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

[Hussar]

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.

Now there, I don't think you'll get any disagreement from anyone.

It's nice when we can all agree about something.

 

[pemerton]

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.

That's like saying it's "special pleading" to distinguish watching a football game from playing in one - they're all just football!

I mean, there's a sense in which that's true - and fans will say "We won!" meaning that the team they follow won. But when an actual player says "We won!" the "we" has a slightly different force.

RPGing has a creative dimension. One thing humans do, in their creative activities, is to make points.

RPGing has a structure highly conducive to protagonist-confronts-antagonism. One thing humans do, when they tell stories about protagonists confronting antagonism, is to make points.

Narrativist RPGing puts the above together: the player, by playing their PC, uses their creativity to make a point via the method of protagonist-confronting-antagonism. (The points may be insightful - I suspect playing with Paul Czege is sometimes like that - or banal - I think playing with me is often like that! Not all creativity is very good.)

Carving this out isn't "special pleading": it's the point of the label.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

My point was about your statement "I simply reject this myopic dichotomy." The only way I see this rejection landing is that a person resolves all of the proud nails of baked-in contrivances and conventions of D&D that saturate play (and prep) by a veneer of Simulationism + active curation of results of play. That is, one resolves the incoherencies that pop up here and there between Simulationism and Gamism with abstraction, elision, necessary justification, and curating system outputs as the moment arises.

I just don't see how that person above considers all of those abstractions, elisions, necessary justifications, and curating system outputs consistent with "simply rejecting this myopic dichotomy." I see it as consistent with "accepting the reality of the intermittent collisions of play priorities, but resolving them when they come up with the necessary skill to keep play at the table vital and enjoyable for the participants."

Hence, its a lot more complex than "I simply reject this myopic dichotomy." It seems a nice metaphor for the thread. Its a hell of a lot more complexed and nuanced than that. Under the hood the "rejection of the myopic dichotomy" looks very different than from up top.

 

[pemerton]

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?

Yes, that's what @Campbell is saying. (EDITed to fix my tag: Campbell, if I'm wrong I'm confident you'll correct me.)

Contrivances come in all shapes and sizes. In Spider-Man, who is killed by the burglar Spidey lets escape? None other than his Uncle Ben!

Dickens novels are full of that sort of thing - everyone ends up related to someone else with big reveals and reversals of fortune the order of the day.

The contrivances in The Quiet American are more subtle, but they're there. Pyle and Fowler. Pyle and Phuong. Pyle and the "third force". The "third force" and the explosion. Fowler and the explosion. Fowler and the Communists. The whole plot works on the basis of contrivance. You can't get dramatic storytelling without it.

 

[pemerton]

it's already established that the GNS theory was created by those that did not like the direction of current RPG's at the time

This is just wrong. Edwards is full of praise for The Pool, Maelstrom Storytelling, Arrowflight, The Riddle of Steel, HeroWars, Over the Edge - just to name a few RPGs that are manifestations of the "direction of current RPGs" at the time he was writing the core GNS essays.

 

[iserith]

I assume you believe this to be a heavy point of contention given the tone of what you've written here, but no one that I know of disagrees with this.

This has been conceded over and over and over and over again. 5e overwhelmingly achieves this through GM-facing action resolution and heavily GM-directed play (relying upon the GM to skillfully, behind the screen, resolve moments when priorities don't play nice so the players can just do their thing). 5e also achieves this through a well-designed puzzle game of social interaction a la Pictionary (which, IMO, is the only site of reliable Gamism that will never threaten other priorities in 5e...a fantastic minigame that really has no issues that are a threat to clash, conceptually or in my own running of the game)...which...at least back when I was running it...virtually no one knew existed or just ignored it entirely (every time I brought it up people were all "huh?...what?...just happened again a few days ago").

The game is wildly popular for a host of reasons and one of them has to be that, presently, this is the proverbial nut draw of system design. And this wasn't a happy accident. This was intentful, skillful design by the 5e designers. They built toward a particular game and they executed that effort. Bravo.

More to the point of the thread, if someone's going to show up in a D&D discussion throwing around jargon like "incoherence" with regard to its design (as defined by some 20-year-old essays by a guy who thinks D&D players have brain damage), then it's hardly a mystery why a negative response follows. I'm certainly no stranger to using a word or three that tick people off, but Forge jargon and its like seems almost as if it's designed to do exactly that. It's actively unhelpful in my view, which is why I stopped using it.

