D&D General RPG Theory and D&D...and that WotC Survey

[niklinna]

In light of the...somewhat heated discussion about whether D&D is gamist and if so how, I've been digging a little into the history of RPG theory leading to the rise & fall of the GNS (Gamism/Narrativism/Simulationism) model, since I missed out on that drama when it happened. My exposure to GNS theory had been limited to Edwards's original articles on the topic, which I didn't find that problematic taken on their own (although they were very compact and assumed some experience with particular games). However, reading about the context of the theory's creation, and more importantly, how it was promulgated and "elaborated", gave me much insight into its reputations and the different ways different people react to it today.

And yet people continue to use the three principal terms of GNS theory, tacitly accepting the premise of a three-way split, but often without having read those original articles, or with different definitions and applications, in spite of the precedent Edwards established—or perhaps "appropriated" would be a better term, since he himself took the earlier Threefold Model's terms and redefined them (and redefined them further as his stance became more and more contentious). GNS may have died, according to some, but its embalmed corpse lingers on the Web and its ghost in the minds of those who've read about it. All that's to say that basic GNS terminology is now very loaded, and use of those terms more likely than not results in Huge Misunderstandings and arguments, largely split between those who are not versed in GNS theory and those who are (to whatever degree). For better or worse, undead though it be, GNS theory is basically what we have to work with.

Or is it? That history I linked above made reference to a survey WotC themselves did about types of gaming. It took some further digging to find a working (archive!) link, and it seems that survey has very nearly vanished from gamer memory. But it was a thing, and I have to wonder what influence those survey results had on the development of D&D and possibly the industry at large. Did WotC also forget about it? Did they actually use it for particular editions of D&D? Or did they just put this together and then bin it all? More relevant to those discussing theory, does it give you any new insights into designing, running, or playing D&D, or any other RPG, today? What do you think of it? (I have a few thoughts already but will save them for later, it's really late.)

There are other models/theories out there, of course, and feel free to discuss them here too if you like. But I'm mildly fascinated at this near-lost bit of RPG history.

 

[Yora]

People at WotC posted a number of articles with really good insights about game design over the years, that didn't end up getting considered in their own design.

 

[Krachek]

The ´know your players´ section in the DMG cover the Wotc survey.
I consider that Wotc aim the middle of the pie, making some place for all type of players preference they identify: acting, exploring, instigating, fighting, optimizing, problem solving, storytelling.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I find it rather ridiculous the claim from the end of the article that bias has been removed. The questions entirely focused on game structures that are like D&D, with some pretty hefty assumptions built in. I don't even see where in their model someone that enjoys/ prefers PbtA games would fit -- there's no category that fits at all. So, yeah, some fairly heavy assumption bias there. Not to mention participation bias. Claims like that make it hard to accept the other claims because they betray an unwarranted confidence.

Honestly, I don't see how this helps game design very much. The takeaway seems to be to throw the kitchen sink in because they say there are these clusters with very defined wants, but then immediately water that down by saying that a given cluster also still wants other clusters' play a well and will be unhappy if this weren't present. This staking a clear position but then immediately being away from it strike me as much less than useful. It's almost like they wanted to have results but that the data is so messy they felt they needed to hedge so that the results weren't actually used and then blamed.

 

[Alzrius]

For more on early theories about how to classify and categories role-playing games and various interactions with them, I'd recommend reading Jon Peterson's The Elusive Shift.

 

[Ovinomancer]

For more on early theories about how to classify and categories role-playing games and various interactions with them, I'd recommend reading Jon Peterson's The Elusive Shift.

Interestingly, the discussion here mirrors the categories set up with GNS, with the tension between gamism and simulationism, especially when to acknowledge the internal simukationism split between process-sim and high-concept sim.

 

[Oofta]

The only ones I find useful are for understanding your players. I don't really buy into these unified theories of game design for a variety of reasons. Game rules just gives me a platform to play a game, the rules for D&D for the most part are secondary. I care more about the general feel of the game and constraints it puts on what we want to do as a group. Mouseguard was fun for a couple of games, but ultimately you're just playing mice.

On the other hand, as a DM (and player) it helps to understand what motivates the players at the table and how to try to balance my DMing to try to continue to pull them in and keep them excited. What you do with the game matters more than intellectual exercises trying to identify and categorize it for me.

 

[Alzrius]

Interestingly, the discussion here mirrors the categories set up with GNS, with the tension between gamism and simulationism, especially when to acknowledge the internal simukationism split between process-sim and high-concept sim.

