primarily in 'game feel' -- e.g. emulating horror = the feeling of horror out of the mechanics and their theming.

You can have gamist genre emulation, but its not uncommon for the genre control to not touch the game level much. One will note that in Call of Cthulhu the only really genre-emulating function is the insanity mechanics (the magic is very genre specific, but its also something who's limitations can be quite understood by the knowledgeable in the setting. While some parts of the insanity mechanic hit this (the fact interacting too much with otherworldly beings is the best way to get hammered here), its also applied in other areas where it shows its much stronger than has any reality match).

 

[Hussar]

I think that "except" is skipping a lot of thrust in a lot of D&D games though; there's too much focus on how the story plays out in a lot of groups to just dismiss it, though I agree there's not much formalization there and a tendency to want most of the lifting in that area to be done by the GM.

I pretty much agree here. I'd point out that some table problems arise when there is a disconnect between the DM and the players though. If the DM is looking for a more Nar style game, trying to inject a sense (at least) of Story Now, it does require a LOT of buy in from the players who need engage in the campaign in a very different way from players who are only looking for a gamist experience. I might phrase my recent failed group a bit differently, but, that's a pretty decent way to describe the problems I was having at the table.

Whenever you hear a DM complaining about how the players refuse to engage in the setting but are only interested in killing and looting, the problem can potentially be linked to different expectations from the game and illuminated by the GNS model. If one side of the screen is only interested in Step on Up play and the other side is trying for Story Now, that group will have a lot of problems.

 

[Hussar]

I think what DND does, in terms of embracing challenge in the way you discuss, is to externalize the story, the characters of the story still have internal conflict, but the pressure is coming from the external elements of the story, e.g. your cleric might have a crisis of faith, but thats mediated through their relationship with their God, which is external and played by the GM. This controlled adversarial relationship, is how DND positions your Man vs. [blank] and tells its stories, and then embraces that conflict as a problem that you as the player, and you as the character are attempting to solve in the physical reality of the game world.

Which goes back go my earlier answer to @Thomas Shey. By externalizing that relationship and giving 100% of the power of that relationship to the DM (who is controlling the deity and is not obligated in any way to portraying that deity in any way other than what the DM wants) the player can only react to what the DM does. Which certainly can work. There's no denying that.

But, it's not the only way of doing it. Spreading the authority a bit wider can also work. It works differently, and it's certainly different to what D&D does, but, that doesn't make it better or worse. Just different. And, IME, because of the fact that the player is 100% beholden to the DM for this experience, something like a "crisis of faith" rarely comes up. What more often happens is that the player turtles up, never introduces anything like a crisis of faith and this sort of story just doesn't happen (or happens extremely rarely, and even more rarely does it happen satisfactorily) in D&D.

And, yes, now I know that lots of you are furiously typing to tell me how that one time in your game it happened. But, that's my point. It happened that one time. It's like saying The Simpson's Did It. Simpson's has been on forever. Of course it did it. There's not much it hasn't done. Given the huge number of groups and the time frame's we're talking about, it probably has happened in your group at some point. But, what generally doesn't get mentioned is the ten thousand times it didn't happen because the player or the DM just didn't even consider it a viable option to try because the game of D&D certainly offers zero incentive or advice on how to resolve a "crisis of faith" event.

 

[Hussar]

Earlier it was mentioned about putting Story Now elements into D&D would be fine if it was placed in a separate module.

My problem with that is that it means that anyone who wants that style of play has to do 99% of the heavy lifting. Sure, you can add modules until the cows come home, but, there will be zero support for it. Every adventure module would have to be reworked a lot to fit the new agenda. The entire class structure becomes an issue because none of the classes are built around the idea of playing Story Now. And, let's not forget, that when you have some classes that are perfectly capable of entirely reshaping reality while some classes are entirely mundane, that's a problem as well. Magic simply bypasses so many challenges.

Now, a much softer Nar design would probably work. But, again, there needs to be some pretty clear explainations for it in the game, or you wind up with the reactions that we got in 4e to Skill Challenges.

