Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[Lanefan]

Going back to the six-room dungeon we were talking about upthread, that's perhaps not the most gripping dungeon of all time (though I am thinking of stealing it for Torchbearer!) but I don't see it as a railroad. The players have choices to make, including how to respond to the Bugbears and Goblins, and I don't see that the GM is the one dictating what they should be doing.

Agreed. As designed it's a linear adventure, but not a railroad. If nothing else, the PCs can always turn around and leave.

A DM could of course fairly easily make a railroad out of it (linear adventures are good for this), but that's a different issue.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Having dealt with a fair amount of MBTI/Socionics and some other pop psychology, I tend to be skeptical of these sort of typologies. It's why we are still dealing with "Alpha Wolf" BS. With roleplaying games, I find most of the player typologies, including more academic ones, tend to fall short of providing satisfying insight about players in one way or another IMHO.

I think typologies of roleplaying games - game system "families" and common features they share - would be of greater value. Then layer the X Cultures of Gaming on top of that.

I appreciate the thoughtful response. I think we are mostly in agreement. As a general rule, I think it is more valuable to be descriptive that prescriptive- to look at games and find the ways that they overlap (sets) as opposed to come up with typologies and try to jam games into a limited number of them.

Generally, this also has the benefit of empiricism- which is also the best approach when looking at what players want, etc.

This goes back to the numerous variations of an old joke, which I will provide the version of I learned-
A (Y) engineer is visiting (X) and sees that there are two small towns separated by a river. He proposes building a bridge between them, and is told by the engineers there that they have been looking at the problem for 20 years, and it can never get done. "It is impossible!"

The Y engineer doesn't understand, as he has seen these types of bridges before. So he gets a team together, and over the next six months, builds the bridge. Proud of his achievement, he shows it to the X engineers.

They turn their backs, saying, "Well, maybe it works in practice, but it will never work in theory."

...as it was written in the The Elusive Shift by St. Peterson the Evangelist?

Having not read The Elusive Shift yet, I can't really comment in full. I have no doubt that the hobby has been dancing around a lot of the same key underlying issues from the beginning. Likewise, I don't doubt that a lot of early lessons have been forgotten. I am not entirely sure if we are just re-inventing the wheel, even if we are dancing around those same issues. If we are, it's not without good reason, IMHO. Our hobby was changing, is changing, and will change again in response to demographic changes in our hobby and our surrounding culture. And the far greater reach and influence that video games and its theories will undoubtedly make on our hobby cannot be underestimated.A lot of debate that was once in zines moved to Usenet, then to forums, then to Google+ and since elsewhere across the net (e.g., Discord, Reddit, etc.). However, I suspect that a lot has been recontextualized over time. Call and response to past movements and the surrounding culture isn't exactly a new thing outside of roleplaying games. It's a pretty descriptive phenomenon when it comes to artistic and cultural movements as well. I tend to think that falling back on the phraseology of "just keep re-inventing the wheel" does a great disservice to this call and response of our hobby to itself and the wider culture.

So, a few things. I apologize if I might have conflated two separate things (in my longer posts in the past, I made sure to ... well, to quote the Offspring, Keep 'Em Separated). Evan Torner wrote the part about how the same rhetorical tropes w/r/t player and system typologies keep getting used; that's in the book Role-Playing Game Studies. That's the part I keep referencing, and goes through the history, and then provides an example from (2010 I think) of yet another typology. This is how I described it previously-

First, however, I'd like to start by summarizing Evan Torner's work in the book Role-Playing Game Studies- in noting another attempt to provide a coherent RPG theory, Torner correctly notes that the same rhetorical tropes are consistently used- first, the person provides it in a semi-professional form (zine, on-line BBS, personal blog, forum, wiki, etc.). Second, it continues the same debates we are all familiar with (e.g., realism versus playability; task resolution; game design and play advice etc.). It will almost always do so through the utilization of player and system typologies (what players enjoy about different games and how different games accommodate those preferences). Third, the author will almost always claim to be a "big tent" and unbiased observer of the typologies seeking only to end the prior debates, while actually looking to continue the debate and, more often than not, delegitimatize other methods of play through the seemingly-neutral goal of helping people design and play 'better.' Fourth, and finally, the author will inevitably make the act same points that were made years or decades ago.

