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

[Thomas Shey]

OK holding on

Encourages and requires a lot more work out of everyone involved in order to work against it. I know because I did it.

Gurps has mechanics that encourages connections and characters with more depth. Where do the mechanics exclude the loner?

I'm guessing he's assuming a system that specifically requires connections (there are such games). GURPS and Hero are just not it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is interesting; could you elaborate?

GNS Sim includes genre emulation. Contrary to how its presented, genre emulation is not mostly about world integrity; its about a certain look and feel that supports some kinds of story. GDS Sim was very much about world integrity; having things that were not intrinsic (and potentially visible) in the world just for look-and-feel dramatic purposes was tantamount to original sin from their point of view.

Genre emulation might not have been a primary concern to GDS dramatists, but it was very much in their wheelhouse and they recognized it as such. At least hard genre emulation (i.e. things beyond time-and-situation) was anathema to GDS simulationists.

Yes, this is becoming more apparent to me the more I look into it.

That's why I tend to come across as negative to it. There are distinct problems with GDS (gamism being an afterthought and simulationism being probably too specific to justify its weight, in the same way GNS Nar is) but there's no doubt they seriously tried.

I didn't mean to suggest it got no development focus, I just said it got short shrift (which may still be too strong, I'll admit).

I kind of think it is. If you want to make an argument that the game development tended to live a bit too much a life of its own separate from looking at how it fit into the full structure of the game it was in, that I wouldn't argue about.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is interesting; could you elaborate?


Yes, this is becoming more apparent to me the more I look into it.


I didn't mean to suggest it got no development focus, I just said it got short shrift (which may still be too strong, I'll admit).

I think that it's a good thing to note that Ron Edwards was very keen on games that fell into Simulationism and Gamism. He didn't skimp here. The main issue that could be taken away is consideration of high concept simulationism, which fits the core definition of simulationism in that it's main goal is advancement of an internal cause. Internal cause meaning simply that the cause of what is happening is from inside the scope of play -- ie, internal to it. Then the shift is really to move that cause to something more abstract, like genre or setting, ie, the 'high concept.' Generally these games place this kind of development and presentation of the internal cause in the hands of the GM, but it's not always so, or entirely so. 5e is a very good example of an HCS supporting system.

I'm not really aware of any criticism of gamism not considering things.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The main issue that could be taken away is consideration of high concept simulationism, which fits the core definition of simulationism in that it's main goal is advancement of an internal cause. Internal cause meaning simply that the cause of what is happening is from inside the scope of play -- ie, internal to it.

What does this even mean? Seems incredibly vague to me.

 

[niklinna]

GNS Sim includes genre emulation. Contrary to how its presented, genre emulation is not mostly about world integrity; its about a certain look and feel that supports some kinds of story. GDS Sim was very much about world integrity; having things that were not intrinsic (and potentially visible) in the world just for look-and-feel dramatic purposes was tantamount to original sin from their point of view.

I thought the original GNS essay specifically excluded genre from consideration. I'll have to go back and look at that! It's probably time I reviewed the essays dedicated to each of the creative agendas again, too.

Genre emulation might not have been a primary concern to GDS dramatists, but it was very much in their wheelhouse and they recognized it as such. At least hard genre emulation (i.e. things beyond time-and-situation) was anathema to GDS simulationists.

Is that in the sense of genre tropes such as villains gloating over the hero in extended monologues instead of just killing the hero, or putting the hero in an elaborate deathtrap and then leaving it unattended? (Clearly my brain is fixated on Bond & Batman this morning.)

I kind of think it is. If you want to make an argument that the game development tended to live a bit too much a life of its own separate from looking at how it fit into the full structure of the game it was in, that I wouldn't argue about.

Yeah, I can see that.

Thanks for pointing all this out; it's quite informative.

 

[niklinna]

What does this even mean? Seems incredibly vague to me.

Basically that simulation means the world having its own consistent, internal logic. Everything has a plausible in-world cause, or, everything has its predictable, plausible, in-world effects.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Basically that simulation means the world having its own consistent, internal logic. Everything has a plausible in-world cause, or, everything has its predictable, plausible, in-world effects.

Which would be a sensible definition... except if we understand this "internal logic" so broadly that it also encompasses genre and dramatic logic. At that point we might as well say that a story now game qualifies, as it follows dramatic logic of events that challenge the dramatic needs of the characters happening, or a gamist game qualifies at it follows the internal logic of the characters happening to meet exiting level appropriate challenges!

 

[Thomas Shey]

I thought the original GNS essay specifically excluded genre from consideration. I'll have to go back and look at that! It's probably time I reviewed the essays dedicated to each of the creative agendas again, too.

It may have (I'm not going to claim to have gone into all the essays in enough depth to claim knowledge here) but Sim has where genre emulation has been placed by every person familiar with GNS who talked about it.

Is that in the sense of genre tropes such as villains gloating over the hero in extended monologues instead of just killing the hero, or putting the hero in an elaborate deathtrap and then leaving it unattended? (Clearly my brain is fixated on Bond & Batman this morning.)

Those are included, but it also includes things like "In a superhero setting an energy blast that can blow through a wall will never hit a non-invulnerable hero dead on". Or in noir detective stories, the client is always suspect.

These are not things that have any real in-world reason. They're just dramatic conceits.

Yeah, I can see that.

Thanks for pointing all this out; it's quite informative.

Of course you can run into complicating issues that come up because being focused on the "game" part of role-playing game picked up a bad odor with a lot of people at one point. My personal opinion is that all that often did was lead to designs with mechanics that hadn't been thought all the way through, but then, I'm old and cynical.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which would be a sensible definition... except if we understand this "internal logic" so broadly that it also encompasses genre and dramatic logic. At that point we might as well say that a story now game qualifies, as it follows dramatic logic of events that challenge the dramatic needs of the characters happening, or a gamist game qualifies at it follows the internal logic of the characters happening to meet exiting level appropriate challenges!

The line of demarcation the GDS sim folks used was simple: can a character in the world at least theoretically learn to know these rules? As I've noted, with hard core genre conceits, they really can't; they only work as long as no one in the setting acknowledges them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The line of demarcation the GDS sim folks used was simple: can a character in the world at least theoretically learn to know these rules? As I've noted, with hard core genre conceits, they really can't; they only work as long as no one in the setting acknowledges them.

Yes! That would be a sensible definition! That also is what I (and I'd wager most people) actually mean when talking about simulation in RPGs (when not specifically addressing GNS.)