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

[Cadence]

Incoherence hasn't been mentioned at all outside of GNS theory, and then only in the specific context of attempting to serve multiple agendas at the same time. The term "incoherence" was also brought up by detractors as a way to dismiss the theory -- it wasn't brought up by anyone trying to explain it. The people trying to explain the theory have all described the issues without use of the jargon.

This is entirely misplaced.

It feels like I've seen something like "your play is incoherent" used in threads without GNS in the title or first post, without the clarifying "in GNS theory" added. It just didn't feel surprising that folks hearing they were incoherent without the clarifier would find it off putting and be defensive. That's all.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But, that's the problem right there.

You are using simulation in a way that they are not.

You understand that there are two different types of simulationism in GNS right?

You are causing the misunderstanding because you absolutely understand what they mean, but, refuse to use the defined definitions. Instead, you are arguing against something they are not. Playing coherently and with integrity is something that HCS is interested in, sure. But, you cannot ignore the fact that the whole reason for that encounter to exist in the first place is because of gamism.

But that is already stacking the deck from the get go! If we are asking "how you would make the decision in this situation and on what grounds" the situation is already established. Sure, the reason for establish was gamist, but if we are asking questions of "what then" then obviously answers based on something else than gamism must be possible, or there really isn't a question!

And If we care about consistently modelling the world (process simulation is probably closest to what this would be) then we must consider things like what NPCs exist, and what they would reasonably do and what their motivations are. And this too will likely lead to them joining the battle.

And the reason that we're having conflicting results, is BECAUSE of those conflicting points. A gamist solution would have the enemies charge in because that's part of the challenge. A High Concept Simulationist approach would remove those enemies from play because it conflicts with genre to have those enemies charge in and slaughter the PC's.

Except that is not a conclusion one must come even from high concept simulationist POV! Like I said, it completely depends on the high concept being simulated.

 

[Charlaquin]

Competition, and winning, and challenges - the sorts of things towards which gamist play is oriented - require stability.

Making a point, and expressing and resolving protagonism, require constant change and riffing to pod and proke and generate adversity.

Hence gameplay can't be oriented towards gamsim and narrativism at the same time.

Where's the flaw?

I don’t know what making a point means here. I do not think that instability is required to reveal interesting truths about character. Conflict is required, but conflict can be delivered through gamist “winning and losing” mechanics. In fact, I would submit that conflict is essential both to competitive gameplay and to character development. Game and Narrative are both built on a foundation of conflict.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You're overanalysing. It is not really about the game, it is about efficient use of free time.

Then it is genuinely, totally, 100% irrelevant. If we aren't talking about games, why/how they're made, and what people want from playing them, it is not relevant.

Why is this difficult? Why would, for example, literary theory care about whether book clubs avoid a particular book if the choice about avoiding that book has nothing whatsoever to do with how it's written or what it's written about?

So by that logic bringing crisps and candy to the game is Conceit and Emulation? Because I do it to make my friends happy?

So, I'm going to level with you. This sounds like you are very intentionally trolling. It does not, even slightly, look like a good faith effort at engaging with the discussion. It looks like trying to score petty points. The reason I am responding, as opposed to simply ignoring it, is that I think you want to be making a serious point here. Please consider this a request to take the argument more seriously, rather than bringing up intentional and obvious irrelevancies.

Bringing crisps and candy has nothing whatever to do with how the game is designed or played as a game. It has nothing whatever to do with answering the question, "What are roleplaying games (made) for?", which I have been extremely clear is the whole point of my effort to describe these things. Being unrelated to both the purpose of the game itself, and to the design elements of the game itself, it is, naturally, completely outside the scope of the discussion.

You might as well bring up what the color of a vehicle is when someone is trying to articulate a theory of drive train design. It would be only slightly more relevant than crisps and candy are to this discussion.

Yes those could be other reasons for avoiding those things. But not the reason I stated, which is practical considerations for effective use of the limited gaming time. Running several solo games while other players wait and do nothing is not effective use of gaming time, thus it is avoided.

But why is it avoided? Why is this an inefficient use of game time? Why does efficient use of time matter in this context? People talk (a lot) about giving each character in a group a chance to directly and personally shine, such that which character has the greatest importance slowly shifts from scene to scene, using the jargon term "spotlight balance." Isn't "each person plays a half-hour solo scenario" the absolute perfect storm of spolight balance, since it becomes impossible for anyone else to steal their spotlight if they're adventuring by themselves? And yet I agree with you that such things are unwise, both in an at-the-table-play sense and in a on-the-drawing-board-design sense. These things clearly have relevance to design, and thus, can factor into answers to the question, "what are roleplaying games (made) for?"

