D&D 5E [+] Explain RPG theory without using jargon

[JiffyPopTart]

We speak in jargon all the time on these boards. Stuff like the story, fudging, hook, the adventure, sandbox, world building, "living breathing world". It's just particular jargon that seems unwelcome. Jargon that describes games like Apocalypse World, Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard. It's almost like what's unwelcome is the playstyle more than the jargon.

Your jargon example here are words that can be learned not just from this board, but any RPG discussion, video game discussions, and even fiction writing in general.

GNS? is something I am not familiar with, I don't know the origin of, I'm not particularly inspired to read about, and when I see it in a thread I usually just close it and move on to the next topic.

I could have hung on this topic to educate myself a bit (seems to be the purpose of it?) but within the first couple posts there was already too much jargon I was unfamiliar with I deemed it not worth the effort.

 

[overgeeked]

Your jargon example here are words that can be learned not just from this board, but any RPG discussion, video game discussions, and even fiction writing in general.

GNS? is something I am not familiar with, I don't know the origin of, I'm not particularly inspired to read about, and when I see it in a thread I usually just close it and move on to the next topic.

I could have hung on this topic to educate myself a bit (seems to be the purpose of it?) but within the first couple posts there was already too much jargon I was unfamiliar with I deemed it not worth the effort.

What was some of the jargon you were hung up on? The whole point of the thread is to demystify obtuse RPG theory jargon.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

If I want to write a specific scenario that serves as the "story" of the game, I think 5e is quite suited to it. The reliance on preparation (maps, stat blocks, traps, etc) means that much of the game will be determined ahead of time. You see this in many published adventures. A series of encounters and situations that progress toward a conclusion. How do we stop Acererak and break the Death Curse that plagues the land? How do we kill Strahd and escape from Barovia? And so on. 5e is very much a GM driven game.

If I don't want to prep like that.... don't want to create maps and stat blocks and situations ahead of time... but instead prefer for the game to unfold as we play rather than beforehand, then I'd run a different game. In these games, I as GM don't actually know how things will go. There isn't a "first you find the thing, then you have to bring it someone, then they ask you to go somewhere else to destroy it" kind of sequence of events. Some games are designed specifically to deliver this type of experience. These games rely more on the players to drive the game. 5e is not such a game.

To make it work for 5e, you'd have to remove the need for prep... so encounter location maps and tactical grids are essentially out, and detailed NPCs and monster stat blocks aren't exactly suited for this either. The character classes and abilities would need to be redefined with less tactical grid focus. Many abilities and use of skills would also likely need to be redesigned due to the other changes in play. You'd need to shift the authority away from the GM, and doing so would have an impact in just about all aspects of play.

So basically, you can make some small changes to 5e that may nudge it a bit toward those other games, but to actually make it work like those others, you'd basically be redesigning it from the ground up.

I GM exact like your second exaple given, but solidly using the framework of 5e. My game prep is having some ideas floating in my head of interesting scenes I'd like to introduce, but my games have no easy to lead the players to those ideas. If the party decides to spend 2 realtime hours shopping for an exotic animal (happened IRL) then the entire 2 hours is improv on my part.

I'm not arguing the two types of games are the same, I'm just arguing the definition you gave works fine for me in DnD.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well then you don’t see ppl criticizing you for blocking them (this happened to you btw)

So fun story! You can change your blocks to ignore instead of block and you will get a prompt you can click on to see the ignored content. I wouldn't use the block feature, but I will use that and I find that most of the time I don't care to see the ignored content unless it's really pertinent to the discussion (like someone gave a reply to that person that I don't quite understand without the context of their post).

All I'll say on it here in this thread, but just wanted you to know in case you weren't aware of that possibility as it's kept my time here more enjoyable since I've started doing that.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

What was some of the jargon you were hung up on? The whole point of the thread is to demystify obtuse RPG theory jargon.

The second post used the following terms (as examples of jargon) which mean so little to me it makes the actual rest of the post impossible to understand.

GNS
Forge waffle
"story now"
"ooda loop"
"deprotagonization,"

Since I posted in the thread I have gone back and made an effort to read over the rest of it, but post 2 was my original exit point because the jargon is so "jargony" it's hard to stick around to the posters point (which I am sympathetic to).

There have been some good posts "for the layman" buried in here, it's too bad they can't be the first couple you hit.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The second post used the following terms (as examples of jargon) which mean so little to me it makes the actual rest of the post impossible to understand.

GNS
Forge waffle
"story now"
"ooda loop"
"deprotagonization,"

Since I posted in the thread I have gone back and made an effort to read over the rest of it, but post 2 was my original exit point because the jargon is so "jargony" it's hard to stick around to the posters point (which I am sympathetic to).

There have been some good posts "for the layman" buried in here, it's too bad they can't be the first couple you hit.

