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

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

Awesome! Do you have a link to his apology?

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

And this is that good argument.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

That’s something I would be interested in reading.

 

[Charlaquin]

pure ideology

 

[pemerton]

The brain damage thing is about trying to achieve proto-narrativist play with tools that actively push against that mode of play.

If you instead want to play Rolemaster (or any other trad game) for the things it does support, then all will be well.

Rolemaster is great.

RM has some features that support character-oriented narrativist play.

The PC build allows players to choose to develop their PCs in ways that express a character conception in response to ingame situations.

The action resolution rules for melee and spells (but not archery) allow players to choose how much risk they want to stake on a particular action.

The resolution system is exciting enough in itself - a little bit like 4e D&D in that respect - that a GM doesn't need to plan a lot of intricate stuff in advance to get engaging play happening.

RM also has some features that are at odds with narrativist play - the most striking one being that the system never brings any scene to a close (there are always lingering spell durations, or injuries, or gear to track, or . . .).

When I worked out the above things, and how they fitted into what I was doing with my group, my play got better!

 

[Malmuria]

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.

Oh sorry, the “you” in my post was a general you. They were responding to @Charlaquin who was commenting on the continued relevance of the brain damage comments. My post was likewise intended to clarify why people might find those comments salient to his broader thinking, rather than just a sidenote. Namely, that to say someone doesn’t agree with your (again, general you) ideas because they have some sort of cognitive block is rather condescending, even if you don’t go as far as claiming your interlocuter has literal brain damage. [side note: Edwards apology on the matter was very much of the “I’m sorry people were offended” sort]

 

[Malmuria]

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.

Which? The article mentions 30+ games

 

[Malmuria]

That’s something I would be interested in reading.

If you have the stomach for it the original convo and follow up…apology? are linked to here. CW: lots of people in those threads agreed with Edwards and people on that forum were absolutely scathing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Which? The article mentions 30+ games

Okay. I'll take your word for it, I'm not counting them. Nor am I going through them one by one. Fiasco is prominently featured and has the features I identified above. I love Fiasco. It's entirely about improv shared storytelling, though. Microscope is about setting creation. Really nicely done. I haven't played Downfall, but it similarly doesn't embody narrativism.

On a second look, I noted Dogs in the Vineyard in there, which fails most all of the qualities listed and only comes in under the dubious "doesn't have simulationist mechanics" quality. Dogs is very much Story Now. Monsterhearts is also a hard sell as a storygame. However, it's somewhat suspectible to drift, and often, like PbtA played not in accordance with directions.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you have the stomach for it the original convo and follow up…apology? are linked to here. CW: lots of people in those threads agreed with Edwards and people on that forum were absolutely scathing.

Nope, not it. That's the same linked discussion from earlier with the inciting comment. The place that hosts the followup conversation isn't well indexed, so it's proving hard to find in a search. I read it before. I doubt people already on the Hate Edwards wagon will find much to climb off for, though.