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

[pemerton]

hehehe, yeah, BW has done well, and definitely has been used as a basis for a bunch of other interesting games. I think the main reason it didn't quite single-handedly trigger something like AW has is just that it is a bit complex, there are a bunch of moving parts in there. The beauty of AW is its sheer simplicity! You almost cannot fail to grasp what it is about conceptually because there's so little GAME there (in a mechanical or elaborate process sense).

Agreed about BW.

To me, BW is what you get if you love the "feel" of a RQ or RM character sheet, and the idea of crit rolls and hit locations and "how good is my guy at ship-building which of course is not the same as wheel-wrighting", and then impose the extra that is necessary on PC gen - Beliefs, etc - plus the principles for action resolution - "say 'yes' or roll the dice", "intent and task", "let it ride" - that will turn that sort of system from a bit of a hit-and-miss in terms of drama and pacing into this visceral experience that those games always promised.

But if you'd never grown up on those older RPGs, would BW strike you as intuitive or well-motivated in itself? Probably not. Whereas AW rebuilds from the ground up.

I definitely think, from examining a bunch of stuff than Torner has written, references to his work, etc. that he's clearly got many views on games, and a lot of familiarity with the culture of GAMERS. None of this is particularly something I would criticize. I just don't think he's got the same level of razor sharp logical mind for what the process of actually playing an RPG consists of at the most core fundamental logical level. Torner is probably the guy you want to go to and discuss what gamers think about and how they communicate, but if I want to build a game itself, or learn about why things happen at the table, I look at Edwards, or Baker, or some of the other people in that category like Czege.

Agreed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The fact that the character's needs are dramatic does not make the process of challenging them itself dramatic. It's just giving the player what they asked for (in the "buddy, you asked for it!" sense).

I don't agree. The GM must actually make judgements what sort of situation would challenge the dramatic need. And of course a situation where dramatic need is challenged is some sort of dramatic conflict. And that the GM makes their decisions based on what would produce such dramatically challenging situations instead of based on some other sort of logic, is still a type of internal logic.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not really talking about any specific tropes. But the GM is answering to questions of what to frame based on dramatic logic. They don't answer it based on what would make sense or what would be a level appropriate challenge (these are different types of internal logic,) they're answering it based on what would work with the dramatic needs of the character. But this too is a type of internal logic.

What is that logic, though. What is it inferring and concluding? You're taking an input into framing -- what's the dramatic need of the PC -- assuming this is about dramatic logic (which it isn't, because nothing is being reasoned out), and stopping right there. Because, by squinting in this way and only considering this one thing, you can reach your desired conclusions of "there's no difference!" But, this would mean that we can only consider the reasons why the GM placed a dungeon when we discuss what D&D play is about. It's a terrible point of focus.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Answer of course is not dictated, but the very act of framing is. This is how dramatic moments in stories are constructed. The protagonist has a dramatic need -> a situation challenging that need occurs. Principles of running story now game are instructions to follow dramatic logic to make this happen.

Lets get a bit concrete here: My Dungeon World Fighter has a bond which states "I have sworn to protect the halfling." (why doesn't really matter). So, what is the GM in this game going to do? He's going to have an orc rush the halfling! Is protecting the halfling a 'dramatic need', I dunno, but its a 'concern' of the character's and the GM can, and obviously will, use it to put pressure on the character. The player wants to resolve the bond to get XP, so he's going to announce that his fighter leaps into the fray and protects the halfling. The GM declares that the fighter is using the Defend move, and things proceed. Maybe he rolls badly, a snake eyes! The orc shield bashes him out of the way and smacks the halfling, so now the fighter is injured and the halfling is down and the orc is about to skewer him, time for a REALLY desperate move! So, I think its not unfair to call it a dramatic need, but that isn't the only technique. There was the example of the sister that is hanging off the edge of a cliff, and the character is afraid of heights! This one is pitting one of the character's traits/needs against another. Lots of variations exist. You could also simply lean on a conceit that is established by the game. Maybe the game is about how magic comes from summoning demons, but there's always a price. Can you resist the temptation? Should you? Always?

I mean, all play in all games, because all human motivations even in the real world, trivially engages 'dramatic' needs. We all must eat and whatnot, and we all want 'stuff' to make our lives more secure, etc.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't agree. The GM must actually make judgements what sort of situation would challenge the dramatic need. And of course a situation where dramatic need is challenged is some sort of dramatic conflict. And that the GM makes their decisions based on what would produce such dramatically challenging situations instead of based on some other sort of logic, is still a type of internal logic.

What's that logic?

See, when people deploy the term "dramatic logic" they mean that you will arrive at the outcome by considering the story needs. It's a tool for resolution -- how do thing resolve? They resolve according to the logic of this set of precepts.

By abandoning that and trying to force dramatic logic into the framing, you're creating a different use of the term, but then once you get it in place, you revert to trying to argue the original meaning. It's also terribly flawed because I don't need to engage in any kind of logical resolution to frame a scene using the thing the player told me they want play to be about. There's not an internal logic, here. There's no flow from internal cause to effect. If the character has the Instinct of Hope, then putting them in a situation where hope is being challenges isn't following some cause to effect logical path defined by dramatic concerns -- there's no logic here at all. You just do the thing, then play to see what happens (which is also not determined by dramatic logic).

 

[niklinna]

What's that logic?

