GM fiat - an illustration

[soviet]

Most people will say things like “my games are 70 percent roleplaying, 30 percent combat and I take player backgrounds into account and I think that works far better than new jargon

To me this doesn't mean anything. You don't roleplay in combat? What is meant by roleplaying, what agenda does it pursue, what techniques does it use? Why does player background matter?

I realise on this last one that you must mean character background. But again the 'natural language' you use only serves to obfuscate your actual meaning. Say what you will about the reductiveness of other playstyle descriptors, at least they provide a baseline for understanding what is going on.

 

[soviet]

If the lexicon is using common terms in use to describe basic styles of play, sure. I the lexicon is the complex type of language we have seen on this thread, then no, I think that would be bad for the book include

'Play to learn the contents of the GM's notes', stuff like that?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So how does Torchbearer handle situations where the camp would be threatened by an already established opponent? Like if there was a bounty hunter or assassin after the party etc? Or even if just the generic type of threat was known? ("The Gloom Forest is known for its ravenous trolls.")

 

[FrogReaver]

but the issue is OSR books are a very specific style. If you have that as the default in core D&D, it isn't going to work for people who are running the game as adventure paths or people who are running the game like a Matt mercer campaign. I am all for them breaking down different adventure structures in the book (provided it isn't advocating for one in particular). But I think D&D's advantage is it can appeal to a wide set of preferences.

I don't know that I'm even for that because as there's not broad intra-community consensus around how to categorize certain styles (outside extremely broad strokes) and there's even less consensus around what techniques actually work best under a given style. (Some of these points you've brought up in other recent posts).

D&D is unique in that it already has a very broad player base that uses the game in very different ways. That's why I'm against such advice in general. You can even see an attempt at giving advice in the 2014 DMG, but it was really superficial stuff and nearly all components were presented as individual choices. They often came with a small blurb about some DM's do it this way and sometimes with a bare bones because xyz explanation.

Note: I'm using the term game loosely because d&d as written may not even qualify as a game (depending on chosen definition), at least until you've added many of the elements individual DM's typically bring to the table. If already a game by definition I think it becomes more of a game or a different game with the individual DM elements. Before the DM contributions (or players in some cases) it might be best described as a bunch of individual game elements.

 

[soviet]

I definitely find it interesting how 'I am impartially determining the natural consequence of your actions in a living breathing world' play always ultimately results in 'an adventure happens'. It's never 'you search for two months but nothing's there' or 'you die of dyssentry'.

 

[FrogReaver]

@pemerton

Most of us don't trust your analysis of RPG's in general because we don't agree at all with your analysis of the non-narrativist games we play. So, as an example, when you give your analysis of how a game like TB2e or game mechanic in TB2e works, that may be plenty for someone that generally trusts your analysis, but for those of us who don't we need to see pretty much all the nitty gritty details so we can make up our own minds using our own terms.

I'm not saying you are doing anything wrong, i know it's really hard to account for all the nitty gritty details and you've tried at least in the recent pages to provide those details, but I believe this lack of trust may be a source of reoccurring frustration for you in these discussions. When we don't believe something from your analysis right off (or sometimes ever), it's not because we think you are lying or mistaken about the factual elements behind the analysis, it's because we know we don't typically agree with your analysis of those factual elements in other games. This is especially relevant when we get a barebones description of some game element from a game we aren't familiar with (or lack of description of other game element dependencies) and then your analysis conclusion is that it's like X from D&D or other game which doesn't really provide us enough to determine whether we agree with your conclusion.

Anyways, just an observation, I don't think there's really any action to be taken on it, other than simple awareness on all sides.

 

[Bedrockgames]

'Play to learn the contents of the GM's notes', stuff like that?

lol no

 

[Bedrockgames]

To me this doesn't mean anything. You don't roleplay in combat? What is meant by roleplaying, what agenda does it pursue, what techniques does it use? Why does player background matter?

I don't think these questions are at all reasonable. You are just dissecting ideas most gamers will easily grasp (and you are adding things in, like agenda) that are separate considerations and concepts: and I don't think the core books should get into GNS at all in that respect---don't find agenda a useful idea). This is just one example of the kind of language. I signed off on it because someone raised it as an alternative to a more involved lexicon. I don't think ti would be the entirety of the break down. But I do think most people know when a GM says 70 percent combat 30 percent roleplaying, that means you are in a campaign with a lot more focus on combat than other aspects of play.

I think taking 70 percent combat, 30 percent role-play to mean you don't role-play during combat is not how most people would interpret this language, and I don't think it requires we set down rigid definitions of terms. Most people get this kind of language.

I realise on this last one that you must mean character background. But again the 'natural language' you use only serves to obfuscate your actual meaning. Say what you will about the reductiveness of other playstyle descriptors, at least they provide a baseline for understanding what is going on.

I think you are exaggerating how hard this is to understand, and minimizing how difficult it is to understand some of the language being floated in this thread.

 

[Bedrockgames]

15% player driven makes no sense, though, does it? All I can imagine it really meaning is Gm-driven railroad.

It was just an example of the kind of language you can use. I wasn't advocating the book literally have a break down of percentages like this. I imagine the way it would actually look in a rulebook is something like "Some campaigns are more player driven than others. These are some ways the game can be used to let players drive the game....." and maybe even "And here are some optional rules that can make it easier.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I know I would have benefitted if I’d received some of the advice that I received eventually earlier. I can’t really see any reasonable argument against clear guidelines. I feel like that’s kind of the epitome of what a rulebook should strive for.

As for a nee lexicon… meh. It’s not really a concern for me. If a game explains what it means when it uses a term, then I can operate under that definition for that game. The hobby is filled with terms of art and other jargon, and we all use those bits that appeal to us.

The issue is there is already a lot of language just to play the game, the last thing I want is more language just to understand concepts around playing it on top of that. Some jargon is inevitable, a term like railroad comes into use for good reason. But something like the language used here, that is grounded in stuff like GNS, that is an insane level of jargon (I think a majority of people find it incredibly difficult to decipher when people start dropping this kind of terminology). And if you insist on defining each and every little term, you are going to end up with something like that (which will be like learning an academic discipline because when the book says roleplaying, the meaning isn't even how most people use it, it has a specific meaning that you need to keep in mind any time the term comes up: that makes learning concepts way harder IMO. I mentioned music theory before and I think it is a good comparison to what some of the language here sounds like. I get the value. Music theory is helpful. But if you have that kind of lexicon operating in an RPG book it is going to break down communication, not enhance it