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

[Garthanos]

That excludes a pretty large amount of adventure fiction that well predates D&D, simply because it excludes any character or characters who are chronically on the move.

To the contrary the disconnected murder hobos excludes all but that one type wandering loner who cares about nothing but cash, there is a ton of variation when characters start as part of the world. And it can include someone hunting them like AVATAR the last airbender. Mobile team with connections that are even international with world spanning goals.

Nothing anathema to chronically on the move.

 

[Garthanos]

Maybe we shouldn't have given the GM so much ammo to use against us!" lol. Like, the possibility was there, latent in the game, but we didn't really have the conceptual framework constructed in our heads to use it like you might use similar things in BW or even FATE based games today.

Fate does it better in a number of fashions even in original form they made it fairer than for instance the GURPS model. Ie when you and the DM interacted with your aspects is when they brought there benefits into play and not otherwise. GURPS did have the philosophy at least if someone had it on their sheets it was the DMS obligation to make sure it entered play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It obviously can be beneficial in other genres, but some characters in other genres are, well, kind of disconnected. That's exceedingly rare in the superhero genre because of how they engage with the setting. I can think of significant fictional characters who have no notable connections that aren't what look like fellow PCs, no individual enemies that recur, and a number of other things; its virtually unheard of in superheroes, even ones that only exist as part of team books.

I think one of the signal characteristics of Super Heroes as a genre is that the 'rest of the world' is held to be essentially mundane. Whereas Middle Earth, or The Forgotten Realms, can appear as effectively a character to be explored within their relevant genre material, 'Gotham City' is not all that interesting in and of itself. So, inevitably, the writers had to start delving into the nature of the characters themselves. It also helps that each character has a really HUGE corpus of material, so even if character development is only a passing thing, at some point a lot of development will have happened. Thus when we have a Supers game, the model characters for that game are generally significantly fleshed out. Another reason for this is that pretty much every possible variation of super power and shtick, uniform, etc. was long ago invented in some form. You CANNOT simply come out with a concept for a power and a drawing of a character in uniform and have anything new or original. A writer for DC, Marvel, etc. MUST work pretty hard to create anything worth publishing (I mean, they CAN and DO rehash old material of course, but even then they have to put a new spin on it, and characterization is the main way to do that).

So, the upshot is that Supers is somewhat of a unique genre. Still, @Garthanos point holds, depth of character is hardly a unique trait of superheroes.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is one of the reason I dislike jargon. It’s infinitely better to discuss the actual ideas behind them and you can more easily see what people actually mean rather than assuming we all mean the same thing. As seen in these threads, even people steeped in the jargon often disagree about the meaning of those words. Though the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis still applies.

The problem, and this is why attempts to avoid jargon and terms-of-art developing is as doomed to fail as avoiding political parties is, is that it means constantly having to reexplain what you're talking about in a less compact way every time. Anyone who thinks that's what's going to happen with any regularity I have a bridge to sell.

 

[Garthanos]

The problem, and this is why attempts to avoid jargon and terms-of-art developing is as doomed to fail as avoiding political parties is, is that it means constantly having to reexplain what you're talking about in a less compact way every time. Anyone who thinks that's what's going to happen with any regularity I have a bridge to sell.

that is basically a more politic expression of my first post on this thread heh.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fate does it better in a number of fashions even in original form they made it fairer than for instance the GURPS model. Ie when you and the DM interacted with your aspects is when they brought there benefits into play and not otherwise. GURPS did have the philosophy at least if someone had it on their sheets it was the DMS obligation to make sure it entered play.

The big issue with that approach (what I call pay-at-use rather than pay-up-front) it turns a two-dimensional issue (how often something is a problem and how severe it is) into a one-dimensional one (how often its a problem). Its not impossible to turn it into a two dimensional one (if your reward system has some room for the benefits to be nuanced in how much you get out of it), I can't say I've ever seen a game that does it.

 

[Garthanos]

The big issue with that approach (what I call pay-at-use rather than pay-up-front) it turns a two-dimensional issue (how often something is a problem and how severe it is) into a one-dimensional one (how often its a problem). Its not impossible to turn it into a two dimensional one (if your reward system has some room for the benefits to be nuanced in how much you get out of it), I can't say I've ever seen a game that does it.

The montone fate point reward does have that issue... presumably more subtle variation could be made where a very disadvantageous invocation could garner more fate points to create more nuance as you say. (I couldn't imagine not allowing bigger bolder effects by spending more than one fate point)

 

[Malmuria]

re: social context
I would be curious if anyone has explored how the popularity of thematically focused independent rpgs are due to dynamics of sexuality, expression of gender, and race. That is, I can see how the masculinist ethos of combat-heavy dnd might be off putting to some people, who find what they are looking for in a game like Monsterhearts and, just as importantly, the community of people who play Monsterhearts. Or as this article says

• A focus on political and social themes. Common themes include culture, community, ethics. Many storygames are focused on specific issues of progressive politics: Dog Eat Dog with colonialism, Dream Askew with queerness, Night Witches with feminism. Several focus on the internal conflicts and power-struggles of communities (Downfall, Kingdom, The Quiet Year); others are less specific but are always about some social issue (Shock).

So, to understand what’s appealing and useful about these games, we have to take into consideration the social environments in which people get introduced to rpgs (e.g. “nits make lice” style dnd), and the alternative socialities afforded by games with a different and more constrained thematic and aesthetic focus and a more queer friendly community of players. Similarily, imo dnd is inherently colonial in so many ways; I find ways to deal with this, but I can understand others who nope out of it for that reason.

Btw I see this all the time in the reactionary parts of the osr, where “storygames” is basically a queer coded term (and used in a derogatory sense). Or even in 5e discussions, where the introduction of particular aesthetics (radiant citadel) or non-combat adventures (witchlight) is met with derision (see other threads on this site).

 

[Thomas Shey]

To the contrary the disconnected murder hobos excludes all but that one type wandering loner who cares about nothing but cash, there is a ton of variation when characters start as part of the world. And it can include someone hunting them like AVATAR the last airbender. Mobile team with connections that are even international with world spanning goals.

Nothing anathema to chronically on the move.

It is when the scale is such that many connections will be intrinsically be left behind. You can have an issue of scale where the connections matter wherever you are (such things can be set up in the modern world easily enough), but in a lower-tech setting, the great truth is that your family being in Hamlet A when you are 800 miles from Hamlet A is not going to matter, and at some point the same thing applies to some of your enemies; they're fundamentally regional, and you, well, aren't.

That doesn't necessarily make for loner characters, but it does pretty much make them such that the majority of the connections will either be transient or about others among what can be viewed as the PCs, i.e. other people who normally travel with you. And that fundamentally limits things in a way that characters who spend the vast majority of their functional lifespan around one city doesn't, but I don't think it makes it less legitimate.

I think there's a different dynamic to the murderhobo, and frankly some of it can be traced back to GMs who use any connections as a club that can seem like an impediment rather than any sort of upside. There are enough characters in general adventure fiction that are light on that such that while its a virtue to have the tools to encourage that anywhere, its not like people like Conan don't exist.

 

[Thomas Shey]

that is basically a more politic expression of my first post on this thread heh.

I understand the hostility that can be developed to terms-of-art, I really do; but trying to avoid them is fundamentally a losing battle.