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



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 2, 2022)

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.


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2022)

Nice write up Snarf. Out of honest curiosity, when does "...you can either argue about using jargon, or try and explain the concepts." not happen? Is there a third or fourth thing folks are doing that is unproductive?


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 2, 2022)

I agree that jargon can represent a barrier to entry. However, what sometimes this point sidesteps how much of a barrier jargon actually represents. A lot of jargon is gradually absorbed through participation in a subculture or field over time. But there are often resources out there, especially in this day and age, where people can use their Google-Fu to find out what the jargon means. It's not like you need a law degree to look up and understand what a "hexcrawl game" is. 

Outside of this small bubble of a hobby, there is a tremendous amount of jargon floating around in the field of video games, jargon used to describe different genres of games, jargon used within game-specific communities (e.g., Call of Duty, etc.), jargon used with types of games (e.g., MOBA: Jungler, Bruiser, Carry, etc.), broader gaming communities (e.g., Speed Runners, eSports, etc.), or within game design communities (e.g., clipping, FPS, bots, Easter Egg, Whales, etc.), or the entire market (e.g., DLC, Pay-to-Win, microtransactions, etc.). 

As you say, a lot of this was born within the hobby rather than on an academic level. But that is often the way of things: Hobbyists -> Hobby Companies -> Hobby Academics. Hobbyists are processing and discussing trends in the hobby with far greater alacrity and dispersion than academics. So over against what some have said about jargon, I don't think that jargon represents Ivory Tower thinking. IME, it's often hobbyists grappling with discussions in the hobby and its various subcultures. 

Jargon is a part of education and community-engagement. It can be off-putting if you have little interest in it at a certain level, but as you learn and engage these communities more and more, you learn the jargon, whether conscientiously or not.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 2, 2022)

payn said:


> Nice write up Snarf. Out of honest curiosity, when does "...you can either argue about using jargon, or try and explain the concepts." not happen? Is there a third or fourth thing folks are doing that is unproductive?




*Snarf's Seven Amazing Secrets to Productively Dealing With Jargon - You Won't Believe the Last One!!!!!*

Like that?  

So, I tend to have a particular view of jargon (technical terms, etc.), as:
1. I require jargon to accomplish my day-to-day life.
2. I am also constantly forced to translate jargon into layman terms in order to communicate concepts to people that are unfamiliar with the jargon.

So I understand both the benefits and perils of jargon. I would say that almost every approach related to jargon in TTRPG discussion is not productive, other than explaining it when asked. 

I get that it's annoying, especially when there are constantly new people coming in that aren't familiar with the terms you are using. But people have a choice- either evangelize by explanation, or choose to alienate. if you are having a conversation with people familiar with, and conversant with, those terms, that's not an issue- I would even say that if a thread (or forum) is set up to discuss a specific theory, it would be rude for people unfamiliar with that jargon to keep coming in and arguing about the terms used- just like if you were joining a discussion with medical professionals, it would be weird to insist that the doctors stop using myocardial infarction because you prefer heart attack.


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> *Snarf's Seven Amazing Secrets to Productively Dealing With Jargon - You Won't Believe the Last One!!!!!*
> 
> Like that?



Good enough for me!


Snarf Zagyg said:


> So, I tend to have a particular view of jargon (technical terms, etc.), as:
> 1. I require jargon to accomplish my day-to-day life.
> 2. I am also constantly forced to translate jargon into layman terms in order to communicate concepts to people that are unfamiliar with the jargon.
> 
> ...



Oh that is so popular.

One thing I notice is what I guess I would call shortcutting. In some of your examples I think that is described as in-grouping. Folks use jargon as a way to say "you are out of your element Donny". They just dont want/care if you participate in the conversation. Until you can fight your way in and prove you can hang, buzz off. The other shortcut method is trying to shut down any jargon/theory discussion because you dont like it. Instead of addressing the theory on its own terms, folks pick some loose thread and unravel it conveniently. Sometimes they attack the author for being a jerk and claim it makes the whole theory bad. Their aim is to just stop the use completely without having to do any of the work required to actually discuss it. 

To be fair, it is a discussion board and not a graduate level course or dissertation piece. Folks dont have to go to great lengths to include everyone and/or explain why a theory is dated or poorly constructed. So, I appreciate your advice and try and follow it myself, though, I do expect people to be people.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 2, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Jargon is a part of education and community-engagement. It can be off-putting if you have little interest in it at a certain level, but as you learn and engage these communities more and more, you learn the jargon, whether conscientiously or not.




I think that is accurate; I also think that people that are within a community that uses jargon often forget exactly how off-putting that jargon can be to people outside of that community.

I would also say that for some people (not all, but some) the fact that the jargon is exclusive and off-putting is a feature, not a bug. There is a sense of mastery of the jargon, and the ability to deploy it marginalize other voices. Whether it's the "cool kids" or the "gatekeeper art critic" or "the tech bros selling NFTs" ... it can be used to silence dissent and build in-group identity.

Again, jargon is not _per se _bad. But it's not necessarily good, either.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 2, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think that is accurate; I also think that people that are within a community that uses jargon often forget exactly how off-putting that jargon can be to people outside of that community.
> 
> I would also say that for some people (not all, but some) the fact that the jargon is exclusive and off-putting is a feature, not a bug. There is a sense of mastery of the jargon, and the ability to deploy it marginalize other voices. Whether it's the "cool kids" or the "gatekeeper art critic" or "the tech bros selling NFTs" ... it can be used to silence dissent and build in-group identity.
> 
> Again, jargon is not _per se _bad. But it's not necessarily good, either.



I agree, though I am not a fan of those who set about creating jargon for the purpose of gatekeeping. I prefer more descriptive jargon. When looking at video games, for example, I find the jargon helpful for discerning the sorts of games I like playing or recommending to others. People may say, "Hey I like games like X, Y, and Z," and they happen to all be "point and click adventure games" or "character RPGs," then having that jargon available makes it easier for me to recommend similar games to other people or teach them about the jargon so they can look up those types of games on their own. Or they may say, "Hey I like CRPGs like A, B, or C but not ones like D, E, and F..." and there is jargon in place that may say that the former are "Turn Based CRPGs" while the latter are "Real Time With Pause." The jargon exists not only to discuss the games and the game hobby, but also to help inform the consumer. 

I do sometimes find it a bit frustrating, however, that some people pretend that D&D doesn't have its own set of jargon. Jargon sometimes gets depicted as something that only applies to "foreign gaming subcultures" rather than D&D and its kin. But D&D has a tremendous amount of jargon in its own right. I encountered this when I was teaching my partner and other newcomers to play D&D. There was a lot of standard game jargon that flew over their heads. It was weird but invaluable because I had forgotten how I had been in a similar position when I first learned to play D&D about twenty years ago and being in the position of being bombarded with "D&Disms." It was a bit like learning a foreign language and encountering cultural idioms.


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I agree, though I am not a fan of those who set about creating jargon for the purpose of gatekeeping. I prefer more descriptive jargon. When looking at video games, for example, I find the jargon helpful for discerning the sorts of games I like playing or recommending to others. People may say, "Hey I like games like X, Y, and Z," and they happen to all be "point and click adventure games" or "character RPGs," then having that jargon available makes it easier for me to recommend similar games to other people or teach them about the jargon so they can look up those types of games on their own. Or they may say, "Hey I like CRPGs like A, B, or C but not ones like D, E, and F..." and there is jargon in place that may say that the former are "Turn Based CRPGs" while the latter are "Real Time With Pause." The jargon exists not only to discuss the games and the game hobby, but also to help inform the consumer.
> 
> I do sometimes find it a bit frustrating, however, that some people pretend that D&D doesn't have its own set of jargon. Jargon sometimes gets depicted as something that only applies to "foreign gaming subcultures" rather than D&D and its kin. But D&D has a tremendous amount of jargon in its own right. I encountered this when I was teaching my partner and other newcomers to play D&D. There was a lot of standard game jargon that flew over their heads. It was weird but invaluable because I had forgotten how I had been in a similar position when I first learned to play D&D about twenty years ago and being in the position of being bombarded with "D&Disms." It was a bit like learning a foreign language and encountering cultural idioms.



One thing I have noticed about TTRPGs is how there is a severe lack of degree in discussions. The above example on video games is perfect for what I mean. Folks do discuss video games intellectually and with theory. They also talk about them generally by category on a laymen level. The two dont often butt heads. Folks might consider Mass Effect as a straight up RPG, others might consider it a first person shooter, and some dont really care. The groups are aware of each other, but dont really make it a big deal. Where as TTRPGs if somebody is like "oh you are talking about a story now game" turns into a 50 page discussion on how thats a right/wrong statement and if story now even exists or not, and if its offensive in its origin. There is no separation of degree in TTRPG discussion and its kind of exhausting.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 2, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 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-



I was just reflecting that people were doing a number of humorous variants on this when I was coming up and voraciously reading gaming magazines in the late 80s into early 90s.

For example, Dragon 124 (from 1987) has "Front-End Alignments" for players.
Chaotic Crybaby
Chaotic Diehard
Chaotic Everywhere
Chaotic Hot-Shot
Chaotic Stupid
Chaotic Suicidal
Lawful Bored
Lawful Goody-Goody
Lawful Idiot
Lawful Ignored
(L)awful Liar 
Lawful Serious
Neutral Absent
Neutral Confused
Neutral Dietosser
Neutral Montyhaul 
Neutral Puppet
Neutral Self-Centered
Neutral Woundwailer 

Dragon 128 has the U 2 Kan Earn Big Bux personality survey from the Greyhawk Institute for Adventurous Neophyte Training, with questions like:

*1. You've just arrived in a new town. You immediately:* a. sigh in relief. b. find the nearest tavern. c. strip down to your underwear. d. do all of the above, to start with.

*2. Wizards are: *a. snappy dressers. b. valuable allies. c. awful darn smart. d. cute on the end of a spear.

*3. What's the best way to test for trapdoors?* a. With eyes shut. b. Make the half-ogre go first. c. Jump up and down a lot. d. Burn the place to the ground.

*4. It's late at night, the moon is full, and you notice that your partner is turning hairy. What do you do?* a. Compliment him on his coiffure. b. Whip out the scissors and wolvesbane. c. Check your pack for doggie chow. d. Join him.

*5. A portable hole: *a. a day keeps the ogre away. b. comes in handy in the king's treasury. c. What? d. holds a lot of beer

*6. Given the choice, you'd rather have:* a. lint-free chain mail. b. 1,000,000 gold pieces. c. a chocolate-chip cookie. d. a sword and a major land war.

White Wolf magazine #42 (March '94) had a more succinct list of types of Vampire players:

Person in Black (PIB)
Illuminated Weirdo (IW)
Poseur (Poseur)
Creepy Vampire Nut (CVN)
Ordinary Gaming Geek (OGG)



Snarf Zagyg said:


> "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.



I'm trying to remember how much player surveying WotC did to build their Magic player psychographic profiles, but apparently they do have some weight in design.

Timmy/Tammy, Johnny/Jenny, and Spike.  As well as the aesthetic types of Mel and Vorthos.  









						Player type
					

A "player type" refers to the player profiles that Wizards of the Coast has detected. There are two classifications: The "psychographic profile" explores why players enjoy the game. The "aesthetic profile" explores what players enjoy of the game (why they think it is beautiful). Expansions are...




					mtg.fandom.com


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 2, 2022)

payn said:


> One thing I have noticed about TTRPGs is how there is a severe lack of degree in discussions. The above example on video games is perfect for what I mean. Folks do discuss video games intellectually and with theory. They also talk about them generally by category on a laymen level. The two dont often butt heads. Folks might consider Mass Effect as a straight up RPG, others might consider it a first person shooter, and some dont really care. The groups are aware of each other, but dont really make it a big deal. Where as TTRPGs if somebody is like "oh you are talking about a story now game" turns into a 50 page discussion on how thats a right/wrong statement and if story now even exists or not, and if its offensive in its origin. There is no separation of degree in TTRPG discussion and its kind of exhausting.



 At the risk of inviting you to swat at a hornet's nest, I am curious as to why you think that is the case? Would you perhaps like to speculate on what could account for this difference between TTRPG and video game communities?


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> At the risk of inviting you to swat at a hornet's nest, I am curious as to why you think that is the case? Would you perhaps like to speculate on what could account for this difference between TTRPG and video game communities?



A couple theories I have. The first one is that video games enjoy a much much larger user base. With that comes a wide variety of games that go from causal all the way up to hardcore. There is plenty of room for causals and hardcore players to chat about their hobby. The second is that there is no D&D (800# gorilla) equivalent in the video game hobby. Due to D&D's crushing orbit it dominates all discussion fairly or not.  TTRPGs attract intellectually and technical minded folks who enjoy comprehensive discussions and arguments. However, due to there can be only one king of TTRPGs, there is often a winner takes all stakes to how the games are described, theorized, and general attitudes towards those of its community. Its a rare combination of low community population, but highly demanding conceptualized theory. 

Just my theory.


----------



## kolya (Jun 2, 2022)

The important feature of the magic Player Psychographics, ( T(a/i)mmy, J(e/oh)nny, and Spike ) and Aesthetic types (Vorthos and Mel), are that they are tools to remind the designers to consider many types of players and make something for everyone.  Not to try to make every piece appeal to every single player, but to make sure that some part of the product can appeal to any single player.
These are a tool not to divide people because of their differences, but to bring them together by acknowledging that those differences can be meshed together.

Also, it's all a spectrum.
I'm mostly a Timmy; I like big creatures and big effects, and I play largely for the social experience. But there's also a Spikey part of me that wants to come up with clever combos and revel in the joy of pulling the combo off.
So the named extremes of the "psychographic space" are just the most extreme archetypes, and almost every player will fall somewhere other than exactly on one of the archetypes.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Jargon is a part of education and community-engagement. It can be off-putting if you have little interest in it at a certain level, but as you learn and engage these communities more and more, you learn the jargon, whether conscientiously or not.




So, you realize this puts jargon as gatekeeping?  If you don't know it, you aren't part of the in-group...
Edit to add:  Others have already made this observation, apologies for the duplication


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 2, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> *Snarf's Seven Amazing Secrets to Productively Dealing With Jargon - You Won't Believe the Last One!!!!!*
> 
> Like that?
> 
> ...




I find the use of jargon, even after I know what it is, even in a discipline I am familiar with, creates this additional step my brain needs to perform in order to understand what is being communicated. Eventually you do start to internalize some Jargon. There is a lot of history jargon I have internalized. There is a lot of musical jargon I have internalized. But I also have been forced by people to put such jargon into plain english, and I find there is a lot of benefit there because sometimes jargon becomes a way of thinking around ideas rather than thinking about them. For something like RPGs, I think minimal jargon is the best way to go. Obviously some might be needed, or just inescapable because its been here from the beginning and everyone is so accustomed to using it. I am not especially interested in new jargon personally. 

In terms of the categorization of people I think you make a lot of good points. My father was a salesman and used a method that grouped people into different personality types. I grew up with this just part of our breakfast and dinner table discussion so it became natural for me to, the moment I met someone, identify their primary and secondary personality trait in the model he used. Such models can be broadly useful. If you are trying to get sales and you meet 100 people, if the model is even vaguely helpful in pushing up your sales numbers, it has utility. The problem is it is just a model, and it is being used for a particular purpose, and people don't often fall neatly into models. The model can become your way of looking at the world and you can miss a lot of who people really are if you are relying on a model to understand them.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 2, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 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."



Agree 100%. I would add it can actually be a way of trying to gain social advantage, even unconsciously. It can be away to intimidate someone being critical for instance (if you start dropping enough jargon, they can't really follow a long or refute, even if you are talking about very simple things that can be described in much simpler and more relatable language). It can also be a way to compete and make someone feel like they are your professional or social inferior. I think especially in game design, where there are many different paths to forming a design philosophy. 

Where I think jargon is more benevolent is when its used to help lift people up rather than cut them down. If someone drops medical terminology just to keep me from participating in a discussion about medical ethics or something, I find that off putting. But if they help explain the jargon so that I am better able to participate (and they are good about explaining and don't have a 'keep up' mentality) I will be more appreciative.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 2, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> At the risk of inviting you to swat at a hornet's nest, I am curious as to why you think that is the case? Would you perhaps like to speculate on what could account for this difference between TTRPG and video game communities?



My speculation is that with video games, you can't disagree with the console or another player—or a spectator!—about how your action got resolved. I mean you can, you can get upset about crappy gameplay & bugs and such, but you know there's no discussion to be had to improve the situation.

Look at the Venn diagram overlap—MMOs. Those forums are full of players bitching at the devs to nerf this class, buff that class, etc. etc.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2022)

There's an element to this that comes down to very basic principles of effective writing:  Know your audience.

Who is your intended audience?  Are you sure your intended audience knows the jargon?  If not, why on Earth would you inject jargon without significant explanation first?


----------



## soviet (Jun 2, 2022)

RPGs are also highly subjective. If we both play a video game we know that we are having an extremely similar experience. An RPG is filtered through our imaginations to such an extent that even the person sat next to us in the same session is likely having an appreciably different experience. Describing how we each play RPGs is like describing how we think or what different colours look like - that is to say, fraught with difficulty.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> There's an element to this that comes down to very basic principles of effective writing:  Know your audience.
> 
> Who is your intended audience?  Are you sure your intended audience knows the jargon?  If not, why on Earth would you inject jargon without significant explanation first?




Significant explanation is often given. Extensively so. I know I have spilled a whole lot of virtual ink on this stuff in pretty much every thread I try to talk about this stuff. Others have spilled far more.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 2, 2022)

Fundamentally there are a couple of core issues that I think feed into this :

When it comes to other sorts of games players tend to value variety. Different sorts of play experiences. How many people do you know who have only played one sort of video game or one sort of board game?
There's a sort of idea that acknowledging value of one game or structure of play diminishes or takes away from another. 
Like in MMOs there's this sense that other games or styles of play take away from the player pool for the game you are interested in. See comments on _splitting the fanbase_.
One structure of play represents a direct and visceral rejection of another in the RPG space. Sorcerer took a look at Vampire and said _definitely not that_. It's always going to be contentious because the principles of play are inversions of each other.


----------



## Undrave (Jun 2, 2022)

When it comes to game design concept I'm a big fan of the '8 aesthetics of fun' taxonomy presented in this paper
https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf (Though I support the AngryGM's suggestion of swapping 'Submission' by 'Abnegation')

Later expansion have added 'competition' as a 9th. 

I think it's a good way to view game design and what can bring people to certain games. It's important to note that they do not have to be absolutes, that people are on a complex spectrum regarding all eight of those, and that their taste can change a lot depending on circumstances and what other aesthetics are in play.


----------



## soviet (Jun 2, 2022)

Campbell said:


> Fundamentally there are a couple of core issues that I think feed into this :
> 
> When it comes to other sorts of games players tend to value variety. Different sorts of play experiences. How many people do you know who have only played one sort of video game or one sort of board game?
> There's a sort of idea that acknowledging value of one game or structure of play diminishes or takes away from another.
> ...



This is an interesting point. I think there was definitely a clash of assumptions where GNS-sympathetic people tended to see different games as a smorgasbord of options to be cycled through - this time let's try something chocolate flavoured, so _of course_ it should be very very chocolatey indeed - whereas the mainstream culture was much more about picking one game and sticking with it for _ages_ - what do you mean there's no strawberry in this _at all_? I like all the flavours!


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 2, 2022)

payn said:


> A couple theories I have. The first one is that video games enjoy a much much larger user base. With that comes a wide variety of games that go from causal all the way up to hardcore. There is plenty of room for causals and hardcore players to chat about their hobby. The second is that there is no D&D (800# gorilla) equivalent in the video game hobby. Due to D&D's crushing orbit it dominates all discussion fairly or not.  TTRPGs attract intellectually and technical minded folks who enjoy comprehensive discussions and arguments. However, due to there can be only one king of TTRPGs, there is often a winner takes all stakes to how the games are described, theorized, and general attitudes towards those of its community. Its a rare combination of low community population, but highly demanding conceptualized theory.
> 
> Just my theory.



Thanks for expanding your point. This rings close to my own speculative guesses. 



Umbran said:


> So, you realize this puts jargon as gatekeeping?  If you don't know it, you aren't part of the in-group...
> Edit to add:  Others have already made this observation, apologies for the duplication



You make the development and learning of jargon within communities sound far more malicious and nefarious than it often is. 

There is a lot of jargon, for example, that exists for knitting, including styles of weaves, knots, stitching patterns, materials, etc. The fact that I may have to learn this jargon if I participated in this hobby or community doesn't inherently mean that it's a form of gatekeeping. That seems like a bit of a stretch. If someone in a knitting circle belittled me for not knowing the jargon, however, that would be gatekeeping. Me having to apply a modicum of effort to learn a knitting term so I am not ignorant of it when I keep encountering it doesn't really strike me as gatekeeping. 

Likewise, my partner is trans. There is jargon used in trans communities that they use that I don't necessarily know or readily recognize, and the jargon tends to diverge between FTM and MTF sub-communities. I don't think that this jargon exists to gatekeep. I think that it would be unfair to construe the idea that I may have to go out of my way to educate myself on this jargon or ask my partner about a term's meaning as the trans community trying to gatekeep. 

Jargon can certainly be used as a tool to gatekeep, but that doesn't mean that jargon either develops in communities for the purpose of gatekeeping or that learning community-specific jargon is inherently a gatekeeping practice. I do think that there is a difference between me not knowing a particular piece of jargon a community uses and learning about it as part of participating in the community's discourse and the community using my ignorance of that jargon as a means of excluding me. I certainly grant you that there can be murky areas with this, but I don't think that adopting an approach that sees any learning jargon as gatekeeping. It casts too wide of a net.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 2, 2022)

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.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I agree that jargon can represent a barrier to entry. However, what sometimes this point sidesteps how much of a barrier jargon actually represents. A lot of jargon is gradually absorbed through participation in a subculture or field over time. But there are often resources out there, especially in this day and age, where people can use their Google-Fu to find out what the jargon means. It's not like you need a law degree to look up and understand what a "hexcrawl game" is.



The problem here is that learning jargon through this cultural osmosis is extremely unreliable. People will often attempt to decipher jargon based on context and come to an incorrect conclusion, then go on using it under that assumed meaning, which makes it more likely that others will pick up on the way they are using it and perpetuate it. Look at the recent(ish) “supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean” thread. None of us could agree on a definition of a word we all use as if we know what it means. I’ve been talking about and hearing people talk about gamism, simulationism, and narrativism for 10 years, and I’m still not confident I understand what the terms mean, because it seems like no two people use them quite the same way.


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2022)

Campbell said:


> 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 gotta admit, I was very confused by it myself.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> The problem here is that learning jargon through this cultural osmosis is extremely unreliable. People will often attempt to decipher jargon based on context and come to an incorrect conclusion, then go on using it under that assumed meaning, which makes it more likely that others will pick up on the way they are using it and perpetuate it. Look at the recent(ish “supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean” thread. None of us could agree on a definition of a word we all use as if we know what it means. I’ve been talking about and hearing people talk about gamism, simulationism, and narrativism for 10 years, and I’m still not confident I understand what the terms mean, because it seems like no two people use them quite the same way.



This is a big problem with living in our modern, Internet-connected, fast-paced times. Communities used to develop over _generations_ in fixed locales, and people had time for the cultural osmosis. Now anybody can just teleport into a whole new community from moment to moment! And while the Threefold Model and Forge/GNS theory have their canonical documents still on the web, the Internet is frighteningly ephemeral (just this morning I had to hit archive.org to find a blog post someone cited but couldn't find), and there's no guarantee anybody will know to go looking for the canonical documents I just linked (or where to start once they find the collections).

With all this churn, it behooves us all to be clear about the model or framework we're using, and provide direct links to primary sources if at all possible. @Snarf Zagyg has another list of links on the other thread, that folks might find useful or informative.


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> The problem here is that learning jargon through this cultural osmosis is extremely unreliable. People will often attempt to decipher jargon based on context and come to an incorrect conclusion, then go on using it under that assumed meaning, which makes it more likely that others will pick up on the way they are using it and perpetuate it. Look at the recent(ish “supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean” thread. None of us could agree on a definition of a word we all use as if we know what it means. I’ve been talking about and hearing people talk about gamism, simulationism, and narrativism for 10 years, and I’m still not confident I understand what the terms mean, because it seems like no two people use them quite the same way.



I find the terms to be as accurate as I need them to be. The jargon allows a shorthand for a discussion with other hobbyists. The jargon isn't scientific and wont be found in any graduate course. Most of the time I know what people are going for. If not, I just ask them but most of the time its a shortcut to getting into a discussion without having to explain yourself every single time.



Bedrockgames said:


> In terms of the categorization of people I think you make a lot of good points. My father was a salesman and used a method that grouped people into different personality types. I grew up with this just part of our breakfast and dinner table discussion so it became natural for me to, the moment I met someone, identify their primary and secondary personality trait in the model he used. Such models can be broadly useful. If you are trying to get sales and you meet 100 people, if the model is even vaguely helpful in pushing up your sales numbers, it has utility. The problem is it is just a model, and it is being used for a particular purpose, and people don't often fall neatly into models. The model can become your way of looking at the world and you can miss a lot of who people really are if you are relying on a model to understand them.



This. I find jargon very useful as a model. Models are not perfect, they are generalizations, though often in these hobby discussions horseshoes and hand grenades are good enough. If it is important, or I'm confused, I'll ask for clarification. Which is why im always confused by the folks who think there is no value in jargon because it isn't laser precise. Have they met language? When I consider using jargon or not will depend on the audience. YMMV.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2022)

Undrave said:


> When it comes to game design concept I'm a big fan of the '8 aesthetics of fun' taxonomy presented in this paper
> https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf (Though I support the AngryGM's suggestion of swapping 'Submission' by 'Abnegation')
> 
> Later expansion have added 'competition' as a 9th.
> ...



The nice thing about this model is that it isn’t a typography. The eight forms of engagement aren’t exclusive categories to sort games or players into. They’re things people tend to find fun, which games can appeal to, or not appeal to, in any combination.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 2, 2022)

One thing I will say is that I believe we should treat this consistently. If we are going to call for less use of jargon that must apply just as much to things like "the story", adventure hook, world building, sandbox, "living breathing world" as it does to the jargon used to describe other sorts of play. If our lingua franca is built around exploratory play and storytelling than it becomes extremely difficult to discuss play that does not value them highly.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2022)

Campbell said:


> Significant explanation is often given. Extensively so. I know I have spilled a whole lot of virtual ink on this stuff in pretty much every thread I try to talk about this stuff. Others have spilled far more.




Sure.  But in this context, knowing your audience includes knowing the medium.   If you are sitting in a room with the same group of people for two hours, having a conversation everyone is focused upon, and only one or two people come in or out, you can probably get away with spilling that ink once.  In the next discussion, if there are new people, you'll have to spill that ink again.

Now consider the message board medium - we have asynchronous communication among a varying group of dozens over the course of days during which your conversation is only one of dozens of things the person is paying attention to.  That is a challenging place for jargon.  There's enough distraction and turnover that you'll have to spill a lot of ink.  It may well be more efficient to just use natural language, rather than explain jargon repeatedly.

I have to agree with Snarf - jargon is at its best and most useful when it is used among a group of people who all already have the same understanding of that jargon. When in mixed company, use of jargon is best considered not as a tool for the current discussion, but as developing a tool for _later_ discussions.

It does not help that, around here, folks lead with the jargon, and then have to explain it.  From an instructional standpoint, that's backwards - you don't want to start by confusing the student, because that makes the student defensive.  A better mode of instruction would be to introduce the concept, establish that it is useful, get the student to agree to that utility, and only then apply the name.

Because remember - the jargon isn't actually the important bit.  The _concepts_ the jargon stands for are.  They should be the focus, and you should be willing to abandon the jargon to get the concepts across, if that's what's needed.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2022)

payn said:


> I find the terms to be as accurate as I need them to be. The jargon allows a shorthand for a discussion with other hobbyists. The jargon isn't scientific and wont be found in any graduate course. Most of the time I know what people are going for. If not, I just ask them but most of the time its a shortcut to getting into a discussion without having to explain yourself every single time.



But when multiple people in a discussion are all confidently using the same jargon term to mean different things, while assuming everyone else is using it to mean the same thing they are, productive conversation is nearly impossible.


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2022)

Campbell said:


> One thing I will say is that I believe we should treat this consistently. If we are going to call for less use of jargon that must apply just as much to things like "the story", adventure hook, world building, sandbox, "living breathing world" as it does to the jargon used to describe other sorts of play. If our lingua franca is built around exploratory play and storytelling than it becomes extremely difficult to discuss play that does not value them highly.



I think the key is in participation. If you are making a thread consider your audience. If you are posting in a thread consider its OP. For example, there are threads that talk about sandbox as a concept, and there are threads on doing it. If you dont think sandbox is even a thing, then by all means post away in the concept thread. Though, if folks are having a discussion about it as a given, probably not the right time and place to tell them they are wrong.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2022)

Campbell said:


> One thing I will say is that I believe we should treat this consistently. If we are going to call for less use of jargon that must apply just as much to things like "the story", adventure hook, world building, sandbox, "living breathing world" as it does to the jargon used to describe other sorts of play. If our lingua franca is built around exploratory play and storytelling than it becomes extremely difficult to discuss play that does not value them highly.



Ironically, I don’t know what you mean by “exploratory play” or “storytelling” in this context.


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> But when multiple people in a discussion are all confidently using the same jargon term to mean different things, while assuming everyone else is using it to mean the same thing they are, productive conversation is nearly impossible.



I find this to be an over exaggeration. I have productive conversations every single day. The only ones that get stuck in myriad of definitions are the ones that want to precisely define the term or argue over it on a conceptual level. Comes with the territory. 

As in my posting above, I think the key is participating in good faith. If you can set aside any technical or pedantic arguments for the sake of conversation please do so. If you cant, save it for a conceptual topic thread.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2022)

payn said:


> I find this to be an over exaggeration. I have productive conversations every single day.



With people who are unknowingly using the same jargon to mean different things? That seems unlikely to me.


payn said:


> The only ones that get stuck in myriad of definitions are the ones that want to precisely define the term or argue over it on a conceptual level. Comes with the territory.



I’m not talking about conversations getting stuck, I’m talking about misunderstanding, which is pretty much inevitable when we _think_ we’re using a shared language but actually aren’t.


payn said:


> As in my posting above, I think the key is participating in good faith. If you can set aside any technical or pedantic arguments for the sake of conversation please do so. If you cant, save it for a conceptual topic thread.



I might not be parsing this correctly. Are you speaking generally, or are you directly telling me to save my concerns about misunderstood jargon causing confusion for another thread?


----------



## niklinna (Jun 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I will say is that I believe we should treat this consistently. If we are going to call for less use of jargon that must apply just as much to things like "the story", adventure hook, world building, sandbox, "living breathing world" as it does to the jargon used to describe other sorts of play. If our lingua franca is built around exploratory play and storytelling than it becomes extremely difficult to discuss play that does not value them highly.
> ...



Short of an explicit context, I don't know what any of those terms mean.


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> With people who are unknowingly using the same jargon to mean different things? That seems unlikely to me.



Correct, well, in degrees. I mean, if you are saying somebody is saying toaster to mean a werewolf, then yeah that super confusing. I find folks might say lycan instead of werewolf and I get were they are going. If I'm not 100% with them, a simple clarifying question straightens it out. 


Charlaquin said:


> I’m not talking about conversations getting stuck, I’m talking about misunderstanding, which is pretty much inevitable when we _think_ we’re using a shared language but actually aren’t.



Happens all the time, even right now. You clear it up through discussion.


Charlaquin said:


> I might not be parsing this correctly, are you speaking generally, or are you directly telling me to save my concerns about misunderstood jargon causing confusion for another thread?



I was speaking generally, not specifically about this thread. This is the right place to discuss this.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> But when multiple people in a discussion are all confidently using the same jargon term to mean different things, while assuming everyone else is using it to mean the same thing they are, productive conversation is nearly impossible.



Right. And with GNS I feel that the original twenty-year-old meaning of the terms and layman understanding of them has become so far divergent, that the terminology is a hindrance. Like I said in the another thread, according to Forge, if I care about games having a coherent satisfying narrative, that actually is simulationism, not narrativism! But I'd wager that a most people who are merely vaguely familiar with these terms would (sensibly) associate it with narrativism, which they actually understand to be roughly the same thing than dramatism in the (even older) GDS model.  
And who is to say the they're even wrong to do so, language evolves and words mean what people understand them to mean.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 2, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I agree that jargon can represent a barrier to entry. However, what sometimes this point sidesteps how much of a barrier jargon actually represents. A lot of jargon is gradually absorbed through participation in a subculture or field over time. But there are often resources out there, especially in this day and age, where people can use their Google-Fu to find out what the jargon means. It's not like you need a law degree to look up and understand what a "hexcrawl game" is.
> 
> Outside of this small bubble of a hobby, there is a tremendous amount of jargon floating around in the field of video games, jargon used to describe different genres of games, jargon used within game-specific communities (e.g., Call of Duty, etc.), jargon used with types of games (e.g., MOBA: Jungler, Bruiser, Carry, etc.), broader gaming communities (e.g., Speed Runners, eSports, etc.), or within game design communities (e.g., clipping, FPS, bots, Easter Egg, Whales, etc.), or the entire market (e.g., DLC, Pay-to-Win, microtransactions, etc.).
> 
> ...




I started climbing 2.75 years ago because (a) I have to shelf my basketball activities due to needing ankle reconstruction surgery so I'm hoping it will fill that niche I'm losing (its a huge thing for me losing something that has been so important to my life and well-being) and (b) hopes that it will help strengthen both of my shoulders so I can continue BJJ (which, along with a baseball career, ruined both of my rotator cuffs).

I went in knowing absolute_nothing_about climbing.  Nothing.  Zero.  Zilch.

There is a gigantically dizzying array of essential jargon for learning climbing, bettering your climbing, and engaging with the climbing community locally and at large.

In two months time of straddling general-to-aggressive exposure (to the climbing itself, to the learning process, and the community), I'd uploaded nearly all of it so now my until-recently-climbing-derp-brain can think and perceive and talk like a functional climber.

Two months time.  Within that time I went from looking at a wall as a complete and utter novice to looking at the wall through the lens of someone equipped to critically conceive obstacle dynamics and map a route and use all of that newly-gained jargon as a weapon to shorthand/hack the process of understanding what I'm doing + employing my understanding +getting better at both.  And the same goes for having functional conversations with climbers in the community.  There was a ton of "I don't understand what that means" and "no clue what you just said" in the beginning...but eventually I got there.

I suffer horrific Insomnia (like Fight Club type "copy of a copy of a copy" insomnia).

I'm in the throes of dealing with CTE because of dozens of major concussions in my life (including 3 blackouts).

And there is other stuff that I won't go into.

I am a seriously_diminished_person cognitively from where I was even 5 years ago (and well more than 10 years ago). 

Yet somehow, *despite being extremely diminished + not a particularly smart person to begin with (I'm not even close to the outer tail of the intelligence distribution for humanity)*, I'm able to onboard complex jargon from a novice state within 2 months time and use that jargon/critical lens to serious advantage in both employing it physically and socially (which becomes a positive feedback loop between the two).  I'm sorry, I cannot get onboard with this "war against jargon" I keep seeing.  No.  I will not get on board...because its not true that it is all gatekeeping (or even approaching it) by narcissistic Ivory Tower Cabals hell bent on "keeping the casual done" or elevating themselves.  It can be very very useful toward skill-acquisition and x-hacks in whatever endeavor its oriented to.

Sometimes...maybe more than sometimes...it helps humble...rather broken people hack their way to some level of proficiency in a thing (with aspirations toward more than proficiency).


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2022)

payn said:


> Correct, well, in degrees. I mean, if you are saying somebody is saying toaster to mean a werewolf, then yeah that super confusing. I find folks might say lycan instead of werewolf and I get were they are going. If I'm not 100% with them, a simple clarifying question straightens it out.



That’s not jargon though, that’s just vocabulary. For a better example of what I’m talking about, consider the term “meta.” In these parts, “meta” might be short for “metagaming,” which most of us would probably take to mean something along the lines of “using player knowledge to gain an advantage.” Of course, this is similar to, but subtly different from the way the 5e DMG defines “metagame thinking,” which is “thinking about the game as a game,” with an example provided of a player assuming a monster is a balanced challenge for the party because the DM wouldn’t have thrown something at them they had no chance of handling. Having two people discussing metagaming, using these two different definitions but each assuming the other us using the same definition they are could already lead to confusion. Add to this conversation a Magic: the Gathering player, to whom “the metagame” refers to the overall competitive gameplay environment; which decks and strategies are most prevalent and what cards and strategies counter them effectively. This person is especially likely to become confused by the conversation if they assume the others are using “meta” the same way they do. Then let’s add in another Magic: the Gathering player, who has heard other players talk about “the meta” when discussing competitive decks, and assumes that the term refers specifically to the dominant deck, rather than the competitive environment as a whole; maybe they’ve even gotten this idea from the erroneous backronym, “Most Effective Tactic Available.” This person would likely run into communication barriers with the other Magic player, let alone the D&D players.


payn said:


> Happens all the time, even right now. You clear it up through discussion.



You can only clear it up through discussion if you recognize that you are using the same jargon differently, which is less likely when everyone assumes everyone else is using it the same way they are. And, if it does become clear that there’s a miscommunication due to different understandings of the jargon, in my experience this tends to lead to arguments over what definition to use - the very same pedantic halts on productive discussion you mentioned in your previous post.


payn said:


> I was speaking generally, not specifically about this thread. This is the right place to discuss this.



Ok, cool. Thank you for clarifying


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 2, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Yet somehow, *despite being extremely diminished + not a particularly smart person to begin with (I'm not even close to the outer tail of the intelligence distribution for humanity)*, I'm able to onboard complex jargon from a novice state within 2 months time and use that jargon/critical lens to serious advantage in both employing it physically and socially (which becomes a positive feedback loop between the two).  I'm sorry, I cannot get onboard with this "war against jargon" I keep seeing.  No.  I will not get on board...because its not true that it is all gatekeeping (or even approaching it) by narcissistic Ivory Tower Cabals hell bent on "keeping the casual done" or elevating themselves.  It can be very very useful toward skill-acquisition and x-hacks in whatever endeavor its oriented to.



Not to diminish in any way the utility of jargon/technical language in the right context, but if I understand correctly, the vast majority, if not all, of the terminology used in climbing is referring to physically-observable object and actions, is it not?  Rock faces, holds, equipment, postures, parts of the body, etc., no?  I do think this aids in making that jargon more universal and less confusing.

With RPG theory jargon, we're using terms to describe things that are much more difficult for two speakers to observe and point at.  I can show you a photo of a carabiner and you can tell me what that particular kind of carabiner is called.  I can't show you a photo of how my DM handles plot.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> There's an element to this that comes down to very basic principles of effective writing:  Know your audience.
> 
> Who is your intended audience?  Are you sure your intended audience knows the jargon?  If not, why on Earth would you inject jargon without significant explanation first?



I had a technical writer once 'insult' a writer friend by suggesting that everything should be written with a 12 year old who knows nothing about the topic in mind... a novelist and a technical writer that could not get along after that...


----------



## niklinna (Jun 2, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Right. And with GNS I feel that the original twenty-year-old meaning of the terms and layman understanding of them has become so far divergent, that the terminology is a hindrance.



This is true of any specialty, and has little to do with its age. D&D is way over twenty years old and plenty of terms and concepts in that game have changed from edition to edition. GNS's age is similarly not the issue.

Also GNS has primary documents that are still accessible on the web. It's possible to learn the terminology. You don't have to agree with it (I certainly don't), but I am capable of applying it and understanding it in context because I saw the framework being used and went and educated myself.



Crimson Longinus said:


> Like I said in the another thread, according to Forge, if I care about games having a coherent satisfying narrative, that actually is simulationism, not narrativism!



