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

[Campbell]

In my personal play experiences B/X, D&D 3e / PF 1, D&D 4e and PF2 all have designs that align well with Step On Up because they kick you in the junk when you're bad at the game and provide strong reinforcement to let you know when you are playing well. Secondarily 3e/PF1 does tend to let itself pretty well to a certain form of Process Simulation. 4e tends to be somewhat compatible with Story Now. PF2 has some strong High Concept stuff in its archetypes and can lean into some Apocalypse World style stuff but not as well as 4e. All feel like primarily Step On Up designs to me though.

With 5e I'm leaning towards it being mostly a High Concept Simulation game meant to evoke the feeling of early D&D but not its gameplay. It does not feel like a very good vehicle for Step On Up to me. It does not really kick you in the junk when you are bad. There's a lot less focus on rewards, both treasure and gaining levels. Backgrounds and BIFTS feel very tropey as do a lot of the subclass designs.

 

[niklinna]

Gamist to me functionally means that the game is being a game first. All other considerations take a back seat to making the game work as a game. I can role play in Axis & Allies, but the only other consideration is making a simulation of strategic level war decisions, but even that takes a back seat to making the game work as a game.

What is a game, though?

I don't think narratitivst games are a thing per se. Most of them would fall into the simulationist games; but, they're simulating a particular genre of fiction rather than the world.

Many Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark players are likely to disagree hard, here. Genre is background to why we play those games (and their multifarious ilk).

 

[niklinna]

Also, the naming scheme is terrible is the intent is to sell the idea that it is not about the story. Narrativism, Story Now. Really?

While true, it's water under the bridge at this point, and the bridge burned down. The concept, however poorly named, remains worth examining.

No. Incorporating background and taking suggestions is not the same thing as orienting the whole of play towards the dramatic needs of the protagonists as authored by the players of those PCs.

But it is a similar thing. It's just a difference between dabbling and going all in.

They are fundamentally different in a key way. Incorporating anything pre-scripted into something pre-scripted is not Story Now on either end. Story Now play uses established facts about what matters to the players/PCs—typically if not necessarily declared in the moment—to frame and play through a scene that's happening now, in order to discover more about what matters to the players/PCs. As I've said before, you can mix approaches/agendas/modes over time, but it's best to be clear about which one you are using in the moment.

@pemerton's "whole of play" is where I perhaps disagree. It's possible to apply Story Now to the whole of play, but I don't think it's necessary.

Right. So how is the player not establishing the dramatic need to get the relic if they happen to be inspired by seeing word 'dragon' on the map?

This is far enough out of context I'm not sure what you're getting at. If it's that the player used something from a map provided by the GM as input to their dramatic need, that's fine, but it isn't relevant to Story Now play—yet. Locating the relic as being possessed by a dragon is also something else. It seems to be about who gets to assert things about the world, which is its own issue.

The need itself is also, well, not particularly dramatic. What does the PC need the relic for? What happens if they don't get it? What happens if they do get it? Also, there's a reason I gave two facts about my acrophobe who loved her sister; they can be juxtaposed for huge dramatic tension in the moment.

None of these questions need be answered for fun to be had. It's small-n, or vanilla, narrative, prompted by the player. But Story Now play demands drama in the form of stakes and framing of scenes that put those stakes front and center.

 

[pemerton]

You constantly confuse the player establishing the dramatic need with the player establish the material parameters relating to it.

Given that I constantly contrast who has authority and what principles govern its exercise, I don't think you are correct.

Consider 4e D&D. The GM in 4e is in charge of scene-framing. The game is crystal clear about that - see eg p 8 of the PHB: "The DM sets the pace of the story and presents the various challenges and encounters the players must overcome."

The players are expected to contribute dramatic needs, including the story elements that make those feasible - eg the mother whose remains lie in the Fortress of the Iron Ring - and the fundamental story frameworks ("quests") within which scenes are framed by the GM.

This is a completely functional way of running a RPG. I was able to use more specific advice and techniques from Maelstrom Storytelling, Burning Wheel and HeroWars/Quest - all classics in the field of scene-framed narrativist RPGing - to support and improve my 4e GMing.

It is also a way of RPGing that is different from what I typically see discussed on ENworld. It is neither "linear" nor "sandbox". It does not involve the use of adventure paths, nor of old school modules. It is not just players set goals for their PCs - which Gygax talked about in his PHB. It is players establish the fundamental story framework for play - that is, what play will be about, what the characters will be striving for, what sorts of threats or obstacles they will confront, etc.

