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

[Aldarc]

If people understood social interactions as easily as some claim, it's hard to imagine that Conventions would be the hotbeds of inappropriate and problematic social behaviors (e.g., assault, harassment, abuse, etc.) that they are.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The GM decides for NPCs, the Players decide for PCs. It isn't the GM determining how the situation will go if he is playing fairly, because how the situation goes isn't the point, the point is an honest character interaction. The players are still free to do what they want (they could stab the NPC to death and take what they need from them for example). But the point is the GM should have a clear idea going in of what the NPCs motives and and not fit those motives to some kind of outcome the GM wants. At least for me, that is how I approach it. It still isn't going to appeal to you if you don't like this kind of play but much of the reason I play this way is, as a GM I hate having preset outcomes and I hate guiding the players along. All I care about when I am running the NPC is what that NPC is motivated by, cares about, and what responsibilities they have. If the players make a proposal to that NPC or try to trick that NPC in some way (like in the goodfellas example), I am going to honest think through how the NPC reacts based on what I know about their motives (and if I can't decide for some reason, I might roll a die, but usually I have a good sense of it).

Sure! Again, as I said above to @Crimson Longinus this tangent of the conversation came about when someone said that social mechanics should not be used. None of us are saying that the method we'd classify as traditional isn't valid. We're just saying why there are other methods and what makes them valid and/or appealing.

I am not saying you can't have a more narrative approach. I am not trying to persuade someone who wants something different than I do in an RPG, that they should want what I want. I am saying this is what works for me. Even when I play narrative games, I much prefer something closer to what I am describing like Hillfolk that tends to be about things like what the characters want (and there are mechanics underlying some aspects of that but I find them fairly unobtrusive to the above style that I outlined). This is actually a game I really like because it does a good job of captured the 'all we did was role-play' aspect of play that can be fun, but because it is oriented around scenes and scene framing it doesn't just meandering and become characters talking endlessly in an inn: it leads to dramatic places.

Those dramatic places are indeed the point. In PbtA and similar games (I think Hillfolk applies here, I'm only familiar with it because you've mentioned it and I looked into it a bit!) everything is meant to be in service to those dramatic points. I'm playing Stonetop (a Dungeon World hack) and my character has Harmony as his instinct. His sense of Harmony is constantly being challenged or brought up during play. Can he find a harmonious solution? Is there something for which he'd set Harmony aside? That's what play is about.

Sure, if you don't like GM authority in these situations, by all means use these systems. I don't have a problem with GM authority extending to NPCs motivations and behaviors. If a don't like how a particular GM does things, I might not play in games where that person GMs, but mostly I game with people who, even if they think about NPCs differently than I do, are good faith when it comes to this stuff.

Right, but then you are largely creating the criteria that is allowed to work. Talking will only work if they find out about the guard's vice, but they can always stab him!

You're narrowing the paths forward. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just is a thing. It has an impact on play. It shifts it more toward "let's figure out the solution the GM has in mind for this" and away from "let's come up with a solution for this".

I would love a game where that is possible (maybe there is one that achieves it I just don't know about). What I have found in practice is, for whatever reason, people are much more okay with social interactions being handled through talking and negotiating without a system or without random elements, but with fighting they really seem to want random and mechanical elements. I'd love to play a game where the GM decides based on either what is plausible or what works dramatically (not both mixed together but two possible 'legal schools of thought' for the GM to follow).

So I have a question and it is sincere.... do you think this is because most players are perfectly fine to just kind of play along to the GM's story?

I don't mean that as an insult. I played that way for many years and loved quite a bit of it. I still play that way at times. Just not all the time. It's a perfectly fun way to play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not so much about winning, but about engaging in the game. If we're playing a game where one of the PCs is Sherlock Holmes, I think it's safe to assume that there's a mystery afoot. So engaging with that mystery is a big part of play. How the character does so is vital. The portrayal of Holmes's other traits... the emotional stuff, the social awkwardness.... they are most important in how they impact his ability to do what he does. Having rules for this...penalties of some kind, or at least deficiencies in stats absolutely can help portray character.

Holmes is a good example for a lot of reasons. I have used him to help address this in some of my own writing in games. I think this gets at a fundamental preference divide people don't even realize they have until it comes up in play as a problem or in discussions like this. There are different ways this can be expressed, but something like "Do you want to be Sherlock Holmes or do you want to be in a Sherlock Holmes story". I think the former is more in line with the old 'kind of playing a version of yourself but Sherlock holmes' where you are the one solving the mystery (you as a player have to find the clues, piece them together, solve the mystery). Whereas if you want to be in a Sherlock Holmes story, you expect that if you are sherlock holmes, then you have all his problem solving abilities and intellect. You the player might not, maybe you couldn't' solve a mystery to save your life, but the system should allow you to play a character who can. Again, my particular phrasing (be sherlock versus be in a story) is somewhat inelegant. But both these approaches are totally valid. And if you give someone A when they want B, it is going to create issues. So understanding this aspect is useful. I run a lot of mystery and investigation adventures so this is just something that crops up naturally when you do it a lot.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Edited double post

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure! Again, as I said above to @Crimson Longinus this tangent of the conversation came about when someone said that social mechanics should not be used. None of us are saying that the method we'd classify as traditional isn't valid. We're just saying why there are other methods and what makes them valid and/or appealing.

In that case I wouldn't say they should not be used. I think it is entirely preference if you like them or not.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would love a game where that is possible (maybe there is one that achieves it I just don't know about). What I have found in practice is, for whatever reason, people are much more okay with social interactions being handled through talking and negotiating without a system or without random elements, but with fighting they really seem to want random and mechanical elements.