Yes, this is true, and it's clear from this very statement that you understand that and could engage in discussion within a GNS framework, even if you hate and disagree with the model.  Not that you have to!



Crimson Longinus said:


> But I'd wager that a most people who are merely vaguely familiar with these terms would (sensibly) associate it with narrativism, which they actually understand to be roughly the same thing than dramatism in the (even older) GDS model.



Particularly when models and frameworks are in competition (and using the same words to mean different things), it's important to be clear about which one(s) you are using. The alternative is to continually explain everything from the ground up—or develop your own, new, jargon.

As an aside, I will point out that the ancestor of this thread, about supposing D&D is gamist, explicitly mentioned GDS, GNS and other models, thereby inviting their use, and still people crapped all over folks for using them, even those who bent over backwards to be explicit about which model/terminology they were using, up to prefixing each individual term with the model. Some folks weren't explicit about which model they were using, and that's their bad, and it's totally fine to call them on it and say "Wait, which model are you using here?" And in threads where models aren't invited, it would similarly be common courtesy, in a mixed forum like this, to preface one's post with something like, "Well in GDS/GNS/GEN theory (or whatever)..."

As a further aside—and it wasn't you doing this but I feel it's worth pointing out, because it's prevalent—it is not cool to argue that the model and its terminology are vague or invalid, especially when it is, as people are fond of pointing out, 20 years old and therefore rather well settled. It is further not cool to argue that the model was misapplied or used for unsavory purpose X and therefore the model in and of itself is bad. As I've repeatedly said, I do not agree 100% with what Edwards wrote in his core essays, let alone some of his spectacularly inflammatory forum posts, but I can have a productive, useful conversation using the basic theory, including reasoned debate about its internal contradictions.



Crimson Longinus said:


> And who is to say the they're even wrong to do so, language evolves and words mean what people understand them to mean.



Language evolves, sure, but we have dictionaries (and grammars) of, say, Old English, so that it's possible to read those documents and have a good idea of what they were saying.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> You make the development and learning of jargon within communities sound far more malicious and nefarious than it often is.




My discussion here is largely focused on jargon's use here, on these message boards.  And note that gatekeeping is not necessarily the desired result, but it can be an unintentional effect.  If you expect understanding of jargon to enter a conversation, that's keeping some folks outside the gates, whether intentional or not.



Aldarc said:


> There is a lot of jargon, for example, that exists for knitting, including styles of weaves, knots, stitching patterns, materials, etc. The fact that I may have to learn this jargon if I participated in this hobby or community doesn't inherently mean that it's a form of gatekeeping.




Fair point.  However, I think there's a fair difference in the application of jargon in these areas.

In the fiber arts, a typical introduction to a jargon name is "Hm, I like this pattern.  It has a knot called a <foo>.  I need to look up <foo> knots and learn how to do them."  It is first and foremost a _practical_ matter, and it is generally associated with something the person has already decided to accomplish.

RPG theory jargon is theory, not practice.  It is about game design, not about game play.  We all know a ton of jargon about game play.

And, when folks encounter that design theory, it is often being (I feel mis-) applied to play practice, usually in a critical form, like, "You didn't have a good experience with this game because you weren't _design jargoning_ right."

I think reaction to it is then pretty predictable.


----------



## soviet (Jun 2, 2022)

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?'.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> I started climbing 2.75 years ago because (a) I have to shelf my basketball activities due to needing ankle reconstruction surgery so I'm hoping it will fill that niche I'm losing (its a huge thing for me losing something that has been so important to my life and well-being) and (b) hopes that it will help strengthen both of my shoulders so I can continue BJJ (which, along with a baseball career, ruined both of my rotator cuffs).
> 
> I went in knowing absolute_nothing_about climbing.  Nothing.  Zero.  Zilch.
> 
> ...



I don’t think anyone has claimed that jargon is “gatekeeping (or even approaching it) by narcissistic Ivory Tower Cabals hell bent on ‘keeping the casual down’ or elevating themselves.” Snarf specifically says jargon is _useful_ among people who are well-versed in a subject. Where it becomes a barrier, and _can_ be (but isn’t _necessarily_) used for gatekeeping is when in mixed company with people who are not well-versed in the subject. I imagine, when you were learning climbing and had moments of “I have no idea what that meant,” the people you were learning from mostly tried to be helpful and break down what they meant in layman’s terms. But, had you not been trying to learn, and simply heard that jargon in passing, it would have been a barrier to you understanding. And, had the people who taught you wanted to, they could have made it much more difficult for you to learn to climb by refusing to explain their jargon and demanding that you figure it out yourself if you’re really serious about wanting to climb.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 2, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Not to diminish in any way the utility of jargon/technical language in the right context, but if I understand correctly, the vast majority, if not all, of the terminology used in climbing is referring to physically-observable object and actions, is it not?  Rock faces, holds, equipment, postures, parts of the body, etc., no?  I do think this aids in making that jargon more universal and less confusing.
> 
> With RPG jargon, we're using terms to describe things that are much more difficult for two speakers to observe and point at.  I can show you a photo of a carabiner and you can tell me what that particular kind of carabiner is called.  I can't show you a photo of how my DM handles plot.




Good post.

However, while objective objects are a part of it for sure (just like objective rules technology and TTRPG engine design and system archetecture are effectively "objects"), they are only a very limited part of the picture.

Where it gets complex is the personal proprioception component + the huge differential in body indices + cognitive disposition and morale (unique ability to process information from the ground and on the wall + courage and will are a HUGE and distinctive components of climbing) + how all of this integrates within the closed and complex system of a person (along with the physical objects...which are a dizzying array of kit and hold variety and technique variety and face/pitch variety) to create a very unique orientation to any given obstacle for an individual climber.

EDIT - 



Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think anyone has claimed that jargon is “gatekeeping (or even approaching it) by narcissistic Ivory Tower Cabals hell bent on ‘keeping the casual down’ or elevating themselves.”




Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh...yeah....yeah they have.  Maybe not in this thread exactly but in the ENWorld community at large (including verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry recently...including the thread that spawned this one...of which you were involved in so you either bore witness to it there or you skipped past it) its hugely prolific!



Charlaquin said:


> Snarf specifically says jargon is useful among people who are well-versed in a subject.




And my post was a testimonial disputing that this is the exclusive sub-group that it is useful for (or even approaching exclusive).

It is hugely useful for utter novices who have no exposure to the jargon or the craft the jargon/critical lens supports.

Brazillian JijJitsu is even much more of a potent example than climbing is (its just that I started BJJ over 20 years ago so the example is less meaningful to me).  The amount of jargon and body language for BJJ that has to be humbly accepted and synthesized makes these TTRPG jargon culture wars (and that is what they are) a joke by comparison.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I had a technical writer once 'insult' a writer friend by suggesting that everything should be written with a 12 year old who knows nothing about the topic in mind... a novelist and a technical writer that could not get along after that...




Yeah.  And when frustrated novelists write game rules, you get stuff like 1e AD&D rulebooks.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Not to diminish in any way the utility of jargon/technical language in the right context, but if I understand correctly, the vast majority, if not all, of the terminology used in climbing is referring to physically-observable object and actions, is it not?  Rock faces, holds, equipment, postures, parts of the body, etc., no?  I do think this aids in making that jargon more universal and less confusing.



There’s also some particular phraseology, like for example the call-and-response ritual to signal to one’s climbing partner that they are ready to start climbing and to confirm that the partner is prepared to support them should they fall:

“On belay?”
“Belay is on.”
“Climbing.”
“Climb on.”

As an example of something that could sound like gibberish to a layman.


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> That’s not jargon though, that’s just vocabulary. For a better example of what I’m talking about, consider the term “meta.” In these parts, “meta” might be short for “metagaming,” which most of us would probably take to mean something along the lines of “using player knowledge to gain an advantage.” Of course, this is similar to, but subtly different from the way the 5e DMG defines “metagame thinking,” which is “thinking about the game as a game,” with an example provided of a player assuming a monster is a balanced challenge for the party because the DM wouldn’t have thrown something at them they had no chance of handling. Having two people discussing metagaming, using these two different definitions but each assuming the other us using the same definition they are could already lead to confusion. Add to this conversation a Magic: the Gathering player, to whom “the metagame” refers to the overall competitive gameplay environment; which decks and strategies are most prevalent and what cards and strategies counter them effectively. This person is especially likely to become confused by the conversation if they assume the others are using “meta” the same way they do. Then let’s add in another Magic: the Gathering player, who has heard other players talk about “the meta” when discussing competitive decks, and assumes that the term refers specifically to the dominant deck, rather than the competitive environment as a whole; maybe they’ve even gotten this idea from the erroneous backronym, “Most Effective Tactic Available.” This person would likely run into communication barriers with the other Magic player, let alone the D&D players.
> 
> You can only clear it up through discussion if you recognize that you are using the same jargon differently, which is less likely when everyone assumes everyone else is using it the same way they are. And, if it does become clear that there’s a miscommunication due to different understandings of the jargon, in my experience this tends to lead to arguments over what definition to use - the very same pedantic halts on productive discussion you mentioned in your previous post.
> 
> Ok, cool. Thank you for clarifying



Sorry, I did realize my example for examples sake probably wasn't jargony enough. I do think folks should use their jargon mindfully. Saying, "oh it's so meta" doesnt really tell us how you are using the term. Saying, "oh thats so meta because you used fire on a troll you never encountered before" tells me a lot more about how you define the term and want to use it. Going forward I can challenge that definition to make sure the person really means it. If they do, then I have to decide if I am going to suspend my definition for conversation sake, or politely exit the exchange.  

What is common is that two folks disagree and can not suspend or reach the disengage mode. This is usually after about 8 pages and the conversation has run its course. It's also common for these folks to reignite that song and dance repeatedly. Likely, why so many folks are down on jargon entirely. I also recognize this happening and use the disengage method to side step this repetitious and exhausting process.


----------



## Composer99 (Jun 2, 2022)

I'm tempted to say, somewhat cheekily, that jargon becomes jargon when it is used to obfuscate meaning or gatekeep. Otherwise, it's a term of art.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh...yeah....yeah they have.  Maybe not in this thread exactly but in the ENWorld community at large (including verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry recently...including the thread that spawned this one...of which you were involved in so you either bore witness to it there or you skipped past it) its hugely prolific!



I haven’t seen it. I’ve seen people who are generally critical of jargon in certain contexts, for pretty much the reasons Snarf gets into in the opening post of this thread, and I have seen people who are highly critical of Forge jargon in particular, often as one component of their critique of GNS theory as a whole. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone assert that _all_ jargon is _only_ a gatekeeping tool.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> That’s not jargon though, that’s just vocabulary.



Technically, all vocabulary is jargon, in the way that everybody has an accent. Language communities (and sub-communities, such as those you detail in your nice elaboration on "meta") share a jargon/vocabulary, but "jargon" is the term we reserve specifically for when things don't overlap/match.



Charlaquin said:


> You can only clear it up through discussion if you recognize that you are using the same jargon differently, which is less likely when everyone assumes everyone else is using it the same way they are. And, if it does become clear that there’s a miscommunication due to different understandings of the jargon, in my experience this tends to lead to arguments over what definition to use - the very same pedantic halts on productive discussion you mentioned in your previous post.



This is a universal problem in language, and RPG talk has no particular privilege or exemption.


----------



## soviet (Jun 2, 2022)

Composer99 said:


> I'm tempted to say, somewhat cheekily, that jargon becomes jargon when it is used to obfuscate meaning or gatekeep. Otherwise, it's a term of art.



_I_ use terms of art/natural language. _They_ use elitist jargon.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> My discussion here is largely focused on jargon's use here, on these message boards.  And note that gatekeeping is not necessarily the desired result, but it can be an unintentional effect.  If you expect understanding of jargon to enter a conversation, that's keeping some folks outside the gates, whether intentional or not.



That's interesting, because my understanding of the term "gatekeeping", intentionality is very much part of the definition. More jargon!



Umbran said:


> Fair point.  However, I think there's a fair difference in the application of jargon in these areas.
> 
> In the fiber arts, a typical introduction to a jargon name is "Hm, I like this pattern.  It has a knot called a <foo>.  I need to look up <foo> knots and learn how to do them."  It is first and foremost a _practical_ matter, and it is generally associated with something the person has already decided to accomplish.
> 
> RPG theory jargon is theory, not practice.  It is about game design, not about game play.  We all know a ton of jargon about game play.



I use RPG theory terminology to think and talk about practice and play quite a bit. It helps me understand how to get more out of a given game, or group of players, or context (one-shot vs. campaign). It's _immensely_ practical for me.



Umbran said:


> And, when folks encounter that design theory, it is often being (I feel mis-) applied to play practice, usually in a critical form, like, "You didn't have a good experience with this game because you weren't _design jargoning_ right."
> 
> I think reaction to it is then pretty predictable.



Yeah that's a poor use of design theory.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I haven’t seen it. I’ve seen people who are generally critical of jargon in certain contexts, for pretty much the reasons Snarf gets into in the opening post of this thread, and I have seen people who are highly critical of Forge jargon in particular, often as one component of their critique of GNS theory as a whole. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone assert that _all_ jargon is _only_ a gatekeeping tool.




Haven't seen it.

Alright.  Fair enough.

At least then, given your post above, can we now admit that this isn't JARGON BAD but rather a stealth culture war and dogwhistle for <FORGE> JARGON BAD <TRADITIONAL JARGON GOOD!> while not saying the quiet part out loud (or keeping it somewhat muffled when its expeditious to do so)?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> I started climbing 2.75 years ago because (a) I have to shelf my basketball activities due to needing ankle reconstruction surgery so I'm hoping it will fill that niche I'm losing (its a huge thing for me losing something that has been so important to my life and well-being) and (b) hopes that it will help strengthen both of my shoulders so I can continue BJJ (which, along with a baseball career, ruined both of my rotator cuffs).
> 
> I went in knowing absolute_nothing_about climbing.  Nothing.  Zero.  Zilch.
> 
> ...




So, you relate this to overall span of time.  But, let us consider the _focus and effort_ you were putting into this activity.   That jargon was of practical use to you in achieving goals that sound like they were highly meaningful to you, and you were being introduced to the jargon _as you attempted the relevant tasks_, which I do not doubt were mentally, physically, and emotionally strenuous.  That context certainly helped drive understanding of the jargon.

Those things generally don't apply to RPG design theory jargon.  Maybe in the context of a deep, intensive RPG design workshop you might get the same kind of use out of the jargon in question here.  But, in casual conversation on EN World?  I don't see that happening.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Technically, all vocabulary is jargon, in the way that everybody has an accent. Language communities (and sub-communities, such as those you detail in your nice elaboration on "meta") share a jargon/vocabulary, but "jargon" is the term we reserve specifically for when things don't overlap/match.



Only if you generalize the term jargon to mean any word or phrase used to convey a specific concept, at which point the term no longer has any real utility. Generally jargon is used specifically for technical language; a word or phrase used to convey meaning _specific to a specialized field_.


niklinna said:


> This is a universal problem in language, and RPG talk has no particular privilege or exemption.



It is indeed.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Haven't seen it.
> 
> Alright.  Fair enough.
> 
> At least then, given your post above, can we now admit that this isn't JARGON BAD but rather a stealth culture war and dogwhistle for <FORGE> JARGON BAD <TRADITIONAL JARGON GOOD!> while not saying the quiet part out loud (or keeping it somewhat muffled when its expeditious to do so)?



There are definitely a lot of folks here who are strongly opposed to Forge jargon in particular (again, usually as one part of a broader opposition to GNS theory as a whole). I don’t think those people are shy about that fact, so I wouldn’t call it “saying the quiet part out loud.” There are also people who have legitimate concerns about the way jargon (Forge-related or otherwise) is often used in RPG discussions. Neither of these positions hold that all jargon is only used for gatekeeping.


----------



## iserith (Jun 2, 2022)

I generally think about group-specific vocabulary for ease of communications to be "lingo," and the stuff that is purposefully opaque or confusing or meant to show that one belongs to an enlightened in-group to be "jargon." By those definitions, lingo good, jargon bad.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2022)

niklinna said:


> That's interesting, because my understanding of the term "gatekeeping", intentionality is very much part of the definition. More jargon!




And, you know what, non-standardized jargon is also a problem.  

I don't want to start a major tangent, so unless someone seriously want to know why I'm using a broader meaning of gatekeeping, I'll leave that be.



niklinna said:


> I use RPG theory terminology to think and talk about practice and play quite a bit.  It helps me understand how to get more out of a given game, or group of players, or context (one-shot vs. campaign). It's _immensely_ practical for me.




That's awesome for you.  I'm glad you've found it helpful.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> That’s not jargon though, that’s just vocabulary.



Borrowing this as a jump off point.

These kinds of arguments seem an especially strong version of special pleading that's seeking to protect some jargon as "okay" and other jargon as "bad" with a semantic swap of acceptable jargon to "vocabulary."

It's been pointed out that these boards are full of jargon.  The comment by @Umbran to @Manbearcat about level of interest determining if the jargon was worthwhile is totally ignoring that 1) people have already ingested and learned a huge amount of jargon to just play D&D and 2) this is a board for discussion of games, including how they work and seeking advice for making it better.  If this is a bad place to have discussions using additional terms past those already learned to better discuss how games work, then please, @Umbran, point out where a good place is.  Because the implication that ENW is just not a place for such discussions is real gatekeeping,.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> There are definitely a lot of folks here who are strongly opposed to Forge jargon in particular (again, usually as one part of a broader opposition to GNS theory as a whole). I don’t think those people are shy about that fact, so I wouldn’t call it “saying the quiet part out loud.” There are also people who have legitimate concerns about the way jargon (Forge-related or otherwise) is often used in RPG discussions. Neither of these positions hold that all jargon is only used for gatekeeping.



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.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> And, you know what, non-standardized jargon is also a problem.
> 
> I don't want to start a major tangent, so unless someone seriously want to know why I'm using a broader meaning of gatekeeping, I'll leave that be.
> 
> ...



I'd enjoy an expoundment from you on your broader meaning of gatekeeping, and why you seem to think that this statement from the other thread...



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Jargon poses a barrier to entry for anyone who isn't already in the jargon in-group. Barriers to entry are counterproductive.
> 
> Jargon is great when you have a bunch of people who already know the jargon go off into a jargon place and have jargon talk. EN World, however, is not an RPG theory jargon place. Maybe using a tag on a thread title, like, "[Ivory Tower]" or something, would at least inform people that they should not expect to join in if they aren't part of the jargon cabal.




... is somehow exempt from that definition.  Because, to me, this meets a much narrower set of definitions of gatekeeping.  It's explicitly insulting, othering, and suggesting the segregation of people with ideas you dislike.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2022)

iserith said:


> I generally think about group-specific vocabulary for ease of communications to be "lingo," and the stuff that is purposefully opaque or confusing or meant to show that one belongs to an enlightened in-group to be "jargon." By those definitions, lingo good, jargon bad.




So, if we cannot even have a mutually agreeable understanding of the word "jargon", how on this good green Earth are we supposed to have a mutually agreed understanding of jargon words such that they are useful?


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, you relate this to overall span of time.  But, let us consider the _focus and effort_ you were putting into this activity.   That jargon was of practical use to you in achieving goals that sound like they were highly meaningful to you, and you were being introduced to the jargon _as you attempted the relevant tasks_, which I do not doubt were mentally, physically, and emotionally strenuous.  That context certainly helped drive understanding of the jargon.
> 
> Those things generally don't apply to RPG design theory jargon.  Maybe in the context of a deep, intensive RPG design workshop you might get the same kind of use out of the jargon in question here.  But, in casual conversation on EN World?  I don't see that happening.




So my problem with this view is the following:

* It seems to assume I'm special (I'm not) OR it assumes that I cared more about climbing 2.75 years ago than TTRPG players who have invested a comparatively (when compared to that novice who walked into that climbing gym 2.75 years ago) enormous swathe of time, social capital, actual $ capital, mental/emotional energy.

* It seems to assume a humility on my part when entering into a new domain that others either (a) don't/can't possess or (b) shouldn't be held accountable to aspire to.  I think your "puts students on the defensive" above, speaks to your orientation to this.

* It also seems to assume that TTRPG players are uniquely not particularly curious or caring about their leisure activity (I do mean "their" here, given how much your average gamer puts into it...ownership...even casuals devote hours of various forms of capital just to play at all) relative to other folks and their leisure activities.  I don't think that bears out broadly and I definitely don't think it bears out for a community like ENWorld where people absolutely are invested at least in relative proportion to "ham and egger" climbers like me (I'm not very good and I never will be...I'm dead average and I'm likely never to improve much upon that...despite that, I still aspire to be better).

* It also seems to assume that people can't curate their own behavior and be accountable for it (engage with jargon in an area that seems interesting to them, disengage with jargon when their interest is lost, ignore jargon outright when its not found to be interesting/productive, engage faithfully with curiosity and humility about concepts new to them vs the opposite).  Granted, that is a massive problem in the social media world where platforms and algorithms plug into people's "worse nature" by design to create just awful human behavior (personally and collectively).  But ENWorld is not Twitter, Facebook, Youtube (etc).



So I don't exactly know which of these above assumptions are in play here (you'd have to settle that...I'm just drawing inferrences based on your recent commentary on this and our prior engagements on the subject).

I also don't the matrix of assumptions (because I don't know the individual ones) that you have in mind.

But regardless, I don't agree with any of them.  I don't agree that they're correct and I certainly don't agree that they're something to relent to (rather than aspire to overcome) if they were true.  For example, that "student reflexively on the defensive (rather than humble with aspirations toward being better)" who takes on climbing or BJJ?  They fail out.  Hard.  And it costs them a hell of a lot (including the loving embrace of a humble, healthy community of exemplars).


----------



## iserith (Jun 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, if we cannot even have a mutually agreeable understanding of the word "jargon", how on this good green Earth are we supposed to have a mutually agreed understanding of jargon words such that they are useful?



Probably we should set a standard. If iserith says it's jargon, then it's jargon. Otherwise it's lingo. That works for me. 

I just looked up the definitions for each and it does seem the difference actually is that jargon is specifically called out as difficult where lingo is not.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Haven't seen it.
> 
> Alright.  Fair enough.
> 
> At least then, given your post above, can we now admit that this isn't JARGON BAD but rather a stealth culture war and dogwhistle for <FORGE> JARGON BAD <TRADITIONAL JARGON GOOD!> while not saying the quiet part out loud (or keeping it somewhat muffled when its expeditious to do so)?




When Forge-jargon and its derivatives make up the overwhelming majority of the examples of RPG design theory jargon on the site, it is going to be difficult to tell the difference between a problem with jargon in general, and a problem with Forge-jargon.

As Snarf has pointed out more than once, folks on EN World seem to have largely not engaged with newer design schools, and so have not applied their jargon much.


----------



## iserith (Jun 2, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> 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 mostly judge the theory on its impact on discussions and by the behavior of its adherents. By that standard, it's like it was created in a lab by scientists as a weapon to muddle communication and divide people into warring factions. (As if "metagaming" wasn't already enough.) Whatever little utility there is to it is greatly overshadowed by the most common outcomes of its usage in my view. That's why I stopped using it years ago, advise against it now whenever I see it pop up, and ignore those who insist upon going all in with it.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> As Snarf has pointed out more than once, folks on EN World seem to have largely not engaged with newer design schools, and so have not applied their jargon much.



Any pointers or links to those newer design schools?


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Borrowing this as a jump off point.
> 
> These kinds of arguments seem an especially strong version of special pleading that's seeking to protect some jargon as "okay" and other jargon as "bad" with a semantic swap of acceptable jargon to "vocabulary."



I don’t think that’s fair at all. _I_ said that werewolf is vocabulary, not jargon, and I’ll stand by that, because it isn’t shorthand for a complex or technical concept related to a specialized field. Other than this specific instance, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone here try to argue that a word or phrase is vocabulary rather than jargon.


----------



## prabe (Jun 2, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Any pointers or links to those newer design schools?



There are links to references to information about design schools from many timeframes--including the Forge--in the OP for this thread.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 2, 2022)

Umbran said:


> When Forge-jargon and its derivatives make up the overwhelming majority of the examples of RPG design theory jargon on the site, it is going to be difficult to tell the difference between a problem with jargon in general, and a problem with Forge-jargon.
> 
> As Snarf has pointed out more than once, folks on EN World seem to have largely not engaged with newer design schools, and so have not applied their jargon much.




Umbran...I read this and what it says to me is:

"Traditional jargon essentially isn't meaningfully 'jargon' because tradition <because ENWorld is overwhelmed culturally by traditionally-inclined users>.  Alternative jargon that traditionally-inclined users aren't exposed to is meaningfully 'jargon' because not traditional and I and others haven't uploaded it to the point that it has transcended its 'jargon' status."

Is that what you're meaning to convey?  That a subculture's jargon transcends jargon status?  If that is what you mean, I don't understand its significance.  Because the point of all of this (I thought) is its impact upon prospective participants in a new domain.  Because those are the folks we're worried about here....this is the proposed barrier to entry/gatekeeping issue...people exposed to foreign ideas/concept struggle <because jargon that they haven't already uploaded because tradition >?

People outside of our hobby and our hobby-adjacent practitioners (eg CRPG players)?  They have no idea what we're talking about whether we use traditional jargon or old school jargon or Forge jargon.  I've brought so many new people into the hobby and I've tried to have pretty innocuous conversations with them about totally traditional play and concepts.  I may as well be Beeker meeping at them.  I have as much luck conveying actual meaning around terms like BBEG or Rocket Tog or Nova or Monty Haul or Sandbox or Rocks Fall You Die or Hexcrawl or Wandering Monsters as I do Force.

You must mean something else because that makes no sense.

Jargon can't transcend jargon status.  Its still jargon.  Its just that the subculture who has practiced it has sufficiently uploaded it so its just "words" to them.  What is important is that to new folks who are engaging with new concepts and perhaps trying to onboard...its still jargon.  They still have to go through the process of uploading it.

Now...dissident-deemed jargon and "you're a douche for using this jargon" or Wrongspeak are absolutely a thing.  I feel like that has proven a historically excellent way for controlling conversation and ensuring hegemony or freedom from the taint of various cultural influence!


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 2, 2022)

prabe said:


> There are links to references to information about design schools from many timeframes--including the Forge--in the OP for this thread.



Yes, I'm aware. I was asking Umbran about which ones he was specifically referring to.


----------



## prabe (Jun 2, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Yes, I'm aware. I was asking Umbran about which ones he was specifically referring to.



Fair. Sorry.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2022)

EDIT: Nevermind, already been addressed.


----------



## Xetheral (Jun 2, 2022)

payn said:


> A couple theories I have. The first one is that video games enjoy a much much larger user base. With that comes a wide variety of games that go from causal all the way up to hardcore. There is plenty of room for causals and hardcore players to chat about their hobby. The second is that there is no D&D (800# gorilla) equivalent in the video game hobby. Due to D&D's crushing orbit it dominates all discussion fairly or not.  TTRPGs attract intellectually and technical minded folks who enjoy comprehensive discussions and arguments. However, due to there can be only one king of TTRPGs, there is often a winner takes all stakes to how the games are described, theorized, and general attitudes towards those of its community. Its a rare combination of low community population, but highly demanding conceptualized theory.
> 
> Just my theory.



I think there's an even simpler explanation that accounts for much of the difference. Unlike video games, TTRPGs have complicated logistics, meaning that TTRPG fans can't play on demand. Video games, by contrast are far more readily accessible. Accordingly, of the time fans spend on each hobby, I suspect TTRPG fans spend a far higher proportion of that time talking about their hobby than fans of video games do.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2022)

Xetheral said:


> I think there's an even simpler explanation that accounts for much of the difference. Unlike video games, TTRPGs have complicated logistics, meaning that TTRPG fans can't play on demand. Video games, by contrast as far more readily accessible. Accordingly, of the time fans spend on each hobby, I suspect TTRPG fans spend a far higher proportion of that time talking about their hobby than fans of video games do.



Counter-proposal: TTRPG discussion is disproportionately concerned with design and theory. You get this kind of jargon and hair-splitting in discussions of video game design, but such discussions are pretty niche, because most people who play video games aren’t hugely interested in game design theory. They’re happy to just play the games and move on. In the TTRPG space though, design theory is a much more prominent topic, because every GM must by necessity engage in game design to some extent or another. And, the people who engage in TTRPG discussion are disproportionately GMs. I think maybe one of my players would have any idea what I was taking about if I started tossing around terms like “simulationism” and “story now.” And she’s the one of my players who also DMs on occasion.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 2, 2022)

Hot take

The heavy use of jargon in the D&D community is probably due to the very hands-off approach that many D&D veterans  use to teach, the reluctance to tell other what to do and what is correct, and the minor patronizing of new fans by longer timed fans.

Because every table being different is a pillar of the game is everyone is playing a variant of the base sets of rules, rulings, and experience. So the thing many have in common and the stuff commonly changed are sometimes jargonized just for the in group to understand each other.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 2, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> What bugs me about Forge jargon it is how terribly it's explained. Ron Edwards is not a clear or concise writer.



I will agree with you here. I was a technical writer for half my career; he definitely needed an editor! He was also inconsistent or contradictory in some things—he was developing his theory between essays, after all. Having read papers in my college studies where scholars changed their positions over time, though, I generally roll with that, or work out a usable understanding of my own (which, in anticipation of the next point, I make a point of clarifying in GNS-based discussion).



overgeeked said:


> 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.



I have rarely had this problem—with people versed in the terminology (by which I mean, those who have read the primary sources and not learned it second-, third- or more-hand)—and when I have disagreed with someone on a particular term, we've been able to settle on which interpretation to use in continuing our discussion.



overgeeked said:


> 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.



This gets into the history of GNS and concurrent RPG theory, which was being fervently, fervidly, and passionately argued as it was developed, often quite acrimoniously and with dubious motivation on the parts of prominent figures in that community. I accepted that as part of the hazard of using it. What I didn't anticipate when I learned and used it, was people crapping on it strictly because of that history.  A lof of people carry a ton of baggage that keeps them from gleaning any value from the model. Or anything that vaguely resembles the model!


----------



## Xetheral (Jun 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Counter-proposal: TTRPG discussion is disproportionately concerned with design and theory. You get this kind of jargon and hair-splitting in discussions of video game design, but such discussions are pretty niche, because most people who play video games aren’t hugely interested in game design theory. They’re happy to just play the games and move on. In the TTRPG space though, design theory is a much more prominent topic, because every GM must by necessity engage in game design to some extent or another. And, the people who engage in TTRPG discussion are disproportionately GMs. I think maybe one of my players would have any idea what I was taking about if I started tossing around terms like “simulationism” and “story now.” And she’s the one of my players who also DMs on occasion.



I entirely agree. And to be clear I think @payn's explanation also explains some of the difference. I was just pointing out that a large chunk of the difference can be explained simply by differences in how readily available each hobby is.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think that’s fair at all. _I_ said that werewolf is vocabulary, not jargon, and I’ll stand by that, because it isn’t shorthand for a complex or technical concept related to a specialized field. Other than this specific instance, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone here try to argue that a word or phrase is vocabulary rather than jargon.



Oh?  Werewolves aren't shorthand for a complex concept related to a specialized field?  So werewolf means something general, and is used in many fields, and doesn't refer to a specific set of interrelated tropes that are only seen in fantasy?


----------



## Composer99 (Jun 2, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Oh?  Werewolves aren't shorthand for a complex concept related to a specialized field?  So werewolf means something general, and is used in many fields, and doesn't refer to a specific set of interrelated tropes that are only seen in fantasy?



This is an absurd line of enquiry. Since when are the names of creatures from mythology or folklore jargon?


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 2, 2022)

When talking about GNS, I think we have to be careful about calling it "game design theory." IMHO, it represents less a theory about _design_ and more a theory about _people_ who roleplay and the different things they want out of roleplay. This can have implications about game design and it can inform game design tangentially, but its chief concern is not about how games are designed on either a descriptive or normative basis. 

The more practical game design theory stuff from the Forge that has implications on play tend to be terms more like the poorly named "Story Now," "Authority," "Stances (e.g., Actor, Director, etc.), "The Czege Principle," and others. These are ideas that have more practical implications about play when it comes to game prep, a character's adversity, player/character decision-making, and how different games distribute the power to establish things in the game fiction between players.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 2, 2022)

Composer99 said:


> This is an absurd line of enquiry. Since when are the names of creatures from mythology or folklore jargon?



If you're not familiar with those folklores, and someone just starts spinning a story, it's serving the same purpose that people are attributing to jargon.  Jargon is jargon for "new vocabulary."  Sometimes they catch on and enter wide usage and stop being jargon.  But, for the purposes here, the argument that one thing that is liked is vocabulary and this other things than should be shunned is jargon is just special pleading.


----------



## soviet (Jun 2, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> When talking about GNS, I think we have to be careful about calling it "game design theory." IMHO, it represents less a theory about _design_ and more a theory about _people_ who roleplay and the different things they want out of roleplay. This can have implications about game design and it can inform game design tangentially, but its chief concern is not about how games are designed on either a descriptive or normative basis.



No, this is exactly wrong. It's an examination of ways to play an RPG. I am not a 'narrativist', I am a person currently playing a narrativism-supporting game. Tomorrow I may seek to play a simulationism-supporting game instead. How can those two games be better designed to support their intended flavours of play?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 2, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> When talking about GNS, I think we have to be careful about calling it "game design theory." IMHO, it represents less a theory about _design_ and more a theory about _people_ who roleplay and the different things they want out of roleplay. This can have implications about game design and it can inform game design tangentially, but its chief concern is not about how games are designed on either a descriptive or normative basis.
> 
> The more practical game design theory stuff from the Forge that has implications on play tend to be terms more like the poorly named "Story Now," "Authority," "Stances (e.g., Actor, Director, etc.), "The Czege Principle," and others. These are ideas that have more practical implications about play when it comes to game prep, a character's adversity, player/character decision-making, and how different games distribute the power to establish things in the game fiction between players.



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.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 2, 2022)

soviet said:


> No, this is exactly wrong. It's an examination of ways to play an RPG. I am not a 'narrativist', I am a person currently playing a narrativism-supporting game. Tomorrow I may seek to play a simulationism-supporting game instead. How can those two games be better designed to support their intended flavours of play?



Um, no, I'm going to disagree.  What GNS is saying is that if you want this thing, say a clear cause-effect pattern enforced in play, that you should look for games that do this.  GNS doesn't provide any tools to label games -- that's up to you -- it provide tools to understand agendas.


----------



## payn (Jun 2, 2022)

Xetheral said:


> I think there's an even simpler explanation that accounts for much of the difference. Unlike video games, TTRPGs have complicated logistics, meaning that TTRPG fans can't play on demand. Video games, by contrast are far more readily accessible. Accordingly, of the time fans spend on each hobby, I suspect TTRPG fans spend a far higher proportion of that time talking about their hobby than fans of video games do.






Charlaquin said:


> Counter-proposal: TTRPG discussion is disproportionately concerned with design and theory. You get this kind of jargon and hair-splitting in discussions of video game design, but such discussions are pretty niche, because most people who play video games aren’t hugely interested in game design theory. They’re happy to just play the games and move on. In the TTRPG space though, design theory is a much more prominent topic, because every GM must by necessity engage in game design to some extent or another. And, the people who engage in TTRPG discussion are disproportionately GMs. I think maybe one of my players would have any idea what I was taking about if I started tossing around terms like “simulationism” and “story now.” And she’s the one of my players who also DMs on occasion.



Some good discussion here. I think the idea that some TTRPGs require a game master, who must not only know the rules, but make rulings in how to apply them is forced into the drivers seat of design. All that is done for you in video games usually. TTRPG put you closer to under the hood, so naturally folks are more inclined to want to know how they work and discuss such.


----------



## soviet (Jun 2, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Um, no, I'm going to disagree.  What GNS is saying is that if you want this thing, say a clear cause-effect pattern enforced in play, that you should look for games that do this.  GNS doesn't provide any tools to label games -- that's up to you -- it provide tools to understand agendas.



Sure, but that doesn't make it a theory about _people_. I don't _have_ an agenda, like narrativist is my RPG star sign. I _adopt_ a narrativist agenda to play this particular game - either I sought out a narrativist game on purpose, or potentially I have ended up in a narrativist-leaning game for reasons of accident or convenience and I am modulating my approach to suit.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 2, 2022)

soviet said:


> Sure, but that doesn't make it a theory about _people_. I don't _have_ an agenda, like narrativist is my RPG star sign. I _adopt_ a narrativist agenda to play this particular game - either I sought out a narrativist game on purpose, or potentially I have ended up in a narrativist-leaning game for reasons of accident or convenience and I am modulating my approach to suit.



All Aldarc said was that it was a theory about people, and the different things (plural) they want out of roleplay. They didn't mention people having an agenda.

Now _Edwards_, in spite of initial protests to the contrary, did slip into that language fairly often, only sometimes remembering to add the proviso that it was "just a shorthand", but shorthand becomes identity all too easily. This is one of my major criticisms of his writing.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 2, 2022)

Alignment got removed from the game for a reason...


----------



## Campbell (Jun 2, 2022)

The terms of art we depend on to facilitate discussion in traditional RPG spaces were designed to describe a particular arrangement and structure of play. When you limit discussion to only those terms of art you are limiting it to only that particular structure of play. It's not just Forge terminology that seems to be an issue in this community. Stuff like shared fiction, fiction first, scene framing, kickers, bangs all seem to be an issue here. If we cannot utilize the terms of art that actual games use to describe their own play structure, how can we meaningfully talk about those structures? What their implications are? Where certain play structures fulfill certain player desires better than other structures?

How is this discussion not about putting other sorts of play (aside from traditional play) into a ghetto?

This also includes OSR play by the way which is likewise treated as a red headed stepchild on these boards.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Oh?  Werewolves aren't shorthand for a complex concept related to a specialized field?  So werewolf means something general, and is used in many fields, and doesn't refer to a specific set of interrelated tropes that are only seen in fantasy?



It’s pretty general, yeah. I could ask just about any random person off the street if they know what a werewolf is, and they’d probably all give pretty similar answers. It would be jargon if, like, there was some particle or something that physicists named “werewolf.” You would need specialized knowledge in their field to know what they were talking about.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 2, 2022)

payn said:


> Some good discussion here. I think the idea that some TTRPGs require a game master, who must not only know the rules, but make rulings in how to apply them is forced into the drivers seat of design. All that is done for you in video games usually. TTRPG put you closer to under the hood, so naturally folks are more inclined to want to know how they work and discuss such.



I think that another issue is that we sometimes treat TTRPGs as a singular game type rather than a collection of diverse game types, much as we likewise find in video games or board/card games.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 2, 2022)

Campbell said:


> shared fiction, fiction first, scene framing, kickers, bangs



I understand scene framing. But not the rest. They’re all jargon. Some people will know what they mean but not others. Assuming everyone knows what they mean and not explaining them is gatekeeping. Which, again, is the problem with over use of jargon.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 2, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I think that another issue is that we sometimes treat TTRPGs as a singular game type rather than a collection of diverse game types, much as we likewise find in video games or board/card games.




Right. Imagine if you were asked to explain videogame theory, but with no jargon and only through the lens of first-person-shooters.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 2, 2022)

Campbell said:


> The terms of art we depend on to facilitate discussion in traditional RPG spaces were designed to describe a particular arrangement and structure of play. When you limit discussion to only those terms of art you are limiting it to only that particular structure of play. It's not just Forge terminology that seems to be an issue in this community. Stuff like shared fiction, fiction first, scene framing, kickers, bangs all seem to be an issue here. If we cannot the terms of art that actual games use to describe their own play structure, how can we meaningfully talk about those structures? What their implications are? Where certain play structures fulfill certain player desires better than other structures?
> 
> How is this discussion not about putting other sorts of play (aside from traditional play) into a ghetto?
> This also includes OSR play by the way which is likewise treated as a red headed stepchild on these boards.



