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

[hawkeyefan]

It's not so much about them being impossible to learn, it's about the time investment it takes to learn versus what you get out of knowing. I only first stumbled on this web of "RPG Theory(tm)" jargon in the current discussion going on of "Is DnD Gamist". I had/have no idea exactly what Gamist (tm) means, I just thought the thread was discussing DnD as a game (vs storytelling or a social activity). The thread is NOT about that, and since it's discussing something I'm not familiar with and don't care that much about I moved on.

Then I saw GNS pop up in a separate thread and realized this strange jargon from the Gamist thread carried over and the two were somehow related. I moved on again, mostly because I have many other threads more interesting to me.

Well that thread started out about that, but it definitely morphed into something else over time. That happens. But “gamist” was defined several times in that thread. I absolutely agree that sometimes these conversations can become long and involved and become hard to follow, so I get that.

But that’s when you ask. There’s most likely going to be someone in the thread (likely more than one person) who will try and explain or answer questions.

As to how beneficial it is to know some of this stuff… that’ll vary. Some of it, I find to be very helpful in analyzing my games and what works or doesn’t. Other times, I think categorizations like GNS (or any other) can be problematic. But that’s fine. Pretty much true of most things.

Now this thread was right up my alley. It's a big neon sign saying "Come here for a easy to read primer on all that jargon". Then by post two I had already lost interest because it started by speaking Klingon. The only reason I hopped in was a specific post (sorry forgot the username) caught my eye not about the jargon specifics of RPG Theory (tm) but about jargon in general.

In fairness, post 2 was @iserith taking a shot at some posters he doesn’t agree with… his post was actually anti-jargon but he used jargon to make it! Delightfully hypocritical!

Since I posted I figured it would be fair to read the entire thread for context. While there have been enough good posts for me to put things in context, following the link posted to the Forge site and dipping my toe into the waters of the glossary has solidified my initial thoughts that the effort to learn the language isn't with the payoff of learning a classification system I feel overly places things in boxes they dont fit.

As far as the indie games mentioned, I don't see the need to use RPG Theory(tm) jargon to talk about them. It's.probably because I don't gravitate to threads for games I've never experienced.

Well, it depends on what you’re looking to find out. If you’re interested in RPG ideas beyond the major mainstream games like D&D, then all that stuff can be enlightening. Some of it will also be frustrating. Even the biggest proponents of The Forge or any other resource won’t claim that it’s without flaws.

I’ve benefitted from a lot of this stuff, so I tend to think positively of these discussions, even when things get a little fraught.

 

[niklinna]

Heck yes....this was much more relatable. I don't have time to read the whole thing right now but going to hit it up at lunch tomorrow. I got as far as to see my major sticking point with the theory (you can't mix the streams) but I'm interested to see all that the author has to say.

Yeah I have some disagreement with how he went about that whole mixing streams bit, and a few other things. We can get into that later if you like.

Thank you!

You're welcome!

 

[JiffyPopTart]

The story obviously has more connotations in traditional RPG circles than what happened.

The fundamental issue is that the language we use for discourse on these boards privileges exploration of setting and GM storytelling, thumbs its nose at playing roleplaying games as games and is fundamentally incapable of describing the structure of play used in most indie games. It also treats games that are concerned with genre emulation like Conan 2d20 as if they were the same as games like Apocalypse World.

You say it's obvious The Story (tm) is different than the generic grade school definition of story...but it really isnt. Whenever I refer to my games story it's simply "what happened/is happening/will happen" as per the simple definition. I would never think it meant anything else.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Well that thread started out about that, but it definitely morphed into something else over time. That happens. But “gamist” was defined several times in that thread. I absolutely agree that sometimes these conversations can become long and involved and become hard to follow, so I get that.

But that’s when you ask. There’s most likely going to be someone in the thread (likely more than one person) who will try and explain or answer questions.

As to how beneficial it is to know some of this stuff… that’ll vary. Some of it, I find to be very helpful in analyzing my games and what works or doesn’t. Other times, I think categorizations like GNS (or any other) can be problematic. But that’s fine. Pretty much true of most things.



In fairness, post 2 was @iserith taking a shot at some posters he doesn’t agree with… his post was actually anti-jargon but he used jargon to make it! Delightfully hypocritical!



Well, it depends on what you’re looking to find out. If you’re interested in RPG ideas beyond the major mainstream games like D&D, then all that stuff can be enlightening. Some of it will also be frustrating. Even the biggest proponents of The Forge or any other resource won’t claim that it’s without flaws.

I’ve benefitted from a lot of this stuff, so I tend to think positively of these discussions, even when things get a little fraught.

I will steal any idea from anywhere and cram it into my games. I've combined a fiascoesque system to create a WW2 squads interpersonal relationships, used the rules from Call of Cthulu as a framework, and had a one off adventure that was a series of shades of grey moral choices by the players as to the fate of the world all inspired from watching Flags of our Fathers.

I just don't see that the GNS framework is necessary to discuss something like Blades in the Dark or Scum and Villany. I have played both but just view them as different games with different rules and feel. I guess I'm just pedestrian about it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I will steal any idea from anywhere and cram it into my games. I've combined a fiascoesque system to create a WW2 squads interpersonal relationships, used the rules from Call of Cthulu as a framework, and had a one off adventure that was a series of shades of grey moral choices by the players as to the fate of the world all inspired from watching Flags of our Fathers.

