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

[pemerton]

Fundamentally the underlying message of the brain damage comment is a cultural criticism. That "storytelling" based roleplaying games were conditioning players to value stories where the perspective characters do not fundamentally drive the action - they are not protagonists as we understand them in the study of literature.

There was an additional offshoot of it, in which Edwards engaged in rather scathing self-criticism. He thought that the whole idea of trying to dramatic storytelling via the RPG form - protagonism with these participants, antagonism with these other participants - was flawed. And that narrativist RPGing was an attempt to respond to the flaw that didn't realise it was working within an irrevocably flawed paradigm.

I don't know where those thoughts ended up, or if Edwards ever came up with a game that he felt was more satisfactory. (Would it look anything like A Penny For My Thoughts? I don't know.)

 

[Charlaquin]

Right.

Rolemaster is one of the most hardcore purist-for-system RPGs ever produced on a commercial scale. It has 10 stats, dozens if not 100s of skills (depending which supplements are in use), dozens of attack tables, dozens of crit tables (again depending on supplements), hundreds of spell lists, fumble and failure tables, etc. Edwards, in The Right to Dream essay, gets it. He explains why there are so many variant initiative systems (doing a quick count in my head I can think of half-a-dozen). He explains why certain recurring pressures in play recur.

I didn't find his essay insightful because I hated RM. I found it insightful because I loved it! And by taking advice from that essay, and also thinking about other things I read that Edwards lead me to (especially some of Paul Czege) I was able to gracefully land an 11 year campaign, whereas its predecessor had fizzled out in the end because I didn't have the skill or knowledge to resolve it.

The idea that this paints me, or Edwards, in a bad light is just utterly bizarre. Why would the world be a better place if I hadn't got insight from Edwards and my second long-running RM campaign had also had a failed ending?

It’s great that you gleaned something of value from that essay, and that it improved your game. Let it not be said that I don’t think there’s any value to be found in Edwards’ work.

 

[pemerton]

I take it that Edwards has never apologized or retracted those statements, then?

I don't know whether this is intended as a rhetorical question, or ironically, or in some other fashion.

But just for those who are following along, Edwards did apologise and posted about his conversations with John Nephew (and maybe others) in which he conveyed those apologies.

 

[Ovinomancer]

VtM didn't realize that the examples of play in the original book were all personal rather than social, and as such it was describing in it's examples of play a deeply personal introspective game for two players (a character and a Storyteller) and not a social game for a group. The political conspiracy game of Gothy superheroes was invented as a way to play the game in a functional way for groups.
Which is again about how the sort of game you can run depends on the number of players in it because the number of players in a game very much determines where you can put the spotlight. Lots of Indy games are written as if the spotlight isn't actually social and have the same problem of examples of play in an ostensibly social game always showing one GM and one player, which proves that the attempts to improve on the VtM "incoherence" never figured out exactly where the problem was.

Never noticed a problem, but then I wouldn't run many of the games for more than 4 players. I won't run D&D for more than 5, though.

 

[niklinna]

I think if you draw the implication of the brain damage quote out, it suggests that if you play Rolemaster (or another game), read Edwards, and your game doesn’t improve, it’s because you aren’t accepting of the new and correct ideas. Your mind is not open, either because you have a bias against new ideas, or because your brain is literally damaged.

Given as a direct response to @pemerton's simple relation of how his game improved after reading Edwards, this sure requires some mental effort not to take it as saying @pemerton himself implied that that.

 

[niklinna]

But just for those who are following along, Edwards did apologise and posted about his conversations with John Nephew (and maybe others) in which he conveyed those apologies.

Is that on the Forge archive? I'm curious about this but I don't think I have enough info to find it quickly.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Rolemaster is one of the most hardcore purist-for-system RPGs ever produced on a commercial scale. It has 10 stats, dozens if not 100s of skills (depending which supplements are in use), dozens of attack tables, dozens of crit tables (again depending on supplements), hundreds of spell lists, fumble and failure tables, etc.

I have played it quite a bit. Never again. Literally one of the few games I would outright refuse to play purely based on the system.

Edwards, in The Right to Dream essay, gets it. He explains why there are so many variant initiative systems (doing a quick count in my head I can think of half-a-dozen). He explains why certain recurring pressures in play recur.

I didn't find his essay insightful because I hated RM. I found it insightful because I loved it! And by taking advice from that essay, and also thinking about other things I read that Edwards lead me to (especially some of Paul Czege) I was able to gracefully land an 11 year campaign, whereas its predecessor had fizzled out in the end because I didn't have the skill or knowledge to resolve it.

I totally believe that both you and Edwards get and like Rolemaster. It is in GNS terms super 'pure' game. But even as person who often wishes D&D had a tad more process sim in it, the purity of RM is exactly what makes it an utterly miserable experience to me. It goes so overboard in certain direction that it becomes unpalatable.

And that's the thing. From GNS perspective majority of play happens in some muddy 'incoherent' middle ground. And most of the time it is not because the people don't understand better and would be happier if they could max their gamism or simulationism or whatever. It is by choice, it is because that's what they actually like. And it seems to me that GNS doesn't have much anything useful to say about that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Snarf Zagyg put this article in the other threat which you might also find useful:

What Is A Storygame?

I’m going to be moving soon. I’ve been lucky to live for the past few years in a city which has a deep and diverse pool of gaming communities, with enough space in the ecosystem for the…

heterogenoustasks.wordpress.com

There's a strong argument that the kinds of storygames identified in that thread are not narrativist. They're more simulationism, with the internal cause being telling the best story. These games prioritize taking actions that tell a better story rather than pushing for character, and character wants are often subsumed into this. This defeats one of the core ideas of narrtivism. It does support Simulationism.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I have played it quite a bit. Never again. Literally one of the few games I would outright refuse to play purely based on the system.



I totally believe that both you and Edwards get and like Rolemaster. It is in GNS terms super 'pure' game. But even as person who often wishes D&D had a tad more process sim in it, the purity of RM is exactly what makes it an utterly miserable experience to me. It goes so overboard in certain direction that it becomes unpalatable.

And that's the thing. From GNS perspective majority of play happens in some muddy 'incoherent' middle ground. And most of the time it is not because the people don't understand better and would be happier if they could max their gamism or simulationism or whatever. It is by choice, it is because that's what they actually like. And it seems to me that GNS doesn't have much anything useful to say about that.

That you prefer a range of Simulationism that's not on the far end of purist for system and is more in line with High Concept doesn't, for a moment, pull you out of simulationism. And that doesn't imply that GNS is some pure ideology where real play is in the murky middle.

You could make a murky middle argument, but this isn't it.

 

[Campbell]

And that's the thing. From GNS perspective majority of play happens in some muddy 'incoherent' middle ground. And most of the time it is not because the people don't understand better and would be happier if they could max their gamism or simulationism or whatever. It is by choice, it is because that's what they actually like. And it seems to me that GNS doesn't have much anything useful to say about that.

I do not believe this nearly as true as most Trad only gamers believe. It's fundamentally something I think we were wrong about on The Forge. We did not see the underlying focus on that feeling of being there in the fantasy world and GM Storytelling nearly as much as it was there. I think we looked too closely at mechanics that were default gamist supporting and did not look closely enough at play techniques and actual play.