D&D is not a world simulator

[ComradeBear]

Yup. Two things are good at that:

1) "If you just listen to me, everything will be awesome because I've got this new thing that's so much better!"

2) "The thing that you like? Here's me proving that it's objectively better than everything else!"

Similarly, by MMO "theory", EverQuest and WoW are terrible games and shouldn't last more than three months.

I'm unfamiliar with MMO theory or what it states but what EverQuest and WoW do an exceptional job at is reward structures that create addiction. Similar to why gambling is addictive. They operate on very similar principals. A lot of MMOs make an attempt at it, but ultimately don't get the balance right.

But yeah, it's mostly because WoW (at least WoW, not sure on EverQuest) is designed in such a way that it creates addictions.

[flond]

I'd argue some of the reason GNS was more of a big deal is because it got support. Beyond being a theory "Narrativism" is a branding for a set of rpgs which carry some similar assumptions and tenets in ways that "Dramatism" isn't.

[kyoryu]

I'm unfamiliar with MMO theory or what it states but what EverQuest and WoW do an exceptional job at is reward structures that create addiction. Similar to why gambling is addictive. They operate on very similar principals. A lot of MMOs make an attempt at it, but ultimately don't get the balance right.

But yeah, it's mostly because WoW (at least WoW, not sure on EverQuest) is designed in such a way that it creates addictions.

As someone that's worked on one of those titles, I'd like to think we did more right than that :)

[georgie_leech]

As someone that's worked on one of those titles, I'd like to think we did more right than that :)

Much. There's far more to the games than simple skinner box techniques. If anything, the failed MMO's relied too heavily on making skinner boxes, and as potent as those can be, as soon as people realise how empty they are, the game will start migrating en mases to greener pastures.

[Max_Killjoy]

Much. There's far more to the games than simple skinner box techniques. If anything, the failed MMO's relied too heavily on making skinner boxes, and as potent as those can be, as soon as people realise how empty they are, the game will start migrating en mases to greener pastures.

Indeed, there ARE limits to how far customers can be pushed.

[Cosi]

That's not how evidence works. If you find someone innocent of a crime, all the ambiguous evidence that was argued doesn't suddenly point to their innocence, and if they were found guilty the same ambiguous evidence doesn't suddenly switch to pointing to their guilt.

That's not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that "4e bombed" is a reason to prefer the hypothesis "Cosi is right, 4e's flaws are real" over "Cosi is weird, 4e's flaws are exaggerated".

Like a lot of things in all of the different editions, the general concept of Skill Challenges made sense, but suffered from poor execution and presentation by the writers.

So as far as I can tell your problem with skill challenges is that they tended to be used too broadly, and that they tended to be too specific in their list of skills. And I agree, those are problems.

But those aren't the fundamental problems. The fundamental problem was that the design goal (encourage everyone to participate) was directly opposed by having failures count, because it meant that if your Barbarian rolled at 60% instead of your Wizard rolling at 80%, your chance of success fell, which discouraged anyone but the player with the strongest relevant skill participating.

As an explanation for why you didn't get into the game or why it didn't sell well initially, sure. It's less valid as a continuous reason to dislike the game.

First, I think you're missing some context. Remember that these arguments weren't intended to prove that 4e was bad, they were intended to demonstrate that GNS wasn't necessary to talk about the failings of 4e. For the the vast majority of 4e's existence, excessive Padded Sumo was a real problem that had not been addressed.

Second, if someone sells you something crappy several times, it's totally reasonable to not bother to evaluate their later offerings.

As always, more levels = more power, which will make what differences there are worse. Epic is less balanced than Paragon is less balanced than Heroic.

But that's also true in 3e. 5th is more balanced than 10th is more balanced than 15th.

"They're the same thing but with different weapons!" and not "they're distinct creatures with different training and talents,"

But the difference between them is entirely mechanical. The only reason they are nominally distinct is that they have different rules.

Sure they can. That Troglodyte Mauler uses a Greatclub, a 2d4 Weapon with +2 proficiency, has 18 Strength, and is Level 6. Since monsters get +1 Attack/level, that adds up to 2d4+4 damage at +12 to Hit.

Those numbers work. But the numbers on the Aboleth Lasher (Level 17, 26 Strength, +20 to hit) don't. Nor do the numbers on the Troglodyte Warrior (Level 12, 18 Strength, +15 to hit).

Well, actually what the Tier system predicts is that the greater the Tier discrepancy, the more likely you are to have problems with balance between different classes in play.

Has anyone tried testing that?

GNS predicts that game elements that share common features (usually grouped under Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist, with some overlap) will appeal to players that like certain kinds of elements in the games they play. I think you'll find that fairly self evident.

Sure. I will freely say that if you divide things into groups and people into groups based on which of those groups they like, you will probably get a pretty strong correlation between being in the group that likes something and liking that thing. Still not seeing the useful application of that particular tautology.

The theory tries to help with point 1: Find out what the design goals are.

Couldn't you just, like, ask though? Designers probably already have explicit goals, and you can do testing for achieving those goals without ever having to know whether they are "gamist" or not. If anything, saying your design goal is to be "simulationist" seems like a step backward, because we seem to have established our inability to assess that.

Quantity and severity of change?
An alteration to an in-game mechanic is different from stripping it out entirely?
A smoother and more gradual transition through 2 > 3 > 3.5?

Could you be more vague? Also, you don't need hard returns between sentences. This is especially weird because you don't always use them.

I'm 90-100% certain that's not even vaguely how it works. And that you're legitimately arguing that demographic information is as useless as knowing what a product designer's hair color is.

I'm arguing that demographic conjecture is useless, because it is. You have to test things before they become useful. Advertisers don't derive ads from pure reason. They derive them from focus groups.

Had people had this attitude about early Steam Engines we'd be living in a very different world.

Well, no, because early steam engines were useful. But I admire your persistence in avoiding the question.

You clearly don't understand the magnitude of the task I'm describing or the concept that Wizards of the Coast has a finite budget determined by Hasbro, who owns them. When you apply to work at Wizards, you actually apply through Hasbro. I would know. I tried it in college for the giggles. I didn't get the job and didn't expect to, but it was a fun way to spend an hour.

Yeah, imagine. How could we ask WotC to have internal testing, or to evaluate their releases for flaws, or to have explicit design goals? What's that, WotC's MTG team? You do all those things? Are you on the verge of bankrupting yourself from hiring people to do all that work? No? Oh, you actually make $250 million dollars a year?

Not everything influences.

Yes it does.

The decision to roll 1d20 instead of 3d6 is more "simulationist", because it more accurately matches a world where probabilities change by multiples of 5%.

The decision to roll 1d20 instead of 3d6 is less "simulationist", because it makes outcome distributions flatter and fails to capture the desired behavior for black swans.

The decision to roll 1d20 instead of 3d6 is more "gamist", because it makes it easier to evaluate the results of different rolls.

The decision to roll 1d20 instead of 3d6 is less "gamist", because it makes small bonuses less valuable and that makes system mastery less valuable.

The decision to roll 1d20 instead of 3d6 is more "narrativist", because the story we want to tell has lots of small gradations in power.

The decision to roll 1d20 instead of 3d6 is less "narrativist", because it makes extreme outcomes more likely and those aren't as satisfying.

So, it seems to me, that even on the simplest of all game design issues (what RNG do we use), you can make an argument for either change from the perspective of increasing or decreasing any part of GNS. That does not seem like a useful system to me.

GNS could be considered part of your Step 2, since it is a kind of theoretical analysis of games.

Do you understand that Game Theory" is a term of art that a refers to a specific field of mathematics/economics?

Why does GNS get so much more attention than GDS?

Because the internet doesn't select for truth. It selects for a bunch of things (controversial, noisy advocates, easy to match to priors) that correlate loosely at best with truth.

[ComradeBear]

Couldn't you just, like, ask though? Designers probably already have explicit goals, and you can do testing for achieving those goals without ever having to know whether they are "gamist" or not. If anything, saying your design goal is to be "simulationist" seems like a step backward, because we seem to have established our inability to assess that.

There is a textbook called Rules of Play, which is specifically designed to create a set of terms used to describe the unique interactions that occur during play and games.