I don't know of any other version of D&D that has suggested running the game like this. B/X doesn't. Gygax doesn't. The core 3E books don't. I haven't read the 2nd ed AD&D books as closely, but I never encountered 2nd ed AD&D being played in this fashion back in the 90s. I haven't read the 5e books much either, but I don't see much if any discussion of running 5e D&D this way.

It's a real thing, which is different from some other things. Compared to most of what I see discussed in relation to D&D play, it demands a fairly radical change to the way things are done. Starting with the way the GM exercises their authority over setting and situation.

 

[pemerton]

3e/PF1 does tend to let itself pretty well to a certain form of Process Simulation.

As you know, on this we disagree. I think the process sim veneer of 3E is so thin as to barely count as veneer! My go to example of this is the +30 natural armour bonus some creatures have - that is not actually simulating anything or representing anything in the fiction we can actually make sense of, given that it is a challenge for anyone but Hephaestus to forge magical metal armour that will provide a +15 armour bonus. It's just a gameplay number given a keyword label ("natural armour") to settle how it works with other bonuses and penalties, and to create that thinnest of veneers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You've had an answer from @Manbearcat.

I would say - write what Luke Crane wrote in Burning Wheel, or what Vincent Baker wrote in Apocalypse World.

Here's just one example from Burning Wheel (p 552 of the Gold edition, under the heading "the sacred and most holy role of the players"): "If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself."

Think about that. Really think about taking that seriously in a RPG. And then think about how that rules out any old-school module, and any adventure path. That if it is to work, it requires the GM to follow the player's lead in deciding what situations to present. That it therefore requires the player to be able to take the lead - by making suggestions, by using mechanics, or whatever. Think about the implications for how setting is going to work, if the player is made responsible for creating interesting situations.

I think anyone should be able to see that this is not just the GM incorporating some player-authored backstory into the settings and situations they are presenting.

Oh, I get it. I just wanted to know how it would be explained in an actual game book as opposed to the academic symposium on display in this thread.

 

[niklinna]

Well I finally feel ready to actually tackle the original question, after reading the GEN article and re-reading Ron Edward's main essay on GNS and recent exchanges today. It's fascinating to me how much of the confusion and misinterpretation he saw and tried to deal with back then! And still he gave Narrativism and Story Now terrible names.

This question comes out of the thread discussing whether D&D is simulationist. The question relates to an envisioned categorisation of games into gamist, explorative or simulationist, and dramatic or narrative. There is some disagreement over the qualities or meaning of these categories, but I think one can say they are defined by some combination of goals (or decisions or desires) and techniques (or mechanics) depending on how welded one feels the latter are to the former. Example models bear the three-letter acronyms GDS, GNS, and GEN.

As Ron said in his essay: 'Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labelling device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals." Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and decision-making." For better or for worse, both of these forms of shorthand are common.'

So the question is really: Which modes/goals of play does D&D facilitate, in what ways, and to what degrees? A corollary is: Which modes/goals of play does D&D hinder, in what ways, and to what degrees? If it does neither, I'll say it allows a particular mode/goal of play in some way. And finally, one can ask to what degree D&D emphasizes a particular mode/goal. (I'm going to assume D&D is 5e because the various editions had different emphases and that's more than I care to get into.)

As for qualities & meaning of the modes, problematic as it is, I'm going with the GNS model. The GEN model makes some interesting highlights but the article is itself a self-proclaimed incomplete mess. (I haven't bothered to dig up the original GDS material yet.)

In the simulationist thread, folk called out this or that game or mechanic as gamist and therefore not simulationist, without having an appealing definition of gamism to sustain the disjunction. Ease of play and engagement (or interest) were called out. Does one therefore suppose that narrativist games are perforce not easy to play, and not engaging or interesting!? That seems unlikely. FWIW I am more drawn to the camp that do not count techniques (such as distribution of power) as necessarily welded to goals (such as resolution of premises).

I agree, technique is not the same as mode/goal. Edwards distinguished them, perhaps not as overtly as the GEN model did.

So I wondered, if we say that D&D is gamist, what does that mean? And perhaps more importantly, in what ways is gamism appealing or valuable? Why is D&D gamist (if it is?)