It's possible, but, I really doubt it will happen. There's just too much really, really strong negative reaction to anything remotely even suggesting Story Now. Heck the recent thread that kind of spawned a lot of this discussion had a character declaring that his cousin (sister?) worked for the mayor and could help the party get into a meeting with the mayor and several people just flat out rejected the notion. Gamism in D&D is REALLY strong and anything that tries to drift D&D away from that is vehemently opposed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It doesn't have to be just one, but for this particular subsystem (and most of its subsystems), Torchbearer shows its gamist priority quite openly. Weather in Torchbearer is the equivalent of a thinly-disguised wandering damage table (except with other mechanical effects such as bonuses or penalties to particular skill tests). The express pupose is to challenge the players and their characters. That thin disguise is, of course, simulation/emulation, a mere rationalization or justification for the random gamist effects, not an effort to evoke the feel of being out in wild nature in rich sensory detail. Not that any given GM couldn't embellish that layer for mood for more simulation/emulation, but the book just gives you dice-roll tables and lists of mechanics.

While some have argued for inherent exclusivity of gameplay goals/agendas (see below the next quotation block), what @Manbearcat is doing here is simply describing the design choices Torchbearer made. Torchbearer does include agendas other than gamist, but it does so in other ways and to (much) different degrees.


While I agree it's possible for an RPG to serve multiple agendas at the same time just fine, it is not the case that there's no conflict. That is, just because these goals/agendas aren't fundamentally incompatible, doesn't mean they are trivially compatible (that is, there can be conflict). As for deciding which [potentially plural!] you're "really" doing, that gets things backwards: Quite a few GMs and players come to a system/group with their preferences established, those preferences may well differ, and a given system/group either meshes with a participant's preferences, or doesn't.

To get back to the issue of exclusiviity, it was Edwards who harped on about incoherence and incompatibility of creative agendas (all his terms). While I agree that can—and often does—happen, I don't believe it is inevitable. In fact, the GEN 2-tier model* talks about deliberate blending of goals as a necessity and gives an example:


Note that even this short excerpt highlights that participants can support their own agendas when faced with something that may have been motivated otherwise (by the rules, the GM, or another player). That's actually a pretty radical view, which I haven't seen fronted so clearly before. The thing is, the rules, the GM, or another play can make that easier, or harder, and all this theory stuff is helpful in figuring out how and why that happens, so that we can avoid conflict or friction, and enjoy gaming together.

All that said, weather as presented by the Torchbearer rulebook is primarily gamist—but you can add your own dramatic weight to it if you like.

* I very recently learned about the GEN 2-tier model, and while the article linked is incomplete and rather a mess (and unapologetic about being so), I found it an interesting response to, and critique of, the Forge GNS model.

Edit: Added a bit of emphasis.

The GEN essay displays a poor understanding of Edwards' essay while talking about them more than the framework. I don't see much useful in the framework because it's very vague. The best point I saw is that diffrrent plsyers can be pushing different agendas but oddly assumes this is harmonious and good. That's rarely been my experience, especially over time.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which goes back go my earlier answer to @Thomas Shey. By externalizing that relationship and giving 100% of the power of that relationship to the DM (who is controlling the deity and is not obligated in any way to portraying that deity in any way other than what the DM wants) the player can only react to what the DM does. Which certainly can work. There's no denying that.

But, it's not the only way of doing it. Spreading the authority a bit wider can also work. It works differently, and it's certainly different to what D&D does, but, that doesn't make it better or worse. Just different. And, IME, because of the fact that the player is 100% beholden to the DM for this experience, something like a "crisis of faith" rarely comes up. What more often happens is that the player turtles up, never introduces anything like a crisis of faith and this sort of story just doesn't happen (or happens extremely rarely, and even more rarely does it happen satisfactorily) in D&D.

And, yes, now I know that lots of you are furiously typing to tell me how that one time in your game it happened. But, that's my point. It happened that one time. It's like saying The Simpson's Did It. Simpson's has been on forever. Of course it did it. There's not much it hasn't done. Given the huge number of groups and the time frame's we're talking about, it probably has happened in your group at some point. But, what generally doesn't get mentioned is the ten thousand times it didn't happen because the player or the DM just didn't even consider it a viable option to try because the game of D&D certainly offers zero incentive or advice on how to resolve a "crisis of faith" event.

