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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 8634012" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>What is a "gamist element"?</p><p></p><p>When I say that 4e supports "story now" play, I am using the phrase in Ron Edwards's sense, to describe an agenda. So it would not make any sense to talk about "story now" or "narrativist" elements involved in actual play, as <em>an agenda</em> is a motivation for, and an aspiration for, play, but is not an <em>element</em> of play.</p><p></p><p>So the only point I can make sense of in the neighbourhood is that the same system components and techniques of 4e that make it suited to gamist play, also make it suited to "story now" play. This is not a surprise! To quote Ron Edwards from <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/" target="_blank">two</a> <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">essays</a> written nearly two decades ago:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Step On Up is actually quite similar, in social and interactive terms, to Story Now. Gamist and Narrativist play often share the following things:</p> <ul style="margin-left: 20px"> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Reward systems that reflect player choices (strategy, aesthetics, whatever) rather than on in-game character logic or on conformity to a pre-stated plan of play.</li> </ul> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Which is a really long-winded way of saying that one or the other of the two modes has to be "the point," and they don't share well - but unlike either's relationship with Simulationist play (i.e., a potentially hostile one), Gamist and Narrativist play don't tug-of-war over "doing it right" - they simply avoid one another, like the same-end poles of two magnets. Note, I'm saying play, not players. The activity of play doesn't <em>hybridize</em> well between Gamism and Narrativism, but it does <em>shift</em>, sometimes quite easily. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Author Stance may be considered the default for Narrativist play only in the sense that it needs to be in there somewhere. Narrativist play doesn't have to be exclusively in this Stance, nor does it even have to be employed more often than the others. The only requirement is that it be present in a significant way. Narrativist play is very much like Gamist play in this regard, and for the same reason: the player of a given character takes social and aesthetic responsibility for what that character does. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Looking at earlier games from a Techniques perspective, a shift to Narrativist play within the larger Gamist context is apparent in some <em>Tunnels & Trolls</em>, as discusssed in "Gamism: Step On Up". . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Just as in Gamist play, the big gorilla of the five Explorative elements is Situation. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">As I've tried to show at various points so far, Gamist and Narrativist play are near-absolute social and structural equivalents, sharing the same range for most Techniques save those involving reward systems. They differ primarily in terms of the actual aesthetic payoff - what's appreciated socially and aesthetically. That difference is extremely marked. Happily, therefore very little if any chance exists for these modes of play to come into conflict with one another - a group simply goes one way or the other.</p><p></p><p>Playing 4e well, especially in combat, requires good technical skills. This generates a "gravitational" pull towards a gamist agenda, but that pull can be resisted in various ways: (i) if the technical elements reinforce other aspects of what's at stake in play ("story" elements, "dramatic needs"); (ii) if the GM's choice of opponents, and play of those opponents in the combat, does similar reinforcing. And of course (i) and (ii) are related - my two poster children for this are the Deathlock Wight (MM) and the Chained Cambion (MM III).</p><p></p><p>Provided that the gravitational pull is resisted, there is no incoherence in story now play requiring strong technical skill. This is a big contrast, for instance, between Burning Wheel and Prince Valiant: both support "story now" play, but BW also demands technical skill from the players. But it has many elements in system and principles to make sure the resulting gravitational pull towards a gamist agenda does not prevail. (Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic tries to be like BW in this regard; I'm not as sure that it fully succeeds, though it gives it a red hot go.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8634012, member: 42582"] What is a "gamist element"? When I say that 4e supports "story now" play, I am using the phrase in Ron Edwards's sense, to describe an agenda. So it would not make any sense to talk about "story now" or "narrativist" elements involved in actual play, as [I]an agenda[/I] is a motivation for, and an aspiration for, play, but is not an [I]element[/I] of play. So the only point I can make sense of in the neighbourhood is that the same system components and techniques of 4e that make it suited to gamist play, also make it suited to "story now" play. This is not a surprise! To quote Ron Edwards from [URL='http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/']two[/URL] [URL='http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html']essays[/URL] written nearly two decades ago: [indent]Step On Up is actually quite similar, in social and interactive terms, to Story Now. Gamist and Narrativist play often share the following things: [LIST] [*]Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what. [*]Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion. [*]More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se. [*]Reward systems that reflect player choices (strategy, aesthetics, whatever) rather than on in-game character logic or on conformity to a pre-stated plan of play. [/LIST] Which is a really long-winded way of saying that one or the other of the two modes has to be "the point," and they don't share well - but unlike either's relationship with Simulationist play (i.e., a potentially hostile one), Gamist and Narrativist play don't tug-of-war over "doing it right" - they simply avoid one another, like the same-end poles of two magnets. Note, I'm saying play, not players. The activity of play doesn't [I]hybridize[/I] well between Gamism and Narrativism, but it does [I]shift[/I], sometimes quite easily. . . . Author Stance may be considered the default for Narrativist play only in the sense that it needs to be in there somewhere. Narrativist play doesn't have to be exclusively in this Stance, nor does it even have to be employed more often than the others. The only requirement is that it be present in a significant way. Narrativist play is very much like Gamist play in this regard, and for the same reason: the player of a given character takes social and aesthetic responsibility for what that character does. . . .[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT]Looking at earlier games from a Techniques perspective, a shift to Narrativist play within the larger Gamist context is apparent in some [I]Tunnels & Trolls[/I], as discusssed in "Gamism: Step On Up". . . .[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT]Just as in Gamist play, the big gorilla of the five Explorative elements is Situation. . . .[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT]As I've tried to show at various points so far, Gamist and Narrativist play are near-absolute social and structural equivalents, sharing the same range for most Techniques save those involving reward systems. They differ primarily in terms of the actual aesthetic payoff - what's appreciated socially and aesthetically. That difference is extremely marked. Happily, therefore very little if any chance exists for these modes of play to come into conflict with one another - a group simply goes one way or the other.[/INDENT] Playing 4e well, especially in combat, requires good technical skills. This generates a "gravitational" pull towards a gamist agenda, but that pull can be resisted in various ways: (i) if the technical elements reinforce other aspects of what's at stake in play ("story" elements, "dramatic needs"); (ii) if the GM's choice of opponents, and play of those opponents in the combat, does similar reinforcing. And of course (i) and (ii) are related - my two poster children for this are the Deathlock Wight (MM) and the Chained Cambion (MM III). Provided that the gravitational pull is resisted, there is no incoherence in story now play requiring strong technical skill. This is a big contrast, for instance, between Burning Wheel and Prince Valiant: both support "story now" play, but BW also demands technical skill from the players. But it has many elements in system and principles to make sure the resulting gravitational pull towards a gamist agenda does not prevail. (Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic tries to be like BW in this regard; I'm not as sure that it fully succeeds, though it gives it a red hot go.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top