That's the source of that, not Peterson. Peterson is provides the history (with numerous sources!) of how TTRPGs were played and how they evolved in the 70s and into the beginning of the 80s- it's more a history of how wargames evolved into roleplaying games, and the push/pull of different influences. What is fascinating about reading that book is that you see how the debates we keep having now are echoes of the debates they were having then. It can be frustratingly reductive to keep hearing people say that OD&D and the 70s games were just "dungeon crawls," after you read the actual people debating and arguing about the games, and see the types of games people were playing back then.

But this goes back to Torner's article- the reason that we keep seeing these same debates repeat is because of the hobbyist nature of them. People don't learn from the past. There hasn't (until very recently) been a foundation to build upon. Which is why it can be frustrating at times.

To use some examples from this thread; on the one hand, you have people complain that we need to use jargon because we should take the subject seriously, and (to use some analogies others have used) you wouldn't have Einstein explain his special theory of relativity without jargon, and you wouldn't learn how to mountain climb without learning the terms! Which is fair ...

But ... Einstein and physics use real defined terms that people agree upon, not confusing made-up hobbyist terms. Right? So it can be bizarre when I see responses like the one from @AbdulAlhazred who just wrote above you-

And what makes anything that Tomer says in any way shape or form any more authoritative than anything I say? Hell, I started playing D&D literally when the first 1974 books showed up in our FLGS. I've written all sorts of material of all kinds for dozens of different games, written a couple of my own games, and several wargames too. Talked to plenty of people, including a number of those that are considered influential and played with them too. I'm not CLAIMING to be some great expert, not at all, but surely I have plenty of reason to be able to stand up and be counted. What about all these academics? Did they run 10,000 hours of RPGs? I have!

...it's Evan Torner. But why listen to him? Well, because he publishes his work in academic settings so you can actually choose to disagree with him. Because he has numerous publications (some of them co-authored with William J. White, who wrote the book on the Forge) regarding roleplaying games. It's the same with Peterson- the reason I trust the history in the The Elusive Shift is not because Peterson is saying, "Trust me, I started playing in 1974. My experience is emblematic of the experience of everyone else in the game." It's because he cites the sources! He did the work!

I feel like I keep circling back around to this point- it's the Goldilocks argument. The jargon used by some people is "just right," because ... reasons, I guess? People who do not want to use that jargon aren't taking the game seriously enough, and people that want to look at what academics or people in the last 15 years have been doing ... well, that's too serious?

All that said- when I use the phrase, "re-inventing the wheel," I want to stress that I don't mean that there is nothing new that comes out. I think it should be obvious that the games of today are different than those of the 70s and 80s and 90s. I try to keep reiterating that vital work gets done from these movements that react to what is around them. But, just like other areas (computer games, for example). It's about how the hobbyist community doesn't recall that these debates already occurred. It's like seeing someone post something on enworld, and not realize that it's been done before. Except ... for fifty years. However, I do agree with you that the debate gets re-contextualized when the debate occurs at different times. It's just that in most fields, the people that are re-contextualizing the debate are aware of the prior debates. I mean ... imagine having a PhD candidate in English say, "Hey, I have a new idea no one has ever had before. Imagine if ... we didn't worry about the author's intention? I know! Totally new, right?" It's not that the debate can't be re-contextualized, so much as it's helpful to know that the debate already occurred.

Anyway, appreciate the response.

 

[Malmuria]

I wasn't sure what the original term was, in relation to which your new term would be another.

My interpretation of what you were saying is that node-based scenario design is a railroad because of all the elements of gm-authored fiction. I don’t see gm authored fiction—creating the setting, npcs, and points of conflict (“playing the world”)—as inherently railroading. I use the term more narrowly to different ways a gm might constrain player choice within that broad structure, i.e. with the assumption that the gm is creating the setting, providing npc reactions, etc.

