Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[AbdulAlhazred]

I do sometimes wonder if physics forums are full of posters saying Einstein was wrong because 'what does all this have to do with my relatives?'.

Heh, you are not watching Physics guys fielding questions about basic terms, like 'energy', are you? If 1 in 1000 people who use that word have an idea what it actually means, that's fortunate! I doubt anyone in this thread could define it in a way that "Viktor T. Hothe" (a guy who posts some very good physics posts of this sort on Quora) would not spit at (well, actually he would politely correct you, but...). ALL terminology is like this in some degree. Some might be fairly straightforward because it is only dealing with concrete ideas (IE the knitting terms example) but as soon as you get the tiniest bit into territory where there are complex concepts or subjectivity is a large part of the field, then all bets are off!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I also think the actual jargon used to describe games like Sorcerer was not well chosen. Using narrative and story in the descriptors for a sort of play that is fundamentally a rejection of storytelling (whether GM led or collaborative) was a pretty massive blunder.

I think that this is a point of fundamental agreement that we likely have.

At the most basic level, and from my POV, GNS (and the Forge) was born out of a rejection of the dominant games of the time (V:TM and AD&D 2e and 3e). It led to a dramatic increase in indie games, and, more importantly, an emphasis on design in the "N" sphere.

All of that is good! That's how it's supposed to work; you reject the dominant paradigm, and in so doing, make new stuff. We can see this with OSR, FKR, Storygames, and going back to debates about illusionism and the rise of storytelling in the 70s.

I think that there are people that appreciate the games that arose from the Forge model, but also understand that for that reason, it's primarily gNs. It's really good for the N ... not so much for people that like other games, especially so-called "trad" games.

For that reason, the rhetoric surrounding the Forge (which is activist) and the "conversion stories" (I used to be a dumb ol' D&D player like you, until I saw the light!) is not just off-putting, but can be actively offensive at times ... especially when it is repeatedly called neutral.

Again, that doesn't mean that the jargon isn't helpful for some people, or doesn't improve their games. But I think it is telling that most modern designers eschew those labels.

 

[niklinna]

I'm not quite sure what it means to "encounter" a room. But what I said in the post that you quoted is that no "encounter" happens in room 3 if a Halfling walks through it. I am using "encounter" as a shorthand for this fairly traditional idea, from Gygax's PHB p 103:

TRAPS, TRICKS, AND ENCOUNTERS​

During the course of an adventure, you will undoubtedly come across various forms of traps and tricks, as well as encounter monsters of one sort or another.​

A Halfling who walks through room 3 (and doesn't search for traps, drop rocks from a height, jump hard, etc) will not come across any trap or trick, nor encounter monsters of any sort. They will make it to room 4, where an encounter (with the Bugbear boss and friends) will take place.

My take is that, this adventure being primarily geographical, "encountering" a room means entering the room, regardless of whatever else might go on. The combined nature of this particular adventure means things can get "out of order"—what if the PCs make so much noise that the bugbear comes to them?? Then the scripted encounters are no longer in their original order. But overall, the structure of the adventure seems to intend that the PCs wil face rooms/challenges in a given order.

No plan survives contact with the enemy, of course!

niklinna's answers are the clearer ones to me. To paraphrase them back: the "cannot" is coming from a certain way of scripting instructions, and then implementing them. The players implement some of those instructions (eg striving for the scripted objective) and the GM implements some too (eg deciding that certain action declarations will fizzle, or reinterpreting the tasks or intents of certain action declarations so as to make them apposite to the scripted objective).

Regardless of the script, it all comes down to actual play, of course. Many a director has tampered with Shakespeare, and I'll bet, the occasional ad-libbing actor.

 

[niklinna]

(Whoops, went back and re-read the wrong post! IGNORE ME!!!)

 

[niklinna]

The scenes are intended to be run in sequence: the Adventure Begins asks each player to introduce their PC - they have met at a tavern and all are travelling to meet the Green Knight at his Green Chapel, having promised about a year ago that they would do so. It is free roleplaying among the players, and concludes with the GM announcing that "You agree to go on this quest to the Green Chapel together . . . You will face your destinies together."

If the intent is for them to be run in sequence, then the intent is for a linear adventure. What you as GM do with it can alter that.

Each of the non-bookend scenes is fully self-contained (except that changes to Dishonour are carried forward, and that valuable items that are collected can be taken forward). Other than the fact that the first of them is simpler, I don't think it would affect anything to change their sequence; for this very reason there seems to be little at stake in who gets to choose that sequence.

Right! So the adventure author intended for (one particular) linear sequence. The GM could change that, creating another linear sequence in which the players have no say. Or the GM could say, "Which scene would you like to do next? The there's a farmer down the road getting hassled, and some dude chasing a fox." Then the players have some say—even as the actual play, due to the realities of time, results in a linear sequence.

Notably, nothing the PCs do or achieve/fail to achieve in a scene here affects the sequence of scenes, although some adventures are scripted or run that way, too.

Once the fifth scene (which is the fourth encounter) resolves, the scenario/quest/adventure is done: depending on how the meeting with the Green Knight played out for a given PC, they experience one of three different resolutions that are provided by the adventure authors.

Ah, finally a bit of branching structure. Such a relief.

There's no real point in trying to run this scene in advance of the three other encounters: in terms of tactical game play, the point of those other encounters is for the players to ready their PCs for the climax, and to be challenged in that respect (the players ready their PCs by lowering their Dishonour; they are challenged in this respect by various ways that their Dishonour can step up). If you were playing under time constraints you might drop one (perhaps the fox?) - I don't have a good sense of how tightly the whole thing is balanced, mathematically, and hence of how much harder this might make the final scene.

