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

[Ovinomancer]

It felt like some of the posts about rpg theory sounded like people choose/like/prioritize things based on a single over-riding agenda. I don't think that's true for just about anything. It feels like, at the least, people have a bunch of bumpers/ranges/borders on many/most other axes that come in to play that can definitively exclude some choices.

The agendas in GNS are intentionally broad, and the analysis speaks to which one has precedence in a given moment. If you sit down to the table, and you think the goal is to solve the puzzles the GM provides but Bob over there is busy powergaming and trying to crush everything and grumbling at people for not pulling their weight in combat, then there's an issue, right? This is an obvious example, sure, but one that's come up quite a few times on these very boards as an issue at the table. An that problem is that these people have different agendas. GNS says that the people looking to experience the setting via play, to solve the puzzles it provides, are engaged in Simulationism. Bob is clearly involved in Gamism. He wants to win. If the immediate response to "wants to win" is " you can't win D&D," then, well, you're answering from a different overriding agenda.

But, the above doesn't mean that the puzzle solvers don't get a kick out of a good combat. They very well may, or some of them may, or maybe one of them tolerates it to get back to what they like. This is the overlap, where people entertain more than one agenda. But, only one can really be fed at a time. You cannot have a D&D game where Joe and Debbie are wanting to talk to all the shopkeepers but Bob is bored so he starts a fight so he can drag the game to what he likes and call this coherent at the table -- that things are not cohering together is the problem!

Mostly, though, people are not this aggressive. But, how many times have you gotten through with a session that dealt with a type of play you find tedious but others were really digging?

And so the person whose overwhelming thing they like about movies is Popcorn (or cinematography or costuming or the acting) might avoid a slasher or soft-core movie regardless of how good it was on the popcorn/cinematography/costuming/acting. The person who likes the social aspects of gaming might near-equally enjoy tons of games (board or card or RPG) but not even consider Monopoly or Titan or War or Bridge or Tales of Equestria or Phoenix Command.

Popcorn is NOT a thing you like about movies. It's entirely orthogonal to movies. It's perhaps part of an experience in going to a theater, and maybe the reason you go to theaters is that they have that popcorn you like, but the movie has nothing to do with it. This is still a red herring. We're talking about RPGs, and how they play. If you only show up to game night because of snacks, then what you play isn't at all important. So long as there are snacks, you'll be happy playing Monopoly, if that's really your only motivation.

I find it odd that you start by saying that theory bins people in absolute boxes (which it doesn't, it speaks to priorities) but here are doing the same thing, just with popcorn.

It certainly feels useful/interesting/fun to me to discuss what those more prominent axes might be. It seems actively counterproductive to me to claim too much about them.

Okay. You say there's too much claimed. I don't agree, and that's because I can use the theory as a lens to look at play (my own play) and at threads that show up here at ENW, and it has explanatory power. It's not everything, but it's a very effective tool.

----

Where does genre come in?

Totally orthogonal. Have fun. I don't have a relevant theory of genre. I like lots of different genres. When I play an RPGs with different genres, though, GNS is still applicable because it's not at all looking at genre in it's analysis. Changing genres doesn't create issues for GNS. Honestly, a theory that talks about RPGs and how they're are played that is sensitive to genre seems like a very odd duck. Do you have any examples?

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Sure, but if everyone at the table is playing to experience these moments, then you know they will be appreciated.

 

[niklinna]

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.

I said "few tools", not "no tools". I also explicitly said GNS isn't the only theory or model, leaving ample space for theories and models well before and after it, whether formal or informal.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The agendas in GNS are intentionally broad, and the analysis speaks to which one has precedence in a given moment. If you sit down to the table, and you think the goal is to solve the puzzles the GM provides but Bob over there is busy powergaming and trying to crush everything and grumbling at people for not pulling their weight in combat, then there's an issue, right? This is an obvious example, sure, but one that's come up quite a few times on these very boards as an issue at the table. An that problem is that these people have different agendas. GNS says that the people looking to experience the setting via play, to solve the puzzles it provides, are engaged in Simulationism. Bob is clearly involved in Gamism. He wants to win. If the immediate response to "wants to win" is " you can't win D&D," then, well, you're answering from a different overriding agenda.