Personally, I don’t know what any of those terms mean. If you were to have a lengthy discussion about them, I would be left out unless someone explained them to me. Now, that might not be a problem. If the discussion is about, like, a game that uses them, it makes perfect sense to use that game’s terms in that discussion (and I probably wouldn’t care about being out of the loop because clearly I’ve never played the game in question). If it’s in a discussion about D&D, I’m probably not the only one who’s unfamiliar with the terms, and the discussion would probably be better served by more layman-accessible language.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 2, 2022)

Campbell said:


> Significant explanation is often given. Extensively so. I know I have spilled a whole lot of virtual ink on this stuff in pretty much every thread I try to talk about this stuff. Others have spilled far more.



Thing is, while there's some high-grade jargon that gets chucked around in places like this, there's also jargon and terms that have become so baked-in that we don't even think about them any more.

Like, if you'd never heard of the game what would "saving throw" mean to you?  Or "hit dice*"?  Or "dungeon master"?

* - never mind the definition of this one has morphed through the various editions.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 2, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Thing is, while there's some high-grade jargon that gets chucked around in places like this, there's also jargon and terms that have become so baked-in that we don't even think about them any more.
> 
> Like, if you'd never heard of the game what would "saving throw" mean to you?  Or "hit dice*"?  Or "dungeon master"?
> 
> * - never mind the definition of this one has morphed through the various editions.



See the various uses of “level”.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 2, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I understand scene framing. But not the rest. They’re all jargon. Some people will know what they mean but not others. Assuming everyone knows what they mean and not explaining them is gatekeeping. Which, again, is the problem with over use of jargon.




It’s not gatekeeping. It’s no more gatekeeping than railroad, hit dice, challenge rating, sandbox, and player agency are. 

No one’s stopping you from learning these terms. In fact, if you asked what they meant, most folks would explain. 

Honestly, “scene framing” was something that was used a lot and I wasn’t sure what it meant. I had an idea, but I wasn't sure. I didn’t know for sure what people meant until I asked.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 2, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Thing is, while there's some high-grade jargon that gets chucked around in places like this, there's also jargon and terms that have become so baked-in that we don't even think about them any more.
> 
> Like, if you'd never heard of the game what would "saving throw" mean to you?  Or "hit dice*"?  Or "dungeon master"?
> 
> * - never mind the definition of this one has morphed through the various editions.




That’s exactly right. It’s all jargon. 

Imagine how much harder conversations would be around here if you were told you can’t use the terms “saving throw” or “hit dice” and the like. 

Natural language only, please, or else you’re gatekeeping!


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 2, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> It’s not gatekeeping. It’s no more gatekeeping than railroad, hit dice, challenge rating, sandbox, and player agency are.
> 
> No one’s stopping you from learning these terms. In fact, if you asked what they meant, most folks would explain.
> 
> Honestly, “scene framing” was something that was used a lot and I wasn’t sure what it meant. I had an idea, but I wasn't sure. I didn’t know for sure what people meant until I asked.



There’s a whole thread for explaining all this jargon. Hit it up. Link in the OP. I'm sure a lot more than me would appreciate an explanation.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 2, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I understand scene framing. But not the rest. They’re all jargon. Some people will know what they mean but not others. Assuming everyone knows what they mean and not explaining them is gatekeeping. Which, again, is the problem with over use of jargon.



They're jargon _to you_.

"Hit points", "class", and "level" are all jargon too. To somebody. Do you explain what they mean at the beginning of every post? Why not?

@Campbell was clearly throwing out those terms as _examples_, because we aren't actually talking about those things. But if he were actually talking about those things, based on my interactions with him, I'm pretty confident he would either establish the context (this discussion is about Game X and its terminology) or he would explain the terms as needed.

That some people do toss subculture or personal terms around, I do not dispute, but something else is going on here in the blanket objection to jargon as "any term I personally am not familiar with".


----------



## Composer99 (Jun 2, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> If you're not familiar with those folklores, and someone just starts spinning a story, it's serving the same purpose that people are attributing to jargon.  Jargon is jargon for "new vocabulary."  Sometimes they catch on and enter wide usage and stop being jargon.  But, for the purposes here, the argument that one thing that is liked is vocabulary and this other things than should be shunned is jargon is just special pleading.



Inventing a denotation for "jargon" is just persuasive definition. If you're inventing denotations of words out of whole cloth in order to win arguments, you're engaged in exactly the same behaviour you're attempting to call out - playing at linguistic rhetorical shenanigans.

I don't think anyone here is going to say that myocardial infarction as a term "should be shunned", but frankly, it's unquestionably jargon according to one standardised denotation of the term.

*Edit to add:* If, by your lights, it's hypocritical to privilege D&D-related jargon (as terms such as Armour Class, saving throw, or Hit Dice among others indubitably are) over jargon from other RPGs or conceptions of RPG theory, and therefore wish to call such behaviour out, that's well and good in and of itself - although one would think D&D-related jargon is only to be expected in a D&D-specific subforum, unlike jargon from other games (*). But there's no call to dilute the meaning of jargon to the point of insensibility.

(*) Here I have to say that this topic might have been better placed in the TTRPGs General subforum, and in fact might be best off moved there?


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 2, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> That’s exactly right. It’s all jargon.
> 
> Imagine how much harder conversations would be around here if you were told you can’t use the terms “saving throw” or “hit dice” and the like.
> 
> Natural language only, please, or else you’re gatekeeping!



Let’s see if we can find the substantive diiference between say “bang” and “saving throw”. Oh, right. One is explicitly defined in the single most popular RPG franchise of all time while the other is…from where? Defined how?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 2, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Let’s see if we can find the substantive diiference between say “bang” and “saving throw”. Oh, right. One is explicitly defined in the single most popular RPG franchise of all time while the other is…from where? Defined how?




Why does it matter? 

You’re basically saying that one set of jargon is okay because it’s from D&D and another is bad because it’s from a game you don’t know. 

And yet you’re concerned about gatekeeping? Come on, man.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 2, 2022)

niklinna said:


> They're jargon _to you_.
> 
> "Hit points", "class", and "level" are all jargon too. To somebody. Do you explain what they mean at the beginning of every post? Why not?
> 
> ...



Terms from indie games or some indie designers blog that maybe a hundred people have ever even read compared to terms used fairly consistently for the last 50 years by the single most popular RPG franchise in history. It’s a wildly safer assumption that people here know what a saving throw is than a bang. Still no clue what that one means.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 2, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Let’s see if we can find the substantive diiference between say “bang” and “saving throw”. Oh, right. One is explicitly defined in the single most popular RPG franchise of all time while the other is…from where? Defined how?



Could you maybe ask out a motivation of genuine curiosity instead of a clear motive to insult a niche game for not being popular?


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 2, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Could you maybe ask out a motivation of genuine curiosity instead of a clear motive to insult a niche game for not being popular?



I am genuinely curious.

It’s more than a bit disingenuous to pretend that terms from wildly popular games are just as obscure as terms from niche indie games.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 2, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Terms from indie games or some indie designers blog that maybe a hundred people have ever even read compared to terms used fairly consistently for the last 50 years by the single most popular RPG franchise in history. It’s a wildly safer assumption that people here know what a saving throw is than a bang. Still no clue what that one means.



Hmmmm...how to define bang without running afoul of the old Eric's Grandma rule... 


(and yes, "Eric's Grandma" is a jargon term specific, I think, to ENWorld)


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 2, 2022)

I don't think that jargon common to D&D should be in any way privileged, _except in the context of posting on the D&D section of the message board!_ 
In such a context some familiarity with D&D jargon may reasonably be assumed, whilst familiarity with some other type of jargon not so much.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 2, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Personally, I don’t know what any of those terms mean. If you were to have a lengthy discussion about them, I would be left out unless someone explained them to me. Now, that might not be a problem. If the discussion is about, like, a game that uses them, it makes perfect sense to use that game’s terms in that discussion (and I probably wouldn’t care about being out of the loop because clearly I’ve never played the game in question). If it’s in a discussion about D&D, I’m probably not the only one who’s unfamiliar with the terms, and the discussion would probably be better served by more layman-accessible language.



Most of these terms are on a similar level of complexity as terms like fudging, fail forward, metagaming, theater of the mind, etc. I don't think it would be all that difficult to explain what some of these terms mean, even with the usual pages of contention about specifics, and I suspect that you would have some pretty good guesses about some (e.g., scene framing, fiction first, shared fiction, etc.). These are terms that I view as far more accessible and easier to grasp because they describe some fairly basic ideas. 

For starters, this bit is from the 5e PHB. If you replaced "set the scene" with "frame the scene," could you guess what the basic concept of 'scene framing' entails? 


> Often the action of an adventure takes place in the imagination of the players and DM, relying on the DM's verbal descriptions to set the scene.



There are a wide variety of games that either use "scene framing" or "set the scene" to describe a GM's duties. 

"Kickers" is a harder nut to crack, but it was a term that was first used in Edwards's _Sorcerer. _The basic gist behind the name and concept is that a kicker answers "What kicked your character out of bed, complicated their lives, and motivates them to do stuff in this game."


----------



## niklinna (Jun 2, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Hmmmm...how to define bang without running afoul of the old Eric's Grandma rule...
> 
> 
> (and yes, "Eric's Grandma" is a jargon term specific, I think, to ENWorld)



Being relatively new to active participation here, I had to look that up.

I could have asked, too, of course (or if I hadn't found it on my own).


----------



## niklinna (Jun 2, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I am genuinely curious.



Then how about simply, "I don't know what a kicker is, could you tell me?"



overgeeked said:


> It’s more than a bit disingenuous to pretend that terms from wildly popular games are just as obscure as terms from niche indie games.



Popularity wasn't my point. My point was that everything has its context.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 2, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Why does it matter?
> 
> You’re basically saying that one set of jargon is okay because it’s from D&D and another is bad because it’s from a game you don’t know.
> 
> And yet you’re concerned about gatekeeping? Come on, man.



I’m acknowledging that on a website practically, if not literally, dedicated to D&D that terms from D&D can more easily be assumed to have wider usage. Not sure why that is controversial or bother you.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 2, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Let’s see if we can find the substantive diiference between say “bang” and “saving throw”. Oh, right. One is explicitly defined in the single most popular RPG franchise of all time while the other is…from where? Defined how?




Kickers and bangs come from Sorcerer, one of the most influential indie games. They form the basis of its play structures.

Kickers are a precipitating event, like a player designed hook for their character that propels them to do stuff. Resolving a kicker should change how we view the character. When a kicker is resolved a player either creates a new character or comes up with a new kicker.

Bangs are events that force players to make a dramatic decision for their character. They are moments of crisis where players have to choose who their characters really are as people through the choices they make.

In Sorcerer players are responsible for trying to resolve their kickers. GMs are responsible for creating bangs that make that difficult.

Of course we should explain terminology that people are unfamiliar with and respond to clarifying questions, but the idea that we should have to explain it through the prism of a structure of play that presumes a fundamentally different play structure is baffling. It actively causes confusion when in the middle of explaining things we have to contend with all sorts of assumptions about play structure. Explaining this stuff to my next door neighbor would be way easier.

I fail to see what popularity has to do with it other than virtue signaling.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 2, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> "Kickers" is a harder nut to crack, but it was a term that was first used in Edwards's _Sorcerer. _The basic gist behind the name and concept is that a kicker answers "What kicked your character out of bed, complicated their lives, and motivates them to do stuff in this game."



Ah. No wonder it’s confusing. It’s a bad mixing of inciting incident, complication, and motivation. Those are the actual terms. For those things. Note how of those only inciting incident is even marginally not obvious from the term used. That show it’s a good word to use as it describes itself.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 2, 2022)

Campbell said:


> Kickers and bangs come from Sorcerer, one of the most influential indie games. They form the basis of its play structures.
> 
> Kickers are a precipitating event, like a player designed hook for their character that propels them to do stuff. Resolving a kicker should change how we view the character. When a kicker is resolved a player either creates a new character or comes up with a new kicker.



I haven't played Sorcerer so these are new to me. Could you give an example? Like, would waking up to the house on fire be a kicker? Are there stats or descriptive phrases (like bonds or ideals in 5e) involved in what makes a good kicker?



Campbell said:


> Bangs are events that force players to make a dramatic decision for their character. They are moments of crisis where players have to choose who their characters really are as people through the choices they make.



What constitutes a dramatic decision, and how does that relate to the choices a character makes? Again an example would be great.



Campbell said:


> In Sorcerer players are responsible for trying to resolve their kickers. GMs are responsible for creating bangs that make that difficult.



Oh the two interact somehow! So is a bang created specifically in response to a kicker?


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 2, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Then how about simply, "I don't know what a kicker is, could you tell me?"
> Popularity wasn't my point. My point was that everything has its context.



Context. Like how we’re on the D&D 5E subforum of a website largely dedicated to D&D. Arguing about how D&D terms are just as obscure as terms from an indie game. Right. Context matters.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 2, 2022)

Regardless if you think someone's framing is the best framing possible if you fundamentally understand what they are trying to say engaging in pointless nitpicking rather than engaging with the actual meaning behind their words is just argument by exhaustion over actual discussion.  I don't care what words people use if I conceptually understand them. I'm not sure why anyone else does. To me that's about as elitist as you can get.

Also why is a thread that is relevant to discussion of all games tucked away in D&D General?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 2, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I’m acknowledging that on a website practically, if not literally, dedicated to D&D that terms from D&D can more easily be assumed to have wider usage. Not sure why that is controversial or bother you.




Because you complained that terms you didn’t know were jargon that constituted gatekeeping. And now you’re literally saying that one form of jargon is acceptable and one is not. Which is gatekeeping. 

It’s hypocritical. 

As for the forum, the thread is about RPG theory and jargon, so I don’t think there’s any reason to privilege D&D jargon.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 3, 2022)

Campbell said:


> Of course we should explain terminology that people are unfamiliar with and respond to clarifying questions.



That's all people are asking for. A lot of people, apparently.


Campbell said:


> I fail to see what popularity has to do with it other than virtue signaling.



LOL. Right. 


Campbell said:


> Regardless if you think someone's framing is the best framing possible if you fundamentally understand what they are trying to say engaging in pointless nitpicking rather than engaging with the actual meaning behind their words is just argument by exhaustion over actual discussion.  I don't care what words people use if I conceptually understand them. I'm not sure why anyone else does. To me that's about as elitist as you can get.



I learned the word today. In this thread. In that post I was responding to. "Bang" is three separate things wrapped in an awkward bundle. I didn't create the jargon. I'm only pointing out it's clunky and obfuscating the proper terms of art used by...literally everyone engaged in writing uses. I understand inciting incident, complication, and motivation. So if me using terms I understand to describe some obscure term Edwards invented to describe those three things...sorry. But that really is a sign of terrible jargon.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 3, 2022)

@overgeeked 

A kicker has a specific meaning that is referred to in the text multiple times as I often want to do in discussions. It's more than an inciting incident. It's specifically an inciting incident with an attached dramatic need that compels the character to act. Like getting out of jail only to find your wife married to the man who framed you. Play specifically ends for a character when the kicker is resolved unless the player wants to write a new kicker.

Here's the thing. Instead of asking clarifying questions you assumed the worst of the game designer, the game, the term of art and the poster who used it. You assumed rather than asked. You treated the post I made and the post @Aldarc made as if you were a prosecutor cross examining a hostile witness. How is that not supposed to make us feel unwelcome in this community?


----------



## Composer99 (Jun 3, 2022)

I can't imagine why someone writing rules for a _game_ might prefer terminology such as "kicker" or "bang" over "inciting incident" or "complication".

(I'll leave figuring out whether or not I'm being facetious or sarcastic as an exercise for the reader.)


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 3, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Most of these terms are on a similar level of complexity as terms like fudging, fail forward, metagaming, theater of the mind, etc. I don't think it would be all that difficult to explain what some of these terms mean, even with the usual pages of contention about specifics, and I suspect that you would have some pretty good guesses about some (e.g., scene framing, fiction first, shared fiction, etc.). These are terms that I view as far more accessible and easier to grasp because they describe some fairly basic ideas.



Sure, and if they’re easy enough to explain, I don’t see an issue with using them, abd explaining them as the need arises.


Aldarc said:


> For starters, this bit is from the 5e PHB. If you replaced "set the scene" with "frame the scene," could you guess what the basic concept of 'scene framing' entails?
> 
> There are a wide variety of games that either use "scene framing" or "set the scene" to describe a GM's duties.



Makes sense to me, and yeah, probably about what I would have guessed.



Aldarc said:


> "Kickers" is a harder nut to crack, but it was a term that was first used in Edwards's _Sorcerer. _The basic gist behind the name and concept is that a kicker answers "What kicked your character out of bed, complicated their lives, and motivates them to do stuff in this game."



So character motivations, basically.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

niklinna said:


> I haven't played Sorcerer so these are new to me. Could you give an example? Like, would waking up to the house on fire be a kicker? Are there stats or descriptive phrases (like bonds or ideals in 5e) involved in what makes a good kicker?



So here's a post about how I used Kickers to set up my 4e Dark Sun campaign - Dark Sun, by default, is status quo rather than action and so I felt something more than just the setting was needed to make play go. I've never read or played Sorcerer, and so my implementation of the "kicker" technique was based purely on having read about it on The Forge and similar sources..



pemerton said:


> The first half or more of the session was spent on PC building (despite my admonition to the players that they could only have 1 hour). With three players, we got 3 PCs: an eladrin bard with the virtue of cunning (with the Veiled Alliance theme); a mul battlemind gladiator (with the gladiator theme and wielding a battle axe); and a half-giant barbarian gladiator (with the wilder theme and wielding a glaive).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> So character motivations, basically.



No. A kicker is an event. As Edwards puts it here,

_Sorcerer_ presented the Kicker Technique, which is to say, a player-authored Bang included in character creation, giving the GM responsibility to make it central to play. It may be considered the precise opposite of the "character hook" concept presented in many adventure scenarios and role-playing games.​
See above for my use of kickers in a 4e D&D game.



Campbell said:


> Of course we should explain terminology that people are unfamiliar with and respond to clarifying questions, but the idea that we should have to explain it through the prism of a structure of play that presumes a fundamentally different play structure is baffling. It actively causes confusion when in the middle of explaining things we have to contend with all sorts of assumptions about play structure. Explaining this stuff to my next door neighbor would be way easier.



Right. The real challenge in explaining what a "kicker" is isn't in the concept itself, but rather that it rests on the premise that the players can exercise authority over certain aspects of setting and situation (as seen in my Dark Sun example). Given that many RPGers reject that premise more-or-less unreflectively, they think that the explanation is gobbledygook - because it makes no sense relative to the unexamined premise - when in fact it's perfectly clear, provided that the premise of GM authority over setting and situation is set aside.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 3, 2022)

Campbell said:


> Of course we should explain terminology that people are unfamiliar with and respond to clarifying questions, but the idea that we should have to explain it through the prism of a structure of play that presumes a fundamentally different play structure is baffling. It actively causes confusion when in the middle of explaining things we have to contend with all sorts of assumptions about play structure. Explaining this stuff to my next door neighbor would be way easier.



Well, context is key. Why are kickers and bangs being brought up in this hypothetical discussion (on the D&D forum, it’s worth noting)? Is it to suggest a similar house rule in D&D? It would probably behoove the person making the suggestion to explain them in a way that is going to be understandable to an audience primarily of D&D players.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> So here's a post about how I used Kickers to set up my 4e Dark Sun campaign - Dark Sun, by default, is status quo rather than action and so I felt something more than just the setting was needed to make play go. I've never read or played Sorcerer, and so my implementation of the "kicker" technique was based purely on having read about it on The Forge and similar sources..
> 
> 
> > *Two of three kickers are still unresolved*, and eventually there will be two more PCs to integrate (one will be an eladrin artful dodger, who should fit in nicely into the eladrin contingent). But I felt that, for the opening of the campaign, it was suitably Dark Sun-ish: gladiators, slaves, templars, insurrection, and brutal death. The only thing missing was desert.



Thank you for the explanation and detailed example. But, I don't see how the three kickers could be (un)resolved. They seem to just be things that happened. For that matter, I'm not sure which of the three is now resolved—but I think it's the gladiator who was in the arena, 'cause the other guy is a slave who's basically escaped, and the bard has a mystery to figure out. Is that right?


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 3, 2022)

Campbell said:


> Regardless if you think someone's framing is the best framing possible if you fundamentally understand what they are trying to say engaging in pointless nitpicking rather than engaging with the actual meaning behind their words is just argument by exhaustion over actual discussion.  I don't care what words people use if I conceptually understand them. I'm not sure why anyone else does. To me that's about as elitist as you can get.



I mean, yeah, if I conceptually understand what someone is talking about, I don’t care what words they use for it. The problem is, I don’t always conceptually understand what people are talking about when using jargon.



Campbell said:


> Also why is a thread that is relevant to discussion of all games tucked away in D&D General?



Well, because we’re talking about this in the context of D&D discussions.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 3, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> I started climbing 2.75 years ago because (a) I have to shelf my basketball activities due to needing ankle reconstruction surgery so I'm hoping it will fill that niche I'm losing (its a huge thing for me losing something that has been so important to my life and well-being) and (b) hopes that it will help strengthen both of my shoulders so I can continue BJJ (which, along with a baseball career, ruined both of my rotator cuffs).
> 
> I went in knowing absolute_nothing_about climbing.  Nothing.  Zero.  Zilch.
> 
> ...



So, on your climbing equivalent of Enworld board, is there some sort of subgroup that takes a word like ascent (that 90% of the board assumes to mean going up) and repurpose it to mean something else?

Because thats what's being talked about by "jargon" inost of these cases...reusing a standard word like narrative and assigning lots of specific baggage to it to make it no longer synonymous with story.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

Anyone who is interested in what _scene framing_ is, as a technique, can read this from Paul Czege:

although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.

"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. Tim asked if scene transitions were delicate. They aren't. Delicacy is a trait I'd attach to "scene extrapolation," the idea being to make scene initiation seem an outgrowth of prior events, objective, unintentional, non-threatening, but not to the way I've come to frame scenes in games I've run recently. More often than not, the PC's have been geographically separate from each other in the game world. So I go around the room, taking a turn with each player, framing a scene and playing it out. I'm having trouble capturing in dispassionate words what it's like, so I'm going to have to dispense with dispassionate words. By god, when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out.​
So while it's true that 5e D&D play requires the GM to "set the scene", my impression is that a lot of 5e D&D play doesn't involve _scene framing_ in Czege's more specific sense: of deliberately framing a scene that turns a firehose of adversity and situation onto the character(s) in it.

For instance, in the example of play given in the 5e Basic PDF, we get the following:

*Dungeon Master (DM):* After passing through the craggy peaks, the road takes a sudden turn to the east and Castle Ravenloft towers before you. Crumbling towers of stone keep a silent watch over the approach. They look like abandoned guardhouses. Beyond these, a wide chasm gapes, disappearing into the deep fog below. A lowered drawbridge spans the chasm, leading to an arched entrance to the castle courtyard. The chains of the drawbridge creak in the wind, their rust-eaten iron straining with the weight. From atop the high strong walls, stone gargoyles stare at you from hollow sockets and grin hideously. A rotting wooden portcullis, green with growth, hangs in the entry tunnel. Beyond this, the main doors of Castle Ravenloft stand open, a rich warm light spilling into the courtyard.​​*Phillip (playing Gareth):* I want to look at the gargoyles. I have a feeling they’re not just statues.​​*Amy (playing Riva):* The drawbridge looks precarious? I want to see how sturdy it is. Do I think we can cross it, or is it going to collapse under our weight?​​*Dungeon Master (DM):* OK, one at a time. Phillip, you’re looking at the gargoyles?​​*Phillip:* Yeah. Is there any hint they might be creatures and not decorations?​​*DM:* Make an Intelligence check.​​*Phillip:* Does my Investigation skill apply?​​*DM:* Sure!​​*Phillip (rolling a d20):* Ugh. Seven.​​*DM:* They look like decorations to you. And Amy, Riva is checking out the drawbridge?​
The GM in this example is setting the scene, but there is no adversity and the situation is not that intense - _can we enter Castle Ravenloft despite its precarious drawbridge and intimidating statutes?_ The emphasis of play - as we see in the example - is on the players exploring the setting that the GM is presenting, by "poking and prodding" and thus triggering more narration from the GM. This fits with Czege's description of "objective outgrowth" and "extrapolation" from prior events and bits of the fiction that (initially) are known only to the GM. There is not the "intentionality" that Czege refers to, of deliberately framing the PCs into a tight spot and forcing them to make irrevocable choices.

A kicker combines Czege's sense of _intentional, non-objective, adversity-laden scene-framing_ with _player authorship of the scene_.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Thank you for the explanation and detailed example. But, I don't see how the three kickers could be (un)resolved. They seem to just be things that happened. For that matter, I'm not sure which of the three is now resolved—but I think it's the gladiator who was in the arena, 'cause the other guy is a slave who's basically escaped, and the bard has a mystery to figure out. Is that right?



Well, we don't know why 29's master was killed allowing him to escape. And we don't know who killed the bard's contact, or why. (That one came up in the next session- it was another PC, which led into a series of conflicts with the Templars related to their brainwashing of "hounds" - on my side of the authorship I was inspired by Rachel's backstory in late-80s/early-90s X-Men, if you know that at all.)

But we do know that the barbarian is not repudiating the adulation in violence that characterised the pre-revolution regime!


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> No. A kicker is an event. As Edwards puts it here,
> 
> _Sorcerer_ presented the Kicker Technique, which is to say, a player-authored Bang included in character creation, giving the GM responsibility to make it central to play. It may be considered the precise opposite of the "character hook" concept presented in many adventure scenarios and role-playing games.​
> See above for my use of kickers in a 4e D&D game.



Edwards’ explanation doesn’t tell me anything about what a kicker is, except that it’s player-authored; maybe if I knew what a bang was it would be more meaningful?

_Your_ explanation was much more helpful, but it still sounds to me pretty much like a character motivation. Just one the player chooses, which I kinda figured was a given with character motivations, but I guess the GM _could_ choose that for a player… and that it’s resolved through play, which… Again, seems like a normal thing for character motivations to me?


pemerton said:


> Right. The real challenge in explaining what a "kicker" is isn't in the concept itself, but rather that it rests on the premise that the players can exercise authority over certain aspects of setting and situation (as seen in my Dark Sun example). Given that many RPGers reject that premise more-or-less unreflectively, they think that the explanation is gobbledygook - because it makes no sense relative to the unexamined premise - when in fact it's perfectly clear, provided that the premise of GM authority over setting and situation is set aside.



I don’t think this is such a novel concept any more. Maybe in 2005 the notion of players having authorship over parts of the setting and scenario was outlandish to D&D players, but I think it’s pretty well known now. Some D&D players still don’t _like_ it, but I think most are pretty familiar with it by now. Heck, the 5e DMG presents options for such mechanics.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Edwards’ explanation doesn’t tell me anything about what a kicker is, except that it’s player-authored; maybe if I knew what a bang was it would be more meaningful?
> 
> _Your_ explanation was much more helpful, but it still sounds to me pretty much like a character motivation. Just one the player chooses, which I kinda figured was a given with character motivations, but I guess the GM _could_ choose that for a player… and that it’s resolved through play, which… Again, seems like a normal thing for character motivations to me?



I would reiterate that a kicker is an _event_, that occurs in the imagined world. It is not just a thing in the character's head (which is what a _motivation_ sounds like to me).

That's why Edwards says it is the opposite of a GM-authored hook. Instead of the GM presenting a hook that the player is expected to latch onto, the player presents an event - the event that propels the PC into the action (both literally, and in terms of emotional/motivational orientation) - which the GM is then obliged to latch onto.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 3, 2022)

Campbell said:


> A kicker has a specific meaning that is referred to in the text multiple times as I often want to do in discussions. It's more than an inciting incident. It's specifically an inciting incident with an attached dramatic need that compels the character to act. Like getting out of jail only to find your wife married to the man who framed you. Play specifically ends for a character when the kicker is resolved unless the player wants to write a new kicker.



That's the troble with using jargon and terms of art what we don't understand. What you're describing _is_ an inciting incident. Without that "attached dramatic need that compels the character to act" it's _not_ an inciting incident...it's just an incident. The inciting incident literally propels the character from their starting status quo all the way through to the end of the story. That's what it means. So Edwards used it wrong and now a bunch of other people are using it wrong, too.


Campbell said:


> Instead of asking clarifying questions...



Except for the questions, of course.


Campbell said:


> you assumed the worst of the game designer, the game, the term of art...



I made no assumptions about Edwards, or the game, or the term. I know what inciting incident means. So when you describe to me something that's literally the definition of inciting incident I can point to it and say, "that's an inciting incident". Knowing that I also know that Edwards used it wrong and thus misinformed however many people due to that. Research prose and screen- and play-writing. It's a lot more useful and informative than using Edwards as a touchstone.


Campbell said:


> and the poster who used it.



Didn't happen.


Campbell said:


> You treated the post I made and the post @Aldarc made as if you were a prosecutor cross examining a hostile witness.



The tone of your posts generally, not just in this thread, leads me to think you're far from neutral, so...


Campbell said:


> How is that not supposed to make us feel unwelcome in this community?



How is using obtuse jargon not supposed to make people feel unwelcome?


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I would reiterate that a kicker is an _event_, that occurs in the imagined world. It is not just a thing in the character's head (which is what a _motivation_ sounds like to me).
> 
> That's why Edwards says it is the opposite of a GM-authored hook. Instead of the GM presenting a hook that the player is expected to latch onto, the player presents an event - the event that propels the PC into the action (both literally, and in terms of emotional/motivational orientation) - which the GM is then obliged to latch onto.



Maybe “inciting incident” would have better conveyed my meaning.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 3, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Maybe “inciting incident” would have better conveyed my meaning.



Since it's literally what inciting incident means, yes...much better to use the proper term for the thing than making up a new word that has to be repeatedly explained.

It's just so weird to me. If you're going to design a game that's supposed to be more about story, literally the first place you'd look is storytelling. But apparently not.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 3, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Since it's literally what inciting incident means, yes...much better to use the proper term for the thing than making up a new word that has to be repeatedly explained.



I didn’t make up a new word, I used the word “motivation” as a familiar touchstone to try and contrxtualize the jargon term someone else used and I was trying to understand. Apparently “inciting incident” would have been a better touchstone to use.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 3, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I didn’t make up a new word, I used the word “motivation” as a familiar touchstone to try and contrxtualize the jargon term someone else used and I was trying to understand. Apparently “inciting incident” would have been a better touchstone to use.



I was referencing Edwards making up a new word.

I think we're having two different conversations with at least two different people. Sorry if I caused you any confusion.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 3, 2022)

As an exercise to illustrate jargon from a specific game using confusing generalsit terms....I'm going to write a question you might find discussion about in Enworld...

Help!  In my game the scenes are too short and I feel like my adventures are moving too fast.

...now picture in your head how you might approach my dilemma and offer your thoughts, advice, and critique.

You might say something like "Oh well all you have to do is have some random event tables or wandering monster handy to fluff out your scenes" or whatever.

Then a confusing melee of discussion ensues where what you are saying isn't matching up to what I am having a problem with and we have a super difficult time communicating.

That's because I was asking about scenes as in a very discrete and mechanical set of rules used by Torg to spread benefits and powers out among the length of an adventure by chopping up an adventure into chunks while you were using the word scene in the general sense to simply mean a snippet of the story.

It's my fault if I don't make it clear in my OP that I was using Torg as a frame of reference.  Not doing so caused the miscommunication.  It's not on the casual reader to have to figure that out before responding.

And that's what I mean when I say jargon in the context of this thread.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

@Charlaquin @overgeeked 

I'm not Ron Edwards, but I can conjecture why he coined a new term  - "kicker" - rather than used a received one - "inciting incident".

If we talk about starting play with an inciting incident, that leaves it open who authors the incident. And even if we specify that it is a player-authored inciting incident, that leaves it open what attitude other participants in the authoring - ie, in the context of RPGing, the GM - are expected to adopt towards it.

A kicker is _a player authored inciting incident that the GM is obliged to honour, build on, place pressure on and riff off_ in the course of play. Because the full phrase is a bit long to use every time, we give it a name: a _kicker_. And when we explain it, we also explain it in terms of understood roles and processes in RPGing - so for instance we talk about "propelling the player character into play" rather than just "propelling the character into motion". The former is RPG-specific in a way the latter is not.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> @Charlaquin @overgeeked
> 
> I'm not Ron Edwards, but I can conjecture why he coined a new term  - "kicker" - rather than used a received one - "inciting incident".
> 
> ...



So is kicker just shorthand for "T_he GM is obliged to honour, build on, place pressure on and riff off a player authored inciting incidents"?_


----------



## iserith (Jun 3, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> As an exercise to illustrate jargon from a specific game using confusing generalsit terms....I'm going to write a question you might find discussion about in Enworld...
> 
> Help!  In my game the scenes are too short and I feel like my adventures are moving too fast.
> 
> ...



Nah, what you want to do is prepare the session with intuitive continuity then engage in illusionism by way of using GM-oomph to push the PCs into a blood opera. (Preferably this is done with trailblazing, really.) That way, even if it's short, it'll at least be interesting. You'll just have to be careful the illusionism doesn't break the social contract otherwise you're railroading, even pushing the players into mere participationism. This may conflict with your creative agenda. At the end of the day though, it's just another Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 3, 2022)

Because natural language is god and you have to explain something hundreds of times every time so word count goes up, so that they can sell more books LOL


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 3, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> There are definitely a lot of folks here who are strongly opposed to Forge jargon in particular (again, usually as one part of a broader opposition to GNS theory as a whole). I don’t think those people are shy about that fact, so I wouldn’t call it “saying the quiet part out loud.” There are also people who have legitimate concerns about the way jargon (Forge-related or otherwise) is often used in RPG discussions. Neither of these positions hold that all jargon is only used for gatekeeping.




I don't have a problem with jargon per se.  The difficulty I have with jargon is that framing a discussion or argument in particular terms assents to the validity of those terms.  So if we ask, is dnd 5e simulationist or gamist, we're assuming those terms, within a specific model, are valid ways of talking about games.  So, if you happen to be even a little bit skeptical that your own experiences of play fit so neatly into those categories, you still have to explain your position using them.  So you have some people that want to say that their experience is that the game they play combines G, N, _and_ S--because those are the categories on offer--and other people saying that's categorically impossible.   Forge terminology, in particular, exacerbates this problem because it appears, to me at least, as both an expansive and relatively closed system.  



Snarf Zagyg said:


> I am also constantly forced to translate jargon into layman terms in order to communicate concepts to people that are unfamiliar with the jargon.




It's important (for me) to keep in mind that it's a mean to an end, which is better communication.  A shorthand works very well for some people given the way they learn.  It does not work well for others, and for those people if you are really and sincerely trying to communicate with them, you try another approach. (Or you keep talking past each other for 100 pages...)




Snarf Zagyg said:


> 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.





Snarf Zagyg said:


> 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.'






Campbell said:


> One structure of play represents a direct and visceral rejection of another in the RPG space. Sorcerer took a look at Vampire and said _definitely not that_. It's always going to be contentious because the principles of play are inversions of each other.




And if I was going to introduce forge theory to someone in, say, my Call of Cthulhu group, I would frame it that way.  I would say, "here are some people who looked at Vampire, CoC, Dnd, and said _definitely not that_."  It's a relevant framework for people playing "storygames," especially those games that grew out of that scene, even from those designers that have continued to evolve in their thinking past the forge model.*

But the forge doesn't do that, because as Snarf says, it presents itself as a neutral, unbiased theory of all rpgs.  So it looks the Call of Cthulhu player, and says, you play those games because you like participationism, you liked to be railroaded through gm storytime, you like games with GM fiat and low player agency.  Aside from being a condescending approach, it also shuts off the theory to experiences that can't already be fit within its schema.  I mean, I'm into marxist theory, but I can recognize that his philosophizing about linen production in the 1840s is maybe not relevant in every way to how capitalism works in the present day (but then, that's the whole point of the approach--you don't start with the idea, you start with the material reality).



Campbell said:


> 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.




This is probably ungenerous of me, but I feel there is something intentional about laying claim to those particular words.  Recently on these boards, I was introduced to the notion of "high concept simulation."  Edwards writes



> In cinema, "High Concept" refers to any film idea that can be pitched in a very limited amount of time; the usual method uses references to other films. Sometimes, although not necessarily, it's presented as a combination: "Jaws meets Good Will Hunting," or that sort of thing. I'm adopting it to role-playing without much modification, although emphasizing that the source references can come from any medium and also that the two-title combo isn't always employed.
> 
> The key word is "*genre*," which in this case refers to a certain combination of the five elements as well as an unstated Theme. How do they get to this goal? All rely heavily on inspiration or kewlness as the big motivator, to get the content processed via art, prose style, and more.* "Story," in this context, refers to the sequence of events that provide a payoff in terms of recognizing and enjoying the genre during play...*
> 
> ...




This is heavily clipped; Edwards' writing is verbose, digressive, a dense mix of references to other forge-theory proper nouns (a mini-glossary is provided at the end of this article), with a dash of characteristic corny phrasing ("kewlness"?).  That aside, what I see here are two things: 1) a concerned attempt to put dividing wall between popular 90s games, including adnd 2e, CoC, and WoD games and his domain of Narrativism.  To the point where the former are defined through genre, aesthetics, and even story (albeit not capitalized and in quotation marks), but are still not "narrativist" (sorry...*N*arrativist).  Any film, art, or literary critic would look askance at this distinction.  2) As described above, the tone and style of writing presents "high concept sim" as simply a neutral phrase of description, but we see by the end this is tendentious.  This article is not for people who like playing these games, it's for his particular audience of people who look at those games and say _definitely not that.  _Which would be fine!  But Edwards for some reason needs to define for other people why they like those games  (incidentally, this is why I think his whole "brain damage" argument is not just a distasteful side-conversation, but actually speaks to a pervasive condescension throughout what I've read of his writing).

*on designers who were deeply influenced by but have also moved past:


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 3, 2022)

MichaelSomething said:


> Alignment got removed from the game for a reason...



It's not gone. It's just neutered to near uselessness.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 3, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Let’s see if we can find the substantive diiference between say “bang” and “saving throw”. Oh, right. One is explicitly defined in the single most popular RPG franchise of all time while the other is…from where? Defined how?


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 3, 2022)

iserith said:


> Nah, what you want to do is prepare the session with intuitive continuity then engage in illusionism by way of using GM-oomph to push the PCs into a blood opera. (Preferably this is done with trailblazing, really.) That way, even if it's short, it'll at least be interesting. You'll just have to be careful the illusionism doesn't break the social contract otherwise you're railroading, even pushing the players into mere participationism. This may conflict with your creative agenda. At the end of the day though, it's just another Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.



I like turtles.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> I don't have a problem with jargon per se.  The difficulty I have with jargon is that framing a discussion or argument in particular terms assents to the validity of those terms.



That's what frustrates me every time I see references to a "spectrum" of RPGing from "railroads" through "linear adventures" to "sandboxes".



Malmuria said:


> It's important (for me) to keep in mind that it's a mean to an end, which is better communication.



Jargon also supports analysis. You can't do serious analysis without using technical terms that encode already-established premises, frameworks, results, etc.



Malmuria said:


> And if I was going to introduce forge theory to someone in, say, my Call of Cthulhu group, I would frame it that way.  I would say, "here are some people who looked at Vampire, CoC, Dnd, and said _definitely not that_."  It's a relevant framework for people playing "storygames," especially those games that grew out of that scene, even from those designers that have continued to evolve in their thinking past the forge model.*
> 
> But the forge doesn't do that, because as Snarf says, it presents itself as a neutral, unbiased theory of all rpgs.  So it looks the Call of Cthulhu player, and says, you play those games because you like participationism, you liked to be railroaded through gm storytime, you like games with GM fiat and low player agency.  Aside from being a condescending approach, it also shuts off the theory to experiences that can't already be fit within its schema.



