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

[Ovinomancer]

Yep, this. I don't like being gaslighted, and I don't like when I see other people being gaslighted. "No, there is no bias, you're just imagining it." Please!

Also, pretending that GNS theory is somehow neutral and objective, leads the adherent effectively casting any disagreement with it as lack of understanding or result of (to not use Edwards' terms) "cognitive bias."

I don't think this is helpful. And like I tried to allude to earlier, we are ultimately talking about categorising and describing rather subjective experiences, so it is perfectly possible that a certain explanatory framework works for one person while not to another, without either of them being in any way objectively "wrong."

Interesting choice, to claim gaslighting and then engage in a series of strawmen. No one has claimed there's no bias, they've claimed that Edwards doesn't hate the games he's critiquing (except Vampire). He bluntly critiques games he likes as well. This isn't a claim of no bias, it's a discrediting of the ad hominin attack against Edwards that attempts to dismiss his ideas because he doesn't like whatever game you think he doesn't like. It's attacking the person of Edwards and not the actual ideas. Edwards is very much not without bias. It's just the claimed bias isn't it.

And GNS is pretty neutral and objective. It strives to be so. It's a creation of humans, so it's not perfect, but I've managed to use some of the concepts to run better games in many different agendas. I had a rather vigorous discussion with @Manbearcat about the nature of the Alien RPG, where he saw some narrativist DNA and thought it works well that way, but I found it doesn't (and our attempt to do so didn't work well) and that it responds extremely well to a Simulationist take. It's actually the only example I know of where I see some narrativist tech involved and somewhat working with simulationism. It's a hard toggle, and I don't think the game does a good job with it on it's own, but understanding GNS helped me work through a good way to enable that toggle and get those moments of play. I hope to continue with a campaign after my short run cinematic version, but work is killing my weekend schedules when that game happens (we haven't met for 2 months now).

So, yeah, strawmen. You're being gaslit by your own imaginings.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There’s a kind of polite version of this in some of his other writings, at least in my reading of them, which is that he sometimes seems kind of mystified and/or chagrined that people like games that, in his analysis, are “dysfunctional.” Out of this emerges a set of ideas (high concept simulation, participationism) trying to explain this mystery. There’s a legacy to this that I see on rpg twitter, which is indie designers similarly chagrined at the popularity of 5e (not unwarranted because it does take up most of the breathing room).

This is not an unfair observation. Except I think that high concept simulationism isn't borne out of this, but rather the substituting of abstract concepts as managed by the GM in for hard system mechanics to engage with the experience of the fiction.

 

[hawkeyefan]

How many flaming wrecks of threads will it take to show that it isn't advisable to bring up Forge jargon in a D&D discussion on these forums though? Because I've seen plenty of them and I'm not even in most (or I abandon them once the Forge jargon kicks off). I can't be the only one noticing this.

17,839. Duh.

More seriously, I don't think this thread is a flaming wreck. I think it got off to a rocky start, but then I saw a lot of interesting discussion, and a lot of amicability. Now, the past few pages have become more focused on the brain damage issue, but once we all get past that, hopefully it'll move back toward where it was.

I don't control your reaction- but your lack of having your feelings hurt doesn't mean that you dictate that others feel the same way. That's ... well, that's something I think we have all discussed a lot in other areas in the last few years.

I didn't claim it did. I acknowledged that others can feel how they like, and I didn't blame anyone to take insult. I did say that I think that any such feelings should be kept in perspective.

I take it that Edwards has never apologized or retracted those statements, then? If that's the case, then I would say that maybe it's best to just move on than to keep arguing the point. If someone says to me, "Hey, didn't Gygax say some sexist stuff," I'm not going to spend time arguing with them.

I have no idea if he did or did not. I expect even if he did, nothing would change. I also don't think he really needs to apologize.

"Yeah, he said those things. I'm not defending it. It wasn't appropriate, even as hyperbole." That's usually a better response. IMO.

Finally, the reason those statements keep coming up is because people keep trying to present Edwards as a neutral arbiter of games ... you know, Edwards liked B/X! But he isn't a neutral arbiter and fan of all games. It's well known. To argue otherwise does a disservice to the people you are talking to, and, honestly, to Edwards to.

I think neutral is wrong. I think he likes a variety of games, but tends to like them for different reasons, and he prefers games that do what they're "supposed to" from a player experience standpoint. I think he didn't like when games said they would deliver one thing, but delivered something else entirely.

