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

[Hussar]

/snip
That’s totally fine by the way; as a criticism of WOD-style design I see where Edwards is coming from. But to make a criticism, and then say that it is not a criticism but a neutral way of describing all rpgs, strikes me as disingenuous (and pointless).

See, here is another example of where language gets in the way. Criticism IS neutral. At least, it should be. Critiquing something isn't saying that it's bad. It's simply examining where strengths and weaknesses are. And, since incoherence (in the Forge meaning of the term) is specifically defined, then any negative connotations are largely unintended. It's incoherent as in "does not go together" not "incomprehensible" which is another meaning of incoherent in plain English, but, not what is meant in this sense.

It's not about gate keeping or disingenuous at all. It's using a term that is clearly defined in the way it's supposed to be used.

Now, is it a bad term and could we have a better word? Oh, most likely. Again, Ron Edwards isn't exactly the greatest person at naming stuff. He would have fit right in with the 4e naming team.

But, when the term is clearly defined in context, it's not useful to start bringing in connotations that are obviously not meant.

 

[Charlaquin]

It only gets in the way if you're more interested in a negative connotation that with the denotation of the word. The word is being used precisely to mean that denotation. You're hung up on "but that sounds bad" and aren't giving any credence to the explanation for what it actually is showing. You're bringing that into the discussion, by making your choice about this word to focus on a connotation rather than the denotation.

It gets on the way because at a casual read it seems to have a negative connotation. Whether that connotation is intended or not, whether the perception of it is accurate or not, it still has the effect of putting people on the defensive either way, and that is absolutely a flaw in the language of the theory - one of many.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, I read the primer on the Torchbearer Kickstarter. Sounds awesome, though I suppose that is the job of a primer. The one thing that gives me pause is the idea that it seems like on a fail the GM decides whether to let it succeed at the cost of a condition or impose a twist. Now, maybe there are clear principles laid out for when to do which, but without knowing what those principles are (if they do exist), that feels arbitrary in a way I wouldn’t really be bothered by as a player, but would feel uncomfortable deciding on as a GM. Maybe I’m stuck in D&D GM-as-referee mindset, but it feels too partial to me.

GMing games that strongly support Narrativist agendas requires you to let go of neutrality -- you aren't ever neutral, your job is to pour adversity out. If you follow the principles of play and let the system do it's work, this works out tremendously well. If you're main experience is D&D and similar games, then you've been trained as a GM to file off the rough edges because the system doesn't work without finessing -- 5e is explicit about this in how often it just puts the GM in the place of the system (look to stealth for a great example of this). Systems designed like Torchbearer and PbtA games and Blades don't require this finessing, and the largest source of user error for them are GMs not yet willing to trust that system and go hard working to finesse them.

This isn't a dig at 5e's system. I think it's a very impressive piece of design that does what it intends to do, and clearly the mode of having the GM as not just arbiter of the rules but needing to finesse them to produce play works a champ!

 

[Ovinomancer]

It gets on the way because at a casual read it seems to have a negative connotation. Whether that connotation is intended or not, whether the perception of it is accurate or not, it still has the effect of putting people on the defensive either way, and that is absolutely a flaw in the language of the theory - one of many.

Oh, sure, for sure. But when that's been pointed out and the continued argument is about connotation despite that....

And while incoherent can have a negative connotation, like all connotations it's situational and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Here, it's a cigar.

 

[Charlaquin]

GMing games that strongly support Narrativist agendas requires you to let go of neutrality -- you aren't ever neutral, your job is to pour adversity out. If you follow the principles of play and let the system do it's work, this works out tremendously well. If you're main experience is D&D and similar games, then you've been trained as a GM to file off the rough edges because the system doesn't work without finessing -- 5e is explicit about this in how often it just puts the GM in the place of the system (look to stealth for a great example of this). Systems designed like Torchbearer and PbtA games and Blades don't require this finessing, and the largest source of user error for them are GMs not yet willing to trust that system and go hard working to finesse them.

This isn't a dig at 5e's system. I think it's a very impressive piece of design that does what it intends to do, and clearly the mode of having the GM as not just arbiter of the rules but needing to finesse them to produce play works a champ!

This is not a very convincing argument in favor of Torchbearer being for me.

 

[niklinna]

It gets on the way because at a casual read it seems to have a negative connotation. Whether that connotation is intended or not, whether the perception of it is accurate or not, it still has the effect of putting people on the defensive either way, and that is absolutely a flaw in the language of the theory - one of many.

I agree. Edwards had a unique gift for choosing bad and even hackle-raising names. Also, some terms that seem innocuous in the context of his essays, I see them put forward in general discussion and cringe a bit (or a lot).

But, this is all well established among the flaws we contend with, and I try not to argue about it when somebody says it gives them a bad impression. What am I gonna do, say they can't be right about their own experience?

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is not a very convincing argument in favor of Torchbearer being for me.

Curiously, why not?

 

[Charlaquin]

Curiously, why not?

I mean, my concern was “it’s not clear by what principles I’m meant to determine when to give success with a condition and when to give a twist” and your answer was “you just have give up on being neutral.” Ok, well, I guess that’s fine, but if I’m not sure I’m ready to make that leap, this advice just tells me I should stay way from the game. At the very least, some advocacy for why I should want to embrace partiality would be preferable. Better yet would be to suggest some principles a GM who is hesitant to abandon neutrality might be able to lean on to help wean themselves off of it.

 

[niklinna]

I mean, my concern was “it’s not clear by what principles I’m meant to determine when to give success with a condition and when to give a twist” and your answer was “you just have give up on being neutral.” Ok, well, I guess that’s fine, but if I’m not sure I’m ready to make that leap, this advice just tells me I should stay way from the game. At the very least, some advocacy for why I should want to embrace partiality would be preferable. Better yet would be to suggest some principles a GM who is hesitant to abandon neutrality might be able to lean on to help wean themselves off of it.

Just in case you missed my post upthread about the principles I've seen @Manbearcat use....

 

[niklinna]

Oh I've been getting distracted from this all day. Here is my google sheet of our Torchbearer 2 characters, in case it is of interest. It's modeled after the PDF but with formulas to auto-calculate advances. Clunky but workable.