Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="niklinna" data-source="post: 8625376" data-attributes="member: 71235"><p>It doesn't have to be just one, but for this particular subsystem (and most of its subsystems), Torchbearer shows its gamist priority quite openly. Weather in Torchbearer is the equivalent of a thinly-disguised <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/wandering-damage-table.300500/" target="_blank">wandering damage table</a> (except with other mechanical effects such as bonuses or penalties to particular skill tests). The express pupose is to <em>challenge the players and their characters</em>. That thin disguise is, of course, simulation/emulation, a mere rationalization or justification for the random gamist effects, not an effort to evoke the feel of being out in wild nature in rich sensory detail. Not that any given GM couldn't embellish that layer for mood for more simulation/emulation, but the book just gives you dice-roll tables and lists of mechanics.</p><p></p><p>While some have argued for inherent exclusivity of gameplay goals/agendas (see below the next quotation block), what [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] is doing here is simply describing the design choices Torchbearer made. Torchbearer does include agendas other than gamist, but it does so in other ways and to (much) different degrees.</p><p></p><p></p><p>While I agree it's possible for an RPG to serve multiple agendas at the same time just fine, it is not the case that there's no conflict. That is, just because these goals/agendas aren't fundamentally incompatible, doesn't mean they are trivially compatible (that is, there can be conflict). As for deciding which [potentially plural!] you're "really" doing, that gets things backwards: Quite a few GMs and players come to a system/group with their preferences established, those preferences may well differ, and a given system/group either meshes with a participant's preferences, or doesn't.</p><p></p><p>To get back to the issue of exclusiviity, it was Edwards who harped on about incoherence and incompatibility of creative agendas (all his terms). While I agree that can—and often does—happen, I don't believe it is inevitable. In fact, the <a href="https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/GEN01.html" target="_blank">GEN 2-tier model</a>* talks about deliberate blending of goals as a <em>necessity</em> and gives an example:</p><p></p><p></p><p>Note that even this short excerpt highlights that participants can support their own agendas when faced with something that may have been motivated otherwise (by the rules, the GM, or another player). <strong>That's actually a pretty radical view, which I haven't seen fronted so clearly before.</strong> The thing is, the rules, the GM, or another play can make that easier, or harder, and all this theory stuff is helpful in figuring out how and why that happens, so that we can avoid conflict or friction, and enjoy gaming together.</p><p></p><p>All that said, weather as presented by the Torchbearer rulebook is primarily gamist—but you can add your own dramatic weight to it if you like. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>* I very recently learned about the GEN 2-tier model, and while the article linked is incomplete and rather a mess (and unapologetic about being so), I found it an interesting response to, and critique of, the Forge GNS model.</p><p></p><p>Edit: Added a bit of emphasis.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="niklinna, post: 8625376, member: 71235"] It doesn't have to be just one, but for this particular subsystem (and most of its subsystems), Torchbearer shows its gamist priority quite openly. Weather in Torchbearer is the equivalent of a thinly-disguised [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/wandering-damage-table.300500/']wandering damage table[/URL] (except with other mechanical effects such as bonuses or penalties to particular skill tests). The express pupose is to [I]challenge the players and their characters[/I]. That thin disguise is, of course, simulation/emulation, a mere rationalization or justification for the random gamist effects, not an effort to evoke the feel of being out in wild nature in rich sensory detail. Not that any given GM couldn't embellish that layer for mood for more simulation/emulation, but the book just gives you dice-roll tables and lists of mechanics. While some have argued for inherent exclusivity of gameplay goals/agendas (see below the next quotation block), what [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] is doing here is simply describing the design choices Torchbearer made. Torchbearer does include agendas other than gamist, but it does so in other ways and to (much) different degrees. While I agree it's possible for an RPG to serve multiple agendas at the same time just fine, it is not the case that there's no conflict. That is, just because these goals/agendas aren't fundamentally incompatible, doesn't mean they are trivially compatible (that is, there can be conflict). As for deciding which [potentially plural!] you're "really" doing, that gets things backwards: Quite a few GMs and players come to a system/group with their preferences established, those preferences may well differ, and a given system/group either meshes with a participant's preferences, or doesn't. To get back to the issue of exclusiviity, it was Edwards who harped on about incoherence and incompatibility of creative agendas (all his terms). While I agree that can—and often does—happen, I don't believe it is inevitable. In fact, the [URL='https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/GEN01.html']GEN 2-tier model[/URL]* talks about deliberate blending of goals as a [I]necessity[/I] and gives an example: Note that even this short excerpt highlights that participants can support their own agendas when faced with something that may have been motivated otherwise (by the rules, the GM, or another player). [b]That's actually a pretty radical view, which I haven't seen fronted so clearly before.[/b] The thing is, the rules, the GM, or another play can make that easier, or harder, and all this theory stuff is helpful in figuring out how and why that happens, so that we can avoid conflict or friction, and enjoy gaming together. All that said, weather as presented by the Torchbearer rulebook is primarily gamist—but you can add your own dramatic weight to it if you like. :) * I very recently learned about the GEN 2-tier model, and while the article linked is incomplete and rather a mess (and unapologetic about being so), I found it an interesting response to, and critique of, the Forge GNS model. Edit: Added a bit of emphasis. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top