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

[Thomas Shey]

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)

Yes. If you had a scale so that it was reasonable to give out 1 point of metacurrency one time and 3 the next, it'd probably work fine. I'm just not familiar with one where that's true.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As an observation on this, GDS had to deal with the fact it was originally a conversation between dramatists and simulationists (in its usage); this had two consequences. First, it probably over-weighted the preference for simulationism, that, while likely more common in that period, was never as significant an interest as its position in GDS would have suggested. Secondly, since gamism came in late, and was never as well represented as dramatism and simulationism, it tended to get defined by people who weren't much interested in it. As such it was kind of the red-headed stepchild of the model.

I see some of the same things with GNS: N became defined by a very specific style preference, taking up a big piece of mindspace. G at least showed some sign of people involved understanding what it was about, but with assumptions that don't seem to entirely to match up with reality. And the rest of GDS dramatism gets swept into S, which puts it together with GDS sim, which essentially says the whole set of distinctions most of the people who put together GDS were making are, well, trivial.

This shows a fundamental problem with jargon outside of physical description (and perhaps even there); its going to be heavily colored by those who develop the terminology with their own biases and interests.

Well, I think it is better to think in terms of the INTERESTS. So, if you are devising a terminology then you are working on something, you have a need to describe things. It may be that you don't need to describe other things in so much detail, and maybe you don't capture all salient aspects of those things. Others encountering your terminology may have different needs, and may be in a different context. Frequently in technical fields the world has moved on, and thus when you look at some discussion in IT (for example) from 20 years ago some of it might not make much sense, or even seem stupid, but it certainly was relevant in the context where the terms were developed!

It can be similar here. I'd also say that in the specific case of Edwards and 'simulationist' that I am not sure the criticism, and especially the charge of bias, is very well-deserved. I think @pemerton has pointed out that Ron is not uninterested in games other than Narrativist ones, and that he directly and extensively addressed them in his writing. So maybe the charge that GNS only really relates to 'N' is simply a misperception. In the thread which spawned this one I saw much discussion of Simulationist (in GNS terms) agenda related questions which seemed to be directly discussed in Forge articles, and not just as some addendum to a discussion of something else. I'd fall back on @pemerton here again in terms of being much better at citing things than I am, but I know I have read such.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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).

With the aesthetics you're apparently dead on, but non-combat adventures getting a negative response can be rooted in other things, at least two of them:

1. In the D&D-sphere, many classes are, to be blunt, really bad tools the farther you get away from combat. Even classes with some lean in to other things often tie up a lot of their capability in fundamentally combat-centric abilities.

2. Related to this, most games' mechanical support for non-combat events is, to be charitable, lackluster. Assuming at least some degree of gamist engagment (because once you completely pull that out it starts to become more and more questionable whether there's a reason to use an RPG as we think of it rather than some form of freeform), you have to have a setup that both allows that engagement with other things, and perhaps as important, allows multiple participants to be involved in some sort of consistent way with what you're doing. (This is not helped by the fact that, and again this is particularly noticeable in the D&D sphere, there's a fair bit of hostility to mechanics as soon as you get into social or intellectual elements).

 

[Campbell]

As an observation on this, GDS had to deal with the fact it was originally a conversation between dramatists and simulationists (in its usage); this had two consequences. First, it probably over-weighted the preference for simulationism, that, while likely more common in that period, was never as significant an interest as its position in GDS would have suggested. Secondly, since gamism came in late, and was never as well represented as dramatism and simulationism, it tended to get defined by people who weren't much interested in it. As such it was kind of the red-headed stepchild of the model.

I see some of the same things with GNS: N became defined by a very specific style preference, taking up a big piece of mindspace. G at least showed some sign of people involved understanding what it was about, but with assumptions that don't seem to entirely to match up with reality. And the rest of GDS dramatism gets swept into S, which puts it together with GDS sim, which essentially says the whole set of distinctions most of the people who put together GDS were making are, well, trivial.

This shows a fundamental problem with jargon outside of physical description (and perhaps even there); its going to be heavily colored by those who develop the terminology with their own biases and interests.

Yeah. While I think Ron personally got games like HERO/RuneQuest the model was part of a synthesis of a discussion that was largely contrasting Vampire/Planescape and Sorcerer / Dogs in the Vineyard.

 

[overgeeked]

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



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).

It’s important to acknowledge that groups are not monoliths. While there are reactionaries in the OSR not everyone in the OSR is reactionary. There are large parts of the community that are now actively creating old-school style storygames. Five Torches Deep is just one example.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, I think it is better to think in terms of the INTERESTS. So, if you are devising a terminology then you are working on something, you have a need to describe things. It may be that you don't need to describe other things in so much detail, and maybe you don't capture all salient aspects of those things. Others encountering your terminology may have different needs, and may be in a different context. Frequently in technical fields the world has moved on, and thus when you look at some discussion in IT (for example) from 20 years ago some of it might not make much sense, or even seem stupid, but it certainly was relevant in the context where the terms were developed!

And that's great if you're presenting the terms and model you're working with as only being about the thing you're focused on. Story Now is, I think, what its about a useful term; it requires a bit of unpacking, but once you do its pretty clear most of the time what the people talking about it are looking for and pursuing.

Narrativism isn't, because its first of all, counter-intuitive even when unpacked, and part of a system that includes two other wings, and the whole thing looks extremely lopsided and odd when unpacked. Its only an improvement over GDS from a very specific POV.

