D&D 5E [+] Explain RPG theory without using jargon

[niklinna]

What I find when I engage the GNS theory is that the users of that language explain something. I try to explain it back in my own words and they don't have any particular issues with my characterization at that time. Then later in the discussion as I'm trying to take what I learned and apply what I've learned, it always comes out that my understanding was wrong due to some additional nuance or some additional component of the theory that is yet unrevealed, etc. Every single time!

That must be frustrating. There are definitely some depths and nuance to the GNS model. For example, GNS Simulationist is not a simple category, and I found some of the things Edwards put there pretty counterintuitive until I read further. And while his arguments made sense, I thought he could have picked better names. The man had a gift for picking particular bad names (and not just on semantic grounds).

Reminds me of my aikido and tango learning, where a teacher will show me one way of doing a throw or dance figure, say I have to have such and such a posture, put my weight there, and then another—excellent—martial artist or teacher, will tell me to do something different or, more frustrating, give me some detail that would have made the earlier instruction so much more helpful!

 

[Campbell]

@FrogReaver

It's also the case that were speaking about this stuff in the general sense. Specific games have slightly different structures. Burning Wheel is as different from Apocalypse World as Vampire is different from D&D. Pretty similar broad structure, but some very profound differences.

 

[FrogReaver]

@FrogReaver

It's also the case that were speaking about this stuff in the general sense. Specific games have slightly different structures. Burning Wheel is as different from Apocalypse World as Vampire is different from D&D. Pretty similar broad structure, but some very profound differences.

Agreed. I'd just add that I think jumping around to different games constantly detracts from understanding, especially for those not well versed in those games being jumped to.

 

[Umbran]

overgeeked I would take your criticisms about GNS more seriously if you both of your thumbs weren't pressing heavily down on the scale while flaring your nostrils. I find the hostility to be off-putting to amicable discussion, especially in what you model as a (+) thread.

Mod Note:
There's a bit of a wonder as to what positive outcome you thought could come out of making this personal. But this isn't the place to discuss it.

In the future, please don't make it personal. Doing so virtually assures the discussion becomes between egos, rather than reasoned points.

 

[Blue]

Einstein himself wrote a book for the general public, didn't he? At least, I recall reading it when I was in high school.

Along the same lines, Richard Feynman (another physicist in the stratosphere with Einstein for those who aren't familiar) was asked to teach freshman physics at CalTech. He agreed as long as (a) they recorded it all and (b) he only had to do it once. You can find the lectures themselves on Youtube, and Caltech has a nice transcript of them.

 

[MichaelSomething]

We haven't done OSR yet. How about...

OSR: if it's printed after 1980, it's junk!!!

Or

OSR: make the game text obtuse to force players to free form improv.

Or

OSR: Fantasy Macguyer!

 

[niklinna]

We haven't done OSR yet. How about...

OSR: if it's printed after 1980, it's junk!!!

Or

OSR: make the game text obtuse to force players to free form improv.

Or

OSR: Fantasy Macguyer!

Aren't all OSR games printed (well) after 1980? I've read some of them, the text seems pretty clear to me. I don't know about the last, I never watched that show. Something about gum wrappers and mullets, right?

 

[Malmuria]

@FrogReaver

It's also the case that were speaking about this stuff in the general sense. Specific games have slightly different structures. Burning Wheel is as different from Apocalypse World as Vampire is different from D&D. Pretty similar broad structure, but some very profound differences.

Yeah there is a difference here between “practical” or “applied” theory and more abstract theory. Reading about “fiction first” in the Blades rulebook makes sense because there’s an immediate context for why and how it would matter. The abstract theory that informs that perspective is also important, but perhaps more so for the purposes of designing a specific kind of game rather than simply playing it.

 

[Campbell]

Yeah there is a difference here between “practical” or “applied” theory and more abstract theory. Reading about “fiction first” in the Blades rulebook makes sense because there’s an immediate context for why and how it would matter. The abstract theory that informs that perspective is also important, but perhaps more so for the purposes of designing a specific kind of game rather than simply playing it.

Pretty much this. The actual games tell you how to run and play them.

 

[Charlaquin]

We haven't done OSR yet. How about...

OSR: if it's printed after 1980, it's junk!!!

The OSR movement started in the 2000s, literally all OSR material was printed after that. You may be conflating OSR with grgognardism (and yes, that’s jargon).

OSR: make the game text obtuse to force players to free form improv.

Again, that’s not a hallmark of OSR. Some of the most successful OSR titles explicitly set out to restate the mechanics of early editions of D&D in a clear, concise way that can easily be understood by any casual reader.

OSR: Fantasy Macguyer!

Now there’s a term I haven’t heard since… maybe like 2012? 2013? Definitely an obtuse bit of jargon, though I don’t think it’s an OSR term. Maybe it was once but has fallen out of use more recently? That would make sense to me.