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

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
What does this even mean? Seems incredibly vague to me.
The game is internally consistent with itself as a primary driver. That when things happen, they happen for reasons caused by things that already exist within the game. You see this argument get made against things that do not adhere to some kind of internal cause.

Damage on a miss is a good example. (Some) people that dislike it dislike it because how are you causing damage when you missed? This violates the cause/effect relationship within the game for them. Suggestions that misses aren't really misses are non-starters, because that's a clear violation of the internal cause of the game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
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!
No, because these games are not prioritizing sticking to genre logic to emulate it. GNS doesn't say that nothing of anything is present, in fact it says that there's some minimum that's necessary for any game. The issues with agendas are about what's prioritized, and that you cannot prioritize more than one at a time -- one has to be at the top.

ETA: to be, or not to be, that was the correction.
 
Last edited:

The game is internally consistent with itself as a primary driver. That when things happen, they happen for reasons caused by things that already exist within the game. You see this argument get made against things that do not adhere to some kind of internal cause.

Damage on a miss is a good example. (Some) people that dislike it dislike it because how are you causing damage when you missed? This violates the cause/effect relationship within the game for them. Suggestions that misses aren't really misses are non-starters, because that's a clear violation of the internal cause of the game.
Yes, I would dislike it for exactly this reason. However, if we allow justifications from dramatic internal logic, it would make perfect sense. The hit points loss represent the dramatic situation moving closer to defeat, and this doesn't necessarily need to correspond to any specific fixed events such as hits or misses.

No, because these games are not prioritizing sticking to genre logic to emulate it. GNS doesn't say that nothing of anything is present, in fact it says that there's some minimum that's necessary for any game. The issues with agendas are about what's prioritized, and that you cannot prioritize more than one at a time -- one has to at the top.
But narrativist games absolutely prioritise certain kind of dramatic logic!
 

niklinna

učim hrvatski
Damage on a miss is a good example. (Some) people that dislike it dislike it because how are you causing damage when you missed? This violates the cause/effect relationship within the game for them. Suggestions that misses aren't really misses are non-starters, because that's a clear violation of the internal cause of the game.
To me that's more an issue in what an attack roll is meant to represent (mapping mechanics to fiction). If billed as a "to hit" roll, the name is pretty clearly indicating that a miss means you don't hit. If not billed as such, I'm fine with an attack success/fail governing degrees of damage instead. It's just a different way of dividing up the fumble/miss/hit/crit range. If such things aren't presented in terms of damage-whittling at all, you have something different again.
 


What do they prioritize such kinds of dramatic logic over? And perhaps more significantly, what might they prioritize over such kinds of dramatic logic?
To me it seems to be pretty the highest priority. The central concept is to frame scenes that challenge the dramatic needs to the characters. This is following dramatic logic.
 

Why? What purpose does this serve except to try and pigeonhole these games as serving some kind of identity needs (and therefore separate from other games)?
The aesthetic, thematic, and mechanical focus and integration of a game like Monsterhearts is a strength, not a weakness. Saying that it is focused is not an attempt to “pigeonhole” it; rather, it is simply clear about its intended audience. In other words, it is argue contrary to the opinion that dnd 5e can support any type of gameplay, a position that, given your frequent remonstrations, I would assume you agree with (much more so than me, for example; I’ve said before that I think the social ’pillar’ of 5e is fine and affords a variety of gameplay).

What purpose does it serve? If someone says they hated their one experience playing dnd, because it was a bunch of dudes who just wanted to be murder hobos, I might suggest to them not only other games, but other communities. This is apart from analysis of the hobby as a social activity being abstractly interesting on its own.

Edit: all social activities serve (and constitute) “identity needs.” Social activities are never neutral with regards to identity, though I appreciate it can seem that way for those in the majority.

What point is that? And what was defensive about what I said? I don't feel the least bit defensive about your question -- you asked it, I don't agree it's well founded, and I provided my reasoning.

This comment really seems like an attempt to set up the ad hominem that it's not important to consider the argument because the person speaking it is clearly defensive. I can't imagine what other use trying to point out someone being defensive might have, especially considering my response was even and listed exactly why I think as I do.

My post was praising the variety of independent rpgs and their success in appealing to demographics excluded by traditional play, especially dnd, not (just) because of the mechanical focus but because of the “culture of play.” Bizarrely, you read that as trying to “pigeonhole” independent games, which, yeah, seems pretty defensive.
 
Last edited:

To me it seems to be pretty the highest priority. The central concept is to frame scenes that challenge the dramatic needs to the characters. This is following dramatic logic.
If you ever play Blades in the Dark, there is a really helpful section near the beginning of the book that lists the touchstones for the game—videogames, tv shows, movies etc. It really helped our group when we were learning the game because everyone had seen Peaky Blinders. Whenever we were thinking about what would be a good score, or even a good complication, we could always reference a moment from the tv show and go from there. (i.e. genre emulation is helpful across a variety of games(
 

Yeah. While I think Ron personally got games like HERO/RuneQuest the model was part of a synthesis of a discussion that was largely contrasting Vampire/Planescape and Sorcerer / Dogs in the Vineyard.
I think you might have lost me a bit here. If the thesis is that GNS doesn't really address 'S' systematically, then how would that relate to it being a contrast between very strongly Narrativist games and very strongly what Ron presumably would label High Concept Simulation? None of these games has a Gamist agenda whatsoever, and even in something like GDS terms I would say they are about as far from 'G' as you are likely to get in mainstream games.
 

And that's great if you're presenting the terms and model you're working with as only being about the thing you're focused on. Story Now is, I think, what its about a useful term; it requires a bit of unpacking, but once you do its pretty clear most of the time what the people talking about it are looking for and pursuing.

Narrativism isn't, because its first of all, counter-intuitive even when unpacked, and part of a system that includes two other wings, and the whole thing looks extremely lopsided and odd when unpacked. Its only an improvement over GDS from a very specific POV.

I'm afraid I still have to stand by my opinion that as presented, GNS sim is essentially useless; its the catch-all, and tells you too little about what interests someone pursuing it will find functional and not to have any use. As I said, when you're lumping together many of the very things the GDS creators were trying to tease out to explain why they didn't want the same things, I think at least in that area, your model has failed.
I think you'd have to be MUCH more specific about what these things that GDS unpacks actually are and how that both explicates an agenda/design space and how it does so in a way that GNS fails. I'm not sure that's a topic for this thread, and I certainly understand if it isn't interesting enough to pursue (it will no doubt be contentious for some, lol).
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top