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

[Charlaquin]

I'm going to call this out for a moment. I'm not at all attempting to engage in gatekeeping here, I don't care about your gamer girl cred. You did make a claim, though, that you understood narrativism. And you're using that claim as a bolster to your arguments in this thread. That makes it fair game to look at. I didn't bring up your credentials in this regard, you did. I didn't require you to have credentials to be taken serious, you used your claimed credentials to bolster your arguments. This isn't me gatekeeping, it's me not quite believing your claimed credentials. If you'd like to make it not an issue, I'm more that happy to mutually drop it. No difference to me, so long as the claim isn't being used rhetorically to bolster your arguments.

I didn’t use my “cred” to bolster my arguments, I was merely trying to reassure Campbell that my disagreement is not rooted in lacking frame of reference. I have read narrativist game rules, I understand and appreciate how they deliver a different experience than more traditional rules systems. I even think they sound like a lot of fun, and would like to try one (other than 4e, which I do love) some day. I don’t say that to bolster my arguments, just to reassure that I’m not arguing from a place of ignorance.

That said, I was being over dramatic in comparing your questioning to gatekeeping. That was unfair of me and I apologize.

 

[Hussar]

/edit

Whoops, just saw the mod point and realize that I'm part of the problem. Sorry folks.

 

[Charlaquin]

The GNS essays aren't really addressed to WotC. They're addressed to small indie designers trying to design in a "tight", artistically deliberate fashion. (WotC's system design is deliberate. But not artistically so.)

We can see how "incoherence" plays out in 5e D&D. It is deliberately designed to appeal to two different groups of players: those who like finding out what happens to their PCs in the imaginary world; and those who want to play a compelling resource-management game with a risk of player loss (in the form of PC death). The latter often complain that the encounter challenge advice is pitched too easily, and that some feats and/or spells are dominant strategies. The former don't like playing with munchkins/powergamers.

(There's an element of simplification in the preceding paragraph. I don't think that obscures its basic truth.)

Each individual group has to work its way through the issues in the preceding paragraph itself. There's no "official" answer because WotC wants both sorts of play groups to buy and play its game!

Ok, now that’s a compelling argument. Thank you for framing it this way, this helps.

 

[Cadence]

In a thread specifically ABOUT RPG theory though, shouldn't this not really be the case. It is right there in the thread title. Sure, there is some duty to clarify and explain, but, there is also the duty of the listener to actually stop actively resisting the use if they want to continue the discussion. As a teacher, if I talk about scaffolding, I'm not referring to the frames used by builders to build a building, but, about something else entirely. If someone keeps asking about where I'm supposed to rent a scaffold in my classroom, there's obviously some sort of breakdown in communication.

If the GNS theory meaning of it is the only reason incoherence would be used in a discussion on ttrpg theory then that certainly seems fair.

I like that scaffolding doesn't seem to have a negative connotation and isn't being applied to what others do.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then it is genuinely, totally, 100% irrelevant. If we aren't talking about games, why/how they're made, and what people want from playing them, it is not relevant.

Yes. I think that was basically my point. That some decisions about how we play are not actually due preferences regarding games, but due reasons outside of the game. And trying to find the game theoretic basis for such decisions is misguided, as it doesn't exist!

It only is relevant if you mistake decisions that are made for non-gaming reasons for those made for game-reasons, and then try to conclude game theoretical reason for them and arrive at erroneous conclusions. Like trying to hunt game theoretical reason for decision to not split the party that is done for out-of-game reasons.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It feels like I've seen something like "your play is incoherent" used in threads without GNS in the title or first post, without the clarifying "in GNS theory" added. It just didn't feel surprising that folks hearing they were incoherent without the clarifier would find it off putting and be defensive. That's all.

If you're going to bring up vague feelings that you think you've seen this somewhere, then I don't have much to say about it. I feel it doesn't.

 

[Charlaquin]

In the same way that Jane Austen, Tolstoy, Zadie Smith, Chris Claremont and the scriptwriters of Days of Our Lives have points to make. Dramatic storytelling.

You are using simulation here to mean what Edwards calls exploration. He uses simulation to mean play in which exploration is the point, and its own reward; not just a foundation on which some other goal of play is resting.

What you are describing here is, I think, what Edwards would call exploration of character. I say that because I think the consequences you have in mind are built into the situation independently of the player's action declaration for their PC; typically that "building in" is done by the GM's prep, but sometimes by the GM's improv.

In narrativist play, the consequences are responses to the player's point, not manifestations of the GM's conception of the situation.

