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

[niklinna]

No, I didn't mean that.

My misread then. Sorry!

Right. And when you're negotiating that sort of thing, you're not actually inhabiting the perspective of your character and making decisions from that vantage point.

Oh absolutely. It's a much more "authory" stance and approach to play.

There are authors, of course, who write more by inhabiting their characters and following what they would do. Hell, I've read of authors who claim no power over the characters in their heads! Even of authors who have started writing a character's action only to have that character break the inner fourth wall and tell them "No, that isn't what I would do." Very meta.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Your phrasing implies that you think there are already some contents in the safe, and that we are changing them. This is not the case. In such a play style, we are not exploring a pre-existing reality—we are writing it as we go.

I don't think to those bothered by such things the difference between "deciding as a group when you get to it" or "changing what's already there" is particularly significant. They still involve a pretty major chunk of on-the-fly Authorial engagement.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh absolutely. It's a much more "authory" stance and approach to play.

Yeah. And it's not that I would hate it or be unable to do it. But I GM a lot (and love it, don't get me wrong,) and as GM I already get a good dose of the author stance, so when I am a player, I prefer to do something completely different.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm just noting I see a certain degree of repeated moves to put gamism into a smaller bucket than it lives in in the wild, IME. I'm not going to say things like experience and magic items aren't an easy reward cycle, because they are; but there are others that can produce just as gamist an experience that just requires more up-front buy-in.

Sure, I am in no way shape or form trying to imply that I've made an exhaustive list, far from it. D&D is just the easy example, most classic play is understood to be fairly gamist so it is relatively easy to use. Gamism could include things like an acting contest where the game centered on rewarding great moments of in-character play. It would simply have to focus on the "do this and there's a reward" element. 'Reward' can also be a bit loose, though I think once it starts to go outside of things that actually happen as part of the game play itself (IE like XP and GP do in D&D) then we're in danger of mislabeling another agenda as gamist. No doubt there are borderline cases too.

 

[Aldarc]

Your phrasing implies that you think there are already some contents in the safe, and that we are changing them. This is not the case. In such a play style, we are not exploring a pre-existing reality—we are writing it as we go.

It's ironically somewhat in the vein of randomly generated hexes for some hexcrawl procedurals. What's in the next hex? The GM may roll and/or consult a chart. The world expands through the PC's actions across the map and within it.

I suspect this overlap comes from Story Now and OSR's shared resistance against the GM as author and railroading. Is it any wonder that there are so many designers who jump back and forth between the two camps with equal fascination?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Why doesn't the player simply specify that the item they want is the dirt? If that's how their GM is running it.

Do you see what I mean? What heads that off? Why would they need to open the safe?

Well, it could have been established in some other way, previously. For example, perhaps a character said "I need money, I'll go find a patron." and the patron said "go rob this safe." If OTOH the character has established a reason for wanting something, sure, they can try to go get it with Streetwise, but that skill is only good for certain things, first of all. The GM is also free to say "no, this is Bureaucracy and not Streetwise" or something like that. Nor do I think it is wrong for the GM to say "here's a way to get what you want." Like if I want an illegal gun, I do Streetwise, and someone says "psst, go down to Denker Street!" It isn't thwarting the player's intent, just serving it up in the form of a more complicated narrative. Heck, the GM could just say "OK, you are at an illicit gun dealership on Denker Street, you have an Assault Rifle in your hands, how do you pay for it?"

 

[clearstream]

EDITED - Seemed like reciting an already made argument. Ignore.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, it could have been established in some other way, previously. For example, perhaps a character said "I need money, I'll go find a patron." and the patron said "go rob this safe." If OTOH the character has established a reason for wanting something, sure, they can try to go get it with Streetwise, but that skill is only good for certain things, first of all. The GM is also free to say "no, this is Bureaucracy and not Streetwise" or something like that. Nor do I think it is wrong for the GM to say "here's a way to get what you want." Like if I want an illegal gun, I do Streetwise, and someone says "psst, go down to Denker Street!" It isn't thwarting the player's intent, just serving it up in the form of a more complicated narrative. Heck, the GM could just say "OK, you are at an illicit gun dealership on Denker Street, you have an Assault Rifle in your hands, how do you pay for it?"

When you say ‘the GM is free to say use a different ability’, that sounds alot like what tends to get called GM fiat.

 

[Krachek]

There is no more inherent evil in 5ed,
so we can’t say DM fiat is inherently evil!

 

[soviet]

I'm just noting I see a certain degree of repeated moves to put gamism into a smaller bucket than it lives in in the wild, IME. I'm not going to say things like experience and magic items aren't an easy reward cycle, because they are; but there are others that can produce just as gamist an experience that just requires more up-front buy-in.

A lot of the fun I derive from D&D is gamist in nature, and I see similar impulses in the rest of my group as well. For me though, XP and GP are of no real interest at all. What I enjoy about it is:

The puzzle of building an effective character, and of utilising my abilities strategically in play.

The challenge of whether the group can beat the encounter, and ultimately the adventure, through smart tactics/teamwork/character building.

The soft friendly competition of having an effective turn in combat, of showboating, of doing the most damage/getting the most kills/killing the big bad guy yourself. Think: Legolas and Gimli at Helm's Deep. This is very much based on 'feel' rather than necessarily tracking any particular numbers.

All of these were stronger in 4e but are still very much there in 5e.