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

[Ovinomancer]

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's what using cred to bolster arguments looks like. I mean, when you say you know a thing so that someone else is reassured that your arguments are sound, then I'm confused how this isn't that. But, okay. Like I said, we don't have to pursue this.

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

Fair enough!

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

IMO. Even with that clarifier it's off putting. Incoherence is a negative property in basically every other context. Trying to act like it was ever intended as some neutral descriptor requires a major leap of faith.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Probably because incoherence has an ordinary, everyday definition



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.

What are you on about? The Forge usage is precisely b and c.

 

[Malmuria]

What are you on about? The Forge usage is precisely b and c.

Well if it’s explicitly a negative trait in a game (as in, “an incoherent essay”), and thus something to avoid in design, that’s at least honest.

 

[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.

Quoting this post again because I had a follow-up and think it’s likely to get missed if I edit it into the other post. This “exploration of character” concept looks to me a lot like special pleading to exclude character development that isn’t directly player-authored from narrativism.

 

[iserith]

It sounds like "incoherence" means a game can satisfy different things for different people, appealing to lots of people with varied interests. As a result, at least one such incoherent game seems to sell very well compared to all other RPGs, even the so-called coherent ones. That can't just be because it's been around a long time (though that must help). One could conclude perhaps that the market has spoken and incoherence is desirable, despite the negative connotations of that word.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well if it’s explicitly a negative trait in a game (as in, “an incoherent essay”), and thus something to avoid in design, that’s at least honest.

The insistence that it be negative is on you.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?"

I genuinely don't understand your question, so I briefly write some possibly vaguely related random words.

Of course what one finds plausible is rather subjective. And of course some things exist to facilitate gameplay, but this doesn't mean one cannot account them in the fiction. And sure, this is ultimately a silly fantasy adventure game, so the plausibility bar might be a tad lower than in a grounded hard scifi novel. But I still don't think this results "anything goes." I know it doesn't for me.

And I think @Charlaquin already articulated it better, but the place where gamism and simulationism meet to support each other is coherent and predictable world and mechanics, of which the players can make informed decisions about.

 

[Campbell]

Quoting this post again because I had a follow-up and think it’s likely to get missed if I edit it into the other post. This “exploration of character” concept looks to me a lot like special pleading to exclude character development that isn’t directly player-authored from narrativism.

Speaking as someone who enjoys the sort of character focused play found in a typical Legend of the Five Rings or Vampire game as well as the crucible of something like Burning Wheel or Sorcerer I find the differences in play experience different in fundamental character. The first is naturalistic. Scenarios might be designed so it might happen, but there is very minimal pressure exerted on the player. The second is deliberate and fully built off contrivances. It's also intense in a way the first sort of play is not.

 

[Charlaquin]

Speaking as someone who enjoys the sort of character focused play found in a typical Legend of the Five Rings or Vampire game as well as the crucible of something like Burning Wheel or Sorcerer I find the differences in play experience different in fundamental character. The first is naturalistic. Scenarios might be designed so it might happen, but there is very minimal pressure exerted on the player. The second is deliberate and fully built off contrivances. It's also intense in a way the first sort of play is not.

It may be because I’m tired, but I’m not sure if I’m parsing this correctly. You’re saying L5R and Vampire are naturalistic and put minimal pressure on the player to engage in character exploration, while Burning Wheel and Sorcerer are intense, and deliberately built on contrivances?