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

[Campbell]

@Charlaquin

I'm basically seeing an argument that trad does everything as well or better than other sorts of play. Is that really what you are trying to put forward?

Basically the implication that is being made her and elsewhere is that people who play and run other sorts of games are wasting their damn time. That our decades of experience and practice count for nothing. That our inability to get the experiences we were looking for comes down to user error.

It basically feels like no matter how willing I am to give trad play its flowers there's a concerted effort to not even give a damn inch to other sorts of play as providing any value that is not provided in trad. Basically indie gamers are wasting their time. OSR gamers are wasting their time. Don't they realize they could have everything everywhere all at once?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think a very basic way to convey the idea of competing priorities is when it makes sense for a character to go off on their own.

Some games/groups allow for this. Others want the group to stay together (“don’t split the party”). Even if it absolutely makes sense in every other way for the character to go off on their own.

Does this mean that a game that wants to keep the party together is never concerned with how characters would behanve? No, of course not. It just means that in that moment when it comes to a decision…the character can go off on their own because they have a valid reason to do so, or can remain with the others to facilitate group play…. the priority is on group play.

It’s the decision point where priorotes compete and one wins out. But over the course of an entire game, different priorites may win at different decision points.

 

[Yora]

I do in fact believe that RPGs have been hampered and held back from their full potential as a medium for the past 40 years by a fundamental misunderstanding that has become the mainstream assumption of what RPGs are supposed to be.

Agency has become an embelishment to epic stories that is thought of fondly but needs to be shoved aside most of the time for practical reasons, instead of epic stories being the product of agency. I do believe that people have been "satisfied" with RPG for all those decades because the potential of RPGs being more than that has stopped being actively considered.

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin

I'm basically seeing an argument that trad does everything as well or better than other sorts of play. Is that really what you are trying to put forward?

No, not at all (and not only because the play style I’m trying to describe is more closely aligned with what Cultures of Play would call Classic or OSR than what it would call Trad). I’m saying that none of the GNS agendas seem to describe the appeal of that style of play, and in fact they seem to set up multiple aspects of its appeal as incoherent with one another.

Basically the implication that is being made her and elsewhere is that people who play and run other sorts of games are wasting their damn time. That our decades of experience and practice count for nothing. That our inability to get the experiences we were looking for comes down to user error.

Again, that’s definitely not my intent. I understand and appreciate that other styles of play deliver something that Classic and Old-School do not*. I even find that I enjoy Narrativist / Story Game play, in a way that is distinct from what I enjoy in more Classic / Old School play. What I’m saying is that I think GNS poorly describes the reasons for this difference of appeal.

*side-note: is it mixing metaphors to use Cultures of Play jargon to contextualize GNS jargon?

It basically feels like no matter how willing I am to give trad play its flowers there's a concerted effort to not even give a damn inch to other sorts of play as providing any value that is not provided in trad.

Oh, no, I definitely think there’s a lot of value in what we might call Narrativist play, and I apologize if I’ve given the impression that I don’t. I have no beef with the play style or the games designed for it, and if nothing else, I think GNS does deserve recognition for opening the door for the development of that style of play. Again, I’ll point to my Freud analogy. GNS seems to me to occupy a very similar space in game design as Freud does in psychology - as a theory that in retrospect is pretty off-base, but is nonetheless very important as some of the earliest work in the field which paved the way for later, better theories.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think a very basic way to convey the idea of competing priorities is when it makes sense for a character to go off on their own.

Some games/groups allow for this. Others want the group to stay together (“don’t split the party”). Even if it absolutely makes sense in every other way for the character to go off on their own.

Does this mean that a game that wants to keep the party together is never concerned with how characters would behanve? No, of course not. It just means that in that moment when it comes to a decision…the character can go off on their own because they have a valid reason to do so, or can remain with the others to facilitate group play…. the priority is on group play.

It’s the decision point where priorotes compete and one wins out. But over the course of an entire game, different priorites may win at different decision points.

Yeah, again, the idea that play priorities can conflict with one another sometimes is… pretty obvious. It’s any stronger version of this, like that people with different priorities can’t have a coherent gameplay experience together that falls flat for me.

 

[Campbell]

Yeah, again, the idea that play priorities can conflict with one another sometimes is… pretty obvious. It’s any stronger version of this, like that people with different priorities can’t have a coherent gameplay experience together that falls flat for me.

I can only speak to my own experience on this score. I want to feel confident, supported and appreciated for my play and to do the same for those I play with. When I don't know from moment to moment what we're all striving for I feel very conflicted personally. Especially when it comes to more personal play if I'm not confident someone is going to bring the right sort of energy I'm just not going to go there. If I make a big play and people don't appreciate it at the table that ruins the entire point from my perspective.

When play revolves around overcoming challenges I personally feel deeply conflicted about choosing between what makes sense for what makes sense for my character to do and what would lead to success. I don't want to a burden on the team, but I want to go to that more personal place. That's tough stuff.

It's this kind of stuff that I'm speaking to when I talk about coherency. Feeling rewarded and appreciated for the contributions you are bringing.

 

[niklinna]

Yeah, again, the idea that play priorities can conflict with one another sometimes is… pretty obvious. It’s any stronger version of this, like that people with different priorities can’t have a coherent gameplay experience together that falls flat for me.

