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

[overgeeked]

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

Of course not. It's just an infinitely more useful and well-researched model than GNS. If you're going to try to be in an RPG theory space, maybe push for a broader, more all-encompassing, and broadly applicable theory.

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.

Well, mostly because that disagreement shows it's incoherent as a model. It's the stuff that's agreed upon or shown to be widely useful that you can build a functioning theory on. The test of any theory/model is how well it matches reality. By that metric alone GNS utterly fails.

The basic premise of GNS theory is: different players have different preferences in what they enjoy about games.

That's not what I'd call revelatory. It's more like a statement of "water is wet". It's where GNS goes with that premise that's contentious. And misunderstood, apparently even by proponents of GNS. GNS tries to awkwardly pigeonhole all games/gamers into three overly broad categories that ignore a lot of preferences, whereas MDA has eight more narrow categories that cover far more ground and generally make it a much more useful theory. It's also used by a sizeable swathe of video game designers, whereas GNS is not widely known, much less widely accepted, much less widely used. There are more posters here advocating for GNS than there are actual game designers using it to make games.

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.

Right. But even GNS has not "really gained much traction". The posters at the Forge talked about it a lot. And some of the designers there took it to heart and made games based on GNS. But it's not some wide-spread theory among game designers. It's as contentious as it ever was and not widely accepted.

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

And even there a lot of people vehemently disagreed with GNS...and a lot simply couldn't understand it...and a lot pointed out that it left out a lot of games and styles of play. The Forge wasn't some monolith built to Edwards where posters heaped nothing but praise and accolades at his feet. There were a lot of arguments there about GNS. And we shouldn't forget that Edwards has said some rather...questionable things about playing certain games and the effect that has on people's brains. This is not an unbiased academic putting forth well-reasoned or well-written theories that accurately model RPGs.

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.

No, discussion should not be limited to D&D, but expecting people on a D&D subforum of a site largely dedicated to D&D to have read some random Forge posts or some itch.io or indiegogo title before they can have conversation about games is more than a bit gatekeepy.

 

[Aldarc]

@overgeeked, I would take your criticisms about GNS more seriously if you both of your thumbs weren't pressing heavily down on the scale while flaring your nostrils. I find the hostility to be off-putting to amicable discussion, especially in what you model as a (+) thread.

 

[Campbell]

No, discussion should not be limited to D&D, but expecting people on a D&D subforum of a site largely dedicated to D&D to have read some random Forge posts or some itch.io or indiegogo title before they can have conversation about games is more than a bit gatekeepy.

Do you have a single example of anyone on these boards ever doing this? Where any of us have ever not defined the terminology we are using or been willing to explain and clarify how the games we bring in as examples work? It seems your solution is to just not talk about other ways to play. That's hardly the opposite of gatekeeping.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Probably because the agendas themselves don’t resonate with a significant number of players. Or, because a significant number of players don’t perceive the same conflicts between those agendas as Edwards presented.

For example, what I enjoy most in TTRPGs, and would consider the reason I play them, is imagining myself as a character in a fictional scenario, and making decisions (especially difficult decisions!) as I imagine that character would do, or as a GM, providing opportunities for the players to do the same.

Now, the fictional word being a believable place that functions by consistent, understandable rules is, in my view, essential for players to be able to make those decisions. They have to be able to count on things working the way they would expect based on their own experience in real life, accounting for any exceptions that are specifically laid out. That seems like a pretty textbook simulationist agenda based on what I understand of GNS theory, yes?

However, that simulation is ultimately in service to the players’ ability to make meaningful decisions. I think the most interesting decisions are the hard ones. When you’re in a tough spot and have to make a sacrifice you don’t really want to make, or when you have to choose which undesirable outcome you’re willing to accept, to to pick between mutually-exclusive desirable outcomes. Those are the decisions that reveal the most about the character and what’s truly most important to them. So, is that a narrativist agenda? It seems to match quite cleanly with Ovinomancer’s definition of playin to find out how the character will act when push comes to shove, at least. Maybe less with EzikielRaiden’s definition of making the character feel like the protagonist - again, these agendas’ definitions seem inconsistent to me.

Furthermore, I find that the best way to create these difficult decision points is through difficulty. Specifically, gameplay difficulty, which challenges the players. The players are, after all, the ones making the decisions. To make those decision points interesting, I believe it is important for the game to have mechanical systems which create meaningful consequences for the players decisions. Is that not a gamist agenda?

To me, all of these things are interrelated. The idea that they are discrete agendas which I must juggle is nonsense to me. All of them work together to create the kind of gameplay experience that excites me, as a player and as a DM.

 

[soviet]

This thread certainly took a turn.

'It would be cool if there was a bigger effort towards inclusivity in forum discussions by explaining or avoiding jargon'.
[explanations]
'All of your concepts are stupid and the differences you seek to illuminate are only in your head. Don't discuss them in this forum.'

