Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
So, it's been a while, ... HAWT TAEK THURSDAY!
This is a fork of the "+" thread created by @overgeeked here. I am also using the suggestion in the thread to explicitly title this thread with (GNS) so people will know ahead of time that they can come here and discuss (or argue) about GNS Theory as much as they want.
That said, there are three parts to this post-
First, the statement that motivated me, and a brief description as to why typologies (putting people into little baskets) is a bad thing.
Second, a general overview of why jargon is considered bad.
Third, some resources for RPG theory that are helpful and aren't just all of us blabbering.
A. Buzzfeed told me my play agenda is Golden Retriever!
The primary motivation for starting this thread (other than people using the "+" thread to argue with the premise) was a post that described GNS theory and summed it up with this:
Are there more or less motivations than the three outlined? It's possible, but no one has really bothered expanding the categories.
I strongly disagree with that statement. Look, there's two types of people in this world-
1. Those who put people into arbitrary categories.
2. Those who don't put people into arbitrary categories.
3. The innumerate.
Ahem. Here's the thing- typologies .... putting things into groups ... classifying people as one thing as another ... it's immensely satisfying! We all understand it! Heck, that is the principle on which Buzzfeed was built. And before the internet (yes, there was a "before the internet"), that was the principle on which popular magazines, from People to Cosmopolitan, built all their magazine covers.
What Friend are you?
Which Avatar: Airbender character?
There's only four romantic types ... which one are you?
There are only three motivations for roleplaying- can you guess what letter perfectly describes what you want out of your roleplaying game?
It's all BS pop psychology, all the way down. But this isn't specific to GNS- it has always been this way, and will always be this way, in the hobbyist community. In fact, in academic research on RPG theory, this is pretty well-known! Evan Torner (among others) has documented this amateur theorizing, as it always follows the same path. First, the person provides their RPG theory in a semi-professional form ('zine, on-line BBS, personal blog, forum, wiki, etc.). Second, the theory continues the same debates we are all familiar with (e.g., realism versus playability; task resolution; game design and play advice etc.). The theory will almost always do so through the utilization of player and system typologies (what players enjoy about different games and how different games accommodate those preferences). Third, the author will claim to be a "big tent" and unbiased observer of the typologies seeking only to end the prior debates, while actually the author of the theory is looking to continue the debate and, more often than not, delegitimatize other methods of play through the seemingly-neutral goal of helping people design and play 'better.' Fourth, and finally, the author will inevitably make the act same points that were made years or decades ago.
So you can see this with Slimak in 1975. Glenn Blacow's Fourfold Way. ....in 1980. Don Miller in 1981. There are so many that it's not worth listing (Allston, Laws, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.). And this continued ... in the 80s (in smaller zines and more mainstream periodicals such as Dragon). In the 90s (usenet). The 00s (forums such as this one and the Forge, the internet in general), and continues today. But it's always the same-
"Players and their preferences/motivations fall into these categories. Therefore, game design must speak to these." And every time we see this, it's always to privilege one (or some) style(s) of play and to disparage other styles. And like most pop psychology typologies (and unlike consumer studies in CRPGs), there is never any empirical evidence.
But from a factual basis, people haven't stopped using typologies once the Forge went dark. To use the most obvious - there have been numerous typologies provided since then, many of which have been discussed here! However, despite the existence of these numerous different proposed amateur typologies, we still have the same debate.
This is the debate that we keep seeing:
A. "You can only be a Ross, Rachel, Joey, Chandler, Monica, or Phoebe."
B. "Well, I think that's wrong. No one is that! Every person is either a Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, Archer, Burnham, or Pike."
This is the better debate:
A. "You can only be a Ross, Rachel, Joey, Chandler, Monica, or Phoebe."
B. "I'm not a Friends character. That's not helpful."
Now, with all of that out of the way (which I know will be uncontroversial) I will say that places and discussions can be incredibly helpful as a specific tool for game design. To the extent that a community forms to discuss better designs, task resolution, and indie games- that's a great thing! That is genuinely good. But that doesn't mean that the underlying typology provides any useful information about TTRPGs in general.