Edwards' framework is in my view very powerful for understanding purist-for-system, or process, simulationist play. It is also, in my view, very helpful for understanding classic D&D play. Only after reading Edwards was I able to go back to writing by Lewis Pulsipher and Roger Musson and really understand what was going on in their late-70s/early-80s D&D advice.

Frankly it also explains what I enjoy about CoC play, and what makes for good CoC GMing, but that's not a very big part of my RPGing.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 3, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Because you complained that terms you didn’t know were jargon that constituted gatekeeping. And now you’re literally saying that one form of jargon is acceptable and one is not. Which is gatekeeping.
> 
> It’s hypocritical.
> 
> As for the forum, the thread is about RPG theory and jargon, so I don’t think there’s any reason to privilege D&D jargon.



I think there's a difference between jargon that is built into the game rules and clearly explained and defined(armor class, hit points, hit dice, saving throw, etc.), and jargon brought from outside sources and used to discuss the game(The Forge, etc.).


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> So is kicker just shorthand for "T_he GM is obliged to honour, build on, place pressure on and riff off a player authored inciting incidents"?_



_Kicker_ is a noun. It refers to an event that occurs in the imagined world. The event is authored by the player, and it must present some dramatic change in that player's character's circumstances - the inciting incident - that propels them into play. The propulsion will normally both be literal (the PC is kicked out of their normal comfortable circumstances) and metaphorical (the PC's orientation or motivation changes, or is challenged, so that they can't just stay the same person they once were). Because we're talking about _play_ of an RPG, for all this to happen and to actually unfold in some fashion, the GM has to be constrained in their authorship: they have to honour, build on, place pressure on and riff off the kicker that the player has authored for their PC.

When someone tells me that they started the game with the players writing kickers for their PCs, the preceding paragraph is what I take away from what they said.

If someone described starting a game along the lines I've set out, but didn't use any particular label for it, I might say "Cool, you used kickers!" And if they said "What're kickers?" I'd tell them that they worked out the same technique that Ron Edwards did, and that he came up with a name for it. In my experience most people are interested to learn how things they've worked out for themselves fit into the bigger picture of the hobby.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I think there's a difference between jargon that is built into the game rules and clearly explained and defines(armor class, hit points, hit dice, saving throw, etc.) and jargon brought from outside sources and used to discuss the game(The Forge, etc.).



This would implicate jargon like "linear", "sandbox", "railroad", "murder-hoboism", "munchkin", etc, wouldn't it?


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> _Kicker_ is a noun. It refers to an event that occurs in the imagined world. The event is authored by the player, and it must present some dramatic change in that player's character's circumstances - the inciting incident - that propels them into play. The propulsion will normally both be literal (the PC is kicked out of their normal comfortable circumstances) and metaphorical (the PC's orientation or motivation changes, or is challenged, so that they can't just stay the same person they once were). Because we're talking about _play_ of an RPG, for all this to happen and to actually unfold in some fashion, the GM has to be constrained in their authorship: they have to honour, build on, place pressure on and riff off the kicker that the player has authored for their PC.
> 
> When someone tells me that they started the game with the players writing kickers for their PCs, the preceding paragraph is what I take away from what they said.
> 
> If someone described starting a game along the lines I've set out, but didn't use any particular label for it, I might say "Cool, you used kickers!" And if they said "What're kickers?" I'd tell them that they worked out the same technique that Ron Edwards did, and that he came up with a name for it. In my experience most people are interested to learn how things they've worked out for themselves fit into the bigger picture of the hobby.



Without wider context I struggle to see any significance to someone inventing a term as shorthand for the concept of backstory the GM incorporates in the ongoing fiction.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> This would implicate jargon like "linear", "sandbox", "railroad", "murder-hoboism", "munchkin", etc, wouldn't it?



Sure.  There have been several times that I have talked to someone who played D&D and didn't know those terms.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Edwards' framework is in my view very powerful for understanding purist-for-system, or process, simulationist play. It is also, in my view, very helpful for understanding classic D&D play.




Gonna quote this as an example of words that have no meaning to the layman.  None of this means anything to me, your audience.

To do as I've been asked....can you please define for me

Purist-for-system
Process/Simulationist Play (Not even sure is this is one or two separate things)


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Without wider context I struggle to see any significance to someone inventing a term as shorthand for the concept of backstory the GM incorporates in the ongoing fiction.



A kicker is not merely backstory that the GM incorporates into the ongoing fiction.

Here's an example of backstory that the GM incorporates into the ongoing fiction:

Player: My PC was a soldier in the Old Guards regiment, before becoming an adventurer.

<Time passes>

GM: As you ride along the road, you see a group of soldiers marching towards you. From their insignia, it looks like they're the Old Guards.

Player: Cool! Do I see anyone I served with?​
But there's no kicker there.

Here's another example of backstory that the GM incorporates into the ongoing fiction:

Player: I wake up in bed. There's a body next to me, apparently dead! I can't remember what I did last night - but I can hear someone pounding at the door. I think it's the police!

GM: They call out "Open up! We've got a search warrant." What do you do?​
That looks more like a kicker. What would confirm that it was a kicker would be the ensuing play, in which the questions like _Whose body?_ and _Why my bed?_ and _What happened to me last night?_ and _How did the police know?_ are at the forefront of the action.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> A kicker is not merely backstory that the GM incorporates into the ongoing fiction.
> 
> Here's an example of backstory that the GM incorporates into the ongoing fiction:
> 
> ...



Is it only a kicker if it's resolved as soon as its laid down?

Game session 3
GM:  As you round the bend you are startled by several ravens cawing loudly in the mide of the road.
Player:  (inspiration to add to backstory) Barnabus backs up terrified.  He is irrationally afraid of loud ravens.  The night he discovered his sister rmissing he had been startled awake by two loud ravens outside this window.

Game Session 5
GM:  (introducing sideplot involving ravens and missing sisters) When the hermits hut opens you flinch as two ravens perched on his shoulder begin seemingly laughing at you.


----------



## Composer99 (Jun 3, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Without wider context I struggle to see any significance to someone inventing a term as shorthand for the concept of backstory the GM incorporates in the ongoing fiction.



You can't see why it would be valuable to come up with a single-word term that means "a specific kind of player-authored backstory the GM incorporates into the ongoing fiction"? (I am not going to try to paraphrase the details of the "specific kind" since I'm not sure I could do the concept justice.)

It's a single, pithy word, one that is also onomatopoetic _and_ figuratively apropos - quite unlike "inciting incident", which at six syllables and two words is, frankly, less than ideal even before you take into account the fact that it's insufficiently precise (since a kicker is a _specific kind_ of inciting incident.)


----------



## FrogReaver (Jun 3, 2022)

I think that there's a certain point in any community that certain jargon becomes commonly enough used and accepted that using it within that community becomes normalized.  Jargon used in small subcommunities of the larger community will inevitably lack that privilege as their jargon is not currently commonly used and accepted.  Such is the nature of communication.

One can imagine a bunch of doctors gathering for a convention.  A small subgroup of those Dr's start using a bunch of software development jargon as they also have degrees in Computer Science.  The rest of the Dr's tell them to stop with their jargon and they counter with, "but you use medical jargon".  The answer is simply, well yes we are all Dr's not Computer Scientists.  The same here - we are all here (it's the internet so expect some exception) because we are RPG players and DM's, we as a group aren't RPG theorists or students of RPG theory even though there's a few subgroups of theorirists/students of theory here.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Gonna quote this as an example of words that have no meaning to the layman.  None of this means anything to me, your audience.



My primary audience was actually @Malmuria, who liked the post which I take to mean they understood it. (Given our mutual posting histories, I don't think it means they agreed with everything I said, but rather that they thought that what I said was a reasonable reply to their earlier post.)



Sabathius42 said:


> To do as I've been asked....can you please define for me
> 
> Purist-for-system
> Process/Simulationist Play (Not even sure is this is one or two separate things)



"Process simulation" is a phrase that I picked up on these boards, mostly in the context of people explaining why they didn't like 4e D&D (which does not use process simulation at any point). Ron Edwards, about 10 year earlier, coined the phrase purist-for-system simulation to refer to the same thing (4e D&D is about as far as you can get from purist-for-system simulation while still playing a mainstream RPG).

To explain the phenomenon the two terms refer to, we first need to get something out of the way: all RPG resolution systems have the job of _telling us what happens next_, in the shared fiction. But they do it in different ways.

The distinctive feature of purist-for-system (= process simulationist) RPGing is that the way the resolution systems tell you what happens next is by modelling the imagined in-fiction causation. They might do this at a fairly fine-grained level (RuneQuest and Rolemaster combat, or 3E D&D grappling, are all good examples) or at a fairly "bird's eye" level (the Pendragon rules for resolving the Winter Phase, or the B/X and AD&D rules for evasion in the wilderness, are examples of this - the former abstracts months, the latter hours, into a small number of dice rolls).

Here's an example of resolution that does _not_ exemplify a purist-for-system approach; it's a play example of a skill challenge, taken from the 4e Rules Compendium, pp 162-3:

_This example shows a DM running a skill challenge for five adventurers: Valenae (an eladrin cleric), Dendric (a human fighter), Uldane (a halfling rogue), Kathra (a dwarf wizard), and Shara (a human fighter). After a battle with a demonic creature that attempted to slay their friend, the priest Pendergraf, the adventurers must determine where the monster came from to prevent another attack.

This 1st-level challenge has a complexity of 1 and requires four successes against DC 12, the moderate DC for 1st level. The goal of the challenge is to find the spot where the adventurers’ enemy, a wizard named Garan, summoned the demon. Garan has hired some thugs to beat up anyone they spot snooping around. If the adventurers fail the challenge, the thugs find them and attack._

DM: You’re left with the last misty remnants of the strange creature’s corpse and a handful of frightened witnesses. “What was that thing?” Pendergraf asks. “And where did it come from?”

Kathra: Can I make an Arcana check to see if I know anything about it?

DM: Sure.

Kathra: I got a 14.

DM (marking down a success for the characters): Okay, you know that the creature was some sort of demon, not native to the world.

<The next check is a failed Perception check to find some tracks. The GM narrates that as the PCs taking some time to find the right set of tracks, and then follows with . . .>

DM: . . . Three thuggish-looking men sit on a bench by the front door. They glare at you as you approach. . . .

Kathra: I’d like to talk to the men to see if any of them saw the demon come by here. How about a Diplomacy check - an 11.

DM (marking the second failure): The thugs make a show of ignoring you as you approach. Then one of them snarls: “Around here, folks know better than to stick their noses where they’re not wanted.” He puts a hand on the hilt of his dagger.

Shara: I put a hand on my greatsword and growl back at them, “I’ll stick my sword where it’s not wanted if you keep up that attitude.” I got a 21 on my Intimidate check.

DM (marking the second success): The thug turns pale in fear as his friends bolt back into the tavern. He points at the building behind you before darting after them.

Dendric: What’s the place look like? Is it a shop, or a private residence?

DM: Someone make a Streetwise check.

Uldane: Using aid another, I try to assist Dendric, since he has the highest Streetwise. I got a 12, so Dendric gets a +2 bonus.

Dendric: Thanks, Uldane. Here’s my check . . . great, a natural 1. That’s a 10, even with Uldane’s assistance.

DM (marking the third and final failure): It looks like an old shop that’s been closed and boarded up. You heard something about this place before, but you can’t quite remember it. As you look the place over, the tavern door opens up behind you. A hulk of a half-orc lumbers out, followed by the thugs you talked to earlier. “I heard you thought you could push my crew around. Well, let’s see you talk tough through a set of broken teeth.” Roll for initiative!​
There are at least four ways in which this example of play shows resolution - ie working out what happens next - that is not process-simulationist.

First, the skill challenge framing in itself: the GM is obliged to wrap up the search, be it with a win or a loss, after 4 successes or 3 failures. So resolution is being guided by concerns around pacing and finality of resolution, rather than by concerns of in-fiction causation.

Second, the DCs are being set by reference to a fiction-independent formula ("four 1st level moderate difficulty checks") and not by attending to particular details of the fiction and trying to model their difficulty.

Third, the reason the PCs encounter the thugs has nothing to do with their struggle with the tracks. It's a deliberate framing decision made by the GM to maintain pacing, maintain the pressure and help bring the skill challenge towards its culmination.

Fourth, the GM, in response to the failed Streetwise check, narrates that the Half-Orc comes out with their thug. But that isn't _caused_ by the fact that the PCs didn't remember anything about the building. The consequences of resolution are not being generated by having regard to in-fiction causal processes, but rather by reference to the demands generated by the skill challenge framework.

Imagine how a scene a bit like this one might be handled differently - eg when the thugs go back into the tavern, the GM makes a morale or a reaction roll for their Half-Orc boss, and uses the results of that roll to decide whether or not the Half-Orc comes out with the thugs: so the Half-Orc might come out even if the PCs do succeed on their Streetwise check, or might not come out even if the PCs fail it. That would be an example of using a process-simulationist approach.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Jargon also supports analysis. You can't do serious analysis without using technical terms that encode already-established premises, frameworks, results, etc.




Fair.  But then, "serious analysis" isn't an activity for scores of people at once in asynchronous, weakly-threaded discussion format, either.  



pemerton said:


> This would implicate jargon like "linear", "sandbox", "railroad", "murder-hoboism", "munchkin", etc, wouldn't it?




Considering how frequently folks wind up arguing over what those terms mean... they probably should be implicated, tried, and convicted.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 3, 2022)

Composer99 said:


> You can't see why it would be valuable to come up with a single-word term that means "a specific kind of player-authored backstory the GM incorporates into the ongoing fiction"?




This has already been talked about.

 1. I'm in the audience of this thread.  I am included in the target audience of any general statement made here.

2. I have never heard the word kicker as defined in this thread until today.  To me kicker is something added to sweeten a deal.

3. The definition of kicker is very subtle, nuanced, and difficult to convey.

4. By using the word kicker earlier in the thread we now have added 1000+ words to this thread just trying to nail down a definition.

5.  The word kicker has done nothing to save time in THIS PARTICULAR conversation, thus it's an excellent example of "jargon" best used in an audience already on the same page.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 3, 2022)

Campbell said:


> Kickers and bangs come from Sorcerer, one of the most influential indie games.



Influential to some, maybe.  I had never to my knowledge even heard of this game until reading the post I'm quoting, which means...


Campbell said:


> They form the basis of its play structures.
> 
> Kickers are a precipitating event, like a player designed hook for their character that propels them to do stuff. Resolving a kicker should change how we view the character. When a kicker is resolved a player either creates a new character or comes up with a new kicker.
> 
> Bangs are events that force players to make a dramatic decision for their character. They are moments of crisis where players have to choose who their characters really are as people through the choices they make.



... it's hardly surprising to me that the terms it uses were highly unfamiliar.  Thanks for the definitions. 


Campbell said:


> In Sorcerer players are responsible for trying to resolve their kickers. GMs are responsible for creating bangs that make that difficult.
> 
> Of course we should explain terminology that people are unfamiliar with and respond to clarifying questions, but the idea that we should have to explain it through the prism of a structure of play that presumes a fundamentally different play structure is baffling. It actively causes confusion when in the middle of explaining things we have to contend with all sorts of assumptions about play structure. Explaining this stuff to my next door neighbor would be way easier.



Without knowing the specific play structure of any given game it seems safe enough to assume the root play cycle/structure for any RPG as being:

a) you-as-player somehow tell the table what your character is trying to do in the moment,
b) that attempt is resolved somehow, be it by mechanics or roleplay or declaration or agreement or whatever,
c) return to a).

It seems kickers and bangs are at a more macro level than this.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 3, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> One can imagine a bunch of doctors gathering for a convention.  A small subgroup of those Dr's start using a bunch of software development jargon as they also have degrees in Computer Science.  The rest of the Dr's tell them to stop with their jargon and they counter with, "but you use medical jargon".  The answer is simply, well yes we are all Dr's not Computer Scientists.  The same here - we are all here (it's the internet so expect some exception) because we are RPG players and DM's, we as a group aren't RPG theorists or students of RPG theory even though there's a few subgroups of theorirists/students of theory here.




And, if the CompSciDocs had a discussion off in the hotel bar, or had a separate session that was specifically labelled as being about medical informatics and portable electronic medical records, in which the computer science would be particularly relevant, there'd be no call to tell them to stop.  If, instead, they kept bringing up computer science in the general sessions of the convention, that'd be an issue.

The point is to choose the language for the audience, not let the language use choose the audience.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> My primary audience was actually @Malmuria, who liked the post which I take to mean they understood it. (Given our mutual posting histories, I don't think it means they agreed with everything I said, but rather that they thought that what I said was a reasonable reply to their earlier post.)
> 
> 
> "Process simulation" is a phrase that I picked up on these boards, mostly in the context of people explaining why they didn't like 4e D&D (which does not use process simulation at any point). Ron Edwards, about 10 year earlier, coined the phrase purist-for-system simulation to refer to the same thing (4e D&D is about as far as you can get from purist-for-system simulation while still playing a mainstream RPG).
> ...



I appreciate the very long example.  I'm really not being arumentative about anything, just trying to understand.

If I had, at my table, a 4e game with a skill check that happened exactly as you described....but the only difference was I played around in the medium range of DCs (say the 10-14 range) then would that then be a hybrid of the two systems in action?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 3, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I think there's a difference between jargon that is built into the game rules and clearly explained and defined (armor class, hit points, hit dice, saving throw, etc.), and jargon brought from outside sources and used to discuss the game (The Forge, etc.).




Sure. One is useful for playing a specific game, and so it must be learned by anyone who wants to take part. 

The other is useful for talking about how games work and how participants engage with them, and if one wants to take part in that.... well one can just ignore it all and complain that people are using words they don't understand! 

Huge difference!



FrogReaver said:


> I think that there's a certain point in any community that certain jargon becomes commonly enough used and accepted that using it within that community becomes normalized. Jargon used in small subcommunities of the larger community will inevitably lack that privilege as their jargon is not currently commonly used and accepted. Such is the nature of communication.




Such is the nature of gatekeeping.


----------



## FrogReaver (Jun 3, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Such is the nature of gatekeeping.



This makes no sense.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 3, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> The other is useful for talking about how games work and how participants engage with them, and if one wants to take part in that.... well one can just ignore it all and complain that people are using words they don't understand!



You say that like people don't enter normal conversations and start throwing around jargon like it should mean something to the people in the normal conversation.

It's one thing if a group of you want to talk about GNS in a GNS thread.  Knock yourselves out.  It's quite something else when people are discussing whether to have an ogre or troll encounter and people come in and start spouting about Player Facing Kickers.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 3, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> This makes no sense.




Must be the jargon!



Maxperson said:


> You say that like people don't enter normal conversations and start throwing around jargon like it should mean something to the people in the normal conversation.
> 
> It's one thing if a group of you want to talk about GNS in a GNS thread.  Knock yourselves out.  It's quite something else when people are discussing whether to have an ogre or troll encounter and people come in and start spouting about Player Facing Kickers.




Ha “normal conversations”? What are those? And by extension, what would “abnormal conversations” be? 

And “group of you”? Yikes. 

No one talks about kickers in response to a conversation about trolls and ogres. It’s an absurd hypothetical.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 3, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> No one talks about kickers in response to a conversation about trolls and ogres. It’s an absurd hypothetical.



I'm pretty sure you understood the point.  This response is unbecoming.


----------



## FrogReaver (Jun 3, 2022)

Consider for a moment the problem of communication in the following scenario.  If you have jargon using certain words and I have jargon using those same words/phrases significantly differently.  Must I accept your jargon?  Must you accept mine?  Whose jargon prevails here?

The criteria for the whole community agreeing on and using jargon in a particular way is the criteria that prevents such a degenerate state from occurring.  Calling the mechanism for preventing degenerate communication states from occurring 'gate keeping' isn't just a criticism of just people on this forum, it's a criticism of language and communication as a whole and an unfounded one at that.  Without 'gate keeping' as you call it we would never be able to communicate as any given individual could use whatever word or phrase to mean whatever he wanted and it would have to be given equal position in the community no matter how much everyone else had already agreed to use the word/phrase differently.  We would all be talking and using the words and no one would know the meaning as words/phrases that aren't accepted in their use have no meaning to the community.


----------



## Composer99 (Jun 3, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> This has already been talked about.
> 
> 1. I'm in the audience of this thread.  I am included in the target audience of any general statement made here.
> 
> ...



_*This particular*_ conversation (by which I mean the thread as a whole) is about when, how, and whether using jargon in RPGs, or at least in theoretical discussions about RPGs, is or isn't useful. (*)

You're therefore coming across as asserting that discussing when and how jargon is or isn't useful - such as, say, describing a game mechanic that is or comes across as jargon - is inappropriate. Which frankly seems preposterous to assert given what _this particular conversation_ is about.

How is one to come to grips with when, how, and whether using jargon in RPGs or RPG theory is or isn't useful - _which necessarily includes being exposed to various sorts of jargon _- if one is unwilling to grapple with how various RPGs or RPG-theory frameworks use (or don't use) jargon or jargon-like terms? That's ridiculous on its face.

(*) Snarf is obviously advocating a particular position on the matter in the OP, but there wouldn't be much of a conversation/discussion if no one either disagreed or wanted to add nuance to the position.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 3, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I'm pretty sure you understood the point.  This response is unbecoming.




If your point is that people bring unrelated jargon into conversations, I disagree. 

If you meant something else, or had an actual example to share, go ahead. 



FrogReaver said:


> Consider for a moment the problem of communication in the following scenario. If you have jargon using certain words and I have jargon using those same words/phrases significantly differently. Must I accept your jargon? Must you accept mine? Whose jargon prevails here?




Why does one need to prevail? It’s not a contest, it’s a conversation. If this happened, I would say “oh I mean this when I used word X” and then you could respond “ah well I meant that when I used word X” and then we could both proceed with the understanding of what the other meant. 

No one needs to be crowned the jargon champ!



FrogReaver said:


> The criteria for the whole community agreeing on and using jargon in a particular is the criteria that prevents such a degenerate state from occurring. Calling the mechanism for preventing degenerate communication states from occurring 'gate keeping' isn't just a criticism of just people on this forum, it's a criticism of language and communication as a whole and an unfounded one at that. Without 'gate keeping' as you call it we would never be able to communicate as any given individual could use whatever word or phrase to mean whatever he wanted and it would have to be given equal position in the community to how everyone else had agreed to use the word/phrase. We would all be talking and using the words and no one would know the meaning as words/phrases that aren't accepted in their use have no meaning to the community.


----------



## FrogReaver (Jun 3, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> If your point is that people bring unrelated jargon into conversations, I disagree.
> 
> If you meant something else, or had an actual example to share, go ahead.
> 
> ...



Meme not cool.  We done.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> That's what frustrates me every time I see references to a "spectrum" of RPGing from "railroads" through "linear adventures" to "sandboxes".



Definitely also a frustrating framing!


pemerton said:


> Jargon also supports analysis. You can't do serious analysis without using technical terms that encode already-established premises, frameworks, results, etc.



Sure, but people also need to be on the same page about that encoding for the analysis to be productive. Otherwise you end up with… Well, online forum discussions.


pemerton said:


> Edwards' framework is in my view very powerful for understanding purist-for-system, or process, simulationist play. It is also, in my view, very helpful for understanding classic D&D play. Only after reading Edwards was I able to go back to writing by Lewis Pulsipher and Roger Musson and really understand what was going on in their late-70s/early-80s D&D advice.



Maybe it helps people who don’t enjoy that kind of play to conceptualize it in a way that makes sense to them. And I think that’s what makes it feel so condescending. It seems to exist to explain to people who really love the style of play it defines as Narrativist, why anyone would like those other, non-Narrativist types of games. But the explanations it gives seem not to resonate with a significant portion of people who _do_ like those sorts of play, which indicates to me that it’s probably missing something.

As a simple analogy, imagine I love vanilla ice cream and hate chocolate and strawberry, and I invented a theory explaining the three Flavor Agendas, which I called “Fruity,” “Dark,” and “Rich,” and claimed that ice cream can only serve one flavor agenda at a time. An ice cream can involve multiple Flavor Agendas, like if you put chocolate chips in your strawberry ice cream, but that only allows you to shift back and forth between Flavor Agendas, you can’t actually combine chocolate and strawberry, that would create an Incoherent Flavor. So well-made ice cream should really try to understand what Flavor Agenda it’s serving and try to focus on serving that as best it can, rather than trying to combine flavors. Also, I explained the Fruity Agenda as being about reproducing the flavor of a specific fruit as accurately as possible, the Dark agenda as being about emphasizing intense, low flavor notes like bitterness and earthiness, and the Rich Agenda as being about accentuating the mellow, creamy, dairy notes… People might think I was missing the mark on why they enjoy their favorite ice cream flavor. Especially if it’s Neapolitan.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> _Kicker_ is a noun. It refers to an event that occurs in the imagined world. The event is authored by the player, and it must present some dramatic change in that player's character's circumstances - the inciting incident - that propels them into play. The propulsion will normally both be literal (the PC is kicked out of their normal comfortable circumstances) and metaphorical (the PC's orientation or motivation changes, or is challenged, so that they can't just stay the same person they once were). Because we're talking about _play_ of an RPG, for all this to happen and to actually unfold in some fashion, the GM has to be constrained in their authorship: they have to honour, build on, place pressure on and riff off the kicker that the player has authored for their PC.



So, yes, it _is_ shorthand for player-authored inciting incidents, which the GM must honor, build on, and pressure.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> This would implicate jargon like "linear", "sandbox", "railroad", "murder-hoboism", "munchkin", etc, wouldn't it?



I think linear is pretty much used in its common meaning - it literally describes something that occurs in a straight line from point A to point B. That it refers to gameplay structure is usually evident from context. The rest of these, yes, are jargon.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 3, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Gonna quote this as an example of words that have no meaning to the layman.  None of this means anything to me, your audience.
> 
> To do as I've been asked....can you please define for me
> 
> ...



I could be wrong, but I think simulationist is the only jargon term in there. @pemerton seems to me to be saying that the framework helped them understand a form of [whatever simulationist play is], which is stays pure to the system, the processes, of the game being played.

EDIT: Well, guess I was wrong. The perils of using common words as jargon.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Anyone who is interested in what _scene framing_ is, as a technique, can read this from Paul Czege:
> 
> although roleplaying games typically feature scene transition, by "scene framing" we're talking about a subset of scene transition that features a different kind of intentionality. My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.​​"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. Tim asked if scene transitions were delicate. They aren't. Delicacy is a trait I'd attach to "scene extrapolation," the idea being to make scene initiation seem an outgrowth of prior events, objective, unintentional, non-threatening, but not to the way I've come to frame scenes in games I've run recently. More often than not, the PC's have been geographically separate from each other in the game world. So I go around the room, taking a turn with each player, framing a scene and playing it out. I'm having trouble capturing in dispassionate words what it's like, so I'm going to have to dispense with dispassionate words. By god, when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out.​
> So while it's true that 5e D&D play requires the GM to "set the scene", my impression is that a lot of 5e D&D play doesn't involve _scene framing_ in Czege's more specific sense: of deliberately framing a scene that turns a firehose of adversity and situation onto the character(s) in it.
> ...



Here is where I would disagree with you and Czege. I think that using "scene framing" to mean "set the scene" is a perfectly valid way of using the term, especially since we commonly do see TTRPGs use "scene framing" and "set the scene" as nearly synonymous. It's more of a distinction without a difference. 

Instead of quibbling that there is a real difference between "scene framing" and "set the scene," I would suggest that it would be far more useful to recognize that there are multiple methods of "scene framing" depending on how you want to highlight in the scene. "Scene framing" in D&D tends to highlight the player interactivity (e.g., environment, scenery, etc.), whereas "scene framing" in a game like Apocalypse World will often prefer framing the scene around the dramatic conflict or threat. 



Malmuria said:


> I don't have a problem with jargon per se.  The difficulty I have with jargon is that framing a discussion or argument in particular terms assents to the validity of those terms.  So if we ask, is dnd 5e simulationist or gamist, we're assuming those terms, within a specific model, are valid ways of talking about games.  So, if you happen to be even a little bit skeptical that your own experiences of play fit so neatly into those categories, you still have to explain your position using them.  So you have some people that want to say that their experience is that the game they play combines G, N, _and_ S--because those are the categories on offer--and other people saying that's categorically impossible.   Forge terminology, in particular, exacerbates this problem because it appears, to me at least, as both an expansive and relatively closed system.



Games can try supporting G, N, and S, though I think some combinations are easier to support than others. The point is not that it's impossible, but, rather, that conflicts of interest can and often do emerge between these roleplay motivations. That said, I think that the benefits and intentionality of GNS "incoherence" has been overlooked by Edwards and the Forge. Many video game designers, for example, understand that they have different sorts of players for whom they are designing. In order to cast a fairly wide net of a fanbase, a MMORPG may have to design for players with varying shades of Bartle's typology (i.e., Explorers, Socializers, Achievers, and Killers) to co-exist to varying degrees. 

I do think that the six cultures of gaming article that @Snarf Zagyg linked represents a better typology of sorts than GNS, though I do think that the author spends a little too much time griping about the Forge and Ron Edwards than explaining "Story Games" fairly. I also wouldn't call these "Story Games" either, though I understand that it's an autonym, because I don't think that this term really conveys what these games are fundamentally trying to achieve and the term is so vague as to generate far more confusion. 



Malmuria said:


> *on designers who were deeply influenced by but have also moved past:



A fair number of game designers from the Forge have moved past, but I think that it's also important to understand where their ideas came from and how they still reverberate in tabletop game design. IMO, some Forge jargon is "stickier" or more enduring in their usefulness as terms and principles than others. The main goals of the Forge, IMHO, have been met. They recognized that they wanted something different out of their gaming experience than what Storyteller and similar games were marketing themselves as, and they began developing games that were meant to support those principles: e.g., Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Lady Blackbird, Fiasco, Fate, Cortex, Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, etc. 



Sabathius42 said:


> This has already been talked about.
> 
> 1. I'm in the audience of this thread.  I am included in the target audience of any general statement made here.
> 
> ...



I have not played Sorcerer. I am not all that interested in playing Sorcerer. I have heard discussion of "kickers," but only from a few people and mainly from people like pemerton who have mentioned them in passing. I would probably not use the term "kicker" in most of my discussions of D&D as it doesn't really fit with the style of games that D&D supports and it's mostly applicable for play in Sorcerer, where it is discussed in the books. I still find "kicker" a useful term of sorts in how it frames a PC's inciting incident and the big "why the frack is your PC here and doing crap when they could choose not to be doing this crap?" But as I said, it's more of a term that I may think about and utilize discretely in the background than in casual TTRPG conversation.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 3, 2022)

@Charlaquin

So I think a more helpful framing is that there are two common play structures. There are others as well, but I do not want to get too caught up in it.

One works exactly like the described 5e play loop (which pretty much all traditional RPGs follow) :
1. GM describes the environment.
2. Players describe what their characters do.
3. GM describes how the environment changes.

The second works like this:
1. The GM describes or telegraphs an event that directly threatens a player character's interests.
2. That specific character must respond to the threat in some way.
3. The group determines narrative fallout according to mechanics and principles.

The first is built around making the setting feel tangible as a space you can freely move about in. The second is about keeping things in motion. What I personally find is that people who have only had experience with games using the first structure can have trouble grasping that the second model actually exists as a distinct thing and/or that there are distinct strengths and weaknesses to each structure.

Some of the most contentious conversations that have led up to this thread were actually centered on my comments about the limitations of the second structure when it comes to exploration of your environment and its fairly relentless pace. I had intended to go into greater detail about why I sometimes choose more traditional play structures and why I sometimes I opt for the second, but even saying that Apocalypse World treats the setting like a background set in a movie was contentious, but not with it's fans - with people who assume it was structured using the first model and tried to analyze it from that perspective.

As someone who is a fan of both of these structures it's often my praise that gets treated the most harshly because it does not center traditional play as like the norm or capable of doing the same things as that second structure. What it does well is amazing though.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 3, 2022)

Campbell said:


> @Charlaquin
> 
> So I think a more helpful framing is that there are two common play structures. There are others as well, but I do not want to get too caught up in it.
> 
> ...



Interesting analysis. The difference there seems really, _really_ subtle to me, maybe because I think it’s important in the first structure for the environment where gameplay takes place to be inherently threatening (therefore making the key difference the fact that it is always an _event_ that threatens the players’/characters’ interests in the first step of the second structure). Differences in the second step seem to follow directly from the differences in the first step - procedurally, these seem the same, but since in the second structure the first step always involves an event that threatens the PCs, the players must necessarily always respond to that. The biggest difference, as I see it, is in the third step, where the group, rather than the DM, determines the results. That the determination is based on mechanics and principles seems the same to me, and framing it as “determining the fallout” as opposed to “describing how the environment changes” seems again to just be a natural consequence of the fact that the second structure always demands an immediate threat in step 1.

Unless I’m missing something, it seems like the differences here could be much more succinctly explained, simply by saying that in the second type of game, the gameplay loop always starts from an immediate threat to the PCs, and action resolution is a group responsibility rather than solely up to the GM.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 3, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> If your point is that people bring unrelated jargon into conversations, I disagree.



Not necessarily unrelated jargon, more tangential; but many's the time in this forum there's been a perfectly decent discussion get derailed when some indie-game supporters and-or Forge* fans chime in and start throwing jargon around; and everyone ends up arguing over the jargon while the original discussion wanders off to the pub for a beer.



* - I think the fact that every time I try to type the word Forge it comes out as Fogre is trying to tell me something...


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> I appreciate the very long example.  I'm really not being arumentative about anything, just trying to understand.
> 
> If I had, at my table, a 4e game with a skill check that happened exactly as you described....but the only difference was I played around in the medium range of DCs (say the 10-14 range) then would that then be a hybrid of the two systems in action?



I'd probably talk about "degrees" rather than "hybrid". But for full process sim you'd need to get rid of all 4 factors. So the whole situation (of trying to track down the demon origin) would be resolved not on a pacing-based timetable (4 successes before 3 failures) but by following the logic of what happens in the fiction - X causes Y causes Z, where the Xs, Ys and Zs reflect what the players say their PCs do, and eventually we end up at a place where either the PCs get what they want, or the players give up and have their PCs do something else.

The idea of responding to failed checks by bringing in external factors with no in-fiction causal connection (like the thugs in the example) is also anathema to process sim. I've seen this come up _a lot_ in discussions about 4e and other games that don't take a process sim approach.

Just one example: I remember once suggesting, as a possible narration for a failed Diplomacy check in 4e, that it starts raining and so the crowd disperses rather than listening to the character. More than one poster responded that that was silly, because how can the character's poor diplomatic efforts cause it to rain! That's an example of posters with very strong process simulationist intuitions rejecting the alternative approach that I think was the norm for 4e D&D.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 3, 2022)

Campbell said:


> @Charlaquin
> 
> So I think a more helpful framing is that there are two common play structures. There are others as well, but I do not want to get too caught up in it.
> 
> ...



I don't see much difference.

The second '1.' - the event - can be a part of the first '1.' - the environment, but can't exist completely on its own.  An event without a surrounding environment and-or context (which may well have been described earlier) takes place in a vacuum.  (see below)

The two '2.'s are exactly the same thing, worded differently: the player determines and then relates what the character does, or tries to do, in response to '1.'.

There is a difference between the two '3.' points as worded: one has the GM describing changes while the other has the table determining narrative fallout.  However, wording it like this is a bit disingenuous in that in the first '3.' you fail to note the GM is expected to adhere to mechanics and principles* in order to arrive at that description; while in the second '3.' someone at the table still has to describe what changes and-or happens.  End result: they're pretty much the same.

* - principles here being quasi-universal things like internal consistency, fairness, integrity, etc.


Campbell said:


> Some of the most contentious conversations that have led up to this thread were actually centered on my comments about the limitations of the second structure when it comes to exploration of your environment and its fairly relentless pace. I had intended to go into greater detail about why I sometimes choose more traditional play structures and why I sometimes I opt for the second, but even saying that Apocalypse World treats the setting like a background set in a movie was contentious, but not with it's fans - with people who assume it was structured using the first model and tried to analyze it from that perspective.
> 
> As someone who is a fan of both of these structures it's often my praise that gets treated the most harshly because it does not center traditional play as like the norm or capable of doing the same things as that second structure. What it does well is amazing though.



Even if AW treats the setting like a background set in a movie, someone (probably the GM) at some point still has to describe what that setting is and-or looks and feels like.   That description is then assumed to be built in to your second '1.' above when an event is brought forward.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> Consider for a moment the problem of communication in the following scenario.  If you have jargon using certain words and I have jargon using those same words/phrases significantly differently.  Must I accept your jargon?  Must you accept mine?  Whose jargon prevails here?



In mainstream philosophy, Plato, Berkeley and Kant are all labelled _idealists_. But in the sense in which Berkeley and even moreso Kant are idealists, Plato can be characterised as a _realist_ - thus, for instance, in philosophy of mathematics there are Platonist realists who argue with Kantian idealists.

The terminological complexity is not ideal for undergraduate students, but part of mastering the field is learning to work with it.

I've never had trouble working out what the typical ENworlder means by "gamist" (roughly - having metagame mechanics and/or compromising simulationist priorities in pursuit of playability) while normally, myself, using the term in Ron Edwards's sense (roughly - RPGing where the reason for playing is to be challenged, and to show that you've got what it takes to win -  think classic D&D dungeon-crawling as one form of this, and T&T or "lottery D&D" as the more hijinksy version).

Likewise, most ENworlders uses "narrativist" or "story-focused" to mean what I, again following Edwards, would call High Concept Simulationism.

Most ENworlders either don't have a term for what Edwards calls "narrativist", or else call that sort of play "story games", and associate it almost exclusively with player-authoring by way of expending meta-currency. I can work around that too, although it does sometimes mean that lengthy explanations are required.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Is it only a kicker if it's resolved as soon as its laid down?
> 
> Game session 3
> GM:  As you round the bend you are startled by several ravens cawing loudly in the mide of the road.
> ...



No, not "as soon as it's laid down". But there is an idea of immediacy and pervasiveness. As a technique, a "kicker" is associated with a wider set of orientations and expectations about where most of the "drive" of play will come from.

In your example, it seems that a lot stuff has happened leading up to session 3, and between sessions 3 and 5, that came from _somewhere_ but wasn't related to Barnabus's issue with ravens. In most D&D games the "somewhere" it comes from would be the GM. So we have a lot of stuff that the GM is doing which isn't responding to, riffing on, putting pressure on, the raven thing. So the raven thing isn't really a kicker.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I played Rolemaster as my main game for 19 years, 4 or 5 of which were after I read Edwards on purist-for-system simulationism.

In that 19 years I ran two campaigns. One lasted from 1990 to 1997, the other from 1998 to 2008. The first eventually collapsed. The second was brought to a terrific conclusion (if I do say so myself). I couldn't have pulled that off without having read Edwards or other RPG authors/commentators that he pointed me to (like Paul Czege).

The idea that only someone who didn't like purist-for-system play would find Edwards insightful is just wrong. His analysis is brilliant. I was fairly active on the ICE forums around the same time I first read Edwards. The comparison in degree of insight was mindblowing. And frankly your assumption that because I like Edwards I must hate and sneer at purist-for-system RPGing is a bit insulting.

I also don't mind the odd bit of classic D&D - and certainly enjoy it more since I've been able to work out what it's about, which I was able to do by rereading Pulsipher and Gygax informed by Edwards - but it's not my favourite and I'm not very good at it. But I'm trying my hand at Torchbearer, which is unabashedly a "gamist" RPG in Edwards sense, and which I wouldn't be able to GM if I hadn't read Edwards.

As far as high-concept simulationism is concerned, Edwards in my view also explains very well why I enjoy a well-GMed session of CoC but find AD&D 2nd ed a mostly frustrating experience.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I think linear is pretty much used in its common meaning - it literally describes something that occurs in a straight line from point A to point B. That it refers to gameplay structure is usually evident from context. The rest of these, yes, are jargon.



