NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 8623621" data-attributes="member: 7030755">As to whether dnd is gamist or simulationist, or fits in any other categorical box (story before, story after, etc), I don't know.  But I do find the "so what?" part of your question interesting.  Let's say that dnd is gamist, how and why is that understanding useful?  And to whom?Some potential candidates...Players: Millions of people play dnd 5e, and I'm not sure more than a small fraction of them are involved in online discussions, let alone interested in really analyzing their play.  Even if they do, I'm not confident that they would identify "competition" or "overcoming challenges" as what primarily draws them to the game.  I don't think game design theory is relevant or useful for the average dnd player, especially if they mostly just play dnd.DMs: These terms might be useful to some DMs in figuring out not only what they enjoy in the game but what their players enjoy.  And it might be helpful as they making rulings.  Is the point of a ruling to ensure fair play? Be reasonable with regard to some understanding of human(oid) capabilities or real-world physics (accurate or not)?  Or should they go for "rule of cool"?  Still, it is unclear if Forge theory is the most practical guide to these sorts of questions.  Something like Robin Laws' player types, or any number of youtube videos about prep, pacing, etc would be more useful*note to the above, I do think versions of "story now" ideas are useful if playing a game like Blades in the Dark.  But, the GM sections of those books are more immediately useful in giving advice on how to play those specific games.Game publishers: Would knowing that your game is "gamist" help in marketing and selling it?  Possibly, though this seems a bit dicey (so to speak), as you would be assuming that the "creative agendas" as understood by the forge are actually how people self-conceptualize their interest in various games.  That said, I think that communicating that your game is pbta or fitd is important and useful for those kinds of gamesGame designers: Here is where it seems that knowledge of different game design theories would be most useful.  Certainly we see that designers like Vincent Baker, John Harper, Avery Alder among others are quite clear in articulating how the Forge influenced their games, even if some of them have moved on from it.  However, I wonder if designers who make "trad" games like dnd actively think about about terms like gamism?  Like, does Jermey Crawford aim to make dnd more gamist when he designs a rules supplement?  I know Mike Mearls sought to bring in principles from various games, especially from the OSR but also from Fate.  Matt Colville I think has mentioned the forge here and there, I think once when he said that 4e was gamist.  Do Kobold Press or Monte Cook games think about these things?  Chaosium? So in sum, to return to that <a href="https://retiredadventurer.blogspot.com/2021/04/six-cultures-of-play.html" target="_blank">six cultures of play</a> framework, I think that people playing, selling, and designing "storygames" are the ones who seem to most consciously identify with at least some aspect of GNS theory, and thus have the most to gain in using it to understand  what they want in their games (more narrativist or story-now principles) and what they don't want (less gamism, simulationism, etc).  This makes total sense if we consider that the roots of these games are in that movement.  On the other hand, DnD players, publishers, and designers (who in that six cultures framework might fall into classic, trad, neo-trad, OC, or osr) have comparatively less to gain from understanding forge designt heory, as it might not tell them much that is meaningful about what they want and don't want in their games (especially when compared to less abstract alternatives).  This also makes sense, as those styles either preceded the forge, or were uninterested in it, or actively opposed in the case of some OSR people.  As a footnote, GNS and other Forge theoretical terms are quite well developed and interlinked.  This means that it is difficult to provide a complete alternative framework, because questioning one part of it (the characterization of "gamism," for example) seems to sort of mean questioning all of it.  So it's hard to participate just a little bit in the Discourse; you're either in all the way or find yourself unable to make any claims whatsoever.  Not all Theory, in any field, is like this; theory can be open and modular, as it were, or more of a closed circuit.  But that's a subject for another day.</blockquote>

Verification