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

[Charlaquin]

Is this how lots of games are explained. Start with the very simple: "How do pawns move in chess." "How do pawns capture in chess." Only later to find out about double moves if at the starting position and even later for en-passant?

Yeah, exceptions-based design is the backbone of most games.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Woah, those are some pretty extreme statements! Why must a game make either the ultimate goal that exceeds nearly all other considerations? I see no reason a game can’t pursue both an intuitive, naturalistic world and gameplay difficulty. In fact, I think a good game ought to do so, to the extent neither interferes significantly with the other.

You are conflating having more than one focus with trying to focus on two completely different things simultaneously.

One goal or the other is more important in any given particular instance of play. That was the key point.

If one does end up interfering with the other, the game designer has a choice: prioritize one or the other, or avoid the conflict.


Why ever commit wholly to one or the other? A game can have multiple priorities.

But one of them has to be the first. Literally, it must come before ("prior.") Again, this is the key point. For any given gameplay situation, there may be multiple things that matter, but ultimately (hence my use of the word "ultimate") one among them must matter most. It will predominate, and act to the exclusion of the other goals in that expression of the goal. You can totally have one goal (like "face an interesting and difficult obstacle defined by the rules, where your strategy and resourcefulness, combined with the complexities arising from luck, will determine the outcome") for one particular phase, and then transition to a different goal for a different phase (like "make naturalistic, rational deductions in order to explore the imagined world and discover its history, contents, characteristics, and rules"), but it is extremely difficult or even impossible to have a situation which is primarily committed to "face an interesting/difficult rules obstacle" while being simultaneously and equally committed to "make naturalistic, rational deductions to discover stuff."

Hang on, I thought the character focus was about finding out what the character would do in difficult situations, not promoting a sense of main-character-ness.

I was trying to avoid the use of the jargon term "protagonist." (This, incidentally, is one of the other costs of avoiding jargon--the awkward phrasing that results from constant circumlocution is just as prone to inducing confusion as jargon terms are.) "Story Now" or what I call "Values-and-Issues" play centers on the fundamental nature of protagonism: being the person "put on the spot." Main-character-ness is that thing, having your values tested by situations and resolving any conflicts that result.

Regardless, sure, balance is an important part of what most 4e fans like about 4e, and a sense of a naturalistic world isn’t. Does that mean those things can’t both be priorities for a different game, or heck, even for a group playing 4e? I don’t think so, but the GNS categories, intentionally or not, promote a perception that they can’t.

And yet I, a huge 4e fan, get told my play priorities sound like “pure simulationism.” Clearly there’s a significant flaw in the framework.

I'm not really intending to defend GNS, I don't fully understand it and have had my own issues with people telling me I'm misrepresenting it or the like. This is why I stepped out of the other thread. But no, I don't think this reflects a flaw in the framework. I think it reflects your insistence that "well I can want more than one thing" is the most relevant aspect, not "you cannot prioritize two different things equally." You can have contextual priorities, or serial priorities, or re-evaluate the priorities, or other such things which allow a changing or rearrangement of priorities. But a list of priorities is....well, a list. There must be some first element, and that first element necessarily holds more value than the elements which come after. Otherwise it's not a priority. It's just a goal.

 

[Charlaquin]

You are conflating having more than one focus with trying to focus on two completely different things simultaneously.

One goal or the other is more important in any given particular instance of play. That was the key point.

I don’t agree that always has to be the case. Only if your priorities come into conflict with one another do you have to decide which will take precedence. I can prioritize both not dying and eating food, and unless my food is poisoned, I will never have to choose which priority is more important, because they don’t interfere with one another.

But one of them has to be the first. Literally, it must come before ("prior.") Again, this is the key point. For any given gameplay situation, there may be multiple things that matter, but ultimately (hence my use of the word "ultimate") one among them must matter most. It will predominate, and act to the exclusion of the other goals in that expression of the goal. You can totally have one goal (like "face an interesting and difficult obstacle defined by the rules, where your strategy and resourcefulness, combined with the complexities arising from luck, will determine the outcome") for one particular phase, and then transition to a different goal for a different phase (like "make naturalistic, rational deductions in order to explore the imagined world and discover its history, contents, characteristics, and rules"), but it is extremely difficult or even impossible to have a situation which is primarily committed to "face an interesting/difficult rules obstacle" while being simultaneously and equally committed to "make naturalistic, rational deductions to discover stuff."