Here we hit the jargon issue again though. "Coherence" in GNS theory literally, only means that priorites are the same, and "incoherence" that they differ. It does assert—most explicitly—that no single moment or decision can have two agendas be equally prior. Unfortunately, as I've pointed out several times, stuff like this gets reified into describing a whole person or a whole game (or at least game session).

This doesn't mean people with different priorities can't play in a game together and have fun (a more generic sense of "coherence"). Clearly a session that devotes 90% of time to Gamist moments is going to be unsatisfying to a player who wants 90% Narrativist moments. It follows from this that if players do have prominent preferences (say 80% time spent at one, 15% at another, 5% at the third—assuming three only for sake of example), and those preferences don't align, there are going to be some issues. Even that assumes people's preferences are fixed and don't change with time or context, of course.

All that said, though, if you have no theory or model of this stuff, and the problem does occur (and the problem does occur, in my own experience and in that of friends and folks I read online), you have few tools with which to address it. GNS isn't the only theory or model, of course, but it does speak explicitly to the problem of players coming into conflict over creative agenda/interests. It gives us tools to look at a game or situation and evaluate ahead of time how much we're likely to enjoy it, or how we can change it to be more enjoyable.

It also gives designers cognitive tools to create games that deliberately blend apparently conflicting agendas. Blades in the Dark does a great job of weaving together GNS Narrativist/"Story Now" play with GNS Gamist/"Step On Up" play, bobbing back and forth between the two, sometimes from moment to moment—but at any moment, it's clear which of the two is going on. 5e does something similar on a chunkier timescale when you move from general role-play into combat. Combat clearly prioritizes Gamist moments, but it doesn't exclude moments of the other kinds. You can have a conversation while exchanging blows, or face the moral dilemma of an innocent coming into harm's way mid-fight—but both are embedded in a heck of a lot of to-hit & damage rolls and saving throws.

 

[Charlaquin]

I can only speak to my own experience on this score. I want to feel confident, supported and appreciated for my play and to do the same for those I play with. When I don't know from moment to moment what we're all striving for I feel very conflicted personally. Especially when it comes to more personal play if I'm not confident someone is going to bring the right sort of energy I'm just not going to go there. If I make a big play and people don't appreciate it at the table that ruins the entire point from my perspective.

When play revolves around overcoming challenges I personally feel deeply conflicted about choosing between what makes sense for what makes sense for my character to do and what would lead to success. I don't want to a burden on the team, but I want to go to that more personal place. That's tough stuff.

It's this kind of stuff that I'm speaking to when I talk about coherency. Feeling rewarded and appreciated for the contributions you are bringing.

I can see that, but I don’t think that’s a universal experience by any means. Can these goals lead to such conflict? Of course. Do they necessarily?

To try and describe my own agenda, I want to put my character (or the players’ characters when DMing) into situations where they must make difficult decisions, so as to reveal something interesting about the character(s). These moments where the “winning move” and what I imagine my character “would do” are in conflict are exactly the experience I’m seeking from the game. They force me to decide between my character’s ideals and their immediate material concerns. What I imagine the character would do is one thing, but what I decide to make them do is what they would really do, because it’s what they did. This teaches us something about the character. Do they stick to their ideals when doing so has negative consequences for themselves and/or their companions, or do they compromise? By forcing me to make this difficult decision, we find out what the character would really do, and then I must update my conception of the character to account for that new information. Did they do it for their own personal gain? For fear of failure? To seek earn their companions’ approval? In this way, the character develops organically through play. I am constantly learning new things about my own character.

So, what may be an “incoherent” experience for you is my Play Agenda. Does that help shed some light on why GNS doesn’t resonate with me?

 

[Campbell]

I'm speaking mostly to the social freedom and appreciation of the people I am playing with when I make those moves (rather than the fictional consequences which I am more than fine with). There's nothing I hate more than having to read the room in those moments to see if I can do the thing I want to do without annoying the people I'm playing with. Instead I want those dramatic moments to be appreciated.

 

[overgeeked]

All that said, though, if you have no theory or model of this stuff, and the problem does occur (and the problem does occur, in my own experience and in that of friends and folks I read online), you have few tools with which to address it. GNS isn't the only theory or model, of course, but it does speak explicitly to the problem of players coming into conflict over creative agenda/interests. It gives us tools to look at a game or situation and evaluate ahead of time how much we're likely to enjoy it, or how we can change it to be more enjoyable.

It also gives designers cognitive tools to create games that deliberately blend apparently conflicting agendas. Blades in the Dark does a great job of weaving together GNS Narrativist/"Story Now" play with GNS Gamist/"Step On Up" play, bobbing back and forth between the two, sometimes from moment to moment—but at any moment, it's clear which of the two is going on. 5e does something similar on a chunkier timescale when you move from general role-play into combat. Combat clearly prioritizes Gamist moments, but it doesn't exclude moments of the other kinds. You can have a conversation while exchanging blows, or face the moral dilemma of an innocent coming into harm's way mid-fight—but both are embedded in a heck of a lot of to-hit & damage rolls and saving throws.

That’s explicitly not true. The wargames that RPGs are partially based on were invented in 1812. Dozens of what we’d recognize as RPGs were invented before D&D. Designers and players of these games have always addressed these exact same issues and had no trouble addressing them for their lack of pre-established theory. We’ve been inventing and reinventing RPG theory since the beginning. The Forge just happened to be the first to be semi-recognized since the advent of the internet. It put forth nothing original. The zines in the ’60s and ’70s had much the same debates and discussions.