I think he hated the GM as storyteller. Which was the dominant mode in the era leading up to the Forge, with the White Wolf games specifically calling the GM the Storyteller, and with TSRs response of trying to mimic that in their products. As I think @Campbell just posted.... he hated what he saw as railroads.

Which is a sentiment posted around here all the time, and is rarely considered contentious.

And there are plenty of conversations about GNS that I don't get involved in. Or the torchbearer thread. Perhaps this is just a failure of perspectives; obviously, from your perspective, it would seem that people come in and argue GNS/Edwards issues with you; however, from another perspective it might seem that these issues are interjected into other threads that don't have to do with the specific topic.

And perhaps the truth is somewhere in between, leaving everyone aggrieved.

I don't have any problem with anyone saying whatever they'd like in a thread. I just prefer it be on topic or relevant. I don't like when other people have decided that a thread is "no good" or what have you, and that it needs to be closed. Or even further, that a specific topic be banned from being discussed on the boards. The very idea of that sounds totally bonkers to me (aside from basic forum rules and such about non-gaming topics, etc.). To ban a topic that has obvious gaming relevance?

So my point on this matter was not to limit anyone from takin part in any conversation they'd like, but for people to exhibit some self control, and simply not engage in threads where their sole contribution is going to be "Hey all you guys who are chatting about this, you shouldn't be chatting about this". That's no one's decision to make other than Morrus and the mods, and I see anyone doing that as an attempt to shut down conversation simply because they don't like what's being said, and so I'm against that.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Oh sure, do you want the whole original thing I said (which includes no jargon)? Here it is:

-- people that want verisimilitude to be king
-- people that want challenge to be king
-- people that want character* to be king

Verisimilitude is the story is king the challenge is the game is king... the character is half way between and back to my simple run down.

RPG theory of GNS is just a break down of weather the game itself is more important or the story that the game creates is more important.

 

[Campbell]

@Campbell how would you suggest people educate themselves about particular terminology? Sincere question. I thought going back and reading the original essays was a good idea for this, but now it seems like maybe they aren’t the last word for the history of some of these terms?

It's somewhat tough because much of it was spread between various mailing lists, particularly The Sorcerer mailing list. Then the forums which are still archived. I think it's somewhat important to consider that the essays are in many ways the synthesis of a lot of different people's ideas that were fairly highly contested and some of the names for things were not Ron's decision. As an example Story Now was a moniker that came from the Sorcerer mailing list.

I actually think it's best to understand the Big Model through the prism of The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, the idea that a GM cannot control the story while players decide what the protagonists do and desire. This essay covers various way to resolve what most of The Forge say as the fundamental question of RPG design. I consider it more important than anything found in the essays.

This is probably the best distillation of what Story Now is really about :

From the outside, it may be difficult to distinguish illusionism, particpationism, and trailblazing from each other. In each case, the referee has created a story and the players are following it. The illusionist referee has locked the players into his story without telling them this. The participationist referee has their consent to locking them into his story. The trailblazer is dependent on their good faith effort to follow his clues so that his story will be told. Yet in the end, it is almost always the case that the player characters have lived the story which was prepared by the referee. The fourth approach to play, known as bass playing, is completely different from these.

Ron Edwards identified and named bass playing, with reference to the role of the bass player in a jazz or rock band. The bass player sets the beat, probably the mood, the key, and the changes in the music, but he almost never plays the melody. That's given to the other instrumentalists to provide. In the same way, the bass player referee sets up the world, the mood, perhaps the situations, but then falls into the background and allows the players to improvise, he merely supporting their efforts, bringing changes when it will work for them, and keeping it moving at an acceptable pace.

In this resolution of The Impossible Thing, the referee controls the story in the sense that he sets up the world and the situation, and so decides what the story is about and where it begins; but he does not control how it ends, or how it reaches the end, because that depends entirely on the choices made by the players expressed through their characters. In the end, the story will be as much a surprise to him as to anyone else. Bass playing is the freest and most interactive approach to play. However, it demands that the players not expect the referee to tell them what they should do. The players should do what they want to do, to make things happen that interest them. It is thus in some ways the most surprising approach and most difficult to implement. Quite a few independent game designs attempt to encourage this approach to play.

That is not to say that other approaches are not valid. Trailblazing and participationism are common and well-enjoyed by many players. What matters in game design theory is how to make a game fun. These methods have all succeeded at least for some players.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Verisimilitude is the story is king the challenge is the game is king... the character is half way between and back to my simple run down.

RPG theory of GNS is just a break down of weather the game itself is more important or the story that the game creates is more important.

