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

[clearstream]

I look at it this way: trad D&D is a simulation of D&D.

That's a "Wow, nice thought!" sort of a wow. (Just to avoid seeming pejorative.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As Devil's advocate, we could argue that over the last decade it has been shown more that principles, and not system, matter.

As the principles pretty much universally drive the design or choice of the system, I'm not sure those can be fully separated, but certainly yes they do matter. I guess I can imagine a situation where the system remains the same but totally different principles applied, but I still think the system is going to be influential, possibly more than the principles. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

 

[Charlaquin]

Usually when discussing D&D, I prefer the terms identified by Six Cultures of Play. They seem to resonate better with those who are playing in those styles, they actually have something to say about how people actually play D&D, and Forge terminology has some baggage when trying to discuss D&D.

I really like the six cultures of play model, I find the six cultures much more resonant with my experience of different groups’ play preferences than GNS’s play agendas. Though it is fairly D&D-centric, being framed around tracking the outgrowth of different play styles from OD&D as the most recent common ancestor of modern RPGs.

 

[Charlaquin]

I look at it this way: trad D&D is a simulation of D&D. The particular elements are there because they’ve always been there, and they’re important for creating the feel of playing D&D. If you replace or change those elements, then the game stops feeling like D&D. That’s also why rule zero is so important. It’s the mechanism that prevents the gamist elements from getting in the way of the group’s actual creative agenda.

Interesting framing, but isn’t trad also defined at least in part by the elements of classic that it rejected? The cultures of play article attributes the origins of trad to the story of the Hickmans running into a vampire in a dungeon and wanting an explanation of why it was there. Seems like trad is less a simulation of classic D&D, but rather retroactively constructing a simulation of the world classic D&D implied.

 

[Charlaquin]

Another interesting lens for RPG analysis is the MDA Framework. Rather than categorizing types of games or play styles, it identifies eight “types of fun” or emotional responses (the model calls them “aesthetics”) that games can be designed to satisfy.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I look at it this way: trad D&D is a simulation of D&D. The particular elements are there because they’ve always been there, and they’re important for creating the feel of playing D&D. If you replace or change those elements, then the game stops feeling like D&D. That’s also why rule zero is so important. It’s the mechanism that prevents the gamist elements from getting in the way of the group’s actual creative agenda.

This...is less than enlightening, I'm afraid.

I really like the six cultures of play model, I find the six cultures much more resonant with my experience of different groups’ play preferences than GNS’s play agendas. Though it is fairly D&D-centric, being framed around tracking the outgrowth of different play styles from OD&D as the most recent common ancestor of modern RPGs.

Out of curiosity, since these cultures stop with the 3rd edition era, would you say there have been any others? I feel like the rather...bitter disputes over 4e reflect a culture distinction there, but I don't really know if it's a new one, a reinvention of an old one, or just one or more old ones reappearing.

Another interesting lens for RPG analysis is the MDA Framework. Rather than categorizing types of games or play styles, it identifies eight “types of fun” or emotional responses (the model calls them “aesthetics”) that games can be designed to satisfy.

The MDA framework is very good, though I feel like it's only really useful in a descriptive sense. I'm not sure how useful it would be for guiding design, other than indirectly.

 

[kenada]

Interesting framing, but isn’t trad also defined at least in part by the elements of classic that it rejected? The cultures of play article attributes the origins of trad to the story of the Hickmans running into a vampire in a dungeon and wanting an explanation of why it was there. Seems like trad is less a simulation of classic D&D, but rather retroactively constructing a simulation of the world classic D&D implied.

That might be a better way of putting it. It’s a simulation in the sense that one is “playing D&D” or experiencing a “D&D adventure”, but the creative agenda is very different. The goal isn’t to advance your characters or find treasure. It’s to tell a story together. That’s why I say rule zero is so important. It’s what prevents incoherence (protecting the campaign from mechanics that could ruin things).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Another interesting lens for RPG analysis is the MDA Framework. Rather than categorizing types of games or play styles, it identifies eight “types of fun” or emotional responses (the model calls them “aesthetics”) that games can be designed to satisfy.

