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

[Lyxen]

That's interesting because if the concern is around dominating the table, as you suggest that isn't down to character efficiency alone. As well as matters of personal charisma, there is the distribution of authority to determine the world and narrate what happens. In that sense, D&D has always sustained a great inequality.

The fact is that players are not equal, which is why it's good to have a DM so that he can arbitrate for fun. This is also why player-centricity as injected by 3e was wrong, not only did it take the necessary "authority" of the DM away (I'm using brackets there, because, as it's only a game, a DM only has as much authority as the collective players give him, but that's exactly what he needs to manage imbalances at that level), it was also every technical and encouraged power drifts in characters.

(A balanced distribution of power has sometimes been needlessly conflated allocation with narrativism.)

Hmmm, as I don't think that I've seen a definition of narrativism that supports that anyway.

So if balance is a fallacy, how can it possibly be appealing as a goal for D&D? Either it's not a goal, or D&D is unappealing. If as you suggest it's not really a goal, then on what grounds is D&D gamist? Is that down to the group?

Of course, it's down to the group. I should add stress that this is from my perspective, but if people want to play in a more gamist fashion, balance becomes more important, for reasons of fairness, although, once more, this is at least partly a fallacy for all the other reasons that I have listed. For example, if two characters are perfectly balanced but not equal, it still means that some situations will favor one over the over, so if the DM mostly presents situations favouring a character, then that one will get an obvious advantage. The same if a magic item is found favouring one character. And the same if a player is clearly a better tactician than the other.

This argument as I note, primarily seems to resist the characterisation of D&D as gamist. Right?

Not really, some people play D&D in a very gamist fashion, and there is nothing wrong with that. I wanted to present a different view to show that inherently the game is not written that way, especially 5e if I may, and for me that is clearly something that contributed to its wider appeal than the hardcore fans of previous editions.

 

[Lyxen]

A feature often seen in narrativist games is player choice over whether an attempt succeeds. Fate points are an example. D&D has faint traces of narrativism in TIBFs and inspiration.

Indeed, but if you look at the section on the Role of Dice, for me there is a very strong element there as well in 5e, if you start ignoring the dice : "With this approach, the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors. For example, the players might describe how they search for a secret door, detailing how they tap on a wall or twist a torch sconce to find its trigger. That could be enough to convince the DM that they find the secret door without having to make an ability check to do so."

To me however, narrativism is better defined by premise and dramatic character development, and that seems very much down to the group to choose to opt into. One runs into the question of whether TTRPG can really be analysed on the basis of the game artifact (the game text) or only the interpretation (the game in play.) The former never really happens, because anyone supposing they are analysing on the basis of the game as artifact is really prospectively playing it (playing it in their mind) to decide what the game model and rules imply. That leads to some remarkably divergent intuitions about what a given game is about.

I must say that you've lost me here. For me, narrativism is simply about focussing on the characters and their story.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

It's a good essay - but one thing I'd add is that basically since D&D left Lake Geneva (and arguably even then) a majority of players have been OC players no matter which group. But DMing/GMing doesn't work half so well if you're trying to run as an OCer. Instead DMing is its own art - and gives a massive amount of grounding for the OCs but how the DM approaches DMing is what changes, and it has a huge influence.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

The and is confusing. Character driven doesn't mean story driven. Story driven is about playing through a story, or focused on creating a story that has expected story elements. Focus on creation of story in this manner has nothing to do with narrativism or Story Now play. Story Now play is usually very character driven, in that the entire premise of play is brought forwards by the characters.

As far as where story play goes, usually in gamism (a story creation game where you vie for the conch) or simulationism (where you're working through a story, like the Dragonlance modules, and the point of play is to experience this).

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.

I don't at all know about simpler, but that's a framework talking about videogame creation. I read through it, it seems coherent in that aspect, but videogames are currently incapable of creating narrativist, or Story Now, play so it would make very much sense that a framework discussing video games wouldn't include the same elements as a different model referencing video games.

As noted earlier, the terms used in the GNS model (which is what's being referred to here, even obliquely, with the terms gamist and simulationist -- both modes that the model you linked doesn't use) are ones that lead to some confusion. It's why I tend to shift discussion of narrativism towards use of Story Now, to avoid confusion of someone making the wrong guess as to what's being referred to.

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...)

Oh, I have no doubt, given your other posts, that you'll ever agree to it. Or that 4e (and I'm not at all shocked that you latched onto a statement about 4e) could do anything well, much less something other editions don't. These are very much in my expectation range.

 

[Lyxen]

The and is confusing. Character driven doesn't mean story driven. Story driven is about playing through a story, or focused on creating a story that has expected story elements.

OK.

Focus on creation of story in this manner has nothing to do with narrativism or Story Now play. Story Now play is usually very character driven, in that the entire premise of play is brought forwards by the characters.

Now you've lost me. If "Story Now play is usually very character driven", is "Story Now" creating a story or not ?

Because if it is, it's what we are doing, we are creating a story by strongly playing the characters.

As far as where story play goes, usually in gamism (a story creation game where you vie for the conch) or simulationism (where you're working through a story, like the Dragonlance modules, and the point of play is to experience this).

