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

[Crimson Longinus]

My god is his writing off-putting. It’s like he’s actively trying to signal that I am not welcome, and that the the things I like are awful and wrong.

Yep. And that's not even the worst example.

 

[pemerton]

1 is preferable to me.

That is consistent with gamist preferences.

I've never watched Critical Role, but I gather it might use (2)-type stuff from time to time.

 

[niklinna]

My god is his writing off-putting. It’s like he’s actively trying to signal that I am not welcome, and that the the things I like are awful and wrong.

Getting through that is a slog, to be sure. Often even when I agree with him in substance, I have to filter the tone.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That is consistent with gamist preferences.

I've never watched Critical Role, but I gather it might use (2)-type stuff from time to time.

I don't think it does. Though of course it is somewhat hard to tell by merely watching which events progress from the prep and which are improvised. But I don't remember deus exes and characters have died. (And not only in some thematically appropriate heroic last stand, but just due normal combat rules and randomness.)

 

[pemerton]

Thesis: I have a desire for exploration of the individual player characters.

Antithesis: RPGs are a group activity and I don’t want the exploration of any individual’s character to come at the detriment of the other players’ characters.

Synthesis: I should take into account what each player is most interested in exploring about their individual character and endeavor to incorporate those interests into the broader scenario that the players are participating in as a group.

Or, an alternative synthesis (which is increasingly what I find myself drawn towards): The players should come in with as little already decided about their characters as possible, so that through the act of engaging with the challenges within the scenario they are playing through as a group, they discover more about their characters as individuals.

I've bolded an unargued premise in your synthesis.

Abandon that premise, and then imagine what other possibilities there are.

 

[Charlaquin]

That is consistent with gamist preferences.

Maybe it is. But, I’m sure one could easily pose a different question to which my answer would be consistent with Simulationist or Narrativist preferences. It still seems to me like setting them up as separate, incompatible categories does not resonate with my experience, which contributes to my feeling that the theory misses the mark significantly.

I've never watched Critical Role, but I gather it might use (2)-type stuff from time to time.

There have been fairly few character deaths in Critical Role, but to my knowledge none have been resolved by deus ex machina. In the first campaign there were a decent number of character deaths, though they all ended up being resurrected (by the spells, which they have house rules to actually make not guaranteed to succeed). In the second campaign there was one death, which did stick, and though it was a pretty sudden and pointless death when it happened, it did later become a major plot lynchpin. I’m not up to date on the third campaign, but where I’m up to there haven’t… exactly been any PC deaths… there was a character, who was played by a member of the cast other than Matt Mercer who died, but it was very obviously planned and not the character the cast member created for the campaign. He has not been resurrected and I doubt he will be.

Worth noting though, I don’t think what happens in Critical Role is particularly relevant, because I enjoy the show more like I enjoy TV than D&D. I quite often find myself disagreeing strongly with Matt Mercer’s DMing decisions, and I don’t think I would enjoy playing in a game like his, except for reasons unrelated to the gameplay. But it doesn’t need to be a game I would have fun playing in to be a show I have fun watching.

 

[pemerton]

This is something I don’t know: does the Forge or Forge-descended design provide advice on how to design games that sit in between two agendas?

Yes. See Edwards's review of The Riddle of Steel. Or his discussions of Marvel Super Heroes, T&T and Champions.

(I'm making some assumptions about what you mean by "sit in between two agendas".)

 

[pemerton]

Maybe it is. But, I’m sure one could easily pose a different question to which my answer would be consistent with Simulationist or Narrativist preferences.

I've read nothing in your posts that suggests narrativist preferences. And based on your own testimony, you want exploration to provide a context for measuring your performance, rather than being an end in itself.

So I don't think your claim in this post is borne out by what has actually happened in this thread.

(Of course if you ask a RPGer "Do you enjoy imagining events in which your PC is caught up?" they will answer yes, unless they've somehow ended up in the wrong hobby. And if you ask them "Do you enjoy coherence and verisimilitude in the shared fiction" most of them will answer yes to that too. That doesn't mean their preferences are simulationist.)

 

[niklinna]

I've read nothing in your posts that suggests narrativist preferences. And based on your own testimony, you want exploration to provide a context for measuring your performance, rather than being an end in itself.

So I don't think your claim in this post is borne out by what has actually happened in this thread.

(Of course if you ask a RPGer "Do you enjoy imagining events in which your PC is caught up?" they will answer yes, unless they've somehow ended up in the wrong hobby. And if you ask them "Do you enjoy coherence and verisimilitude in the shared fiction" most of them will answer yes to that too. That doesn't mean their preferences are simulationist.)

Do you define those terms for them before you ask the question?

 

[Charlaquin]

I've read nothing in your posts that suggests narrativist preferences.

I got pretty stoked about a game that was pitched on the premise of being in constant tension between gamist and narrativist concerns…

And based on your own testimony, you want exploration to provide a context for measuring your performance, rather than being an end in itself.

Huh? Did I testify that? I seem to remember describing what I wanted as the use of performance measuring tools to lend weight to character development decisions, which were my ultimate goal.

So I don't think your claim in this post is borne out by what has actually happened in this thread.

Ok, I disagree.

(Of course if you ask a RPGer "Do you enjoy imagining events in which your PC is caught up?" they will answer yes, unless they've somehow ended up in the wrong hobby. And if you ask them "Do you enjoy coherence and verisimilitude in the shared fiction" most of them will answer yes to that too. That doesn't mean their preferences are simulationist.)

Sure, but this goes beyond that. If agendas are supposed to be about what your gaming priorities ultimately come down to, I’m pretty sure mine, in GNS terms are “exploration of character,” which I thought was similationist. Which is pretty wild, since I fought on the 4e side of the Edition Wars, so simulationism was a dirty word to me for quite some time.