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

[clearstream]

Surely, though, this leads to two things:

1. If decisions are being made all the time, then whether there are decisions isn't an interesting thing to analyze. We know that answer, it is "yes, always."
2. Since we know there are always decisions, it becomes interesting to ask what is being decided (or decided about), and why, and perhaps even by whom.

I'm not analysing whether there are decisions, that is a given. I am adopting a skeptical position in relation to picking-and-choosing some decisions and saying that as to those, they must enjoy chance-based resolution. If we are capable of making decisions all the time without needing chance, there's motivation to suppose that we're ordinarily satisfied with decisions made without its benefit. One way to respond might be to show why we necessarily pluck out and privilege the chosen decisions, thus dissolving skepticism on that score.

@Manbearcat has some good takes on that, and I have laid out reasons that privileging isn't necessary. I've suggested that fears are answered upon appreciating a wider range of approaches available within DFK. (Forms of D, with optionally some K.)

 

[beancounter]

Gamist is when a game is designed first and foremost to be fun and engaging without regard to realism.

In the PC gaming world, a good example of gamist would be Minecraft.

Despite gravity defying blocks, and bizarre water physics, the game is fun and engaging.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Gamist is when a game is designed first and foremost to be fun and engaging without regard to realism.

In the PC gaming world, a good example of gamist would be Minecraft.

Despite gravity defying blocks, and bizarre water physics, the game is fun and engaging.

This isn't a very useful metric, because the vast majority of games are intended to be fun and engaging and all have to dispense with reality to a greater or lesser degree. This means your test relies on some line when "realism" is high enough.

Rather, I'd say Minecraft is an excellent example of a simulation -- it adheres very strictly to a set of internal causes (or cause and effect) relationships that are learnable through exploration. It's not "realist", whatever that might mean, but it does follow closely a set of rules. Most video games do this because they do not have the ability to set outside their programming to do otherwise, so reference to video games becomes fraught in this space.

 

[beancounter]

This isn't a very useful metric, because the vast majority of games are intended to be fun and engaging and all have to dispense with reality to a greater or lesser degree. This means your test relies on some line when "realism" is high enough.

Rather, I'd say Minecraft is an excellent example of a simulation -- it adheres very strictly to a set of internal causes (or cause and effect) relationships that are learnable through exploration. It's not "realist", whatever that might mean, but it does follow closely a set of rules. Most video games do this because they do not have the ability to set outside their programming to do otherwise, so reference to video games becomes fraught in this space.

First, I think it would be helpful to have a shared definition of the terms. Otherwise people will be talking past each other...

To me, a simulation is an attempt to simulate reality. So MC in that sense doesn't do that.

There are game out there that try to simulate physics (e.g. bridge building games), but most completely disregard reality as that would take too much programing, and per many developers "wouldn't be fun".

All games, whether on paper or on PC have internal consistencies. I don't see how that factors into anything.

But, I was just putting in my 2 cents. This distinction isn't really important to me.

From my perspective, fun is the most important part of playing a game. Call it gamist, simulist, realist..whatever

 

[Ovinomancer]

My point is that Shoggoths, being a thing from another genre (cosmic horror) don't belong in an apocalyptic Mad Max-esque milieu, and if your AGENDA is to simulate that genre, then adding a Shoggoth is working against your agenda. OTOH it isn't working against a Story Now agenda at all. Its quite possible to have a genre type simulation though, I'm not sure what bar I'm setting too high. You would simply make all of your choices in play primarily with that in mind. Depending on how precisely defined the genre is, and given certain setting/color possibilities to go with it that you might also want, then your leeway on what can be admitted to the fiction grows or shrinks.

Where these things come into conflict is just that it may become difficult or impossible to uphold both of 2 agendas at the same time. One will take precedence over the other, right? I mean, its hard to provide a single specific example WRT genre based sim vs story now play, because it would be rare to have some genre where something MUST happen now, where the genre absolutely demands a very specific element. I guess we could imagine a Star Trek game. If it is heavily into genre (which I would expect from this kind of specific milieu) then there's a transporter, right? Its possible that the existence of this device, as it impacts plot, might thwart some point being addressed in a story now fashion. In that case there would be a bit of a conflict. Now, maybe you can introduce one of Trek's many hackneyed plot devices to remove the transporter from consideration for a bit. You can, however, see how this is a bit of an agenda conflict. I note it because it seemed like it was rather problematic in the plotting of the series too, in much the same way! Time and time again the writers had to invent some reason why it was 'offline'.

This... is a very weird example. I see where @Crimson Longinus is coming from, because you've managed to completely obfuscate your point behind your example. As I follow this, you're trying to say that genre isn't an input into SN, and that's mostly but not entirely correct. Setting is a constraint on play -- that's it's purpose -- even in Story Now. The point you're making -- is the setting the final constraint -- is valid, but the example confuses this because, if I'm playing AW in a Story Now mode, the constraint of setting is strong enough to, except in very specific circumstances, hedge out shoggoths from play. Honestly, without some kind of thumb on the scale, I'm not sure how shoggoths get in if everyone is playing with integrity.

