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

[Charlaquin]

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

Mostly that looks like a summary of the mechanics of each (which is certainly appreciated!) with the main recommendation for when to use one or the other being that it’s better to alternate than to pile on one or the other. That is helpful!

 

[Malmuria]

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.

I understand the ideas “incoherence” is meant to communicate, and because of this am arguing incoherence is not a particularly apt term. In fact, it seems Edwards distinguished between “incoherent” and “hybrid” design:

Hybrids and drift
Can multiple GNS goals be satisfied by a single game design? It may be possible, but it is not easy. As mentioned before, merely aligning topics of Exploration with those of Premise is probably not effective. I conceive of two types of hybrid: (1) two modes are simultaneously satisfied in the same player at the same time, of which I am highly skeptical; and (2) two modes can exist side by side in the design, such that differently-oriented players may play together, which might be possible…

Drift is a related issue: the movement from one GNS focus to another during the course of play. I do not think that "drift" reflects hybridized design (in which both modes are indeed present), but rather correctable incoherence (moving toward coherence in one mode)…

Incoherent design
Unfortunately, functional or nearly-functional hybrids are far less common than simply incoherent RPG designs…

The "dominant" dysfunctional system is immediately recognizable, to the extent of being considered by many to be what role-playing is: a vaguely Gamist combat and reward system, Simulationist resolution in general (usually derived from GURPS, Cyberpunk, or Champions 4th edition), a Simulationist context for play (Situation in the form of published metaplot), deceptive Narrativist Color, and incoherent Simulationist/Narrativist Character creation rules. This combination has been represented by some of the major players in role-playing marketing, and has its representative for every period of role-playing since the early 1980s.

• AD&D2 pioneered the approach in the middle 1980s, particularly the addition of metaplot with the Dragonlance series.
• Champions, through its 3rd edition, exemplified a mix of Gamist and Narrativist "driftable" design, but with its 4th edition in the very late 1980s, the system lost all Metagame content and became the indigestible mix outlined above.
• Vampire, in the early 1990s, offered a mix of Simulationism and Gamism in combat resolution, but a mix of Narrativism and Simulationism out of combat, as well as bringing in Character Exploration.

All of these games are based on The Great Impossible Thing to Believe Before Breakfast: that the GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story's protagonists. This is impossible. It's even absurd. However, game after game, introduction after introduction, and discussion after discussion, it is repeated.

Consider the players who were excited about the vampire concept for role-playing. What happens when they try to play Vampire: the Masquerade? Well, they try to Believe the Impossible Thing, and in application, the results are inevitable.

• The play drifts toward some application of Narrativism, which requires substantial effort and agreement among all the people involved, as well as editing out substantial portions of the game's texts and system.
• The play drifts toward an application of Simulationism in which the GM dominates the characters' significant actions, and the players contribute only to characterization. This is called illusionism, in which the players are unaware of or complicit with the extent to which they are manipulated.
  • Illusionism is not necessarily dysfunctional, and if Character or Situation Exploration is the priority, then it can be a lot of fun. Unknown Armies, Feng Shui, and Call of Cthulhu all facilitate extremely functional illusionism. However, it is not and can never be "story creation" on the part of all participants, and if the game is incoherent, illusionism requires considerable effort to edit the system and texts into shape.
• Most likely, however, the players and GM carry out an ongoing power-struggle over the actions of the characters, with the integrity of "my guy" held as a club on the behalf of the former and the integrity of "the story" held as a club on behalf of the latter.

The players of the vampire example are especially screwed if they have Narrativist leanings and try to use Vampire: the Masquerade. The so-called "Storyteller" design in White Wolf games is emphatically not Narrativist, but it is billed as such, up to and including encouraging subcultural snobbery against other Simulationist play without being much removed from it. The often-repeated distinction between "roll-playing" and "role-playing" is nothing more nor less than Exploration of System and Exploration of Character - either of which, when prioritized, is Simulationism. Thus our players, instead of taking the "drift" option (which would work), may well apply themselves more and more diligently to the metaplot and other non-Narrativist elements in the mistaken belief that they are emphasizing "story." The prognosis for the enjoyment of such play is not favorable.