One of the important things to do when discussing a topic is to establish language about it with which to clearly communicate. "I want to make a game that's fun" is going to be a lot of the response from game designers without much experience. And it's a useless metric because Fun is entirely subjective.

"Complex," "Deep," and "Streamlined" are probably going to come up a lot, too, but they don't have a consistent meaning in game-design.

Could you be more vague? Also, you don't need hard returns between sentences. This is especially weird because you don't always use them.

I'm sorry that I can't decode for you exactly which missing paragraph it was that led to the downfall of the system, but a list of general problems related to what you're asking about is pretty much what a forum discussion merits as far as investigation, as far as I'm concerned. Put some money on the line and I'll change my mind.

And if you're gonna come at me for hard breaks, well...
I guess that just means you're not confident about dealing with...
My point
Are ya?
(The above is in jest, don't get riled up by my cheekiness.)

I'm arguing that demographic conjecture is useless, because it is. You have to test things before they become useful. Advertisers don't derive ads from pure reason. They derive them from focus groups.

Any time you have people willingly place themselves into categories they resonate with, the demographic is proving itself by existing.
We don't need to verify the existence of Otherkin (for example) as a demographic through focus groups. People willingly adopt it. Some don't. Some do.

And yes, advertisers make lots of use of demographics, even ones not found in focus groups. Focus groups come in at the end and are just additional data, not the make-or-break. I would know. I created an ad campaign in college before switching majors. (Advertising is a very different field than how people imagine it, and I disliked the atmosphere.)

Granted, those of us raised in the 80's through Early 2000's have this notion of rejecting labels, which can cause some issues, but if you have people in large numbers saying "oh hey, yeah, that applies to me" then you can assume the demographic works just fine.

Well, no, because early steam engines were useful. But I admire your persistence in avoiding the question.

You... do know that one of the first applications of the steam engine was to pump water up mine shafts....
But it could only pump 25 feet up before you needed another, meaning even relatively small mine shafts would need 4 of these, constantly monitored by a small team, and they still had a tendency to explode violently.
It was called The Miner's Friend, invented by Thomas Savery in 1698.

Spoiler: It looked something like this

Show

(We think, the patent didn't have any pictures and only descriptions.)

We might have different definitions of useful, but...

And it should be known that this unhelpful thing eventually turned into the steam engines we recognize today. All our Steam Engines are descended from that explody, footballish, and mostly useless contraption shown above.

Yeah, imagine. How could we ask WotC to have internal testing, or to evaluate their releases for flaws, or to have explicit design goals? What's that, WotC's MTG team? You do all those things? Are you on the verge of bankrupting yourself from hiring people to do all that work? No? Oh, you actually make $250 million dollars a year?

Wown WotC puts more money, time, and resources into their hugely successful cash cow than their moderately successful RPG line that did really well in the 90s and slowly tapered off throughout the lifetime of 3.5 while Magic has had no problems staying relevent at all?

Go figure.

Yes it does.

The decision to roll 1d20 instead of 3d6 is more "simulationist", because it more accurately matches a world where probabilities change by multiples of 5%.

Actually, the only thing that changed is instead of random number generation with a flat distribution and results 1-20, you switched to a bell-ish random number generation with results 3-18. Nothing else has changed.
What you USE those numbers for, and what they represent mechanically, THAT will move it around.

Copy/paste that for all of these.

So, it seems to me, that even on the simplest of all game design issues (what RNG do we use), you can make an argument for either change from the perspective of increasing or decreasing any part of GNS. That does not seem like a useful system to me.

In line with what I put above, all of your examples make assumptions of how the numbers are used, and what we desire from them. A narrstivist game can be bolstered by extreme numbers. And a narrativist game can be hindered by them. Depends more on how they USE the numbers, less on what RNG method you use. :D

Do you understand that Game Theory" is a term of art that a refers to a specific field of mathematics/economics?

Sure, though I was working towards Game Design Theory, which also exists and has good ties to Math but weaker ties to economics. I'd pin this on two people talking about similar terms with different meanings.

For the kind of theory you're talking about, yeah. Not useful.

But I'd be very hesitant to adopt your theory as presented because it is basically "did you make the thing you wanted?" And then "Did it sell?" Which doesn't tell us anything except which systems did and didn't sell and which ones did and didn't work as intended. Which is helpful, but remarkably unhelpful for predicting future success or determining the reasons for success. GNS theory is far from perfect, and is at best our

[Cosi]

One of the important things to do when discussing a topic is to establish language about it with which to clearly communicate. "I want to make a game that's fun" is going to be a lot of the response from game designers without much experience.

Maybe, but they'll want to do that in some context. Maybe they want to make a version of Shadowrun that is "less clunky", or a version of D&D that is "more balanced", or a new game that is "like Mistborn". Then you can figure out what things you want the game to do (less rolls/fewer infinite loops/adventure in the Final Empire), design rules that you think will do those things, test to see if they do, and improve on whatever access you can. And frankly, if you can't say what you want your game to do in at least some minimal way, I don't know that any set of tools will allow you to produce a game

I also don't think that people generally suffer from failure of design goals. The design goals of 4e are obvious. Charitably, the designers wanted a game that was simpler and easier to balanced. Uncharitably, they wanted a game that would make it very easy for them to continue to produce splatbooks. If the designers of D&D were competent, they would be explicit (like MaRo's State of Design articles).

We don't need to verify the existence of Otherkin (for example) as a demographic through focus groups. People willingly adopt it. Some don't. Some do.

But Otherkin is a term people who identify ask foxes or whatever created for themselves. The causality there is group -> term, whereas "gamist" et al are terms some dude made up with the causality term -> group.

You... do know that one of the first applications of the steam engine was to pump water up mine shafts....

I don't know why you think this is helping your case. If we accept your analogy, we would except GNS to have useful implications in some field unrelated to where it was originally proposed. Like law enforcement or something. Not that it would need clarification and improvement to be useful in its original context.

Wown WotC puts more money, time, and resources into their hugely successful cash cow than their moderately successful RPG line that did really well in the 90s and slowly tapered off throughout the lifetime of 3.5 while Magic has had no problems staying relevent at all?

Well, maybe that's because they approach game design as a scientific problem to be solved, rather than a philosophical exercise in definitions. No, can't be that. Must be that "play as a Wizard exploring a series of fantastical worlds" is inherently more interesting as a CCG than an RPG. Definitely. That's it.

What you USE those numbers for, and what they represent mechanically, THAT will move it around.

No, the RNG absolutely has an effect on the game, regardless of what it represents mechanically. Consider the difference between a dicepool and a linear RNG. In a dicepool, you can't push people off the RNG. No matter how many dice you give someone to roll, they could all come up 1 and that person could lose to a guy who happened to roll a 6 on his one die. In a linear RNG, accumulating bonuses equal to the size of the RNG means that you cannot lose to people who were previously equal challenges. That effects how the game works, which effects what stories it can tell, which effects what world it creates.

But I'd be very hesitant to adopt your theory as presented because it is basically "did you make the thing you wanted?" And then "Did it sell?" Which doesn't tell us anything except which systems did and didn't sell and which ones did and didn't work as intended.

Well, yeah, but people seem to fail at making the systems they want to pretty frequently. See: most editions of D&D past 10th. If you can't make a game do what you want it to do, asking questions about what you want the game to do is pointless. It's like figuring out what kind of speaker to put in your cars before you've invented the internal combustion engine.

Which is helpful, but remarkably unhelpful for predicting future success or determining the reasons for success.

I don't think GNS helps with those either. Most games live and die based on things not directly derived from the game, like name recognition and word of mouth. At release, 4e was a bad game. But it still did worst than (almost?) every other game for most of its lifecycle, because it was called D&D.

[ComradeBear]

Maybe, but they'll want to do that in some context. Maybe they want to make a version of Shadowrun that is "less clunky", or a version of D&D that is "more balanced", or a new game that is "like Mistborn". Then you can figure out what things you want the game to do (less rolls/fewer infinite loops/adventure in the Final Empire), design rules that you think will do those things, test to see if they do, and improve on whatever access you can. And frankly, if you can't say what you want your game to do in at least some minimal way, I don't know that any set of tools will allow you to produce a game

This works up until you make something not directly derivative. Then you need new words.