So, then, what does setting (of which genre is a part) do in Story Now games? They set the stage. They provide a common understanding and backdrop to play, so that when we're in the moment of play and things are happening, there's enough setting to provide a common framework for everyone to situate within. And no more. The and no more is the real key to how setting operates in Story Now -- it's not the star of the sow and should not be dictating any outcomes to play, just like a prop doesn't dictate the outcome of an improv sketch. It's influential, sure, and can be an input, or it can be subverted into something else as needed. Setting is still important to Story Now, but that doesn't elevate the play to Simulationism. For setting to elevate to Simulationism, setting has to be the star of the show.

To sum up GNS wrongly, but perhaps usefully, I offer this:

In Simulationism, the setting is the star of the show -- the rules of the setting or the setting itself are the point of play.
In Gamism, the play is the star of the show -- how well you play and how well you can play are the point of play.
In Narrativism, the character is the star of the show -- who this character is and what choices they will make under adversity that reveal this are the point of play.

"But, Ovi," you say, "I have setting and game and characters at my table! When I play, characters, and setting, and the game are important, too! Doesn't that mean that I have all of GNS in my game?" No. Because, at any given moment, one of those has to be prioritized. Either an outcome is focused on and revolves around what the setting is saying, or it revolves around who the character is and the choices they make under adversity that reveal the character, or it's about how well you're playing the game. Which of these is deciding what's happening? A quick test is to see who has the say and what they can say. In simulationist games, either the GM or the system has the say and they are expected to reinforce the setting -- the system through a process that represents a clear cause/effect situation in the setting or the GM for things like genre adherence or better story outcomes. In Gamist play, the system(edit) has the say and always will and is limited to only the inputs allowed (no fudging or other considerations). This is important because this is how you play better, leveraging the system. Setting is not really considered at all, here. In Narrativist play, the system says who has the say -- it's system first, then, usually, the GM under tight constraints. The constraints are based on what the dramatic need of the characters are (the GM needs to frame everything in those terms), what the system said (success/failure/mixed), and what the player said during action resolution. These combine to center the PC in play, because the constraints on say are all about the character. Setting only filters in as a constraint after this.

That latter is a bit hard to grasp for people who have extensive experiences with Sim/Gamism. The reason for this is that it the constraints on play are pretty different from Sim/Gamism. If you get good thinking and resolving play in Sim terms, the shift to a completely different set of constraints that ditch the ones you're familiar with (what do you mean I'm considering setting last?).

ETA -- @AnotherGuy pointed out an error below, I have corrected it for better first time reading.

 

[Ovinomancer]

First, I think it would be helpful to have a shared definition of the terms. Otherwise people will be talking past each other...

To me, a simulation is an attempt to simulate reality. So MC in that sense doesn't do that.

There are game out there that try to simulate physics (e.g. bridge building games), but most completely disregard reality as that would take too much programing, and per many developers "wouldn't be fun".

All games, whether on paper or on PC have internal consistencies. I don't see how that factors into anything.

But, I was just putting in my 2 cents. This distinction isn't really important to me.

From my perspective, fun is the most important part of playing a game. Call it gamist, simulist, realist..whatever

... This whole thread is about this. There are already definitions in play.

 

[AnotherGuy]

To sum up GNS wrongly, but perhaps usefully, I offer this:

In Simulationism, the setting is the star of the show -- the rules of the setting or the setting itself are the point of play.
In Gamism, the play is the star of the show -- how well you play and how well you can play are the point of play.
In Narrativism, the character is the star of the show -- who this character is and what choices they will make under adversity that reveal this are the point of play.

Love this!

In Gamist play, the setting has the say and always will and is limited to only the inputs allowed (no fudging or other considerations). This is important because this is how you play better, leveraging the system. Setting is not really considered at all, here.

Bold emphasis mine. Did you make an error here?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Love this!

Did you make an error here?

How so? Gamist play doesn't concern itself with fidelity to setting, so resolution doesn't use setting as input. Setting is still important in the sense that it provides a theme or set dressing, but it's not part of resolution. Think on on this process -- player has declared an action, how is this adjudicated? In Gamist play, it's the system, and only the system, that should be responding here. The only inputs are those the system calls for. 5e combat resolution of an attack is a good example here -- the play loop from "it's your initiative" through the attack and delivery of damage and riders doesn't check with the setting at all. It's only if the GM decides to override the system and insert themselves so as to enforce setting (and I consider GM prep notes part of setting for this example) that it could be considered, and that moves that moment of play out of gamism into simulationism. It toggles -- a term I use often to describe how games move between agendas. This kind of thing isn't something long term D&D players even notice -- not because it's not jarring, but because it's entirely common and accustomed.

