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

[Charlaquin]

Not really.

It's posited as a property of game texts, that then explains why those game texts can produce confusion or uncertainty or conflict when actually used to play RPGs.

Whether that would be desirable or undesirable would depend on whether or not you thought it was good or bad to avoid that sort of outcome. If your goals are primarily commercial, and you're confident that the market into which you're selling will have ways of reconciling the confusion or uncertainty or conflict, and you believe that trying to reduce or eliminate those outcomes would cost sales, then incoherence isn't undesirable at all!

Well, that recontextualizes the theory pretty significantly. Add “incoherence” to the list of things that was poorly named then, because it really sounds like an accusation. “A good, Coherent game must understand the Three Reasons People Play Games and pick exactly one of them to cater to. Otherwise it is Incoherent and will confuse people.”

 

[Hussar]

The thing is, people 'get' the theory. You're right, it is not that complicated. They just don't agree with. But the adherents cannot accept this. As they believe the theory to be true, any disagreement must be due lack of understanding, so they need to explain harder!

Look, I've got very little dog in this race. I find the Forge stuff to be useful, but, I'm not exactly wedded to the concepts, nor am I particularly well versed in them.

But, from an outsiders POV, it looks a lot like a lot of the disagreements I see are due to people simply not understanding. Your recent example about the encounter being pulled in from the adjoining room being simulationist pretty clearly shows this. While it might be a simulation (plain English meaning), it's pretty clearly Gamist (Forge term). The whole reason for that encounter to be there and not over there or not sleeping, or, heck the whole reason for that ROOM (never minding the inhabitants) to be that close is a Gamist concern about challenge.

But, people have this inherent need to prove that D&D is a simulation. So, everything MUST be a simulation. Any and all disagreement that takes away from the idea that D&D is a simulation must be cast down! Thus we get the whole HP=meat line. The whole "it doesn't matter that the system doesn't actually provide any information, it's still a simulation" schtick. On and on and on.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But, from an outsiders POV, it looks a lot like a lot of the disagreements I see are due to people simply not understanding. Your recent example about the encounter being pulled in from the adjoining room being simulationist pretty clearly shows this. While it might be a simulation (plain English meaning), it's pretty clearly Gamist (Forge term). The whole reason for that encounter to be there and not over there or not sleeping, or, heck the whole reason for that ROOM (never minding the inhabitants) to be that close is a Gamist concern about challenge.

It is not misunderstanding, I simply reject the myopic dichotomy. Yes, I fully get the gameplay reason for including these creatures in the first place. But if we care about simulationism too, then we play them coherently and with integrity.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because we can do that and care about setting considerations! These things are not in conflict.

The setting wasn't considered using the encounter building meta-tool. This is weird, it's like you want to only look at the parts that meet your endpoint, and refuse to look at the start of the chain. Why is this encounter here? In the example, it wasn't to fulfill a setting need, it was designed to create a challenge to the PCs, using the metatools that enable fair encounter design. You want it to be about the post-hoc rationalizations, and that's fair, I guess, it wins your point, but it's ignoring that you're arguing for post-hoc rationalizations.

I changed nothing. You said that the reinforcements are in the next room and ready to come to help.

No, I said that the reinforcements were there because they filled out the encounter budget -- not that they fulfilled any setting function or need. You've added that.

Your claim was that if we care about high concept simulationism, we save the PCs. And I said that completely depends on the high concept we are simulating. I did not change the example.

You did change the example. My example does show care about high concept simulationism. Yours would as well. There's not one and only one way -- but there was the example I gave and then the one you changed to make your point.

Look, I crafted my example with care and intent. I know what I said, and why. You led your objection with a "but" and then changed one of the things I was careful to be clear about. So, yes, you changed the example, and this protestation is just very weird.

The idea of the character. Some people don't want their character to die even if it was the last session and the story wouldn't continue anyway. Trying to force this to be about story is just you trying to shoehorn things to conform into your model. It doesn't work.

The... idea of character? Help me here, I don't follow this jargon (is it jargon?). What does this mean, can you explain what the idea of character is? When I try to, I end of thinking of things like "what this character has done, who their friends and goals are, and the idea that they'll continue to do cool things in the setting even if I don't play them." We all like happy endings, right? But all of that is reliant on story and setting, yes?

How you feel that's going? Have you considered that the reason people 'are not getting it' is actually the serious flaws in the theory?

