Dead Theory Necromancy

I. Introduction

GNS theory is dead, but this post on the history of the Forge contains an interesting tidbit:

As originally conceived, the rec.games.frp.advocacy threefold was based on the traditional RPG division of responsibilities between players and referees, and was proposed as a means of examining specific decisions on the part of a referee. It recognised three distinct criteria which a referee could use to make a call one way or another: Gamism, whereby the referee makes the call which they consider makes for the best gaming challenge for the players, Dramatism, whereby the referee makes the call which they consider makes for the best dramatic story, and Simulationism, whereby the referee tries to avoid metaplot considerations and come up with the ruling which makes logical sense based on the IC assumptions of the game world.

An important point of the original model is that it assumed that people are not, by and large, consistent on this point; sometimes they’d favour system, sometimes setting, sometimes story... 

[GNS theory's] idea of a creative agenda, ultimately, comes from taking the categorisation of the rec.games.frp.advocacy threefold, but specifically changing its starting point – rather than using these categories to categorise particular decisions and then perhaps noting particular trends here and there, it assumes from the start that, for a particular instance of play, participants are going to be going into the session with a particular priority in mind. And God help you if you try to mix them.

So, what if instead of trying to pigeonhole different styles of play into one of three categories, we analyze different styles of play in the following terms: How does each style encourage or discourage the referee from making calls based on Gamism, Dramatism, and Simulationism?

II. Adventure Congas

It seems to me like the O/NSR's reason for existence is to carve out a niche in which referees never make calls based on Dramatism and only make calls based on Gamism and Simulationism. This appeals to referees who find it stressful to worry about pacing and dramatic tension during the game, and it appeals to players who want a sense of authentic challenge and exploration.

I think the OSR's emphasis on simulationist calls is relatively obvious — "be a neutral arbiter," "common-sense rulings trump the rules," etc. But I think in any good OSR-style game, the referee ought to bias in favor of the players' clever and surprising ideas: "Sure, that's a cool idea... I think that should work!" And that's less about simulation and more about rewarding lateral thinking.

It is interesting that the anti-Dramatist style is associated with the phrase "old-school." The fact that the OSR does not represent how everyone played D&D back in the day is pretty well-accepted at this point, but it strikes me that the wargames D&D came out of were primarily concerned with both (a) accurately simulating war and (b) making a fun game out of it.

Making a call to make the battle more dramatically interesting is probably not something that happened very often in wargames. So I think in that sense Dramatism is something "new" that RPGs brought to the table, and maybe that's a part of why avoiding Dramatist calls strikes people as "old-school."

III. Tactical Congas

In a typical game of D&D 5E, the referee is expected to make calls based on all three categories, but it seems to me that Gamist calls are cordoned off into their own little corner: the combat system.

Inside combat, the referee makes Gamist calls based strictly on the combat rules. Some referees might break the rules for Simulationism ("sure, your torch should do a lot of damage to a twig blight, that makes sense") or Dramatism ("I don't worry about monster HP, I just say they die when it feels like everyone's had a chance to do something cool"), but a significant section of players will reject this because they want their character-building choices to matter.

Outside of combat, the referee makes Simulationist calls for surface-level immersion (calling for skill checks to examine things, interact with objects, and so on), but they make Dramatist calls when deciding what happens in the next room (adjusting prep on the fly for better pacing) and when deciding what NPCs do.

This last point is important. In OSR games, the emphasis is on PC actions and NPC reactions: NPCs stand around and wander the dungeon aimlessly until the PCs arrive to shake things up. In modern D&D, it's the other way around: NPCs ambush the PCs and come up with evil plans that the PCs have to put a stop to before time runs out!

This reactive emphasis in modern D&D adventures helps referees moderate for pacing and dramatic interest. As Matt Colville has been known to say, if the PCs are ever standing around doing nothing for too long, have some orcs attack!

IV. Playbook Congas

"Play to find out what happens," the familiar motto of Powered by the Apocalypse games, is interesting to consider from this standpoint.

I think, by and large, the referee in PbtA and Forged in the Dark games is encouraged to make calls based on what would make  for more dramatically interesting events, but the idea isn't to write the story ahead of time or shape it toward any particular end.

The idea is to tell a good story, but it's also to let the story unfold naturally as it might actually happen, which I think shows how the line between these different kinds of calls can be blurred. Good drama is always rooted in reality, after all.

V. Joesky Tax

Here are some notes I made for how to reward all six of the goals that PCs can start with in my game Ruins & Rogues.

For each of the six goals...

1. win fame and glory
2. learn about the world
3. spread my faith
4. grow my business
5. preserve nature
6. help the oppressed

Give them opportunities to...

1. slay a legendary monster, steal from a legendary vault
2. explore the world, perform experiments
3. convert the peasants, convert the artisans, convert the nobility
4. sell your wares
5. destroy a factory, do conservation work
6. give charity, overthrow the oppressors

Give them magic items like...

1. an armament of legend, a familiar who sings your praises
2. an all-knowing familiar who makes it easy and fun to learn lore
3. a powerful relic of their god
4. something to make their products more desirable
5. elven relics that can renew nature, egg of an extinct species
6. magical basket of plenty, magical crop fertilizer, rumpelstiltskin infinite gold

Give them MacGuffins desired by...

1. the rogues’ guild, the tavern gossips
2. the local wizard, the town library
3. the people (to prove a prophecy), the ruler (to prove your faith is superior)
4. the local merchant (investor)
5. the local nature faction
6. the local charity or revolutionary faction