Does this count as a "linear adventure"? Or is "linear adventure" only a concept for adventures aimed at supporting exploratory play?

Yes, this counts as a linear adventure (script), especially as you stated its intent is clear (possibly explicit!). The GM can run it otherwise, of course, or give the players the option to change the order.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What bugs me about Forge jargon it is how terribly it's explained. Ron Edwards is not a clear or concise writer. Which leads to the main problem with GNS jargon, it's almost literally true that no two people use those phrases to mean the same thing. People who claim to be up on Forge jargon and GNS will argue with each other about what those terms mean. By definition that's bad jargon. Jargon is meant to be shorthand technical speak so that insiders can communicate efficiently and effectively with each other. When those "insiders" argue with each other about what the jargon actually means...yeah, that's a huge red flag. Hence my thread on the topic.

I fully accept that you find him obtuse. OTOH I find Edwards to usually be quite insightful and precise. I mean, the stuff that people quote was written by him (and others) over a course of many years, and he may not have explained it all perfectly consistently for various reasons. OTOH when I read one of these essays, I generally find that the ideas are quite structured and one point generally follows from another. I don't even necessarily AGREE with all of what Edwards says in terms of how things may work in the real world, but very often when I first encountered a concept he was discussing it would be like "Oh, yeah, this cuts through a lot of stuff." I especially find there is a good bit of insight in the points where he says "it all boils down to X, Y, and Z."

 

[niklinna]

As I posted, the scenes are independent of one another. So what difference does it make if the players rather than the GM chooses the sequence?

The difference is whether the players are aware they have some choice in how things go, and whether that matters to them of course.

And suppose that it was linear, why would that matter? What interesting property of the scenario would that be pointing me to?

Ooh, interesting question, but I'm afraid that would branch us off the main line of inquiry. Maybe I'll come back to this after I catch up!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

100%. GNS is useful as an analytical lens, a way of looking at play and players and discerning something. One thing I note is how well GNS predicts and explains many of the recurring topics here at ENW -- things like rest/recovery cycles, what hitpoints are, and how you balance daily encounter budgets against making a believable world.

This is why I think it would be a useful exercise to go through what is involved in RPG design and how GNS and other technical approaches to RPG play/design address them. For example, looking at the resources linked by @Snarf Zagyg in the OP, I think a LOT of what is there may be useful to sociologists and other kinds of audiences, but IMHO the ones that really speak to RPG players and designers are much more likely to be things like GNS or GDS that have been constructed by them for this purpose.

 

[niklinna]

As I posted, the scenes are independent of one another. So what difference does it make if the players rather than the GM chooses the sequence?

And suppose that it was linear, why would that matter? What interesting property of the scenario would that be pointing me to?

Look at that, I caught up!

So this is an interesting question. As has become clear, "linear" is not a simple thing, nor does it really apply to an "adventure" as a unit. It applies to some parts or aspects of an adventure, as scripted, GMed, or played through, which I've generically called "situations"—locations, NPCs, activities/events. Since we live in sequential time, every adventure ultimately becomes linear, but from an authorial/director point of view, mapping potential sequences, things can branch, loop, or have other structures. Even players can be aware of this in moments where decisions are possible—but only one option can be taken.

So, your "suppose that it was linear" needs to be more specific. Linear in what way? The adventure as described is linear by decree, except for the bookend scenes. Nothing about its internal structure, no cause/effect relationships, no baked-in need for the PCs to have obtained a particular thing that is then needed in the next (or a subsequent) scene, requires the ordering. Linear by decree, I would submit, isn't a particularly interesting property. But the other stuff, that gets interesting, for the author, the GM, and the players! Even as the adventure remains linear in some aspects, things are now connected in more interesting ways than merely, "and then that happens".

I'll await a response from you before I decide which path to take in this inquiry.

Edit: Fixed a typo.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is why I think it would be a useful exercise to go through what is involved in RPG design and how GNS and other technical approaches to RPG play/design address them. For example, looking at the resources linked by @Snarf Zagyg in the OP, I think a LOT of what is there may be useful to sociologists and other kinds of audiences, but IMHO the ones that really speak to RPG players and designers are much more likely to be things like GNS or GDS that have been constructed by them for this purpose.

To pull a few examples that I provided-

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

That has a better and more comprehensible approach to Storygames in a two-minute read than anything I've seen in hundreds of pages of GNS discussion.

The Peterson book (The Elusive Shift) provides more insight, in a readable form, to the history of TTRPG theory than anything I've seen on the web- and a great deal of it is new. (It's part of the game history series). Or you can hunt the Evan Torner bits.

Or go here-

Why People Play Table-Top Role-Playing Games: A Grounded Theory of Becoming as Motivation

There is a paucity of research related to the motivation of people who play table-top role-playing games (TRPGs). Two questions drove this research: (1) What motivates people to play TRPGs and (2) Can a single supra-motivator be developed which envelopes a larger theory of why people participate...

nsuworks.nova.edu

It provides (some) empirical research as to why people play TTRPGs. It's not GNS, by the way.

Look, there is a lot (a LOT) of stuff out there. And as I keep saying (and others have noted in this thread) game designers eschew the problematic verbiage of GNS.

So maybe we should take something from the last decade or so? Perhaps there is more to TTRPG theory than just a bunch of randos on the internet spitballing?