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

[payn]

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?

I enjoyed alignment in D&D as a guide for this kind of thing (with a few exceptions of course.) I dont particularly enjoy mechanical carrot and stick morality or archetype reinforcement in systems though. I do think theme and genre should inform flavor quite a bit, but I like the players to have a wide birth in how to represent within it.

 

[soviet]

If the player next to me abandons the Samurai code to achieve a personal goal of their character... how should we respond? Strip the PC if their powers? XP penalty? Tut at them for cheating or metagaming? Feel disappointed because 'that's not what the character would do'? Nod in appreciation at the roleplaying? Nod in appreciation at the direction the story is about to take? Give them an XP bonus?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If the player next to me abandons the Samurai code to achieve a personal goal of their character... how should we respond? Strip the PC if their powers? XP penalty? Tut at them for cheating or metagaming? Feel disappointed because 'that's not what the character would do'? Nod in appreciation at the roleplaying? Nod in appreciation at the direction the story is about to take? Give them an XP bonus?

Nod in appreciation at the roleplaying and nod in appreciation at the direction the story is about to take, probably. Unless it is somehow really stupid.

Now this is not necessarily incompatible with losing some powers related to being a samurai, albeit I don't personally see samurais working that way. And this would not be "punishing the player for playing wrong" it would merely be a logical consequence if it was agreed that metaphysics of the world work that way. (In D&D such an interpretation would probably result a subclass swap.)

 

[Aldarc]

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.

I tend not to see GNS as being typologies about systems, but, rather, about what motivates people to roleplay and what people want out of their roleplaying experiences. These categories are not entirely exclusive. According to Edwards, these categories do overlap in some key gameplay places, but these categories likewise conflict in some key gameplay places too.

I don't understand why this basic idea is so controversial with TTRPGs when this is something that video game designers talk about all the time with little to no fuss. You have to be careful about how you design your faction-conflcit MMO if you want the Hardcore PvP Lowbie Griefers and the PVE Exploration Casuals to co-exist because the former tends to alienate the latter if open world PvP is possible. These are players with different agendas.

 

[Xetheral]

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.

To clarify, it appears that you're implying that in order to have fun with a TTRPG, you need a metric by which to judge if you're doing a good job. Am I understanding correctly?

 

[soviet]

To clarify, it appears that you're implying that in order to have fun with a TTRPG, you need a metric by which to judge if you're doing a good job. Am I understanding correctly?

The metric is surely the reaction of the people we are playing with.

 

[overgeeked]

I tend not to see GNS as being typologies about systems, but, rather, about what motivates people to roleplay and what people want out of their roleplaying experiences. These categories are not entirely exclusive. According to Edwards, these categories do overlap in some key gameplay places, but these categories likewise conflict in some key gameplay places too.

If you're going to look outside tabletop and into video games as well, as suggested by your mentioning it later, a much better and more coherent approach is MDA.

Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics(MDA): game design theory behind games

Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics (MDA): The MDA It is considered to be the bridge between the game development and the game design.

gamedevelopertips.com

I don't understand why this basic idea is so controversial with TTRPGs when this is something that video game designers talk about all the time with little to no fuss.

Well, because not everyone agrees with GNS as presented, so there are inevitable arguments. Almost literally no two proponents of GNS seem to be able to agree on exactly what GNS means or is about, showing it's either an incoherent theory or the proponents of it don't understand it nearly as well as they seem to think.

Further, one big difference is that video game designers talk to each other about this stuff. They don't tend to talk about it with the players. Because, importantly, the players tend not to care. They just want a good game that's fun to play. They tend to know what they enjoy after a fairly short time and gravitate to games that provide it.

Also there are actual academics researching video game theory. Tabletop RPGs are not as lucky. There's what...two. Jon Peterson and someone else...neither of whom post here nor are named Ron Edwards. Also of note is this particular tabletop RPG space is not a designer's forum, it's a general forum. So it's not a closed space of game designers talking amongst themselves. There are subsections for that and other, dedicated forums.

You have to be careful about how you design your faction-conflcit MMO if you want the Hardcore PvP Lowbie Griefers and the PVE Exploration Casuals to co-exist because the former tends to alienate the latter. These are players with different agendas.

Note how in MMOs specifically it's almost never a question of which playstyle to cater to exclusively, rather it's a question of how to best service both without alienating the other. Which is basically the opposite of how it's handled by most proponents of GNS theory.

 

[Aldarc]

If you're going to look outside tabletop and into video games as well, as suggested by your mentioning it later, a much better and more coherent approach is MDA.

Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics(MDA): game design theory behind games

Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics (MDA): The MDA It is considered to be the bridge between the game development and the game design.

gamedevelopertips.com

MDA is useful. I don't think we need to restrict ourself to only one model.

Well, because not everyone agrees with GNS as presented, so there are inevitable arguments. Almost literally no two proponents of GNS seem to be able to agree on exactly what GNS means or is about, showing it's either an incoherent theory or the proponents of it don't understand it nearly as well as they seem to think.

My contention here is not so much about agreeing with GNS 100 percent. There is a lot that we can disagree with about GNS so long as we sufficiently understand the model fairly and accurately without too much insertion of personal biases. And so what if people disagree with the specifics? That's often the case with theory or hypotheses in a number of fields. I can cite off the top of my head some major hypotheses in my field of biblical studies that involve heavy arguments about the specifics even if there is some general agreement about the issues involved.

My concern is about the basic premise or core conceit that people may have different play agendas that can and will conflict with each other. Believe it or not, I am open to the idea that GNS does not provide the best descriptors and that there are better potential models out there. However, to the best of my knowledge, there are not really any other models that describe the phenomenon in TTRPGs that have really gained much traction, even among the ones that Snarf linked in another thread.

Further, one big difference is that video game designers talk to each other about this stuff. They don't tend to talk about it with the players. Because, importantly, the players tend not to care. They just want a good game that's fun to play. They tend to know what they enjoy after a fairly short time and gravitate to games that provide it.

Hence the Forge, which involved a lot of designers talking with designers.

Also there are actual academics researching video game theory. Tabletop RPGs are not as lucky. There's what...two. Jon Peterson and someone else...neither of whom post here nor are named Ron Edwards. Also of note is this particular tabletop RPG space is not a designer's forum, it's a general forum. So it's not a closed space of game designers talking amongst themselves. There are subsections for that and other, dedicated forums.

Note how in MMOs specifically it's almost never a question of which playstyle to cater to exclusively, rather it's a question of how to best service both without alienating the other. Which is basically the opposite of how it's handled by most proponents of GNS theory present it.

I would say an issue from reading a lot of academics discussing TTRPGs is that most see TTRPGs only as D&D. You can cite the obvious point that it is the 800 lb. gorilla in the market, and that's fine, but that does not mean that discussion of TTRPG theory should be limited only to D&D while ignoring what other games are doing, which may defy more conventional understandings.

 

[Malmuria]

I would say an issue from reading a lot of academics discussing TTRPGs is that most see TTRPGs only as D&D. You can cite the obvious point that it is the 800 lb. gorilla in the market, and that's fine, but that does not mean that discussion of TTRPG theory should be limited only to D&D while ignoring what other games are doing, which may defy more conventional understandings.

Any recommended readings?

 

[Aldarc]

Any recommended readings?

Not off the top of my head, no. A lot has been mostly reading academic works in passing online here and there. Snarf did have a list of some in the jargon thread, including a collection of essays about the Forge.