My immediate take on reading about this seemed to mirror the criticism section. None of the aethestics presented seems to align to what I'm looking for out of a Blades in the Dark game, for instance. They seem okay for the evaluation of games that structure themselves like D&D -- where a player is not involved in the generation of setting or situation but rather a consumer of it. They appear to be different kinds of consumption or inwardly focused aesthetics, or just too bland and generic to really matter (Fantasy, frex, being playing in an imaginary world).

 

[kenada]

This...is less than enlightening, I'm afraid.

In what way do you find it lacking? Sure, it’s provocative, but that was the point. I’m not sure we even disagree necessarily. You more or less describe trad D&D and finished by saying your favorite mechanics are those that drip with story potential or invoke tropes and feelings. That’s the thing I’m pointing out as part of the simulation. Perhaps it would help to use a contrasting example.

In OSR play, a style with a Step On Up (or gamist) creative agenda, mechanics are deployed as a backstop. You are supposed to be using your wits to figure out the solution to the problems you encounter. If you encounter a trap, the thief might be able to roll to disable it, but it’s much better to describe how your character disables it without ever making a roll. This is known as “skilled play” or “the answer is not on your character sheet”. Sometimes, the challenges are impossible and have no prescribed solution. A 1st level party encounters a dragon and its hoard. Whatever happens next, a story will emerge from the confluence of events. If the players are smart, they might come out a bit richer.

Trad wants those moments, but it doesn’t want or value the processes that create them. Again, that’s the simulation part. Why doesn’t it value those things? They get in the way of telling a story, and they undermine the sense of fairness that the mechanics are meant to ensure. If the fighter could describe how they open a trapped chest without suffering from the trap, what would be the point of even having a thief in the party? The same goes for the dragon situation. If the dragon’s there, it must have a narrative purpose. Otherwise, the GM is just railroading the players to make them figure out the right solution the GM has in mind. It’s an attack on player agency.

In essence, trad wants to simulate the former experience without the “problems” (high lethality, rules getting in the way of story, poor balance, etc). I’d also add that preserving the feel of D&D is important, which is why I think it has seemingly gamist mechanics in spite of the trad style not really being about that. They’re part of the aesthetic, and they’re part of ensuring everyone’s needs as players are met during play. Like you suggested in your post, balance is about ensuring equal opportunity to contribute.

 

[Lyxen]

Narrativism has nothing to do with narration or choosing a good story.

So where is character- and story-oriented play in your classification ?

Narrativism is hard to articulate because it bumps into terms people routines ascribe in vague and overbroad ways, but it's not really a hard concept.

Well, I have a much simpler definition here: It is about using a game to impart a storied experience in which the player takes an active role and develops sympathy toward its outcomes. Narrativism is inspired by literature, cinema, theatre and other narrative arts, and places videogames as an inheritor of those forms.

This is the way we are playing, and if it's not covered by your classification, then you are using the wrong one.

Once you get it, it's blindingly obvious what it's about. Simply put, it's about centering the PCs are the focus of play, having the PCs establish a premise to be explored, and then exploring that premise through play. It's critical that nothing be established prior to play, because everything is to be established in play. The Ron Edwards essay on narrativism is subtitled "Story Now" not because it's about creating story -- Edwards uses story to mean what happens during play -- but because it's entirely focused on the now. We don't know what happens next, or how the premise will change, or even how the characters will change because we're playing to find that out right now. This doesn't mean we're seeing if how the players overcome a prepared challenge the GM has -- it's not about uncertainty of exact detail. It's about only focusing play on what is happening right this moment, and then using that to feed into what happens in the next moment. You cannot predict how a Narrativst game will go because that's the point of the agenda -- to find out.

And after all that, I still fail to:

1. Agree with it
2. See how 4e supports this more than other editions (not that I care, since I don't use either that "definition" or 4e, but still...)