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

My preference is to leave it up to the player how they want to make decisions for their character. If they have a clear idea of what their character “would do” and want to play them strictly according to those principles, they are welcome to do so. If they want to play their character as an extension of themselves and do what they think they would do in the character’s place, they are welcome to do so. I firmly believe that since the player decides what their character does, whatever they decide to do is what their character “would do,” and it’s none of my business what criteria they want to use to make those decisions. Making those decisions is, in my view, the whole point of roleplaying, so I’m not about to lay down rules about what decisions a player is or is not allowed to have their character make. How do you know if you’re doing a good job? If you’re holding up your responsibilities as laid out by the rules - in the case of D&D 5e, that means stating clearly and with a reasonable degree of specificity what you want to do and how your character tries to do it. Or for the DM, describing the environment clearly and in reasonable detail, adjudicating the results of what the players say they want their characters to do fairly and in accordance with the rules, and then repeating that process.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

Different game systems will answer this question in different ways. Personally, I’m not a big fan of XP penalties or bonuses for roleplaying, nor for imposing anyone’s idea of what another player’s character “would do” on them, or shaming players for “metagaming.” So, of these options, I would prefer a system where nodding in appreciation of the roleplaying and/or the story is going. I could take or leave loss of powers - that could certainly have an impact on the way the story goes, for better or worse.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Designers who were dissatisfied with the design of contemporary RPGs talking to other designers who were dissatisfied with the design of contemporary RPGs, that is.

 

[Charlaquin]

Do you have a single example of anyone on these boards ever doing this? Where any of us have ever not defined the terminology we are using or been willing to explain and clarify how the games we bring in as examples work? It seems your solution is to just not talk about other ways to play. That's hardly the opposite of gatekeeping.

I will go ahead and say that no, I don’t personally see this happening. What I have seen is whenever one of these design jargon terms come up and someone asks for an explanation, they get a dozen different answers from half a dozen different people, none of which quite seem to match up. This is not unique to Forge jargon, but it does seem particularly characteristic of it. I suspect this is in large part because the terms get a lot of use among and by people who haven’t actually read the theory in question, and are working based on second or third hand explanations and their own assumptions.

I generally find your explanations of such concepts much clearer and more cohesive than is typical, I assume because you are actually very well-versed in the theories in question, and also quite eloquent.

 

[Aldarc]

Probably because the agendas themselves don’t resonate with a significant number of players. Or, because a significant number of players don’t perceive the same conflicts between those agendas as Edwards presented.

For example, what I enjoy most in TTRPGs, and would consider the reason I play them, is imagining myself as a character in a fictional scenario, and making decisions (especially difficult decisions!) as I imagine that character would do, or as a GM, providing opportunities for the players to do the same.

Now, the fictional word being a believable place that functions by consistent, understandable rules is, in my view, essential for players to be able to make those decisions. They have to be able to count on things working the way they would expect based on their own experience in real life, accounting for any exceptions that are specifically laid out. That seems like a pretty textbook simulationist agenda based on what I understand of GNS theory, yes?

However, that simulation is ultimately in service to the players’ ability to make meaningful decisions. I think the most interesting decisions are the hard ones. When you’re in a tough spot and have to make a sacrifice you don’t really want to make, or when you have to choose which undesirable outcome you’re willing to accept, to to pick between mutually-exclusive desirable outcomes. Those are the decisions that reveal the most about the character and what’s truly most important to them. So, is that a narrativist agenda? It seems to match quite cleanly with Ovinomancer’s definition of playin to find out how the character will act when push comes to shove, at least. Maybe less with EzikielRaiden’s definition of making the character feel like the protagonist - again, these agendas’ definitions seem inconsistent to me.

Furthermore, I find that the best way to create these difficult decision points is through difficulty. Specifically, gameplay difficulty, which challenges the players. The players are, after all, the ones making the decisions. To make those decision points interesting, I believe it is important for the game to have mechanical systems which create meaningful consequences for the players decisions. Is that not a gamist agenda?

To me, all of these things are interrelated. The idea that they are discrete agendas which I must juggle is nonsense to me. All of them work together to create the kind of gameplay experience that excites me, as a player and as a DM.

(1) GNS does suggest agendas can overlap at a number of points, such as N and S caring about how a character is portrayed with integrity. So the GNS Advocate may argue that the issue of whether your play motivations in these more aligned areas represent either Simulationism or Narrativism can be murky.

(2) I don't think that we should take disagreements about definitions as being indicative that the definitions or concepts people attempt to describe are invalid. It sometimes means simply that people have their own interpretation or understanding or ways of trying to explain things. My preference here is to instead take these differences as an invitation for further dialogue and discussion. We may use these terms differently, but I nevertheless think that it's important that we understand how we respectively use those terms. It may mean that it requires a collation of our understandings to form the meaning, but that is often how language or parole works.

(3) As I think that a core motivation for the development of GNS was attempting to explain the growing sense of (the again poorly-named) Narrativism, I would suggest that your own personal value in GNS may rest in trying to understand what N was and why many people in the Forge felt like their contemporary games failed to scratch that itch as well as how they tried to deliver that desired experience through their own game designs.

(4) As I said before, I am not really one who likes using GNS jargon in my discourse. It tends to invite a lot of heated discussions of terms, with some people bringing their other understandings from other models. For example, if we talk of Simulationism, then that may suggest either GDS or GNS models. I think that there is more practical jargon that came out of the Forge, for example, that speaks to actual gameplay principles and issues.

I am more than happy to try my hand at elucidating other jargon that pops up in TTRPG theory, as I see no reason why we should limit ourselves in this (+) thread to limit ourselves strictly to explaining GNS.