One may ask, if this design is so horribly dysfunctional, why is it so popular? The answer requires an economic perspective on RPGs, in addition to the conceptual and functional one outlined in this essay, and is best left for discussion.

Incoherent game design is distinguished from Hybrid design due to its confusing, disjointed, disorganized (i.e. “incoherent”) goals and presentation (though, he says he is “highly skeptical” that hybrid design is truly achievable). He writes this “unfortunately” applies to many games with which we are familiar, which are “dysfunctional.” In fact, “horribly dysfunctional.” This is a problem especially when it can’t drift from one agenda to another, and so becomes an “indigestible mix” of multiple agendas. This untenable situation can be seen in Vampire, where the incoherent design leads players to be “especially screwed.” Instead of just drifting their game to one agenda or another, the outcome is that in this incoherent game “including encouraging subcultural snobbery against other Simulationist play without being much removed from it.” In sum, he writes that “the prognosis for the enjoyment of such play is not favorable.”

So maybe “dysfunctional,” “indigestible,” “screwed,” and “unfavorable prognosis” also just technical terms within his theory describing a type of design or a state of play. But given everything Edwards writes above and more, I think its intended as a criticism and something to be avoided in design.

Which again, is fine. It’s sensible in its immediate context (you’ll hear no defense of vampire’s system from me) and introduces, though the agendas, a kind of focus that some designers and players have found helpful. But pretending that its not a criticism is bizarre, not only because it clearly is, but because the fact that it is a swipe at Vampire is what makes it an insightful point in the first place. Perhaps there was an idea that a theory needs to be abstract and neutral, devoid of historical context; certainly theory in other fields operates under this assumption. But I think you can admit that theory is motivated (the definitely not that aspect of it) and not only is it not a problem, but is helpful.

 

[Malmuria]

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.

I’ve been using the term “criticism” instead of “critique” to get at this distinction a little bit, though I would say in both cases the figure of the Kantian “disinterested critic” has been debunked. But that’s a conversation for another day! With regards to Edwards, I think “incoherence” was chosen because not despite of its negative connotations; see my above post

 

[pemerton]

Yup, absolutely. But, again, to me those motivations are ultimately in service to a desire to learn what the character would do, which I keep hearing is simulationism. I seem to want simulationism by way of gamism.

Maybe? Or maybe you enjoy gamism with characterisation, and that's why you choose to play D&D rather than chess or craps?

Gamism, simulationism and narrativism are all modes of enjoying the RPG form. That we enjoy exploring our characters doesn't settle the question of mode, because all RPGing involves enjoying the characters.

A big part of playing RM, or RQ, is finding out how your character develops. That doesn't stop it being purist-for-system play: you want a super-tight self-unfolding system experience to tell you what happens to your character and how they change. (RQ is famous for this, with its roll-under-your-skill to see if you get to add a point to it: one of the most elegant purist-for-system bits of design ever!)

Suppose that someone was going to GM for Charlaquin or Charlaquin's friend. One thing they might want to know is this: if the PCs are losing a fight, will the game be more satisfactory if (1) the GM pushes it through to the bitter end, even if that means TPK? or (2) the GM has someone from the character's backstory turn up and pull off a bit of a deus-ex-machina rescue, shifting the focus of play from What happened to these characters in this fight? to What's the deal with this NPC, who previously was just hanging out in a slightly nebulous PC backstory, suddenly turning up and caring about things?

We can label the preferences that dictate which of (1) or (2) is preferable (gamist vs high concept simulationist) but the labels are nothing more than that. But knowing the preferences is helpful for the GM. And then game designers can also think about them too: eg if you're designing a game to support players with type-2 preferences, it would make sense in PC gen to have a step where you encourage each player to write up a bit of a backstory for their PC (similar to what @Campbell posted upthread for this L5R PC).