 

[Malmuria]

btw, the dungeon I linked to earlier is from this video:

 

[Malmuria]

Some good examples of very simple node based scenario design might be two introductory scenarios for Call of Cthulhu: Alone Against the Dark (a solo play, basically a choose your own adventure) and The Haunting. I certainly wouldn’t describe either of these as a “sandbox” because the action happens at particular nodes. But neither is it necessarily a railroad because the PCs do have options and there are different endings. It’s not the most dynamic and complex structure out there, but it works as an introduction.

One thought, re: geography: One possible advantage for building more complex scenarios in CoC is that the game takes place in a fantastical version of the real world. When a gm creates a setting the players are sort of in the dark about all the details. But if your playing in 1920s Boston, and the the players are at all familiar with that city, they can use that knowledge to go places the keeper did not prepare as a node. Depending on how the keeper handles that (i.e. by not railroading), it can lead to a more dynamic game.

 

[overgeeked]

My interpretation of what you were saying is that node-based scenario design is a railroad because of all the elements of gm-authored fiction. I don’t see gm authored fiction—creating the setting, npcs, and points of conflict (“playing the world”)—as inherently railroading. I use the term more narrowly to different ways a gm might constrain player choice within that broad structure, i.e. with the assumption that the gm is creating the setting, providing npc reactions, etc.

That is the common usage of railroad. Railroading is when the referee removes player agency. The existence of a setting does not remove player agency. The existence of NPCs does not remove player agency. The existence of monsters or conflicts does not remove player agency. When the referee uses a quantum ogre (i.e. the referee forces the same encounter on the PCs no matter which direction they travel), that's railroading. When the referee says no to a reasonable plan or strategy to preserve the referee's pre-defined story, that's railroading. When the referee prevents any possible solution to a problem or obstacle because they want a singular outcome, that's railroading.

 

[Campbell]

The examples of node based design I saw on The Alexandrian I would are basically something I would consider a railroad because while they offer a choice in the order of scenes both player goals and outcomes are still assumed. Very much like most choose your own adventure books. Not all node based design necessarily fits, but the techniques Justin Alexander is advocating certainly does in my estimation.

 

[overgeeked]

Some good examples of very simple node based scenario design might be two introductory scenarios for Call of Cthulhu: Alone Against the Dark (a solo play, basically a choose your own adventure) and The Haunting. I certainly wouldn’t describe either of these as a “sandbox” because the action happens at particular nodes. But neither is it necessarily a railroad because the PCs do have options and there are different endings. It’s not the most dynamic and complex structure out there, but it works as an introduction.

I haven't read or run Alone Against the Dark, but I've run the hell out of The Haunted House...what they're now calling The Haunting.

It's a mess, honestly. It would work far, far better as a more linear adventure. Or at least a strong start pointing in one obvious (but different than the most obvious) direction.

The setup is: you're hired to investigate a haunted house. That's it. That's the extent of the setup. Okay...so what's the first thing you do? If you're 99% of the players who've ever gone through this scenario, you literally go directly to the house...to investigate the house...like you're hired to do. Because of course you do.

NPC: "Here's some cash, go find out if that house is haunted."

PC: "Okay." B-line for the house

Designers: "Not like that!"

Everyone else: "What?"

Which is the opposite of what the designers intent for you to do. They want you to investigate the house...by not going to the house. Instead, you go to the library, the Boston Globe, the Hall of Records, the courts, the police station, explore the neighborhood the house is in, and, based on what you find, you'll be pointed at two bonus locations, the sanitarium and a burned down church. After...after...you hit all or most of those locations, then you're expected to go to the house.

Why? Because unless you know before going in that the place really is haunted and that there are some incredibly nasty things inside, then you're most likely going to die really, really fast. I mean fast even for Call of Cthulhu. You'd think in the 40 years they've been using that intro scenario they'd have built in something of a better start.

Basically it's a disconnect between the assume play loop and what the designers actually wrote into the books. They assumed that the players, knowing they're playing CoC, would avoid going to the house (where the obvious danger is) and try to arm themselves with as much info about the house as they could before actually setting foot on the property. Near as I can tell, this assumption was not actually put on a page for the referee or players to read until some time much later, if ever.