I don't think that's a coincidence. While I doubt Peterson intended for it to be that way, I came away from The Elusive Shift feeling rather depressed, since what I took from the book was that the RPG community has not only been struggling to define the various permutations of our hobby, but has largely failed at promulgating what ground has been broken, leading to the same contentious back-and-forths to be repeated across decades as we all flail about for terms and definitions for things we can intuit and perceive but only barely articulate.

 

[dragoner]

There are other models/theories out there, of course, and feel free to discuss them here too if you like. But I'm mildly fascinated at this near-lost bit of RPG history.

Problem is that it is non-intuitive, esp if one is ESL, so you really have to read the theory posts to understand them.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Interesting post, niklinna. I hope it leads to a positive and fruitful conversation!

I've covered a few of these topics in the past, so I'm going to add my thoughts and then let the conversation continue.

1. Regarding the survey, it's mentioned somewhat regularly here. When WoTC was looking to purchase to TSR and release a new D&D, one thing they couldn't believe is just how little TSR knew about its customer base! Seriously- TSR just kept pumping out product but never really tried to understand who was interested in buying it. Which is something they tried to rectify. I think there are links to Ryan Dancey discussing this. Anyway, this was one of the more famous surveys, in that at that time, a lot of people were wondering about the direction of D&D- what kind of game should it be? And the answer? Well, contrary to what some people want, or what others believe, a lot of people play D&D not to satisfy a single desire, but because they like to do a little of everything.

2. Regarding GNS, I'm going to say this- first, I will also recommend The Elusive Shift ... I wrote a series of posts about it. I find it remarkable that so many don't bother at least trying to understand some of the history of RPG theory prior to discussing it so much. History just keeps repeating. I discuss this in this post.

GNS is just another (and dated) example of Evan Torner's excellent deconstruction of what happens in the hobbyist community when it comes to "RPG theorizing."
A. A new theory pops out that doesn't recognize the long history of the debate, instead only "responding" to what directly came before it.
B. The new theory claims to end the fruitless debate by providing some "big tent," but, in fact, continues the debate.
C. The new theory, while claiming to be neutral by analyzing typologies of players or systems, will, in fact, privilege a particular position that just happens to coincide with the position of the author.
D. The debate continues as people reject the new theory.

It's nothing special. The only reason it continues is, IMO, because the use of certain terms as jargon that happen to be the exact terms that people also use naturally leads to additional debate. But I wouldn't confuse internet debate with ... well, use of "GNS" as an academic theory.

Of course, if it works for you as a toolset to make your game better, that's great!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't think that's a coincidence. While I doubt Peterson intended for it to be that way, I came away from The Elusive Shift feeling rather depressed, since what I took from the book was that the RPG community has not only been struggling to define the various permutations of our hobby, but has largely failed at promulgating what ground has been broken, leading to the same contentious back-and-forths to be repeated across decades as we all flail about for terms and definitions for things we can intuit and perceive but only barely articulate.

Which just shows what a waste of time it is to try and define the indefinable essence of a thing. If we can intuit it, we don't need to define it, we can just do it.

 

[Alzrius]

Which just shows what a waste of time it is to try and define the indefinable essence of a thing. If we can intuit it, we don't need to define it, we can just do it.

We can, but that makes it rather hard to discuss with others, hence all of the ink (both physical and digital) that's been used trying to do exactly that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

We can, but that makes it rather hard to discuss with others, hence all of the ink (both physical and digital) that's been used trying to do exactly that.

The reason you can't define the essence, is the essence is different for everyone, and constantly shifting. It's not just hard to discuss, its impossible to discuss. The solution is don't try to talk about the essence, just focus on specifics.

 

[Reynard]

I think it is important to remember that while RPGs we're around for a few decades by then, very little serious criticism (in the academic sense) had been done at the time. That's where this stuff is coming from. It's not really meant to be distilled into advice for use at your table. It is like academic philosophy or very specific history discussions: mostly of interest to specialists, and otherwise largely misapplied and misquoted by everyone else.

 

[Professor Murder]

I think it is important to remember that while RPGs we're around for a few decades by then, very little serious criticism (in the academic sense) had been done at the time. That's where this stuff is coming from. It's not really meant to be distilled into advice for use at your table. It is like academic philosophy or very specific history discussions: mostly of interest to specialists, and otherwise largely misapplied and misquoted by everyone else.