I also don't think that people generally suffer from failure of design goals. The design goals of 4e are obvious. Charitably, the designers wanted a game that was simpler and easier to balanced. Uncharitably, they wanted a game that would make it very easy for them to continue to produce splatbooks. If the designers of D&D were competent, they would be explicit (like MaRo's State of Design articles).

I never said they were competent, but you would be amazed how hard it can be to translate the idea in your head for how gameplay goes into actual gameplay.

For instance: How would you mechanize the common anime trope where the death of a comrade causes a boost in power for everyone else, and do so in a way that doesn't make it optimal to have a "Guy Who's Job It Is To Die?"
I had a discussion about this in a game design chat room for two hours before I had to go to work.
We had a lot of different ways, each weak in their own ways. Because it's hard to translate.

But Otherkin is a term people who identify ask foxes or whatever created for themselves. The causality there is group -> term, whereas "gamist" et al are terms some dude made up with the causality term -> group.

The causality is not the point. Self-adoption being indicative of accurateness for the demographic is the point.

I don't know why you think this is helping your case. If we accept your analogy, we would except GNS to have useful implications in some field unrelated to where it was originally proposed. Like law enforcement or something. Not that it would need clarification and improvement to be useful in its original context.

Only if you read far too much into the example to see what I'm speaking about generally:
Namely, a useless thing can become useful.

And do you know what engines are still used for? (Even though we now use internal combustion, which still derives from Steam engines)
We still use them to pump water vertically. In mine shafts. Just like the Miner's friend.

Getting hung up on delving too deep into the metaphor is a red herring to what my main point is, which my example shows:

The original was useless. But the good principals turned into something better. Don't let a less effective attempt than you hoped for be the end of it. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Well, maybe that's because they approach game design as a scientific problem to be solved, rather than a philosophical exercise in definitions. No, can't be that. Must be that "play as a Wizard exploring a series of fantastical worlds" is inherently more interesting as a CCG than an RPG. Definitely. That's it.

Since Magic is mostly numbers moving around at its core, that's easier to do.

D&D is more than numbers moving around. It involves that, yes. But there is no need for Magic to address the fiction of the situation. D&D DOES.

[QUOTW]
No, the RNG absolutely has an effect on the game, regardless of what it represents mechanically. Consider the difference between a dicepool and a linear RNG. In a dicepool, you can't push people off the RNG. No matter how many dice you give someone to roll, they could all come up 1 and that person could lose to a guy who happened to roll a 6 on his one die. In a linear RNG, accumulating bonuses equal to the size of the RNG means that you cannot lose to people who were previously equal challenges. That effects how the game works, which effects what stories it can tell, which effects what world it creates.
[/QUOTE]
This still utilizes what the numbers are used for. It assumes we use the numbers to compare and higher wins.

Yes, different RNGs give you different sets of numbers that might be more or less suited to a desired task...
But in the end a random number generator gives you a random number. You're essentially saying there is a difference between using a generator for a random number between 1 and 20 for statistics purposes, and rolling 1d20 in D&D. There isn't, save for tiny probability swings thanks to the actual plastic in the die, any difference between what these two things spit out. But their applications are radically different. The application matters MORE than the actual dice. The dice matter, inasmuch as some are better suited to certain applications than others. But what moves you is the dice. Give me a reason why the dice move with NO RELIANCE ON WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE USED FOR and I'll concede the point. But that hasn't happened. Every example relies on what we use the numbers for.

Well, yeah, but people seem to fail at making the systems they want to pretty frequently. See: most editions of D&D past 10th. If you can't make a game do what you want it to do, asking questions about what you want the game to do is pointless. It's like figuring out what kind of speaker to put in your cars before you've invented the internal combustion engine.

Actually, it's like asking what kinds of tasks you want this engine to accomplish before you invent it. Which is actually a common starting point to invention.
Saying speakers automatically assumes it's entirely tangential to the purpose of the creation. Which you haven't succeeded in showing. In fact, there's more evidence that we can use the three goals to narrow down our ideas than the other way around.
"I want to be more narrative-focused in my gamen specifically on characters. So I'm not going to worry about having too many rules for things outside of the characters, because those are tangential to the point of the system. I'll want the options to be reasonably balanced, but I'm not going to bother enforcing balance to heavily. Social Imbalance is a part of where drama can come from, so I'm ok with having some. I need just enough balance so the game doesn't break with certain options, that's it."
I used the pie's most asic principals and came up with a decent starting skeleton. The principals will become less relevant as I go along, but that's fine. It's an imperfect system anyways.
[/QUOTE)

I don't think GNS helps with those either. Most games live and die based on things not directly derived from the game, like name recognition and word of mouth. At release, 4e was a bad game. But it still did worst than (almost?) every other game for most of its lifecycle, because it was called D&D.

I think it helps you figure out what kinds of players a system appealed to, and that's it.
I don't think it's God's Gift to RPers or anything, it's more like a box with a broken vase and some glue inside, with some decent wrapping paper.

We've got something to work with, and something worth expanding upon and investigating. Interesting ideas that merit followup and close examination. That's my opinion of GNS theory.

It's neat, and worth examining further. Some good ideas are in there, with a lot of crappy ones, too. So let's keep the ones that might be useful and see if we can make them so.

[georgie_leech]

That's not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that "4e bombed" is a reason to prefer the hypothesis "Cosi is right, 4e's flaws are real" over "Cosi is weird, 4e's flaws are exaggerated".

I never claimed you were weird? I mean, if anything the sales figures point to me being the weird one for liking 4e

My point is that a game can not sell well for reasons more detailed than "it was bad." In particular, when they were designing 4e they dramatically overestimated the market for D&Der's looking for a more balanced D&D, and sacrificed enough simulationism that a huge portion of players, a lot of whom were like you I imagine, didn't like it.

So as far as I can tell your problem with skill challenges is that they tended to be used too broadly, and that they tended to be too specific in their list of skills. And I agree, those are problems.

But those aren't the fundamental problems. The fundamental problem was that the design goal (encourage everyone to participate) was directly opposed by having failures count, because it meant that if your Barbarian rolled at 60% instead of your Wizard rolling at 80%, your chance of success fell, which discouraged anyone but the player with the strongest relevant skill participating.

Right. Assuming a general rule of making sure your attack stat was more or less maxed though, everyone will have similar numbers. Many skill challenges were, frankly, designed poorly for their goals. If you want a system that encourages the Strong Fighter, Dextrous Rogue, Wise Cleric, and Smart Wizard to all contribute to a challenge, you need to have ways for all of them to contribute. They don't all have to be contributing in the same way; my example upthread about a Barbarian holding the door shut against a demon is an example. But if they don't have options to contribute with skills they're actually good with, yeah, most players aren't going to contribute.

First, I think you're missing some context. Remember that these arguments weren't intended to prove that 4e was bad, they were intended to demonstrate that GNS wasn't necessary to talk about the failings of 4e.

Sure? I mean, I don't think anyone was claiming you couldn't do so. It's just a useful lens to accomplish that with.

For the the vast majority of 4e's existence, excessive Padded Sumo was a real problem that had not been addressed.

Well... 4e began production in 2008, MM3 was released in 2010, and 5e came out in 2014, so...

Second, if someone sells you something crappy several times, it's totally reasonable to not bother to evaluate their later offerings.

Again, yeah, that's a perfectly valid reason to not buy something, but if you're going to claim something was a failure in general as opposed to a failure in particular, you need more of a reason than "it sucked in the past." Otherwise every Bethesda game ever would be critically panned as unplayably buggy messes for their entire lifespan, instead of just for the first while after launch

But that's also true in 3e. 5th is more balanced than 10th is more balanced than 15th.

Yes, I was using that commonality to show how smaller differences can be magnified into the problem builds you were describing. Meanwhile, in 3.5 you had a full caster who could turn into a Fighter+ while having a Fighter+ as a pet as a class feature from level 1, on account of them not playtesting such critical features as spell casting or the animal companion on a class who features said abilities prominently. So, you know.

But the difference between them is entirely mechanical. The only reason they are nominally distinct is that they have different rules.

You mean like how there's this big list of separate stat blocks with minor mechanical distinctions? Seriously, I don't get the complaint about different creatures having different statblocks. The Mauler is no an Impaler with a Greatclub, and the Impaler isn't a Mauler with more Javelins. I genuinely don't understand your complaint here.