One thought, re: geography: One possible advantage for building more complex scenarios in CoC is that the game takes place in a fantastical version of the real world. When a gm creates a setting the players are sort of in the dark about all the details. But if your playing in 1920s Boston, and the the players are at all familiar with that city, they can use that knowledge to go places the keeper did not prepare as a node. Depending on how the keeper handles that (i.e. by not railroading), it can lead to a more dynamic game.

The best and longest game of Call of Cthulhu I've run was an Arkham-based open world sandbox. I used the Lovecraft Country supplements to populate the town (and region). Dropped in as many of the scenarios as I could get my hands on. And let the players go. If they wanted to focus on one scenario/mystery until completed, they could. If they wanted to run back-and-forth across town chasing a dozen leads to a dozen different mysteries, they could.

playing in 1920s Boston...

Don't forget the North End of Boston stank of molasses for years (decades) after the 1919 flood. Especially when the weather turned hot.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The examples of node based design I saw on The Alexandrian I would are basically something I would consider a railroad because while they offer a choice in the order of scenes both player goals and outcomes are still assumed. Very much like most choose your own adventure books. Not all node based design necessarily fits, but the techniques Justin Alexander is advocating certainly does in my estimation.

I've heard "advanced railroad" used to describe them. Not sure I entirely agree... but I have to say it's hard to see a huge difference between A-B-C and B-C-A.

 

[Malmuria]

I haven't read or run Alone Against the Dark, but I've run the hell out of The Haunted House...what they're now calling The Haunting.

It's a mess, honestly. It would work far, far better as a more linear adventure. Or at least a strong start pointing in one obvious (but different than the most obvious) direction.

The setup is: you're hired to investigate a haunted house. That's it. That's the extent of the setup. Okay...so what's the first thing you do? If you're 99% of the players who've ever gone through this scenario, you literally go directly to the house...to investigate the house...like you're hired to do. Because of course you do.

NPC: "Here's some cash, go find out if that house is haunted."

PC: "Okay." B-line for the house

Designers: "Not like that!"

Everyone else: "What?"

Which is the opposite of what the designers intent for you to do. They want you to investigate the house...by not going to the house. Instead, you go to the library, the Boston Globe, the Hall of Records, the courts, the police station, explore the neighborhood the house is in, and, based on what you find, you'll be pointed at two bonus locations, the sanitarium and a burned down church. After...after...you hit all or most of those locations, then you're expected to go to the house.

Why? Because unless you know before going in that the place really is haunted and that there are some incredibly nasty things inside, then you're most likely going to die really, really fast. I mean fast even for Call of Cthulhu. You'd think in the 40 years they've been using that intro scenario they'd have built in something of a better start.

Basically it's a disconnect between the assume play loop and what the designers actually wrote into the books. They assumed that the players, knowing they're playing CoC, would avoid going to the house (where the obvious danger is) and try to arm themselves with as much info about the house as they could before actually setting foot on the property. Near as I can tell, this assumption was not actually put on a page for the referee or players to read until some time much later, if ever.

The best and longest game of Call of Cthulhu I've run was an Arkham-based open world sandbox. I used the Lovecraft Country supplements to populate the town (and region). Dropped in as many of the scenarios as I could get my hands on. And let the players go. If they wanted to focus on one scenario/mystery until completed, they could. If they wanted to run back-and-forth across town chasing a dozen leads to a dozen different mysteries, they could.

Don't forget the North End of Boston stank of molasses for years (decades) after the 1919 flood. Especially when the weather turned hot.

The haunting has worked for me, though in the current version at least you have a ‘patron’ who sort of indicates there are all these places to find clues. And you can go to the house first, because there’s also stuff that happens in the neighborhood. I guess as keeper you can either provide hints as to where to go (I find giving them a map with locations is helpful) or let the scenario ‘fail’ (haven’t had this experience yet). I think it works fine as an introduction, but yeah, not the most complicated structure