All this. For a bad analogy, this is more the physics of game design than the practical mechanics. Can one benefit by examining this? Sure. But one can also go down some deep rabbit holes of some rather dedicated navel gazing and not come out with practical applications for one's own game design, be it for one's own table or for wider publication. Knowing what motivates "Players" doesn't mean as much as knowing what motivates "my players", but having some notion of these concepts can help on some level evaluating what "my players" want. Part of the issue is that it takes proper reflection for anyone to really know what they want. People often claim they want Bold flavored coffee, but statistically, people prefer mild. Are they lying? No, it is simply that Bold sounds better than Mild.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

People at WotC posted a number of articles with really good insights about game design over the years, that didn't end up getting considered in their own design.

yeah if you read some 3e blogs and some 4e blogs and some 5e blogs you would think that not only were they not talking about the same game...but that they might be competing games trying to prove there way was right...

 

[Ovinomancer]

All this. For a bad analogy, this is more the physics of game design than the practical mechanics. Can one benefit by examining this? Sure. But one can also go down some deep rabbit holes of some rather dedicated navel gazing and not come out with practical applications for one's own game design, be it for one's own table or for wider publication. Knowing what motivates "Players" doesn't mean as much as knowing what motivates "my players", but having some notion of these concepts can help on some level evaluating what "my players" want. Part of the issue is that it takes proper reflection for anyone to really know what they want. People often claim they want Bold flavored coffee, but statistically, people prefer mild. Are they lying? No, it is simply that Bold sounds better than Mild.

Understanding oneself is important and hard, but I think you've reversed some things here -- a framework can help with self understanding. It's the extremely rare individual that can divine thier own thinking without such tools and then articulate one. Most of that work is done by sharing and curiosity and discussion with peers. Which I'd certainly however come to better understand my own preferences and also, on topic, evaluate a rule set to see how it both is supposed to work and how it supports, or doesn't, my preferences. And I can articulate this very clearly to peers that have done similar work.

 

[ersatzphil]

The reason you can't define the essence, is the essence is different for everyone, and constantly shifting. It's not just hard to discuss, its impossible to discuss. The solution is don't try to talk about the essence, just focus on specifics.

Wouldn't the essence of a thing be the same for everyone, even if the specific permutations of their lived experience of it are different?

 

[Oofta]

Wouldn't the essence of a thing be the same for everyone, even if the specific permutations of their lived experience of it are different?

Is it? Take a look at D&D. You can do everything from classic dungeon crawls where you're just there to kick down doors and chew bubble gum and you're all out of bubble gum to spending hours on RP and political intrigue. The game grants a specific structure, but can easily be tweaked and modified to serve multiple purposes. How well it serves those purposes is a question of implementation, expectations and preference.

So I don't think the essence of the game taken as a whole really means all that much. Certain aspects could be if there were common definitions. However the terms have been redefined to have specific meanings for various analysis framework (and are different from what they mean in casual language) which doesn't always help because people don't have a shared understanding of what those terms mean. I can look up the term "gamist" and a blog will tell me that it only really applies to games like chess or MtG. Then someone else comes along and says that's all wrong because if you look at the definition over here it doesn't mean the same thing.

We're all like the parable of the blind men trying to describe the elephant. On touches the tail and says "It's a rope", another bumps into a leg and says "It's a tree" and so on. Because we experience and interpret the game differently while also having a different frame of reference it all gets muddled. Which is why I think this is a never-ending philosophical debate.

 

[overgeeked]

I don't think that's a coincidence. While I doubt Peterson intended for it to be that way, I came away from The Elusive Shift feeling rather depressed, since what I took from the book was that the RPG community has not only been struggling to define the various permutations of our hobby, but has largely failed at promulgating what ground has been broken, leading to the same contentious back-and-forths to be repeated across decades as we all flail about for terms and definitions for things we can intuit and perceive but only barely articulate.

Well, we can’t even agree on a basic definition of what RPGs are, so of course we can’t get to anything like working models or theory.

The problem is multifaceted. A big part of the problem is we are doing it backwards. Instead of the few people who have really studied game theory and design working up models and theories, we have every random player trying to sound smart and talking about things they largely don’t understand and are not educated about. Being able to drive a car does not make someone a mechanic. Another problem is the lack of data, which is a rather dramatically insurmountable hurdle. Another problem is that we as a community have this odd knee-jerk reaction to be hyper inclusive in our definitions of things. We cannot be allowed to define what we even mean by RPG for fear of maybe, possibly excluding some game somewhere that maybe five people have ever even heard about.

Weirdly, the younger video game industry is just trucking along with all kinds of models and theories about the whats and whys. People who are knowledgeable and educated in game theory and design are working on it. And they have gobs and gobs of data. It’ll be far easier to simply use their models and theories and apply them to RPGs.