5e supports and allows Gamist play, in that players can step up to challenges and overcome them, and that a lot of its mechanics are about delimiting use of powers and resources regardless of any simulative logic (I'm looking at you, Concentration and short/long rests). It has ample rules in terms of rated stats and powers that you use to resolve challenges at several different scales of detail, from round-by-round combat, to describing exactly how you go about doing something (like disarming a trap), to one-roll skill tests (such as for disarming a trap). The DM has wide latitude in deciding how particular things are resolved (particularly out of combat), but the point is that most of this stuff is presented in terms of a technical challenge to be overcome: transparency is an orthogonal matter, albeit important to some DMs and players. Does 5e emphasize Gamist play? In terms of page count and time spent in play, I'd argue that it does. Does 5e hinder Gamist play? Some argue that it's not actually very challenging, particularly combat. Prewritten scenarios (which are not inherent to 5e but are very prominent) also get some flak for encouraging GMs to softball.

Gamist play is appealing or valuable to the extent that someone enjoys resolving challenges for its own sake. This post is long enough so I'm not going to say more than that.

While not highlighted in the original post, I'll address the other two modes, because if D&D isn't simply Gamist, it must be something else, too.

5e gives a token nod at best to what Edwards calls "process Simulation" play (in other texts), but shows a lot of support for "high concept Simulation". If you're looking for realistic simulation of injuries, effects of increasing range on accuracy, and the like, look elsewhere. If you're looking for class fantasy, a detailed if not terribly sense-making magic system, and people with pointy ears or teeth or wings, dragons and liches and such, 5e has you pretty well covered. I'd argue the bulk of 5e emphasis is actually on Simulationist play—the exploration of one's character and the fantasy world. Page count for characters, monsters, and settings vastly outstrips that for resolving challenges. (How much do the supplements such as Xanathar's Guide actually add new rules?) Does 5e hinder "process Simulation" play? Obviously and overtly, and I hope I don't need to get into that. Does it hinder "high concept Simulation"? Not so much. I mentioned that the magic system doesn't necessarily make much sense. One could argue there's relative lack of formal support for players to create their own spells or magic items, and some regard that as a hindrance.

On to Narrativism (Drama in that other threefold theory). Oy. If anything, discussion today has shown that the terminology is, shall we say, problematic. Some folks can't even agree what "story" means, let alone (small-n) "narrativism"! Here are just a few of the typical things people mean by "narrativism":

• Telling a story. Well, obviously, and see immediately above. But this is as far as some people go.
• Telling a story with the help of others (DM perspective, those others obviously being the players).
• Experiencing a story (the players' perspective):
  • As a more or less passive audience (infeasible for a whole campaign, but I bet you know somebody who's had to sit through the tabletop equivalent of a long cutscene)
  • As stage/film actors (in service to some author who is not a player)
  • Following prearranged hooks leading to various situations (sandbox, trailblazing, etc.)
• Creating a story for your character:
  • This is typically done via backstory, but can also be done during the campaign by working with your DM, but it's usually done alongside "the real story" that the adventuring party is involved with. And it's typically done by out-of-session communication—that is, not through session play. That's a valid part of role-playing, but it's worth pointing out.
  • Pursuing personal goals, possibly while fulfilling roles in a pre-scripted story as above

I'd say 5e supports, and even emphasizes, all of that, to varying degrees. It certainly doesn't hinder any of it, outside of issues of authorial authority (a whole 'nother kettle of fish). But, while those all involve narratives, in the GNS model—and I know you may not subscribe to it—none of that is Narrativism, although the last one about pursuing personal goals takes one step in that direction. To Edwards, the Narrativist mode involves generating a thematic story through play, driven by player or character values. I'd say that any creation of story outside of play—that is, nearly all the above bulleted stuff—isn't even relevant to GNS because it doesn't take place in play. That doesn't mean it isn't a thing or that it isn't worth doing! We just have to call it something else because "Narrativism" has (unfortunately) been reserved in GNS for a particular thing. "History", "scenario", and "plot" are available, among others.

Similarly, if player or character values aren't at stake, in the moment and what a scene is about, Narrativism isn't what's going on. I'm not going to go into this further, when you've likely read a bunch of posts on it above this one.

Anyhow, does 5e support this kind of in-the-moment Narrativism? It makes a nod in that direction with Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws, offering the potential for Narrativist play, but those seem to be used most often for color and not as central framing devices. Does 5e emphasize GNS Narrativism? Nope. Those few pages are pretty much all you get. Does it hinder GNS Narrativism? I'd argue that the mechanical rules of 5e don't functionally hinder it, but the usual mode of handling story, via prescripted plots and situations, does.