But, no, gamism doesn't use setting as an input to resolution or a constraint on outcome of that resolution. This is, quite often, the source of complaints like "this isn't realistic."

ETA to your ETA -- oh, yeah, wrong word there. Missed it even on the second read! SYSTEM is the correct word there.

 

[pemerton]

I saw some posts about flashbacks. Here's the first ever discussion of flashback on ENworld that I know of:

Here's the first post I know of on ENworld that canvassed a flashback-type mechanic in D&D, from October 2008:

When posed with a problem like the door to Moria would you use your Diplomacy to pass it? Would you use your Acrobatics? Would you use Arcana?

The simplest way to use the skills to meet the challenges you face is to use the correct one for the skill check.

Yes. The skill checks have to be using appropriate skills. This is a roleplaying issue.

But which of Diplomacy, Acrobatics or Arcana is the correct skill? You (the player) tell me (another player, or the GM).

Using Diplomacy: "Remember that time we were visiting the Wizards' Guild in Greyhawk? And I was buttering up that Burglomancer specialist? She told me a heap of old magical passwords - I try them all." The player rolls Diplomacy (probably at a hard DC - it's a pretty far-fetched story!) to see if this is true.

Using Acrobatics: "As the Watcher in the Water writhes about with its tentacles, I dodge at the last minute so it smashes into the door and breaks it." That might be a hard DC as well.

Using Arcana: "I speak a spell of opening". Medium DC. Or "I speak a spell of recall, to remember all the passwords and riddles I've learned over the years". That's more interesting and more clever- let's say a Medium DC with a +2 circumstance modifier.

I don't see that flashbacks are especially connected to heists as a genre, especially in a medium - RPGs - that foregrounds first-person narration and often needs past experiences of the imagined character to be authored so that they can be deployed in the (imagined) here-and-now.

I also think John Harper should be paying me royalties, but that's a different thing!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm thinking specifically of flow as a purpose*. As a player may seek to define skill and display it, they may seek to find flow, experience and evince it. We could say that skill can show up in any game, so I am not confident that purposes is being parsimoniously adhered to.

As @EzekielRaiden and others have helpfully noted, I keep getting tripped up as to what each model is addressing. So I would love to see a cleaner definition of "purposes" so as to be able to confidently exclude say flow from among them, and include metrics of grading success... which on surface seem to me on the same layer as tempo. Perhaps the answer is found in the binary, but I would rather let @EzekielRaiden speak to that.


[EDIT *So by way of example, the binary would be Tempo / Flow.]

Well, as before, I struggle to see how this differs from "make a well-designed game, regardless of what it's for." Analogically, "what about a person who just wants their vehicle to drive smoothly?" Smooth operation is an ideal of design, effortlessness. That is, certainly, a thing players will want to pursue, but I'm not sure it's a purpose for which a game can be made. They instead strike me as a positive quality a game should evince if it is, in fact, designed well for whatever purpose it has, when the desires of the players are in sync with that design. Again for an analogy on why that last "in sync" bit is necessary, it doesn't matter how flawlessly the stick-shift works in a well-oiled-machine sports car if the driver wants a pickup to haul things; the sports car won't fulfill that want, no matter how it "flows."

Before I actually respond to your request to pick apart the difference here, though, there's a critical concern in your comparison I want to point out. You are speaking of the player as the one who "seek[s ] to define skill," but in general that's not really how S&A games work, at least as I've understood it. The system (or, perhaps, the DM, but usually the system) defines what "skill" is--what it means to succeed at a task, and moreover, the degree to which one succeeds at it--and the player is generally not involved in that process at all. The player often is involved in selecting which tasks to attempt (e.g., which attacks or skills to use in D&D), but things like target numbers, probabilities of success, what tools are possible for manipulating those probabilities, etc. are all fixed within the game. A player inventing new rules for what qualifies as "success" is generally frowned upon in Score-and-Achievement contexts, because as a rule that is extremely sensitive to abuse. Stereotypical playground "yeah well I have an INFINITY PLUS ONE sword!!" stuff.

Coming back to this: What does it mean for a game to be designed for "flow"? Whatever it is, I'm certain it is of aesthetic value (the word fairly drips with such meaning) but in terms of something the player's actions can drive toward, what is "flow"? From a superficial reading of the word, it just sounds like "the game does what it's supposed to do very well." That, to me, doesn't sound like a game-purpose; it also doesn't sound like something players can pursue so much as witness. It sounds like a word for "a game that has good design."

"Tempo," on the other hand, sounds like a word for pacing, that is, the rate or sequencing of experiences. Obviously, to some extent, this depends on how the game itself is used, but since you didn't specifically give much definition for "tempo" it's hard to dig deeper on this front. Hence, same question as above: what is "tempo"? Like, how does one design it? Is it possible to have a game where tempo is the only thing play is designed for? Can a game completely ignore tempo and still be a good, effective experience for its players?