This post is meant as a spiritual cousin, and a response of sorts, to Jason's "Plodding away with 3e... why?" thread.

So, last night a bunch of us took a break from our regular weekly games (Sim/Setting-heavy Kult and Narr/Char-heavy Riddle of Steel) to play Keep on the Borderlands using D&D 3E. Personally, I blame Ron Edwards. :-)

No, really! His posts about his Tunnels & Trolls game sparked me a certain irrational nostalgia for the sort of game where the first scene is right outside the dungeon entrance; where the characters are just a batch of stats and a kewl name, and everything else about character background and personality emerge in play; and where delving into the dungeon and emerging victorious is its own reward.

That's exactly what we got, and the system worked with us all the way - a three hour session of vicious combats, bold charges, panicked retreats, clever plans, and a whole lot of dice, against the background of a fatalistic, chancy system where even just one charging orc might - just might - kill you. The whole thing was blatantly, cheerfully gamist - the setting, the characters, everything existed for the purpose of either helping or hindering our attempts to "win."

Bits of sim crept in when players decided to do something foolhardy (thus not tactically optimal, thus counter to the goals of "winning" the dungeon) "because that's what my guy would do", but even that only happened in ways to make the game more interesting and exciting for everyone; in other words, just enough to add some color, not enough to drift the focus away from team-oriented gamism.

No deep character quandaries, no focus on exploring an intricate setting for its own sake, no elements of our usual priorities. And yet in spite of that, the "group dynamics" (by which I mean the ways that the personalities of the characters bounce off each other in amusing and colorful ways during the quiet moments between challenges) was as good as any of our other games.

What's the point of this anecdote?

Bluntly, because I wanted to put in a good word for 3E to stand amongst the endless tide of anecdotes in which 3E is rightly blamed for being completely useless for a group's GNS priorities. If what you WANT to play is Diablo-on-steroids - but with far more flexibility and room for creativity than a computer game allows - 3E can serve you well.

Hi there,

What Hans said. Jonathan Tweet, Peter Adkison, Monte Cook, Ryan Dancy, and sundry others involved are not dummies.

Best,
Ron

Actually, there's a section in the 3e DMG that basically says, "this game is designed for dungeon crawls." So, if that's what you're expecting, D&D 3e can be buttloads of fun.

The Forge was partially responsible for helping me to this realization, and as a result I have a lot more fun playing D&D than I ever have in the past.

For some reason this post gives me the impression that Gamism is considered less valid on the Forge... I haven't actually run into any post that comes right out and says so, but I do get that sort of creeping-in-at-the-edges hunch...

I for one, would like to raise a torch and say that Gamism is completely valid and tons of fun.

And I'm probably (hopefully) wrong about that hunch, it's probably just because I mainly read the Adept Press forum for Sorcerer bits and thus am missing the fine Gamist discussions going on elsewhere. No aspersions were meant to be cast on anyone =>

For some reason this post gives me the impression that Gamism is considered less valid on the Forge...

I think that the impression that gamism is less valid is a common misconception, because a lot of gamers are either Simulationists at heart, or Narrativists at heart. They're the sort who, like me, bought into all the stuff about roleplaying being about "playing a role" or "telling a story" that older systems, most intensely gamist, tried to put out. When I want to sit down and play a game, most times I'm more likely to have fun with Fallout 2 than D&D, because playing the role is more important to my gaming than getting tons of experience (though character improvement is something I love, too).

But despite the large amount of noise which sometimes seems to try to invalidate Gamist play, Gamism is definitely valid, and is very much alive and well here at the Forge. I've seen more than a few games which are aimed with such focused gamist play that they make D&D look almost Narr/Sim by comparison.

Err. But despite trying to think of one, I can't. I believe Donjon was originally designed with this in mind, but not having followed it's evolution, I can't speak for it's current focus.

Wolfen wrote: I think that the impression that gamism is less valid is a common misconception, because a lot of gamers are either Simulationists at heart, or Narrativists at heart.

I love gamism. Why? My players are munchkins. They like huge bonuses and huge numbers of dice, and they like to win. And its always much more fun GMing for happy players than for unhappy players, no matter how crappy the plot lines and character personalities turn out. ;-)

First off I want to say I agree that Gamism is a valid style of play. No need to say more, some people have expressed it better then I could.

Yet I wanted to discuss the idea of Dungeons and Dragons, and that Gamist in play is not necassarily Gamist in design.

First off, lets imagine its 2008. Ron Edwards is considering adding Demonic Pole Arms to Sorcerer. This is not as popular as he might think and so begins an attempt to part Ron and Sorcerer. We back track a little because since Gen Con 2003 and the infamous Biggest Demon contest, Sorcerer has been a popular game among a Gamist niche who love to sit down, make Kickers, and try to get the Biggest damn Demon under their control before their heads explode (Character not Player).