But, the above doesn't mean that the puzzle solvers don't get a kick out of a good combat. They very well may, or some of them may, or maybe one of them tolerates it to get back to what they like. This is the overlap, where people entertain more than one agenda. But, only one can really be fed at a time. You cannot have a D&D game where Joe and Debbie are wanting to talk to all the shopkeepers but Bob is bored so he starts a fight so he can drag the game to what he likes and call this coherent at the table -- that things are not cohering together is the problem!

Yes, different people can have different preference. It's just GNS is kind of crap way of articulating those differences. I appreciate good dose of simulationism (both kinds under GNS,) but I am not a huge fan of puzzles in RPGs.

And I don't think most puzzles are even simulationistic. I read some 5e supplement that had a lot of puzzles. Solutions to those relied mostly on word games and letters using English language, which the characters in the setting do not speak! I'd characterise most of such puzzles as gamist, as they're mostly challenges to the players, pretty much detached from the faithful depiction or modelling of the fictional world. Yet, I don't think that we could predict based on that that our kill happy munchkin from your example would be fond of such puzzles!

 

[Ovinomancer]

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?

Let me put this in a different way.

You're running 5e. The party is engaged in a combat. They're doing poorly, due to a terrible run of dice, and cannot take much more. Maybe they can win through the current opposition, but it's dicey. However, the encounter budget for this fight includes two more foes, and they're slated to enter combat next round from an adjacent room. This will almost certainly result in a TPK. Do you send them in or quietly take them off the table?

If you send them in, you're choosing to prioritize gamism. This is the challenge that was fairly created, fairly entered, and fairly played. You're going to play the game, and let the outcome be what it is based on that alone.

If you take them off the table, you're choosing to prioritize simulationism. Not being pulped is more fun, and you're going to employ a cause/effect schema the encourage that fun by manipulating the causes prior to entry. What's on your prep is not important, what's in the game is, and if you take the additional foes out, then you're preserving the play in the mode that you think everyone wants more. (This is High Concept Sim, where the effective cause effect is the abstract concepts of storytelling and fun -- this tells a better story).

This kind of thing happens all the time in D&D games. And you cannot serve both in this moment, you have to choose.

 

[overgeeked]

I said "few tools", not "no tools". I also explicitly said GNS isn't the only theory or model, leaving ample space for theories and models well before and after it, whether formal or informal.

Again, explicitly not true. "Few" is just as wrong as "no". Designers and players have always been inventing and reinventing RPG theory since at least the mid-to-late '60s, and pieces of it go as far back as 1812. The conversation did not start with The Forge. The Forge did not invent these tools. It's entirely repetitive of what's gone before, it simply supplied new names to some very, very old concepts. The Forge is certainly the first place many modern gamers had heard about these concepts, but in no way did The Forge invent them nor was RPG theory deficient prior to The Forge. "Those who don't study the past are doomed to repeat it." Gamers ignored their past, The Forge simply repeated what was already there.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, different people can have different preference. It's just GNS is kind of crap way of articulating those differences. I appreciate good dose of simulationism (both kinds under GNS,) but I am not a huge fan of puzzles in RPGs.

Puzzles are not the only thing... or a required thing? Example is not entirety of concept?

And I don't think most puzzles are even simulationistic. I read some 5e supplement that had a lot of puzzles. Solutions to those relied mostly on word games and letters using English language, which the characters in the setting do not speak! I'd characterise most of such puzzles as gamist, as they're mostly challenges to the players, pretty much detached from the faithful depiction or modelling of the fictional world. Yet, I don't think that we could predict based on that that our kill happy munchkin from your example would be fond of such puzzles!

"What's over that hill over there?" is a puzzle. You can solve it by climbing the hill, and then the GM will tell you the answer. I was using puzzle extremely broadly, to describe the kind of play where players prompt the GM to tell them things about the setting by taking actions to cause this. A poor choice, apparently.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Again, explicitly not true. "Few" is just as wrong as "no". Designers and players have always been inventing and reinventing RPG theory since at least the mid-to-late '60s, and pieces of it go as far back as 1812. The conversation did not start with The Forge. The Forge did not invent these tools. It's entirely repetitive of what's gone before, it simply supplied new names to some very, very old concepts. The Forge is certainly the first place many modern gamers had heard about these concepts, but in no way did The Forge invent them nor was RPG theory deficient prior to The Forge. "Those who don't study the past are doomed to repeat it." Gamers ignored their past, The Forge simply repeated what was already there.

