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.