Now, explaining social interaction rules in D&D 5e being "like Pictionary?" That's great! It's a good frame of reference. The DM paints a picture by portraying the NPC and you get to guess at the NPC's personal characteristics (perhaps with the help of a Wisdom (Insight) check) then leverage those to make subsequent rolls to influence the NPC, if any, easier. It doesn't require Forge jargon. People can have a layman's conversation with common-use vocabulary and share thoughts about how to use those tools to make their games better. It's less likely to result in confusion, irritation, or division. We need more of that in my view, not comments on this being "the only site of reliable gamism that will threaten other priorities in 5e." That jargon is going to be immediately confusing to some, maybe even most, and apt to lead to unhelpful exchanges.

 

[Xetheral]

That's like saying it's "special pleading" to distinguish watching a football game from playing in one - they're all just football!

I mean, there's a sense in which that's true - and fans will say "We won!" meaning that the team they follow won. But when an actual player says "We won!" the "we" has a slightly different force.

RPGing has a creative dimension. One thing humans do, in their creative activities, is to make points.

RPGing has a structure highly conducive to protagonist-confronts-antagonism. One thing humans do, when they tell stories about protagonists confronting antagonism, is to make points.

Narrativist RPGing puts the above together: the player, by playing their PC, uses their creativity to make a point via the method of protagonist-confronting-antagonism. (The points may be insightful - I suspect playing with Paul Czege is sometimes like that - or banal - I think playing with me is often like that! Not all creativity is very good.)

Carving this out isn't "special pleading": it's the point of the label.

Could you please clarify in what sense you're using the word "point"? (I realize you've tried to clarify by analogy already, but I still don't follow.)

The closest I've been able to get is that you're using it in the sense of "an argument or idea put forward by a person in discussion" but that sense seems far too general in comparison to the emphasis you're putting on the word.

 

[FrogReaver]

…Aaaaaand, in typing that, I’ve realized these play styles have reversed player and GM roles compared to one another. In one the scenario is designed in advance and the characters develop organically in response to it. In the other the characters are designed in advance and the scenario develops organically in response to them.

I guess it depends on what is meant by organically.

My take is that character development would occur much faster in a story now style game as the character is constantly pressured. Whether you consider that pressure as organic or not would be the question.

In a traditional game character development occurs but often at a slower pace and it's easy for the DM to not apply enough pressure to really force development (players can skillfully get out or avoid many situations where they might be tested in that way). I've often seen other players characters develop very little in my D&D campaigns - mostly because their personality is smash face or something really basic.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes to the second (about meaning). And as to the second (about your main priority), I wouldn't be surprised. I don't want to pretend to be able to diagnose your play preferences - a complex manifestation of any individual human's multifaceted personal and social being - on the basis of posts of yours that I've read. So what follows is tentative.


If you're into exploration, in Edwards's sense, then the following dot points might be true, or at least you might be able to see why they're part of my tentative conjecture:

Ooh, this seems like a fun exercise for me!

* As a player, you enjoy the "big reveal" bit that is part of any good CoC scenario; and when it comes to D&D scenarios, you prefer ones with a story that has a twist or a reveal or a trajectory, rather than ToH-ish "beat the dungeon because that's just what we do";

Not really. I’m not a big fan of what we might call “event-based” adventures. I don’t mind them, but I’m far more interested in exploring interesting and mysterious places, and potentially ending up in dangerous situations that will test my character than in revealing the twists and turns in a plot. For this reason, I prefer “location-based” adventuring.

* Related to the above, while you may not be judgemental about "murder hobo" play it's probably not your first preference;​

This one’s off the mark as well. I don’t have any problem with “murder hobo” play. In fact, a campaign where we’re struggling to make ends meet, or seeking that big score, is a lot of fun for me.

* As a player, you get a bit frustrated when another player's play of their PC detracts from engaging with the situation the GM is putting forward;​

That’s definitely true. I can tolerate it, but I much prefer when everyone is engaged seriously with the fictional scenario.