No. Because the parts their pointing out are often just misunderstandings about what the theory says. That's not a flaw in the theory. Perhaps it's a flaw in the accessibility of the theory. You can have that criticism for free as well.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, that recontextualizes the theory pretty significantly. Add “incoherence” to the list of things that was poorly named then, because it really sounds like an accusation. “A good, Coherent game must understand the Three Reasons People Play Games and pick exactly one of them to cater to. Otherwise it is Incoherent and will confuse people.”

The subtext absolutely is that incoherence is bad design. I think it is present even in the post you quoted.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, that recontextualizes the theory pretty significantly. Add “incoherence” to the list of things that was poorly named then, because it really sounds like an accusation. “A good, Coherent game must understand the Three Reasons People Play Games and pick exactly one of them to cater to. Otherwise it is Incoherent and will confuse people.”

Incoherence is probably the most clearly used and direct term in GNS. It literally means "does not cohere" and cohere means to be united and consistent. If you're unsure of what agenda you're engaging from moment to moment of play, then play is incoherent.

The problem comes only from people that want to use "incoherence" as meaning 'babbling' or 'nonsense.' But that's not the only meaning of the word.

 

[Charlaquin]

Fair enough. A list of specific pain points would suffice nicely -- no game design needed.

That’s tough because 5e isn’t narrativist at a fundamental level, and because I enjoy 5e for what it is. I don’t play it for a narrativist experience, so I don’t run into pain points when trying to do so. But, I’ll give it a shot I guess.

• The fundamental How to Play structure is set up for exploration of the fictional environment.
• The fundamental How to Play structure places almost all the narrative power in the hands of the DM.
• The action resolution system is largely binary and focused on answering the question of if the action successfully achieved its goal.
• Even if one were to try to convert the action resolution system into more of a consequence resolution system, there’s no system of principles to fall back on, other than what the DM imagines is reasonably possible and what they consider meaningful consequences.
• The token gesture at incorporating character motivations into the system (personality traits, ideals, bonds, flaws) is pretty anemic.

I could probably think of more if I wanted to waste my evening on it.

 

[Charlaquin]

The subtext absolutely is that incoherence is bad design. I think it is present even in the post you quoted.

I mean, I don’t disagree, but I’m trying to extend the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Hussar]

It is not misunderstanding, I simply reject the myopic dichotomy. Yes, I fully get the gameplay reason for including these creatures in the first place. But if we care about simulationism too, then we play them coherently and with integrity.

But, that's the problem right there.

You are using simulation in a way that they are not. You are causing the misunderstanding because you absolutely understand what they mean, but, refuse to use the defined definitions. Instead, you are arguing against something they are not. Playing coherently and with integrity is something that HCS is interested in, sure. But, you cannot ignore the fact that the whole reason for that encounter to exist in the first place is because of gamism. And the reason that we're having conflicting results, is BECAUSE of those conflicting points. A gamist solution would have the enemies charge in because that's part of the challenge. A High Concept Simulationist approach would remove those enemies from play because it conflicts with genre to have those enemies charge in and slaughter the PC's.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with either approach. But, the point of the theory is to label each approach and to some degree quantify those decision points. All you're doing is clouding the issue by insisting that everyone else must only use your definitions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, I said that the reinforcements were there because they filled out the encounter budget -- not that they fulfilled any setting function or need. You've added that.

Yes, because that doesn't conflict with gamism (at least not in this instance.) But what even is your point? "I you care only about gamism then you care only about gamism?" Sure? And?

You did change the example. My example does show care about high concept simulationism. Yours would as well. There's not one and only one way -- but there was the example I gave and then the one you changed to make your point.

Again, what's the point of your example? Caring about high concept simulation might lead to a certain decision. Sure. But like my counterpoint shows, it could lead also to exactly opposite decision. Do we now have incoherence between different high concepts?

Look, I crafted my example with care and intent. I know what I said, and why. You led your objection with a "but" and then changed one of the things I was careful to be clear about. So, yes, you changed the example, and this protestation is just very weird.

I don't really understand what you're trying to demonstrate. Your examples do not demonstrate anything.

The... idea of character? Help me here, I don't follow this jargon (is it jargon?). What does this mean, can you explain what the idea of character is? When I try to, I end of thinking of things like "what this character has done, who their friends and goals are, and the idea that they'll continue to do cool things in the setting even if I don't play them." We all like happy endings, right? But all of that is reliant on story and setting, yes?

If you don't get it I doubt I could explain it to you. Humans have feelings and they're not always rationally explainable.