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="pemerton" data-source="post: 8642386" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I am using "creative agenda" as Edwards does <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/" target="_blank">here</a>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Talk to someone who participates in role-playing, and focus on the precise and actual acts of role-playing themselves. Ask them, "Why do you role-play?" The most common answer is, "To have fun."</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Again, stick to the role-playing itself. (The wholly social issues are real, such as "Wanting to hang out with my friends," but they are not the topic at hand.) Now ask, "What makes fun?" This may not be a verbal question, and it is best answered mainly through role-playing with people rather than listening to them. Time and inference are usually required.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">In my experience, the answer turns out to be a version of one of the following terms. These terms, or modes, describe three distinct types of people's decisions and goals during play.</p><p></p><p>Gamism is the mode of RPGing whereby one <em>has fun</em> by <em>stepping on up</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I wasn't expressing a view about how challenging something must be to count as gamist play. I was expressing the view that the "feeling" of gamism, prompted by play that involves characters facing challenges and overcoming them, is not the same thing as actual gamism. The key question is, <em>can the players lose</em>?</p><p></p><p>There is probably also a threshold here. A challenge where victory requires spelling out a common word of English might be a genuine challenge for many six year olds in Australia or America or Ireland, but is unlikely to be a challenge for the typical adult gamer. At a certain point, it becomes so easy that while there is an "in principle" possibility of loss, there is not really any stepping on up required. It seems to me that it is a design feature of D&D 5e that, played at the difficulty presented as the default in the encounter building guidelines, and at levels above 1st or 2nd (these levels are different for reasons given upthread by [USER=6790260]@EzekielRaiden[/USER]), then making the most obvious choices suggested by a particular character build will strongly tend to produce success.</p><p></p><p>I think this is a deliberate design feature - to have the trappings of gamism, and maybe even produce the "feeling" of gamism - while not really requiring the participants to step on up. It's what permits the game to reliably deliver high concept simulationist play; while also permitting drifting to gamism, most often (as best I can observe) by stepping up the typical encounter difficulty.</p><p></p><p>(Note the contrast with 4e D&D, which was frequently criticised on the basis that casual players, making obvious choices like basic attacks, tended to not be able to succeed - the system mandated a degree of engagement with its intricacies to avoid failure. Essentials was, in part, designed to change this by making basic attack-oriented builds viable.)</p><p></p><p>EDITed to elaborate on <em>can the players lose</em>:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/" target="_blank">Here</a> is Edwards on the above:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Step On Up requires strategizing, guts, and performance from the real people in the real world. This is the inherent "meaning" or agenda of Gamist play (analogous to the Dream in Simulationist play).</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Gamist play, socially speaking, demands <em>performance with risk</em>, conducted and perceived by the people at the table. What's actually at risk can vary - for this level, though, it must be a social, real-people thing, usually a minor amount of recognition or esteem.</p><p></p><p>This is what generates the threshold I described above: if the most obvious choices are apt to produce success, then there is no real "performance with risk". There is only the second level that Edwards describes:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">The in-game characters, armed with their skills, priorities, and so on, have to face a <strong>Challenge</strong>, which is to say, a specific Situation in the imaginary game-world. Challenge is about the strategizing, guts, and performance of the characters in this imaginary game-world.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">For the characters, it's a risky situation in the game-world; in addition to that all-important risk, it can be as fabulous, elaborate, and thematic as any other sort of role-playing. Challenge is merely plain old Situation . . . Strategizing in and among the Challenge is the material, or arena, for whatever brand of Step On Up is operating</p><p></p><p>When you have plain-old Situation, but without the Step on Up because there is no real performance with risk, then we simply have high concept simulationism: this is entirely consistent with Edwards remark that low competition gamism "shares some features with "characters face problem" Simulationist play, with the addition of a performance metric of some kind". Take away the performance metric - that is, the need for "performance with risk" - and you've got characters-face-problems, situation-oriented, simulationism. With the "feel" of gamism.