Some terms I thought of were fairness, balance, diversity, and creativity. I think many would argue for challenge or competitivenss, but that seems to me an unsophisticated idea about what gamism necessarily amounts to. Gamers who identify themselves as such may enjoy more cooperative play, for example. Not all require GM as adversary. Is gamism even one impulse?! Is it one mode, or many bundled into one just because of insufficient scrutiny or understanding.

Fairness, balance, diversity, and creativity are associated but perhiperal. Gamism is one mode, with many realizations based on the type of challenges one wants to face. Again, Edwards makes some distinctions there that many people gloss over. Cooperative play does not exclude challenge; it doesn't even exclude competition, since there are many ways one can compete while still cooperating. We all want to defeat the dragon, but I'm going to do the most damage! (This is not to say that that kind of attitude can't wind up detracting from the party goal, but that goal is still shared.)

Again, do we say D&D is gamist? What does that mean? And what are its appealing benefits?

Is D&D (5e) Gamist? Some parts of it are, and arguably a fair amount of 5e play time is gamist, just because of combat. Highly dependent on group of course, but the game really foregrounds an adventure structure based around encounters (which usually means combat) and rests. The appealing benefits are that some people really enjoy the combat game 5e provides. A bigger part of 5e is high concept Simulationist, and I'd say the Gamist part, as much time as that takes, is embedded in or built on top of that mode. 5e allows for but doesn't particularly support Narrativism, but does support other ways of handling story.

 

[niklinna]

Oh, I get it. I just wanted to know how it would be explained in an actual game book as opposed to the academic symposium on display in this thread.

Do I detect a little shade being thrown?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well I finally feel ready to actually tackle the original question, after reading the GEN article and re-reading Ron Edward's main essay on GNS and recent exchanges today. It's fascinating to me how much of the confusion and misinterpretation he saw and tried to deal with back then! And still he gave Narrativism and Story Now terrible names.


As Ron said in his essay: 'Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labelling device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals." Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and decision-making." For better or for worse, both of these forms of shorthand are common.'

So the question is really: Which modes/goals of play does D&D facilitate, in what ways, and to what degrees? A corollary is: Which modes/goals of play does D&D hinder, in what ways, and to what degrees? If it does neither, I'll say it allows a particular mode/goal of play in some way. And finally, one can ask to what degree D&D emphasizes a particular mode/goal. (I'm going to assume D&D is 5e because the various editions had different emphases and that's more than I care to get into.)

As for qualities & meaning of the modes, problematic as it is, I'm going with the GNS model. The GEN model makes some interesting highlights but the article is itself a self-proclaimed incomplete mess. (I haven't bothered to dig up the original GDS material yet.)


I agree, technique is not the same as mode/goal. Edwards distinguished them, perhaps not as overtly as the GEN model did.


5e supports and allows Gamist play, in that players can step up to challenges and overcome them, and that a lot of its mechanics are about delimiting use of powers and resources regardless of any simulative logic (I'm looking at you, Concentration and short/long rests). It has ample rules in terms of rated stats and powers that you use to resolve challenges at several different scales of detail, from round-by-round combat, to describing exactly how you go about doing something (like disarming a trap), to one-roll skill tests (such as for disarming a trap). The DM has wide latitude in deciding how particular things are resolved (particularly out of combat), but the point is that most of this stuff is presented in terms of a technical challenge to be overcome: transparency is an orthogonal matter, albeit important to some DMs and players. Does 5e emphasize Gamist play? In terms of page count and time spent in play, I'd argue that it does. Does 5e hinder Gamist play? Some argue that it's not actually very challenging, particularly combat. Prewritten scenarios (which are not inherent to 5e but are very prominent) also get some flak for encouraging GMs to softball.

Gamist play is appealing or valuable to the extent that someone enjoys resolving challenges for its own sake. This post is long enough so I'm not going to say more than that.

While not highlighted in the original post, I'll address the other two modes, because if D&D isn't simply Gamist, it must be something else, too.

5e gives a token nod at best to what Edwards calls "process Simulation" play (in other texts), but shows a lot of support for "high concept Simulation". If you're looking for realistic simulation of injuries, effects of increasing range on accuracy, and the like, look elsewhere. If you're looking for class fantasy, a detailed if not terribly sense-making magic system, and people with pointy ears or teeth or wings, dragons and liches and such, 5e has you pretty well covered. I'd argue the bulk of 5e emphasis is actually on Simulationist play—the exploration of one's character and the fantasy world. Page count for characters, monsters, and settings vastly outstrips that for resolving challenges. (How much do the supplements such as Xanathar's Guide actually add new rules?) Does 5e hinder "process Simulation" play? Obviously and overtly, and I hope I don't need to get into that. Does it hinder "high concept Simulation"? Not so much. I mentioned that the magic system doesn't necessarily make much sense. One could argue there's relative lack of formal support for players to create their own spells or magic items, and some regard that as a hindrance.

