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

[pemerton]

Of course it's a criticism. Criticism isn't negative, though, so... I'm not sure what your point here is? Is this another argument about negative connotations and that criticism has a negative connotation?

I think it's important that we all share exactly how much we don't like the writings of this one guy who once wrote some thoughtful things about RPGing (after playing, and seriously engaging with, just about every RPG published up to the time at which he was writing). And who, if Vincent Baker is to be taken at face value, played a crucial role in helping to inspire one of the most influential RPGs designs of all time.

 

[Ovinomancer]

OR…his writing is extremely successful at communicating that the things you like are awful and wrong.

Which would be true, but Edwards is a huge fan of a number of systems that people who gloss his articles are convinced he hates. Edwards is bluntly critical and strips things bare. He also uses words that seem particularly bad out of context, but in the zeitgeist of the Forge carried specific meaning. Edwards was not writing those essays for general consumption, he was investigating and expanding his own thinking inside the zeitgeist of the Forge. This is a major stumbling block, because it's fairly easy to assume he hates the things he's expanding upon.

Although, I think it's entirely fair to say he didn't like Vampire.

 

[Malmuria]

I suppose that if you want to lump all those terms together, so that if one is used all of the others are intended, then you can get there. I prefer to not do that. A game can be incoherent and not dysfunctional, or incoherent and dysfunctional, and even coherent and dysfunctional (for completion, we also have coherent and not dysfunctional). He's specifically talking to the Vampire system, which very much is dysfunctional in that if you try to do what the game suggests you should be doing while using the system, it doesn't work at all. Vampire was a primary motivator for a lot of the Forge discussion, because it's clearly telling you what it's supposed to do but then actually doesn't do that.

Of course it's a criticism. Criticism isn't negative, though, so... I'm not sure what your point here is? Is this another argument about negative connotations and that criticism has a negative connotation?

Well, I’m glad the framework + its extensive glossary works for you. Hopefully you’re not mystified as to why it doesn’t work for lots of other people

 

[pemerton]

Which would be true, but Edwards is a huge fan of a number of systems that people who gloss his articles are convinced he hates.

Right.

He is a big fan of Holmes Basic. Of RuneQuest. Of Champions, of course. Just to name a few.

Edwards is bluntly critical and strips things bare.

Sentimentality is the enemy of criticism. I love Rolemaster, I have shelves of books, I can still tell you what are the 10 Open and 10 Closed Channelling spell lists even though I've not played or GMed it for over 10 years. But if I'm going to analyse it I have to be honest about it.

And the same for any other RPG.

He also uses words that seem particularly bad out of context, but in the zeitgeist of the Forge carried specific meaning. Edwards was not writing those essays for general consumption, he was investigating and expanding his own thinking inside the zeitgeist of the Forge. This is a major stumbling block, because it's fairly easy to assume he hates the things he's expanding upon.

Agreed.

Although, I think it's entirely fair to say he didn't like Vampire.

And on this too.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Why? I like that premise.

Perfectly fine, but it cuts against prioritizing the dramatic needs of a character if they're being subsumed into the group.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, I’m glad the framework + its extensive glossary works for you. Hopefully you’re not mystified as to why it doesn’t work for lots of other people

Nope. Said it openly in this thread. But if that's the extent of your argument, you should say that you don't want to get into the specifics and understanding and stop making arguments as if the articles are written for general consumptions.

 

[pemerton]

Well, I’m glad the framework + its extensive glossary works for you. Hopefully you’re not mystified as to why it doesn’t work for lots of other people

It's not a mystery. If the only RPGing you're very familiar with is high concept simulationism, or low competition gamism that arises from laying a light touch performance metric over characters-face-challenges high concept simulationism, then you have to dive very deep into Edwards analysis to find the bits that will talk to you about the play distinctions you're interested in.

There is also a tendency in RPGers highly committed to simulationist-oriented RPGing to be very hostile to talking about authorship, and who says what. So people will post about the PCs exploring the setting, but when you try and talk about that as an actual process of play - the players declare actions for their PCs which, in virtue of their PCs' fictional positioning, oblige the GM to relate more information about the setting that will be described as dismissive, reductionist, insulting, trivialising etc.

Given that Edwards's writing does talk about processes of play rather than the imagined events that occur in the fiction, it generates hostility for that reason also.

 

[Charlaquin]

This looks like a stripped back version of 5e resolution.

Pretty similar, yes. By design. Remember this is a hypothetical hack-up job to get my not-so-mechanically-adept players to try an open-table game in a more OSR-leaning system.

It doesn't make me think you would like Dungeon World.

I think I would, but this wouldn’t be the system I would use if I wanted to play Dungeon World. I would use Dungeon World.

The GM in Torchbearer has to make key decisions about pacing. In that way it resembles Burning Wheel.

You apply success + condition when things are bogging down a bit. It's the analogue, in 5e D&D, to success with a complication. It helps the players make progress towards their goals and their loot.

You apply a twist when failure would be fun! There's no straightforward 5e analogue to this. A twist generally requires a new obstacle to be overcome and so adds to the grind, which imposes a condition every 4 obstacles, so it's kind of a quarter of a condition in itself. Extra obstacles are good for improving skills and abilities, and allow pursuing Beliefs just as much as success + a condition would.

Yeah, this is what I gathered. The problem, were I to run it, would be getting comfortable making those calls, as someone used to a GM-as-referee approach.

As @Manbearcat has said, roughly equal amounts of each over time is probably best.

That’s at least something to go on, I guess.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just for the thought exercise, put it down, see how that changes things. You can pick it back up any time.

"Abandon" is rather a strong word....

Sure. I mean, wasn’t that what I was doing that gave me that epiphany about narrativism having reversed player and GM roles compared to simulationism?

 

[Charlaquin]

I think that was the point! @Charlaquin is adopting something from Dungeon World that they do like and applying it to 5e.

It was to B/X in that case, but yeah.