Finally, characterizing these design typologies as the only possible RPG theories does a great disservice to the people who want to talk about RPG theory when it comes to social issues- issues related to gender, race, class, ethnicity, sexuality, and other important factors that influence how people play and how design and norms affect inclusivity and openness within the community.
B. We have to backburner your annual until we've leveraged the pivot-to-video into actionable engagement with our disruptive client-centered approach.
A brief aside about jargon- which I've discussed before so I'm largely quoting myself.
Jargon (or any kind of specialized language... you can put in Thieves' Cant if you want) is both helpful and unhelpful. If you think of any specialized field- medicine, law, banking, computer science, and so on, it will have jargon. Jargon can serve a very useful purpose- it can allow people with a shared interest in something technical or specialized to describe something quickly without having to use regular language each time and "re-invent" the wheel. At its best, jargon is a linguistic shortcut used by people with a shared interest.
Of course, there are other instances of jargon as well, outside of technical fields. Think about almost any area- when there is a shared group, there is often a shared vocabulary. This gets down to the smallest groups- I am sure that all of us have friend groups, and in those groups we have verbal shortcuts from shared events or people we have known! If everyone remembers that terrible night in Toledo, then it would be normal for someone in the group to say, "We don't want another Toledo" and for everyone to nod in agreement. (I am sure that someone is getting ready to start typing, Shakra, when the walls fell.)
The trouble with jargon, however, is that while it can help in-groups communicate more effectively, it is also incredibly off-putting to other people; in fact, it is can be considered both a feature and a bug. If you've ever spoken to a professional (a doctor, a lawyer, a banker) who can't be bothered to explain things and "dumb it down" for a "mere layman" or dealt with a close group of friends that talks entirely in "in-jokes" and doesn't explain them, you understand what this means. When you have invented terms, people will use them as a weapon to exclude others- "Oh, you don't understand what I mean by XXXXXX? Well, obviously you just don't get it."
Given that the people here are not using agreed-upon academic terms, but are using terms invented by hobbyists for other hobbyists, many disagreements about RPG theory are just arguments over what jargon is being used. "Oh, that's not a railroad. That's player agency!" Or, "That's not skilled play, because other types of play have skill." Or "My game has a strong story component, so it's Story Now, right?" And so on.
As you probably notice, this problem is most acute because most of these terms are borrowing and appropriating from actual language for slightly different purposes; to use less-loaded examples, a lot of people get confused by legal terms like "actual malice" (which has nothing to do with malice) or medical terms (like then the doctor says your test result is positive, and the patient replies, 'Positive, that's great!").
So to go back to the main point- yes, jargon does have its place, but people who are used to the jargon usually do not realize that it can be incredibly off-putting. As a general rule, when people are saying that they don't want to engage in the jargon, that's not an attack on everything you hold dear- it means that they usually can't get an entry point to the conversation because the terms are obfuscating what is being discussed. At that point, you can either argue about using jargon, or try and explain the concepts.
C. Momma Snarf always told me, "Snarf, if you can't be a part of the solution, become a part of the problem."
Following are some resources for people that would like to learn more about RPG theory. These are from a prior post I did, as well as some posted in the prior "+" thread. I will start with weblinks, and then include some books.
Web resources:
1. Great roundup of web-based resources at Black & Green Games. I highly recommend this collection.
2. Role-playing Game Studies. This is an academic book, but it is interesting and has the majority of chapters available to the public on-line at the link.
3. Playground Worlds. Some ideas, with a strong emphasis from the Nordic community, available on-line.
4. The Forge :: Articles (start here: The Forge :: GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory if you're looking for specific discussions on GNS)
5. Six Cultures of Play (It's another typology attempt)
7. Ants, Spiders, and Bees. An interesting look at RPG theory ... best of all, it references Dworkin and Hart, which I can always get behind!
Books:
1. The Elusive Shift. Jon Peterson's book. Available at amazon and others.
2. Tabletop RPG Design in Theory and Practice at the Forge, 2001–2012. William J. White. Available at amazon and others (expensive). Best academic work on the Forge, for those interested.
3. Designers & Dragons. Shannon Applecline. (I think some of this has been superseded by newer material from Peterson, but sill good). Available with a free TSR section of 100 pages at evilhat.
