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

[pemerton]

to me D&D evokes the feel of a fantasy novel and world. It's more simulationist than gamist compared to 4E (that's not an indictment of 4E) and I'm sure less simulationist than others. Most aspects of the game can be viewed through both lenses, and both would be correct.

Every TTRPG will always have aspects of both.

Here are some RPGs that have no aspect of simulation: HeroWars, HeroQuest and HeroQuest revised; Maelstrom Storytelling; Marvel Heroic RP; In A Wicked Age; Agon; Cthulhu Dark; The Green Knight.

Here are some RPGs that have barely a nod to simulation: Torchbearer (the way difficulties for skill checks are set); Tunnels & Trolls (the "spell point" system based on STR); 4e D&D (positioning in combat); Apocalypse World (armour and damage rules).

 

[Campbell]

Neotrad and Story Now require pretty much opposite orientations to play.

Neotrad / OC is entirely about delivering on the fantasy of playing out a specific vision you have for a character. That might be power fantasy, specific sorts of character arcs, relationships, etc. Outcomes and character concepts come first.

Story Now is about putting your character through a crucible and seeing what comes out the other end - who they will be when it's all over.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

That was basically my point.

I've gone back to the essay and I'm now getting confused by what's meant by the author by OC/Neo-Trad and how it differs from Storygames other than that the Neo-Trad group seems to be largely using Trad-designed games while the Storygames crowd prefers games designed for the purpose. The points on the pure vision linked in every case apply much better to e.g. Apocalypse World than they do to Vampire.

OC, at least in terms of its roots, is decidedly DIY, the core roleplaying experience is brought by the players-- you can do it in posts on a message board, with no mechanics, at most some gentleman agreements, or people who have just enough clout with the other people to enforce standards. So when you think about mechanics for the OC crowd, they're not looking for a design that produces and drives their narratives, they're looking for tools that enhance their existing play.

E.g. Combat is a little annoying to do in freeform, because you end up in the awkward spot of who has narrative authority over which attacks hit and what they do to the other person, we used to call it God-Moding to take control and say your attack hit someone else, and it was also frowned upon to just dodge everything. So when we carry that tension forward to tabletop rpgs, it becomes clear that they just need a way of codifying their character's abilities to resolve who wins, not an engine to say, produce complications in an entertaining spiral of drama, because they already do that and want it to center more strongly on their own intentions for the character.

'Trad' games have traditionally approached combat as a (simplified but sometimes intricate) simulation, which means they focus on answering the immediate question of what happens when someone shoots a gun at you, or swings a sword, similarly, they have a lot of little widgets that can reflect different parts of a character, and allow you to be texturally different from other participants in terms of mechanics, potentially even giving you a play style-- the ultimate form of expressive empowerment in so far as mechanics are concerned.

So it might seem un-intuitive, but the OC attachment to trad game styles is fairly well supported. Heck even the core conceit of trad, the main plot, can serve to unite the characters and keep them in the same story (which was another problem with some sufficiently long running forum rps.)

 

[pemerton]

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. 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.

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.

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 Sim / 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.

This thread has been an interesting read, with some great posts from both of you.

Fully agreed on 4e D&D (as you both know). Anyone else who's interested in more elaboration, there's this old thread: D&D 4E - Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

On story now: we all see where the narrative leads is right. So there has not be no resolution established before play. I think Ovinomancer and I disagree, however, to what extent "no myth" as such is necessary for story now RPGing. I think - based on my own play experience - that there can be story now RPGing that uses established setting, but its crucial that the setting leaves open the space both (i) for the GM to frame engaging scenes that speak to the underlying premise of the game, and (ii) for the resolution to be determined without reference to GM-only secret backstory (whether pre-authored, as in adventure notes, or made up on the spot). I think GM secret backstory is one of the most widely used GMing techniques that is at odds with story now RPGing.

Following on from the above, I don't think story now has to be character-driven in a dramatic sense. Yes, the players have to have protagonism - but I think that can be manifested through elements of the fiction external to the PCs, which the players invest value in and respond to via their characters - ie, it can lean into setting. I think that 4e D&D is better for setting-oriented rather than character-oriented story now, because the PCs are rather gonzo and sometimes not that subtle, but the setting is absolutely laden with conflict and theme that the players can pick up and run with. It's like Glorantha turned up to 11! (This is something which @Campbell articulated beautifully in the first post of his I remember reading on these boards, sblocked just below.)

