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

[niklinna]

Ok, so you’ve just used all three agendas, and both forms of the one that might be too broad, to describe the gameplay experience I’m seeking. Is it any wonder I don’t find the theory terribly resonant?

Yes, I did. You put forward a situation that encompasses those three (sub-)agendas, so I was trying to characterize the way in which it does so. If you want to talk about multiple agendas being compatible at the same time (or not), then we have to talk about multiple agendas coming up at the same time.

But it isn’t just based on the fictional consequences, it’s also the mechanical consequences. It has to be, otherwise it isn’t really a meaningful decision. If I’m just choosing which way I want my character’s story to go, I haven’t really learned anything. It’s only when the consequences are really felt that the decision has weight. I cannot separate the gamism from the natrativism here; the gameplay procedures give weight to the decisions I make for the character.

GNS Gamist doesn't merely mean there are mechanics. There are mechanics of some kind in all three agendas/play modes—otherwise it wouldn't even be a role-playing game. Gamism is about "winning" in some measurable sense outside the game fiction: gaining XP, leveling up, that kind of thing.

But even then, a meaningful decision doesn't have to involve mechanics. If your character faces a dilemma that will result in one person or another dying depending on your choice, purely through verbal description (which some games do), there are no mechanics, just shared knowledge that one or the other character is now dead.

And earlier Ovinomancer said my gameplay priorities seemed like pure similationism. Something is amiss.

I don't know the context for that, but lacking particular info, I can easily see someone making that classifcation. You specifically pointed out that you want to face dilemmas that require deciding between different values of your character: You can't have it both ways, one value will have to be compromised in order to preserve the other. That's the very nut of GNS Narrativist play.

If, on the other hand, you want your character to express the general behavior and style of a samurai, or an eccentric wizard, or a plucky halfling; if in a given situation, the answer for how to act is clear because only one value is challenged; that is GNS High Concept Simulationist. It's a fine base in which to embed moments of Gamist or Narrativist play, and they may even align, quite often (as you correctly countered my comment). But they are different, and a game that really leans into Narrativist play with many such moments, particularly when they fall one directly into another—feels very different from a game that uses more High Concept Simulationist moments.

That’s exactly the point though! The conflict between those things is my agenda. I want to have to choose between the XP award and my character’s ideals, because that reveals whether the character truly lives up to those ideals when it counts. I don’t just want to choose whether my character follows their heart or gives into greed from a detached perspective, I want to feel that dilemma, which means the reward I have to sacrifice to uphold those ideals needs to affect me!

Sounds to me like you want GNS agendas pitted against one another, so that you have to pick one or the other. That seems perfectly fine and within the scope of the model. It's kind of a meta-agenda, actually.

And, sure, maybe sometimes that’s the case. That can feel rewarding, when the character’s wants and needs and the gameplay rewards are aligned. A healthy mix of dilemma and reward, catharsis and abnegation keeps the game dynamic and engaging.

I agree.

I disagree that it’s more often the case, is the thing. Most of the time, challenging gameplay supports a desire for character exploration, and a sense of internal consistency supports the decision-making process, at least for me.

Yeah, I think you got me on that one.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Okay.

Why does practicality matter? What end does this practicality serve? In its usage guide for the term, Dictionary.com says: "Practical suggests the ability to adopt means to an end or to turn what is at hand to account: to adopt practical measures for settling problems." So, what are the ends pursued by these three "practical considerations"?

You're overanalysing. It is not really about the game, it is about efficient use of free time.

"I don't want my friends to be upset" would seem to have "ensuring my friends are happy, or at least not unhappy" as its end. As stated above, this seems to be a "Genre Sim" (or, as I put it, "Conceit and Emulation") end.

So by that logic bringing crisps and candy to the game is Conceit and Emulation? Because I do it to make my friends happy?

"Don't split the party for long periods of time" would seem to have "improve the party's chance of success (often specifically success at surviving)" as its end. This can vary in precisely why that end is relevant, e.g. a character could have mother-hen type Values and thus face an Issue when some motive encourages the party to separate, but in general, I find that this end is almost always Gamist in nature; "don't split the party!" is a maxim touted completely out of character in most cases, a "standard operating procedure" rather than an ethos or an in-world proposition (though after it is posed out of character, a player may choose to insert it in-character as well.)