All RPGing is linear: one things happens, then another, then another, starting at A and ending at B.

But not all RPGing is "linear adventures". To be honest it's not a concept I've ever mastered, because I think applying requires drawing distinctions I'm not very sensitive to, but at a minimum I think some concept of pre-authorship of the B is involved.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 3, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Interesting analysis. The difference there seems really, _really_ subtle to me, maybe because I think it’s important in the first structure for the environment where gameplay takes place to be inherently threatening (therefore making the key difference the fact that it is always an _event_ that threatens the players’/characters’ interests in the first step of the second structure).



I have about three observations to make. I hope you don't mind. 

First, while the differences may seem subtle to you, I think it's important to recognize how even subtle differences can cause games operating by these principles to naturally evolve in drastically different ways over the course of a session or multiple sessions. Moreover, many of the people I have seen argue that no fundamental difference exists between these sorts of play loops are often the ones I have seen complain the loudest that these games don't work like D&D (or are even capable of working at all) or that they result in badwrongfun. I find that it's helpful to see these games in action, both running and playing them, because I do agree with @Campbell that these games require different skill sets. 

Second, I think that your point on the importance of an environment where gameplay transpires to be threatening describes certain modes of play in D&D, but leaves a lot out. If the gameplay takes place in a town shop interacting with a Joe Schmoe the Shopkeeper, should that scene be threatening to the players? 

Third, I would say that the first prioritizes player character interactivity. This is to say, the first IME is primarily interested in highlighting some aspects that of the scene that players may choose for their characters to interact with in some way, with the GM advised to present the scene as a neutral arbiter of the game fiction with respect to the players and their characters' interests. This view comes across in the description of the play loop in the 5e PHB: 


> The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what's around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what's on a table, who's in the tavern, and so on).



A threat may exist in the scene, but the fundamental role described here for GM nevertheless involves "presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves" for players.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 3, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I don't see much difference.





Charlaquin said:


> Interesting analysis. The difference there seems really, _really_ subtle to me
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Unless I’m missing something, it seems like the differences here could be much more succinctly explained, simply by saying that in the second type of game, the gameplay loop always starts from an immediate threat to the PCs, and action resolution is a group responsibility rather than solely up to the GM.



Whether or not the difference is subtle - personally I don't think it is, as to me the difference  between playing (say) Burning Wheel and (say) 2nd ed AD&D is a very apparent one - it is profound.

In @Campbell's first structure, step 1 is the GM _describing the environment_. And step 3 is the GM _describing how the environment changes_. To get from 1 to 3, the GM "incorporates" (for lack of a better word) the players' action declarations for their PCs (step 2) into the environment (established at step 1), and thereby reasons out how the environment changes (step 3).

In @Campbell's second structure, step 1 is the GM responding to something player-authored (a PC's interest) so as to trigger a response from that player via an action declaration for their PC (step 2). And then the system (what @Campbell calls "mechanics and principles") determines the parameters within the fallout from that response is narrated, and by whom. (This is where a good chunk of the difference between systems like Dogs in the Vineyard, Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel and Hero Wars is found.)

The second structure does not require any reasoning about the imagined environment. Whereas this is fundamental to the first structure.

The first structure does not require any reasoning about player-authored PC interests. But this is fundamental to the second structure.

But there is an asymmetry between structures, because the first structure locates the reasoning about environment as a precursor to step 3; whereas in the second structure the reasoning about PC interests is a precursor to step 1, whereas it may or may not figure in step 3 depending on the details of the system.

You can design a scenario or adventure for the first structure without knowing anything about the PCs who are to engage in it. Whereas that's obviously a big challenge for the second structure. (The only second-structure RPG I know of that has really tackled this challenge in a large scale way is Prince Valiant. It's not entirely successful, but it does a reasonable job. It works because many Prince Valiant PCs have very similar interests, being knights errant in an Arthurian vein.)

The concept of "fallout" has no particular work to do in the first structure. The first structure works fine if the primary focus of play is essentially procedural - who pokes which bit of the world to find out what happens next. (Which I think is fairly close to @Aldarc's notion of "interactivity".) Whereas the concept of "fallout" is fundamental to the second structure: the consequences of action resolution, established at step 3, have to change or at least bear upon the PC's interests. This is what keeps the game in motion, and generates material to allow new iterations of step 1. (Just as, in the first structure, it is changes to the environment that allow new iterations of step 1.)

There are further differences too, but the ones I've outlined are some of the more significant ones.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 3, 2022)

@Charlaquin, since I forgot to mention it, the idea of "fiction first" as a term can be summarized as "play should begin and end with the fiction."

The Book of Hanz (a primer for Fate) summarizes "fiction first" as follows:


> So, what does "fiction first" mean, at least to me? It means that character actions should start with the "fiction", and be described in terms of the "fiction". Then, and only then should they be interpreted into mechanics.



To which I would add, then after actions are interpreted into mechanics, everything flows back to the game fiction.

This explanation is meant to elaborate on Fate's Golden Rule which is essentially a "fiction first" principle: 


> *Decide what you’re trying to accomplish first, then consult the rules to help you do it.*




"Fiction first" was a general response to the sort of play found in 3e sometimes characterized by players declaring "I want to make a Perception check" (i.e., mechanics first) rather than "My character tries looking through the trees to see if there are any signs of humanoids or creatures" (i.e., fiction first). 

While I think that D&D 5e has moved more towards fiction first when it comes to ability checks - IMO, less out of a desire to pursue "Story Games" but rather a desire to pursue "OSR" - there are still a lot of "mechanics first" design elements. 

PbtA games are also heavily fiction first games. The mechanics are only consulted when moves are triggered by character actions in and through the fiction, creating situations that lead to new fiction.


----------



## soviet (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I played Rolemaster as my main game for 19 years, 4 or 5 of which were after I read Edwards on purist-for-system simulationism.
> 
> In that 19 years I ran two campaigns. One lasted from 1990 to 1997, the other from 1998 to 2008. The first eventually collapsed. The second was brought to a terrific conclusion (if I do say so myself). I couldn't have pulled that off without having read Edwards or other RPG authors/commentators that he pointed me to (like Paul Czege).
> 
> ...



100% agree. Ron Edwards himself was also a keen fan of Champions and other non-narrativist games. Personally I found GNS very useful and I published a narrativist-supporting RPG, but I also greatly enjoy the Gamist elements of D&D (4e much moreso than 5e) and one of my last games as a GM was highly simulationist MERP/Rolemaster play.

I definitely don't see myself as an N looking down on those dirty Gs and Ss. I'm just someone who likes the games I play to _pick a lane_ and focus strongly on that particular flavour rather than trying to have a little bit of everything.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 3, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Is it only a kicker if it's resolved as soon as its laid down?
> 
> Game session 3
> GM:  As you round the bend you are startled by several ravens cawing loudly in the mide of the road.
> ...




So a few things and then a few play examples from last night’s Stonetop game. In your construct above, I’m seeing some elements that tell me that what your conceiving of isn’t a kicker.

1) Yes, there is player authorship.  It’s quite interesting as well and is on its way toward being a formulation of (a) provocative situation with (b) clear antagonism (which the GM plays) that (c) addresses player-authored dramatic need and (d) kicks off (“kicker” - immediacy) and propels play. However, it’s missing some essential components.

2) “Sideplot” + “GM introduces” + lack of immediacy > propelling play + the players formulation of things appears to be heavy on color and light on conflict/antagonism. It’s good color mind you, but the amount and quality of color isn’t what does the heavy lifting here.



So last night’s Stonetop game (a hearth fantasy game about a small Iron Age Steading in a Points of Light - jargon! -setting with 4e esque mythology where the goal is to tend to, care for, and grow your little home if you can) the PCs returning triumphant from separate Adventures (the 4 PCs tend to split up with each group of 2 taking on a different Threat to or Opportunity for Stonetop).

There are a few “loose ends” (Threats and one Plan to resolve ruined armor) floating out there and Summer is about to end (so we transition a month or two to Fall and make Fall’s move and see what Threats and Opportunities spin out of that). So given the disposition of play right now, we did a series of “ask questions and use the answers” that amounts to procedurally generating Kickers.

@hawkeyefan ’s PC is The Judge.



Spoiler: The Judge



The Judge
Look here at this little town, this candleflame in the darkness. Its very existence is an act of courage and faith. And Aratis has charged you to keep it: to settle its disputes; to chronicle its tales; to defend it from darkness and ruin. Take up your hammer, Judge. Your town needs you.



He carries with him a cursed infant taken on as an oath sworn from the immediately preceding Adventure.

So he wanted his play from this situation to be about:

* keeping his oath if he can

* resolving the child’s curse if he can

* finding it a home within Stonetop if he can

So what is the antagonism I’m playing?

* Stonetop’s suspicion (generally, but particularly of fell sorcery and curses; real or merely perceived).

* The Publicans/Elders (Sawyl and Sianna) adversarial nature toward Cullen The Judge specifically (he is the town mediator so they clash o decisions regularly) and toward the complexities of integrating new people (particularly new people who aren’t able-bodied and capable! And who are cursed to boot!).

This could have been elided and offloaded to the Steading to resolve offscreen (there are procedures for that). This could have been passed off to his Uncle Llewelyn to secretly stow the child while Cullen resolves other issues, saving the resolution of the curse for later (however, there would have been potential gamestate and attendant fiction complications related to the progression/implications of the curse that we would have made a move for Llewelyn to Muster against and saw what came of that). However, @hawkeyefan wanted Cullen to handle this personally with it being an immediate flashpoint for action (and therefore what play is about so he could personally see how it impacted his character and how his character impacted  and changed Stonetop); likely some convergence of because he is Stonetop’s mediator, it’s Judge, he was orphaned and taken in, he swore an oath, his xp Trigger  is Harmony, he wanted to assuage the steading’s (rightful, given recent events) fear of dark sorcery, and he was on a collision course with Sawyl and Sianna and wanted to resolve it now.

So, anyway.

The entirety of the session resolved around each of the player’s Kickers including Cullen’s above.

By end of session, we have a different Stonetop with changed NPCs, very evolved relationships and PCs, and what appears to be a powderkeg about to ignite. We’ll resolve the rest of it next week…but we stopped play with a an inquisitor from the large Town of Marshedge (secretly spying on Stonetop to see if the Steading took in refugees from a witchcraft trial that was to result in execution) falling off the back of his horse and breaking his neck as things were escalating but still under a measure of control.

So that is basically what a Kicker is and what a Kicker does. The key ingredients are player-authored, it entails all of that (a) - (d) in (1) above, it’s immediate, and it’s not a “sideplot” (there is no “plot”, GM or otherwise, so there can be no “sideplot.”).

Hopefully those distinction makes sense and clarify whether or not you agree that “Kicker” (which kicks things off and propels them forward) is an appropriate moniker.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 3, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I don't see much difference.
> 
> The second '1.' - the event - can be a part of the first '1.' - the environment, but can't exist completely on its own.  An event without a surrounding environment and-or context (which may well have been described earlier) takes place in a vacuum.  (see below)
> 
> ...




So here is my suggestion, and I mean this sincerely. 

Rather than assume what @Campbell has shared is somehow wrong or misguided and then working to point out how, instead assume he is correct and try and figure out why. I mean, he has actual experience with the two types of games he’s described, so I would think anyone interested in actual understanding would try and figure out why he may be right instead how he must be wrong. 

Seriously… look at the two descriptions and see how they may lead to different play experiences. If you don’t quite see it, ask some questions. Don’t just leap to the conclusion that there’s no difference simply because that’s your gut reaction.

Don’t just try and confirm your bias.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> All RPGing is linear: one things happens, then another, then another, starting at A and ending at B.
> 
> But not all RPGing is "linear adventures". To be honest it's not a concept I've ever mastered, because I think applying requires drawing distinctions I'm not very sensitive to, but at a minimum I think some concept of pre-authorship of the B is involved.



Linearity of adventures refers to their structure. Is the structure one where you can only go from A to B to C in that order? If so, it’s linear. Is it one where you start from A and can choose to go to B or C from there? It’s branching. Is it one where A, B, and C are all layer for you to visit in whatever order you choose? It’s open. Again, these are just the literal meaning of these words, applied to the structure of events or locations in an adventure.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 3, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Whether or not the difference is subtle - personally I don't think it is, as to me the difference  between playing (say) Burning Wheel and (say) 2nd ed AD&D is a very apparent one - it is profound.



Well, @Campbell didn’t say the two structures ate “like Burning Wheel” and “like AD&D 2e” and if they had I wouldn’t have known what that meant. But, the structures as Campbell described them seemed very similar to me.


pemerton said:


> In @Campbell's first structure, step 1 is the GM _describing the environment_. And step 3 is the GM _describing how the environment changes_. To get from 1 to 3, the GM "incorporates" (for lack of a better word) the players' action declarations for their PCs (step 2) into the environment (established at step 1), and thereby reasons out how the environment changes (step 3).



Right, which is, as I said, different from the second structure in that the second necessitates an event that directly threatens the PCs in the first step, and the third step is worked out by the group instead of just the GM.


pemerton said:


> In @Campbell's second structure, step 1 is the GM responding to something player-authored (a PC's interest) so as to trigger a response from that player via an action declaration for their PC (step 2). And then the system (what @Campbell calls "mechanics and principles") determines the parameters within the fallout from that response is narrated, and by whom. (This is where a good chunk of the difference between systems like Dogs in the Vineyard, Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel and Hero Wars is found.)



Look, I can only respond to what people actually say, and Campbell didn’t say step 1 had to be in response to something player-authored, or that [whatever mechanics and principles are] determines who narrates the response. Regardless, these structures still seem fundamentally similar to me, which is not to say they couldn’t produce meaningfully different gameplay. Maybe because I am more inclined to look for points of commonality than divergence.


pemerton said:


> The second structure does not require any reasoning about the imagined environment. Whereas this is fundamental to the first structure.



Eh, I think “environment” is used very broadly in the first structure. Sometimes describing the environment means a detailed breakdown of a dungeon room, sure, but sometimes it’s just informing the players that they’re being attacked by 6 orcs.


pemerton said:


> The first structure does not require any reasoning about player-authored PC interests. But this is fundamental to the second structure.



Doesn’t require it, no, but in my experience it often does incorporate it. But, yeah, that is one of the fundamental differences between the structures.


pemerton said:


> But there is an asymmetry between structures, because the first structure locates the reasoning about environment as a precursor to step 3; whereas in the second structure the reasoning about PC interests is a precursor to step 1, whereas it may or may not figure in step 3 depending on the details of the system.
> 
> You can design a scenario or adventure for the first structure without knowing anything about the PCs who are to engage in it. Whereas that's obviously a big challenge for the second structure. (The only second-structure RPG I know of that has really tackled this challenge in a large scale way is Prince Valiant. It's not entirely successful, but it does a reasonable job. It works because many Prince Valiant PCs have very similar interests, being knights errant in an Arthurian vein.)



Yeah, I can see that.


pemerton said:


> The concept of "fallout" has no particular work to do in the first structure. The first structure works fine if the primary focus of play is essentially procedural - who pokes which bit of the world to find out what happens next. (Which I think is fairly close to @Aldarc's notion of "interactivity".) Whereas the concept of "fallout" is fundamental to the second structure: the consequences of action resolution, established at step 3, have to change or at least bear upon the PC's interests. This is what keeps the game in motion, and generates material to allow new iterations of step 1. (Just as, in the first structure, it is changes to the environment that allow new iterations of step 1.)



Unless the term “fallout” is packing a lot of baggage, this doesn’t seem like a significant difference to me. In both cases, someone is using the rules and principles to determine what happens as a result of the player input. Calling it fallout just seems like a way to emphasize the focus on character drama, but procedurally it seems like the same thing to me - from what I’ve been told so far.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 3, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I have about three observations to make. I hope you don't mind.



I don’t mind at all 


Aldarc said:


> First, while the differences may seem subtle to you, I think it's important to recognize how even subtle differences can cause games operating by these principles to naturally evolve in drastically different ways over the course of a session or multiple sessions. Moreover, many of the people I have seen argue that no fundamental difference exists between these sorts of play loops are often the ones I have seen complain the loudest that these games don't work like D&D (or are even capable of working at all) or that they result in badwrongfun. I find that it's helpful to see these games in action, both running and playing them, because I do agree with @Campbell that these games require different skill sets.



For sure! By observing that the differences seem subtle, I don’t mean to suggest that they wouldn’t lead to significantly different gameplay. But I can see how it could have come across that way.


Aldarc said:


> Second, I think that your point on the importance of an environment where gameplay transpires to be threatening describes certain modes of play in D&D, but leaves a lot out. If the gameplay takes place in a town shop interacting with a Joe Schmoe the Shopkeeper, should that scene be threatening to the players?



I don’t think acting out interactions with shopkeepers tends to follow the gameplay structure being discussed. It’s definitely something a lot of groups do while playing D&D, but it’s also outside of the gameplay structure described in the How to Play section. Shopping and other in-town activities are also generally handled by the downtime activity rules in D&D 5e, which makes sense to me given that such activities don’t lend themselves as well to the How to Play structure.


Aldarc said:


> Third, I would say that the first prioritizes player character interactivity. This is to say, the first IME is primarily interested in highlighting some aspects that of the scene that players may choose for their characters to interact with in some way, with the GM advised to present the scene as a neutral arbiter of the game fiction with respect to the players and their characters' interests. This view comes across in the description of the play loop in the 5e PHB:
> 
> A threat may exist in the scene, but the fundamental role described here for GM nevertheless involves "presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves" for players.



I agree; they that’s a good observation.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 3, 2022)

So my kicker deep dive has divided into two lengthy posts by two different helpful individuals.  Since I am on my phone for most EnWorld discussion it's hard to be fancy with replies.  I'm going to take the easy route for me and merge the two posts into a singular answer.

From both of your further examples it seems to me that the greatest difference between a kicker and a player supplied plot hook is that of their important in the games overall framework.

So as a GM in a traditional game I might have an immediate "adventure" about investigating some kidnapped children that links into an overall campaign about "two kingdoms fighting".  Barnabus has a personal subplot going about a missing sister and just dropped on me the addition of ravens.  As a GM I take that subplot and merge it into my overall narrative as it fits.

I get the idea that as a GM in a kicker style game I'm not going to be running an "adventure" and instead the session is largely about my players giving me menu of items they want to progress and the session is us diving into the various bits.  I'm assuming the idea would be to shape at least some of them into some overall general story.  I'm not sure however in this model exactly how much the GM is allowed to inject into the resulting soup.  I'm not sure what a kicker game campaign is like or how it avoids hogging the spotlight but that's a different discussion best left for some other time.

If the above are close enough to understand kickers....then the most important part of the kicker concept (that was left out of a lot of the early discussion) is that kickers entirely (or almost entirely) replace a GM supplied story instead of adding to it.

Am I close enough yet?  Even if not thanks for the replies.  This has been one of the best conversations I have been involved with in a LONG time on EnWorld and I'm enjoying the actual discussion that's happening.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 3, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> So here is my suggestion, and I mean this sincerely.
> 
> Rather than assume what @Campbell has shared is somehow wrong or misguided and then working to point out how, instead assume he is correct and try and figure out why. I mean, he has actual experience with the two types of games he’s described, so I would think anyone interested in actual understanding would try and figure out why he may be right instead how he must be wrong.
> 
> Seriously… look at the two descriptions and see how they may lead to different play experiences. If you don’t quite see it, ask some questions. Don’t just leap to the conclusion that there’s no difference simply because that’s your gut reaction.



Why not?  All I'm doing is chopping through the differences in wording to reveal the great similarity beneath.

My intent was to (try to) point out that it seemed @Campbell was taking what seems a very minor or trivial difference at most, wording the examples so as to greatly exaggerate this difference, and then assigning it far more weight than it warrants.

Yes, different systems and game types can give different play experiences; but I posit no more so than can two different tables using the exact same broad-based system (e.g. non-4e D&D) for different purposes.

And some of what seem now to be couched as indie-game ideas a) have been around for ages, if not formalized, and b) are well worth following.  The way @Aldarc describes "fiction first" just upthread, for example, is exactly how I've always (tried to) play and DM - as far as possible everything flows through the character* - even though the system I use is anything but 'indie' in its outlook. 

* - even down to, as DM, talking to the character rather than the player: it's always "Falstaffe, what are you doing next?" rather than "Dave, what's Falstaffe doing next?".  Really gets confusing, though, when someone has a character in the party with the same name as a different player at the table...


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 3, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Why not?  All I'm doing is chopping through the differences in wording to reveal the great similarity beneath.
> 
> My intent was to (try to) point out that it seemed @Campbell was taking what seems a very minor or trivial difference at most, wording the examples so as to greatly exaggerate this difference, and then assigning it far more weight than it warrants.
> 
> ...



Yeah. Some of these are really odd. Like you, me and mine always played that way. Fiction first. That was literally the point of the game. And has been since 1984. Dive into the world as much as possible. Make decisions from there. If you want to move a pawn around a board, go play a board game. If you want a rigid game of numbers, go play a video game. RPGs were the only one of those three that could even handle it. To us, that was the "killer app" of RPGs.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 3, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Why not?  All I'm doing is chopping through the differences in wording to reveal the great similarity beneath.




Well, I would think when someone is pointing out the differences in two processes, and the impact that they have, choosing to discard the differences and focus on the similarities doesn't seem to actually be engaging. 



Lanefan said:


> My intent was to (try to) point out that it seemed @Campbell was taking what seems a very minor or trivial difference at most, wording the examples so as to greatly exaggerate this difference, and then assigning it far more weight than it warrants.




This is exactly what I'm saying. Your intent is not to understand or grasp what he's saying, your intent is to somehow prove what he's saying is not meaningful. 



Lanefan said:


> Yes, different systems and game types can give different play experiences; but I posit no more so than can two different tables using the exact same broad-based system (e.g. non-4e D&D) for different purposes.




I agree that the same game may play differently from one table to the next, sure. I don't think that those differences are generally going to be as significant as the difference between two entirely different games, though. Like my AD&D may be different than your AD&D, but my Blades in the Dark is way more different than either of our AD&Ds. 

I think the fact that you don't realize this displays that you aren't that familiar with other games and how differently they play. 

Which brings us back to the original point; when comparing two games and the differences in their processes, however subtle, why should I listen to your hypothetical take in favor of someone who has actual experience with both games?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 3, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> So my kicker deep dive has divided into two lengthy posts by two different helpful individuals.  Since I am on my phone for most EnWorld discussion it's hard to be fancy with replies.  I'm going to take the easy route for me and merge the two posts into a singular answer.
> 
> From both of your further examples it seems to me that the greatest difference between a kicker and a player supplied plot hook is that of their important in the games overall framework.
> 
> ...




I think you've summarized it pretty well! I wasn't either of the posters who offered you the lengthy takes, but I figured I'd comment. 

I play in a Stonetop game with @Manbearcat, and he shared an example of the kicker that we used just last night. It was not the entirety of play, but it was the major focus for my character. There are other characters, and so each of them had a kicker, as well. The game revolves around the town of Stonetop and we all play characters who live there, and who have influence and authority of some sort there. So he basically took the kickers we all suggested... I think we each offered two, and then he asked the group which sounded more interesting for each character, and we decided as a group... and he rotated among them, focusing on each in turn. 

These were not entirely separate, as two of them did kind of dovetail together, and my character was pulled into one as events developed. But it all worked quite well and there was no spotlight hogging or anything like that. As GM, @Manbearcat seemed to come up with some details that were kind of blanks that needed to be filled, and then he narrated interesting situations for us to address that were based on the kickers, and we played it all out. 

It was a great session!


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 3, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Yeah. Some of these are really odd. Like you, me and mine always played that way. Fiction first. That was literally the point of the game. And has been since 1984. Dive into the world as much as possible. Make decisions from there. If you want to move a pawn around a board, go play a board game. If you want a rigid game of numbers, go play a video game. RPGs were the only one of those three that could even handle it. To us, that was the "killer app" of RPGs.



Can you not think of any examples of things/concepts that were in use or existed long before people coined a term for it? In this case, "fiction first" was a term coined out of a discussion that desired to root things into a particular prioritization, i.e., "fiction first." The fact that this phenomenon or method existed before the coinage of the term is kind of irrelevant. If anything, that provides a greater validation of the term as it describes a practical play experience. Similarly, the playstyle that "sandbox" describes may have existed before its coinage (during the 3e era, as a borrowing from video games), but the adoption of a term to describe that playstyle is what's important.


----------



## soviet (Jun 3, 2022)

It surely validates the very premise of the thread: putting a catchy label on something that had been understood _by some_ for a long time, helped that concept get wider recognition amongst the community.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 3, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Games can try supporting G, N, and S, though I think some combinations are easier to support than others. The point is not that it's impossible, but, rather, that conflicts of interest can and often do emerge between these roleplay motivations. That said, I think that the benefits and intentionality of GNS "incoherence" has been overlooked by Edwards and the Forge. Many video game designers, for example, understand that they have different sorts of players for whom they are designing. In order to cast a fairly wide net of a fanbase, a MMORPG may have to design for players with varying shades of Bartle's typology (i.e., Explorers, Socializers, Achievers, and Killers) to co-exist to varying degrees.



Looping back to this, because I think it may be a low-key but very significant part of where the backlash against GNS comes from. Taking your word for it that GNS’s claim is not that the various agendas can’t coexist, but that there is the potential for conflict to arise between them, I think Edwards and Co kinda took that and said “therefore, a game should pick one and focus on it, lest it be incoherent” whereas the folks who take issue with the Forge don’t find the notion that these interests can sometimes come into conflict with each other particularly revelatory, and have all along been interested in developing systems that avoid or smooth over those conflicts. So what you’ve got is one group of people seeking the best ways to serve all of these interests simultaneously, and another group saying “eww, no, that doesn’t work, you have to pick one and commit to it hard.”


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 3, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Yeah. Some of these are really odd. Like you, me and mine always played that way. Fiction first. That was literally the point of the game. And has been since 1984. Dive into the world as much as possible. Make decisions from there. If you want to move a pawn around a board, go play a board game. If you want a rigid game of numbers, go play a video game. RPGs were the only one of those three that could even handle it. To us, that was the "killer app" of RPGs.



I can see where fiction first would have been a useful concept to specifically identify during the height of 3e “I make a Diplomacy check” gameplay. While the concept might not have been novel to folks who started with B/X or AD&D, the folks who were new at the time (like myself) certainly benefited from having this concept presented to us in a more academic format than just having “it’s called role-play, not roll-play!” repeatedly shouted at us.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 3, 2022)

There's a judgement component happening in this thread when it comes to fiction first that I'm really not a fan of. It was never the intention that fiction first is better than mechanics first. There's nothing wrong with representational mechanics or action economies. They just have a different impact on play. Blades in the Dark isn't virtuous because it lacks a combat subsystem.

Our goal should be to appreciate what different structures, games and techniques bring to the table. Not to pass judgement over the worthy and unworthy.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 3, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I can see where fiction first would have been a useful concept to specifically identify during the height of 3e “I make a Diplomacy check” gameplay. While the concept might not have been novel to folks who started with B/X or AD&D, the folks who were new at the time (like myself) certainly benefited from having this concept presented to us in a more academic format than just having “it’s called role-play, not roll-play!” repeatedly shouted at us.



Sorry you had to deal with that. 

I would submit that the people shouting were not interested in being helpful and that them having some bit of jargon to shout (rather than a slogan) would not have helped matters. And as we're all well aware of at this point, especially on the internet, those that shout tend to drown out those who don't. I do remember having conversations with people about focusing on the character, getting into their character's mindset, and making choices based on what their character would do given the "realities" of the world. Along with various other things like describing what the character is doing in the game, etc. People were around who played in that style and some of us tried to help rather than shout. Not all, obviously.

But I think that's all part of these threads on this topic. If, back in the day, someone simply said to you "fiction first," you'd have no idea what that meant. And if it were delivered in the same shouty and unhelpful manner as "it's called role-play..." then you'd have much the same reaction to "fiction first" as you have to "it's called...," right? 

It's only the full concept, carefully explained that is the helping hand in that situation, not the jargon alone, even if calmly and politely repeated ad nauseam. It's not the jargon or the phrase itself that's beneficial. It's the explanation of what it means that's helpful. As exemplified in this tangent on "fiction first". The concept existed prior to the naming of it, and, more importantly it could be explained prior to the naming of it. It simply lacked a catchy phrase or jargon. Lack of a name or jargon is not a hindrance to understanding.

The jargon is only a stand in. Oftentimes it's an obstacle between two people in understanding the concept the jargon is meant to be shorthand for. As we repeatedly see in these threads when two or more proponents of GNS jargon disagree on what the jargon means and what GNS is even fundamentally all about. But, generally, instead of drilling down past the jargon and discussing the ideas and concepts behind it, they often get locked into arguing about what the jargon means. 

To show my age, here's a quote. "It's like a finger pointing away to the moon...don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory."


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 4, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Can you not think of any examples of things/concepts that were in use or existed long before people coined a term for it? In this case, "fiction first" was a term coined out of a discussion that desired to root things into a particular prioritization, i.e., "fiction first." The fact that this phenomenon or method existed before the coinage of the term is kind of irrelevant.



Until and unless people start using the term as if it refers to a Big New Concept that didn't exist before.


Aldarc said:


> If anything, that provides a greater validation of the term as it describes a practical play experience. Similarly, the playstyle that "sandbox" describes may have existed before its coinage (during the 3e era, as a borrowing from video games), but the adoption of a term to describe that playstyle is what's important.



I'm sure I heard both "sandbox" and "railroad" in relatively common use long before the 3e era - as in, back in 1e days - and being used to mean roughly what they mean today.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 4, 2022)

Campbell said:


> There's a judgement component happening in this thread when it comes to fiction first that I'm really not a fan of.



I'll add to this:

Cthulhu Dark, at least as I've played it, is entirely fiction first.

Burning Wheel is often fiction first, but not always - for instance, its complex resolution subsystems (Duel of Wits, Range and Cover, Fight!) begin by dividing the action into "exchanges" of three "volleys" each (this is analogous to the action economy in modern D&D combat).

But I think Burning Wheel is more visceral than Cthulhu Dark. Including during the moments of a Duel of Wits, a Range and Cover skirmish, or a Fight! Because you know what's at stake when you're scripting (all three subsystems use blind declaration) and then when you're resolving the scripted actions. The blind scripting, then the revelation, and then the potential significance of the consequences all generate an intensity that I think is greater than what Cthulhu Dark offers.

Another comparison would be within 4e D&D: skill challenges are fully fiction first, but combat is not - bits of it are (eg p 42) but bits of it are not (eg the whole action economy, plus the imperative of hit point ablation). But the best 4e combats are as fun and compelling as the best 4e skill challenges.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 4, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> This has already been talked about.
> 
> 1. I'm in the audience of this thread.  I am included in the target audience of any general statement made here.



Agreed, but, somebody in this conversation asked for a definition of "kicker", and @pemerton (and some others before him) gave a definition.



Sabathius42 said:


> 2. I have never heard the word kicker as defined in this thread until today.  To me kicker is something added to sweeten a deal.



Yes, that is one common meaning of kicker. Another is:

2 North American informal - an unexpected and often unpleasant discovery or turn of events (Oxford American Dictionary)



Sabathius42 said:


> 3. The definition of kicker is very subtle, nuanced, and difficult to convey.



I found @pemerton's definition pretty clear, including the points that apparently needed later highlighting, especially considering the fact he wrote it most likely during a busy day and didn't have opportunity to check and revise multiple times, as one would do in the usually much more involved process used for publication. And, when asked for clarification, he provided it.



Sabathius42 said:


> 4. By using the word kicker earlier in the thread we now have added 1000+ words to this thread just trying to nail down a definition.



In a thread that is about jargon, perhaps as an example of how people can explain jargon so that others can learn it and thereby develop some common ground for further conversation? I'm pretty chuffed to have learned a new word, myself!



Sabathius42 said:


> 5.  The word kicker has done nothing to save time in THIS PARTICULAR conversation, thus it's an excellent example of "jargon" best used in an audience already on the same page.



Again, this particular conversation is about jargon as such. I would hope that includes how jargon can be shared and learned. If folks were routinely refusing to explain words when asked, that would clearly be exclusionary behavior.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 4, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Another comparison would be within 4e D&D: skill challenges are fully fiction first,



How is that fiction first? You first set the level of the challenge, deriving the needed fails and success, as well as DCs from that. The you start to come up with fiction to allow those checks to happen. The challenge ends at certain number of fails or successes and you need to conform the narrative of the resolution to make sense with that (or not, the mechanics don't care.) This seems like the exact opposite of "fiction first" to me.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 4, 2022)

As a light aside, I'll share an inciting incident from one of my characters from back in my larping days. I was playing a hobling (halfling) but of course I am nearly 6' tall (most people who played hoblings were even taller or larger than me, for some reason). My character would occasionally tell people he began his career when, after he bumped his head on the rafters for the umpteenth time and knocked several pots to the floor, his mother said, "Kieran, have you ever thought of becoming an adventurer?"

Clearly not a kicker, though. 

Edit: Fixed a dangling participle, yikes!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 4, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> How is that fiction first? You first set the level of the challenge, deriving the needed fails and success, as well as DCs from that. The you start to come up with fiction to allow those checks to happen. The challenge ends at certain number of fails or successes and you need to conform the narrative of the resolution to make sense with that (or not, the mechanics don't care.) This seems like the exact opposite of "fiction first" to me.



Skill challenges are a thing that's going to different depending on whether or not you're approaching it from one agenda or another.  If you're trying to use it to simulate the world, to in effect mechanicalize the cause effect of the world, it's going to clunk, hard.  It's going to clunk because it's, at the start, not at all aligned with the world.  The idea of X successes before Y failures to succeed at the goal is utterly divorced from any consideration of cause and effect in the world.  So, if verisimilitude is a priority for you, skill challenges clunk.  And we see this clearly in much of the criticism.

If your agenda is one of gamism, or leveraging the system and resources in a skillful way, then yeah, skill challenges work.  They're clear, understandable minigames where you can push hard and use your resources to succeed.  This doesn't rarely engages fiction first, though, because the agenda only cares about the fiction as secondary to the game parts, and so is fine doing after the fact alignment of the fiction to what happened with the game mechanics.

If your agenda is Story Now, well, skill challenges offer an interesting option.  You can declare them on the fly, follow each resolution into a new challenge, with each individual success moving forward to a new wicket based on what just happened and each failure yielding a new complication or closing an avenue of approach so a realignment needs to happen.  This fully follows and engages the fiction, and uses scene framing techniques to create linked scenes along the path as needed.  It's not improv, because there's a clear structure to how you do this, but it shares some similarities.  And I link this to Story Now because these are the same techniques you use for all play in that agenda -- follow the play, create new play off of current play, and always drive to the action (even if the action is conducting a tea ceremony properly).


----------



## pemerton (Jun 4, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> I get the idea that as a GM in a kicker style game I'm not going to be running an "adventure" and instead the session is largely about my players giving me menu of items they want to progress and the session is us diving into the various bits.  I'm assuming the idea would be to shape at least some of them into some overall general story.  I'm not sure however in this model exactly how much the GM is allowed to inject into the resulting soup.  I'm not sure what a kicker game campaign is like or how it avoids hogging the spotlight but that's a different discussion best left for some other time.
> 
> If the above are close enough to understand kickers....then the most important part of the kicker concept (that was left out of a lot of the early discussion) is that kickers entirely (or almost entirely) replace a GM supplied story instead of adding to it.



Yep.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 4, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> How is that fiction first? You first set the level of the challenge, deriving the needed fails and success, as well as DCs from that. The you start to come up with fiction to allow those checks to happen. The challenge ends at certain number of fails or successes and you need to conform the narrative of the resolution to make sense with that (or not, the mechanics don't care.) This seems like the exact opposite of "fiction first" to me.



Just to add a bit to @Ovinomancer's reply:

Skill challenges being with the fiction: what is the situation? what do the PCs want out of it? Then each action declaration begins with the fiction: what are you doing to try and change the situation? what are you trying to achieve? Only then is it "mechanised" and turned into a skill check. The outcome of that check ends with the fiction: the GM narrates what has changed (for better or worse!) as a result of that PC doing that thing. And this provides the context for the next skill check. The GM's narration of the fiction is also having regard to the overall progression of the challenge, making sure that some final resolution is available in the fiction as it is emerging. (Parenthetically: in my view this is the single hardest thing a 4e GM has to do. It's harder than running a 4e combat. I think it's on the same difficulty level as managing the Doom Pool in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic.)

When the skill challenge reaches its conclusion, the GM narrates the consequences of that check, which are also a fictional state of affairs that reveal the challenge as concluded: either the PCs have got what they want, or they haven't and some new adverse situation has emerged instead.

Thus, both overall and within the challenge, we begin and end with the fiction.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 4, 2022)

@Lanefan

I feel like your analysis of the two play structures smuggles in a view that setting must be predefined that is not a fundamental conceit of that second play structure. That second play structure uses setting as a means rather than an ends. We only define what we need for play to happen, often on an as needed basis. The event in step #1 comes first and is later justified.

It's also important to note that the player is not free to just do whatever they want. They must address the threat in some way in step #2. Casually exploring their environment will generally only lead to more trouble.

In step #3 fallout does some work. What happens must have an impact on the player character in some way. It should change the way they view the world or themselves. It's not just a naturalistic extrapolation of what should happen.

In general, there seems to be this desire to extend an emphasis on world building and exploration of setting as like a thing onto games that do not feature either to any great extent in their play process. I'm not quite sure why.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 4, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Just to add a bit to @Ovinomancer's reply:
> 
> Skill challenges being with the fiction: what is the situation? what do the PCs want out of it? Then each action declaration begins with the fiction: what are you doing to try and change the situation? what are you trying to achieve? Only then is it "mechanised" and turned into a skill check. The outcome of that check ends with the fiction: the GM narrates what has changed (for better or worse!) as a result of that PC doing that thing. And this provides the context for the next skill check. The GM's narration of the fiction is also having regard to the overall progression of the challenge, making sure that some final resolution is available in the fiction as it is emerging. (Parenthetically: in my view this is the single hardest thing a 4e GM has to do. It's harder than running a 4e combat. I think it's on the same difficulty level as managing the Doom Pool in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic.)
> 
> ...



I'll add a bit of contrast here by way of introducing another damn niche game folks likely haven't played. Feel free to ask for further detail!

4e skill challenges are basically defined by # of successes / failures that end the challenge, and an open list of skills that best apply. The players get to choose what actions they take in the fiction, which leads to the skill checks. Those might even be skills not on the list, if it makes sense to the DM how they would work.

Torg Eternity has a similar seeming thing called _dramatic_ skill challenges (because drama makes things better!). In these, you have 4 ordered steps, labeled A, B, C, D, and each one has a specific skill that must be used with the equivalent of a DC to pass it. Sometimes a step will say you can use one or two alternate skills. Torg uses a deck of cards for initiative instead of dice rolls, and each card has some of those 4 letters on it; you can do a given step during the round only if that letter comes up on the initiative card. (Players have a hand of cards too, some of which can be played to manipulate the initiative card or allow for a given step to be performed.) Sometimes the challenge will describe what the skill test represents: for example, Find to discover a secret lever, Science to defuse a bomb. The whole thing is both rigidly scripted and defined overtly in terms of mechanics.

Torg Eternity does handle drama/story stuff in other ways, but its dramatic skill challenges work directly against fiction-first play and are clearly, as they say, gamist foremost, as is combat in general.

Edit: Added minor clarification.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 4, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Linearity of adventures refers to their structure. Is the structure one where you can only go from A to B to C in that order? If so, it’s linear. Is it one where you start from A and can choose to go to B or C from there? It’s branching. Is it one where A, B, and C are all layer for you to visit in whatever order you choose? It’s open. Again, these are just the literal meaning of these words, applied to the structure of events or locations in an adventure.



As I said upthread, it's not a concept I've ever fully grasped and I still don't.

