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

[iserith]

I would think such a comment as this would go against the idea of a + thread, and would accomplish through lack of etiquette what you fear forge jargon would do to a thread.

I stand by my statement because I was once full of zeal having been recently converted and burned down many a thread myself with Forge jargon as my weapon. I am in the group I am criticizing. Or was.

We can choose to keep on using something that is not very effective. Or we can change how we communicate. I choose the latter where Forge jargon is concerned. (I've got other areas to work on, clearly.)

 

[Manbearcat]

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."

Quick thought.

I don’t think that he was objective. But I don’t think objectivity is necessary for theorists to accurately capture and model phenomena (particularly when they have a lot of observational evidence). And honestly, I don’t know that he wasn’t completely objective going into the sort of gaming experiences that ultimately shaped him (nor does anyone else).

So in terms of my understanding of what he liked/didn’t like, it goes as follows:

He certainly liked Gamism.

He had a complete love affair with Process Simulationism (and had a huge amount of experience with it).

He very much, clear as day, did not like GM-facing, GM-directed, Illusionism-intensive High Concept Simulationism because he felt it was play that was unfun and violated social contract because it failed to meet either the evinced goals of play or the implicit goals of play (you can find incoherence and dysfunction in there). Whether or not the italicized is true or not is another question. But he had a huge amount of experience with this and profound disappointment in the play. Narrativism was basically a reaction to this (because that is what he expected out of this form of play).

Now I have no idea how he felt about Table-facing, System-directed, Storygaming as High Concept Simulationism like Fate? No idea.

He obviously, among others put in the work to build out and reify Narrativism. We know how he felt about that.


When he finally played 4e a few years back, he loved it and called it a successful Gamism + Vanilla Narrativism game so I know that he feels that hybrid designs are capable of existing (he postulated that G + N play nice together over the years.

He played Blades years ago (another Gamism + Narrativism Hybrid) and (as I write above) had an unfortunate and clearly misinformed take on it (though he couched it heavily and may have fully drawn back from it sense).

So, on the whole, I don’t feel like he dislikes much in the way of these agendas. Again, I don’t know how he feels about Fate (if I had to guess it would be that he doesn’t like it), but on the whole, the only thing I know that he doesn’t like is a particular brand of High Concept Sim because of the italicized I wrote above. Now, full disclosure (as many of you probably know), I spent the overwhelming majority of my GMing since 84 running brazenly, unapologetically Gamist D&D crawl games (often full blown Pawn/Token Stance). The first time I felt unwelcome in this hobby was the late 80s when the hobby took a HUGE and aggressive turn toward GM-Directed High Concept Sim. It was at that time when my gaming was constantly attacked for shallow “roll-play not roleplay.” That continued for a decade and a half (of which time I ran a nice chunk of Over the Edge + Everway and plenty of, to myself but not my players because they expressively asked for it, very unrewarding GM-Directed, High Concept Sim where I mashed the pedal to the floor on Setting Tourism + Metaplot). It (“roll-play not role-play with a side of OSR/3.x vs Forge culture war) then started again in 2008 during 4e.

Now the thing is, the majority of play in the hobby is clearly GM-directed, High Concept Sim with some Gamism feathered in and then muted (as the dictator of the through line of play) via an abundance of free play/vignettes and then subordinated here and there because of clash with story or inviolable immersion priorities and then feathered back in (etc). But that is the only thing that is negatively connoted in the essays as far as I can tell.
The problem is, that is The Big Dog (and The Big Dog knows it and if you don’t know…prepare to be reminded!) and has been so for…30 years? So its not a % # of play styles with these framing issue in the Forge model. It’s that there is a lot of subtly variant subsets (3 examples would be some have more PC-build intense Gamist through lines and Power Fantasy than others, some are totally unstructured freeform and borderline LARP, some follow the metaplot most of the time and then get off of it now and again and change playstyle to a nearly full-bore Gamism crawl phase, etc) that fall under that GM-directed, High Concept Sim header. This is where the 6 cultures of play do their best work with Trad + Neotrad/OC + Nordic LARP. The Big Dog plays those and drifts them and brings in Classic (Gamism) priorities to one degree or another.

 

[Charlaquin]

This concedes that Edwards is a deplorable person. I'm unwilling to do so. For one, it establishes an easy route to dismiss anything at any time that becomes difficult later.

We shouldn't need to all agree that a person, a human person, is deplorable to advance discussion. Especially when the assignment of deplorable rests on terrible takes about what they said and intended. If you think Edwards is a bad person because he was trashing games to trash games, this shows that you do not grasp the things Edwards was saying at all. It's the core of the ad hominin. A discussion cannot move forwards with this established AND talk about what was actually said -- it's already been discarded!