I honestly find your uses of "gamism" and "simulationism" very bizarre. For me, "gamism" is about winning the game, so I don't see how story-oriented play qualifies. As for Dragonlance, I had the unfortunate experience of having indeed a DM who wanted us to recreate the books, and it did not work out.

I don't at all know about simpler, but that's a framework talking about videogame creation. I read through it, it seems coherent in that aspect, but videogames are currently incapable of creating narrativist, or Story Now, play so it would make very much sense that a framework discussing video games wouldn't include the same elements as a different model referencing video games.

As noted earlier, the terms used in the GNS model (which is what's being referred to here, even obliquely, with the terms gamist and simulationist -- both modes that the model you linked doesn't use) are ones that lead to some confusion. It's why I tend to shift discussion of narrativism towards use of Story Now, to avoid confusion of someone making the wrong guess as to what's being referred to.

The problem is that I have not been able to find a definition of "story now"... And there is also the problem that your formulation of the terms is very bizarre to me and actually very different from what I can read about it, for example on wikipedia, where it's simple.

Oh, I have no doubt, given your other posts, that you'll ever agree to it. Or that 4e (and I'm not at all shocked that you latched onto a statement about 4e) could do anything well, much less something other editions don't. These are very much in my expectation range.

And indeed, it was within my own expectation range that you would fail to produce anything of value here after being the one to, for some still unknown reason, try to single out 4e in that debate... sigh

Just to note, 4e is for me the ultimate gamist edition, mostly about winning encounters, overcoming technical challenges: "Gamist RPG design emphasizes parity; all player characters should be equally strong and capable of dealing with adversity." If that's one of the core design principles of 4e, I don't know what it is...

"

 

[clearstream]

I must say that you've lost me here. For me, narrativism is simply about focussing on the characters and their story.

I feel like unresolved premises and dramatic character development are at the heart of it, because they are vital to what narrativists mean by "story".

 

[Lyxen]

I feel like unresolved premises and dramatic character development are at the heart of it, because they are vital to what narrativists mean by "story".

That was actually the part of the paragraph that I agreed with, it's the rest that lost me.

 

[Campbell]

At its core Story Now play is about framing thematically interesting characters into charged situations where their dramatic needs are at stake with the intent to see what happens. The players provide protagonists who drive after their goals with vigor. The GM provides honest antagonism centered around the PCs' dramatic needs. We all see where the narrative leads and accept what comes next.

This is different from colluding on story outcomes or being a passive consumer of a story provided by the GM / adventure module. This latter sort of story-based play is generally called High Concept Sim under the broader Siim / Right To Dream category.

The reason 4e tends to be better for this sort of play is because it has a closed scene conflict resolution system for noncombat stuff (skill challenges) and does not require the same sort of pacing over the adventuring day to keep classes balanced. As a GM you are free to just frame scenes and see where things go.

 

[Lyxen]

At its core Story Now play is about framing thematically interesting characters into charged situations where their dramatic needs are at stake with the intent to see what happens. The players provide protagonists who drive after their goals with vigor. The GM provides honest antagonism centered around the PCs' dramatic needs. We all see where the narrative leads and accept what comes next.

OK, this seems indeed fairly close to the WIkipedia definition of narrativism.

This is different from colluding on story outcomes or being a passive consumer of a story provided by the GM / adventure module. This latter sort of story-based play is generally called High Concept Sim under the broader Siim / Right To Dream category.

OK, now these are just labels used by specific theories. But then it means that collective telling of a story based on characters and their interactions hardly fits within the model.

The reason 4e tends to be better for this sort of play is because it has a closed scene conflict resolution system for noncombat stuff (skill challenges) and does not require the same sort of pacing over the adventuring day to keep classes balanced. As a GM you are free to just frame scenes and see where things go.

OK, now this is, for me, pure theory. Skill Challenges are a purely gamist thing where people roll dices to get more successes than failures. The way I've seen it played, it just transforms role-playing in to roll-playing, with people seeing which of their technical skills are the best to roll dices and try justifying their use. How this is narrativism is really beyond me, especially when looking at the wikipedia definition: "Narrativism relies on outlining (or developing) character motives, placing characters into situations where those motives conflict and making their decisions the driving force. For example, a samurai sworn to honor and obey his lord might be tested when directed to fight his rebellious son; a compassionate doctor might have his charity tested by an enemy soldier under his care; or a student might have to decide whether to help her best friend cheat on an exam." How this is even close to a skill challenge is totally beyond me.

As for the adventuring day, I don't think many people follow things here in other editions, whereas, looking at 4e modules which are basically series of encounters at least as much as any other edition modules, I fail to see a difference here.

On the other hand "framing scenes and seeing where things go" is something that I've been doing all my life as a DM, including in 4e, but I must say that the clear separation of pillars of play in 4e (and the heavy formalism of combat had nothing to do with "dramatic need") was more of a hindrance to me with respect of seeing where things were going.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And indeed, it was within my own expectation range that you would fail to produce anything of value here after being the one to, for some still unknown reason, try to single out 4e in that debate... sigh

Mod Note:

One of ENWorld’s basic rules is keep it civil. Part of that is you don’t make things personal. This quote here is a great example of making it personal.

Don’t do that.