Yes, makes sense.

Well, I'm glad at least that aspect is reasonable.

 

[Charlaquin]

The thing is, people 'get' the theory. You're right, it is not that complicated. They just don't agree with. But the adherents cannot accept this. As they believe the theory to be true, any disagreement must be due lack of understanding, so they need to explain harder!

I think I know now how you probably feel when arguing with me about the 5e How to Play rules

I’m still right about that though

 

[pemerton]

Sorry, missed this earlier.

I’m not sure I understand what is meant by “playing to make a point.”

In the same way that Jane Austen, Tolstoy, Zadie Smith, Chris Claremont and the scriptwriters of Days of Our Lives have points to make. Dramatic storytelling.

I agree with the notion that winning requires stability. This is in fact exactly why I believe simulation supports gamism. You need the fictional world to function in a clear, understandable way to be able to confidently make the decisions by which you succeed or fail

You are using simulation here to mean what Edwards calls exploration. He uses simulation to mean play in which exploration is the point, and its own reward; not just a foundation on which some other goal of play is resting.

I also believe these consequential decisions are an exceedingly effective way of revealing interesting things about the characters who make them, which is one of the things I have been told narrativism is about.

What you are describing here is, I think, what Edwards would call exploration of character. I say that because I think the consequences you have in mind are built into the situation independently of the player's action declaration for their PC; typically that "building in" is done by the GM's prep, but sometimes by the GM's improv.

In narrativist play, the consequences are responses to the player's point, not manifestations of the GM's conception of the situation.

 

[Hussar]

"X is incoherent" feels a lot different than "X is incoherent in terms of ABC theory". In a thread predicated on ABC theory, the folks entering the thread probably have some duty to know/recognize that. In threads not predicated on ABC theory it feels like those meaning in terms of ABC theory probably have some duty to clarify and explain.

In a thread specifically ABOUT RPG theory though, shouldn't this not really be the case. It is right there in the thread title. Sure, there is some duty to clarify and explain, but, there is also the duty of the listener to actually stop actively resisting the use if they want to continue the discussion. As a teacher, if I talk about scaffolding, I'm not referring to the frames used by builders to build a building, but, about something else entirely. If someone keeps asking about where I'm supposed to rent a scaffold in my classroom, there's obviously some sort of breakdown in communication.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
So, moderators were out having nice Saturday afternoons, and came back to a stack of post reports from this thread. The offenses are mostly a bunch of pages back at this point, such that it is unlikely to be constructive to bring them back up individually. The conversation has moved on.

However, that stack tells us that folks are getting testy in this thread. That's a problem.

If you aren't approaching this thread with a cheerful attitude towards folks who think differently about models, bits of jargon, processes, and tools, there's going to be problems. If you are approaching this thread thinking you are an Expert, and therefore own these things, and will not conscience anyone saying different things about them, there will be problems.

Respectful and tolerant of dissent, or it won't go well, folks. Please remember that.

 

[pemerton]

I don’t know what making a point means here. I do not think that instability is required to reveal interesting truths about character.

If you've already decided everything you're going to say, then our conversation can't really elicit, from me, my view about <something worth having a view about>.

I'm not talking about instability in the fiction - though that may help ("there are no status quos in Apocalypse World"). I'm talking about instability - change, no prejudging - in the conversation.

 

[Xetheral]

Simulationism is broken into two smaller camps. High Concept Sim, where the simulation is of genre tropes or a storyline, and so the internal cause mechanisms are tied to enforcing those. And then there is process sim, which is more like "physics" of the game rules, where the internal cause is rooted in the system and produces clear cause and effect chains. Really the difference is if the simulation engine is the system (process sim) or the GM (high concept sim). 5e strongly supports HCS, doesn't support process sim at all.

(Emphasis added.) On the occasions I've tried to fit my own preferred style into GNS terms, based on definitions similar to the first part of the above quote, I've tended to conclude that I prefer Process Sim. But if I take the bolded synopsis as true, then I think my style might instead be High Concept Sim, where the genre feel I'm emulating is "Process Sim RPGs". And, you know what, as hilarious as it sounds at first, on further reflection I think there might be something to that....

So thanks! You've given me something intriguing to think about.