Spoiler

4e Classic (4eC) sings with the right group, but requires a high degree of player buy-in to get the results that I want out of it. I tend to view 4eC as a visceral game about violently capable individuals who set out willingly or not to irrevocably enact change in their worlds who end up becoming mythic figures in their own right. This is highly reinforced in the assumed setting of the game with the backdrop of the Dawn War, tales of the fall of civilizations, and highly active Gods, Demon Princes, Primordials, etc. 4eC presents a world on fire in desperate need of heroes. Thematically it strikes the same currents that Greek Myth, the Diablo games, and Exalted does though tied to a more mortal perspective.

Of course to really embrace these aspects players need to be able to shift between awareness of the game's narrative to engaging its combat encounter mini-game while remaining focused on the underlying fiction. 4eC asks a lot out of the players, but I find the relatively unique combination of satisfying my narrative jones while engaging my tactical/strategic mind incredibly refreshing.

Look at the types of complaints about D&D in threads here -- the ones seeking help or offering a change or evaluating a change. They almost always go in one of two directions: 1) D&D doesn't makes sense here, so here's how I address it with rules that make more sense; and 2) Here's how I approach D&D with a clearly stated and consistent system of adjudications and structure so that the system works very well as presented and I seem to be avoiding the problems from 1.

This broadly maps to 1) being a desire for more simulationism but being stymied by the way the rules do not provide it (which makes sense, most of the D&D rules aren't about providing simulationist agendas), while 2) involved embracing the gamist nature of the system and avoiding conflicts between that gamism and any simulationist desire by not trying to use the system for such things and sticking to what it's good at. I'd place Iserith in the latter camp and anyone arguing the daily encounter budget doesn't make sense and/or rests/hp are nonsensical in the first camp.

It's certainly not perfect, but the critical lens does offer some insight into what appears to be the largest driver of dissatisfaction in the system - that D&D isn't really that simulationist at all but (many) people want it to be.

I liked this post. A related thought I've often posted over the past dozen or so years: Ron Edwards, in his discussion of what "story now" and "step on up" often have in common in system terms, basically itemised all the aspects of 4e that generated controversy, half-a-decade before the game was released.

I regard it as a strength of an analysis that it makes sense of the experiences one has and phenomena one encounters!

It doesn't mean anything. Narrativism exists because it was intentionally created. Gamism and Simulationism don't and weren't.

<snip>

But "gamism" and "simulationism" are just Edwards trying to explain why other people might play games he didn't like, and... well, to put it bluntly, he didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

When I first read Edwards' essay on "the right to dream", I had been playing primarily Rolemaster for well over a decade. Edwards' essay made sense of so much of my RM experience that it was amazing.

And asserting that such a strong proponent of RuneQuest and Champions has no clue about simulationist design is, frankly, bizarre.

As for "narrativism" - the games that Edwards cites include Prince Valiant (1989), Over the Edge (1992), Maelstrom Storytelling (1997), HeroWars (2000) and The Dying Earth (2001). He also points to certain approaches to Champions and T&T taking place back in the 1980s. The idea that no one was playing RPGs in a story now fashion before Edwards invented it is also just bizarre. I was doing it, using AD&D as my (imperfect) system, back in the second half of the 1980s. (I didn't have a very good way to describe it, nor a very good understanding of the relationship between various techniques and resulting play experience, but that's a different matter.)

 

[kenada]

I'm not sure you meant it this way, but when @clearstream quoted just this part it sort of singled it out and dawned on me that I've been having that feeling since I started playing the game in 4e (a system I still have a great deal of affection for, but that's not related here.) Specifically, I always had this feeling that there was an experience that I was pantomining-- where I was always trying to get closer to the ideal of the game,and I could never quite achieve it, until recently.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of what professional wrestling is to classical wrestling. I don’t think the former is trying to pursue the latter as an ideal so much as it uses wrestling as a platform for entertainment and melodrama. Trad D&D is doing something similar with D&D as its base.

 

[pemerton]

Story Now is about putting your character through a crucible and seeing what comes out the other end - who they will be when it's all over.

That's one reason why "light" story now - eg Prince Valiant, The Dying Earth, my 4e campaign - is easier going than serious story now - Burning Wheel is my paradigm here, but Apocalypse World would be another example.