On to Narrativism (Drama in that other threefold theory). Oy. If anything, discussion today has shown that the terminology is, shall we say, problematic. Some folks can't even agree what "story" means, let alone (small-n) "narrativism"! Here are just a few of the typical things people mean by "narrativism":

• Telling a story. Well, obviously, and see immediately above. But this is as far as some people go.
• Telling a story with the help of others (DM perspective, those others obviously being the players).
• Experiencing a story (the players' perspective):
  • As a more or less passive audience (infeasible for a whole campaign, but I bet you know somebody who's had to sit through the tabletop equivalent of a long cutscene)
  • As stage/film actors (in service to some author who is not a player)
  • Following prearranged hooks leading to various situations (sandbox, trailblazing, etc.)
• Creating a story for your character:
  • This is typically done via backstory, but can also be done during the campaign by working with your DM, but it's usually done alongside "the real story" that the adventuring party is involved with. And it's typically done by out-of-session communication—that is, not through session play. That's a valid part of role-playing, but it's worth pointing out.
  • Pursuing personal goals, possibly while fulfilling roles in a pre-scripted story as above

I'd say 5e supports, and even emphasizes, all of that, to varying degrees. It certainly doesn't hinder any of it, outside of issues of authorial authority (a whole 'nother kettle of fish). But, while those all involve narratives, in the GNS model—and I know you may not subscribe to it—none of that is Narrativism, although the last one about pursuing personal goals takes one step in that direction. To Edwards, the Narrativist mode involves generating a thematic story through play, driven by player or character values. I'd say that any creation of story outside of play—that is, nearly all the above bulleted stuff—isn't even relevant to GNS because it doesn't take place in play. That doesn't mean it isn't a thing or that it isn't worth doing! We just have to call it something else because "Narrativism" has (unfortunately) been reserved in GNS for a particular thing. "History", "scenario", and "plot" are available, among others.

Similarly, if player or character values aren't at stake, in the moment and what a scene is about, Narrativism isn't what's going on. I'm not going to go into this further, when you've likely read a bunch of posts on it above this one.

Anyhow, does 5e support this kind of in-the-moment Narrativism? It makes a nod in that direction with Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws, offering the potential for Narrativist play, but those seem to be used most often for color and not as central framing devices. Does 5e emphasize GNS Narrativism? Nope. Those few pages are pretty much all you get. Does it hinder GNS Narrativism? I'd argue that the mechanical rules of 5e don't functionally hinder it, but the usual mode of handling story, via prescripted plots and situations, does.


Fairness, balance, diversity, and creativity are associated but perhiperal. Gamism is one mode, with many realizations based on the type of challenges one wants to face. Again, Edwards makes some distinctions there that many people gloss over. Cooperative play does not exclude challenge; it doesn't even exclude competition, since there are many ways one can compete while still cooperating. We all want to defeat the dragon, but I'm going to do the most damage! (This is not to say that that kind of attitude can't wind up detracting from the party goal, but that goal is still shared.)


Is D&D (5e) Gamist? Some parts of it are, and arguably a fair amount of 5e play time is gamist, just because of combat. Highly dependent on group of course, but the game really foregrounds an adventure structure based around encounters (which usually means combat) and rests. The appealing benefits are that some people really enjoy the combat game 5e provides. A bigger part of 5e is high concept Simulationist, and I'd say the Gamist part, as much time as that takes, is embedded in or built on top of that mode. 5e allows for but doesn't particularly support Narrativism, but does support other ways of handling story.

5e rules actively hinder Story Now because of the resource model being the Adventurering day but often allowing overspending to swamp a scene. This requires GM control of pacing or extremely wonky scenes. The resource recovery model also cuts against be ause pacing. The disparity in class capabilities requires spotlight management. All of this names Story Now difficult or impossible.

 

[Campbell]

Oh, I get it. I just wanted to know how it would be explained in an actual game book as opposed to the academic symposium on display in this thread.

I mean there's no need in a game text to define what a Story Now game is or even what a roleplaying game is. You just tell people how to play Apocalypse World or whatever. Maybe start with something like don't [naughty word] prepare a damn story.