Earlier I believe @pemerton asked what I meant by "distributing" the narrative power. This is what I mean (in the sense that D&D does not generally do such distribution, but DW does). My players can make moves and do important things and I am beholden to them: I must answer certain questions truthfully, or accept certain assertions, or provide certain responses, whether or not I like doing so, because the rules tell me to do so, and these are rules the players can easily invoke on me. I am of course almost always happy to do so because my players are great (though man oh man, Discern Realities can make you sweat bullets!), but that doesn't diminish the fact that in many situations my players are telling me what to do. Many D&D DMs would balk at the idea that a player could ever invoke a rule and in so doing  force the DM into a particular action; that would be an unacceptable application of authority.

Meanwhile you also have very much more mild things, like 4e daily powers (especially for Martial characters). There, it's not so much telling the DM what to do as it is just declaring that a certain situation is in fact true this time, not because one has turned the crank of the world until that situation inherently arose, but because the game mechanics just give you the power to declare that that situation is true now and then. This is frequently invoked as a criticism (e.g. certain commentators bemoaning the "artificiality" of a once-a-day "mundane" action, or finding it unacceptable that a "ordinary" skill could only be available to one type of character and not absolutely all characters.)

 

[niklinna]

The GEN essay displays a poor understanding of Edwards' essay while talking about them more than the framework. I don't see much useful in the framework because it's very vague. The best point I saw is that diffrrent plsyers can be pushing different agendas but oddly assumes this is harmonious and good. That's rarely been my experience, especially over time.

I got the that they were asserting that it's possible and desirable for participants to pursue/fulfill different agendas on the same events, and in satisfying ways for those participants, but not that it's necessarily easy. I think it requires deliberate design by the system creator, curation by the GM, or proactive interpretation & action by a player.

Like I said though, the article is unapologetically incomplete and sloppy, but it was a refreshing instance of somebody at least providing an alternative to GNS instead of just criticizing it. And if anybody here does know of other game design theories/models, I'd love to know about them!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I got the that they were asserting that it's possible and desirable for participants to pursue/fulfill different agendas on the same events, and in satisfying ways for those participants, but not that it's necessarily easy. I think it requires deliberate design by the system creator, curation by the GM, or proactive interpretation & action by a player.

Like I said though, the article is unapologetically incomplete and sloppy, but it was a refreshing instance of somebody at least providing an alternative to GNS instead of just criticizing it. And if anybody here does know of other game design theories/models, I'd love to know about them!

Well, taking a totally inexperienced stab at it...

I think there are four main goals, and that GNS was decent at looking for them, but biased in certain ways because it was a response to the dominance of one type of system.

1. "Score" and "Achievement." "Score" is a measure (not always literally quantitative) of how well one succeeds. "Achievement" is an emphasis on besting a difficult problem, on proving yourself (or your team etc.) superior to the forces that oppose you (which may be enemies, weather, the other side(s) of a negotiation, the process of crafting an item, etc.)
2. "Groundedness" and "Simulation." A "Grounded" experience is one that has truthiness, that has the ring of truth, that feels concrete and even practical in some sense. A "Simulation" makes, as close as possible, the actual sequence of events as accurate, precise, and close-to-physicality as can be achieved while still being playable.
3. "Conceit" and "Emulation." A core "Conceit" is the heart of a story structure, a concept that one desires to explore. "Emulation" is an effort to inculcate a particular tone or feeling through the process of play, usually inspired by a medium (like superhero comics) or a specific work/author (like Tolkien or Lovecraft).
4. "Values" and "Issues." "Values" are the things the characters care about, believe in, or have commitment to, in a moral/ethical/knowledge sense, which can shift or change as a result of dramatic events. "Issues" are moments of tension, revelation, or crisis regarding these things, which force a response, often a change or a hardening of one's choices.