Those numbers work. But the numbers on the Aboleth Lasher (Level 17, 26 Strength, +20 to hit) don't. Nor do the numbers on the Troglodyte Warrior (Level 12, 18 Strength, +15 to hit).

That's fair, I got ahead of myself when the first thing I looked at worked. Worth noting that those come from before the math was standardized with the numbers I was using, but then, so too did the Mauler that I adjusted, so...

Again though, this complaint is "There's no good in-universe reason for the numbers beyond a vague sense of how powerful they are!" Which I never disputed. It's an example of how a change that I liked (better monster design from a mechanical perspective) rubbed many others, including you, the wrong way, because of the costs (a decrease in the simulation that used to be present in the rules; the monsters no longer have a given stat because of in-universe reasons X, Y, and Z).

Has anyone tried testing that?

On a rigorous level, probably not. All I'm trying to do though is clear up a misunderstanding about what the Tier System is or isn't saying. Just like I'd rather you object to the real faults of 4e instead of the percieved ones. After all, there's plenty of either sort

Sure. I will freely say that if you divide things into groups and people into groups based on which of those groups they like, you will probably get a pretty strong correlation between being in the group that likes something and liking that thing. Still not seeing the useful application of that particular tautology.

It's an "obvious in hindsight" thing. D&D 4e suffered for sacrificing too much and becoming too gamist. It's not that classes were balanced that was a problem, it was that the method used was mechanical similarity on an obvious surface level; people wanted the rules for a Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, and Cleric to be more obviously different to reflect the differences they saw as coming with that sort of archetype and in-universe abilities. A game like GURPS is something I'm not particularly a fan of, because although I enjoy being able to play around with systems and see what happens, there's not enough... well, game, in the game for me to stomach the learning curve with trying to find interesting interactions. That is, it's very simulationist, but not gamist enough for my tastes. Sometimes, it's useful for me to be able to express to have a common language to express to friends or certain kinds of internet strangers about what sorts of game or story I'm looking for, instead of having to fumble for appropriate words.

In short, G N/D S is a lens with which to clarify related concepts, so that you can more easily understand what potential problems can occur, what solutions you might look for, and what went wrong after the fact if things still blow up.

To use an analogy, Alignment is a system in D&D which help differentiate different ethical outlooks. It is entirely possible to describe every D&D Character ever written or played using it, albeit often with some debate. It's also entirely possible to describe them without it. In fact, in some ways doing so is superior. There's no muddling of concepts, you don't get people disagreeing about whether they have "enough LG qualities to count as LG or they're NG insteaqd; they just have the qualities they do. Does that mean that Alignment should be scrapped altogether?

Note: I do in fact think that Alignment as a mechanical tool should be scrapped, and I'm glad 5e did so. As a roleplaying aid and convenient descriptor though, it's good enough for what it is.

[Quertus]

For other people, given a choice between "rules that promote interesting situations" and "rules that accurately represent 'reality'", they'll pick the first one of those every time.

And some people will pick "rules that accurately represent 'reality'" over everything else, every time.

Ideally, yes, everyone would like all of those things. However, when forced to choose between them, people choose differently.

(And, no, I don't believe an ideal set of rules that does all of those equally is actually possible)

Shall I call this an issue of GNS, that it makes people focus on choosing between goals, rather than on making them all work, to the extent possible, whenever possible?

Because, IME, you can usually make games to appeal to all your players, unless they have diametrically opposed goals.

And, if all of them being "equal" is the definition of perfection, then that is easily enough achieved - the null game has zero of each. Done. No game really is better than bad game.

Frankly, I think this is an impossible goal. Rules that try to achieve this will inevitably fail some portion of the time. Which is just another reason why rules should be designed to resolve conflicts, and the job of representing an accurate reality should be left to the group.

Let's talk about Burning Wheel for a moment. Whenever something comes up that needs to be rolled over there's something called "intent and task". Intent is what you hope to accomplish from the roll, "I want to kill him". Task is the means through which you want to accomplish this intent, "by stabbing him with a sword".

It is up to the group to determine what a valid intent is, and that varies based on the setting you're trying to portray. "I leap sixty feet across the room over the line of guards and decapitate the king" might be a valid intent in some settings. It might be wildly inappropriate in other settings and require additional steps to get to that point, for example, "I want to fight my way through the line of guards to gain access to the king", instead.

Putting the job of representing what is and isn't possible in reality in the hands of the group cuts down on rules bloat dramatically and is more likely to produce better results than leaving it up to an unthinking ruleset.

It seems like a lot of extra work that gives you nothing in return except the occasional need to explain away unrealistic results, and a healthy amount of rules bloat. It is far easier to make a consistent setting if the rules focus more on establishing genre/theme/gameplay than on modeling physics.

Clearly, you haven't met my groups. Not only do my groups include people like the rules lawyer who argues even when he knows that he is wrong, hoping to get a better ruling out of GM laziness, but I would never want to put that responsibility in the hands of, well, most of the GMs I've had, to be honest.

Having rules provides a consistent experience across groups, and protects the game from those who would abuse it.

So... don't introduce Burning Wheel to my groups. Got it.

But that's what I'm saying. Fiction/rules disconnects arise as a result of making rules that try to govern the physics of a world.

Here's an example: In Dungeon World the resolution mechanics are only ever rolled by PCs. They are 100% a rule focused on how PCs interact with the world. This means in the gnome example above, it is completely consistent in the setting for it to be established that giving gnomes a powerful firearms shipment would give them the ability to combat elven mages, because there are no rules for NPCs using firearms or magic. Divorcing rules from physics cures setting inconsistencies, it doesn't create them.

That's... an interesting idea you have there.

Obviously, such mechanics fail to provide consistency across groups, so if, like me, you feel that no single GM will ever be able to provide the breadth of content that multiple GMs can deliver, then you relegate your character to either a lesser experience, or an inconsistent one.

I'll have to think about the rest of the idea, though.

Because the point of RPGs is to ask "what would my character do", and you cannot answer that question if you do not have a setting that can be consistently analyzed and understood.

This... is brilliant.

Now, I know I'm going to sound sarcastic here, but I'm not: how is it that everyone doesn't automatically see this? The point of role-playing games is to roleplay. Being able to understand what your character would do requires understanding their reality.

Or if this where the people who seem to want the game to play their character for them, with rules that control their actions, explain that choosing actions for your character isn't actually universally the point of role-playing games?

I don't know about you, but I can't think of anything less fun that being told I can't do something for no reason.

If I ever bother to make a sig, this belongs there.

Yes. Like JaronK's tier system, GNS is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's a way of looking at things to figure out more closely why they do or don't work, and what might be done to improve play experience based on what your particular players want. GNS, like the tier system, neither fixes broken things nor directly creates better things. But it does help you define areas that can be improved.

I'm a hardcore gamist. My motivation is maybe 20% story, 5% simulation and 75% gameplay. When I looked at the 13th Age system for the first time, I could see that it'd be more story-oriented than I need and a bit simplistic for play, but still reasonably close to what I like -- and its simulationism is low enough to suit me. Now when I go to play an actual game of 13th Age, I know what to expect. My expectations don't clash with the system ... thanks to a rough GNS analysis.

Is there a repository where games are listed with their GNS percentages?

I think what has been learned about GNS theory is that it is best not taken whole, but taken apart for what good it provides and using it against Mr. Edwards' intentions. This is not really a new thing in human history. Theories, classifications, and philosophies have been carefully disected for what is useful and what is not and then refined since as long as we've made them.

No, the original GNS theory is not useful when used as requested by the author. (This much I've learned.)

So as an alternative, I'll propose an alternative model:
ComradeBear's Practical GNS Theory is as follows:

Games and gamers tend to prioritize one of three broad but distinct categories, or prioritize a certain pair of these three, within RPGs.

The Game: Defined as a focus on the mechanics of the system themselves, a focus on the play experience and balance in player options, a unique gameplay experience, etc.

The Narrative: Defined as a focus on the internal emotional states/changes within the characters, adherence to genre, thematics, and events within the game, and rules which are simplified and allow to maximim creativity, etc.

The Simulation: Defined as a focus on synergy between what the fiction declares and what the rules allow, a codified set of rules for most basic actions, and the rules acting as a loose model of the in-game universe, etc.

