Okay, I'm not quite up to speed on all the theory here yet, but I'm a quick study. But I wanted to bounce something off the people here as worth thinking about.

Like many of you (I see from your posts and in some cases essays), I have always more or less hated the D&D magic system. My hatred was based, strangely enough, on what might be considered Simulationist considerations: I thought 'that's not how magic works, dammit!' What's interesting is that a lot of people had that same thought, and moved almost instantly towards e.g. mana point systems in the old days, and then free-form systems of various kinds later on, at the same time and in similar ways, even though, well, magic doesn't exist, so there's nothing to simulate.

That's not the discussion I wanted to have in this thread, though. I was discussing this issue with some intelligent D&Ders and one of them pointed out to me that the traditional D&D magic system (not with sorcery, mana points, trades, etc., just straight up memorization) actually creates an additional challenge for the magical PC: figuring out which spells are going to be necessary to solve the problems beforehand. As with equipment, NPCs, and so much else in 'materialist' Dungeons and Dragons, spell selection presents players with a resource allocation problem. Pick the right spells and you're fantastically effective; pick the wrong ones and you just get to beat on things for 1d6-1 with your staff. This person found the D&D memorization system superior (for his gaming enjoyment) than more free-form or mana-based, etc. systems precisely because it limited the options of the player of the magical character and forced certain kinds of game-related choices on him.

I think that lots of D&D players like this kind of resource allocation problem, and that it's one of the things that bring people back to the game. They find this kind of puzzle-solving fun. The spells are just one more aspect of that.

Is that an example of 'gamist' reasoning? It seems like it ought to be - what my interlocutor was saying was 'forget how magic ought to work, just think about what makes for the most interesting/challenging sort of game'. But as I said, I'm still learning the lingo. Am I right to see this as part of what makes many people find D&D fun to play? Any general thoughts on the argument? Should this be in the GNS discussion area instead?

Hi Calithena,

Your analysis sounds spot on to me.

Yes, you're talking about an instance of Gamist reasoning. The key to it is that there's not only an element of challenge in making the right preparations, there's also a stake at the social level, a bit of player pride or esteem within the group to be gained or lost, depending on how well the player performs in the challenge. In other words, there's Step On Up going on. As you put it, "pick the right spells and you're fantastically effective; pick the wrong ones and you just get to beat on things for 1d6-1 with your staff" (emphasis added). It's Step On Up because the "you" applies to the player as much as to the character.

In a post in a recent thread I called this specific kind of challenge "the Be Prepared Game" and even cited the AD&D magic system as an example of it:

The Be Prepared Game. The challenge is having the right skills for the situations that arise. Being prepared exhibits foresight and the quality of being well-adapted. The social payoff is being able to say "I can handle that." The more urgent the need and the more unusual the applicable skill, the more impressive (up to a point). The Be Prepared game can be a dominant concern at character creation (especially in e.g. superpowers) and it can also apply to shorter-term issues like equipment selection. The old daily spell selection-memorization rules for AD&D magic-users is the Be Prepared Game purified and elevated.

To follow up on Walt's post, yes, there are many people who play D&D in a primarily Gamist fashion. This is no surprise, is it? When people say, "He's a powergamer!", or munchkin, or some other derogatory term, usually what they mean is that these people are playing in a Gamist fashion, and that this annoys them, because they think it should be played otherwise.

It's an important theory here that the fact that some people play D&D in one mode, and dislike other people playing in other modes is a problem with D&D's text. Basically, it says that play can be things other than Gamist, but then only supports Gamism in play. So different people have different opinions on what's the "right" way to play. When really the "right" way to play is in such a fashion so as to not get anyone annoyed. Meaning that any mode (or combination) is OK for any game, so long as everybody is on board with that agenda.

Truth be told, D&Ds text isn't that bad, especially of late. It's pretty distinctly aimed at the Gamist mode. But the fact that so many people play D&D, and carry their ideas from the past into play of new editions, means that problems persist. I think that if D&D had just come out today that people would play it as the Gamist romp that it is, and play other games for other modes. It's D&D's unique tradition as the game that everyone plays that keeps it problematic. Where that's true, and IMO.

Mike

Hello,

See also my essay A hard look at Dungeons & Dragons, regarding why discussing this game (pre-3rd Ed) is especially problematic.

Best,
Ron

post deleted