In his essay on story now RPGing, Edwards categorises various RPGs in several dimensions. One of them is "risk factor". Here's a quote:

• Low risk play is best represented by playing Castle Falkenstein, Wuthering Heights, The Dying Earth, or Prince Valiant. These games are, for lack of a better word, "lighter" or perhaps more whimsical - they do raise issues and may include extreme content, but play-decisions tend to be less self-revealing.

Burning Wheel is high risk!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I found it not very enlightening because the statement effectively boils down to the conversation between Antony and Lepidus:

LEPIDUS: What manner o’ thing is your crocodile?
ANTONY: It is shaped, sir, like itself, and it is as broad as it hath breadth. It is just so high as it is, and moves with it own organs. It lives by that which nourisheth it, and the elements once out of it, it transmigrates.
LEPIDUS: What color is it of?
ANTONY: Of it own color, too.
LEPIDUS: ’Tis a strange serpent.
ANTONY: ’Tis so, and the tears of it are wet.

"This thing is a perfect simulation of itself" is, in fact, literally an actual joke made by SMBC. Almost a decade ago, in fact. Likewise things like "Buffyspeak." Hence I found it not very enlightening. Telling me the game simulates itself, that it works how it works because that how it worked before, and that changing it makes it "stop feeling like D&D," just...doesn't give me much information to work with.

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.

I'm really not very "trad," at least not as explained in cultures-of-play article linked upthread, because I extremely highly value player contributions. Maybe, maybe "neo-trad," but as noted by Charlaquin, much of the pushback against 4e was that it moved in a storygame direction. There is no culture of play (that I can identify, anyway) that fuses "neo-trad" with "storygame" in any meaningful sense, but that's really the only thing that could capture what I really go for.

I want a game that plays very well as a game, and which can be learned. As a result, I value balance, rule transparency, and excellent support for DMs and players alike. I want a game that empowers players to explore their characters' stories and enrich the world we play in. I do, as DM, take a prominent role in developing a story, but I would consider it a major failure if my players EVER felt they were just exploring a prewritten story I made. And I want a game that marries "using the mechanics" to "invoking a story," ideally bi-directionally: to use the mechanic is to tell a story, and to tell a story is to invoke mechanics (at least eventually).

I consider the first point to be pretty purely gamist, and everything I've read about "gamist" goals seems to agree. The second is somewhat neo-trad, but shorn of concern with 3e-style "game as physics engine" simulation. The third is storygame. None of the given cultures of play seems to match that mix.

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.

The given description of "trad" play did not seem to reflect much concern with balance at all. Indeed, it seemed to be rather strongly against that. E.g., the article explicitly associated "trad" play with the phrase "roleplaying, not rollplaying," which is a phrase I outright loathe. It's...also a bit weird that you present "trad" play as opposed to railroading, since the article in question (almost explicitly) ties "trad" to a rise in railroading: "The PCs can contribute, but their contributions are secondary in value and authority to the DM's. If you ever hear people complain about (or exalt!) games that feel like going through a fantasy novel, that's trad."

Further, it is the very ultra-high-simulationist aspects of neo-trad that don't suit me. I don't give two figs about whether there's a universal, consistent, diegetic explanation for why martial powers can only be used once per encounter; I care that martial characters get to be distinct-but-equal teammates and active participants in, and creators of, cool story. I do value consistency in the world, but not to the point that "rules that play worse even if they conform to fantastic realism better" nor "rules that hinder theme and tone but procedurally generate a self-consistent world" are actual priorities for me. Clunkier or off-tone rules are a serious flaw that I would rather see removed, so long as the cost to fantastic realism is light. For example, I 100% support the oft-maligned "firecube" rules in 4e, because they provide an enormous benefit in speed and simplicity in exchange for (what I consider) an extremely small sacrifice in simulating real physical things (namely, that you move about 40% faster along diagonal directions than rectilinear ones.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Keeping in mind that the cultures of play aren’t exclusive categories, I think (and I know a lot of other 4e fans would agree), a lot of the backlash to 4e came from the fact that it went in a bit more of a “storygame” direction, while the 3e crowd was generally much more inclined towards “trad” and “neo-trad.” 5e is very “neo-trad” friendly, while also managing at least initially to appeal to a lot of folks with “OSR” and “Classic” inclinations while the “trad” crowd stuck with Pathfinder and the “Storygame” folks moved on to explore other, non-D&D systems. Nordic LARPers were of course off doing their own thing, since as the article notes, that style of play tends to favor more modern or near-future settings. I can’t really think of any new play cultures popping up. One might expect the supposed “Matt Mercer Effect” to have spawned a new culture, but Critical Role is pretty solidly “neo-trad” in style.

