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

[niklinna]

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.

Kinda like how an electron can be a particle, or a wave, depending on how you look at it, but never both at the same moment?

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

To be frank, that sounds entirely like run of the mill GM as primary source of setting/story like in a D&D game. You bolted on some bells and whistles, but the fundamental points of play are the same. This sounds very much "characters face problems" and not actually focused on the characters. It sounds similar, but it's not.

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.

If you've played Blades and S&V, but think they're just a different feel with some different rules, something went wrong. Those games run in a fundamentally different way to D&D. If you played, and that difference didn't slap you in the face and it just felt like a normal RPG, then, yeah, something was pretty largely off there. And that's entirely possible -- if the GM is running a prepped story and just using the mechanics as input points to do whatever, you can say you played those games and it would look like that. However, this requires playing them in opposition to how they tell you to play them.

And it's fair that this happens. Again, these games run on a fundamentally different conception. If you haven't made the paradigm shift, you can squint and ignore some stuff in the rulesbooks and get something cobbled together that runs like D&D with a different feel and different mechanics. But, this is a pretty bad mangling of the game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Kinda like how an electron can be a particle, or a wave, depending on how you look at it, but never both at the same moment?

No, but also yes?

 

[niklinna]

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.

This is a problem with any theoretical framework or discipline. Ask a physicist what "velocity", "accuracy", and "precision" mean. You might be surprised! Or you might not.

That said, if someone uses GNS terminology without establishing that that is what they are doing, especially in a forum where you can't assume general knowledge of the theory, then that is a mistake. (Capitalizing a term is at best a hint that a term has some specific meaning, but at least it's something.)

I've taken to regularly prefixing all those terms with "GNS", especially in conversations where people are using different theories (some sharing the same terms), just to be perfectly clear I am using their terms of art. In a thread that establishes GNS as the framework for discussion in the original post, or course, I don't bother.

And yeah, I think "Story Now" was an absolutely terrible naming decision. You will not see me argue that point. But other disiplicines have their turkey terminology and muddle along....

 

[John R Davis]

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." ―Albert Einstein

My inner six year old is utterly failing to follow this so some of the OP rules are clearly not being followed.
On the [+] side the weather is gorgeous for the Jubilee so maybe it's a good day for me to not think about RPGs for a change!

 

[SJB]

There’s a brilliant plain English explanation of ‘RPG Theory: Ants, Spiders and Bees’ by noisms, a practising academic theoretician, on his blog Monsters and Manuals.

RPG Theory: Ants, Spiders and Bees

Zak S recently wrote a post about theory . It is worth reading. I have nothing in particular to add to it, except insofar as I am somebody ...

monstersandmanuals.blogspot.com

 

[Malmuria]

If you've played Blades and S&V, but think they're just a different feel with some different rules, something went wrong. Those games run in a fundamentally different way to D&D. If you played, and that difference didn't slap you in the face and it just felt like a normal RPG, then, yeah, something was pretty largely off there.

The design theory states that x and y are totally separate things and there can be no overlap. And that users should not try to use one to produce the outcomes associated with the other. Designers have spent a long time designing and writing design theory so they know what they are talking about.

Except this does not match the user experience. The things that matter so much to the design theory don’t really matter to users, or at least some users. Users do things the designers never expected.

Designers, or at least some designers, have no way to understand this user behavior except to say that it is “wrong.” The user didn’t read the manual, or didn’t interpret it the right way, or otherwise messed up. Or their account and opinions can’t be trusted. For these designers, actual experience doesn’t feed back into the design theory, unless to form a theory about how users don’t know what they are talking about.

 

[clearstream]

First we have to ask: "What is an RPG theory?"

If someone could explain that in simple words, that would already be very helpful,

To me, an "RPG theory" is a set of ideas that identifies and predicts something about RPGs.

For example, one could have a set of ideas that identifies player purposes from a normative standpoint, and predicts what system features are likely to afford play suiting those purposes, and how they might harmonise or conflict in play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oops.

 

[Aldarc]

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." ―Albert Einstein

GNS. Story...Somewhere. Impossible Things. It all comes across as nonsense hidden under a thick layer of jargon specifically designed to keep the whole thing obscure and for insiders only.

So, this thread. If you're a fan of or think you understand any particular kind of RPG theory, here's your chance to explain it to people without that ever-present stifling layer of jargon.

A few ground rules. 1. No jargon; use plain English. 2. No tautologies. 3. Don't quote; use the Feynman Technique*. 4. Use examples from 5E.

* The Feynman Technique is, basically, this: "Without using the new word which you have just learned, try to rephrase what you have just learned in your own language."

For our purposes, this means explain things in your own words, without quoting someone else. It's great that Ron Edwards has thoughts, but put forward your own. If you've digested and understood his theories, then you should be able to explain those theories using your own words, not his.

As for the examples, the best way to help a lot of people understand things is to provide concrete examples referencing something they're familiar with. The most popular RPG is 5E, so use that as your example. If 5E doesn't work for your theory, explain what would need to change to make it fit your theory. Not in-depth subsystems and design, rather explain it in the simplest, most straightforward way possible. If you add X, it pushes the game towards theory Y. If you changed Z, it pushes the game towards theory A. Etc. And importantly, explain why that change does what you're claiming.

So how about it? Any takers?

ETA: Adding a [+] to keep the thread positive.

People have different motivations for what they want out of "roleplay" in a tabletop roleplaying game experience. In short, the theory attempts to categorize those different strokes for different folks.

Three broad motivations were identified: (1) people who enjoy their characters achieving success by overcoming competitive and challenging gameplay as the means to advance play, (2) people who enjoy interacting with immersive, internally consistent worlds with their characters as the means to advance play, and (3) people who enjoy having dramatic conflict that tests their characters' identity, beliefs, and values as the means to advance play.

These different motivations can have overlapping areas of agreement and similar interests; however, the theory also identified areas and aspects of gameplay where these different play motivations can create potential conflicts of interest. Although people are not bound to having only one motivation, in these circumstances of conflicting interests, people will generally prefer and prioritize one motivation over the other.

Are there more or less motivations than the three outlined? It's possible, but no one has really bothered expanding the categories.