You say _where you can only go from A to B to C in that order_. But what generates the _can only_? Where is the constraint on possibility coming from? Does the adventure tell the players what action declarations are permitted, kind of like a choose your own adventure book does?


----------



## niklinna (Jun 4, 2022)

pemerton said:


> As I said upthread, it's not a concept I've ever fully grasped and I still don't.
> 
> You say _where you can only go from A to B to C in that order_. But what generates the _can only_? Where is the constraint on possibility coming from? Does the adventure tell the players what action declarations are permitted, kind of like a choose your own adventure book does?



Yes, some published modules are written like a play, with acts and scenes in order, and no matter what the players do, the action proceeds from one to the next. Torg Eternity does this a lot, and has explicit instructions to the GM to make sure the villain escapes or that the PCs get captured, for example, no matter what the players do.

Some modules will say, if the PCs capture/defeat the villain, go to scene X, if the vllain gets away, go to scene Y. Or there will be language in the next scene about how things are if the villain was defeated or got away.

Some modules, of course, just say, here's all the significant NPCs and where they are. Have fun! (They might have notes about how NPCs will behave if certain things happen, too).


----------



## pemerton (Jun 4, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Yes, some published modules are written like a play, with acts and scenes in order, and no matter what the players do, the action proceeds from one to the next. Torg Eternity does this a lot, and has explicit instructions to the GM to make sure the villain escapes or that the PCs get captured, for example, no matter what the players do.
> 
> Some modules will say, if the PCs capture/defeat the villain, go to scene X, if the vllain gets away, go to scene Y. Or there will be language in the next scene about how things are if the villain was defeated or got away.



So it is not that the adventure tells the players what they may do but rather tells the GM what they must do?



niklinna said:


> Some modules, of course, just say, here's all the significant NPCs and where they are. Have fun! (They might have notes about how NPCs will behave if certain things happen, too).



Presumably this is not linear but it also tells the GM what they must do (eg if the PCs are in this place, tell them they see this thing; if the PCs talk to this NPC, have the NPC reply with such-and-such).

So the difference must consist in what sort of thing the GM is being told to say. Is that right? And if so, are we able to say what the different sorts of things are that the GM is told to say in the different sorts of adventures (linear vs non-linear)?


----------



## niklinna (Jun 4, 2022)

pemerton said:


> So it is not that the adventure tells the players what they may do but rather tells the GM what they must do?



That's...yeah, that's a way to look at it I hadn't considered! It's telling the GM what they must do to run the adventure, as written, in order that the players do what the adventure expects, for the adventure to proceed to the next step. If the GM allows players to do something else, they'll have to allow things to go off script or revise the adventure, possibly (probably) in substantial ways.



pemerton said:


> Presumably this is not linear but it also tells the GM what they must do (eg if the PCs are in this place, tell them they see this thing; if the PCs talk to this NPC, have the NPC reply with such-and-such).



In this case I might say it isn't so much what the GM *must* do, since there is no plot to mess up. The GM can make changes without having to alter a bunch of material.



pemerton said:


> So the difference must consist in what sort of thing the GM is being told to say. Is that right? And if so, are we able to say what the different sorts of things are that the GM is told to say in the different sorts of adventures (linear vs non-linear)?



Well again this is for published modules, so generally the aim is to keep things to provided material (acknowledging that there are adventures that leave a lot of freedom). Going further I think would be out of the scope of this thread, though. We can start a new topic if you want to get into that more.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 4, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Going further I think would be out of the scope of this thread, though. We can start a new topic if you want to get into that more.



I might do that! In the meantime, thanks for the replies. I do feel that our discussion vindicates my intuition that "linear adventure" is jargon, and not just literal, common sense description.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 4, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I might do that! In the meantime, thanks for the replies. I do feel that our discussion vindicates my intuition that "linear adventure" is jargon, and not just literal, common sense description.



Oh! For that I think you want to distinguish between the possiblities in the adventure. Its events as written are all hypothetical until played, like a flow chart that can have branches (or not) and maybe even loops. But any given playthrough will necessarily be linear in the sense of following a sequence of events, even if they are arranged in a winding path on the flow chart of all possible events.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 4, 2022)

This is my idea of a linear adventure


----------



## pemerton (Jun 4, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> This is my idea of a linear adventure



Using @niklinna's idea of a flowchart of possible events, this doesn't seem like its A to B to C. For instance, couldn't the PCs get to the secret door and then go back to room 2 to make an offering, or study the reliefs or memorise the oath? Plus there are the patrols which may or may not ambush depending on what the players have their PCs do. And the PCs might (say) Charm the Bugbear boss and send boss with squad to fight the undead.

As I've said, I think there is something going on in the usage of the term that I'm not picking up on.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 4, 2022)

pemerton said:


> As I said upthread, it's not a concept I've ever fully grasped and I still don't.
> 
> You say _where you can only go from A to B to C in that order_. But what generates the _can only_? Where is the constraint on possibility coming from? Does the adventure tell the players what action declarations are permitted, kind of like a choose your own adventure book does?



Well, one way is through physical restrictions. A dungeon that only has one path through it, for example. Another way is through illusionism. No matter where the players decide to go, the DM has the next scene they had planned play out there. A third way is through player buy-in. The group agrees in advance that there’s a set plot that they’re going to follow. In some cases, this kind of arrangement is implicit - the DM doesn’t outright state that the adventure has a linear plot that the players agree to follow, but the players understand that there’s not really any adventure to be found except where the DM telegraphs that there’s going to be.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 4, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Using @niklinna's idea of a flowchart of possible events, this doesn't seem like its A to B to C. For instance, couldn't the PCs get to the secret door and then go back to room 2 to make an offering, or study the reliefs or memorise the oath? Plus there are the patrols which may or may not ambush depending on what the players have their PCs do. And the PCs might (say) Charm the Bugbear boss and send boss with squad to fight the undead.
> 
> As I've said, I think there is something going on in the usage of the term that I'm not picking up on.



Consider each keyed encounter a scene. There’s really only one order these scenes can play out. The party can backtrack to a room they have already visited, but they’ve presumably already resolved the encounter there, so there isn’t much to be done. There’s also a bit of a spectrum. Yes, the fact that there are two ways to open the secret door and the use of random encounters means that this dungeon won’t play out _exactly_ the same way every time, but there’s pretty minimal room for variation. The keyed scenes still play out in the same order every time. So, maybe it’s not _completely_ linear, but it is pretty far towards the linear end of the spectrum. Contrast it with, like, The Caverns of Thracia, which has multiple entrances to each level, and many paths between any two keyed encounters. That dungeon’s structure is far less linear, but still not totally open, as the players are for the most part restricted to the dungeon’s predesigned paths. I would call it a branching structure. Contrast both with Isle of Dread, where there is no restrictive dungeon structure, merely an open hex map that the players can explore in any direction.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 4, 2022)

Campbell said:


> @Lanefan
> 
> I feel like your analysis of the two play structures smuggles in a view that setting must be predefined that is not a fundamental conceit of that second play structure. That second play structure uses setting as a means rather than an ends. We only define what we need for play to happen, often on an as needed basis. The event in step #1 comes first and is later justified.



If the inciting event is, say, that someone has just stolen a family heirloom of which I'd been given custody - I heard the culprit upstairs in my home but saw nobody; then the details of my-as-player/character's immediate reaction (to try to find/chase the thief) are in at least some part going to be based on the surrounding environment.  Some examples:

--- if I'm in a city or town I can ask for help from others*1 ("did you just see someone go by carrying something that looked like [my heirloom]?") that I can't ask for if I'm in a cabin ten miles out in the woods.
--- if it's snowing out, or if there's snow on the ground, I can look for fresh tracks in a rural area that I can't very well look for in a busy city.
--- the layout of my home and-or neighbourhood will play a role in determining my action e.g. what route might someone have taken to get down from upstairs on the outside and-or how quickly can I get to where that potential route meets the ground?
--- other than the thief, am I alone in my home or is anyone else there; and if so, how many; and have any of those people been harmed?

*1 - whether it's day or night will make a difference here also, as will the weather conditions, as those things will probably affect the number of potential helpers/witnesses I can quickly access.  If it's a cold rainy night, for example, I probably won't bother going the look-for-help route as there's most likely nobody out there.


Campbell said:


> It's also important to note that the player is not free to just do whatever they want. They must address the threat in some way in step #2. Casually exploring their environment will generally only lead to more trouble.



Fair enough.  My point is that the environment and-or setting has direct effects on and influence over _how_ I go about addressing that threat, as noted in the example above.


Campbell said:


> In step #3 fallout does some work. What happens must have an impact on the player character in some way. It should change the way they view the world or themselves. It's not just a naturalistic extrapolation of what should happen.



Here, if I don't recover the heirloom I'm likely to view myself as a failure not worthy of carrying on the family name.


Campbell said:


> In general, there seems to be this desire to extend an emphasis on world building and exploration of setting as like a thing onto games that do not feature either to any great extent in their play process. I'm not quite sure why.



Even if the setting never gets explored it's still there as a background in the moment, much like a movie set as someone (you?) mentioned upthread.  That setting is there to answer the following type of questions, which in theory will always*2 be known by my PC and will affect pretty much any scene even if only by providing atmosphere:

--- where is my character in relation to anything or anyone else relevant, or am I lost
--- what time of day/night is it
--- what's the weather doing

*2 - except in very unusual circumstances e.g. I've jumped to a different world where day and night have no meaning


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 4, 2022)

pemerton said:


> As I said upthread, it's not a concept I've ever fully grasped and I still don't.
> 
> You say _where you can only go from A to B to C in that order_. But what generates the _can only_? Where is the constraint on possibility coming from? Does the adventure tell the players what action declarations are permitted, kind of like a choose your own adventure book does?



The adventure (as in prewritten thing) is written in a way that each step of progression leads to one and only one next step.

Location 1: PCs acquire a key and a map.

Location 2: Locked door only opened by key from 1 opens to a mine.  Mine is an ambush and PCs are captured.

Location 3: The jail the PCs are in is attacked by dragons allowing them to escape in a helicopter piloted but Hero Man.

Location 4:  Hero Man takes PCs to his hideout and teams up with them to attack RoboHitler.  He flies them to a hidden island.

Location 5: Robohitlers Island Fortress Showdown.

That's a linear adventure.  The PCs ARE somewhat free to not go from 1 to 2....but not doing so just stalls the adventure until they do.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 4, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Using @niklinna's idea of a flowchart of possible events, this doesn't seem like its A to B to C. For instance, couldn't the PCs get to the secret door and then go back to room 2 to make an offering, or study the reliefs or memorise the oath? Plus there are the patrols which may or may not ambush depending on what the players have their PCs do. And the PCs might (say) Charm the Bugbear boss and send boss with squad to fight the undead.
> 
> As I've said, I think there is something going on in the usage of the term that I'm not picking up on.



To me, that adventure linked to by @Malmuria is the very definition of a linear adventure: you can't get to area 3 without going through 2, you can't get to 4 without going through 3, etc. until you get to area 6 and there's nowhere further left to go.  Your only exploration options (and note the terms linear-branching*-open are almost invariably used with regard to exploration options and-or map/encounter sequencing) are to go forward or to go back.

* - dendritic is another term that means the same thing; it's a term used to describe river systems where you start at the ocean with one main river which then branches into many smaller rivers as you go upstream, and each of those branches eventually ends without ever looping back on to itself or any other part of the river system.  White Plume Mountain is a fine example of a dendritic dungeon layout.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 4, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Contrast it with, like, The Caverns of Thracia, which has multiple entrances to each level, and many paths between any two keyed encounters. That dungeon’s structure is far less linear, but still not totally open, as the players are for the most part restricted to the dungeon’s predesigned paths. I would call it a branching structure. Contrast both with Isle of Dread, where there is no restrictive dungeon structure, merely an open hex map that the players can explore in any direction.



My usual cutoff between branching/dendritic and open design is whether or not there are any loops present in the paths.  Isle of Dread is almost a fourth classification, that being hexcrawl.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 4, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> My usual cutoff between branching/dendritic and open design is whether or not there are any loops present in the paths.  Isle of Dread is almost a fourth classification, that being hexcrawl.



A dungeon with looping paths isn’t really what I would consider open, because the paths still create restrictions on the players’ ability to navigate the space. I mean, unless  they’re freely able to just tunnel through walls or something. A hexcrawl is, in my view, the clearest example of an open structure, though not the only example.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 4, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> A dungeon with looping paths isn’t really what I would consider open, because the paths still create restrictions on the players’ ability to navigate the space. I mean, unless  they’re freely able to just tunnel through walls or something. A hexcrawl is, in my view, the clearest example of an open structure, though not the only example.



Fair.

I prefer to differentiate between a) a true dendritic (a.k.a. branching) dungeon* where choices exist as to which branch to take but when approaching any place for the first time you will _always_ be coming from a predictable direction, and b) a what-I-call open (or looping) dungeon where there are choices as to which way to go and those choices will ultimately affect from which direction you might enter new areas later and-or the sequence in which you might hit those areas.

White Plume Mountain is a true dendritic.  Secret of Bone Hill is much more open, or looping.

I wish I could easily draw diagrams on here - this is way simpler with visuals. 

* - or adventure, if different than an actual dongeon-crawl situation.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 4, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Fair.
> 
> I prefer to differentiate between a) a true dendritic (a.k.a. branching) dungeon* where choices exist as to which branch to take but when approaching any place for the first time you will _always_ be coming from a predictable direction, and b) a what-I-call open (or looping) dungeon where there are choices as to which way to go and those choices will ultimately affect from which direction you might enter new areas later and-or the sequence in which you might hit those areas.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I get what you mean. Like an actual tree branch, where it starts from one point and diverges from there, vs. a Jennel Jaquays style dungeon where there are many entrances and many paths to any given point. There’s definitely a meaningful difference between those two types of structure.

You can also get mixed structures - for instance an open hexcrawl might have linear or branching (or looping) dungeons in it. The paths within your looping dungeon may at a certain point converge on a linear section, only to then diverge into a branching structure on the other end. You might use gate-and-key design to make a dungeon linear to start, and branch out as the players explore and acquire the metaphorical keys they need to open additional paths. Such compound structures are often the most interesting, in my opinion, but also the most complex to design.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 4, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Until and unless people start using the term as if it refers to a Big New Concept that didn't exist before.



Quite the reverse. That said, a lot of indie publishers did try to codify "fiction first" principles into the rules and play procedures rather than "that's the way that it's always been played." 



Lanefan said:


> I'm sure I heard both "sandbox" and "railroad" in relatively common use long before the 3e era - as in, back in 1e days - and being used to mean roughly what they mean today.



I have told you before but our memories about our pasts tend to be highly deceptive. We often project false histories onto the past based upon the present, and the more time between the present and a given moment in the past, the greater the potential room for misremembering. It's no secret to scientific studies that our memories play tricks on us and cause us to misremember in a variety of different ways. This is pretty clear when some American politicians project a utopian like society on the 1950s. 

Sandboxes were created in 1850 in Berlin's parks. (Yes, sand existed in enclosed spaces before that.) Sandboxes have served as a metaphor for creative interaction and play since even the late 1800s. So it is no surprise that "sandbox" existed as a term in TTRPG circles; however, in earlier publications its meaning was closer in meaning with "the campaign" or even other more generalized uses rather than its present specialized meaning describing a particular playstyle or setting. 

Dragon #25, Tim Kask


> He still clings to the shibboleth that wargamers are classic cases of arrested development, never having gotten out of the *sandbox* and toy soldiers syndrome of childhood.




Dragon #247, Page 123


> Grubb has a phrase for working with existing games, settings, and characters: playing in other people's *sandboxes*.



Later in the issue


> Having gone freelance three years ago, Grubb has explored new *sandboxes*. I worked on Mag Force 7's Wing Commander and Star Trek (original series) trading card games, ...




This latter, more restricted meaning supposedly came more directly from video games. According to designer Robert Conley: 


> *The term originated in computer games* and it's meant to describe a game where its playing field is wide open for the player to do what they want. *Around 2005 with the release of Necromancer Game's Wilderlands of High Fantasy Boxed Set, its authors—I am one of them—used it to describe to people what made the Wilderlands different from other settings. *It was designed to make it easy for the referee to adjudicate his players roaming freely across the map.
> 
> Later still, the term got attached to a specific playstyle as mentioned by mxyzplk. However this is beyond what myself and other Wilderland authors intended. The problem is that people take the hard-core simulation of wandering the map too literally. This often results in frustration as many PC groups feel rudderless and the game feels without direction. In fact, if you read through various forums posts, such as on ENWorld, you see these campaigns fail more than succeed.
> 
> ...



Most of what I have found on the Internet seems to conform with the above point that our current sense of "sandbox game" came from video games, even if both "sandbox" was used and this style of play existed in TTRPGs prior to its coinage. (I also saw one TTRPG source use "story telling game" back in 1980 for what we would now clearly call a "sandbox game.") 

The above also matches up with the development of the term "sandbox games" in video games: "The Theory and History of Sandbox Gaming" - 


> *Encouraging Player Experimentation*​The metaphor of the "sandbox game" finally emerged at the turn of the century, around the publication _The Sims_ and the following year, _Grand Theft Auto III_, the two games which are traditionally considered the two original and canonical "sandbox" games.
> 
> The invention of the term did indeed accompany a new development in game design, but this was not, as the term suggests, player freedom, which was already available by any number of means: non-linearity; the lack of objectives or central storyline; automatic variation of the game-world and game-behavior.
> 
> ...



This article points out that while games that we would retroactively consider as "sandbox games" existed prior to the coinage of the term, it was only with the advent of The Sims (2000) and Grand Theft Auto III (2001) that we see "sandbox game" coined to describe a style of video game. These are also the two games mentioned as redefining the genre on the Wikipedia article on Sandbox Games. And unsurprisingly both of these games predate the Wilderlands of High Fantasy (2005) book by Necromancer Games. 

Even if you search for "sandbox" on the ENWorld forums from about 2005 back, no one is really using "sandbox" with this more specialized meaning. It's much closer to what we find in the Dragon magazine snippets above, where it's used more akin to "playing in someone else's sandbox" (i.e., a game, a campaign, a setting, the table, etc.) rather than its more contemporaneous sense. In one such post, Eberron is described as WotC's "sandbox," with a meaning that is closer to what we would now probably refer to as a "kitchen sink setting."


----------



## kenada (Jun 4, 2022)

I would add that it’s not like there is agreement on what constitutes a proper sandbox. I make heavy use of generative techniques to create the sandbox during play, but that would not be adequate for others. They expect a significant investment of up-front authorship to make it feel real. Just see the sandbox thread here for examples. In that regard, it’s similar to other jargon where proponents might not agree on all the specifics or details.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 4, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Just to add a bit to @Ovinomancer's reply:
> 
> Skill challenges being with the fiction: what is the situation? what do the PCs want out of it? Then each action declaration begins with the fiction: what are you doing to try and change the situation? what are you trying to achieve? Only then is it "mechanised" and turned into a skill check. The outcome of that check ends with the fiction: the GM narrates what has changed (for better or worse!) as a result of that PC doing that thing. And this provides the context for the next skill check. The GM's narration of the fiction is also having regard to the overall progression of the challenge, making sure that some final resolution is available in the fiction as it is emerging. (Parenthetically: in my view this is the single hardest thing a 4e GM has to do. It's harder than running a 4e combat. I think it's on the same difficulty level as managing the Doom Pool in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic.)
> 
> ...




You presumably set the stakes for the skill challenge when you declare it. So there is two ways it can go, the determined pass stake and the determined fail stake. The fiction cannot evolve into some completely different direction. Also, it really doesn't matter much what the characters do, they just need to make up something to trigger the skill roll. And if someone comes up with something that seems really easy, or really hard in the fiction, it doesn't matter, the DC is the same. If someone comes up with something ingenious that should solve the whole issue at once or something utterly disastrous that should instantly doom the whole attempt, it cannot happen without deviating from the skill challenge structure. Nope, sorry, this is mostly just weaving some flavour on rigid and fixed mechanics. If we want to truly put the fiction first, then we don't have some inflexible framework the fiction needs to conform to, we apply the mechanics to the situation as the fiction warrants it.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 4, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> You presumably set the stakes for the skill challenge when you declare it. So there is two ways it can go, the determined pass stake and the determined fail stake. The fiction cannot evolve into some completely different direction.



I don't think this is correct. What's at stake during a skill challenge can change, as the situation evolves via play. Here's an example, from actual 4e play:



pemerton said:


> On the weekend I ran my first session of 4e that invovled _only_ social interaction. So I thought I'd post about how it went.
> 
> *The starting point*
> The PCs are low paragon - a dwarf fighter/warpriest of Moradin, a paladin of the Raven Queen, a wizard/invoker, a drow chaos sorcerer/demonskin adept, and a ranger-cleric of the Raven Queen. The player of the ranger-cleric was absent from the session.
> ...



This post says a bit more about the methodology:


pemerton said:


> wedgeski said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Crimson Longinus said:


> it really doesn't matter much what the characters do, they just need to make up something to trigger the skill roll.



This isn't right at all. See the example above, for instance. Or this one:


pemerton said:


> The bear encounter
> 
> The scenario I ran yesterday (from the Eden Odyssesy d20 book called "Wonders Out of Time") called for a Large bear.
> 
> ...





pemerton said:


> The player of the paladin actually said, after the bear had been pacified, "I feel really good about not having killed that bear." (He was the player who, in the one previous bear encounter in the campaign, had also initiated non-violent means then.)



The bear was befriended by the ranger, but not the sorcerer.

Both skill challenges begin and end with the fiction: framing, action declaration, resolution, developed situation.



Crimson Longinus said:


> the DC is the same. If someone comes up with something ingenious that should solve the whole issue at once or something utterly disastrous that should instantly doom the whole attempt, it cannot happen without deviating from the skill challenge structure. Nope, sorry, this is mostly just weaving some flavour on rigid and fixed mechanics. If we want to truly put the fiction first, then we don't have some inflexible framework the fiction needs to conform to, we apply the mechanics to the situation as the fiction warrants it.



What you're describing here is not "fiction first" - at least as I've ever seen that phrase used - but a particular approach to resolution - roughly, extrapolation of consequences (by the GM?) from the fiction without mechanical intermediation.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 4, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> A fair number of game designers from the Forge have moved past, but I think that it's also important to understand where their ideas came from and how they still reverberate in tabletop game design. IMO, some Forge jargon is "stickier" or more enduring in their usefulness as terms and principles than others. The main goals of the Forge, IMHO, have been met. They recognized that they wanted something different out of their gaming experience than what Storyteller and similar games were marketing themselves as, and they began developing games that were meant to support those principles: e.g., Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Lady Blackbird, Fiasco, Fate, Cortex, Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, etc.




I wasn't going to come back (I think I explained most of what I had to say in the OP), but I have some general thoughts both regarding what you wrote (which I largely agree with) and what I see in this thread, which is largely the reason I wrote the OP, and to illustrate the actual concern some people have - even though this thread, has, to date, been largely productive and I think that is a credit to the people involved.

In the OP, I think I acknowledged that good use came out of those discussions on the Forge. The history of TTRPGs is always smart people looking at what is around them, saying "I don't like that," coming up with a way to justify not liking it, and then making something new. That's great! That's how we get new stuff! And no matter what other opinions any person might have, a lot of new indie games (and indie game designers) were, um, forged at the Forge. In addition, while I appreciate that there are those who say it helps them with all sorts of games ... I think that there is a reason that (1) the Forge changed the terminology from GDS to GNS, and (2) all those games we specifically credit from the Forge tend to be narrativism. It's more ...gNs.

But the point I keep making (and the reason I quoted you) is that the Forge officially closed a decade ago, and was "closed" in terms of vitality before that. Why are people still recycling the same quotes from 20 years ago? Why aren't we discussing anything new about new games, instead of using the same tired (and often controversial) framework to discuss new games? Why is it that when other people try and discuss TTRPG theory here, we have to discuss GNS, and Ron Edwards, and Forge principles? Always?

There is a reason that modern game designers, even those that acknowledge an influence from Forge ideas, have moved away- because those ideas are associated with a specific time, place, and a strong "N" ideology and use of certain jargon that is disfavored by others. Not all of it- a lot of the ideas have continuing value. But it's kind of like seeing a picture of yourself wearing clothes from 15 years ago- yeah, you wore those, and it worked at the time, but you've moved on. (I hope ... no judgment).

Look, let's say someone wanted to learn about, oh, Fiasco, or  Night Witches, or any of a number of Storygames? Would they be better served by engaging with essays from Ron Edwards from 2002?. Or going .... I don't know ... here-








						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
				




Now, even though that's old (I mean... 2016!) you can see a few things. Sure, it has some lingering GNS influence (stating that there is little emphasis on "simulations mechanics" for example). But in other ways, it is refreshingly modern in its concerns- discussing how the underlying themes of the games matter, and how issues related to player safety and boundaries are to be negotiated (rather than assumed through norms, as you have in most traditional games), and it also strives to be inclusive of other games- rather than saying D&D _isn't_ a story game, it just says it can be played as one, but doesn't support the style very well. I can read that, and it's clear, it's concise, and while it is descriptive (discussing a set of games by properties) instead of prescriptive (announcing a manifesto and demanding games produced to it), it's immensely more helpful.

(Finally, if you look into the comments, there's a fascinating comment by the author responding to a question regarding GNS and Ron Edwards.)

Simply put, this tells me more, on its own terms, about Storygames than trying to pigeonhole those games back into a model designed as a reaction to specific games and playing styles from the 90s.

For that matter, did anyone here realize that others were parsing our comments to learn about _transgressive_ monsters in D&D?





__





						The Computational Sublime in Monster Design | Analog Game Studies
					





					analoggamestudies.org
				




@the Jester


Heck, we just had the publication of a book that, for the first time, detailed the early history of TTRPG theory, discussed the shifting paradigm from wargaming to roleplaying, and showed how the debates we continue to have today are the same ones that we had at the beginning- and yet, there seems to be little interest in discussing it on its own terms (that was Peterson's Elusive Shift).

And as far as I can tell ... I am the only person that seems to care that a major book was published that is an academic look at ... THE FORGE. A favorable one. The one by William J. White? The one I keep posting the link to? I know the hardcover is expensive, but I thought that at least one of the people that keeps the conversation about GNS and the Forge going would have bought the Kindle copy and posted their review. Did I miss the review?

I mean ... don't wait for me to do the review. 

Look- I truly appreciate that there are people that continue to use techniques that they learned to improve their games; when they are discussing that, I don't bother them. I just think it would be nifty if we could have some conversations about the ... newer ... topics  in TTRPG theory. There are a few.

(Finally, allowing conversations to be dominated purely by aspects of dense jargon related to debates over aspects of gameplay privileges certain perspectives over others. This is a fraught issue, as, for example, there is a continuing debate about the influence of fluff and crunch as it relates to LGBTQA+ representation in games; it has been the case that games with significant fluff and no mechanics regarding social mechanics or gender norms (such as early D&D) were productive; it is also certainly the case the games that followed in the footsteps of "system matters" such as Monsterhearts, with explicit mechanics, were certainly representative- but this is the type of conversation we aren't seeing. Which, given the month ... maybe that's a better theory conversation to have than have another "framing" conversation).


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I wasn't going to come back (I think I explained most of what I had to say in the OP), but I have some general thoughts both regarding what you wrote (which I largely agree with) and what I see in this thread, which is largely the reason I wrote the OP, and to illustrate the actual concern some people have - even though this thread, has, to date, been largely productive and I think that is a credit to the people involved.
> 
> In the OP, I think I acknowledged that good use came out of those discussions on the Forge. The history of TTRPGs is always smart people looking at what is around them, saying "I don't like that," coming up with a way to justify not liking it, and then making something new. That's great! That's how we get new stuff! And no matter what other opinions any person might have, a lot of new indie games (and indie game designers) were, um, forged at the Forge. In addition, while I appreciate that there are those who say it helps them with all sorts of games ... I think that there is a reason that (1) the Forge changed the terminology from GDS to GNS, and (2) all those games we specifically credit from the Forge tend to be narrativism. It's more ...gNs.
> 
> ...



I’m finally reading _The Elusive Shift_ and it’s maddening how limited in scope modern RPG theory conversations are as well as how historically repetitive. We’re literally rehashing a tiny subset of the exact same conversations that have spanned from the invention of Prussian Kriegsspiel to the 1970s when D&D came out and the wargamers and sci-fi fandoms both took up the game and started hashing things out. There really is nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 4, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I don't think this is correct. What's at stake during a skill challenge can change, as the situation evolves via play. Here's an example, from actual 4e play:



How do you set the level and complexity of the challenge if you don't even know the stakes? How the players know what to do if they don't know what they try to achieve? This makes it even more mechanics first. You choose the mechanical framework without even having concrete idea what sort of fiction it is to represent. 



pemerton said:


> Both skill challenges begin and end with the fiction: framing, action declaration, resolution, developed situation.



Your examples imply you pretty tightly control what sort of checks the players can attempt and when. I'm not quite sure that's how the rulebook instructs one to do it. But yes, it probably works better that way. However, in your examples we can see that the underlying mechanics inform the fiction, and not the other way around. You know that one check is still needed so you come up with fiction to justify it etc. 



pemerton said:


> What you're describing here is not "fiction first" - at least as I've ever seen that phrase used - but a particular approach to resolution - roughly, extrapolation of consequences (by the GM?) from the fiction without mechanical intermediation.



For my point it doesn't really matter who is doing the extrapolating, albeit in most games it would be the GM. But I was merely articulating what actually putting the fiction first would entail. But yes, I know it is a Forge buzzword, so it doesn't actually mean what it intuitively sounds like.


----------



## innerdude (Jun 4, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I wasn't going to come back (I think I explained most of what I had to say in the OP), but I have some general thoughts both regarding what you wrote (which I largely agree with) and what I see in this thread, which is largely the reason I wrote the OP, and to illustrate the actual concern some people have - even though this thread, has, to date, been largely productive and I think that is a credit to the people involved.
> 
> In the OP, I think I acknowledged that good use came out of those discussions on the Forge. The history of TTRPGs is always smart people looking at what is around them, saying "I don't like that," coming up with a way to justify not liking it, and then making something new. That's great! That's how we get new stuff! And no matter what other opinions any person might have, a lot of new indie games (and indie game designers) were, um, forged at the Forge. In addition, while I appreciate that there are those who say it helps them with all sorts of games ... I think that there is a reason that (1) the Forge changed the terminology from GDS to GNS, and (2) all those games we specifically credit from the Forge tend to be narrativism. It's more ...gNs.
> 
> But the point I keep making (and the reason I quoted you) is that the Forge officially closed a decade ago, and was "closed" in terms of vitality before that. Why are people still recycling the same quotes from 20 years ago? Why aren't we discussing anything new about new games, instead of using the same tired (and often controversial) framework to discuss new games? Why is it that when other people try and discuss TTRPG theory here, we have to discuss GNS, and Ron Edwards, and Forge principles? Always?






Snarf Zagyg said:


> Heck, we just had the publication of a book that, for the first time, detailed the early history of TTRPG theory, discussed the shifting paradigm from wargaming to roleplaying, and showed how the debates we continue to have today are the same ones that we had at the beginning- and yet, there seems to be little interest in discussing it on its own terms (that was Peterson's Elusive Shift).
> 
> And as far as I can tell ... I am the only person that seems to care that a major book was published that is an academic look at ... THE FORGE. A favorable one. The one by William J. White? The one I keep posting the link to? I know the hardcover is expensive, but I thought that at least one of the people that keeps the conversation about GNS and the Forge going would have bought the Kindle copy and posted their review. Did I miss the review?
> 
> ...




The thing you're forgetting in all this is that the principle of the innovation adoption curve is a very real thing. And that exposure to any fraction of the principles surrounding RPG theory is something that only a small percentage of the player base ever experiences.

And why is this important? _Because the dominant, normative styles of RPG play remain, to this day, based in "traditional", "neo-traditional," and OSR / "classic" play. (See descriptions in the 6 Cultures of Play article here: Six Cultures of Play)_

For players like me, when you eventually come to the point where you begin to question the radically dominant lines of thought of "how RPGs are supposed to work", you're faced with a massive, difficult process to even begin to conceive of new ways of playing. The process becomes even more difficult if you've been entrenched in the dominance of "traditional" Dungeons and Dragons ways of playing.

There are many, many RPG hobbyists that will never look outside "traditional" D&D play, and more to the point, _will never care if they don't_.

So consider --- it's now 20+ years since the Forge was really active. Yet you're asking the question, why does RPG theory still seem like it's stuck on addressing principles from this now "antiquated" set of Forge musings?

The problem is that even now, unless anyone cares to specifically look for them, getting cogent perspectives outside the "privileged" (your term) viewpoints of "trad" and "neo-trad" that dominate D&D-focused gameplay is a difficult undertaking. And furthermore, getting access to those viewpoints in any concrete, organized way is even more difficult.

In this regard, I very much appreciate your attempt to organize a coherent set of material that talks through a multitude of RPG theory perspectives.

But the fact of the matter is, "narrativism" as proposed by the Forge, remains perhaps the most radical departure and re-envisioning of what "RPG play can be" of the past 20+ years. There's a reason it remains a touchstone point in the evolution of RPG theory. And isn't it interesting that the RPG market clearly, CLEARLY bears this out, with the success of the Powered by the Apocalypse and Blades in the Dark engines over the past decade?

If we're fighting over the same issues over and over, it's because the battle remains the same. The battle remains getting anyone, anywhere, to look at RPG play from outside the "privileged," "trad," radically-D&D-centric viewpoint.

It took me 20+ years, from age 9 to age 32, to even begin to question what I was getting out of "traditional" D&D gameplay, and took another 7 or 8 years of experimentation to even consider looking at PbtA as a "valid" style of play.

Until 2017, when I finally took a deep breath and gave Dungeon World a try, you'd never have heard me give even an ounce of credence to "GNS" and "narrativist" theory.

But once I took the plunge and gave Dungeon World a try, even though it didn't go perfectly, it gave me key glimpses and hints and takeaways of how that type of game could possibly work.

And boy am I glad it did, because I would absolutely never have discovered the awesomeness of Ironsworn if I hadn't taken that initial risk 5 years ago.

If the same theories keep cropping up in conversations, it's not a failing of the community to "open their eyes to new things". It's because the same problems continue to present themselves, and GNS's "narrativism" continues to provide a touchstone perspective that is largely unaddressed elsewhere.

GNS and its proposal of narrativism remains a topic of conversation because it is the most immediate and obvious counter-narrative to the "privileged", dominant mindsets of "trad" and "neo-trad" play. If you want to have RPG theory evolve past this point, then maybe its time to chat with the "trad" and "neo-trad" player base and ask them to, you know, look outside their "privileged" box occasionally.

Because from what I observe from conversations on these discussion boards---and my own experience bears it out---is that when someone does finally, perhaps gingerly, try to look outside the "trad" box, the very first thing they bump up against is the flashing neon sign of Forge-ist narrativism. So of course it's going to be a topic of ongoing conversation.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 4, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> How do you set the level and complexity of the challenge if you don't even know the stakes? How the players know what to do if they don't know what they try to achieve? This makes it even more mechanics first. You choose the mechanical framework without even having concrete idea what sort of fiction it is to represent.



That the stakes can change doesn't mean you don't know what they are. Unless the DM specifically hides them! If there were no fiction—first—a skill challenge would be nothing more than, for example: "Okay, so you have to pass 5 skill checks at DC 15 before you fail 3. You can use Persuasion, Intimidation, and Survival. Go!" And I'd wager that even in writing an adventure the author doesn't think of something like that first. They'll think of the fictional situation, first, and then try to put the mechanical details of the skill challenge in to support that.



Crimson Longinus said:


> Your examples imply you pretty tightly control what sort of checks the players can attempt and when. I'm not quite sure that's how the rulebook instructs one to do it. But yes, it probably works better that way. However, in your examples we can see that the underlying mechanics inform the fiction, and not the other way around. You know that one check is still needed so you come up with fiction to justify it etc.



My reading of the 4e text is that the DM sets a default DC for all the skill checks, provides the applicable skills (that are relevant to the fiction), and # successes / failures. There is explicit text about handling when players come up with approaches that are out of the box, with different skills, etc.

Even in the basic case, though, the players are free to take whatever actions they like as seems plausible in the fiction—first—and then map that onto skill checks. They _could_ just pick some skills and roll dice without describing what they do, of course, but then they're missing out on most of the fun. They could also pick a skill first, and then decide how they go about using it, but that's really little different than, "John's good at persuading, let him do the talking".

Compare to my description of dramatic skill challenges in Torg Eternity, which are rigidly scripted in terms of the exact skills in the exact order they must be performed. Even then, while the mechanics of the thing clearly step forward to upstage the fiction during play, some fiction motivated the setup and scripting, and the fiction is what gets described to the players before the players are given the rigid mechanics of how to deal with it. That is, the fiction comes first.



Crimson Longinus said:


> For my point it doesn't really matter who is doing the extrapolating, albeit in most games it would be the GM. But I was merely articulating what actually putting the fiction first would entail. But yes, I know it is a Forge buzzword, so it doesn't actually mean what it intuitively sounds like.



To me, it does mean what it intuitively sounds like. Fiction comes first, and then you deal with mechanics.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 4, 2022)

innerdude said:


> So consider --- it's now 20+ years since the Forge was really active. Yet you're asking the question, why does RPG theory still seem like it's stuck on addressing principles from this now "antiquated" set of Forge musings?



It’s way worse than that. These exact same conversations (only using slightly different terms and jargon) have been going on since at least the late 1960s (yes, they predate D&D), if not all the way back to Reisswitz’s Kriegsspiel game in 1812. We’re stuck in a conversational loop that’s at least 60 years old at this point, if not one that’s 210 years old.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 4, 2022)

innerdude said:


> Because from what I observe from conversations *on these discussion boards*---and my own experience bears it out---is that when someone does finally, perhaps gingerly, try to look outside the "trad" box, the very first thing they bump up against is the flashing neon sign of Forge-ist narrativism. So of course it's going to be a topic of ongoing conversation.




I will address this very briefly, as I choose specifically not to in the post you are replying to.

There seems to be confusion regarding two separate issues; the first is regarding conversations on *these discussions boards*. On this, I tend to largely agree with @Umbran and @Malmuria - which is to say ... know your audience. Look at the threads. Once you exclude the Geek Media threads, do you notice anything? The vast majority of them are about 5e. And then older editions of D&D. And then Level Up (which is advanced 5e). This board covers general TTRPG topics, but is so firmly entrenched in "D&D" that it was one of the few websites specifically called out on the last, 34 hour survey on D&D by WoTC (the time taken is approximate, but feels accurate).

With that in mind, when you are already in a place with large numbers of D&D players, and you are employing a theory (pace @Malmuria 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.


But yes, I am glad you have found games and a play style that you find satisfying! And I hope that you are able to discuss it with others in an open and productive way here, and that you accord others the same respect when they are discussing other issues as well. That's how it should be!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Charlaquin said:


> Consider each keyed encounter a scene. There’s really only one order these scenes can play out. The party can backtrack to a room they have already visited, but they’ve presumably already resolved the encounter there, so there isn’t much to be done.



The focus here seems to be on _geography_: there's a single tunnel with things spread along it.

So the linearity is the geography.

But there seems to be some other premise at work that I'm not quite getting. Still looking at the dungeon scenario that @Malmuria linked to, I don't see how each of the dungeon rooms is a scene. Different scenes could happen in the same room: for instance, a Halfling could sneak forward from room 2 to room 4, get spotted by the boss, call for help, and then when their bigger friends come running the pressure plate triggers. Now we've had two different scenes in room 3.



Charlaquin said:


> There’s also a bit of a spectrum. Yes, the fact that there are two ways to open the secret door and the use of random encounters means that this dungeon won’t play out _exactly_ the same way every time, but there’s pretty minimal room for variation. The keyed scenes still play out in the same order every time. So, maybe it’s not _completely_ linear, but it is pretty far towards the linear end of the spectrum.