As alluded to in my previous post to Kenada, part of my issue is that I don't really see my personal style of play reflected in the examples. Neo-trad, since it's allegedly linked with 3e and PF, is much too linked with "process simulation" and so-called "game as physics engine" (even if it usually doesn't actually do that literally) elements. Trad is WAY too railroad-prone for my taste, and its open distaste for gamist stuff ("rollplaying not roleplaying") is very much opposed to my preferences. "Nordic LARP" is pretty well irrelevant, "Classic" is almost alien to me other than its gamist elements (and I really dislike the obscurantism in it, whether intentional or accidental). And "Storygame," while definitely a component of my personal style, feels incomplete and, like much of the other stuff, seems to have an open distaste for gamism that is at odds with my style.

I want games that are good as games, and that are good as engines of story-making, both on the small scale ("Story Now") and on the large scale (the group collectively crafting a campaign tale worth remembering decades hence). The gamism is vital...but the story is just as vital.

I value rigorous balance in part because it lets me relax. I can just...play. I don't have to worry about the system letting me down. I can make adventurous decisions with some confidence. I avoid worrying that I'm letting my fellow players down by being a dead weight. I also avoid the contrasting worry that I might make others jealous due to being favored by the system. And, as a DM, I can focus on going for the stuff that will most fully enrich the experience: genuine challenges of moral questions and values, whether the character's, the player's, or both; special powers or rewards that are balanced in this context because I know how the player will use them; feeding on the genuinely delightful and creative input of my players, empowering them to boldly contribute and take pleasure in seeing their contributions grow within the world. I can also cut loose with my challenges, knowing that I will have a pretty good idea of whether the things I'm throwing at the party are truly dangerous.

Although I do value balance and well-crafted mechanical challenges for their own qualities, ultimately, I value them most because, when they're present, I can focus on the stories I and may players want to tell. And...it just doesn't seem like any of the presented cultures does that. "Neo-trad shorn of its deep love of 'process simulation' wedded to Storygame, while really valuing balance" just seems like a really over-elaborate phrase for something that could have

I think it could be a useful compass, when designing a game, to think about what kinds of fun your game satisfies and how.

That's more or less what I meant by "indirectly." That is, it's more useful as a way to review a game you've designed, rather than motivating new design. Absolutely valid as a feedback track. I guess my issue is, "it needs to encourage Fantasy" or "it should offer Abnegation" sounds much too abstract to me. It would be like trying to design landscapes paintings by starting from "it should evoke a feeling of placidity and home" rather than starting from the location you wish to paint and then deciding what the best time of day and perspective would be. That is, you'll still think about evoking those feelings, but you'd do so in more of a "review" way ("hmm, now that I know I want to paint Mt. Hood, what perspective and time of day should I use to convey humble feelings before the sublimity of nature?")

 

[clearstream]

I'm really not very "trad," at least not as explained in cultures-of-play article linked upthread, because I extremely highly value player contributions. Maybe, maybe "neo-trad," but as noted by Charlaquin, much of the pushback against 4e was that it moved in a storygame direction. There is no culture of play (that I can identify, anyway) that fuses "neo-trad" with "storygame" in any meaningful sense, but that's really the only thing that could capture what I really go for.

I want a game that plays very well as a game, and which can be learned. As a result, I value balance, rule transparency, and excellent support for DMs and players alike. I want a game that empowers players to explore their characters' stories and enrich the world we play in. I do, as DM, take a prominent role in developing a story, but I would consider it a major failure if my players EVER felt they were just exploring a prewritten story I made. And I want a game that marries "using the mechanics" to "invoking a story," ideally bi-directionally: to use the mechanic is to tell a story, and to tell a story is to invoke mechanics (at least eventually).

I consider the first point to be pretty purely gamist, and everything I've read about "gamist" goals seems to agree. The second is somewhat neo-trad, but shorn of concern with 3e-style "game as physics engine" simulation. The third is storygame. None of the given cultures of play seems to match that mix.

Much of what you write here chimes with me. I feel like I intuitively lean into a mode that I cannot find an ideal description of. For now I have been labelling it "gameful narrative" because game provides a transformational vocabulary. Where some descriptions insist on hard separations between fiction and system, I see game elements as extended language. One timeline that weaves through words and mechanics.