If one wishes to acronymize these, SAGSCEVI works, though a different acronym might be better. This is just a first stab with literally a few minutes effort put into each category, striving to show why I think it is unwise to combine some things Edwards combined.

I believe these things can be combined in a single game, but in general it is difficult to design things that serve multiple goals with similar levels of fidelity. E.g. I think 4e is very big on Score and Achievement in its combat system, but offers some minor Conceit and Emulation in the doing (the "fantasy action movie" idea), but without a lot of concern for Groundedness or Simulation. Values and Issues are addressed in a much more emergent kind of way; it is not strictly that the rules seek out to address them, but rather that they trace out the appropriate shapes in a rudimentary way.

By comparison, 3e goes all in for both Score-and-Achievement (as intended, according to Monte Cook anyway) and Groundedness-and-Simulation, but is rather pointedly opposed to Values-and-Issues as a thing to play through (see the many, many issues and confusions induced by alignment), and has a love/hate relationship with Conceit-and-Emulation. (That is, the basal system kinda avoids it, but several of its settings try to pursue it, e.g. Eberron uses the Conceit of "what if we just...make a world that would result from the rules we wrote?", and it is openly an Emulation of classic pulp adventure, Doc Savage and Indiana Jones type stuff, with a bit of noir and political shenanigans thrown in for spice.)

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Which goes back go my earlier answer to @Thomas Shey. By externalizing that relationship and giving 100% of the power of that relationship to the DM (who is controlling the deity and is not obligated in any way to portraying that deity in any way other than what the DM wants) the player can only react to what the DM does. Which certainly can work. There's no denying that.

But, it's not the only way of doing it. Spreading the authority a bit wider can also work. It works differently, and it's certainly different to what D&D does, but, that doesn't make it better or worse. Just different. And, IME, because of the fact that the player is 100% beholden to the DM for this experience, something like a "crisis of faith" rarely comes up. What more often happens is that the player turtles up, never introduces anything like a crisis of faith and this sort of story just doesn't happen (or happens extremely rarely, and even more rarely does it happen satisfactorily) in D&D.

And, yes, now I know that lots of you are furiously typing to tell me how that one time in your game it happened. But, that's my point. It happened that one time. It's like saying The Simpson's Did It. Simpson's has been on forever. Of course it did it. There's not much it hasn't done. Given the huge number of groups and the time frame's we're talking about, it probably has happened in your group at some point. But, what generally doesn't get mentioned is the ten thousand times it didn't happen because the player or the DM just didn't even consider it a viable option to try because the game of D&D certainly offers zero incentive or advice on how to resolve a "crisis of faith" event.

I don't disagree, and to be clear, variety is nice, as an artistic movement I like what Story Now produces (would still love to play Blades, and Avatar, and more Masks, any day now.)

Honestly, it might just be the people I play with, but its gotten harder in general the last few years-- even when we were playing Masks, there was a lot of animosity towards internal struggle and complications. When people have tried it, the reception from the rest of the group has been somewhat lukewarm at best, with one exception in the Masks group I can think of who carried it off really well, and myself in another group.

One person even managed to choose a playbook they weren't comfortable with the narrative premise of for personal reasons, they identified with it clearly and thats probably why they chose it, but they weren't actually comfortable with it coming up, the squirm was real when it was pointed out to them that they might need to switch after they questioned why it had to come up.

I suspect it has to do with my players primarily looking for power fantasy though as well, one of them basically told me they liked the 'freeform' style of describing their powers more than anything else about the Masks experience. I say power fantasy, but I think part of it is a desire for escapism from drama and internal struggle in life, rather than a desire for more drama and internal struggle in their lives.

That actually makes a lot of sense, now that I think about it, it felt like it used to be easier but our lives, despite being even younger, were more stable and there was way less existential dread all around.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah. I can totally see that @The-Magic-Sword. Let’s be honest here. Gamist games are closest to how most games are played. Everyone knows how to play gamist games. We’ve been doing it since about the time we leaned to walk.

Narrativist games are probably the most different from other games which make them a lot less intuitive for people to just pick up and play.