Verisimilitude isn't the story. It's that feeling that the world has weight and purpose and behaves according to an internal cause. The game can very much be the source of this -- see Rolemaster that has high process-sim proclivities. Verisimilitude there comes from the game systems.

The challenge isn't the game. It's those moments where you get to bring everything you have as a player to bear and try to win. The game encompasses the challenge, but these aren't the same things.

So, yes, either you've engaged in some pretty strong jargon creation or you don't have this right. Plus you completely neglected the third bullet, which doesn't care about challenge or verisimilitude. In a model with three things, you've reduced it to two.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Again, people do agree, you seem to be mistaking trying to use different ways to explain it to multiple questions as different answers entirely. All talking about the same thing.

And, come one, man. You start by saying you haven't even read anything about it and then go on to make a statement about what it actually is.

I don't go to the forge that doesn't mean I don't understand what people mean (in a broad catagory) when talking about gaming...

I would ADD maybe you should listen to people more who do NOT go in for the jargen to understand how it is seen from outside.

That claim is not correct. It hasn't been advanced by anyone else in the thread, even those arguing against GNS. You're essentially complaining that things are terrible because your hot take about something you haven't even read was challenged. I'm somewhat at a loss.

I ams aying that this thread isn't about finding common ways to saythings anymore (if it ever was)

 

[hawkeyefan]

There’s a kind of polite version of this in some of his other writings, at least in my reading of them, which is that he sometimes seems kind of mystified and/or chagrined that people like games that, in his analysis, are “dysfunctional.” Out of this emerges a set of ideas (high concept simulation, participationism) trying to explain this mystery. There’s a legacy to this that I see on rpg twitter, which is indie designers similarly chagrined at the popularity of 5e (not unwarranted because it does take up most of the breathing room).

That's a good point. I think a large part of why I don't want these topics shut down out of hand is because I have at times been very dissatisfied with gaming. Many people have.... you see it all the time in discussions of games imploding or GM burnout and the like.

A large part of what was an issue for me was that I would start to be dissatisfied with a game, make a change of some sort, and things would get better for a bit.... and then eventually, I'd be dissatisfied again.

This was because I was trying to get something from a game that I was very unlikely to get, and also because I was continually using largely the same tools to try and fix the problem. Like 5e when it came out was a breath of fresh air for me compared to what was my group's game of choice at the time, Pathfinder. I happily made the switch. But it wasn't long before some dissatisfaction started to creep in again.

Discussion here about games beyond those I was playing, and about theory about all kinds of games, is what helped me move past that dissatisfaction. It helped so much that I really don't like to see calls to shut such conversation down.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Verisimilitude isn't the story. It's that feeling that the world has weight and purpose and behaves according to an internal cause. The game can very much be the source of this -- see Rolemaster that has high process-sim proclivities. Verisimilitude there comes from the game systems.

lots of words for the same thing... the world the story takes place in IS THE STORY...

The challenge isn't the game.

it is by common usage of the words...

It's those moments where you get to bring everything you have as a player to bear and try to win.

that would be the game yes.

The game encompasses the challenge, but these aren't the same things.

only when you try to break them down to technicalities instead of broad over views...

So, yes, either you've engaged in some pretty strong jargon creation or you don't have this right. Plus you completely neglected the third bullet, which doesn't care about challenge or verisimilitude. In a model with three things, you've reduced it to two.

yes I reduced it to two and said the 3rd was a hakf way point... it isn't perfect but it is a broad highview summery for someone who doens't role play to understand (or someone that doesn't read 1,000s of form post on game theories)

 

[iserith]

17,839. Duh.

More seriously, I don't think this thread is a flaming wreck. I think it got off to a rocky start, but then I saw a lot of interesting discussion, and a lot of amicability. Now, the past few pages have become more focused on the brain damage issue, but once we all get past that, hopefully it'll move back toward where it was.

I wouldn't consider this thread an example of what I'm talking about though. This thread in my view is more of a discussion about the jargon itself, or has become that, as well as its utility (which then touches on the theory and its author, naturally). I'm more referring to threads where someone has a situation at a D&D table with either the experience not being all it could be or an issue with particular rules, then we get a few posters entering the thread (often late in the discussion) with a litany of Forge jargon at which point the whole thing goes south. Which isn't to say a discussion can't go south without Forge jargon. It just seems to me, more often than not, it will once the Forge jargon is introduced (with or without my "help"), and it doesn't actually solve the original issue that was posted. Knowing this to be a thing, how about we just don't bring in that jargon?