Players may gravitate in one or more directions, or even seek synergy between to wedges of this trichotomy. Opinions within wedges may differ in terms of appropriate application or realization of goals therein.

This theory offers a groundwork for discussion, and helps to categorize three broad ranges of relatively similar gaming desires and game design focuses. It is not meant to be used to determine how a game is designed, though it may be used to describe elements within a game or how such a game might appeal to individuals within each wedge.

As with all attempts to categorize human thought, this model is imperfect and currently overly broad. As time goes on, further specifications may be discovered and/or made clear.

---

For a variation of GNS that is perhaps a little easier to swallow and makes people less mad about its application. If I weren't t work I'd go more in depth on it.

So, where does CB-GNS stand in comparison to the 8 aesthetics of play? Are they orthogonal, related, or competing view points?

[Cosi]

This works up until you make something not directly derivative. Then you need new words.

Everything is derivative of something. Maybe that thing is a specific extant work, or maybe it's a combination of genres or tropes. But I don't know that it's possible to have a thing that is completely unrelated to all prior things, and even if it was that's such an edge case that it's basically worthless to spend time worrying about it. And frankly, wanting to make a game that is "gamist", is not really different from wanting to make a game from the perspective of explaining something new. Because you can be "gamist" in any possible setting, genre, or other thing you want a game to do.

For instance: How would you mechanize the common anime trope where the death of a comrade causes a boost in power for everyone else, and do so in a way that doesn't make it optimal to have a "Guy Who's Job It Is To Die?"

My immediate assumption is that a guy whose narrative function is to die is not a PC. Also, the (admittedly, non-anime) cases where I see things like that happening (Coulson in The Avengers, Obi Wan in Star Wars, Uncle Ben in Spiderman), it serves an essentially background function. Uncle Ben telling Spiderman that "with great power comes great responsibility", dying in a mugging Spiderman could have prevented, and Spiderman starting to fight crime is something that has already happened in most games where you play Spiderman.

The causality is not the point. Self-adoption being indicative of accurateness for the demographic is the point.

That's probably not true. For one thing, GNS is vague enough that people probably don't mean the same thing when they self-identify as "gamist". For another, people like to classify into groups, and will force imperfect matches onto whatever framework is provided.

Namely, a useless thing can become useful.

No, a useful process can be applied in useless ways. The process "divide things into groups so that you can talk about them more clearly" is useful. The specific instance of that process that is GNS is not.

Since Magic is mostly numbers moving around at its core, that's easier to do.

Wait what do you think rules do?

D&D is more than numbers moving around. It involves that, yes. But there is no need for Magic to address the fiction of the situation. D&D DOES.

But the fiction of the situation is just the result of particular numbers being moved according to specific rules. Or it's something that is created on top of the rules and doesn't interact with them at all.

This still utilizes what the numbers are used for. It assumes we use the numbers to compare and higher wins.

Unless you are writing the outputs of your RNG to null, the distribution of those outputs matters. I seriously don't understand what you think you're saying, unless you don't know how statistics work, in which case ... this is going to take a while.

In fact, there's more evidence that we can use the three goals to narrow down our ideas than the other way around.

No, there is zero evidence that GNS narrows anything ever at all. On the question of "should we use a linear or curved RNG" GNS answered both yes and no from all three perspectives. I literally cannot imagine a possible rule change that could not be justified as "pro-gamist" on the basis that it generates a game with some properties we want, "pro-narrativist" on the basis that it generates stories with the properties we want, or "pro-simulationist" on the basis that it generates settings with the properties we want. Since every single possible rule is justifiable from every single possible position, the entire edifice of GNS serves simply to say that rules have properties.

[137beth]

The Mongols went around making gunpowder and used it to win a war against people who didn't have it. The Americans made nuclear bombs and used it to win a war against people who didn't have them.

The Mongols invested a lot of time and resources to move around experts in their empire to make sure that they had the right tools for the job. The Americans invested about $2 billion to build facilities and recruit the best physicists, not only in the country, but the world to make sure that they had the right tools for the job. None of these things were weaponized by one engineer, they required large scale project management but it was possible when powerful entities with deep pockets could provide the necessary funds and bring them together.

Is it total anarchy in the D&D world? As I said, why isn't there an ongoing arms race to recruit high level adventurers? Are kings not able to recruit high level adventurers and put them in rooms together? Do they not have the money, power, influence or trust enough to motivate the adventurers? Then what power are they projecting in order to rule their subjects? High level PCs are literally the WMDs of the D&D world, they can make entire armies irrelevant with just about any constellation of spells that was chosen with some effort. Just like the Mongols made the Caliphates and the Europeans understand that their castles are more vulnerable than they thought, and the Americans made the world realize that you don't need a large army to inflict massive damage, high level adventurers should have made the rulers of the world realize that their armies are completely irrelevant when facing a high level adventurer and that unless they have some of their own they have absolutely no security what so ever.

And when it comes to warping entire economies, you can use one spell to edge out your competition. Create water? Boom, you don't need someone to fetch fresh water. Create food? Boom, you don't need the time to butcher animals, grow the vegetables, bake the bread or anything else. There are many other spells that does the same.
And once you've edged out your competition and you're rolling in the dough you can recruit younger students of magic who might not be as creative to work for you. Facebook, Apple, Google, Boeing, Toyota and the likes are good at bringing smart people together in a room to solve problems because they have the money, and they started out small and were recruiting maybe one engineer a month once upon a time. This business minded wizard, with an above average intelligence, could do the same.

No system can be a proper world simulator, and they shouldn't be. We should expect some suspension of disbelief when designing our worlds. But D&D is begging for so much suspension of disbelief that the phrase is too generously applied, it works great for dungeon crawls but if you stop and think too much about the world it just breaks down. It's in dire need of a game master tweaking the rules, adding house rules, completely removing options and saying "no, because I said so".
Every system needs this, of course, but I dare say that there are systems that don't need nearly as much of it as D&D.

Pretty much this.
One option is to go the Tippyverse route: essentially, keep the D&D rules, and create a world that follows from them. Don't try to shoehorn whatever world you were trying to use into the system.
Another option is to change the system. Frankly, though, if the world you are looking for is "medieval fantasy," you'd have to really warp D&D to the point where it would be a heck of a lot easier to start with another game system.
The third option is, of course, to ignore any implications of the rules you are using, and just assume that everything outside of combat sorta happens like you want it to. Only ever consider how magic works when you are resolving a tactical skirmish between the PCs and a group of monsters. No attempt at verisimilitude, not issues from poorly constructed simulations. Obviously, this approach is only a good option if you are okay with a very high level of suspension of disbelief.

[Cosi]

My point is that a game can not sell well for reasons more detailed than "it was bad." In particular, when they were designing 4e they dramatically overestimated the market for D&Der's looking for a more balanced D&D, and sacrificed enough simulationism that a huge portion of players, a lot of whom were like you I imagine, didn't like it.

I don't think "not 'simulationist' enough" fits the evidence though. Complaining about not having a Barbarian class doesn't strike me as a "simulationist" complaint. The game's ability to simulate things doesn't change (much) if you add or remove a class, particularly in something like 4e where classes have only minimal impact on the world. Not having a Barbarian seems like a problem that maps most closely to "gamist" in GNS, and one of the big reasons people said they didn't like 4e was that it didn't have a Barbarian/Gnome/Druid and they wanted to play a Barbarian/Gnome/Druid.

Right. Assuming a general rule of making sure your attack stat was more or less maxed though, everyone will have similar numbers.

But "similar numbers" doesn't fix the problem. Unless everyone's numbers are the same, the incentive still exists. It's just less.

Well... 4e began production in 2008, MM3 was released in 2010, and 5e came out in 2014, so...

I think I should redefine "lifecycle" a little. If we're just talking about the period the game exists, then any statement about a part of that period is quite obviously false. 4e will not stop existing in the foreseeable future, and as such it will spend the vast majority of its time in the post MM3 state of "having fixed math". By "lifecycle" I was intending to refer to the period where there was significant release of new content for 4e, which largely ended around 2010. Recall that the MM3 was the last Monster Manual released for 4e.