* As a player, you enjoy learning what clever thing the GM put behind the secret door (or in the secret compartment, or in the BBG's secret diary, or . . .);​

That’s a yes as well, those kinds of reveals are much more exciting to me than plot twists. I adore environmental storytelling, and love piecing together the details in the environment to figure out what the story behind it is on my own (or with the help of my fellow players.)

* Maps are fairly important to your play experience (I'm not meaning battle maps, but dungeon maps, building maps, city maps, regional maps, etc);​

Yes and no. Maps are powerful tools, and can greatly enhance the experience when used well, though they can also detract from it when used poorly. Ultimately I’d still agree with this statement, but with caveats.

* As a GM, you like to form a conception of who your NPCs are and what they want, and then when the players (via their PCs) encounter them, you portray your NPC faithfully to your conception of them;​

I suppose, yeah. Often I’ll start with few to none of those details because I had to improvise, but I do prefer to develop those details as the need for them arises.

* If a player has a particular conception of their PC, then as a fellow player and even moreso as a GM, you look for ways to let that shine through (eg by giving them the spotlight to show of their PC).​

Yes, definitely. That’s an important part of the recidivism intrinsic to roleplaying. If I want other people to take an interest in my character, I need to take an interest in theirs. Also, I genuinely enjoy learning about other people’s characters, as well as my own.

As I said, the above is tentative, but is a sincere response to what you've posted in this and other threads.

For sure! Very much appreciated!

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, I totally get that they would produce very different experiences, and of course the concept of an adventure path is incompatible with narrativist games. What I take issue with is the idea that what Edwards would apparently call “character exploration” is, by contrast with Narrativism, is not and can’t be, as you say, “centered on interrogating the character -- who they are, what they want, what they're willing to do to get it” that’s like, verbatim what I get out of this (apparently sumulationist) “exploration of character” sort of play.

No one I know will argue that the terms used at the Forge aren't just terrible. They are. So, yes, Edward's choice of words there, while it made sense in the zeitgeist of the Forge and the evolution of the discussion there, is frankly horrible at doing any useful (and often it does the opposite of useful) work to explain the concept. Ce la vie. It's an impediment.

It is certainly true that a scenario designed for “exploration of character” doesn’t care what characters show up to play it. That’s, in my view, a strength because it allows for development of the character through play. You can start out with a blank slate and discover who they are through the choices you make in response to the world, instead of coming to the table with a picture already in mind of who the character is, and trying to faithfully portray them.

…Aaaaaand, in typing that, I’ve realized these play styles have reversed player and GM roles compared to one another. In one the scenario is designed in advance and the characters develop organically in response to it. In the other the characters are designed in advance and the scenario develops organically in response to them.

I think you've made a rather large misunderstanding. Narrativist characters have built in questions that are presented during creation, but they're not at all fully fleshed out. That would defeat the purpose. You actually see fully fleshed characters in non-narrativist play. A D&D character tends to have much more predefined about their character than most narrativist characters do.

My last two characters started this way:

Mister (Blades) -- playbook: slide (conman) heritage Skovlan (fought in the war as part of guerilla team, sold out team for a pardon and some coin), background Military (front/con man for team), Vice: luxury, friend - Martha, prostitute has a relationship, rival - Harker, prisoner, ex-teammate.

Dap (Stonetop) -- playbook: Lightbearer (agent of the sun god), background: Auspicious Birth, born as a solar eclipse ended, Instinct: hope, Deity: Sun god, Helior, worshipped through joyous song, worship neglected prior to Dap, previous Lightbearer was killed by terrible demon and left books of poetry about the worship of Helior, Is fond of the Publican's daughter who has a lovely singing voice, is good friends with and enjoys phisolophical discussion with Gavin (other PC), village midwife dislike Dap

That's it. That's the summation of character for these games. It's thin, mostly hooks and works on building and developing from there. The relationship maps for Mister would be insane, as would be the many developments (he picked up Cold, Reckless, and Vicious as traumas through play). Dap has many fewer sessions so far, but already that thin bit above has blossomed and expanded and deepened. So, no, character is very much not pre-generated at all!

ETA: what I posted for Mister above isn't shortened -- it's everything on his character sheet from the start of the game, verbatim. For Dap, I did do a bit of consolidating, but that's mostly because a lot of this is in a checklist that gets established through play at the table with the other players, so the format is very different. I summarized.