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

[innerdude]

With that in mind, when you are already in a place with large numbers of D&D players, and you are employing a theory . . . that is, at best, seen as dismissive of D&D and trad games, and at worst, is considered hostile to "trad" games . . . you will likely get pushback on the jargon as people will not accept it. That's neither good, nor bad, but is.

That's separate from what I was just saying, which is that there is a lot of stuff out there since the Forge. And the games that are out there may have some debt to those theories, but if you listen to the people designing games today, as opposed to the players theorizing on these boards, they eschew those restrictive labels. And sometimes, when people try and discuss other new games and styles that aren't trad and also aren't under narrativism, we end up with pushback (sometimes very aggressive pushback) regarding those indie games and theories, and demands that we justify it under Forge jargon. Which ... again, if you aren't doing "N," isn't helpful.

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.

So, to comment on this --- Even when I was a die-hard "trad" GM running Pathfinder and Savage Worlds, I personally never found the rhetoric of the Forge to be offputting.

I think Ron Edwards had a clear idea that he wanted to get the principles of "narrativist" play solidified, and it was easiest in context to build that separation around what he perceived as the dividing lines between play agendas. If narrativist play was to be viewed as a separate but holistic kind of play outside other long-standing styles of process sim / purist for system play, the differences / lines had to be drawn in pretty dark ink.

When I read the Forge for the first time, I was in the heart of my run with Savage Worlds, which is as "trad" as "trad" can be.

And the jargon was thick, and layered, and dense, and not really helpful until I'd read some of the essays five or six times (not all at once; usually separated by months or years between readings). Which I agree is partially your point --- anyone who's not willing to engage with the Forge essays + concepts at a level of multiple careful readings is going to get very little out of the jargon, and more likely than not be off put by it, rather than drawn in.

But I do take issue with the whole "I have seen the light!" comment.

Would I be lying if I said I don't care if no one ever tries Ironsworn? Yes, because Ironsworn is an objectively great game, and I would hate to think anyone would miss out on the fun and enjoyment it can bring to the right kind of group.

But really, it's a very low bar of caring. And too, I've hardly abandoned "trad" play. I'm currently GM-ing an FFG Star Wars game, which has some nods to narrative play with the dice mechanic, but at it's heart it's fairly trad. Even after I abandoned D&D entirely (post-Pathfinder 1e), my primary game was Savage Worlds --- which is as "trad" as "trad" can be. And just this year I've been intrigued by what I've seen from Against the Darkmaster on these boards--a firmly "trad" take on Rolemaster Lite / MERP.

Just because I finally came to recognize that PbtA's take on "narrativist" play actually works doesn't mean I'm somehow never going to play and enjoy a "trad" system. There's a line between being accused of trying "convert the heathen trad D&D players" and simply wanting to clarify that despite my previous massive pile of resistance and skepticism, PbtA does actually work and works well.

My own journey would look something along these lines:

1. 2009 -- "Man, 4e D&D is the worst. What were they thinking? It's just a dumb version of WoW, and I don't want that."

2. 2010 -- "Dissociated mechanics are for real, man! Anyone who doesn't see the light on how true this concept is just totally doesn't get it, and is actively harming the RPG hobby."

3. 2011 -- "What is this weird 'GNS' thing people are talking about on EN World? I really don't see how this 'narrativist' style of play could even possibly work, and in fact I'm actively hostile to it."

4. 2011-2017 -- "Man, @pemerton, @Manbearcat , @chaochou, @Campbell, and others are saying some weird, provocative things about this whole 'fiction-first,' 'narrativist' style of gaming. It sounds crazy. It can't possibly work though. Because the game world has to be internally consistent. It's the only way RPG play can possibly work. You can't just make stuff up as you go. There has to be fidelity to the game world. But maybe I can experiment with saying 'yes' more to the players, and not being quite so 'precious' about my prepped materials."

5. 2017 -- "Hmmm. I've been running Savage Worlds for 6 years now. And though I still like it, I have to admit I'm actually curious, despite my skepticism, to see if there's anything at all to this PbtA / narrativist mumbo jumbo. I guess this Dungeon World thing is worth $20 to at least try it."

6. 2018-2021 -- "Well, Dungeon World didn't quite work out. But man, despite how much I don't want to admit it, there might be something there. There's . . . something going on with that that I can't quite grasp, but I can see how maybe it's supposed to work. Is there something I'm missing? I wonder if I can get some more info on this from EN World without really admitting that I'm curious . . . ."