See, when people deploy the term "dramatic logic" they mean that you will arrive at the outcome by considering the story needs. It's a tool for resolution -- how do thing resolve? They resolve according to the logic of this set of precepts.

By abandoning that and trying to force dramatic logic into the framing, you're creating a different use of the term, but then once you get it in place, you revert to trying to argue the original meaning. It's also terribly flawed because I don't need to engage in any kind of logical resolution to frame a scene using the thing the player told me they want play to be about. There's not an internal logic, here. There's no flow from internal cause to effect. If the character has the Instinct of Hope, then putting them in a situation where hope is being challenges isn't following some cause to effect logical path defined by dramatic concerns -- there's no logic here at all. You just do the thing, then play to see what happens (which is also not determined by dramatic logic).

Well there goes the reply I was drafting. I was going to come at it differently, but this pretty well covers it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not really talking about any specific tropes. But the GM is answering to questions of what to frame based on dramatic logic. They don't answer it based on what would make sense or what would be a level appropriate challenge (these are different types of internal logic,) they're answering it based on what would work with the dramatic needs of the character. But this too is a type of internal logic.

Well, so, in the case of say a High Concept Simulation, the internal logic is coming from some attribute of the world, it is INTERNAL to the game world, but not internal to the character. Professor X is not attacked by Silver Surfer because he wants something, he's attacked by Silver Surfer because <genre trope here>. Nor is this generally arranged by the player (it could be, but it isn't necessary). Likewise gamist concerns arise outside of the game world entirely. Narrativist ones however arise directly out of attributes of the character itself! I'd also say that, to the extent that some other conceit is instead leveraged, like say the knightly concept of honor in Prince Valiant, that this is likely to shade the game in the direction of HCS, but at the same time if its expression is internal to the PC and scenes are framed against it (IE you are tempted to do things that a knight of honor wouldn't do) it still possesses the attributes of Narrative play. That's how I see it. So, sure there's LOGIC of some sort that drives all play, that logic is just another name for "there's an agenda." but the question is how they differ, not how they are the same.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If the character has the Instinct of Hope, then putting them in a situation where hope is being challenges isn't following some cause to effect logical path defined by dramatic concerns

YES IT IS! You literally just outlined the cause and effect and of course it based on dramatic concerns! "What kind of situation will challenge hope" is a dramatic concern!

And of course the dramatic concerns affect the resolution too, as the GM is supposed to take those into account when introducing complications.

 

[Campbell]

When I think of games that operate under genre logic I think about Classic Deadlands, Exalted Third Edition, Vampire The Masquerade 5th Edition, FFG Star Wars, Monster of the Week, Conan 2d20, etc. Games that reinforce genre appropriate outcomes by skewing their systems to those sorts of results and have reward systems that encourage players to act in genre appropriate ways and predefined character concept.

 

[pemerton]

Building on @AbdulAlhazred's post just upthread, Edwards says the following:

In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters. The GM and players buy into this framework in order to play at all.

The point is that one can care about and enjoy complex issues, changing protagonists, and themes in both sorts of play, Narrativism and Simulationism. The difference lies in the point and contributions of literal instances of play; its operation and social feedback. . . .

Therefore, when you-as-player get proactive about an emotional thematic issue, poof, you're out of Sim. Whereas enjoying the in-game system activity of a thematic issue is perfectly do-able in Sim, without that proactivity being necessary.​

This is why Pendragon is good for simulationist play - the thematic stuff is all built into the virtue and passion stats and associated mechanics - whereas Prince Valiant is good for (rather light-hearted) narrativist play - many of the situations are the same as they would be in Pendragon, but it is the players who have to "get proactive" and decide whether they want their PCs to be Galahad types or cowardly varlets or something else. And the system won't judge those choices - only the other players will!

This also relates to something I quoted from Edwards upthread (or in one of the parallel threads):

The design decisions I've made with my current project are so not-RPG, but at the same time so dismissive of what's ordinarily called "consensual storytelling," that I cannot even begin to discuss it on-line. I can see the influences of Universalis, The Mountain Witch, and My Life with Master, but I cannot articulate the way that I have abandoned the player-character, yet preserved the moral responsibility of decision-making during play.​

That idea of "moral responsibility of decision-making" is the other side of the coin of "getting proactive". There's no scope to say "the system made me do it" or "my alignment made me do it" or "I was just playing my belief".

And we can make the point concrete by contrasting Burning Wheel with Fate:

* In Fate, you earn Fate Points for accepting a compel (ie go along with a proposed complication that reflects your character's aspect(s)), or for having an aspect that is attached to your character invoked against you (ie someone complicates your PC's life by reference to something that pertains to your PC).

* In Burning Wheel, you earn a Fate point for manifesting a Belief in play, you earn a Persona point (a bigger fate point) for closing off a Belief in play, you earn a Persona point for Embodiment (defined as roleplay that captures the mood of the table and drives play forward), and you earn a Persona point for Mouldbreaker (defined as vivid roleplaying the making of a decision where the imperative of the situation conflicts with a Belief).​

The logic of Fate is to drive play towards reinforcement of the character. The system makes that happen. The player is responsible for their PC build, but the system tells them what decisions are reasonable ones, once the play gets going.

Whereas Burning Wheel puts the need to choose squarely in front of the player. You can't just say "I was playing my Belief" - why didn't you shoot for Mouldbreaker? That's what makes it narrativist and not sim.