Those two things don’t seem to me to necessarily conflict. Maybe they might, in some situations, and in those cases, sure, one might take precedence over the other. I don’t think it’s a given that such a situation will always occur in play, and I think one could actively avoid those situations if one wanted to.

I was trying to avoid the use of the jargon term "protagonist." (This, incidentally, is one of the other costs of avoiding jargon--the awkward phrasing that results from constant circumlocution is just as prone to inducing confusion as jargon terms are.) "Story Now" or what I call "Values-and-Issues" play centers on the fundamental nature of protagonism: being the person "put on the spot." Main-character-ness is that thing, having your values tested by situations and resolving any conflicts that result.

Ok, well the definition Ovinomancer gave, that I was working with, didn’t mention protagonism or main-character-ness. It was just finding out how the character acts when push comes to shove. If it’s also about feeling like the main character, that’s obviously much less compatible with simulating a naturalistic world, and isn’t a direct result of challenging gameplay like Ovinomancer’s definition is. But once again I’m getting the impression that no two people who use these terms actually agree on one definition of them.

I'm not really intending to defend GNS, I don't fully understand it and have had my own issues with people telling me I'm misrepresenting it or the like. This is why I stepped out of the other thread. But no, I don't think this reflects a flaw in the framework. I think it reflects your insistence that "well I can want more than one thing" is the most relevant aspect, not "you cannot prioritize two different things equally." You can have contextual priorities, or serial priorities, or re-evaluate the priorities, or other such things which allow a changing or rearrangement of priorities. But a list of priorities is....well, a list. There must be some first element, and that first element necessarily holds more value than the elements which come after. Otherwise it's not a priority. It's just a goal.

Priority vs. goal seems like an awfully fine hair to split. And, again, the actual claim being made seems to have vanishingly little utility. What’s actually being said here? That in any given specific moment of gameplay, two priorities might come into conflict, and so a game can only have one priority? Seems like nonsense.

 

[Campbell]

It's not the entire game having one priority. It's the game having one shared priority at any given moment so players know what is expected of them and what good play looks like. It's about clarity of expectation and feedback for good play.

 

[soviet]

Expectations is a good point here. If I'm playing a Samurai with a code of honour... what do we all expect that means? Is it a limitation I have to follow (but might try to find clever ways to work around) as the price for my cool sword powers? Is it a limitation I have to follow (and willingly so) in order to represent how my character 'would really be'? Is it a limitation I have to continually choose whether to follow in a series of escalating 'how about now?' moral dilemmas? It can't really be all three at once.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Expectations is a good point here. If I'm playing a Samurai with a code of honour... what do we all expect that means? Is it a limitation I have to follow (but might try to find clever ways to work around) as the price for my cool sword powers? Is it a limitation I have to follow (and willingly so) in order to represent how my character 'would really be'? Is it a limitation I have to continually choose whether to follow in a series of escalating 'how about now?' moral dilemmas? It can't really be all three at once.

It can easily be a mix of the last two though. It is a limitation the character (for personal and in-setting) reasons is supposed to follow, but a situations may arise which challenges this code.

 

[soviet]

It can easily be a mix of the last two though. It is a limitation the character (for personal and in-setting) reasons is supposed to follow, but a situations may arise which challenges this code.

Right, but when that challenge happens, how am I expected to respond? Is it cool for me to abandon the code? Does the story follow me or have I written myself out of the adventure? How often should that challenge happen?

 

[Charlaquin]

It can easily be a mix of the last two though. It is a limitation the character (for personal and in-setting) reasons is supposed to follow, but a situations may arise which challenges this code.

Heck, it could be all three, if failing to rise to those challenges results in a loss of your Samurai powers. Though obviously that type of restriction has generally fallen out of favor these days.

 

[Charlaquin]

Right, but when that challenge happens, how am I expected to respond? Is it cool for me to abandon the code? Does the story follow me or have I written myself out of the adventure? How often should that challenge happen?

These questions are certainly good ones to ask of such a system. And I think addressing them is much more valuable than simply setting up three ostensibly exclusive categories of honor code system and saying this system must belong to one and only one of them.

 

[Campbell]

The fundamental question here is how is the player intended to make their decisions for the character? Do what they think the character would do? Conform to expectations of how their character should act? Drive their character like a stolen car? How should the GM respond? What are our obligations to each other? What sort of play should we give kudos for? How do I know if I'm doing a good job on either side of the screen?

Assume that doing a good job is what is fun for me.