Ok, interesting. So, in light of this new (to me) information, it sounds like exploration, both of the world and of the character, is my main priority in play. Which… it sounds like is what simulationism is supposed to mean? It also sounds like Edwards is the actual worst person on the planet at naming things.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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!

Oh, I don't think it's at all not complicated. It's rather complicated. I'm a smart guy. I've had to read it multiple times, and I bounced off it hard the first ones. Gobbledygook. Even now, I notice things that are very interesting nuances I missed on prior reads. I would never say that GNS is a simple model. Again, you can have this criticism for free. GNS isn't uncomplicated. Otherwise, we wouldn't have these discussions!

 

[Malmuria]

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.

Probably because incoherence has an ordinary, everyday definition

lacking coherence: such as
a: lacking normal clarity or intelligibility in speech or thought incoherent with grief
b: lacking orderly continuity, arrangement, or relevance : INCONSISTENT. an incoherent essay
c: lacking cohesion : LOOSE

The overlap between forge theoretical terms and ordinary, colloquial language is a real failure of articulation, because it continually produces miscommunication.

I’ll further note that “incoherent” has a negative connotation, being defined as per above by a certain lack of clarity and structure in speech or thought. It suggests something that is broken down, disorganized, and unable to communicate. And it’s another instance, maybe a prime instance, of the Forge claiming to use neutral, definitional language that is in fact judgmental and pejorative.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

If I were trying to take up the position that you're taking it would be very difficult for me to use "if we care about simulationism too, then we play them coherently and with integrity" to defend against:

* Well why isn't this dungeon (D&D jargon stand-in for whatever the place is; ancient ruins, cave, haunted manor, labyrinth, whatever) room stocked with benign furniture or rubble and that or a refuse pial or privy leavings and rinse/repeat until you get to the 3/15 consequentially stocked dungeon rooms (versus the orthodox-ish proportion of 14 : 1 consequentially stocked - denizens/traps/hazards/secret doors/treasure with strings attached - rooms)?

* Why isn't that room and this room and that other room over there entirely barren (or nearing it enough to be effectively barren)?

* Why is this sequence of rooms stocked and topographically arrayed in such a way that it achieves Encounter Budget x, then y, then z (if you're capable of resolving the conflicts without "raising the alarm") with x, y, and z being specifically curated toward a set difficulty?

* Why is the treasure typically unironically themed to PC archetype?

* Why does the BBEG always have their henchman or Golem or pet dog in their quarters and why is their spellbook and spell loadout always outfitted for effective combat? Why are they never asleep...or without their buddy...or loaded out for various and sundry (like surveilling the next target and cleaning up the joint and entertaining themselves and peering into their future and experimentation to prolong their life)? Why aren't their fingers every exhausted or sprained from prior day's castey-work? Why aren't they suffering from food poisoning (its 2022 and I've suffered from food poisoning 6 times in the last 10 years!)?

* Why is their intel on PC location/capability/mobility practically bulletproof when modern Intelligence Agencies routinely put out briefs that are utter rubbish, partially or wholly detached from reality?

* Why do we never get to the dungeon and HOLY CRAP A CAVE IN BURIED OR A SINKHOLE SWALLOWED THE ENTIRE COMPLEX AND EVERYTHING IS INACCESSIBLE AND SHEER DUMB LUCK ENCURTIANS-INATED OUR BBEG?


The answer to all of these is in large part (of course) conventions of play + contrivances of D&D. If we can work around all of the baked-in conventions and contrivances above (and more...those are just surface scratching) to claim "these aren't really and truly conventions and contrivances necessary to functionally fill out the playing of a 4 hour dungeon crawl...they're (abra kadabra...allakazam...walla wall washington) a coherent simulation with integrity(!)," then why isn't every play ever a simulation? Given how "stranger than fiction" our totally mundane world is, it seems pretty plausible from here that any imagined space of a mythical D&D setting would be filled with possibilities far more infinite than what Earth has on offer (and Earth has a crazy number of possibilities both foreseeable and completely out-of-left-field WTFs-ville). So it seems to me that the threshold for the "not a plausible simulation" test in D&D-land must be so incredibly low that the bar is nearly hugging the ground.

Now I'm sure your answer is "no, I don't agree" (otherwise you wouldn't be where you are in this discussion and in past discussions).

So then I'll ask "how/why is your plausible simulation test where it is(?)" and "why do you feel that bar (the 'reskin the D&D conventions and contrivances to totally legitsville' bar) isn't so low that its trivially surmounted by a crazy number of explanations for any given thing such that the subset of things that = 'coherent simulation with integrity' is nearly infinite?"