 

[pemerton]

One of the things I find a bit sad is how much OSR and narrative game fans tend to clash.

Speaking just for myself, I've had pretty good exchanges with a number of OSR-leaning posters on these boards. Some no longer post, or got in trouble for stuff we won't speak about (because we don't want to get in trouble), but @S'mon still turns up from time to time!

 

[Hussar]

Side question- is there a Torchbearer module for Fantasy Grounds? My very brief Google search didn’t find one.

 

[Charlaquin]

I understand the ideas “incoherence” is meant to communicate, and because of this am arguing incoherence is not a particularly apt term. In fact, it seems Edwards distinguished between “incoherent” and “hybrid” design:



Incoherent game design is distinguished from Hybrid design due to its confusing, disjointed, disorganized (i.e. “incoherent”) goals and presentation (though, he says he is “highly skeptical” that hybrid design is truly achievable). He writes this “unfortunately” applies to many games with which we are familiar, which are “dysfunctional.” In fact, “horribly dysfunctional.” This is a problem especially when it can’t drift from one agenda to another, and so becomes an “indigestible mix” of multiple agendas. This untenable situation can be seen in Vampire, where the incoherent design leads players to be “especially screwed.” Instead of just drifting their game to one agenda or another, the outcome is that in this incoherent game “including encouraging subcultural snobbery against other Simulationist play without being much removed from it.” In sum, he writes that “the prognosis for the enjoyment of such play is not favorable.”

So maybe “dysfunctional,” “indigestible,” “screwed,” and “unfavorable prognosis” also just technical terms within his theory describing a type of design or a state of play. But given everything Edwards writes above and more, I think its intended as a criticism and something to be avoided in design.

Which again, is fine. It’s sensible in its immediate context (you’ll hear no defense of vampire’s system from me) and introduces, though the agendas, a kind of focus that some designers and players have found helpful. But pretending that its not a criticism is bizarre, not only because it clearly is, but because the fact that it is a swipe at Vampire is what makes it an insightful point in the first place. Perhaps there was an idea that a theory needs to be abstract and neutral, devoid of historical context; certainly theory in other fields operates under this assumption. But I think you can admit that theory is motivated (the definitely not that aspect of it) and not only is it not a problem, but is helpful.

My god is his writing off-putting. It’s like he’s actively trying to signal that I am not welcome, and that the the things I like are awful and wrong.

 

[Malmuria]

My god is his writing off-putting. It’s like he’s actively trying to signal that I am not welcome, and that the the things I like are awful and wrong.

OR…his writing is extremely successful at communicating that the things you like are awful and wrong.

 

[Charlaquin]

Maybe? Or maybe you enjoy gamism with characterisation, and that's why you choose to play D&D rather than chess or craps?

Gamism, simulationism and narrativism are all modes of enjoying the RPG form. That we enjoy exploring our characters doesn't settle the question of mode, because all RPGing involves enjoying the characters.

A big part of playing RM, or RQ, is finding out how your character develops. That doesn't stop it being purist-for-system play: you want a super-tight self-unfolding system experience to tell you what happens to your character and how they change. (RQ is famous for this, with its roll-under-your-skill to see if you get to add a point to it: one of the most elegant purist-for-system bits of design ever!)

Suppose that someone was going to GM for Charlaquin or Charlaquin's friend. One thing they might want to know is this: if the PCs are losing a fight, will the game be more satisfactory if (1) the GM pushes it through to the bitter end, even if that means TPK? or (2) the GM has someone from the character's backstory turn up and pull off a bit of a deus-ex-machina rescue, shifting the focus of play from What happened to these characters in this fight? to What's the deal with this NPC, who previously was just hanging out in a slightly nebulous PC backstory, suddenly turning up and caring about things?

