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

[AbdulAlhazred]

What @hawkeyefan says is exactly what I meant. The two players describe their PCs thrusting and parrying until they talk it out.

I think we all understand, FUNDAMENTALLY, why this isn't the normal process. It is because D&D was originally a wargame, and the main focus of that game was, obviously, combat. 'Talky stuff' was simply not considered central enough to the core early play agenda to require burning rules bandwidth on it. Exploration stuff DID have dice and rules, as we know. The very most basic social stuff, what happens when you unexpectedly meet up with a monster, DOES have a reaction roll though.

So, it was just when you got into the more dynamic "we try to convince the shopkeeper..." where dice were not considered all that needed. This has just become memorialized in a common pattern of play that obviously persists, though when people asked the question the other effect was to lead to the development of social skill systems (which already existed in other games, so it was not exactly a leap).

D&D is just VERY STODGY! lol. At least some parts of the D&D world are! Not to say this is bad, some people just figured out how they liked playing a long time ago and are not really experimenting much anymore.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Right, but what is the perceived advantage of using dice for that?

Not having to try to mentally model, and make decisions regarding, very complicated physical processes the players likely are not experts of.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think we all understand, FUNDAMENTALLY, why this isn't the normal process. It is because D&D was originally a wargame, and the main focus of that game was, obviously, combat. 'Talky stuff' was simply not considered central enough to the core early play agenda to require burning rules bandwidth on it. Exploration stuff DID have dice and rules, as we know. The very most basic social stuff, what happens when you unexpectedly meet up with a monster, DOES have a reaction roll though.

So, it was just when you got into the more dynamic "we try to convince the shopkeeper..." where dice were not considered all that needed. This has just become memorialized in a common pattern of play that obviously persists, though when people asked the question the other effect was to lead to the development of social skill systems (which already existed in other games, so it was not exactly a leap).

D&D is just VERY STODGY! lol. At least some parts of the D&D world are! Not to say this is bad, some people just figured out how they liked playing a long time ago and are not really experimenting much anymore.

That's not really the reason. The real reason has been stated several times: we can talk for reals, but it is harder to fight for reals. It also is hard to mentally model fights without any rule structure. This is not complicated.

 

[overgeeked]

That's not really the reason. The real reason has been stated several times: we can talk for reals, but it is harder to fight for reals. It also is hard to mentally model fights without any rule structure. This is not complicated.

One of the many reasons to go with rules light or ultra-light. Describe it however you want and make a simple roll. Done. No complicated rules and the players' knowledge or lack thereof of physical violence is irrelevant.

 

[Manbearcat]

You can trivially have a rules-mediated, structured freeform conversation about combat. There are plenty of systems that easily handle combat resolution the same way they handle other conflicts. Combat doesn’t have to rely upon an intricate engine with action economy + codified turn + rationed PC resource scheme to be both rewarding and highly functional.

Hence, this is why the argument that you need intricate combat mechanics as a user interface to facilitate functional play is a complete dead end.

It’s totally cool to just stick with “I dig intricate D&D combat for the funsies even if I find it anti-immersive (FYI - that is the testimonial given here by others…that is not my own position).” It’s an entirely defensible on its own (but it becomes a calamity when you try to defend other takes like “I don’t want my D&D to have x because it’s not immersive” when one of the cornerstones of D&D is anti-immersive to you).

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's not really the reason. The real reason has been stated several times: we can talk for reals, but it is harder to fight for reals. It also is hard to mentally model fights without any rule structure. This is not complicated.

I think it’s a huge factor. Fighting is a big part of the game. It’s a big part of many games. Nothing wrong with that, it simply is so. The hobby’s roots in wargaming are a big influence.

I think the reason I’d consider that as more meaningful than the “we can talk for reals” angle is because of the gulf between what most of us tend to accomplish with talking and what RPG characters often do.

Look at your description below:

Not having to try to mentally model, and make decisions regarding, very complicated physical processes the players likely are not experts of.

Replace the word “physical” with “social”. Haggling with the shopkeeper? Sure…simple stuff like that we can likely model pretty well. Courtly intrigue, international diplomacy, hostage negotiation…high stakes things like that aren’t resolved with simple talking. They’re as complicated as combat and just as unfamiliar to most players.

 

[Lanefan]

And everyone else at the table does...what, exactly?

IME jump in and takes sides, or argue a third point.

Just wait for two stubborn people to get over themselves and realize they are all playing a game together?

Or ignore them and carry on...

 

[Eric V]

IME jump in and takes sides, or argue a third point.

Or ignore them and carry on...

And that's a game night?

 

[niklinna]

And that's a game night?

Hey, you take what you can get!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Hence, this is why the argument that you need intricate combat mechanics as a user interface to facilitate functional play is a complete dead end.

It also isn't what anyone has argued for.