Again, yeah, that's a perfectly valid reason to not buy something, but if you're going to claim something was a failure in general as opposed to a failure in particular, you need more of a reason than "it sucked in the past." Otherwise every Bethesda game ever would be critically panned as unplayably buggy messes for their entire lifespan, instead of just for the first while after launch

First, I haven't seen any analysis on the MM3 and don't intend to do any, so it's entirely possible that the MM3 monsters are still calibrated in a way that causes Padded Sumo problems. The fact that the MM3 failed to convince people to get back into 4e is (weak) evidence for this position.

Second, "presentation" is valid grounds on which to reject something. Taken as a product line, 4e failed to present itself to the world in a way that was appealing. That's a failure state both for obvious reasons (people don't play things that don't seem worth playing) and less obvious reasons (if no one early adopts, you don't have a playerbase, which is another failure state).

Third, my personal reason for disliking 4e's combat right now is that it isn't dynamic enough and that the specific choice to focus on HP damage is too vulnerable to padded sumo. It should be emphasized that the specific critism "4e monsters have poorly calibrated HP values" isn't the argument I'd use to attack 4e right now, but an argument presented as an explanation for disliking 4e (a decision presumably made before the MM3 was released) that was clear without requiring GNS terminology.

Yes, I was using that commonality to show how smaller differences can be magnified into the problem builds you were describing. Meanwhile, in 3.5 you had a full caster who could turn into a Fighter+ while having a Fighter+ as a pet as a class feature from level 1, on account of them not playtesting such critical features as spell casting or the animal companion on a class who features said abilities prominently. So, you know.

Sure. The Druid/Fighter imbalance is pretty big, even at a low levels. But in general, 3e is balanced at low levels. It's not perfect, but neither is 4e.

Which I never disputed. It's an example of how a change that I liked (better monster design from a mechanical perspective) rubbed many others, including you, the wrong way, because of the costs (a decrease in the simulation that used to be present in the rules; the monsters no longer have a given stat because of in-universe reasons X, Y, and Z).

That's not quite the issue. The issue is that there's no logic other than "this is a Xth level monster, it should have numbers appropriate for level X". The set-up isn't actually all that different from 3e's HD system. It's just that there isn't any logic to it on any level other than "monsters should have numbers that are appropriate". There's no effort to create a mechanical system that elegantly produces the desired results, the results are just hardwired.

To use an analogy, Alignment is a system in D&D which help differentiate different ethical outlooks. It is entirely possible to describe every D&D Character ever written or played using it, albeit often with some debate.

This analogy is way more perfect than you realize, because the Law/Chaos axis of D&D alignment is incoherent in exactly the way GNS is. You can be Lawful by having a strong personal code that you stick to regardless of the law of the land. Or you can be Lawful by obeying the law of the land regardless of personal preference. And now that you have A implying B and B', you can derive anything.

[ComradeBear]

Everything is derivative of something. Maybe that thing is a specific extant work, or maybe it's a combination of genres or tropes. But I don't know that it's possible to have a thing that is completely unrelated to all prior things, and even if it was that's such an edge case that it's basically worthless to spend time worrying about it. And frankly, wanting to make a game that is "gamist", is not really different from wanting to make a game from the perspective of explaining something new. Because you can be "gamist" in any possible setting, genre, or other thing you want a game to do.

This is why I put "Directly" in front of derivative. Making "Shadowrun but with more piñatas" is a different goal than wanting to make a cyberpunk game centered around central-and-south-american ghettos and with appropriate changes that make the culture matter.

Now, that's a pretty weird example, yes, but it's the best I can do after 8 hours of work just before bed.

My immediate assumption is that a guy whose narrative function is to die is not a PC. Also, the (admittedly, non-anime) cases where I see things like that happening (Coulson in The Avengers, Obi Wan in Star Wars, Uncle Ben in Spiderman), it serves an essentially background function. Uncle Ben telling Spiderman that "with great power comes great responsibility", dying in a mugging Spiderman could have prevented, and Spiderman starting to fight crime is something that has already happened in most games where you play Spiderman.

We discussed this option and it is still having A Guy Who Dies, and it would most likely feel hollow and unsatisfying nearly every time compared to a legitimate sacrifice of a PC.

As I said, we talked about this for 2 hours without finding something that we felt fit the design goal. This is for one small mechanic in a single game.

That's probably not true. For one thing, GNS is vague enough that people probably don't mean the same thing when they self-identify as "gamist". For another, people like to classify into groups, and will force imperfect matches onto whatever framework is provided.

"White" is an incredibly broad, nonspecific demographic that doesn't predict terribly much about one's preferences.
But it's still a valid demographic.

No, a useful process can be applied in useless ways. The process "divide things into groups so that you can talk about them more clearly" is useful. The specific instance of that process that is GNS is not.

I literally just gave an example of a basically useless invention evolving into the thing that drove the Industrial Revolution and your response is to just say "No" and state something I wasn't talking about. Let's be clear: This isn't refuting my point at all. It's just "no" and something related but tangential.

Wait what do you think rules do?

In general? Many things. Depends on the rule.
"During this game, you must wear underwear on your head."
That doesn't move any numbers around, and is still a rule. A dumb one, but a rule. For something more specific:
"Either say Yes, or roll dice." That's a rule from Dogs in the Vineyard. It triggers the addition of numbers, but moves no numbers in and of itself.
"Do not prep for the first session." This is a rule for the GM in Apocalypse World. It involves no numbers.

I know quite well what rules can do if you write them that way. Rules do more than push numbers.

But the fiction of the situation is just the result of particular numbers being moved according to specific rules. Or it's something that is created on top of the rules and doesn't interact with them at all.

Let the record show that rules and setting(which is the fiction) don't interact, and Cosi has declared this.

Also, what numbers move when I say "I tell Mitchell that I killed his wife." This is within the fiction. It might result in numbers moving. It might not. But this is the fiction prompting a response from the rules without necessarily being motivated by them. (I might be lying) And it may trigger an interaction with the rules.

You might want to reword that, because the fiction and the rules absolutely interact in RPGs. This interaction is part of what Max loves. Come on. This is blatantly obvious.

Unless you are writing the outputs of your RNG to null, the distribution of those outputs matters. I seriously don't understand what you think you're saying, unless you don't know how statistics work, in which case ... this is going to take a while.

Let me illustrate thusly:
I am rolling 1d20.
How narrativist is that?

I am now rolling 1d20.
How simulationist is that?

I am now rolling 1d20.
How gamist is that?

The answer to all three should be "I have no idea because I don't now what you're rolling about."

I am rolling 1d20 to see whether my character resists the temptation to act outside of his personality. (A la Pendragon)
Now how narrativist is it?

I am rolling 1d20 to see how many feet to the right my spear went based on the windy conditions.
Now how Simulationist is it?

I am rolling 1d20 to see if I can beat the Knight in am arm wrestling contest.
Now how Gamist is it?

Dice without context are the same thing as an RNG without context. What you roll dice for is their context. Now, for some of these things 1d20 may not be the best option. But that's not the point. A better RNG for the purpose doesn't change that the purpose is what actually matters. in fact, the need to change the dice to match what you're using them for instead of the other way around in and of itself shows that the context matters more than the dice. We change the dice to suit what we're using random numbers for. Not the other way around.

No, there is zero evidence that GNS narrows anything ever at all. On the question of "should we use a linear or curved RNG" GNS answered both yes and no from all three perspectives. I literally cannot imagine a possible rule change that could not be justified as "pro-gamist" on the basis that it generates a game with some properties we want, "pro-narrativist" on the basis that it generates stories with the properties we want, or "pro-simulationist" on the basis that it generates settings with the properties we want. Since every single possible rule is justifiable from every single possible position, the entire edifice of GNS serves simply to say that rules have properties.

In Apocalypse World, a class called The Faceless has a move that works as follows:
If you have sex with another character, you each get share a token. Whenever the character you had sex with is in danger, either of you can spend that token to have the Faceless simply BE THERE. They bust through a wall, ready to murder for their beloved. No questions asked.

Classify that as all three:
Balanced for gamists (literally only one other class has a similar ability) and/or providing a unique way to change the game (arriving at a location is not particularly new)
As Narrativist (easymode)
And as Simulationist ie, It operates based on setting logic. (And remember, the Faceless could last be seen 100 miles away, but they simply ARRIVE. The Faceless cannot teleport.)

Have fun.