4. Second Person: Role-Playing and Story in Games and Playable Media. Pat Harrigan. Available at amazon and others.
This is a fork of the "+" thread created by @overgeeked here. I am also using the suggestion in the thread to explicitly title this thread with (GNS) so people will know ahead of time that they can come here and discuss (or argue) about GNS Theory as much as they want.
That said, there are three parts to this post-
First, the statement that motivated me, and a brief description as to why typologies (putting people into little baskets) is a bad thing.
Second, a general overview of why jargon is considered bad.
Third, some resources for RPG theory that are helpful and aren't just all of us blabbering.
A. Buzzfeed told me my play agenda is Golden Retriever!
The primary motivation for starting this thread (other than people using the "+" thread to argue with the premise) was a post that described GNS theory and summed it up with this:
Are there more or less motivations than the three outlined? It's possible, but no one has really bothered expanding the categories.
I strongly disagree with that statement. Look, there's two types of people in this world-
1. Those who put people into arbitrary categories.
2. Those who don't put people into arbitrary categories.
3. The innumerate.
Ahem. Here's the thing- typologies .... putting things into groups ... classifying people as one thing as another ... it's immensely satisfying! We all understand it! Heck, that is the principle on which Buzzfeed was built. And before the internet (yes, there was a "before the internet"), that was the principle on which popular magazines, from People to Cosmopolitan, built all their magazine covers.
What Friend are you?
Which Avatar: Airbender character?
There's only four romantic types ... which one are you?
There are only three motivations for roleplaying- can you guess what letter perfectly describes what you want out of your roleplaying game?
It's all BS pop psychology, all the way down. But this isn't specific to GNS- it has always been this way, and will always be this way, in the hobbyist community. In fact, in academic research on RPG theory, this is pretty well-known! Evan Torner (among others) has documented this amateur theorizing, as it always follows the same path. First, the person provides their RPG theory in a semi-professional form ('zine, on-line BBS, personal blog, forum, wiki, etc.). Second, the theory continues the same debates we are all familiar with (e.g., realism versus playability; task resolution; game design and play advice etc.). The theory will almost always do so through the utilization of player and system typologies (what players enjoy about different games and how different games accommodate those preferences). Third, the author will claim to be a "big tent" and unbiased observer of the typologies seeking only to end the prior debates, while actually the author of the theory is looking to continue the debate and, more often than not, delegitimatize other methods of play through the seemingly-neutral goal of helping people design and play 'better.' Fourth, and finally, the author will inevitably make the act same points that were made years or decades ago.
So you can see this with Slimak in 1975. Glenn Blacow's Fourfold Way. ....in 1980. Don Miller in 1981. There are so many that it's not worth listing (Allston, Laws, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.). And this continued ... in the 80s (in smaller zines and more mainstream periodicals such as Dragon). In the 90s (usenet). The 00s (forums such as this one and the Forge, the internet in general), and continues today. But it's always the same-
"Players and their preferences/motivations fall into these categories. Therefore, game design must speak to these." And every time we see this, it's always to privilege one (or some) style(s) of play and to disparage other styles. And like most pop psychology typologies (and unlike consumer studies in CRPGs), there is never any empirical evidence.
But from a factual basis, people haven't stopped using typologies once the Forge went dark. To use the most obvious - there have been numerous typologies provided since then, many of which have been discussed here! However, despite the existence of these numerous different proposed amateur typologies, we still have the same debate.
This is the debate that we keep seeing:
A. "You can only be a Ross, Rachel, Joey, Chandler, Monica, or Phoebe."
B. "Well, I think that's wrong. No one is that! Every person is either a Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, Archer, Burnham, or Pike."
This is the better debate:
A. "You can only be a Ross, Rachel, Joey, Chandler, Monica, or Phoebe."
B. "I'm not a Friends character. That's not helpful."
Now, with all of that out of the way (which I know will be uncontroversial) I will say that places and discussions can be incredibly helpful as a specific tool for game design. To the extent that a community forms to discuss better designs, task resolution, and indie games- that's a great thing! That is genuinely good. But that doesn't mean that the underlying typology provides any useful information about TTRPGs in general.
Finally, characterizing these design typologies as the only possible RPG theories does a great disservice to the people who want to talk about RPG theory when it comes to social issues- issues related to gender, race, class, ethnicity, sexuality, and other important factors that influence how people play and how design and norms affect inclusivity and openness within the community.
