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

[niklinna]

Me too. Except more so. I hate all this Label-ism. All this pseudointellectual discussion about what something is and is not is a complete waste of time. All that matters is what people do at the table, and so long as they are having fun they are doing it right.

If that's the case, then why are you even here? This topic's OP was clearly and plainly framed in the context of theoretical models, so pardon us if we discuss it using those models. Go to your table and have fun, and let us have ours.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If that's the case, then why are you even here? This topic's OP was clearly and plainly framed in the context of theoretical models, so pardon us if we discuss it using those models. Go to your table and have fun, and let us have ours.

I'm just here to cast shade and laugh at the endless human capacity to intellectualise made up stuff.

Pomposity needs it's bubble burst.

 

[clearstream]

It seems to me that 5e was nakedly a gamist system with gamist instructions, while 3e and 5e are gamist systems with (largely high concept) sim instructions. I think what we see (that Edwards knew already) is that, at least for the market leader, what makes a game good and what makes a game successful are often competing pressures.

There is so much evidence in the form of player testimonies and records of live play that 5e is good and successful.

Precisely that incoherence and ambiguity of rules vs instructions creates a lot of chatter online (as people argue over which half is to be given primacy), creates a perceived need for more supplements ('this new book will fix things for sure'), and ultimately just appeals to the widest group of potential customers possible, especially as many people are likely to change or drift things anyway through fudging and house rules.

Here we are highly informed hyper-critics: the "just" may only indicate our form of elitism.

 

[soviet]

There is so much evidence in the form of player testimonies and records of live play that 5e is good and successful

Sure, it's good enough.

 

[niklinna]

Sure, it's good enough.

At the dollar figures they're making, it's way more than good enough.

 

[niklinna]

All this theory debate got me rooting around the Web and I found an obscure thing. Not really on topic though so I started a new thread about it: RPG Theory and D&D...and that WotC Survey. Pseudointellectuallize your hearts out, mateys.

 

[clearstream]

At the dollar figures they're making, it's way more than good enough.

Heh! I read folk describing their 5e play in glowing, excited terms, and finding imaginative ways to use the game in new ways. I see kickstarter after kickstarter built on 5e. It's success as a game design is virtually unparalleled.

Or let's put it another way. I am too critical of myself to do other than say - accepting 5e as a success seeing as that's where the evidence lies, what can I understand or learn from that? That seems the more powerful lense, to me at least.

 

[clearstream]

All this theory debate got me rooting around the Web and I found an obscure thing. Not really on topic though so I started a new thread about it: RPG Theory and D&D...and that WotC Survey. Pseudointellectuallize your hearts out, mateys.

Good find! Game designers employed by commercially successful corporations benefit from research that often isn't available to others. In 1999 WotC designers had the data underpinning that summary chart, and perhaps insights from it broken out by expert analysis.

 

[pemerton]

I remember the WotC survey pretty well. It's market research, not an analysis of the components and trajectories of RPGing.

 

[clearstream]

This stuff (Story Now) is fairly easy to explain.

Players : Create dynamic characters who want things. Go after those things like you are driving a stolen car. Be a fan of each others' characters.
GMs : Create dynamic situations that relate back to the aims of the player characters and introduce fun complications, keeping the focus solely on them. Be a fan of the player characters.
Everyone : Play to find out what happens. Bring it.

Something I am quite interested in is this: is Story + Now an inviolable necessity, or might Story (dynamic characters who want things and all that) still be managed with Before or even After? Heresy, I know.

Suppose we have this: Jo would never, ever betray a friend, but when their one-true-love Bo demands it, Jo lies to their childhood friend Addy.

• What must we not know? We mustn't know what Jo will choose. What the results of lying to Addy will be (although I think we are permitted to have and might benefit from forbodings about that.)
• What must we know before? We must know that Jo would never, ever betray a friend. We must know that Bo demands it. We must know that Addy is a childhood friend of Jo's. It must be established that Jo and Bo are lovers.
• What could we know without harm to the dramatic unravelling of the story? A pre-established map? A pre-established quest (especially one that creates a vehicle for the personal quests of each player-character). A world setting? Powers (or factions) in play? Allies and villains of the piece. Over-arching trajectories of change (e.g. global warming, an invasion, war, the school year)?

It only gets complicated when we smuggle in how we expect this stuff to work.

Perhaps there are expectations about how this stuff will work on all sides, that can be questioned? Must there be adversary, or only catalysts? Must we never have a map? Can't we pre-establish anything we like so long as it is orthogonal to or a vehicle for the story we're finding out (as it happens)?