I'm still not really getting it. On top of the example I just gave, one group might read all the stuff in room 2 first time through, whereas another group - in a hurry to avoid being ambushed by Goblins - keeps going, but then has to backtrack to try and solve the riddle.



Charlaquin said:


> Contrast it with, like, The Caverns of Thracia, which has multiple entrances to each level, and many paths between any two keyed encounters. That dungeon’s structure is far less linear, but still not totally open, as the players are for the most part restricted to the dungeon’s predesigned paths. I would call it a branching structure. Contrast both with Isle of Dread, where there is no restrictive dungeon structure, merely an open hex map that the players can explore in any direction.





Charlaquin said:


> A dungeon with looping paths isn’t really what I would consider open, because the paths still create restrictions on the players’ ability to navigate the space. I mean, unless  they’re freely able to just tunnel through walls or something. A hexcrawl is, in my view, the clearest example of an open structure, though not the only example.



This seems to be all about geography. And also seems to equate _adventure_ (as in "linear _adventure_") with exploration of the imagined geography. And for the reasons I've give above, I don't really see how _geography_ and _scenes_ are being correlated.



Charlaquin said:


> Another way is through illusionism. No matter where the players decide to go, the DM has the next scene they had planned play out there.



This, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have anything to do with maps or geography at all. It seems to be about GMing techniques.



Charlaquin said:


> A third way is through player buy-in. The group agrees in advance that there’s a set plot that they’re going to follow. In some cases, this kind of arrangement is implicit - the DM doesn’t outright state that the adventure has a linear plot that the players agree to follow, but the players understand that there’s not really any adventure to be found except where the DM telegraphs that there’s going to be.



This seems like a consensual variation of what you've called "illusionism". (I'm not sure if you're meaning to use _illusionism_ in the Forge sense or not. If you are, then they had a corresponding bit of jargon for consensual illusionism: _participationism_. But maybe you're using "illusionism" in some other sense? I'm not sure.)

Anyway, as I said I don't really get what people mean by _linear adventures_ and I'm still pretty unclear, as it seems to rest on some distinctions I'm not sensitive to, or some premise I don't get, around the relationship between maps and geography, GM techniques, and exploratory play.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2022)

pemerton said:
			
		

> What's at stake during a skill challenge can change, as the situation evolves via play.





Crimson Longinus said:


> How do you set the level and complexity of the challenge if you don't even know the stakes?



I'm not sure how _the stakes can change_ entails _don't even know the stakes_.

Do you mean _don't even know the final stakes_?

Anyway, the way I set the level and complexity is by deciding how big a deal I think it should be, in play. That's part of the job of a 4e GM: to make those sorts of decisions about pacing. It's the out-of-combat analogue of deciding whether a given creature/NPC should be represented as a minion or not.



Crimson Longinus said:


> How the players know what to do if they don't know what they try to achieve?



I don't follow this at all. I posted two examples of play. In both the players decided what they wanted to achieve, and that was what led into a skill challenge. How are you imagining that players, having decided what they want to achieve, don't know what they want to achieved?



Crimson Longinus said:


> Your examples imply you pretty tightly control what sort of checks the players can attempt and when.



Can you elaborate on that? In the examples posted, a player decides to make a Nature check to calm a bear using Ghost Sounds to soothe it; a player decides to make a point by using a (concealed) Bedevilling Burst to upset some desserts; a player decides to try and pressure (bully?) a NPC into revealing himself, by his PC addressing him by his Goblin rather than Common name, and another player decides to double down on that; a player decides to remove a point of pressure (the socially weak Derrik) by (in character) suggesting that they go take a leak; etc.

What control do you see the GM exercising?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I was merely articulating what actually putting the fiction first would entail. But yes, I know it is a Forge buzzword, so it doesn't actually mean what it intuitively sounds like.



As far as I know, "fiction first" isn't a "Forge buzzword" or anything to do with the Forge at all. Do you have a reference in mind?

My understanding of "fiction first" is that it refers to declaring actions by reference to the fiction, and the resolution of them being a change in the fiction.

The contrast to "fiction first" is resolution by reference to mechanical states of affairs: action economies, resource expenditure, etc.

You're the first person I've encountered who is using "fiction first" to refer to the _method of resolution_ and suggest that it must be mechanically unmediated extrapolation from the fiction (maybe you also permit mechanical mediation where that is some sort of model of the in-fiction process that is taking place?).


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 5, 2022)

pemerton said:


> The focus here seems to be on _geography_: there's a single tunnel with things spread along it.
> 
> So the linearity is the geography.
> But there seems to be some other premise at work that I'm not quite getting. Still looking at the dungeon scenario that @Malmuria linked to, I don't see how each of the dungeon rooms is a scene. Different scenes could happen in the same room: for instance, a Halfling could sneak forward from room 2 to room 4, get spotted by the boss, call for help, and then when their bigger friends come running the pressure plate triggers. Now we've had too different scenes in room 3.
> ...



Ah. I think I see the disconnect here.

Adventure structure, in this context, concerns the design and planning of an adventure, not moment to moment gameplay. I think earlier someone said it was about what a published adventure instructs the GM to do, but that’s because a published adventure is essentially instructions for how to run an adventure someone else has designed. The designer has already made the plans and they’re instructing the DM on how to execute them. The reason this looks like a matter of geography is because, _in the case of a dungeon_, the geography is very closely linked with the structure of the adventure. There’s a quote from some game designer or other that goes something along the lines of “a dungeon is a place where the structure of the adventure directly corresponds to a physical structure.”

So, the fact that any given group of players may enact different scenes than any other given group isn’t really relevant here. We’re not concerned with how the gameplay shakes out, we’re discussing how the person planning it is designing it. If you lay out a flowchart of the encounters you have planned and how the players can move from one to the other, and those encounters all take place in a dungeon, you could overlay that flowchart with the map of the dungeon and they would line up pretty much 1:1. What makes the linked dungeon a linear adventure is that there’s really only one order in which the planned encounters can occur. There could of course be unplanned encounters, but that doesn’t really play into the design, as an unplanned encounter is by definition not something the design can account for, apart from I guess knowing _that_ they will happen.



pemerton said:


> This, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have anything to do with maps or geography at all. It seems to be about GMing techniques.
> 
> This seems like a consensual variation of what you've called "illusionism". (I'm not sure if you're meaning to use _illusionism_ in the Forge sense or not. If you are, then they had a corresponding bit of jargon for consensual illusionism: _participationism_. But maybe you're using "illusionism" in some other sense? I'm not sure.)



I don’t know, maybe I’m using illusionism wrong, or maybe participationism does describe what I’m talking about. I think my lack of intimate familiarity with GNS is pretty well-established at this point. Anyway, point is, yes, these are GMing techniques which can be used to insure that the planned encounters occur in the order they were planned, just as dungeon walls can be used to insure that the planned encounters occur in the order they were planned. 


pemerton said:


> Anyway, as I said I don't really get what people mean by _linear adventures_ and I'm still pretty unclear, as it seems to rest on some distinctions I'm not sensitive to, or some premise I don't get, around the relationship between maps and geography, GM techniques, and exploratory play.



Hopefully framing it as concerning the planning and design of an adventure, and a dungeon as a physical structure that corresponds to a design structure has helped?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Adventure structure, in this context, concerns the design and planning of an adventure, not moment to moment gameplay. I think earlier someone said it was about what a published adventure instructs the GM to do, but that’s because a published adventure is essentially instructions for how to run an adventure someone else has designed. The designer has already made the plans and they’re instructing the DM on how to execute them. The reason this looks like a matter of geography is because, _in the case of a dungeon_, the geography is very closely linked with the structure of the adventure. There’s a quote from some game designer or other that goes something along the lines of “a dungeon is a place where the structure of the adventure directly corresponds to a physical structure.”
> 
> So, the fact that any given group of players may enact different scenes than any other given group isn’t really relevant here. We’re not concerned with how the gameplay shakes out, we’re discussing how the person planning it is designing it.
> 
> ...



In that case I don't see how the dungeon that @Malmuria linked to is linear. It doesn't have any express instructions for how a GM should run the adventure: it just describes a location and the behaviour of some of the things to be found there.

But when I look at it and imagine running it, I don't see a single adventure structure at all. I see multiple possibilities, along the lines I've posted upthread.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 5, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure how _the stakes can change_ entails _don't even know the stakes_.
> 
> Do you mean _don't even know the final stakes_?



Yes. Also, if the stakes change, it is unclear to me why the success and fails towards the old stakes would count towards the new ones. For example if in the midway of the bear scene the characters would have decided to scare away the bear instead of taming it. 



pemerton said:


> Anyway, the way I set the level and complexity is by deciding how big a deal I think it should be, in play. That's part of the job of a 4e GM: to make those sorts of decisions about pacing. It's the out-of-combat analogue of deciding whether a given creature/NPC should be represented as a minion or not.



How big deal _what_ should be? If the final stakes can change, how do you know how big deal it will be?



pemerton said:


> I don't follow this at all. I posted two examples of play. In both the players decided what they wanted to achieve, and that was what led into a skill challenge. How are you imagining that players, having decided what they want to achieve, don't know what they want to achieved?



Yet the stakes can change? 



pemerton said:


> Can you elaborate on that? In the examples posted, a player decides to make a Nature check to calm a bear using Ghost Sounds to soothe it; a player decides to make a point by using a (concealed) Bedevilling Burst to upset some desserts; a player decides to try and pressure (bully?) a NPC into revealing himself, by his PC addressing him by his Goblin rather than Common name, and another player decides to double down on that; a player decides to remove a point of pressure (the socially weak Derrik) by (in character) suggesting that they go take a leak; etc.
> 
> What control do you see the GM exercising?



It seems you control the pace in which the checks are being made. You talked about putting pressure on the characters to force them to react, that's part of it. Also, who decides what action constitutes a rollable check? For example, was Derrik's last conversation with the baron any sort of check? 

In any case, I'm not even sure how relevant this is to to my overall point of skill challenges being fiction layered on predetermined and inflexible mechanical frame which guides how the fiction is formed, and this doesn't sound very fiction first to me. 

And unrelated to the actual debate, I want to say that I really liked your dinner party scene, and it is impressive use of skill challenge, and not something I would have imagined based on how they were described in the rulebooks. They certainly could have used examples like that!


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 5, 2022)

pemerton said:


> In that case I don't see how the dungeon that @Malmuria linked to is linear. It doesn't have any express instructions for how a GM should run the adventure: it just describes a location and the behaviour of some of the things to be found there.
> 
> But when I look at it and imagine running it, I don't see a single adventure structure at all. I see multiple possibilities, along the lines I've posted upthread.



It doesn’t particularly need express instructions. It has 6 keyed encounters and no way for them to happen in any order than 1, then 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, then 6. Might the players have in-character interactions between those keyed encounters? Sure. Might they backtrack into a room after clearing the encounter keyed to it? Sure. Might they have a random encounter in there at some point? Sure. But there’s no way for the keyed encounters to occur in any order other than 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Short of, like, digging their own tunnels, I guess, but I don’t think that’s something most dungeon adventure designs tend to account for.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 5, 2022)

pemerton said:


> As far as I know, "fiction first" isn't a "Forge buzzword" or anything to do with the Forge at all. Do you have a reference in mind?



Ah, I was just mistaken about the origin then.



pemerton said:


> My understanding of "fiction first" is that it refers to declaring actions by reference to the fiction, and the resolution of them being a change in the fiction.
> 
> The contrast to "fiction first" is resolution by reference to mechanical states of affairs: action economies, resource expenditure, etc.
> 
> You're the first person I've encountered who is using "fiction first" to refer to the _method of resolution_ and suggest that it must be mechanically unmediated extrapolation from the fiction (maybe you also permit mechanical mediation where that is some sort of model of the in-fiction process that is taking place?).



But certainly it must be about more than just 'referencing' fiction? Otherwise it is simply about how we phrase things. And it doesn't need to be "mechanically unmediated" but the mechanics should be chosen to conform to the fiction rather than the other way around. In skill challenges the situation is resolved after fixed number of fails or passes because that's the mechanic, and we need to weave fiction to conform to that. The challenge doesn't end with five successes because that makes sense in the fiction, instead it ends with five success because that's the rules, and we (hopefully) can come up with fiction to explain why those five checks were made and why those specific deeds would resolve the situation.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Ah, I was just mistaken about the origin then.



Fair enough.



Crimson Longinus said:


> And it doesn't need to be "mechanically unmediated" but the mechanics should be chosen to conform to the fiction rather than the other way around.



I tried to get this in my parantheses.



Crimson Longinus said:


> But certainly it must be about more than just 'referencing' fiction? Otherwise it is simply about how we phrase things.



I'm not sure what you mean by "'referencing' fiction", so don't know what the answer is.

Here's an example of non-fiction first resolution:

Each Burning Wheel character has an attribute called Reflex. It is derived from three stats (Agility, Speed and Perception). It will rarely be lower than 2, and if it gets to 8+ that's superlative. 3 or 4 is a typical number.

Reflex specifies how many actions a character can take in an exchange during Fight! Each exchange in Fight! consists of three volleys. Actions must be allocated to volleys such that, as near as possible (given there are no fractional actions), each volley has the same number of actions. Thus, the typical allocation of actions is 1 in each volley, but the possibility of a second in one or more volleys.

The allocation of actions to volleys - when they are taken, and what they are - is done at the start of each exchange, in secret. Thus we have blind declaration of actions, with uncertainty as to where they will land (unless someone has Reflex 3, 6 or 9 in which case we know there will be 1, 2 or 3 actions per volley). Part of the skill of scripting is to land your uncertain actions at a point where they are unopposed by the opponent. (Eg you Strike as your second action in the second volley, and with their Reflex 4 they have only one second action for the exchange and they've put that into their third volley - so your Strike will not be opposed by a Block or Avoid or Counterstrike.)

I can report from experience that scripting is tense, and the resulting play rather visceral. But it's not fiction first. It is nothing about the fiction that divides the back-and-forth of melee combat into a sequence of exchanges and volleys and actions; or that deems the spread of actions to be as flat as possible but with little peaks of uncertainty; or that deems one person (the one with Reflex 6) to act with a metronomic regularity that others don't display.

Those features of the action declaration framework are all external to the fiction. They're designed to support engaging gameplay.

A skill challenge does not have an action economy, does not use initiative (some early iterations toyed with this, but it was quickly abandoned - I can't remember, but maybe even the 4e DMG flags this as optional), begins all action with the fiction - _what is the situation_ - and ends all action with the fiction - _here is how the situation has changed_. The fullest discussion of this is found in the DMG2, but it is also set out in the DMG.



Crimson Longinus said:


> In skill challenges the situation is resolved after fixed number of fails or passes because that's the mechanic, and we need to weave fiction to conform to that. The challenge doesn't end with five successes because that makes sense in the fiction, instead it ends with five success because that's the rules, and we (hopefully) can come up with fiction to explain why those five checks were made and why those specific deeds would resolve the situation.



In Apocalypse World, if I succeed on my attempt to Seize something By Force then we have to weave fiction to conform to that outcome. We don't independently consult the fiction to work out whether or not it "makes sense" that I have seized the thing by force.

But it would be an odd result if one of the games best known for "beginning and ending with the fiction" turned out not to count as "fiction first".

This is why, as I've already posted, you seem to be using the phrase in some fashion different from the way I have generally understood it.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 5, 2022)

pemerton said:


> In Apocalypse World, if I succeed on my attempt to Seize something By Force then we have to weave fiction to conform to that outcome. We don't independently consult the fiction to work out whether or not it "makes sense" that I have seized the thing by force.



I don't think this is really analogous to the skill challenge. The fiction is consulted at the point it is determined that this is even a possible move in the situation in the first place. Then the mechanic merely helps to whether the move is successful and in what way.



pemerton said:


> This is why, as I've already posted, you seem to be using the phrase in some fashion different from the way I have generally understood it.



That is certainly perfectly possible. I think I already said I was talking about what I feel actually putting the fiction first would entail.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> if the stakes change, it is unclear to me why the success and fails towards the old stakes would count towards the new ones. For example if in the midway of the bear scene the characters would have decided to scare away the bear instead of taming it.



This is a question of technical design.

In every version of D&D I'm aware of, if the players decide, midway through a combat, to have their PCs run away, we don't reset the hit point totals.

In HeroWars, Robin Laws makes it clear that action point totals aren't reset even if the approach of the character to the situation changes.

The technical question is something like this: to what extent should the legacy of past efforts be carried forward into new ones? At least in resolution systems that use closed-scene resolution, like a skill challenge or HeroWars, it's closely related to the question of when a scene is deemed to be resolved. In resource-oriented systems - and 4e D&D has a bit of this, and it's a factor in skill challenges though less prominent than in combat - it's also related to the question of when you get to refresh your resources.

My own experience is that the 4e D&D approach produces compelling gameplay. I think the fact that you have to carry some of that legacy with you is part of how it does that.



Crimson Longinus said:


> How big deal _what_ should be? If the final stakes can change, how do you know how big deal it will be?



It's a judgement call. Burning Wheel, in its Duel of Wits rules, similarly requires the GM to make a call about how big a deal it is, though we can never be quite certain until the things is already happening.

If you make the wrong call, play can fall flat: make it too quick, and it seems like premature resolution; make it too slow relative to what turns out to be at stake, and it becomes drawn out. These are the pitfalls of "story now" GMing. Experience helps to avoid them.



Crimson Longinus said:


> Yet the stakes can change?



Yes. In the dinner party, the players initially wanted to get through the evening without inciting conflict with Paldemar/Golthar, because they didn't want to upset the Baron. But as things came to a crunch, they shifted goals - Derrik, in particular, having established a rapport with the Baron, decided instead that he would goad Paldemar/Golthar into revealing himself.



Crimson Longinus said:


> It seems you control the pace in which the checks are being made. You talked about putting pressure on the characters to force them to react, that's part of it. Also, who decides what action constitutes a rollable check? For example, was Derrik's last conversation with the baron any sort of check?



I can't remember the answer to the last question.

Putting pressure on the players (via their PCs) is probably the most fundamental move for "story now" GMing. It relates back to the "two structures" that @Campbell set out upthread. And in 4e D&D, deciding when to call for a check and when to "say 'yes'" is important too. I see these as pretty fundamental to making 4e non-combat playable.



Crimson Longinus said:


> And unrelated to the actual debate, I want to say that I really liked your dinner party scene, and it is impressive use of skill challenge, and not something I would have imagined based on how they were described in the rulebooks. They certainly could have used examples like that!



That's generous of you. Thank you!

(Also an aside: I didn't learn how to do that just from reading the 4e books. Reading Robin Laws's HeroWars and HeroQuest revised, and Maelstrom Storytelling, and Luke Crane, and Ron Edwards, was crucial. And also engaging with @LostSoul on these boards.)


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> It doesn’t particularly need express instructions. It has 6 keyed encounters and no way for them to happen in any order than 1, then 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, then 6.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> there’s no way for the keyed encounters to occur in any order other than 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.



I already gave an example of how this isn't true. Maybe the Halfling goes ahead, having no encounter in room 3, but as a result of the encounter in room 4 calls their bigger friends to help, who then have an encounter (with the trap) in room 3.

The encounter with the writing in room 2 could also easily happen in a different sequence from the one you posit.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 5, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I already gave an example of how this isn't true. Maybe the Halfling goes ahead, having no encounter in room 3, but as a result of the encounter in room 4 calls their bigger friends to help, who then have an encounter (with the trap) in room 3.
> 
> The encounter with the writing in room 2 could also easily happen in a different sequence from the one you posit.




Let us try an example from The Wild Beyond the Witchlight:


Spoiler: Because this is a fairly new adventure...



The characters start at the entrance of the Witchlight Carnival, which is Chapter 1.

There is _only one_ passage in the Carnival to the Feywild.  It only goes to one place in the Feywild.  There are several ways to find this passage, including one _deus ex machina_ to ensure it can happen.   But if you do not choose to go through the passage, the adventure is done.  The passage is one-way.

Once you have reached the Feywild, you are in Chapter 2, in a largish area in which to adventure, but you may not leave until you find one of the handful of guides that can take you to Chapter 3, 4, or 5.  The guides are placed such that the most likely path is to go linearly though 2 through 5, but there's technically the ability to branch.

There are only four entities in the adventure with the power to allow the characters to leave altogether - three of them are antagonists, and the fourth is in Chapter 5, at the expected end of the adventure.

Strictly speaking, as written, the PCs cannot reach high enough level to free themselves from the Feywild.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> The focus here seems to be on _geography_: there's a single tunnel with things spread along it.
> 
> So the linearity is the geography.



Exactly.  And in exploration play, geography is by far the most frequent aspect being investigated and-or discovered.


pemerton said:


> But there seems to be some other premise at work that I'm not quite getting. Still looking at the dungeon scenario that @Malmuria linked to, I don't see how each of the dungeon rooms is a scene. Different scenes could happen in the same room: for instance, a Halfling could sneak forward from room 2 to room 4, get spotted by the boss, call for help, and then when their bigger friends come running the pressure plate triggers. Now we've had two different scenes in room 3.



Scene sequencing is different than exploration.  A railroad often has as one of its easily-identifiable flaws hard-sequenced scenes and-or hard-coded outcomes, and some might name the hard-coded scene sequencing as being linear.  

Above, hard-coded scene sequencing would somehow prevent the Halfling from sneaking forward to room 4 until any scenes in room 2 - and then room 3 - were sorted.  This can also occur in settings where the geography itself is not in fact linear; as evidenced by the old "whichever way you go there will be an Ogre" meme.

A linear dungeon or map is most easily (as in, immediately) identified by its hard-sequenced geography where one area must be passed through in order to get to the next, regardless of anything that might happen in any of those places.  The Halfling can sneak up and down between rooms 1 and 6 all she likes but has no choice on where to go other than up or down through the sequentially-numbered spaces; she can't get from room 2 to room 5 without passing through both 3 and 4, in that order.


pemerton said:


> This seems to be all about geography. And also seems to equate _adventure_ (as in "linear _adventure_") with exploration of the imagined geography. And for the reasons I've give above, I don't really see how _geography_ and _scenes_ are being correlated.



Two things:

Geography provides, for lack of a better term, the scenes (as in backdrops) in which the scenes (as in dramas) take place.  Perhaps more importantly, geography serves to spatially - and as a side effect, temporally due to the time needed to get from one place to another via available means - connect those scenes together such that they don't happen in isolation.

Further - and 5E D&D nicely codified this in its 3 pillars of play model - geography provides something for the exploration pillar (which is in theory 1/3 of the game, one's own practice may vary widely) to do, as it is slowly revealed as the PCs get to it for the first time.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Let us try an example from The Wild Beyond the Witchlight:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Because this is a fairly new adventure...
> ...



This seems to be an adventure set in <a certain part of the setting> but that instructs the GM, instead of just framing the PCs in to <that certain part of the setting>, to "lure" the players into choosing to have their PCs go there.

That suggests that "linear adventure" means _lacks the courage of its framing convictions!_. I've seen a lot of published modules that exemplify this trait.



Umbran said:


> Spoiler: Because this is a fairly new adventure...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So it's a linear adventure if it's set in a small-ish geographical region?


----------



## niklinna (Jun 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> This seems to be an adventure set in <a certain part of the setting> but that instructs the GM, instead of just framing the PCs in to <that certain part of the setting>, to "lure" the players into choosing to have their PCs go there.
> 
> That suggests that "linear adventure" means _lacks the courage of its framing convictions!_. I've seen a lot of published modules that exemplify this trait.



I have too. Another term that people use, although rather more contentious, is "railroad". There are differences but nobody agrees on them, of course.

Note that even when the GM just frames the PCs into the next situation (be it narrative or geographical), if only one sequence is in the script—with PCs unable to affect the sequence or take actions that lead to alternate possible next situations—that's still linear.

And the example shows, a whole adventure doesn't have to be linear. It can be just part.



pemerton said:


> So it's a linear adventure if it's set in a small-ish geographical region?



Not a requirement.

As I hinted above, a linear adventure can be structured narratively or geographically (or a combination of the two, of course). The key thing is that, at some level of granularity, the players have no choice, except continuing to the single next situation or geographical location, or abandoning the adventure.

A geographical example would be a sequence of rooms that can only be visited in order, or a series of starports the PCs travel to on a fixed itinerary. Geographically linear situations often allow for backtracking. Except for impenetrable doors that lock behind you and such!

A narratively linear sequence typically involves a particular objective or activity for the PCs, such that they must obtain a particular objective or perform a particular activity (maybe combat, maybe a skill challenge, or convincing an NPC to do something), before they can proceed to the singular next situation. Or maybe they just watch something happen; the equivalent of a cutscene.

A linear adventure may further restrict player's options within a situation. I have played in several adventures where the instructions to the GM are explicit that the main villain of a scene cannot be defeated and will escape, no matter what the players do, but that has to happen to progress to the next scene (in which case the point of the fight was just to have a fight, or, slightly better, gain some info or a MacGuffin during the process of fighting). You have likely seen such things too.

An adventure needn't be purely linear, as your examination of Matt Colville's example showed. Order of actions can affect the sequence of situations in that dungeon (perhaps an oversight on the designer's part, perhaps deliberately allowed). But its gross structure is mostly linear, in that there are no branching corridors or rooms with multiple exits, and the expectation is that the whole party will resolve a situation in one room before proceeding to the next.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> This seems to be an adventure set in <a certain part of the setting> but that instructs the GM, instead of just framing the PCs in to <that certain part of the setting>, to "lure" the players into choosing to have their PCs go there.




The adventure gives two different framings - One being, "A guy hires you all to go deal with a problem, and the starting point is in the Witchlight Carnival."  The other is a framing in character generation that gives each PC a reason to go to the Carnival.  The PCs don't know all the details, or where the road leads, but if they want to continue, there is only one path from Chapter 1 to Chapter 2. 

The framing, however, is not relevant.  The shape of the path through the adventure is what matters.



pemerton said:


> That suggests that "linear adventure" means _lacks the courage of its framing convictions!_.




Your personal estimation of the adventure's "courage" is not really relevant. 



pemerton said:


> So it's a linear adventure if it's set in a small-ish geographical region?




No.  The smallish geographical regions (or rooms in a dungeon, or information nodes in a mystery) are arranged like beads on a string in a particular order.  The only way to get to a later bead is through the previous ones in a prescribed order.  They are _in a line_, not in a web or in a free area, and thus _linear_.

If an adventure has a pre-written path through it, from A to B to C to D, from which the PCs cannot meaningfully deviate, then you can say it is linear. 

So, in the bit you were referencing, the halfling _cannot_ skip room 2 and go on to room 3.  Entry into room 3 is gated on something in room 2 that must be dealt with before you can move on.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2022)

@niklinna, @Umbran

Thanks for your replies.

I'm still somewhat at a loss: Umbran says the framing is not relevant to an adventure being linear, but then I'm left with nothing but the text, which is inevitably linear (it begins at page 1, and finishes at page <whatever>).

Reference is made to places/rooms being able to be visited only in order. I live in a house where that is largely true, but that doesn't mean every day of my life in my house is the same! Because different things happen, occasionally different people are in one or the other room, etc. It seemed to me that two different groups could play the little 6 room dungeon and have different experiences, depending on choices made, whether or not they have a Halfling who sneaks ahead, etc.



niklinna said:


> The key thing is that, at some level of granularity, the players have no choice, except continuing to the single next situation or geographical location, or abandoning the adventure.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



In this example, the player's lack of choice seems to consist in, or be the result of, at least the following factors: (i) a commitment to obtaining an objective; (ii) a decision taken by the GM (following the instructions of the adventure writer?) that a necessary condition of obtaining that objective is performing some particular action (or maybe one of a small group of fairly similar actions); (iii) a decision taken by the GM (again, following instructions?) that other actions which, to the players, look relevant to obtaining the objective in fact will fizzle in that respect.

So it might be the case that we could keep "the adventure" largely intact but change the instructions, and now it wouldn't be linear anymore.



Umbran said:


> The shape of the path through the adventure is what matters.



This is causing me confusion. How do the players find, or engage with, the path of the adventure? How does it manifest itself, given that typically the players aren't reading the adventure book?



Umbran said:


> The smallish geographical regions (or rooms in a dungeon, or information nodes in a mystery) are arranged like beads on a string in a particular order.  The only way to get to a later bead is through the previous ones in a prescribed order.  They are _in a line_, not in a web or in a free area, and thus _linear_.
> 
> If an adventure has a pre-written path through it, from A to B to C to D, from which the PCs cannot meaningfully deviate, then you can say it is linear.



This brings me back to the "cannot". Who imposes the cannot?

It seems like the _cannot_ is what entails the linearity, rather than vice versa. But where does this "cannot" come from?


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I already gave an example of how this isn't true. Maybe the Halfling goes ahead, having no encounter in room 3, but as a result of the encounter in room 4 calls their bigger friends to help, who then have an encounter (with the trap) in room 3.
> 
> The encounter with the writing in room 2 could also easily happen in a different sequence from the one you posit.



Physically moving into room 3 is encountering room 3.  You may not interact with it in any way  but you still encountered it.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I'm still somewhat at a loss: Umbran says the framing is not relevant to an adventure being linear, but then I'm left with nothing but the text, which is inevitably linear (it begins at page 1, and finishes at page <whatever>).



In normal reading of a typical novel, you start at page 1 and read everything in sequence to the last page. In a Choose Your Own Adventure book, you might begin at page 1, but instructions on that page will have you go to page 3, or page 72, or page 77 (for example). Some books have footnotes, or endnotes, which you can follow from the middle of the page to the bottom, or to the end of the book (or chapter), and back to where you were. There are more possibilities but these are perhaps most relevant to the issue at hand.

The level of granularity I alluded to, in a Choose Your Own Adventure book, is typically a page or two. IN a typical novel, it's every word of every sentence! There are other levels, I could get into this more if you like.



pemerton said:


> Reference is made to places/rooms being able to be visited only in order. I live in a house where that is largely true, but that doesn't mean every day of my life in my house is the same! Because different things happen, occasionally different people are in one or the other room, etc. It seemed to me that two different groups could play the little 6 room dungeon and have different experiences, depending on choices made, whether or not they have a Halfling who sneaks ahead, etc.



Yes, like I said, linearity could be geographical, or narrative (or combine them). If the rooms are ordered A-B-C-D, you cannot get from A to D without going through B and C, in that order. Such a setup is linear, even if you run the adventure for different groups who do different things, in that, barring things like teleportation and such of course, they will all (or each) have to progress through the rooms in linear order (in either direction), regardless of what they do in the rooms. The level of granularity is here involves both rooms and individual characters. (Some adventures do not allow groups to split up.)




pemerton said:


> In this example, the player's lack of choice seems to consist in, or be the result of, at least the following factors: (i) a commitment to obtaining an objective; (ii) a decision taken by the GM (following the instructions of the adventure writer?) that a necessary condition of obtaining that objective is performing some particular action (or maybe one of a small group of fairly similar actions); (iii) a decision taken by the GM (again, following instructions?) that other actions which, to the players, look relevant to obtaining the objective in fact will fizzle in that respect.



Yes, basically:

For (i), the players must agree to striving for the scripted objective—and attain it. If they don't, no/failed adventure). This can include not knowing or not discovering what the objective even is, a rather severe failure.
For (ii) , the particular actions may or may not be specified by the script (this would be a lower level of granularity than situation/objective). Torg dramatic skill resolutions, for example, script 4 skill tests that must be performed in order on successive rounds (amongst other details). In that sense, dramatic skill resolutions are linear.
For (iii), very much so, the GM must agree not to go off-script and allow options the script does not provide for. If the GM does go off-script, the adventure may become branched or nonlinear in some way. Or, as with the Torg dramatic skill resolution, the options available to the players become much broader. And as I noted, I've played in several published Torg adventures where, for example, no matter what we players did, we could not escape capture, or capture the villain—even if we tried mightily! Since the GM didn't want to waste time, he got the point of just letting us know the script so we could move right on to the next scene.
This all presumes a fixed script (or geography), of course—which needn't have been created beforehand. It's possible to improv a rigidly linear set of situations, too.

I'll point out once again that "linear" needn't apply to an entire adventure, from beginning to end, any portion of an adventure could be linear. But the longer a linear sequence is, the more noticeable the linearity will be. Whether that is an issue for the participants is more about the participants.



pemerton said:


> So it might be the case that we could keep "the adventure" largely intact but change the instructions, and now it wouldn't be linear anymore.



Absolutely possible. The Alexandrian even has some articles about doing that (with examples). I could dig them up if you like.



pemerton said:


> This is causing me confusion. How do the players find, or engage with, the path of the adventure? How does it manifest itself, given that typically the players aren't reading the adventure book?



They are dependent on the GM to tell them. Published Torg Eternity adventures often begin with the scene courageously framed as a briefing at secret headquarters, or at the dropoff point for the mission, or whatever, and the GM fills the players in on the situation. Likewise, typically when the players satisfy the termination conditions for the scene, Torg Eternity adventures courageously move on to frame the next scene.



pemerton said:


> This brings me back to the "cannot". Who imposes the cannot?



The GM imposes the cannot. If they don't, the adventure might become nonlinear. As long as the GM is ready to handle that, of course, it isn't a problem! but doing so might involve a lot of work.



pemerton said:


> It seems like the _cannot_ is what entails the linearity, rather than vice versa. But where does this "cannot" come from?



Linearity is a form of restriction, so yes, the _cannot_ is the crux of the matter. It comes from whoever scripted/architected the situations, with the GM enforcing the restrictions. Those may be the same person, of course.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> @niklinna, @Umbran
> 
> Thanks for your replies.
> 
> ...



The cannot omes from two things.

1.  The adventure may explicit say it is outright impossible to go back the way you came..

2. If where you want to go isn't written in the adventure then it effectively doesn't exist.  Perhaps the adventure has a river running through a chamber in a dungeon meant to be an obstacle.  If a player decided to ignore the dungeon rooms and just swim "off the map" in some underground river they effectively chose to stop playing that published adventure.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Physically moving into room 3 is encountering room 3.  You may not interact with it in any way  but you still encountered it.



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.



Sabathius42 said:


> The cannot omes from two things.
> 
> 1.  The adventure may explicit say it is outright impossible to go back the way you came..
> 
> 2. If where you want to go isn't written in the adventure then it effectively doesn't exist.  Perhaps the adventure has a river running through a chamber in a dungeon meant to be an obstacle.  If a player decided to ignore the dungeon rooms and just swim "off the map" in some underground river they effectively chose to stop playing that published adventure.





niklinna said:


> For (i), the players must agree to striving for the scripted objective—and attain it. If they don't, no/failed adventure). This can include not knowing or not discovering what the objective even is, a rather severe failure.
> For (ii) , the particular actions may or may not be specified by the script (this would be a lower level of granularity than situation/objective). Torg dramatic skill resolutions, for example, script 4 skill tests that must be performed in order on successive rounds (amongst other details). In that sense, dramatic skill resolutions are linear.
> For (iii), very much so, the GM must agree not to go off-script and allow options the script does not provide for. If the GM does go off-script, the adventure may become branched or nonlinear in some way. Or, as with the Torg dramatic skill resolution, the options available to the players become much broader. And as I noted, I've played in several published Torg adventures where, for example, no matter what we players did, we could not escape capture, or capture the villain—even if we tried mightily! Since the GM didn't want to waste time, he got the point of just letting us know the script so we could move right on to the next scene.
> 
> ...



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).


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2022)

*SPOILER ALERT*
This post contains spoilers for the adventure in The Green Knight RPG. (Which I heartily recommend, by the way. My group played it and enjoyed it.)

HERE COME THE SPOILERS:

This adventure consists of 5 scenes. One is labelled "The Adventure Begins". The other four are labelled as "encounters": a meeting with some ruffians terrorising a farmer; a meeting with a hungry hunter trying to catch and eat a magical fox; a haunted cabin where the PCs spend the night; and the meeting with the Green Knight at his Green Chapel.

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."

Of the four encounters, the first is simpler than the second and third; the fourth is the climax.

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. Each of them poses a series of "challenges" or "tests" which the players have to grapple with, having to manage their Dishonour scores. (If Dishonour gets to 20, that character's adventure is over.) The players are the ones who get to declare the scene done. When they do so, the GM awards (or removes) Dishonour based on the choices the players made for their PCs, and the overall outcome of the scene.

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. 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?


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> *SPOILER ALERT*
> This post contains spoilers for the adventure in The Green Knight RPG. (Which I heartily recommend, by the way. My group played it and enjoyed it.)
> 
> HERE COME THE SPOILERS:
> ...



IMO if the PCs/players have the ability to choose their path (knowingly or not) as 1-2-3-4-5 or 1-3-4-2-5 or 1-4-3-2-5 then it's not completely linear.  It wouldn't be linear at all if 1 and 5 could also move around within the sequence.

The difference, to me, is that if the different scenes here are analagous to rooms in a dungeon then the middle three scenes can be approached from either "direction" - you might get to scene 4 with the knowledge etc. gained in scenes 2 and-or 3, or you might not.  Just like in a looping dungeon (though 5 rooms is a bit too small as an example of such) you could end up first-entering any of the middle three rooms from different directions, depending which path/sequence you (intentionally or not) chose.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 6, 2022)

niklinna said:


> I'll point out once again that "linear" needn't apply to an entire adventure, from beginning to end, any portion of an adventure could be linear. But the longer a linear sequence is, the more noticeable the linearity will be.



Indeed.

Each branch of a branching or dendritic dungeon or adventure is going to be linear between the branching points (intersections) and ultimately each new branch can only lead either to another branching point or to a dead end.

In a looping dungeon, parts of (some or all of) the loops will be linear between the points where they intersect, but here each new branch has more options as to what it might ultimately lead to: a) a dead end, b) another branching point, c) back to previously-explored ground, or d) out of the dungeon/adventure via a previously-unknown exit.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Reference is made to places/rooms being able to be visited only in order. I live in a house where that is largely true, but that doesn't mean every day of my life in my house is the same! Because different things happen, occasionally different people are in one or the other room, etc. It seemed to me that two different groups could play the little 6 room dungeon and have different experiences, depending on choices made, whether or not they have a Halfling who sneaks ahead, etc.



You can have different experiences in a series of rooms but at the same time have to go through the kitchen to get to the dining room every single time.

That said, rare indeed is the house with only one door to the outside; and if your house* has both a front door and a back door (fairly common) then it's not truly linear in that one could go around the outside from one door to the other to complete a loop.  Put another way, were I to visit I wouldn't necessarily have to leave via the exact same route I came in by; and the choice of door through which I enter will determine both the sequencing of the rooms I encounter between said doors and my entry direction to each of those rooms.

Contrast this with ye olde 6-room dungeon posted upthread.  There's no way to complete any sort of loop here, no branches to take, nothing.  Your only options are straight in [outdoors-1-2-3-4-5-6] and then straight out again by the same route reversed [6-5-4-3-2-1-outdoors].

* - if the house is freestanding; this would not be possible with a row house or townhouse where there is no direct outside connection between the backyard and the front.


pemerton said:


> This is causing me confusion. How do the players find, or engage with, the path of the adventure? How does it manifest itself, given that typically the players aren't reading the adventure book?



The players engage with the path simply by playing the adventure; and it manifests itself either as the party go along and realize they have choices (or don't) and then follow up on such choices as they make, or in hindsight when they look at their map and see how everything fits together.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> IMO if the PCs/players have the ability to choose their path (knowingly or not) as 1-2-3-4-5 or 1-3-4-2-5 or 1-4-3-2-5 then it's not completely linear.  It wouldn't be linear at all if 1 and 5 could also move around within the sequence.



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?


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> 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.
> ...



We're just wrestling with verbiage.

In a game it is possible to encounter something and not engage with it.  If the monster in a dungeon room were a small turtle that when flipped over turned into a giant dragon the encounter rmay be as simple as...

GM:  You enter the door marked Room 3.  Inside you see a nealy empty brick chamber roughly 20' by 20' square.  Across the room you see another door with "Door 4" written on it.  In the middle of the room you see a small turtle on it's back struggling to flip itself over.

