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

[John Lloyd1]

it’s a (+) thread

I've been meaning to ask, but what is a (+) thread? I haven't been able to figure it out.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I have no idea if these descriptions are accurate or not, but I would definitely say that OSR playa is more about putting characters into situations that create dilemmas than about rules-as-physics engine. Rules-as-physics is more a hallmark of 90s and 00s gaming - 3e, GURPS, and their ilk.

I respectfully disagree; OSR games are fundamentally about procedure (counting dungeon turns, wandering monster checks, resource management, etc.) and calculated risk.

Dispensing with all of that proceduralism and focusing in on the creative "MacGyver" solutions, the feeling of being in a horrible dungeon, the dilemma of whether to drop gear for gold or risk a deeper delve? That's a hallmark of NuSR games, which are an outgrowth of OSR games but very much not doing the same thing.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've been meaning to ask, but what is a (+) thread? I haven't been able to figure it out.

It’s a request by the person posting the topic to engage the topic on its own terms. If you disagree, the OP would prefer you just not engage with the thread rather than distracting from the conversation by posting just to argue with its premise.

 

[niklinna]

So essentially, what I'm gathering from this thread, is that the GNS terminology isn't just mildly misleading, it's an outright detriment to understanding the theory. If I understand this correctly…

Some of it is wildly misleading, but having read the primary texts, I don't have a problem understanding or applying it. In context.

1. "Narrativism" has nothing to do with producing narratives and everything to do with putting characters on the spot, forcing them to make tough decisions, to find out "who they really are" (i.e. the same reason that your college creative writing professor told you that every story must have a central conflict). "We explore feelings, not dungeons," to mangle an aphorism. It would be better called dilemmaism (plus something, something, no pre-planned outcomes).

I'd say that what you describe Narrativism doing has everything to do with producing a narrative—dilemmas churn out story like crazy! But, it isn't the only way to produce a narrative! I agree that Narrativism was a terrible choice (as was "Story Now"), and I like your suggested name.

2. "Simulationism" has nothing to do with game-worlds being simulations (i.e. game rules as the "physics" of the fictional world) and everything to do with ensuring that game outcomes match expected genre tropes. A game designed to produce any satisfying three-act narrative isn't narrativism, it's simulationism, because it's simulating the general framework of a story. (But games that aim for, e.g., horror movie tropes or four-color supers comics also fall under this umbrella.) This agenda would be less opaque if it were outright termed genre emulationism.

Simulationism can very much be concerned with game-worlds being simulations of physics and such, but it can also be about simulating all sorts of other things—not just genre. If the focus of play is on being true to whatever is important to the participants, and not going against that in order to make things go one's out-of-character way, that's shows a priority on Simulationism. I don't think this is a good name either, but "genre emulationism" also doesn't capture it.

3. "Gamism" is actually the agenda that prefers rules that are tight, predictable, physics-like simulations of the game-world. They don't have to hew to our reality; they just have to be verisimilitudinous enough that the participants can suspend disbelief. But rules have to put constraint on the fiction — because you can't have honest challenge if the world is unpredictable and arbitrary. We could perhaps facetiously rename this agenda to rules-not-rulingsism; but I think the more prosaic rules-as-physicsism would be less inflammatory while still being accurate enough to get the point across. (OSR-style D&D would land firmly in this camp most of the time, only drifting into simulation to the extent that some of its mechanics — like hit points, or XP-for-treasure — are deliberate attempts to replicate sword & sorcery tropes.)

Gamism doesn't need rules to be tight, predicatable, or physics-like. It needs rules to be masterable, which is helped by pure predictability but doesn't require it. Some Gamist motivations include mastering a particularly obscure, changing, or contradictory systems! Physics-like simulations, of course, belong under Simulationism, but many Gamist rules are at least grounded in such (or other subtypes of Simulationism, such as points that one can pay to generate setting-/archetype-/genre-appropriate events or actions). I don't have a problem with the name "Gamism", myself.

As for "verisimulitudinous enough", that applies to all three—without some nonzero amount of each, we don't even have a role-playing game.

My tongue-in-cheek tone aside, how am I doing?

I am actually re-reading Ron Edwards's GNS essay right now (taking a break between chapters), and I found this entertaining.

 

[Charlaquin]

I respectfully disagree; OSR games are fundamentally about procedure (counting dungeon turns, wandering monster checks, resource management, etc.) and weighing risk based on what (incomplete) information you do have.

Dispensing with all of that proceduralism and focusing on the creative solutions, the feeling of being in a horrible dungeon, the dilemma of whether to drop gear for gold or risk a deeper delve? That's a hallmark of NuSR games, which are an outgrowth of OSR games but very much not doing the same thing.

My understanding was that the procedures are a necessary component of OSR play, but not the point in and of themselves. The procedures are a means to an end, providing a mechanical framework that lends meaningful consequences to the decisions the players must make. Though, this is the first I’ve heard of “NuSR,” so maybe I got my wires crossed somewhere.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I've been meaning to ask, but what is a (+) thread? I haven't been able to figure it out.

Were you asking in good faith or are you parodying the OPs use of forum jargon in a thread about criticizing the idea of jargon?

 

[John Lloyd1]

It’s a request by the person posting the topic to engage the topic on its own terms. If you disagree, the OP would prefer you just not engage with the thread rather than distracting from the conversation by posting just to argue with its premise.

That makes sense. Thanks.

 

[John Lloyd1]

Were you asking in good faith or are you parodying the OPs use of forum jargon in a thread about criticizing the idea of jargon?

Good faith. But I get the irony.

 

[niklinna]

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.

Good catch.

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.

Technically, this wasn't GNS lumping together, since it does make a distinction under the broad category. It was @Ovinomancer not immediately specifying the correct level of distinction (he did clarify High Concept Sim later on). Even so, it's clearly an issue in how people apply GNS theory that this problem crops up repeatedly. I personally feel that the big Simulationism category captures something important about the relationships of play modes, and that our difficulty is merely reflecting an actual complication. I am reflecting on that right now and considering if there could be a way to model things that highlights the distinction between process-sim and High Concept-sim while maintaining the major contrasts. @EzekielRaiden may have some wisdom to offer, here.

(This is a particular instance of the Basic category problem, by the way. The most natural default categories do not align with the multi-level taxonomic model, and Nature is under no obligation to make them do so!)

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.

Well, your players could be sad for different reasons and I could actually go into all the GNS detail of that, but in this case, it's pretty obvious that it isn't even necessary. You know they'd be sad so you're not going to ruin their fun. (And certain gamers would be upset if they found out you had more bad guys in the script but decided not to send them in. Presumably you can relate that to a GNS agenda—or specific sub-agenda—and know whether your players would prefer you do send them in.)

 

[Campbell]

I think the largest issue we face in these conversations is that for the most substantial chunk of players what The Forge called High Concept Simulation (exploration of character and setting for its own sake) takes such a large and predominant role that it practically defines what roleplaying games are for that chunk. To the point where much of that audience only really processes other play agendas almost entirely through the prism of character and setting exploration. The model basically has no explanatory power because all the play they have ever experienced or will ever want to experience fits solidly within a single quadrant of the model.

In terms of typical play this includes Pathfinder, D&D 5e, Vampire, Shadowrun. Even some games many consider "narrative" games like FATE, Night's Black Agents, Swords of Serpentine, Dune all solidly fit here.

It's such a monumentally large part of the play space (in terms of play time but not conceptually) compared to the games that aren't so focused on exploration for its own sake that it can easily feel like the model does not adequately capture the diversity of their play.