"Try to avoid excessive PVP" seems to resemble the first point. Too much PVP results in players having a bad time. What qualifies as "too much" depends on the kind of experience the players wish to have, but in each case the concern is fun for its own sake (that is, "don't permit too much PVP, because it won't be fun.") Some Conceits don't admit any PVP at all, e.g. Star Trek generally disallowed internal strife between the crew until Gene Roddenberry was no longer able to control the story. Others welcome quite a lot, e.g. early D&D with Sir Fang the vampire getting taken down by the intentionally Van Helsing-like Cleric (and in the process unintentionally laying down an orthodoxy of how a certain archetype Should Be Made No Matter What). Where one falls on that will depend on the specific Conceit one is pursuing, but whether or not (and if so, much) PVP is permitted in the first place seems pretty clearly in this camp.

Yes those could be other reasons for avoiding those things. But not the reason I stated, which is practical considerations for effective use of the limited gaming time. Running several solo games while other players wait and do nothing is not effective use of gaming time, thus it is avoided.

(This, incidentally, is another great reason why I separate "Genre Sim" from "Process Sim." Process Sim doesn't give a rat's gluteals about whether or not PVP occurs, just that if it does it follows naturalistic reasoning. Genre Sim, on the other hand, is very much concerned about it. My "Values and Issues" category is ambivalent about PVP, it all depends on  why the PVP is happening. Conversely, "Score and Achievement" is almost always going to fall cleanly on one side or the other: either no PVP because this is a cooperative game guys and internal strife will screw the team over, or totally open to PVP because this is at least in part a competitive game, gimme your best shot.)

Yes, makes sense.

 

[pemerton]

In light of the tone and aggressive, incredulous oriented challenge of the first post.

In light of post 2 which is a passive-aggressive hit-piece without the courtesy of @-ing the people being public attacked (note…not reported!).

<snip>

What do you think the (+) is for in this thread JohnLloyd1 of the internet?

My impression, based on a quick skim of this thread, is that it's purpose is to celebrate playing D&D and to decry anyone playing non-high concept sim RPGs.

Did I miss anything?

 

[niklinna]

If your hypothetical individual chooses to not avail themselves of theory, it’s their choice. As I said in the post you quoted. Also odd that you felt the need to give me a lesson about English and hypotheticals when I used that exact construction in the quote of mine you included with your post. Either way, tschüss.

After ignoring mine when it was convenient for you to accuse me of a raft of statements I neither made nor even implied.

Indeed, hyvästi.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure.


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.

Which part of "encounter budget" is presenting the world coherently and modelling it consistently? It's a meta-concept, about structuring challenge in a fair way, not about presenting the world at all. So, the example is about encounter budget requiring the extras, not anything about the world. Take another look.

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.

Yes, yes, "you point is invalid! Look, I completely changed your example and it proves you wrong!" I mean, are we going to do this again?

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.

High Concept Simulationism. The overriding internal cause here is a good story. TPKs are considered unfun, bad stories in this approach.

And, full disclosure, I've 100% pulled punches like this. I'm describing play I engage in. I've even codified it in a "your PC cannot die unless you say so, if they would die, something else happens instead," houserule. I'm not describing play I don't engage in to denigrate it or anything at all. This is a 100% perfectly fine approach to play!

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, I did. You put forward a situation that encompasses those three (sub-)agendas, so I was trying to characterize the way in which it does so. If you want to talk about multiple agendas being compatible at the same time (or not), then we have to talk about multiple agendas coming up at the same time.

Right, but isn’t them working in concert contrary to what the theory claims?

GNS Gamist doesn't merely mean there are mechanics. There are mechanics of some kind in all three agendas/play modes—otherwise it wouldn't even be a role-playing game. Gamism is about "winning" in some measurable sense outside the game fiction: gaining XP, leveling up, that kind of thing.

No, I know gamism doesn’t just mean mechanics. The point is, I do want there to be a way to measure progress or something you can “win” at, because that provides a goal for players, which obstacles can be placed in the way of, to generate conflict. The desire for victory drives the revelation of character. Gamism and Narrativism, intrinsically linked, working in concert to make (what I find to be) more compelling gameplay than either on its own.

But even then, a meaningful decision doesn't have to involve mechanics. If your character faces a dilemma that will result in one person or another dying depending on your choice, purely through verbal description (which some games do), there are no mechanics, just shared knowledge that one or the other character is now dead.

Well, character death is also a mechanical consequence, but to your underlying point that Narrativist dilemmas don’t have to involve mechanical consequences… I know. That’s why I don’t think Narrativism as described in GNS adequately captures the kind of dilemmas I’m interested in. Yet, the dilemma is the driving factor for me. Ergo, GNS fails for me as a model.

