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

[Crimson Longinus]

This isn't supporting simulationism, though. If it's part of the scenario, which was built using the tools to balance and ensure good challenge, then it's supporting gamism.

In your world where things can be only about one thing, perhaps.

I'm having a bit of trouble with the defense of a meta introduction of content being zealously defended as playing the setting with integrity -- when did this integrity start?

If it is determined (even in the GMs vision of the setting) that these NPCs exist in the next room, and they have motivation to intervene, then honest simulation of the world demands that they do.

No, you totally changed the example to a "Red Wedding" story.

I used Red Wedding as an example, that unexpected mass death of main chractewrs necessarily isn't bad storytelling. Or at least that not everyone considers it as such. I did not change the events, merely the high concept lens which we loo them trough.

Um, I say that it's a story people like more when their characters don't die, and you say, no, that's overanalyzing, people just don't like their characters to die because they like the story that's being told around them. No one said anything prior to this about death being a good story (although, given this scenarios, that death is going to up to the GM and not the player, so....).

I don't understand what you're saying here. People can have other reasons to not want their character to die than the story. Also, some people might like a story where their characters die.

Want to make clear that I'm not suggesting this kind of play is badwrong. It's not. Pointing out what people want to get out of play should be something we can examine in the open without concern that an agenda is going to be mocked or ridiculed. That's not what this is about.

Right. No one's "agenda" is being ridiculed. But this is doesn't mean that the theoretical framework you use to contextualise that agenda is beyond criticism.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It seems like every time I make a counter-argument, the rebuttal is to provide a new, different definition of the agenda I’m discussing. At this point I’m more convinced than ever that there is no consistent definition for any of them; they seem to exist merely to act as mobile goalposts.

Okay, sure, different words are being used because you express frustration with the previous set of words, so people try to explain it in a different way. I don't see them as incompatible or different at the core at all, though. If anything, they're describing different parts of the same thing. Your complaint here is that people have described an elephant to you, and the first description emphasized it's prehensile trunk, the second it's large size, and they third it's pebbly hide. You say it's all different things, but if you've seen an elephant... it all makes perfect sense.

So far, you've challenged every single attempt to explain the concept(s) in this thread. Every one. With a Fisking approach, breaking things down into small chunks and latching onto a point there, and raising multiple objections to everything without actually laying out the case for those objections.

And, you claim to understand narrativism play, but these definitions seem confusing to you?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It seems like every time I make a counter-argument, the rebuttal is to provide a new, different definition of the agenda I’m discussing. At this point I’m more convinced than ever that there is no consistent definition for any of them; they seem to exist merely to act as mobile goalposts.

Yeah, welcome to discussing the Forge terminology!

It's basically like the alignment debate.

 

[pemerton]

It seems like every time I make a counter-argument, the rebuttal is to provide a new, different definition of the agenda I’m discussing. At this point I’m more convinced than ever that there is no consistent definition for any of them; they seem to exist merely to act as mobile goalposts.

The "incompatibility" thesis is put forward by Ron Edwards. I've posted, not far upthread, why he puts it forward: winning requires stability; but stability is the antithesis of playing to make a point. Do you have any thoughts on that?

 

[Hussar]

If it is determined (even in the GMs vision of the setting) that these NPCs exist in the next room, and they have motivation to intervene, then honest simulation of the world demands that they do.

If I could interject.

I think, as the GNS model would define it, that what you are creating would generally come under the Gamist aspect. The reason you put those NPC's in the next room that have a motivation to intervene is to make a challenge for the players to overcome - can they resolve the initial encounter without the secondary encounter hearing? I totally understand where you're coming from because a plain English understanding of the situation does follow what you saying. But, you're not quite pulling the camera back far enough. You're only looking at the established scenario, and ignoring why that scenario exists in the first place.

Simulationist, in the RPG critique meaning, doesn't mean, "We have a system that will resolve itself in predictable manners". A simulation (plain English meaning of a system that describes how something happens) is not quite what is meant by Simulationist (in the Forge defined, RPG critique meaning of a system where the goal of play is to maintain the genre above all else).

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm sorry, but I haven't seen any evidence this is true. I'm happy to be ignorant, here. Do you have some examples of your own narrativist play? Or is this an academic understanding, in which case can you elaborate on the difficulties of supporting narrativist play in 5e D&D -- what needs to change to support this play?