This is not a good take. Humans have been making advancements for millenia prior to the formulation of the scientific method, but that doesn't mean that the scientific method hasn't been the toolset of the greatest and most rapid set of discoveries in the history of humankind. That you can improve does not, in any way, suggest that a new tool doesn't improve the rate and quality of improvement. At it's core, the logical foundation of your argument is very badly flawed.

That said, FK wasn't an RPG. And I'm not sure what 60's era RPGs you're referring to, because I'm unaware of any. You seem to be looking at a form of wargaming and ascribing an RPG title to it. But there are significant details that cut against this ascribing. There's a reason that pretty much everyone points to OD&D as the birth of RPGs. It did a new thing.

 

[niklinna]

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.

Isn't that precisely a situation where you have to choose one over the other, though? This matches pretty well with my earlier example about the samurai faced with saving an innocent or losing his cool sword powers (merely for the sake of having them to kick butt). To me, "winning moves" speaks to a GNS Gamist agenda, and what your character "would do" to either a GNS Narrativist or GNS (High Concept) Simuilationist agenda (need more info to distinguish...which appears to be coming up!). Your decision hinges on which of the two is most important to you—in that moment. It can change from dilemma to dilemma, but each dilemma must be resolved one way or the other.

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.

These all sound like GNS Narrativist concerns, where you have to decide based on the fictional consequences which of your character's conflicting goals/ideals you can honor in a given moment.

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?

Your experience seems coherent, in the GNS sense. Everything is framed in Narrativist terms.

To give a possible example of different GNS agendas in contrast—keeping in mind that I myself am not 100% convinced agendas are necessarily exclusive, even in the moment—what if you cared greatly about getting the most XP possible from the encounter (prototypically Gamist), but that solution to the situation would go against your idea of who your character is (Narrativist or Simulationist, depending)?

Ah, but what if what your character would really do does happen to net you the most XP possible? Then we have supposedly incoherent agendas in alignment! Win, win! But the theory isn't actually about that, it's about, when the agendas don't happen to align—which is probably more often the case—which one determines your decision?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You're running 5e. The party is engaged in a combat. They're doing poorly, due to a terrible run of dice, and cannot take much more. Maybe they can win through the current opposition, but it's dicey. However, the encounter budget for this fight includes two more foes, and they're slated to enter combat next round from an adjacent room. This will almost certainly result in a TPK. Do you send them in or quietly take them off the table?

If you send them in, you're choosing to prioritize gamism. This is the challenge that was fairly created, fairly entered, and fairly played. You're going to play the game, and let the outcome be what it is based on that alone.

Sure.

If you take them off the table, you're choosing to prioritize simulationism.

No! If we care about simulationism, then we send them in! We want to present the world coherently and model it consistently. And representing the world with integrity means we send the reinforcements in.

Not being pulped is more fun, and you're going to employ a cause/effect schema the encourage that fun by manipulating the causes prior to entry. What's on your prep is not important, what's in the game is, and if you take the additional foes out, then you're preserving the play in the mode that you think everyone wants more. (This is High Concept Sim, where the effective cause effect is the abstract concepts of storytelling and fun -- this tells a better story).

Right, caring about story might do that. Except if the story we want is one where a Red Wedding style shocking TPK is a good thing! So even within the one sub-agenda we won't necessarily end up with the same conclusion. And this is made worse by GNS just lumping it together with an agenda with completely different priorities.

This kind of thing happens all the time in D&D games. And you cannot serve both in this moment, you have to choose.

These things happen. It's just GNS is a bad way to articulate the reasons. Like what GNS agenda is "I don't send the reinforcements, as that would cause a TPK, and my friends who really like their characters would be sad and I don't want that?" Because that's the most common reason for not sending in the extra foes.