I don't know the context for that, but lacking particular info, I can easily see someone making that classifcation. You specifically pointed out that you want to face dilemmas that require deciding between different values of your character: You can't have it both ways, one value will have to be compromised in order to preserve the other. That's the very nut of GNS Narrativist play.

If, on the other hand, you want your character to express the general behavior and style of a samurai, or an eccentric wizard, or a plucky halfling; if in a given situation, the answer for how to act is clear because only one value is challenged; that is GNS High Concept Simulationist. It's a fine base in which to embed moments of Gamist or Narrativist play, and they may even align, quite often (as you correctly countered my comment). But they are different, and a game that really leans into Narrativist play with many such moments, particularly when they fall one directly into another—feels very different from a game that uses more High Concept Simulationist moments.

You lost me. What I said I want is the very nut of narrativist play, but you can easily see why someone would classify it as pure simulationism? And those things fall directly into one another but feel very different from each other?

Sounds to me like you want GNS agendas pitted against one another, so that you have to pick one or the other. That seems perfectly fine and within the scope of the model. It's kind of a meta-agenda, actually.

But isn’t one of the central claims of GNS that this would be incoherent??

 

[Ovinomancer]

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…

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).

Yes. This is the worst named of the three, 100%, terribad and confusing. Even the alternative name "Story Now" still has story in it.

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.

Not quite, no. Simulationism is broken into two smaller camps. High Concept Sim, where the simulation is of genre tropes or a storyline, and so the internal cause mechanisms are tied to enforcing those. And then there is process sim, which is more like "physics" of the game rules, where the internal cause is rooted in the system and produces clear cause and effect chains. Really the difference is if the simulation engine is the system (process sim) or the GM (high concept sim). 5e strongly supports HCS, doesn't support process sim at all.

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.)

No, verisimilitude is orthogonal to gamism. You can have it or not, doesn't matter. What matters is the tight, gameable system that routinely produces challenge and has ways of keeping score, even if that's just bragging rights. If you're leaning hard into skilled play, you're engaged in gamism. 5e supports this weakly, mostly because it tends to provide overwhelming tools that obviate challenge instead of giving levers.

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

Pretty good. I'd give it a B, maybe B- if I'm grumpy.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok, so once again, the idea that these things can come into conflict is a big ‘ol “Yeah… so what?” The notion I take issue with is that they will always come into conflict; that they cannot be satisfied simultaneously. Also, what if my reasoning for sending them in is that the way I’ve set up the world means that’s the most logical and internally-consistent thing to happen? Isn’t that simulationism? What if my reasoning for taking them out is that I made a miscalculation in building the encounter and it’s not a fair challenge, but I realized this and want to correct the mistake? Is that not gamism? Seems like either decision could be framed either way, which doesn’t speak well of the consistency of this theory.

Yes, you've said this quite often, but have yet to demonstrate it. It's a circle. People point out that these things actually do conflict, show examples of them conflicting, and you say "sure, that's an example, but it doesn't have to be that way." Great. Show us an example of it not being that way.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Which part of "encounter budget" is presenting the world coherently and modelling it consistently? It's a meta-concept, about structuring challenge in a fair way, not about presenting the world at all. So, the example is about encounter budget requiring the extras, not anything about the world. Take another look.

That may be the original reason the NPCs in question are created. But now they are part of the setting, and they have motivation to enter the battle. So to play the setting with integrity, they must!

Yes, yes, "you point is invalid! Look, I completely changed your example and it proves you wrong!" I mean, are we going to do this again?

I didn't change anything. It's just that the connections between decisions and agendas you're trying to make do not hold up to scrutiny. You said high concept simulation demands to belay the reinforcements and save the characters, but this of course is not true, it would completely depend on the concept being simulated.

High Concept Simulationism. The overriding internal cause here is a good story. TPKs are considered unfun, bad stories in this approach.

Nah. You're overanalysing. People often don't like when their characters die, because they're attached to them. And of course death of a character can make a good story.

And, full disclosure, I've 100% pulled punches like this. I'm describing play I engage in. I've even codified it in a "your PC cannot die unless you say so, if they would die, something else happens instead," houserule. I'm not describing play I don't engage in to denigrate it or anything at all. This is a 100% perfectly fine approach to play!

I didn't think you were denigrating it. Nor I was advocating for such an approach, it was just an example.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, you've said this quite often, but have yet to demonstrate it. It's a circle. People point out that these things actually do conflict, show examples of them conflicting, and you say "sure, that's an example, but it doesn't have to be that way." Great. Show us an example of it not being that way.

I’ve been providing plenty of examples of them working in concert. See my several posts now about using gameplay structures to give consequence to character decisions.