[Floret]

Couldn't you just, like, ask though? Designers probably already have explicit goals, and you can do testing for achieving those goals without ever having to know whether they are "gamist" or not. If anything, saying your design goal is to be "simulationist" seems like a step backward, because we seem to have established our inability to assess that.

Did you read the whole passage? Because I quite clearly said that I do not think one needs the model for asking that. But (As ComradeBear, iirc) already pointed out (And I did, as well): Terminology can help you find help with other people and researching on the internet, to gain access to information of people who have tried what you are trying. I will quote myself:

But that is, in fact, orthogonal to the goals of GNS or GDS, both as intended and as used. The theory tries to help with point 1: Find out what the design goals are. To do that, you kinda need to define the goals, and having a sound theory as to what games can achieve, and what is preferred amongst those amongst the target group of you game (And may it be "yourself") is kinda useful for figuring that out. Being able to put things in terms that have shared usage amongst multiple people helps research how people have accomplished that (Helping with 2), as well as discussing your design process with others.
The theory is not there to replace the process you point out, but rather help it along. Does one NEED it for that? Nah, probably not. But why not take help? Standing on the shoulders of Giants and all that. Not that I am saying the inventor of GNS was a giant. But the theory does lay a groundwork from which to possibly work better and more focussed on the actual objectives.

I don't think "not 'simulationist' enough" fits the evidence though. Complaining about not having a Barbarian class doesn't strike me as a "simulationist" complaint. The game's ability to simulate things doesn't change (much) if you add or remove a class, particularly in something like 4e where classes have only minimal impact on the world. Not having a Barbarian seems like a problem that maps most closely to "gamist" in GNS, and one of the big reasons people said they didn't like 4e was that it didn't have a Barbarian/Gnome/Druid and they wanted to play a Barbarian/Gnome/Druid.

Incidentally, during the change from Dark Eye 4th to 5th Edition (Dark Eye 4th is a rather simulationist game, 5th less so (But still quite a bit)), one of the points of edition wars was from the proponents of 4th, paraphrased "I cannot play 5th, because it fails to simulate the world, because a number of things are not yet playable" (Different kinds of magical traditions and Blessed ones of a number of gods, mostly). So at least in some contexts, "You cannot play X while X is part of the setting", has in fact been used as a complaint that a system isn't simulationist enough.

[Tanarii]

I never claimed you were weird? I mean, if anything the sales figures point to me being the weird one for liking 4e

Not really. Everything I've read says 4e sales numbers were great until Mearls introduced Essenstialw, which split and killed the line. The entire basis of his argument, that 4e was a failure because it didn't sell well, is false.

[Cosi]

We discussed this option and it is still having A Guy Who Dies, and it would most likely feel hollow and unsatisfying nearly every time compared to a legitimate sacrifice of a PC.

If the PCs aren't attached to NPCs, the DM screwed up.

Let's be clear: This isn't refuting my point at all. It's just "no" and something related but tangential.

I think this is the point where I say something about a kettle. Also, you have to prove that GNS has useful properties before you can claim that it could develop into something useful.

That doesn't move any numbers around, and is still a rule. A dumb one, but a rule. For something more specific:

If it doesn't interact with play, I don't think it's really a rule. If it does, it changes some number somewhere. Compare: is "the guy who arrives last pays for pizza" a houserule?

"Either say Yes, or roll dice." That's a rule from Dogs in the Vineyard. It triggers the addition of numbers, but moves no numbers in and of itself.

"Triggers addition of numbers" and "moves numbers around" is a distinction without a difference.

I know quite well what rules can do if you write them that way. Rules do more than push numbers.

Yeah, the also cause numbers to be manipulated!

Also, what numbers move when I say "I tell Mitchell that I killed his wife." This is within the fiction. It might result in numbers moving. It might not.

Well I should hope it moves a number labeled something similar to disposition, otherwise you can tell people you killed their wives without them caring.

You might want to reword that, because the fiction and the rules absolutely interact in RPGs. This interaction is part of what Max loves. Come on. This is blatantly obvious.

Sure. One would think you'd fight me on this, because as soon as you accept that the rules and the setting interacting GNS because meaningless. The game ("gamism") creates a story ("narrativism") which is part of a setting ("simulationism"). Now, not only are the terms meaningless, they're inextricably linked. OWN GOAL!

The answer to all three should be "I have no idea because I don't now what you're rolling about."

Almost. The answer to all three is "I have no idea, because those are meaningless categories".

A better RNG for the purpose doesn't change that the purpose is what actually matters. in fact, the need to change the dice to match what you're using them for instead of the other way around in and of itself shows that the context matters more than the dice. We change the dice to suit what we're using random numbers for. Not the other way around.

You are so close to understanding. The fact that we have to change dice to have the game we want means that the RNG matters, not that it doesn't. Part of what makes Shadowrun work as a nominally modern setting is that dicepools mean you can't ignore armies. It wouldn't be a "minor change" to switch to a d20, it would fundamentally alter the setting. Because the d20 has different properties.

Balanced for gamists (literally only one other class has a similar ability) and/or providing a unique way to change the game (arriving at a location is not particularly new)
As Narrativist (easymode)
And as Simulationist ie, It operates based on setting logic. (And remember, the Faceless could last be seen 100 miles away, but they simply ARRIVE. The Faceless cannot teleport.)

I don't know why you think this is difficult. This is good for "gamism" because it promotes a game that has this thing in it. Ditto for "narrativism" and story and "simulationism" and setting. Once you accept that people have individual preferences (which, again, you have to if you want GNS), people can just want a game to have or not have any particular thing.

Not really. Everything I've read says 4e sales numbers were great until Mearls introduced Essenstialw, which split and killed the line. The entire basis of his argument, that 4e was a failure because it didn't sell well, is false.

Read.

[Max_Killjoy]

Did you read the whole passage? Because I quite clearly said that I do not think one needs the model for asking that. But (As ComradeBear, iirc) already pointed out (And I did, as well): Terminology can help you find help with other people and researching on the internet, to gain access to information of people who have tried what you are trying. I will quote myself:

And as we've seen on this thread, it can also be a hindrance, as people talk passed each other based on different understandings of the term, make presumptions about each other based on labels, and so on.

The real world has the toxin of identity politics, the gaming community evidently has "identity" issues too.

Incidentally, during the change from Dark Eye 4th to 5th Edition (Dark Eye 4th is a rather simulationist game, 5th less so (But still quite a bit)), one of the points of edition wars was from the proponents of 4th, paraphrased "I cannot play 5th, because it fails to simulate the world, because a number of things are not yet playable" (Different kinds of magical traditions and Blessed ones of a number of gods, mostly). So at least in some contexts, "You cannot play X while X is part of the setting", has in fact been used as a complaint that a system isn't simulationist enough.

I would say "members of core playable species take on this role in the setting, and have taken it on that role in past editions of the game, but cannot take that role on in this new edition", can be a complaint from G, D, S, and other perspectives.

[Tanarii]

Read.

how useful. A thread with someone saying the exact same thing I did until it devolved into a lack of solid arguments.

4e sales were fine until Mearls released Essentials. At that point, pathfinder finally caught up.

Edit: this was pretty well known at the time, but even then you 4e haters tryed to use the same '4e sales suck, thus it has bombed' faslehood you guys still try to make today. As shown in e thread you linked.

[Max_Killjoy]

how useful. A thread with someone saying the exact same thing I did until it devolved into a lack of solid arguments.

4e sales were fine until Mearls released Essentials. At that point, pathfinder finally caught up.

Edit: this was pretty well known at the time, but even then you 4e haters tryed to use the same '4e sales suck, thus it has bombed' faslehood you guys still try to make today. As shown in e thread you linked.

I'm not sure why the popularity or commercial success as a measure of quality argument is made either way... just one example of how silly it is, MTV's reality shows tend to last several seasons, and anyone claiming that's quality television needs their head examined.

[Tanarii]

I'm not sure why the popularity or commercial success as a measure of quality argument is made either way... just one example of how silly it is, MTV's reality shows tend to last several seasons, and anyone claiming that's quality television needs their head examined.

Not going to disagree with that. But when people who hate a system are attempting to justify their personal dislike by 'proving' it with false claims of a lack of success, it's worth pointing it out to them.