7. January 2021 -- "Well, I wasn't really thinking I'd try a PbtA game again anytime soon . . . but man, this PDF of Ironsworn is cool. Like, I'm reading this, and my imagination is going a million miles an hour. It's so evocative, so tight in its presentation. Shawn Tompkin's explanation of the game loop is brilliant, and so well written. Honestly, I have to try this. Even if I hate the system, the assumed game world and GM principles are just too interesting to not at least give it a chance."

8. April 2021 -- "Whelp . . . damn. I can't even believe I'm saying this, considering where I was ten years ago, but Ironsworn is flat out amazing. Beyond amazing. It's so cool, and it totally clicks, and wow, I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to try this. This has completely opened up a new kind of game for our group."


In the end, I only minimally care if people try PbtA, specifically as embodied in Ironsworn. What's more important to me is to counter claims from people that PbtA doesn't work, and can't work, even if they've never tried it, and they won't ever try it, because they know beyond any doubt that it will ruin their RPG play experience if they do.

I never understood at times why @pemerton and @Manbearcat pushed back so hard on my long-running criticisms of Forge / PbtA. But, even if it sounds weird and maybe a little aggrandizing to say, I get it now. It's not about changing anyone's mind, it's about not wanting to allow a false narrative to propagate. Play whatever RPG you want. Just don't be intellectually dishonest about staking claims about things you know nothing about.

But to your point --- I will also admit that the Forge's GNS jargon may not be generally helpful. In my own journey, what was more important than the jargon was my own mindset -- having an openness to new concepts. The jargon only mattered as an initial mental scaffolding to understand the concepts.

 

[pemerton]

Is this what is meant by "dramatic logic"? That bit of jargon never did get defined.

I don't think so, for the reasons @AbdulAlhazred - the actual "dramatic needs" talked about in the article don't go beyond earning XP and looting GP by exploring dungeons.

I think the dramatic logic is supposed to be about framings in which consequences other than the standard D&D ones are implicit.

 

[Aldarc]

Just because I finally came to recognize that PbtA's take on "narrativist" play actually works doesn't mean I'm somehow never going to play and enjoy a "trad" system. There's a line between being accused of trying "convert the heathen trad D&D players" and simply wanting to clarify that despite my previous massive pile of resistance and skepticism, PbtA does actually work and works well.

Same. "Seeing the light!" was more about seeing and appreciating differences in tabletop roleplaying games and how they work in ways that can enrich my own roleplaying experiences. I haven't stopped playing D&D, CoC, AGE, Cypher System or other more traditional games just because I "saw the light!" with Fate, PbtA, FitD, etc. If anything, "seeing the light!" resulted in me appreciating my traditional or high concept simulationist play more.

Instead, I have learned to appreciate and lean into the strengths and weaknesses of various games out there and diversified my gaming. that also meant learning what these games can and can't do well and embracing that rather than trying to pretend that a pet game is an omni-system that can do any and everything well. It was also what got me into OSR. Why? Because I was curious in good faith about the game design principles that made OSR "work" well for what it wants.

In the end, I only minimally care if people try PbtA, specifically as embodied in Ironsworn. What's more important to me is to counter claims from people that PbtA doesn't work, and can't work, even if they've never tried it, and they won't ever try it, because they know beyond any doubt that it will ruin their RPG play experience if they do.

I never understood at times why @pemerton and @Manbearcat pushed back so hard on my long-running criticisms of Forge / PbtA. But, even if it sounds weird and maybe a little aggrandizing to say, I get it now. It's not about changing anyone's mind, it's about not wanting to allow a false narrative to propagate. Play whatever RPG you want. Just don't be intellectually dishonest about staking claims about things you know nothing about.

But to your point --- I will also admit that the Forge's GNS jargon may not be generally helpful. In my own journey, what was more important than the jargon was my own mindset -- having an openness to new concepts. The jargon only mattered as an initial mental scaffolding to understand the concepts.

Agreed, particularly on your points in bold.

 

[innerdude]

Same. "Seeing the light!" was more about seeing and appreciating differences in tabletop roleplaying games and how they work in ways that can enrich my own roleplaying experiences. I haven't stopped playing D&D, CoC, AGE, Cypher System or other more traditional games just because I "saw the light!" with Fate, PbtA, FitD, etc. If anything, "seeing the light!" resulted in me appreciating my traditional or high concept simulationist play more.

Instead, I have learned to appreciate and lean into the strengths and weaknesses of various games out there and diversified my gaming. that also meant learning what these games can and can't do well and embracing that rather than trying to pretend that a pet game is an omni-system that can do any and everything . . . .

