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

[Xetheral]

And, yes, acknowledging frankly that the majority of 5e play is the GM providing a world where the players take actions through their characters to prompt the GM to provide more information shouldn't be that controversial. Even if we put aside WotC APs, which are clearly this, the core play loop of D&D starts and ends with "the GM narrates."

I suspect that the reason that describing D&D's play loop as "the players take actions to prompt the GM to provide more information" is controversial is because it's reductionist to the point that (IMO) one can reasonably infer implied ridicule.

It would be like describing PbtA games as: "the players take actions to prompt the GM to make life worse for their characters". Or, more broadly, describing all interactive verbal human social interactions as: "talking at people to prompt them to talk to you". These descriptions are, in some sense, "accurate", but they're so devoid of context and purpose as to appear derogatory.

I know you play and like D&D, so I assume you do not mean to ridicule it with your description of its play loop. My intent is only to share my perception of why such descriptions are controversial. At the very least, that's why I personally find such descriptions objectionable.

 

[pemerton]

Ok, but like… What if, you want the concern of “how can my character win this conflict?” to be one of the factors which determines “how will this conflict change my character?” What if you want winning to be one of many competing agendas that form the crucible in which your character is forged? What if you feel like just deciding how the conflict will change your character (whether by whim or by some game mechanic) cheapens it, and what you really want is to experience the same push and pull of conflicting desires as the character would, which requires intrinsic and extrinsic rewards and consequences that can serve as proxies or analogues for the factors influencing the character’s own internal conflict?

You know, hypothetically. Asking for a friend.

I think your friend's main concern is sim.

I could be wrong, but I don't think your friend is setting out to get the kudos for winning as a player at the table.

 

[Xetheral]

Well, I teach law and philosophy but not literature, media or communication. They probably have better terminology. Edwards sometimes uses premise and sometimes uses theme. Neither is perfect, because "theme" can easily encompass tropes (as in "a sci-fi themed movie") and "premise" can easily encompass rationale (as in "why are we gathered together to play this game" - and indeed Edwards started off using premise this way before changing it to use "point").

It sounds like "point" is Forge jargon then. Thanks for sharing the history!

 

[pemerton]

I suspect that the reason that describing D&D's play loop as "the players take actions to prompt the GM to provide more information" is controversial is because it's reductionist to the point that (IMO) one can reasonably infer implied ridicule.

I don't think this is right. I GMed a couple of sessions of Traveller a while ago where the main focus of play was the player's declaring actions to get me to provide more information. I posted about them on these boards. In those posts I also said a bit about what I did, as GM, when I'd had enough of the exploratory play, to push play in a different direction.

 

[pemerton]

It sounds like "point" is Forge jargon then. Thanks for sharing the history!

Well, I think I coined it and I have nothing to do with The Forge. So I don't see how it's Forge jargon.

It's my attempt to explain what is at issue in that part of literary and film criticism that is not focused on the technical execution.

 

[Xetheral]

I don't think this is right. I GMed a couple of sessions of Traveller a while ago where the main focus of play was the player's declaring actions to get me to provide more information. I posted about them on these boards. In those posts I also said a bit about what I did, as GM, when I'd had enough of the exploratory play, to push play in a different direction.

Could you clarify where you disagree? Do you not think @Ovinomancer's description is controversial, don't think it's reductionist, or don't think it's reductionist to the extent to reasonably imply ridicule?

 

[Xetheral]

Well, I think I coined it and I have nothing to do with The Forge. So I don't see how it's Forge jargon.

It's my attempt to explain what is at issue in that part of literary and film criticism that is not focused on the technical execution.

I thought you just said that Edwards switched from "premise" to that particular usage of "point"? Did I misunderstand you?

 

[Aldarc]

@iserith

The Step On Up essay is pretty much a full throated defense of classic D&D. It's true that much of the Forge was critical of AD&D Second Edition, but that was largely for the same reasons they were critical of Vampire. You can believe whatever you want on that score, but several prominent indie designers regard Moldvay as one of the best designed roleplaying games ever made. Vincent Baker and John Harper are huge fans. Blades in the Dark was inspired in part by Stars Without Number, an OSR game. You can believe what you want on that score though.

And Luke Crane's Torchbearer is a love letter to Moldvay B/X dungeon-crawling. Dungeon World sings to the outward aesthetics of old school gaming. (But we all know that Freebooters on the Frontier and World of Dungeons did a better job of it.)

Ok, but like… What if, you want the concern of “how can my character win this conflict?” to be one of the factors which determines “how will this conflict change my character?” What if you want winning to be one of many competing agendas that form the crucible in which your character is forged? What if you feel like just deciding how the conflict will change your character (whether by whim or by some game mechanic) cheapens it, and what you really want is to experience the same push and pull of conflicting desires as the character would, which requires intrinsic and extrinsic rewards and consequences that can serve as proxies or analogues for the factors influencing the character’s own internal conflict?

You know, hypothetically. Asking for a friend.

Sounds like your friend may want to play Fate or Cortex, which are both oriented towards more Neo-Trad gaming cultures, which tend to align with High Concept Sim but with Narrativist leanings.

(Unless your friend thinks that Fate or Plot Points ruin their immersion and are the sort of toxic, gatekeeping OneTrueWay gamer who thinks that these aren't "true roleplaying games." In which case, you should ditch that friend.)

 

[pemerton]

I thought you just said that Edwards switched from "premise" to that particular usage of "point"? Did I misunderstand you?

Yes you did. I said that Edwards used "premise" to mean "rationale for why we're playing the game" and then changed his use of "premise" to mean what I am describing as "the point". This illustrates that "premise" is not an unequivocal word for describing what I am trying to describe.

 

[pemerton]

Could you clarify where you disagree? Do you not think @Ovinomancer's description is controversial, don't think it's reductionist, or don't think it's reductionist to the extent to reasonably imply ridicule?

I know that @Ovinomancer's description is controversial. I advanced it well before he did, and generated controversy by doing so.

I don't think its particularly reductionist, and certainly not to the point of ridicule. As I said, it is a perfectly good description of some Traveller play I did during pandemic lockdown, and that Traveller play was completely conventional RPGing: I had a description of an alien facility, and the PCs explored it; which is to say, in play, the PCs declared actions about where they went, what they looked at, etc, and I described it.