B. We have to backburner your annual until we've leveraged the pivot-to-video into actionable engagement with our disruptive client-centered approach.
A brief aside about jargon- which I've discussed before so I'm largely quoting myself.
Jargon (or any kind of specialized language... you can put in Thieves' Cant if you want) is both helpful and unhelpful. If you think of any specialized field- medicine, law, banking, computer science, and so on, it will have jargon. Jargon can serve a very useful purpose- it can allow people with a shared interest in something technical or specialized to describe something quickly without having to use regular language each time and "re-invent" the wheel. At its best, jargon is a linguistic shortcut used by people with a shared interest.
Of course, there are other instances of jargon as well, outside of technical fields. Think about almost any area- when there is a shared group, there is often a shared vocabulary. This gets down to the smallest groups- I am sure that all of us have friend groups, and in those groups we have verbal shortcuts from shared events or people we have known! If everyone remembers that terrible night in Toledo, then it would be normal for someone in the group to say, "We don't want another Toledo" and for everyone to nod in agreement. (I am sure that someone is getting ready to start typing, Shakra, when the walls fell.)
The trouble with jargon, however, is that while it can help in-groups communicate more effectively, it is also incredibly off-putting to other people; in fact, it is can be considered both a feature and a bug. If you've ever spoken to a professional (a doctor, a lawyer, a banker) who can't be bothered to explain things and "dumb it down" for a "mere layman" or dealt with a close group of friends that talks entirely in "in-jokes" and doesn't explain them, you understand what this means. When you have invented terms, people will use them as a weapon to exclude others- "Oh, you don't understand what I mean by XXXXXX? Well, obviously you just don't get it."
Given that the people here are not using agreed-upon academic terms, but are using terms invented by hobbyists for other hobbyists, many disagreements about RPG theory are just arguments over what jargon is being used. "Oh, that's not a railroad. That's player agency!" Or, "That's not skilled play, because other types of play have skill." Or "My game has a strong story component, so it's Story Now, right?" And so on.
As you probably notice, this problem is most acute because most of these terms are borrowing and appropriating from actual language for slightly different purposes; to use less-loaded examples, a lot of people get confused by legal terms like "actual malice" (which has nothing to do with malice) or medical terms (like then the doctor says your test result is positive, and the patient replies, 'Positive, that's great!").
So to go back to the main point- yes, jargon does have its place, but people who are used to the jargon usually do not realize that it can be incredibly off-putting. As a general rule, when people are saying that they don't want to engage in the jargon, that's not an attack on everything you hold dear- it means that they usually can't get an entry point to the conversation because the terms are obfuscating what is being discussed. At that point, you can either argue about using jargon, or try and explain the concepts.
C. Momma Snarf always told me, "Snarf, if you can't be a part of the solution, become a part of the problem."
Following are some resources for people that would like to learn more about RPG theory. These are from a prior post I did, as well as some posted in the prior "+" thread. I will start with weblinks, and then include some books.
Web resources:
1. Great roundup of web-based resources at Black & Green Games. I highly recommend this collection.
2. Role-playing Game Studies. This is an academic book, but it is interesting and has the majority of chapters available to the public on-line at the link.
3. Playground Worlds. Some ideas, with a strong emphasis from the Nordic community, available on-line.
4. The Forge :: Articles (start here: The Forge :: GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory if you're looking for specific discussions on GNS)
5. Six Cultures of Play (It's another typology attempt)
7. Ants, Spiders, and Bees. An interesting look at RPG theory ... best of all, it references Dworkin and Hart, which I can always get behind!
Books:
1. The Elusive Shift. Jon Peterson's book. Available at amazon and others.
2. Tabletop RPG Design in Theory and Practice at the Forge, 2001–2012. William J. White. Available at amazon and others (expensive). Best academic work on the Forge, for those interested.
3. Designers & Dragons. Shannon Applecline. (I think some of this has been superseded by newer material from Peterson, but sill good). Available with a free TSR section of 100 pages at evilhat.
4. Second Person: Role-Playing and Story in Games and Playable Media. Pat Harrigan. Available at amazon and others.