As you put it so wonderfully

I want a game that marries "using the mechanics" to "invoking a story," ideally bi-directionally: to use the mechanic is to tell a story, and to tell a story is to invoke mechanics (at least eventually).

Of course, I might have misunderstood your comments!

 

[Charlaquin]

As alluded to in my previous post to Kenada, part of my issue is that I don't really see my personal style of play reflected in the examples. Neo-trad, since it's allegedly linked with 3e and PF, is much too linked with "process simulation" and so-called "game as physics engine" (even if it usually doesn't actually do that literally) elements. Trad is WAY too railroad-prone for my taste, and its open distaste for gamist stuff ("rollplaying not roleplaying") is very much opposed to my preferences. "Nordic LARP" is pretty well irrelevant, "Classic" is almost alien to me other than its gamist elements (and I really dislike the obscurantism in it, whether intentional or accidental). And "Storygame," while definitely a component of my personal style, feels incomplete and, like much of the other stuff, seems to have an open distaste for gamism that is at odds with my style.

Well, the issue may be that you’re looking for one culture of play that fully encapsulates your individual preferences and that’s just not what the model is designed to do. The article specifically says the author didn’t want to make a “what culture of play are you” quiz because they don’t think it’s conducive to think of them as six separate boxes that people/games fit into. Most people like some elements of this, some elements of that, and the cultures the article identifies are the broad tendencies that have emerged of how different groups have tended to approach games.

On a side-note though, I’m not seeing where you’re getting the idea that “neo-trad” concerns itself with process simulation or games as physics engine, except maybe the fact that it’s “associated with” 3.Xe and PF, which do concern themselves with those things. But, really, that association is mostly just due to those being the editions du jour when the culture first started to emerge. “Neo-trad” isn’t about simulationism, it’s about focusing gameplay on showcasing the PCs, making it their story first and foremost. To borrow from the MDA framework, it’s a culture that prioritizes expression first and foremost.

I want games that are good as games, and that are good as engines of story-making, both on the small scale ("Story Now") and on the large scale (the group collectively crafting a campaign tale worth remembering decades hence). The gamism is vital...but the story is just as vital.

I value rigorous balance in part because it lets me relax. I can just...play. I don't have to worry about the system letting me down. I can make adventurous decisions with some confidence. I avoid worrying that I'm letting my fellow players down by being a dead weight. I also avoid the contrasting worry that I might make others jealous due to being favored by the system. And, as a DM, I can focus on going for the stuff that will most fully enrich the experience: genuine challenges of moral questions and values, whether the character's, the player's, or both; special powers or rewards that are balanced in this context because I know how the player will use them; feeding on the genuinely delightful and creative input of my players, empowering them to boldly contribute and take pleasure in seeing their contributions grow within the world. I can also cut loose with my challenges, knowing that I will have a pretty good idea of whether the things I'm throwing at the party are truly dangerous.

Although I do value balance and well-crafted mechanical challenges for their own qualities, ultimately, I value them most because, when they're present, I can focus on the stories I and may players want to tell. And...it just doesn't seem like any of the presented cultures does that. "Neo-trad shorn of its deep love of 'process simulation' wedded to Storygame, while really valuing balance" just seems like a really over-elaborate phrase for something that could have

Sounds to me like your goals are mostly pretty aligned with neo-trad, and you’re open to storygame style design where it helps serve those goals.

That's more or less what I meant by "indirectly." That is, it's more useful as a way to review a game you've designed, rather than motivating new design. Absolutely valid as a feedback track. I guess my issue is, "it needs to encourage Fantasy" or "it should offer Abnegation" sounds much too abstract to me. It would be like trying to design landscapes paintings by starting from "it should evoke a feeling of placidity and home" rather than starting from the location you wish to paint and then deciding what the best time of day and perspective would be. That is, you'll still think about evoking those feelings, but you'd do so in more of a "review" way ("hmm, now that I know I want to paint Mt. Hood, what perspective and time of day should I use to convey humble feelings before the sublimity of nature?")

Well, sure; I’ve been talking about these models as lenses for critical analysis of existing games, not as foundations to design new games based on. I think if one wants to design a game, it would be better to first analyze lots of different games under lots of different critical lenses to build a strong and nuanced understanding of what design elements one likes and why, and then design a game that incorporates and perhaps evolves those elements with conscious intent, rather than trying to pick a design theory and build a game to try to fit one of the categories that theory concerns itself with.