We shoot forward to 2013, Ron is writing Dangerous Sorcery and 2nd Edition Sorcer, which is Sorcerer without Assassins and Object Demons (no demonic pole arms baby). Now Sorcerer, despite everyone's protestations and without really changing the rules, is the epitome of Gamist play cause its community sees it not about being a Sorcerer but about binding bigger and bigger Demons.

Now raise your hands if you think either Ron or Sorcerer are to blame?
:)

Now clearly the above is absurd and D&D originally was designed and is still designed to lead a character up a continuos slope of challenges usually involved with killing something. It has wargame roots but what about its DESIGN is Gamist? Why isn't exploration of system? All RPGs have the same basic flaw... often whether honestly or by SOP the players are encouraged to ignore the rules and have fun. So people do. So they often ignore the once stated "Role Playing is not about winning" present in many books.

Runequest is a great game. However, never being the big seller D&D was it seems insulated from the criticism that it was a Gamist sysetm or at least the label. Well, RQ, as much as I love it, did also foster Gamist play within its rules. Believe me, everytime I used disrupt on some rat or cat so I could get a power increase roll, that was Gamism :) and loads of fun I might add.

RQ is not any more or less Gamist by design then D&D. In fact there may be more true gamist RPGs now then ever before, because people are having fun with the concept as opposed to shying away from the style of play.

I suppose I am a bit of a D&D apologist, although I am sick of playing D20 all the time cause no one wants to play anything else. Never the less I do not believe D&D is gamist by design even if it happens to be Gamist by play or Tradition

just my two lunars

Sean
ADGBoss

Sean,

I think the thing about D&D which promotes Gamist play is the way it works if you play by the rules. By the rules, technically, adding or subtracting nothing, I've often heard that the only way to gain experience by saving the princess is to kill her. I've heard this from gamer's who've never met each other, and who are much more familiar with the game than I.

It does not matter that the flavor text in the book says "Roleplaying is about blah". It's been pointed out that White Wolf's WoD system says it is a storytelling game in pretty much every book, but the system does not promote narrativist play. It promotes simulationist play, which is more about exploration of setting, system, and character than telling a good story. Good stories often get told by playing Vampire or other games, but that is invariably the result of the group, not the game mechanics. For this reason, I found the concept that V:tM was NOT a storytelling game to be rather affronting when I first began participating on these boards, because it's a game that I loved, and still love. It does what it does well, IMO, even if that is not the stated intention of the game.

D&D is the same. My personal prejudices against the game notwithstanding, the game is also very good at what it does, which is why many, many people refuse to play anything else (well, that and the tendency of people to stick with what they know and like.) However, when the rules as written and the author's statement of intent vary, there's going to be a conflict. There are two major ways that I've seen to solve that conflict. Either drift the game so that it meets your goals, either consciously or unconsciously, or play the game as-is, and accept it's Gamist premise and play.

I do not gree that D&D has a gamist premise but I do agree thats its fundamentally designed poorly to support what I believe is an attempt to Sim the life of a fantasy adventurer.

Again JMO

Sean
ADGBoss

Wolfen wrote: Sean,
By the rules, technically, adding or subtracting nothing, I've often heard that the only way to gain experience by saving the princess is to kill her. I've heard this from gamer's who've never met each other, and who are much more familiar with the game than I.

Hello,

Guys, guys, we go through this every time someone tries to talk about D&D.

It's not about whether it "is" something in particular. It's not about whether various people's interpretation is right or wrong.

Just a little bit ago, we had this great series of threads in RPG Theory about the history of D&D, especially prior to 2nd Edition. What we ended up saying was, There is no single D&D. It didn't exist then, and it never existed. People don't reference a game, they reference whatever they managed to construct with their friends from a mishmash of very confusing texts.

One conclusion I came up with was to say, for purposes of discourse at the Forge, it is absolutely necessary to state which D&D one means. Which texts, which tweaks, which modules, which whatever - because whatever comment you make is going to be taken as a generalization by everyone else that includes their version, and they will almost always react defensively to protect their creation. This is all made worse by the Cargo Cult context, such that everyone wants to think that their locally-constructed version is obviously the Real One.

Now, in this thread, we're discussing D&D3E. Here's the meat that I can see.

1. Hans has stated that D&D3E provides for excellently focused and fun play of a particular type, namely, "Diablo on steroids." I agreed with him.

2. Hans also seems to be presenting this statement in defense against a series of criticisms: he writes - "the endless tide of anecdotes in which 3E is rightly blamed for being completely useless for a group's GNS priorities"

Now, I am kind of puzzled about #2. What endless tide? What "completely useless"? The D&D3E threads I remember in this forum concerned not only Gamist play but also how it was turned toward some Narrativist goals. They've all been about successful GNS applications, not unsuccessful ones.

I consider all the discussion of "validity of Gamism" and "D&D is or is not this or that" to be off-topic.

Hans, can you help out regarding this #2 point above? I confess that I can't understand what you mean at all, and I think that's why people are kind of hunting for a point to discuss.

Best,
Ron