It can be similar here. I'd also say that in the specific case of Edwards and 'simulationist' that I am not sure the criticism, and especially the charge of bias, is very well-deserved. I think @pemerton has pointed out that Ron is not uninterested in games other than Narrativist ones, and that he directly and extensively addressed them in his writing. So maybe the charge that GNS only really relates to 'N' is simply a misperception. In the thread which spawned this one I saw much discussion of Simulationist (in GNS terms) agenda related questions which seemed to be directly discussed in Forge articles, and not just as some addendum to a discussion of something else. I'd fall back on @pemerton here again in terms of being much better at citing things than I am, but I know I have read such.

I'm afraid I still have to stand by my opinion that as presented, GNS sim is essentially useless; its the catch-all, and tells you too little about what interests someone pursuing it will find functional and not to have any use. As I said, when you're lumping together many of the very things the GDS creators were trying to tease out to explain why they didn't want the same things, I think at least in that area, your model has failed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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



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).

No. I'd say it's entirely reductionist to make this claim. Many indie games are narrativist in approach (but nowhere near all) and that approach is focused on protagonism and premise, so there will always be some element of looking into what it means to be a person against some form of adversity. That this lends itself to various social commentary themes and to help provide spaces for expression, doesn't mean that this is the predominant mode of play or interest in these game. It is certainly an avenue, though. To reduce non-Trad games to 'social commentary games' is to pigeonhole them as merely tools for social exploration, when this is far from the truth.

Also, Apocalypse World release well before the current social zeitgeist, and has done well ever since in being influential, and there's little emphasis on modern social issues there.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

]Well, the issue is (as someone who had a fair bit indirectly to do with how Champions character construction works) is that its very clear when dealing with superhero characters that there is a great degree of engagement with the world around them and their own specific natures that they, effectively, walk in the door with (I'm excluding for the moment the "young heroes" subgenre here because it has a slightly different dynamic).

That, however, does not intrinsically say anything about how the players of same are going to interact with that world outside those specific traits. While I think its entirely defensible to suggest supers are one of those genre that if not demands, favors engagement on a more authorial level than others, the idea of the borders in play (as compared to during character creation) were still pretty strong then. Its notable that Hero is still one of the few superhero-supporting systems that has barely even a metacurrency (I think its still optional). The only other one I know of that vintage that does so is because its author is actively hostile to anything that expects a player to engage with the game on anything but a purely IC level.

Right, though it does tend to help build a portrait of your PC. So, for instance The Wizard had all his powers invested in a staff (basically because it was a way to game the point system). That both begged the question of what the nature and origin of this staff was (which figured into a couple adventures IIRC, though its been so long I cannot say much about the details) AND of course led to "Oh, and if the staff is stolen/lost/broken then the character is hosed!" which was an obvious flaw for the GM to latch onto!

I'll tell you a little secret; the whole point in having Champions Disadvantages and Limitations set up the way they were was as a method of bribing people to take genre-appropriate flaws that not all of them would likely do if they were just going to be a way of tossing the GM handles on them. Its essentially a solution to the fact that not everyone playing a superhero game--even people familiar with and fond of the genre--are always going to be willing to abandon the part of their focus is on game just to make the story-structure of the genre look right.

Right, and I think we even got that back in the day. We were actually pretty friendly to the idea of building more elaborate backstories and whatnot than a lot of groups (maybe because by the early 80's we were old enough to play in a bit more mature way). I recall that the Traveler campaign I ran at this time also had characters that the players had fleshed out backstories for to a higher degree than normal. Like the Merchant character's Free Trader wasn't just some random ship. In the first adventure he was searching for his father and his father's ship, which they found drifting frozen in space. Between recovering it, fighting with the insurance company and the bank, repairing the damage, etc. he ended up with basically a standard mortgage! This was the sort of play we were always after. Champions was pretty good, though I guess the guy that owned it lost interest or something.

Its like we ALMOST understood Forge-esque narrative play, but not quite. Like I said before about Apocalypse World, until someone constructed the conceptual framework, the leap to a different method of play could not happen, not even if you had a game that could in principle do it. I think this is similar to how D&D itself required a conceptual leap, all the ideas existed already, but when I saw D&D in action was the first time it all came together in my mind, the full concept of an actual RPG. People often discount, or fail to recognize at the time, conceptual jumps like this, but they are real things. They OFTEN come with a new set of terminology.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It’s important to acknowledge that groups are not monoliths. While there are reactionaries in the OSR not everyone in the OSR is reactionary. There are large parts of the community that are now actively creating old-school style storygames. Five Torches Deep is just one example.

I wouldn't characterize Five Torches Deep as any kind of storygame. It's taking the 5e engine and applying a heavier gamist tilt to the support.

 

[Garthanos]

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,

How magical is your fantasy world? Do you have cities with circles of transport I certainly do in my modern fantasy stories for instance. If you were trying to cleave really strongly to a true medieval this is not the only issue you will run into.

I had world spanning organizations priesthoods aka distance is not much of an issue when magic is real. and countries with influence due to massive trade on oceans who themselves distributed minor magic (tech effectively)

A lot of early fantasy liked to blur the lines between magic and tech I always like that and figuring out the impact of magic on the world that is reliable seems to always be a lot like potent tech.