My post is third, and lacks jargon. I'd guess with the "Forge waffle" the second post was Iserith and was an attempt to derail the thread. Seems it worked well enough, sadly.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So trying to understand a game as it is actually played at the table has to, in my view, take into account a variety of factors aside from what's contained in the game manual (especially as players will interpret the manual in a variety of ways, or not read it at all!). The game manual is like a sheet of music or plans for a building: it guides play of the game, but is fundamentally incomplete.

I think this really depends on the game manual. Some are more precise in their direction than others.

I could have hung on this topic to educate myself a bit (seems to be the purpose of it?) but within the first couple posts there was already too much jargon I was unfamiliar with I deemed it not worth the effort.

Educate yourself how? The only real jargon that was used on the first page was by someone who listed examples of jargon he didn’t like. Then some other posters used some jargon, but it was of the kind that’s accepted and not forbidden, so no one complained.

So my question is if the mere sight of words or phrases you’re not familiar with makes you not want to hang around, how is it you would expect to educate yourself? I’d think seeing unfamiliar words and phrases goes hand in hand with learning.

I GM exact like your second exaple given, but solidly using the framework of 5e. My game prep is having some ideas floating in my head of interesting scenes I'd like to introduce, but my games have no easy to lead the players to those ideas. If the party decides to spend 2 realtime hours shopping for an exotic animal (happened IRL) then the entire 2 hours is improv on my part.

I'm not arguing the two types of games are the same, I'm just arguing the definition you gave works fine for me in DnD.

Would you say you as GM are still the driving force of play?

I GM and play 5e as often as I play any other games, and although I think the way I run it drifts it closer to other types of games, it’s still very much a GM oriented game. Only so much can be done to shift that way before you have to basically scrap the system.

If you feel your 5e game is player driven, how do you accomplish that with the 5e system?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

My post is third, and lacks jargon. I'd guess with the "Forge waffle" the second post was Iserith and was an attempt to derail the thread. Seems it worked well enough, sadly.

It's 5th on my end...but was a nice jargon free education. Thanks!

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Educate yourself how? The only real jargon that was used on the first page was by someone who listed examples of jargon he didn’t like. Then some other posters used some jargon, but it was of the kind that’s accepted and not forbidden, so no one complained.

So my question is if the mere sight of words or phrases you’re not familiar with makes you not want to hang around, how is it you would expect to educate yourself? I’d think seeing unfamiliar words and phrases goes hand in hand with learning.



Would you say you as GM are still the driving force of play?

I GM and play 5e as often as I play any other games, and although I think the way I run it drifts it closer to other types of games, it’s still very much a GM oriented game. Only so much can be done to shift that way before you have to basically scrap the system.

If you feel your 5e game is player driven, how do you accomplish that with the 5e system?

The entire concept of "RPG Theory" discussed here is, from what I gather, some reference to some articles (posts, books, dissertations, whatever).

How is a random passerby to know you are discussing this very particular thing born of a few people and not just general "RPG design" without walking into a discussion and realizing that everyone seems to be speaking a different language from an experience you haven't shared?

It's not like someone used a word or phrase ive not run across. I understand the words "story first". What you can't glean from simple conversation is that "story first" has more baggage and meaning when used in the zoomed in context of "What some person wrote about this and who's text we are discussing".

RPG Theory is a general concept (not discussed here)
RPG Theory (tm) belongs to some author I've never read.

As far as 5e and GM vs. player led...it's both. I have things running in the background that happen in a certain way unless the players interfere. They can choose to do so, choose to not intervene, or spend 4 sessions building a sandwich shop in their new Temple of Torm (exaggeration, but it was multiple hours dedicated to staffing and procuring goods for the sandwich shop). Our game is pretty freeform with contributions by everyoneas they are inspired to do that session. That being said in the absence of player input the GM will move time forward.

 

[niklinna]

I mean, we’ve seen debates around terms like fudging, sandbox, and railroad get heated. Forge jargon is codified to a level where it feels hard to engage with the ideas unless you learn this particular language, where learning that language requires reading forum discussions from 20 years ago.

When I saw some theory threads featuring GNS terminology come up here a couple months back, I went to The Forge :: Articles and read the core articles about GNS theory (start here: The Forge :: GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory). They're easy to find, and I was quickly able to follow the discussions here on ENWorld pretty well, and before long to participate too. And there's a glossary that does a decent job explaining particular terms.

And, to be honest, some people enforce that requirement, so that if you try to talk about a particular game (like the ones you mention) using your own language, you open yourself up to criticism.

That's a separate problem, and one I hope I haven't contributed to. I have specifically invited people to respond using other theoretical frameworks. @EzekielRaiden has a pretty hefty theory that they've promised to post here (with less jargon), so maybe you'll get to see it!

Edit: Added link to the kickoff article.