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8642386, member: 42582"] I am using "creative agenda" as Edwards does [URL='http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/']here[/URL]: [INDENT]Talk to someone who participates in role-playing, and focus on the precise and actual acts of role-playing themselves. Ask them, "Why do you role-play?" The most common answer is, "To have fun."[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT]Again, stick to the role-playing itself. (The wholly social issues are real, such as "Wanting to hang out with my friends," but they are not the topic at hand.) Now ask, "What makes fun?" This may not be a verbal question, and it is best answered mainly through role-playing with people rather than listening to them. Time and inference are usually required.[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT]In my experience, the answer turns out to be a version of one of the following terms. These terms, or modes, describe three distinct types of people's decisions and goals during play.[/INDENT] Gamism is the mode of RPGing whereby one [I]has fun[/I] by [I]stepping on up[/I]. I wasn't expressing a view about how challenging something must be to count as gamist play. I was expressing the view that the "feeling" of gamism, prompted by play that involves characters facing challenges and overcoming them, is not the same thing as actual gamism. The key question is, [I]can the players lose[/I]? There is probably also a threshold here. A challenge where victory requires spelling out a common word of English might be a genuine challenge for many six year olds in Australia or America or Ireland, but is unlikely to be a challenge for the typical adult gamer. At a certain point, it becomes so easy that while there is an "in principle" possibility of loss, there is not really any stepping on up required. It seems to me that it is a design feature of D&D 5e that, played at the difficulty presented as the default in the encounter building guidelines, and at levels above 1st or 2nd (these levels are different for reasons given upthread by [USER=6790260]@EzekielRaiden[/USER]), then making the most obvious choices suggested by a particular character build will strongly tend to produce success. I think this is a deliberate design feature - to have the trappings of gamism, and maybe even produce the "feeling" of gamism - while not really requiring the participants to step on up. It's what permits the game to reliably deliver high concept simulationist play; while also permitting drifting to gamism, most often (as best I can observe) by stepping up the typical encounter difficulty. (Note the contrast with 4e D&D, which was frequently criticised on the basis that casual players, making obvious choices like basic attacks, tended to not be able to succeed - the system mandated a degree of engagement with its intricacies to avoid failure. Essentials was, in part, designed to change this by making basic attack-oriented builds viable.) EDITed to elaborate on [I]can the players lose[/I]: [URL='http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/']Here[/URL] is Edwards on the above: [INDENT]Step On Up requires strategizing, guts, and performance from the real people in the real world. This is the inherent "meaning" or agenda of Gamist play (analogous to the Dream in Simulationist play).[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT]Gamist play, socially speaking, demands [I]performance with risk[/I], conducted and perceived by the people at the table. What's actually at risk can vary - for this level, though, it must be a social, real-people thing, usually a minor amount of recognition or esteem.[/INDENT] This is what generates the threshold I described above: if the most obvious choices are apt to produce success, then there is no real "performance with risk". There is only the second level that Edwards describes: [indent]The in-game characters, armed with their skills, priorities, and so on, have to face a [B]Challenge[/B], which is to say, a specific Situation in the imaginary game-world. Challenge is about the strategizing, guts, and performance of the characters in this imaginary game-world. For the characters, it's a risky situation in the game-world; in addition to that all-important risk, it can be as fabulous, elaborate, and thematic as any other sort of role-playing. Challenge is merely plain old Situation . . . Strategizing in and among the Challenge is the material, or arena, for whatever brand of Step On Up is operating[/indent] When you have plain-old Situation, but without the Step on Up because there is no real performance with risk, then we simply have high concept simulationism: this is entirely consistent with Edwards remark that low competition gamism "shares some features with "characters face problem" Simulationist play, with the addition of a performance metric of some kind". Take away the performance metric - that is, the need for "performance with risk" - and you've got characters-face-problems, situation-oriented, simulationism. With the "feel" of gamism. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top