You can have mechanical elements without them being random; in the MUSH I was referring to you had some definitional material at least, and you could have at least a simple maneuver approach to unfold into a more complete fight sequence.

But there are also numerous issues that can come up, especially if you don't have both participants actually on the same page, even if they think they are. And it requires some degree of people being able to balance their interior character stuff with thinking about the world around them, the genre they're in, and what's reasonable. Bluntly, even people who can do that can't always do it consistently, and a lot more on one level or another kind of don't want to.

It also, as you reference later, helps if everyone understands what level of realism or dramatic functionality they're aiming at; you can otherwise get some dissonance where people are both honestly trying to get an output but they're not aiming for the same kind of output.

And people talk about games requiring trust, but this sort of thing requires it tenfold. Because you have very limited mechanics to catch you if you fall.

One observation as a possible reason here is we all have experience with social interaction just by virtue of being human. That is how we do things. But we don't all have experience with combat (and even if we do have experience fighting, we might only have experience with one type of fighting: someone may have been in brawls but never been military combat for example, or been in military combat but never a sword fight).

But that's it; people assume some experience with social interactions means they understand how to extend it. That's not a premise I think actually holds water. Other people obviously do, but the astonishment they have that people don't share that view is, well, a bit much.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Right, but then you are largely creating the criteria that is allowed to work. Talking will only work if they find out about the guard's vice, but they can always stab him!

Sure but this is where fairness and not railroading comes in. If the players comes up with a way to find the vice, let them find the vice if it is reasonable. And the discovery of the vice is something that might fall to mechanics if the players are doing something like spying on the person for example. Some of this could fall outside the realm of social interaction and into other mechanics of the game. But in most of my campaigns I don't take pains to conceal weakness if players look for them. The example I gave from Goodfellas, that would probably be pretty easy to find out by just asking around (if someone is a notorious womanizer, then surely other people will know about it: and it might even be easy to figure out just having a conversation with the person themselves). The only time I worry about weaknesses being more complicated to find would be in things like monster hunts where finding a werewolf's specific weakness is the adventure itself. And even then, I'm not going to be particularly precious about keeping that information from the players if they are looking in places that would reasonably yield the info

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't agree that this is true, but even if it was, it really doesn't matter. If people feel that that the freeform social interaction is very close to the real one then that's good enough, even if it objectively wouldn't be terribly realistic.

The latter is a legitimate position, but at that point you shouldn't be surprised that people don't agree "good enough" actually, well is. To them it very much does matter.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You're narrowing the paths forward. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just is a thing. It has an impact on play. It shifts it more toward "let's figure out the solution the GM has in mind for this" and away from "let's come up with a solution for this".

Personally I wouldn't phrase it this way. But I also don't think this distinction is terribly important. For me, this isn't having a solution in mind. All I have in mind is the NPCs motivations and weaknesses (and even then the players may probe further into the NPCs personality to find things I hadn't thought of where I have flesh out the NPC further in play). But I am sitting there thinking: in order to trick this NPC they have to find his womanizing weakness, get a woman to seduce them, then copy the key. In the case of the Goodfellas example, that is just a scheme the players would have concocted themselves based on what they found out. But it could have gone in a number of other directions (for example if they had decided to take a close look at his finances it might have gone in a different direction). For me, I want to be just as surprised about where things go as the players.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Holmes is a good example for a lot of reasons. I have used him to help address this in some of my own writing in games. I think this gets at a fundamental preference divide people don't even realize they have until it comes up in play as a problem or in discussions like this. There are different ways this can be expressed, but something like "Do you want to be Sherlock Holmes or do you want to be in a Sherlock Holmes story". I think the former is more in line with the old 'kind of playing a version of yourself but Sherlock holmes' where you are the one solving the mystery (you as a player have to find the clues, piece them together, solve the mystery). Whereas if you want to be in a Sherlock Holmes story, you expect that if you are sherlock holmes, then you have all his problem solving abilities and intellect. You the player might not, maybe you couldn't' solve a mystery to save your life, but the system should allow you to play a character who can. Again, my particular phrasing (be sherlock versus be in a story) is somewhat inelegant. But both these approaches are totally valid. And if you give someone A when they want B, it is going to create issues. So understanding this aspect is useful. I run a lot of mystery and investigation adventures so this is just something that crops up naturally when you do it a lot.

It's an interesting take. I don't know if they need to be mutually exclusive, though. Like, I think what would make me feel like I was Sherlock Holmes would be to somehow be able to make intuitive leaps that are borderline supernatural (benefitting as they do from being fictional). Just playing Sherlock Holmes but essentially limited to my personal ability? It may involve less mechanics, which for some people may enhance immersion, but it also means I'm just me in a Sherlock Holmes hat, and to me, that's much more immersion breaking. Or worse, the mystery needs to be suitably dumbed down to allow me a chance to figure it out. I'm at least smart enough to recognize that kind of thing, and that would smack the Sherlock Holmes hat right off my head and stomp it into the floor.

Outside of social areas you're familiar with, I'd argue it has, if anything, a worse one. Its just one people think they understand better than they do.

What I find interesting is that there are people I know, and if I walked up and punched them in the face, I'm sure I would be able to reasonably predict what would happen afterwards. Those same people, if I walked up and hugged them, I have no idea how they'd respond.

This idea that combat is inherently more complicated than social interaction doesn't seem quite right to me. At least, not enough to treat it as a given in all cases.