Using sales as a benchmark: Was 4e as successful as 3e? Was it as successful as 5e? Was it (over the lifetime of 3e end to 5e beginning) as successful as pathfinder? Not from what I've read. But did it 'bomb' before essentials was released because the system sucked? No. That's false.

Edit: disclaimer: I've played and liked every version of D&D since BECMI (and some AD&D 1e). I didn't have any more love or hate for 4e than any of the other systems. I like them all at the time of release.

[Cosi]

how useful. A thread with someone saying the exact same thing I did until it devolved into a lack of solid arguments.

4e sales were fine until Mearls released Essentials. At that point, pathfinder finally caught up.

Do you not find "the designers of 4e testified in a court of law that it sold poorly" to be a compelling argument it sold poorly? Are you going to argue that the perjured themselves in order to represent sales lower than what actually occurred? Wait, I know, I'm going to get to hear that "hundreds of thousands" is bigger than "a million".

[ComradeBear]

If the PCs aren't attached to NPCs, the DM screwed up.

False. A rotating door of NPCs destined to die will very quickly become obvious. Players will expect every NPC they meet to die tragically. The system kills itself.

I think this is the point where I say something about a kettle. Also, you have to prove that GNS has useful properties before you can claim that it could develop into something useful.

Demographic information.
Organizing a large number of previous game mechanics by focus/purpose/priorities to help new game designers learn what has previously accomplished those goals and what has not.
Giving three areas of priority to mix and match in order to clarify your goals and give words to them.

They are used for this.
They have been used for this.
Often with tweaking, but they certainly get used.
They're imperfect, but used because people can see the usefulness therein.

If it doesn't interact with play, I don't think it's really a rule. If it does, it changes some number somewhere. Compare: is "the guy who arrives last pays for pizza" a houserule?



"Triggers addition of numbers" and "moves numbers around" is a distinction without a difference.

I noticed you skip the one you don't have an answer for.

I didn't miss that one. :D

Yeah, the also cause numbers to be manipulated!

How does that last real, in-the-rulebook rule affect numbers?
I am gonna push this one.

Well I should hope it moves a number labeled something similar to disposition, otherwise you can tell people you killed their wives without them caring.

If the system doesn't measure disposition, no numbers move.
The GM might make a decision about that, but no actual numbers need to move within the system.
A reaction without a number attached: extremely possible and happens all the time.

Sure. One would think you'd fight me on this, because as soon as you accept that the rules and the setting interacting GNS because meaningless. The game ("gamism") creates a story ("narrativism") which is part of a setting ("simulationism"). Now, not only are the terms meaningless, they're inextricably linked. OWN GOAL!

No, accepting that rules and setting interact does not mean rules and setting are the same thing.
GNS doesn't argue the three are entirely distinct, noninteractive parts. (Especially my personal version I laid out earlier.) They are three interactive parts that can have various levels of priority over one another. All three will be PRESENT, but might have different priority levels.

If only declaring it a loss actually made it so, instead of revealing some wonky "if, then" statements that don't actually logic out.

Almost. The answer to all three is "I have no idea, because those are meaningless categories".

Is the roll accomplishing something with purpose that leans toward the Narrative, towards enhancing the Gameplay experience, or towards modeling the in-game reality? It can do all three at once. It can prioritize one over the rest. Or prioritize two.

You are so close to understanding. The fact that we have to change dice to have the game we want means that the RNG matters, not that it doesn't. Part of what makes Shadowrun work as a nominally modern setting is that dicepools mean you can't ignore armies. It wouldn't be a "minor change" to switch to a d20, it would fundamentally alter the setting. Because the d20 has different properties.

When did I say the dice didn't matter?
I said, and have been saying, and will continue to say, the dice are measured by their context, not the other way around.

If I am sitting at a table and I roll a die over and over without a game, I'm still getting numbers. I'm still rolling a die. It is once those numbers are given meaning via the system or ruleset that the numbers are contextualized and actually do anything. For some things, yes. Certain dice are going to help you. But the reason for the decision is based in the context, not in the dice. (These dice do/don't do what I want them to do, so I'll keep/change the dice I'm using for this.)

The context is what matters more. The dice serve to fulfill the purpose of the rule. Not the other way around. The Rule/context/"what you're using the dice for" is king of this particular interaction.

I don't know why you think this is difficult. This is good for "gamism" because it promotes a game that has this thing in it.

This has no meaning. This is effectively saying "its Gamist because it's in a game." Which isn't how the division works.
Neat strawman, tho.

Ditto for "narrativism" and story and "simulationism" and setting.

And this doesn't mean anything more than the above does, and still isn't how the division works.

Once you accept that people have individual preferences (which, again, you have to if you want GNS), people can just want a game to have or not have any particular thing.

This turns game design into a big jumble of potential features with no attempt whatsoever to organize them by purpose, preference, focus, or goal.

[Cosi]

False. A rotating door of NPCs destined to die will very quickly become obvious. Players will expect every NPC they meet to die tragically. The system kills itself.

Yes, if every NPC dies to inspire the PCs that presumably wears thin rather quickly. Can you name some source material that does that?

Demographic information.

Demographic conjecture.

I noticed you skip the one you don't have an answer for.

I skipped the one that is a DM directive rather than a rule. I noticed that you skipped every single point I actually made. One of these things is not like the other.

The GM might make a decision about that, but no actual numbers need to move within the system.

If the effect of an action is based on the DM's opinion, then it is not related to the "game" (in the sense of the product of the game design process) and no paradigm can account for it.

GNS doesn't argue the three are entirely distinct, noninteractive parts. (Especially my personal version I laid out earlier.) They are three interactive parts that can have various levels of priority over one another. All three will be PRESENT, but might have different priority levels.

But if all three are interrelated, an action that effects one effects the others as well. And can therefore be justified on the basis of its effects on the others. If the same change can be "gamist" or "narrativist" depending on whether its made for its effects on the system or the story, how do those words have meaning?

I said, and have been saying, and will continue to say, the dice are measured by their context, not the other way around.

Uh, sure. Now explain how that context overwhelms the effects of different probability distributions.

This has no meaning.

Yes, and that's the point! GNS has no meaning. Because any change can be justified from any perspective, making it useless as analytical tool.

This turns game design into a big jumble of potential features with no attempt whatsoever to organize them by purpose, preference, focus, or goal.

Oh no! If only we had a paradigm that judge game design based on effectiveness rather than label. Wait a second, we totally have that. It's called "not using GNS".

[Max_Killjoy]

I skipped the one that is a DM directive rather than a rule. I noticed that you skipped every single point I actually made. One of these things is not like the other.

He does that.

[georgie_leech]

Yes, and that's the point! GNS has no meaning. Because any change can be justified from any perspective, making it useless as analytical tool..

I'd love to hear the siumlationist reasoning for GM's ignoring food supplies in at of the games I've played.

EDIT:

Not really. Everything I've read says 4e sales numbers were great until Mearls introduced Essenstialw, which split and killed the line. The entire basis of his argument, that 4e was a failure because it didn't sell well, is false.

Quite possibly, but it's been a while since I checked. It's a bit beside the point I was making anyway, which is that I'm not attacking him by trying to correct some misconceptions about 4e. Which is true regardless of whether 4e sold well, so I figured it would be easier to just not contest the point. Besides, things can be market successes or failures independent of quality. See Jersey Shore and the repeated Futurama cancellations respectively

[Max_Killjoy]

I'd love to hear the siumlationist reasoning for GM's ignoring food supplies in at of the games I've played.

Are food supplies in some way limited so that they become important to track?

Is there something else that's more important to spend the limited time and effort available in the game sessions tracking?

Are the players having fun tracking the supplies?

Is the atmosphere of the game/setting enhanced by focusing on food supplies?

[Segev]

2. Why does an arbitrary ruling need to be inconsistent? Just write it down! Why is writing a ruling down for later reference not a possibility for narrative systems?

I didn't say they had to be. But they can be, and oft are.

[georgie_leech]

Are food supplies in some way limited so that they become important to track?

Is there something else that's more important to spend the limited time and effort available in the game sessions tracking?

Are the players having fun tracking the supplies?

Is the atmosphere of the game/setting enhanced by focusing on food supplies?

No, not unless you count Monty Python quotes, no, and in the current one not beyond the dwarf always looking for the kitchen and booze.