I just don't see that the GNS framework is necessary to discuss something like Blades in the Dark or Scum and Villany. I have played both but just view them as different games with different rules and feel. I guess I'm just pedestrian about it.

Maybe? But if so, I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

Blades and S&V are good examples, because they’re typically classified as “Story Now” games. Meaning that most of the game is not determined ahead of time, as it will often be with D&D and similar games. Like if you’re going to run Curse of Strahd, you know what the story is going to be, even if there may be some surprises along the way.

But Blades doesn’t have that predetermined plot. If we think of what happens in play as a “story” then we only find out what it is as we play. Hence, Story Now.

I think this ties in to what @Campbell was saying about what “the story” means.

 

[Charlaquin]

Some people really like to play where play follows an understood set of cause and effect. Where the system generates this kind of play. This ranges a wide gamut, from a system that is very precise and details and step by step in generating outcomes, to systems that stress more abstract concepts like following a story or adherence to genre tropes. This is Simulationism.

Some people really like to play where achievement is important. They're less concerned with a clear cause-effect relationship but more towards clear procedures that can be played hard. Challenge is important. This is Gamism.

Some people want to play to find out, where the focus of play is one the character. Where there's not a planned story or setting that dictates outcomes, but rather that these serve only to provide situation that asks questions of the characters. That play generates spontaneously from the last moment of play, and stays lasered in on the characters -- what they want, who they are, and discovering the truth of these things through the testing of play. This is Story Now.

All people can like multiple ones of these, but you can't do them at the same time -- one has to be the priority in a given moment of play. You can toggle in play between them, but this leads to inconsistency in play. For the record, most 5e play is the abstract end of Simulationism, often called High Concept Sim, where the concerns of the story are the cause/effect model used for play under direction of the GM.

I don’t see anything in your explanation that demonstrates why these things can’t be done at the same time. You just kind of assert it with no supporting argument.

 

[niklinna]

I will steal any idea from anywhere and cram it into my games. I've combined a fiascoesque system to create a WW2 squads interpersonal relationships, used the rules from Call of Cthulu as a framework, and had a one off adventure that was a series of shades of grey moral choices by the players as to the fate of the world all inspired from watching Flags of our Fathers.

That sounds pretty rad!

I just don't see that the GNS framework is necessary to discuss something like Blades in the Dark or Scum and Villany. I have played both but just view them as different games with different rules and feel. I guess I'm just pedestrian about it.

Oh it's definitely not necessary in order to discuss, or run, or play. It did help me play Blades in the Dark a little better though, as I could see some of the game's design more clearly (again, both where it's consonant with GNS and where it does things differently) and work with it instead of against it.

 

[niklinna]

Blades and S&V are good examples, because they’re typically classified as “Story Now” games. Meaning that most of the game is not determined ahead of time, as it will often be with D&D and similar games. Like if you’re going to run Curse of Strahd, you know what the story is going to be, even if there may be some surprises along the way.

But Blades doesn’t have that predetermined plot. If we think of what happens in play as a “story” then we only find out what it is as we play. Hence, Story Now.

I think this ties in to what @Campbell was saying about what “the story” means.

@Campell also mentioned it in the context of "traditional RPG circles", indicating that there is a community for which "the story" does have a particular meaning, which is obvious to them. This might have been a reference to the Six Cultures of Play article (more jargon to learn*!). Or it might have been a more generic mention of "folks who play historically popular RPGs".

* But it's learnable.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don’t see anything in your explanation that demonstrates why these things can’t be done at the same time. You just kind of assert it with no supporting argument.

And, equally, statements to the contrary don't do any work to show that you can put the cause/effect process foremost while at the same time making the game one that can be played with skill to win. In this case, where I'm asserting the negative, asking for definitive proof of that isn't going to happen -- I can't prove it. What can happen is that someone can offer a piece of proof that disproves the negative. As I believe the case, it's pretty hard for me to do this, so I'm open to suggestions if you have any that showcase how, in a given moment of play, you're equally putting any two of the agendas foremost.

To help this along, I offer hitpoints as a great illustrator of the divide. Hitpoints are often argued between two general camps -- those that view them as a pure abstraction to enable the game (the gamists) and those that view them has having to have a necessary grounding in the fiction and represent something there (the simulationists). These two ideas aren't compatible, and we see this time and again whenever hitpoints are discussed.

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe? But if so, I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

Blades and S&V are good examples, because they’re typically classified as “Story Now” games. Meaning that most of the game is not determined ahead of time, as it will often be with D&D and similar games. Like if you’re going to run Curse of Strahd, you know what the story is going to be, even if there may be some surprises along the way.

But Blades doesn’t have that predetermined plot. If we think of what happens in play as a “story” then we only find out what it is as we play. Hence, Story Now.

I think this ties in to what @Campbell was saying about what “the story” means.

I think you have to be careful though because players in traditional RPG's only find out what happens when they play. That's true of any system unless the player has peaked at the DM's notes or the module in question. From that perspective they could all be called Story Now but the term as used has much more nuance to it than that.

In modules the story is mostly mapped out for the DM with possibly a few different paths to completion. However, modules aren't the only way to play. Sandboxes are as well and in them even the DM has to play to find out the story.

Thus, Story Now is one area where the common meaning differs greatly from what the jargon means. That's part of what makes approaching these RPG Theory discussions so difficult. Phrases carry much more nuance than what they would naturally mean.