You don’t have to agree with me that he’s deplorable. But you’re not going to convince me that he isn’t, so can we drop it?

 

[Aldarc]

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.

IMHO, I have not found the academic-level theorizing about RPGs as helpful as I have found the amateur stuff for sussing out my views and preferences about roleplaying games. The sort of theory and questions that interest academics of TRPGs are drawn to addressing tend to be different, IME, than those of hobbyists (including designers). The same is true, again IME, when dealing with academic theories and hobby theorists (including designers) regarding digital games (e.g., computer, video, mobile, etc.).

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is why this can't be a +thread about common language no jargon... you are too interested in the "every little bit right" and not interested in laymans high over view.

Okay. You use words that you actually meant to be different words, ignored the third, and most influential, part of GNS until you said it's just somewhere between the other two, completely admit that you've never looked at the source material, and anyone correcting anything is really only concerned with scoring points against a layman's point of view. Is this where we are? I'm trying to make sure I know what you mean.

Does 'layman's point of view' mean "uninformed opinion" in this conjecture?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

IMHO, I have not found the academic-level theorizing about RPGs as helpful as I have found the amateur stuff for sussing out my views and preferences about roleplaying games.

as long as we are + what we are getting the most out of... I get some out of BOTH but I find examples (but limited examples) most helpful. Not "This is this and this is why" as much as "This happened at a game and we solved the issue this way"

The sort of theory and questions that interest academics of TRPGs are drawn to addressing tend to be different, IME, than those of hobbyists (including designers). The same is true, again IME, when dealing with academic theories and hobby theorists (including designers) regarding digital games (e.g., computer, video, mobile, etc.).

in TTRPG though as DMs a lot of us also dabble our toes in design (some more then others).

D&D is more "Mario Maker" and much less "Super Mario World"

Mario Maker most (But far from all) people are making levels... Super Mario World most would have no clue how to make a level even with the new programs that make hacks easier to make,

 

[Ovinomancer]

You don’t have to agree with me that he’s deplorable. But you’re not going to convince me that he isn’t, so can we drop it?

I didn't bring it up. You chose to make you opinion of Edwards an issue in the thread.

 

[Malmuria]

I have no interest in shutting down the discussion

Right? You were engaged in a good faith discussion for several pages. I asked @Manbearcat to expand upon his thoughts re: Torchbearer. That’s the opposite of shutting down discussion. Unless, taking any issue at all with the way Edwards communicated, even in the most notorious example, is the same as “shutting down discussion.” Or, citing Edwards at length on his own terms is “shutting down discussion.”

 

[Charlaquin]

Why is it called “The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast”?

The Tim Burton adaptation of Alice in Wonderland had Alice’s father said he would “believe four impossible things before breakfast,” as a poetic way of expressing that innovation can make the seemingly impossible, possible. But, Edwards seems to be using it the opposite way here - to mean that the thing the gaming community seems to believe is possible, isn’t. Also, I’m pretty sure the Forge came first, so I’m guessing they’re both referencing something else I’m not familiar with.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It’s not assuming ill intent. His words always gave the impression of ill intent, and then he confirmed it with the brain damage comment.

No, it really isn’t. Some really good stuff incidentally came out of the discussion he kicked off. What he was saying with his words was elitist, gatekeeping garbage.

He literally is though. He called a game that I very much like “dysfunctional.” Just because it was obfuscated in a lot of pseudo-academic analysis doesn’t change the content. And it would be a different story if he had said “I don’t understand why anyone likes Vampire and I don’t care to, here’s what I don’t like about it and what would make a better alternative.” But he didn’t do that. He said Vampire is incorrect and dysfunctional and the people who like it have “brain damage,” which he later clarified meant that the game caused trauma in their developing brains that left them unable to appreciate the games he likes.

It’s great that pemerton was able to take something of value from what Edwards said, but that experience is not universal, and a lot of what he said was very actively exclusive to certain RPG players.

The problem with FATAL isn’t that it bad “incoherent agendas” or whatever other waffle, the problem with FATAL is that its mechanics are poorly considered and it’s contents and themes are odeous bigoted garbage.

I’m perfectly happy to discuss the ideas. We did so, pretty productively for several pages. What I’m not happy with is trying to defend him and his words as anything but hateful towards players whose preferences he either didn’t understand or just didn’t like.

I have no interest in shutting down the discussion. If you want to stop arguing about the man and get back to his ideas, I will join you in doing so.

Again, you started this, and it's your incorrect assumptions about things said that continue it. Your analysis of what Edwards said is off the mark, to the point that I do not believe you read the essay Brain Damage is mentioned in. Nothing you've said incorporated even a shred of the context that remark is in.

As for Vampire, you're judging someone for not liking a game you like and giving reasons. Okay. That's a thing.