It’s mostly an academic understanding. I’ve read some rules systems that I’m given to understand are narrativist, and I think they would be fun to play, in a different way than D&D 5e is fun to play, but haven’t had occasion to do so. I have played a lot of D&D 4e, which is generally praised for supporting narrativist play pretty well, and loved it. But, in terms of what would need to change in 5e to support narrativist play? I mean, the basic gameplay structure isn’t really set up for it. You’d need to re-structure the conversation of the game around dramatic conflict rather than environmental interaction. 4e did this by building everything around the encounter as the nexus of the gameplay, and provided a structure for non-combat encounters that was focused on consequence resolution rather than task resolution. You could incorporate some of these ideas into 5e, but I think the result would just be a bad imitation of 4e. And, honestly, there are other, better systems out there for narrativist play anyway.

 

[Campbell]

Are the following statements about typical D&D 5e play or typical Apocalypse World play in any way contentious:

• Typical Apocalypse World play is far more concerned with putting pressure on who the characters are as people.
• Typical 5e play is far more concerned with exploration of setting.
• Typical Apocalypse World play is far more likely to result in poignant moments where we find out more about who the player characters are as people.
• Typical 5e play is far more likely to be concerned with logistics of space and time.
• Typical 5e play is likely to include a lot of investigation of unrevealed information for players to leverage.

This only one thing bit is distracting from the central idea that where we place our focus matters.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In your world where things can be only about one thing, perhaps.

No, and this isn't answering the question. How is using a meta-tool that paces challenge reflecting the world with integrity? It explicitly discards such considerations!

If it is determined (even in the GMs vision of the setting) that these NPCs exist in the next room, and they have motivation to intervene, then honest simulation of the world demands that they do.

And you've changed the example again. You've added a clause where the GM has post-hoc written in some story that requires these guys to be here for their scenario, such that their removal would cause issues with the portrayal of the world. If that's the case, then, sure, you have a point. But you only got to it because you changed the example to a different example.

I used Red Wedding as an example, that unexpected mass death of main chractewrs necessarily isn't bad storytelling. Or at least that not everyone considers it as such. I did not change the events, merely the high concept lens which we loo them trough.

Yes, the lens which was part of the example I provided. You changed the understanding of the situation from the one I explicitly laid out to a new one. When you do that, you change the example.

I don't understand what you're saying here. People can have other reasons to not want their character to die than the story. Also, some people might like a story where their characters die.

Walk me through this. You said "attached to their character," yes? What do you think this means? To me, it means that they're attached to the way their character is interacting with the setting and plot of the game (the story) and want that to continue. Absent those considerations, what is it that the player is attaching to?

Right. No one's "agenda" is being ridiculed. But this is doesn't mean that the theoretical framework you use to contextualise that agenda is beyond criticism.

Of course not. I have quite a few criticisms of it. I'm actually arguing against a few of those in this thread because the theory is being discussed and it's important to understand the theory and how it's applied fully before engaging in the kinds of nuanced criticisms I have. I'll give you, for free, that I find the naming of the agendas to be nearly infinite in their ability to cause confusion, though. That's not at all nuanced. If people show that they grasp the theory, I'd be happy to have some discussion of where I think it's gone wrong and where I think it's still doing good stuff. Right now, I mostly have those discussions elsewhere. And, in the meantime, I'm going to present the case for GNS as clearly as I can so that more understanding can happen and good criticism can occur.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It’s mostly an academic understanding. I’ve read some rules systems that I’m given to understand are narrativist, and I think they would be fun to play, in a different way than D&D 5e is fun to play, but haven’t had occasion to do so. I have played a lot of D&D 4e, which is generally praised for supporting narrativist play pretty well, and loved it. But, in terms of what would need to change in 5e to support narrativist play? I mean, the basic gameplay structure isn’t really set up for it. You’d need to re-structure the conversation of the game around dramatic conflict rather than environmental interaction. 4e did this by building everything around the encounter as the nexus of the gameplay, and provided a structure for non-combat encounters that was focused on consequence resolution rather than task resolution. You could incorporate some of these ideas into 5e, but I think the result would just be a bad imitation of 4e. And, honestly, there are other, better systems out there for narrativist play anyway.

Do you have any specifics?

 

[niklinna]

But isn’t incoherence supposed to be an undesirable thing under GNS?

That's what I hear!

If what I desire from the game is incoherent by the model’s definitions, isn’t that the model failing in what it sets out to do?

The impression I have is that you want to face incoherence, and resolve it by choosing one option over the other(s). If so, resolving it fits in fine with the model. Can you give me an example of something GNS would call incoherent where you don't have to choose one over the other(s)?