We can label the preferences that dictate which of (1) or (2) is preferable (gamist vs high concept simulationist) but the labels are nothing more than that. But knowing the preferences is helpful for the GM. And then game designers can also think about them too: eg if you're designing a game to support players with type-2 preferences, it would make sense in PC gen to have a step where you encourage each player to write up a bit of a backstory for their PC (similar to what @Campbell posted upthread for this L5R PC).

1 is preferable to me.

 

[pemerton]

It's probably been said 500 times already in this thread, but perhaps an issue is that 5e (or most any TTRPG) can be played in very different ways.

One table could have a prepublished campaign, characters with no personal story, and a GM that is going to run a series of sections from the book exactly as they are written.

A second table perhaps has a GM with a prewritten adventure that is crafted with a few connections to the players stories weaved into it.

A third GM (me) might have absolutely no prewritten adventure in mind and instead some loose ideas of interesting things that they might throw at the PCs if the opportunity presents itself. Their session revolves around asking the players "what does your character want to do?" and then parsing how the world would react to the answers to that question. It MIGHT be "Go check out that dungeon for loot" or possibly "Go look around town for exotic animals" or even ""Go gather up supplies, build, and advertise a sandwich shop in the ground floor of our temple".

In the check out a dungeon request, then as a GM I will maybe switch modes of play and use something prewritten, and it may or may not connect to other storylines.

I'm the other two requests, however, I'm just creating things on the fly to give the player an interesting and challenging stream of feedback for as long as they want to pursue the idea. A trip to the exotic animal market might spin into a multi session trek across the world as the players direct the story.


And this is why I disagree when a game system is given a GNS label, because most games can be used to give the players whatever they want out of it.

You can have a session of 5e that's basically a tactical miniatures combat game followed by one solely roleplay that never touches a die and is about the characters confronting a mentor who let them down.

Most game are versatile enough to accommodate many playstyles, and many groups use multiple playstyles in their gaming session.

In short...why do I keep seeing the GNS labels that I have been told are for describing players tacked onto game systems themselves?

I'm not sure where you're heading with this.

There is a straightforward answer to the last question available, and it's probably been posted in the thread: some RPGs better support some sorts of play than others. @Manbearcat posted explaining that Torchbearer will not support simulationist play very well. Nor will Apocalypse World. Classic D&D - Gygax's AD&D, or B/X, or OD&D - will not support narrativist play very well, given that the whole system is set up to support dungeon crawling with a side of hexcrawling.

That has never stopped people doing atypical things with RPGs. The first narrativist RPGing I did, over a decade before the term was coined, was with AD&D OA in the second half of the 1980s. (I can point to the features of the system, too, that opened up that possibility: PCs with developed backstories and relationships; a social framework and a cosmology tightly integrated to the PC thematics; resolution frameworks for things other than fighting and dungeoneering.) I GMed long-running RM campaigns for 19 years: it's a purist-for-system engine through-and-through, but there were significant narrativist leanings to our play. (And incoherence was a thing: there are features of RM that absolutely will get in the way of narrativist play.)

As for classifying your play: ultimately only you can do that. To me, "Go check out that dungeon for loot" or possibly "Go look around town for exotic animals" or even ""Go gather up supplies, build, and advertise a sandwich shop in the ground floor of our temple" all speak of simulationist play based in a GM-authored world, with GM adjudication of that fiction as the main determiner of what happens next. That impression is strongly reinforced by "Their session revolves around asking the players "what does your character want to do?" and then parsing how the world would react to the answers to that question." And as I posted, in another thread you referred to "sidequest" which implies "main quests" which again, to me, suggests simulationist or perhaps gamist play.

You've not posted anything that gives me any sense that your play is narrativist. You've posted nothing that gives any sense of play driven by dramatic needs of the PCs, and the GM framing scenes and narrating consequences in response to those needs. But I'm only going on the fragments of information I can get from your posts.