I totally appreciate this, and have to say, I'm still waiting for the light to come on for me when it comes to Fate. I've purchased Fate Accel, Fate Core, and the Fate tool kit, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what its play principles really embody.

 

[Aldarc]

I totally appreciate this, and have to say, I'm still waiting for the light to come on for me when it comes to Fate. I've purchased Fate Accel, Fate Core, and the Fate tool kit, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what its play principles really embody.

Try reading The Book of Hanz.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I totally appreciate this, and have to say, I'm still waiting for the light to come on for me when it comes to Fate. I've purchased Fate Accel, Fate Core, and the Fate tool kit, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what its play principles really embody.

Yeah, I get this, it's why I don't really like FATE. It isn't at all clear what you're supposed to do with it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Try reading The Book of Hanz.

That first page is a great read, and a solid take. Correct me if you take something else from that, but I see a high-octane high concept sim approach, where genre is pushed hard to the forefront, gamism is strongly discounted, and a possible availability for an occasional narrativist toggle with the right situation/compel. Mostly HCS, and driven by strong fiction first engine.

Decent?

 

[Garthanos]

I totally appreciate this, and have to say, I'm still waiting for the light to come on for me when it comes to Fate. I've purchased Fate Accel, Fate Core, and the Fate tool kit, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what its play principles really embody.

Just purchased Dresden Files Accelerated myself

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I totally appreciate this, and have to say, I'm still waiting for the light to come on for me when it comes to Fate. I've purchased Fate Accel, Fate Core, and the Fate tool kit, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what its play principles really embody.

I never got FATE really very well either until I read that example RPG that is in one of the newer books (FATE Accelerated, I forget) where the PCs are gods and they go around doing 'god stuff' (like basically enacting mythic stories) and the game play basically revolves around trying to build up your faith, and protect it, but without becoming so extreme that you become a 'monster' yourself (Its a bit like how in TB2 if your nature goes to 7 or 1 you stop being a PC). I think that particular little mini-game shows that FATE really can do a type of very Narrativist Zero Myth play. I'm not saying that other FATE-based games are such, most of them I agree with @pemerton are more like HCS in GNS terms.

 

[Aldarc]

That first page is a great read, and a solid take. Correct me if you take something else from that, but I see a high-octane high concept sim approach, where genre is pushed hard to the forefront, gamism is strongly discounted, and a possible availability for an occasional narrativist toggle with the right situation/compel. Mostly HCS, and driven by strong fiction first engine.

Decent?

Yep. And "mostly HCS... driven by strong fiction first engine" is honestly pretty close to describing what Cortex Plus/Prime does as a game engine, which is why it's often used for simulating other media properties like Leverage, Smallville, Dragon Prince, and He-Man. Cam Banks said that one reason he likes his own Cortex system is because essentially the entire character concept - e.g., Distinctions, Values, Attributes, Assets, etc. - goes into assembling the dice pool for the roll.

Edit: I think one reason why the play principles can be difficult to glean from reading the Fate rules - at least in comparison to games like PbtA and FitD that scream their principles in your face - is because Fate Core, Accelerated, Condensed, and the Toolkit represent incomplete games. They are toolkit books for Building-Your-Own-Game. It's easier, IMO, once you look through at some shining examples of Fate games. It's likewise easier IME to get the play principles for Cortex from Tales of Xadia, for example, than it is from Cortex Prime. Again, this is in contrast to PbtA and FitD, which have no generic toolkit system for creating your own game.

I never got FATE really very well either until I read that example RPG that is in one of the newer books (FATE Accelerated, I forget) where the PCs are gods and they go around doing 'god stuff' (like basically enacting mythic stories) and the game play basically revolves around trying to build up your faith, and protect it, but without becoming so extreme that you become a 'monster' yourself (Its a bit like how in TB2 if your nature goes to 7 or 1 you stop being a PC). I think that particular little mini-game shows that FATE really can do a type of very Narrativist Zero Myth play. I'm not saying that other FATE-based games are such, most of them I agree with @pemerton are more like HCS in GNS terms.

Presumably Gods and Monsters.

Just purchased Dresden Files Accelerated myself

That's pretty fun. DFA converts the idea of PbtA playbooks, but makes them more Fate-appropriate (i.e., Mantles). What really makes it sing is how it packages conditions and consequences into those Mantles almost like clocks. Engaging your abilities may eventually trigger a condition (e.g., appeasing your patron), before getting those abilities back.