Player: Sorry bud (to turtle), no time to help.  I move through the next door.

GM:  You enter the door marked Door 4....

Above was a (boring) encounter.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 6, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



I hope you understand that all this really comes across as is, "I don't like your theory so I want to outlaw talking about it." lol. Peterson, White, Harrigan, etc. all have their own 'terms of art' which they use. If you don't like the GNS ones that's fine, but CRITICIZE THEM, and stop with the "terms of art are bad", because they serve a very useful purpose! I mean, its great to criticize them, actually, but it isn't worthwhile unless it is substantive (not to say that nothing substantive is being said here, BTW). The point is, when you come into it with "Theory X uses terminology, its BAD!" and then talk about theory A, B, and/or C and use THEIR terminology, well...

That all being said, your heart is in the right place, I guess? I mean, I don't think anyone in these threads is interested in arguing about terminology. However, I think the thread might be misnamed, lol.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 6, 2022)

soviet said:


> RPGs are also highly subjective. If we both play a video game we know that we are having an extremely similar experience. An RPG is filtered through our imaginations to such an extent that even the person sat next to us in the same session is likely having an appreciably different experience. Describing how we each play RPGs is like describing how we think or what different colours look like - that is to say, fraught with difficulty.



Well, as many are quick to point out when someone describes their lack of love for their particular game, play takes many forms, even when using a specific game. A lot of what people DO is kind of outside the purview of rules, process, principles, etc. entirely. I mean, if the people playing are eating slices and drinking beers and going into the other room when it isn't their turn to watch the game, that's going to be a different sort of experience than some die hard nerds (yeah, I was just watching Stranger Things...) sitting in the basement with the music and the whole bit. These may favor different sorts of design. I think D&D kind of cherry-picked the sweet spot in terms of being a middle ground that a lot of people could manage, and its conceptual framework has really dominated thinking about RPGs. Jargon is one thing, but I think the real reason there's such a reaction to ideas centered on things like Story Now is just that it represents a break with that thinking. You REALLY DO have to build a new model of what an RPG is and how it works, but not everyone wants to (or should) do that.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 6, 2022)

Campbell said:


> 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 it is worth considering exactly where this terminology came from. It was merely some mutually agreed upon words that were being used in a very small and restricted community of posters. It would be like saying we in this thread hash around for a while and hit upon a few words we use in a certain way. Now, TWENTY FIVE YEARS LATER this thread is being referenced by some totally other people, talking about some games that didn't even exist back then, and someone is exercised about how they used a word back there and then. Now, admittedly, FROM THERE, some people took those terms and ran with them, because they were talking about the same issues. Are we really going to spend endless hours debating how those other people (maybe us) are unwise fools because we used terms that already existed and someone else doesn't like that usage and finds it confusing? I mean, nobody in any of all this discussion has ever, to my knowledge, stated that they were hostile to the existence of/use of different terminology, if it was more effective. I mean, the final observation is, if you were to talk to, say, Ron Edwards, right now and start throwing Forge Speak at the guy, I highly suspect he'd just roll his eyes and tell you to pack off. The people that invented these terms ABANDONED THEM at least a decade, often 2 decades, ago. What more can you ask?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 6, 2022)

soviet said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2022)

Campbell said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> 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! 



pemerton said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2022)

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


----------



## niklinna (Jun 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> 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.



pemerton said:


> 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.



pemerton said:


> 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. 



pemerton said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> 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.



pemerton said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 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?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 6, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I’m acknowledging that on a website practically, if not literally, dedicated to D&D that terms from D&D can more easily be assumed to have wider usage. Not sure why that is controversial or bother you.



I look at it this way, if one is engaging in a discussion of game design or play in a theoretical and general sense, which is often the case when stuff like GNS terms come up, it would behoove one to learn this terminology, would it not? I mean, nobody expects the people posting on "How tall is an Orc?" to grok 'Scene Framing' as a term, or even have thought of the concept at all. So, if you dropped a post there which used the term, you probably better explain it. OTOH if the OP of a thread is discussing the degree of/implication of 'gamism' in 5e D&D, I think its pretty reasonable for posters to use these sorts of terms. I agree that 'hit points' is something pretty much everyone in such a thread will have at least some passing familiarity with, and 'High Concept Simulationism' probably deserves a bit more introduction. However, I agree with earlier posts which pointed out that terms like 'railroading' or 'player authority' probably should ALSO be explained, though they don't happen to be recognized to belong to any one particular 'school' or other.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 6, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think it is worth considering exactly where this terminology came from. It was merely some mutually agreed upon words that were being used in a very small and restricted community of posters. It would be like saying we in this thread hash around for a while and hit upon a few words we use in a certain way. Now, TWENTY FIVE YEARS LATER this thread is being referenced by some totally other people, talking about some games that didn't even exist back then, and someone is exercised about how they used a word back there and then. Now, admittedly, FROM THERE, some people took those terms and ran with them, because they were talking about the same issues. Are we really going to spend endless hours debating how those other people (maybe us) are unwise fools because we used terms that already existed and someone else doesn't like that usage and finds it confusing? I mean, nobody in any of all this discussion has ever, to my knowledge, stated that they were hostile to the existence of/use of different terminology, if it was more effective. I mean, the final observation is, if you were to talk to, say, Ron Edwards, right now and start throwing Forge Speak at the guy, I highly suspect he'd just roll his eyes and tell you to pack off. The people that invented these terms ABANDONED THEM at least a decade, often 2 decades, ago. What more can you ask?



It’s just that this makes it hard to know where to start with specific jargon, especially since so much of it happened on forums and blogs.  So then you go back and try to read some of those things, but being the internet, discussions are disarticulated across a variety of spaces, many ephemeral.  Thus, knowledge is ubiquitous and easily available and also, somehow, always missing context.  So it sort of needs to be recreated or reexpressed again and again.

Tangent, but I feel this is only going to get worse.  Like in the OSR, supposedly a lot of knowledge was lost when google plus went away (I was never on google plus because…well…it was google plus), and now a lot of discussion happens on blogs that few people read and on discord, an even more ephemeral platform.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 6, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> It’s just that this makes it hard to know where to start with specific jargon, especially since so much of it happened on forums and blogs.  So then you go back and try to read some of those things, but being the internet, discussions are disarticulated across a variety of spaces, many ephemeral.  Thus, knowledge is ubiquitous and easily available and also, somehow, always missing context.  So it sort of needs to be recreated or reexpressed again and again.
> 
> Tangent, but I feel this is only going to get worse.  Like in the OSR, supposedly a lot of knowledge was lost when google plus went away (I was never on google plus because…well…it was google plus), and now a lot of discussion happens on blogs that few people read and on discord, an even more ephemeral platform.




I will continue to post the following:

_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.

At some point, I am hopeful that one of the people here that is so fond of discussing GNS theory will get the book and publish a review of it. I mean, I know it's "academic" and therefore (like the other links I post) not to be used, but c'mon.

Here is the Amazon link.

I know it's expensive since it is a textbook, but (1) the kindle version is cheaper, and (2) you can get a paperback. 

Here's the description-
_This book provides an introduction to the Forge, an online discussion site for tabletop role-playing game (TRPG) design, play, and publication that was active during the first years of the twenty-first century and which served as an important locus for experimentation in game design and production during that time. Aimed at game studies scholars, for whom the ideas formulated at or popularized by the Forge are of key interest, the book also attempts to provide an accessible account of the growth and development of the Forge as a site of participatory culture. It situates the Forge within the broader context of TRPG discourse, and connects “Forge theory” to the academic investigation of role-playing._


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 6, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Since it's literally what inciting incident means, yes...much better to use the proper term for the thing than making up a new word that has to be repeatedly explained.
> 
> It's just so weird to me. If you're going to design a game that's supposed to be more about story, literally the first place you'd look is storytelling. But apparently not.



And I would dispute that 'inciting incident' is more 'correct'. Writing and RPG design/play theory are two totally different topics. Why do you assume that we must use the terminology YOU happen to prefer and that this is the only correct term? 'Kicker' is a perfectly cromulent  and succinct term for what we're talking about. It is an incident in the immediate past of a PC which provides an impetus to action. I don't think 'Inciting Incident' would be bad, maybe its better, maybe not, but surely written fiction is not exactly identical to RPG play and to demand that all our terminology is taken from a topic you seem specifically familiar with seems, well, demanding! I mean, I'm sure other people can come up with other terms that happen to be used by people here in RPG discussions which could be found to be close cognates to ones used in various other fields. I bet movie makers have their own term for an inciting incident for example.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 6, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Definitely also a frustrating framing!
> 
> Sure, but people also need to be on the same page about that encoding for the analysis to be productive. Otherwise you end up with… Well, online forum discussions.
> 
> ...



Well, for instance, Edwards (AFAIK) doesn't ever really discuss a desire to remain constantly in Actor Stance as a part of an agenda. This is something that is frequently brought up, or the slightly less extreme version of it where players desire not to engage in 'out of fiction' thought process. GNS, like any analytical tool, isn't meant to cover all bases. It does DESCRIBE salient features of how you go about process simulation, and points out quite effectively some ways it differs from other techniques. This further leads into reasons why some games do one or another thing better. 

I don't think that Edwards' choice of agendas is arbitrary, as you may be trying to imply though. There are several points where he has gone all the way down to bedrock "what are people doing and saying at the table" and listed ALL the options, and then built a theory from there. Your 'ice cream theory' would likewise be pretty fundamental if it showed that there are only 3 possible 'flavor agendas' by appealing to the techniques by which ice cream is made and thus demonstrating those are the possible choices, inherently. Now, we can argue the quality of Edwards' observations, or any other theory's basis, and that's a perfectly legitimate activity. It does require more than just complaints that the categories used don't suite one's tastes though! It really requires following the argument you are criticizing all the way down to its fundamental axiomatic structure and showing that either the thesis doesn't follow, or that those axioms are inapplicable/flawed/incomplete in some way. I have yet to see anyone actually do that with GNS.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 6, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> And I would dispute that 'inciting incident' is more 'correct'. Writing and RPG design/play theory are two totally different topics. Why do you assume that we must use the terminology YOU happen to prefer and that this is the only correct term? 'Kicker' is a perfectly cromulent  and succinct term for what we're talking about. It is an incident in the immediate past of a PC which provides an impetus to action. I don't think 'Inciting Incident' would be bad, maybe its better, maybe not, but surely written fiction is not exactly identical to RPG play and to demand that all our terminology is taken from a topic you seem specifically familiar with seems, well, demanding! I mean, I'm sure other people can come up with other terms that happen to be used by people here in RPG discussions which could be found to be close cognates to ones used in various other fields. I bet movie makers have their own term for an inciting incident for example.




Maybe this would be helpful- earlier in the thread, in addition to the use of "kicker," the use of the term "bang" came up.

Now, later on, @Campbell explained as follows:

"Kickers and bangs come from Sorcerer, one of the most influential indie games. They form the basis of its play structures. ...  Bangs are events that force players to make a dramatic decision for their character. They are moments of crisis where players have to choose who their characters really are as people through the choices they make. In Sorcerer players are responsible for trying to resolve their kickers. GMs are responsible for creating bangs that make that difficult."

So a few things. The first is this- I can understand why Campbell understands that Sorcerer is well-known, and I would even stipulate that it is an influential indie game. Here's the thing though ... what percentage of people do you think that visit enworld (not regular participants in the forums, but visitors) are familiar with Sorcerer?

Less than 10%? Less than 5%? Less than 1%? Less than .1%? So ... while I think Campbell's attempt there is genuinely helpful, we see the recursive effect of jargon. _Of course_ people should understand what a bang is, because it's a Forge term that came from Sorcerer! And everyone knows Sorcerer and should be able to discuss the gameplay mechanics in it- after all, it is one of the most influential indie games ever!

...but if you weren't already involved in the Forge, you probably don't know what Sorcerer is (or, at best, have a vague understanding of it as a game from a long time ago that was part of the Forge stuff). And that's what it all keeps getting back to- all of this not only builds on itself, but refers back to itself. For people that are already invested in this theory, these games, and these terms ... it can all seem rather obvious! For anyone else, you might as well be speaking Greek. 

So when you say, "Why don't you use this term that we use to describe X," the unstated premise that you aren't saying is the identity of the "we."

You don't have to use "inciting incident." But others don't have to use "kickers" either. The Forge, and GNS, did not obtain a monopoly on verbiage or jargon. It's only useful to the extent that it help people understand the concepts. If your terminology is helpful, then other people will use it. And if it's not, they won't. 

(A further issue is the extent to which some of the jargon is both re-inventing the wheel and also needlessly confusing by using terms that mean different things to most people than how they are defined. But that's a separate issue.)


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 6, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> It really requires following the argument you are criticizing all the way down to its fundamental axiomatic structure and showing that either the thesis doesn't follow, or that those axioms are inapplicable/flawed/incomplete in some way. I have yet to see anyone actually do that with GNS.




Extraordinary statements (there are ONLY three reasons people play TTRPGs) require extraordinary proof.

Let me know when there is ... you know, actual _empirical proof through studies or surveys of players_*, and not just people saying so. 


*Even something as basic as the one I provided the link to earlier.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> 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?



That depends on the specifics, perhaps; but if, say, there's something to be learned/found at scene 2 that would make a difference in how scene 3 plays out then there could be a significant difference in play if the sequence goes 3-2 than if it goes 2-3.  The DM doesn't know which sequence will be followed; she just has to react to what the players end up doing, present and run the scenes in whatever sequence the PCs reach them, and be ready for scenes to potentially play out unexpectedly or differently based on what other scenes the PCs have already hit.

Contrast this with the DM trying to force scene 2 to come before scene 3 so that the PCs will have that [whatever] such that scene 3 will play out how she envisions it.  I think we agree, in principle at least, that this is less desirable.


pemerton said:


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



It wouldn't, which is kind of a tangential point here: linear adventures/dungeons are IMO and IME generally less interesting for all involved* than are looping ones; with branching ones somewhere between.

* - less interesting for the players as there are fewer choice points and a risk of feeling led by the nose whether such is the case or not; less interesting (though maybe easier) for the DM due to the run of play being far more predictable.


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Jun 6, 2022)

Only 3 reasons?!  I count four!

I wanted to

I was pressured into it

I drank too much and ended up in a game store.

No, 3 is spot on!


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 6, 2022)

Re: linear

I think it’s most helpful in thinking of adventure design for games like DnD, CoC etc.  Sometimes quite literally, as in how a text is organized and laid out and how that helps out a reader.









						Node-Based Scenario Design – Part 1: The Plotted Approach
					

Most published adventures are designed around a structure that looks like this:You start at the beginning (Blue), proceed through a series of linear scenes (Yellow), and eventually reach the end (




					thealexandrian.net


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 6, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> However, I agree with earlier posts which pointed out that terms like 'railroading' or 'player authority' probably should ALSO be explained, though they don't happen to be recognized to belong to any one particular 'school' or other.



Perhaps.  Thing is, though, the moment in a discussion when one tries to explain or define railroading is the moment when that discussion jumps off its previous track and instead devolves into a long drawn-out argument over that explanation or definition; which defeats the point of having the original discussion.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 6, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Perhaps.  Thing is, though, the moment in a discussion when one tries to explain or define railroading is the moment when that discussion jumps off its previous track and instead devolves into a long drawn-out argument over that explanation or definition; which defeats the point of having the original discussion.




Yep. This isn't something confined to Forge jargon.

The unfortunate truth of the matter is this:

_So long as the terms are undefined, people can continue on, happy in the oblivious notion that they agree. It is only when someone makes the tragic error of defining a term that the people realize that they were only in agreement because they were talking about different things the entire time. _


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 6, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Extraordinary statements *(there are ONLY three reasons people play TTRPGs)* require extraordinary proof.
> 
> Let me know when there is ... you know, actual _empirical proof through studies or surveys of players_*, and not just people saying so.
> 
> ...



My understanding from what I have read of GNS is that it does not claim that there are only three creative agendas, only that they were three of the most prevalent. That does not mean that GNS is correct about those three broad general categories or creative agendas, but I think that the claim is a little less extraordinary or absolute as you make it out to be. 

Consider the article that you linked about the reasons why people roleplay. It provides five categories or reasons. Does that mean that these are the ONLY reasons because the author grouped their findings into broad categories?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 6, 2022)

soviet said:


> 100% agree. Ron Edwards himself was also a keen fan of Champions and other non-narrativist games. Personally I found GNS very useful and I published a narrativist-supporting RPG, but I also greatly enjoy the Gamist elements of D&D (4e much moreso than 5e) and one of my last games as a GM was highly simulationist MERP/Rolemaster play.
> 
> I definitely don't see myself as an N looking down on those dirty Gs and Ss. I'm just someone who likes the games I play to _pick a lane_ and focus strongly on that particular flavour rather than trying to have a little bit of everything.



Yeah, I totally agree. I am in no way an agenda-snob. I've tried every sort of RPG there is. There are a few cases where I think an RPG is basically dated to the point where there are simply much better choices, but in terms of the type of game play? I enjoy a lot of things. Some I'm better at than others, but I also find that doing things I'm NOT so good at are generally the more rewarding ones, at least up to a certain point. I mean, I would not now play Call of Cthulhu, there's just MUCH MUCH better games for that genre, and likewise better games which do the core agenda too (not the same game, as I think CoC's mix of agenda-related features and genre is a crummy mix).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 6, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Yeah. Some of these are really odd. Like you, me and mine always played that way. Fiction first. That was literally the point of the game. And has been since 1984. Dive into the world as much as possible. Make decisions from there. If you want to move a pawn around a board, go play a board game. If you want a rigid game of numbers, go play a video game. RPGs were the only one of those three that could even handle it. To us, that was the "killer app" of RPGs.



But it most certainly wasn't the origination point of the RPG concept, as far as I experienced it. That came from a combination of open-ended adjudication and the focus on single characters. While we were certainly aware of role play as an element of game, as in Actor Stance RP, we didn't consider that to be pivotal to the idea of an RPG at all. Instead it was the directing the character through a scenario where we selected actions from an unlimited palette of possibilities. In a board game you climbed the ropes, slid down the chutes, moved down the road and landed on Atlantic Avenue and paid rent, etc. Even in classic war games you still only had limited options, move or reload your muskets (or whatever the rules said you could do). All of a sudden we could decide to open the door, nail it shut, listen at it, leave it alone, burn it down, knock on it, or ANY OTHER THING we could describe in words, as long as we could explain how it could be accomplished. 

So, the focus on playing in character, on driving the game via character motives and needs, etc. wasn't really part of that at first. MUCH of this play was pretty much pawn stance, challenge-oriented play. It was not relevant who Bongo the Dwarf was, you were playing a dwarf, with certain abilities, and you could declare things based on that. That was it. I won't claim nobody did something else right there from day one in 1974 or so, but D&D itself didn't really talk about it like that.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 6, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Looping back to this, because I think it may be a low-key but very significant part of where the backlash against GNS comes from. Taking your word for it that GNS’s claim is not that the various agendas can’t coexist, but that there is the potential for conflict to arise between them, I think Edwards and Co kinda took that and said “therefore, a game should pick one and focus on it, lest it be incoherent” whereas the folks who take issue with the Forge don’t find the notion that these interests can sometimes come into conflict with each other particularly revelatory, and have all along been interested in developing systems that avoid or smooth over those conflicts. So what you’ve got is one group of people seeking the best ways to serve all of these interests simultaneously, and another group saying “eww, no, that doesn’t work, you have to pick one and commit to it hard.”



And I suspect, heavily, if you were to talk to Ron Edwards right now today, he'd probably say something similar. In fact I think there was some discussion of that not too long ago in one of the other threads where he was quoted saying something about mixing approaches. I know it is tempting to always put your rhetorical targets in a box and ascribe specific definite traits to them, which you can then make points against. Reality, at least in this case, is not so clear cut. I don't know if I agree with Ron or not, exactly. I think if you were to say "mixing X, and Y works if you do A, B, and C, and can lead to Q, P, and R interesting results" I can get behind the idea that those things may well exist and make such a statement valid. I don't think that conflicts with the 'incoherent' observation though. Some things don't easily mix, and some maybe not at all.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 6, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> My understanding from what I have read of GNS is that it does not claim that there are only three creative agendas, only that they were three of the most prevalent. That does not mean that GNS is correct about those three broad general categories or creative agendas, but I think that the claim is a little less extraordinary or absolute as you make it out to be.
> 
> *Consider the article that you linked about the reasons why people roleplay. It provides five categories or reasons. Does that mean that these are the ONLY reasons because the author grouped their findings into broad categories?*




Well, of course not! It's a very limited sample size, and drawn from undergraduates at one small midwestern university. But ...

1. The author showed their work.

2. The categories were created from the data; not just conjured from thin air.

3. Others can try and repeat the process (and replicate, or not) if they so choose.

What can GNS do? Again, tell me why GNS is any more rigorous than a Buzzfeed listicle? I don't mean that the conversations weren't productive to informing "N" design for indie games in the early aughts- I mean why should this typology be given any credence whatsoever?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 6, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Using @niklinna's idea of a flowchart of possible events, this doesn't seem like its A to B to C. For instance, couldn't the PCs get to the secret door and then go back to room 2 to make an offering, or study the reliefs or memorise the oath? Plus there are the patrols which may or may not ambush depending on what the players have their PCs do. And the PCs might (say) Charm the Bugbear boss and send boss with squad to fight the undead.
> 
> As I've said, I think there is something going on in the usage of the term that I'm not picking up on.



My personal opinion is it is less at a detailed level of, say, rooms, and more at a general level. The classic AD&D A series 'Against the Slave Lords' modules (A1-A4) follow this pattern and are VERY linear in that you go from the first module in the series to the 2nd, etc. There's no bypassing one, no real 'branches' at all. The structure of each module attempts to insure that the PCs are shunted into the opening sequence of the next module correctly. Within each module things vary. Generally speaking they're fairly linear internally, but IIRC some of them are closer to a set of options or could even be approached almost as a random series of encounters, though again, progress to the next one requires certain things to happen. If the PCs go 'off the rails' somewhere in, say, A2, it could be pretty hard to get back on track.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 6, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Well, of course not! It's a very limited sample size, and drawn from undergraduates at one small midwestern university. But ...
> 
> 1. The author showed their work.
> 
> ...



Sure, one is an academic who is required to demonstrate research methodology and one is an enthusiastic hobbyist making generalizations based on amateuristic observations. 



Snarf Zagyg said:


> What can GNS do? Again, tell me why GNS is any more rigorous than a Buzzfeed listicle? I don't mean that the conversations weren't productive to informing "N" design for indie games in the early aughts- I mean why should this typology be given any credence whatsoever?



This reminds me of sitting in classes where students were more concerned about their feelings regarding a political theorist or whether they thought the theorist was right/wrong rather than what the political theorist actually said in the text, which was what we were supposed to be discussing. Moreover, it's a bit irrelevant to the point that I was making, as this part of my post may have escaped your notice: 


Aldarc said:


> My understanding from what I have read of GNS is that it does not claim that there are only three creative agendas, only that they were three of the most prevalent. *That does not mean that GNS is correct about those three broad general categories or creative agendas, but I think that the claim is a little less extraordinary or absolute as you make it out to be. *



The credence of GNS's categories is not the issue in my post, but, rather, your claims that GNS states that there is ONLY three reasons why people play roleplaying games. As far as I'm concerned, you can both be wrong. Edwards can be wrong about GNS while you can be wrong about what they said, especially if neither of you properly did your homework. These aren't mutually exclusive options.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 6, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> My personal opinion is it is less at a detailed level of, say, rooms, and more at a general level. The classic AD&D A series 'Against the Slave Lords' modules (A1-A4) follow this pattern and are VERY linear in that you go from the first module in the series to the 2nd, etc. There's no bypassing one, no real 'branches' at all. The structure of each module attempts to insure that the PCs are shunted into the opening sequence of the next module correctly. Within each module things vary. Generally speaking they're fairly linear internally, but IIRC some of them are closer to a set of options or could even be approached almost as a random series of encounters, though again, progress to the next one requires certain things to happen. If the PCs go 'off the rails' somewhere in, say, A2, it could be pretty hard to get back on track.



This is why I took pains to say "at some level of granularity". Several times, in fact!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 6, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Sure, one is an academic who is required to demonstrate research methodology and one is an enthusiastic hobbyist making generalizations based on amateuristic observations.




That's fair, and I agree! But that also ties into the "endless loop" that has been described by Torner, et al., in the hobby.

A. Amateur hobbyist declaring that there's a problem in TTRPGs.
B. This problem is caused by inconsistent desires/agendas/types of players.
C. Therefore, a new typology of players will be announced (almost always with some types being more equal than others, in the George Orwell sense).
D. Based on that typology, a theory (or theories) of TTRPGs and/or game design will bloom, under the concept that the system itself will enable/encourage/assist in certain types of play.
E. Rinse, repeat.

In addition, because of the hobbyist nature, the past lessons keep getting forgotten. We just keep re-inventing the wheel.



Aldarc said:


> This reminds me of sitting in classes where students were more concerned about their feelings regarding a political theorist or whether they thought the theorist was right/wrong rather than what the political theorist actually said in the text, which was what we were supposed to be discussing. Moreover, it's a bit irrelevant to the point that I was making, as this part of my post may have escaped your notice:
> 
> The credence of GNS's categories is not the issue in my post, but, rather, your claims that GNS states that there is ONLY three reasons why people play roleplaying games. As far as I'm concerned, you can both be wrong. Edwards can be wrong about GNS while you can be wrong about what they said, especially if neither of you properly did your homework. These aren't mutually exclusive options.




I am perfectly willing to accept that both I am wrong, and Edwards is wrong. In fact, far from being mutually exclusive, I'd say that it's probably _the most likely scenario. _After all, I am just another amateur criticizing an amateur. 

There's a lot of people that know more about the subject than me- which is why I post links and recommend people check it out!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 6, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Quite the reverse. That said, a lot of indie publishers did try to codify "fiction first" principles into the rules and play procedures rather than "that's the way that it's always been played."
> 
> 
> I have told you before but our memories about our pasts tend to be highly deceptive. We often project false histories onto the past based upon the present, and the more time between the present and a given moment in the past, the greater the potential room for misremembering. It's no secret to scientific studies that our memories play tricks on us and cause us to misremember in a variety of different ways. This is pretty clear when some American politicians project a utopian like society on the 1950s.
> ...



Well... there's never going to be a way to prove it, but I didn't participate in ANY online RPG forums at all before the release of 4e, but I definitely recall 'sandbox' being THE traditional term, going all the way back to the '80s, for that type of game. It may not have been a very prevalent term, but one thing that may explain why it was not used much is that, frankly, the term 'campaign' itself, in the RPG context, mostly referred to a sandbox! I mean, that was the understood default form of construction of a campaign. The GM established a geography and encounter locations, as well as potentially some sort of meta-plot that would take place, and the the players simply 'went places and did stuff'. The stuff they could do was obviously limited to what the GM put into the sandbox, but that was about it. Now, in reality most people played a more informal type of 'campaign' that basically consisted of 'serial dungeons' (usually purchased modules, but not always). I'd say sometime in the mid '80s the old type of campaign kind of withered away, at least it became a rarity.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 6, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> My personal opinion is it is less at a detailed level of, say, rooms, and more at a general level. The classic AD&D A series 'Against the Slave Lords' modules (A1-A4) follow this pattern and are VERY linear in that you go from the first module in the series to the 2nd, etc. There's no bypassing one, no real 'branches' at all. The structure of each module attempts to insure that the PCs are shunted into the opening sequence of the next module correctly. Within each module things vary. Generally speaking they're fairly linear internally, but IIRC some of them are closer to a set of options or could even be approached almost as a random series of encounters, though again, progress to the next one requires certain things to happen. If the PCs go 'off the rails' somewhere in, say, A2, it could be pretty hard to get back on track.



A-1 has some options.  A-2 at first glance looks like it has all sorts of options, but a closer look or a run-through finds it in fact to be _very_ linear in its design* other than a few branches in the lower level.  A-3 has options outdoors then becomes linear once the PCs get into the actual "dungeon" bits, leading to a very railroad-y conclusion which really does need buy-in from the players.

But A-4 is an odd duck.  It's clearly written with the intent of being quite linear, but in non-tournament play once the PCs get out of jail it's as open-ended as any module out there; yes there's a serious time crunch involved but there's very little restricting what the players can have their PCs (try to) do within that time.  They have an entire small city to explore-befriend-pillage-hide in, and-or they can try to flee the island, and-or they could try to find a place to hunker down and survive what's coming then carry on afterwards, or whatever.

A-4 does very much leave the DM on her own should the PCs not do what the module expects, but I guess we can't expect much more from what was specifically written as a tournament adventure.

* - when I ran it I changed much of it from linear to looping via the simple addition of about six internal doors, a hidden staircase to provide a potential second vertical access point, and a postern gate to the outside.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 6, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> You presumably set the stakes for the skill challenge when you declare it. So there is two ways it can go, the determined pass stake and the determined fail stake. The fiction cannot evolve into some completely different direction. Also, it really doesn't matter much what the characters do, they just need to make up something to trigger the skill roll. And if someone comes up with something that seems really easy, or really hard in the fiction, it doesn't matter, the DC is the same. If someone comes up with something ingenious that should solve the whole issue at once or something utterly disastrous that should instantly doom the whole attempt, it cannot happen without deviating from the skill challenge structure. Nope, sorry, this is mostly just weaving some flavour on rigid and fixed mechanics. If we want to truly put the fiction first, then we don't have some inflexible framework the fiction needs to conform to, we apply the mechanics to the situation as the fiction warrants it.



This is where we see that you can't just mix any old 'stuff' together and get a working outcome! A 4e SC really has to be focused on INTENT, not action success in terms of its final outcome. So, if we want to get to the Great Temple before the Blood Moon rises, then we have an intent, and we have a 'landscape' of obstacles which the GM can construct, or which may already be established to some degree or other. Now we can see that, yes, it is possible for the party to 'derail' this whole thing, if they really want to, but I don't see why that's a negative or really even bears much on the nature of this kind of structure. As for ideas like "it doesn't really matter much what the characters do" this is flat out preposterous! Again, this is why we need a definite process, the GM will posit an obstacle "You must cross Rocky River" and the players can propose various approaches to doing that, which might elicit some different DCs, etc. (Read the SC rules in the 4e RC, there are a couple different ways that checks can have different difficulties). In every case the GM will be presenting fiction that explicates all of this. Furthermore the SC rules dictate that some skills can only be used once, require a more difficult DC inherently, etc. (these kinds of restrictions would be used to establish (dis)incentives for particular types of task declarations). 

I'm not sure what all this has to do with terminology though...


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 7, 2022)

soviet said:


> This is an interesting point. I think there was definitely a clash of assumptions where GNS-sympathetic people tended to see different games [...]



The biggest problem with GNS is that advocates for it don't all mean the same by it, since Edwards' view on it changed, and he always preached his most recent version.
By the end of the big model, they'd made the entire thing in an echo chamber.

THe initial essay, provided one doesn't insist that each item can only fit in the points of the triangle,  provides a means of comparing ones preferences and the rules. I'm somewhere near the middle of the graph... towards the gamist corner, but definitely not _in _the gamist corner.

My first encounters with Ron were all negative, because he couldn't accept that anyone wasn't firmly in one corner, and his accusations of self-deception arising from that. 

His methodology was fine at first; by the time I'd encountered the RPGForge, he was almost literally chasing out anyone challenging his ideas. Which makes the (otherwise reasonable) research process entirely ruined by lack of criticism. Academic criticism is essential.

*GNS the initial essay is useful* in that it provides pretty clear definitions, and it allows one to assess one's place of preference, and to categorize games. But any use of it should include a link to the initial essay... 

I'll also note: no more credible academician in the English speaking world has arisen with a reasonable rigor to their methodology than Ron. The problem is his training is in life sciences, specifically zoology... not social sciences, and so he blows the standards for sociological and psychological research. He also seems to lack the mathematical prowess to analyze the data he generated effectively. And he treated study subjects as peer review...  which makes his credibility dubious, especially the latter works. 

Shannon Applecline is farm more rigourous, but isn't doing the same type of research; Applecline is doing history, not evaluation of what makes a game work for clade X but not for clade Y... Applecline has become, if not the definitive, the most authoritative historian of Roleplaying Games in print.

I'm too lazy to do similar research to either - what I've read of Applecline is nifty.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 7, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> It’s way worse than that. These exact same conversations (only using slightly different terms and jargon) have been going on since at least the late 1960s (yes, they predate D&D), if not all the way back to Reisswitz’s Kriegsspiel game in 1812. We’re stuck in a conversational loop that’s at least 60 years old at this point, if not one that’s 210 years old.



Really? I mean, where are the discussions of something that we would call Story Games or 'Narrativist agenda play'? I mean, there has been effectively LARP, cooperative storytelling techniques of various types, improv theater, etc. I think they HAVE touched on similar or analogous questions at times, but I'm not so convinced that this particular vein of discussion is that old. FK, in the classic sense, does have some rules, and the participants certainly are doing a type of RP, and they have defined agendas. However, since there isn't a 'free narrative' in those types of games (they are about something specific, having the character of 'scenarios') its not really possible they can support a discussion of character-oriented play where the focus is on driving the fiction forward in a way similar to what Edwards describes. I mean, I can't swear there wasn't an experimentalist group of RPers someplace that never did something like that. However, it certainly didn't go far, or we wouldn't be calling D&D the first modern RPG. Right?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 7, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Honestly though, I don't think that many designers DID use those terms. I mean, maybe they did when they chatted about stuff on The Forge way back when, but Mike Mearls was there, along with various other really well known RPG authors, and where are they off spouting about this stuff? They never did. It was, at most, a discussion that happened in a forum and they got some ideas, and then they ran with them, in various ways, with various results. 

TBH, my guess is that if this sort of discussion IS happening today, it is hidden behind invite-only gates. I mean, endless public debate filled with the posts of all of us, who have never seriously designed an RPG (I mean I've written a couple, but I wouldn't call myself a game designer) probably isn't a whole lot of use to professionals... Frankly I don't post much on public boards about IT topics either, that doesn't mean I don't have conversations with other pros whom I have learned to value the opinions of. I just have no interest in having those discussions in public where random ignoramuses will bog down the discussion! Its pretty specialized stuff, really.  As to what terminology or analytical concepts or whatever they use in these hypothetical RPG designer discussions, heck if I know! lol.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2022)

niklinna said:


> 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.



More questions incoming:

Having learned that it's a linear adventure, what do I now know about it? As an analytical term, where is that supposed to take me?

EDIT: Apparently I already asked those questions upthread!



niklinna said:


> 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!



Fair enough! But there is another thing you posted that I wanted to reply to.



niklinna said:


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



This puzzled me.

In The Green Knight the players have a very large amount of choice over how things go, mostly oriented around Honour and Dishonour. But what sequence the events happen in isn't one of the objects of choice. Because it has no bearing on matters of Honour or Dishonour.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2022)

niklinna said:


> 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 degree, 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've bolded two bits of your post. Is "the other stuff" that gets interesting "the dependence of stuff in subsequent scenes on earlier scenes"?

I think that is an interesting property of preparing/scripting scenes for RPGing. Because it requires that _whichever scene is run first_ produce certain outcomes that will support the dependencies that obtain _in which scene is run second_. And there is evident scope for tension between _requiring certain outcomes be produced_ and _players declaring actions for their PCs_.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> My personal opinion is it is less at a detailed level of, say, rooms, and more at a general level. The classic AD&D A series 'Against the Slave Lords' modules (A1-A4) follow this pattern and are VERY linear in that you go from the first module in the series to the 2nd, etc. There's no bypassing one, no real 'branches' at all. The structure of each module attempts to insure that the PCs are shunted into the opening sequence of the next module correctly.



The idea of "shunting" seems related to the idea of _producing certain outcomes that will support the dependencies between scenes_.

As well as the sorts of dependencies @niklinna mentions (obtaining a thing, meeting a person etc) there can be dependencies like this: if Scene B opens "As your reach the crest of the mountain pass, you see a scene of devastation in the land below", that won't work if at the end of Scene A the protagonists decided not to cross the mountains.



Lanefan said:


> but if, say, there's something to be learned/found at scene 2 that would make a difference in how scene 3 plays out then there could be a significant difference in play if the sequence goes 3-2 than if it goes 2-3.



OK, but then what's interesting isn't the "linearity" but rather the dependencies. So let's have a term to describe _that_.

As I already posted, The Green Knight has no such dependencies.



Malmuria said:


> Re: linear
> 
> I think it’s most helpful in thinking of adventure design for games like DnD, CoC etc.  Sometimes quite literally, as in how a text is organized and laid out and how that helps out a reader.
> 
> ...



I've read some of The Alexandrian's work on "node-based design" and the closely related "three clue rule". I personally see it as a way of preparing a sophisticated sort of railroad. It tries to resolve the tension I describe just above by building in multiple, overlapping dependencies between scenes.



Lanefan said:


> linear adventures/dungeons are IMO and IME generally less interesting for all involved* than are looping ones; with branching ones somewhere between.



This seems to be going back to geography.

But anyway I don't think this claim seems very plausible. The Green Knight is more interesting than many looping dungeon (or starship, or alien facility, or . . .) scenarios I've encountered. And I don't see how it would be _more_ interesting by changing the sequence of the non-bookend scenes.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> More questions incoming:
> 
> Having learned that it's a linear adventure, what do I now know about it? As an analytical term, where is that supposed to take me?
> 
> EDIT: Apparently I already asked those questions upthread!



Were they answered?



pemerton said:


> Fair enough! But there is another thing you posted that I wanted to reply to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A large amount of choice in one area can mask a lack of choice in other areas.

Generally, though, players who can see that they lack choices they might otherwise expect to have, might not like that.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2022)

niklinna said:


> players who can see that they lack choices they might otherwise expect to have, might not like that.



This remark tends to reinforce the impression I'm getting that "linear adventure" has two uses:

* To describe geography (maybe with an additional premise in the neighbourhood, along the lines of _where a PC is determines what scene the GM frames_);

* To describe interdependencies between scenes, such that one has to finish a certain way (or within certain parameters) for the next to be framed.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I've bolded two bits of your post. Is "the other stuff" that gets interesting "the dependence of stuff in subsequent scenes on earlier scenes"?



Yes, that's what I meant.



pemerton said:


> I think that is an interesting property of preparing/scripting scenes for RPGing. Because it requires that _whichever scene is run first_ produce certain outcomes that will support the dependencies that obtain _in which scene is run second_. And there is evident scope for tension between _requiring certain outcomes be produced_ and _players declaring actions for their PCs_.



Yes, it makes for much more interesting adventures (or parts thereof).



pemerton said:


> The idea of "shunting" seems related to the idea of _producing certain outcomes that will support the dependencies between scenes_.
> 
> As well as the sorts of dependencies @niklinna mentions (obtaining a thing, meeting a person etc) there can be dependencies like this: if Scene B opens "As your reach the crest of the mountain pass, you see a scene of devastation in the land below", that won't work if at the end of Scene A the protagonists decided not to cross the mountains.



True, assuming the GM gives them the choice. Maybe they just end scene A and courageously frame scene B without asking.



pemerton said:


> OK, but then what's interesting isn't the "linearity" but rather the dependencies. So let's have a term to describe _that_.
> 
> As I already posted, The Green Knight has no such dependencies.



Based on your description, I would agree. You could go right from the opening scene to the closing scene. It would be boring, but feasible.



pemerton said:


> I've read some of The Alexandrian's work on "node-based design" and the closely related "three clue rule". I personally see it as a way of preparing a sophisticated sort of railroad. It tries to resolve the tension I describe just above by building in multiple, overlapping dependencies between scenes.



I haven't read those in a while, but as I've alluded to, linearity applies at different levels and to different aspects of an adventure. It's how overt the linearity of the design/script is, and how blatant it is in restricting or denying player choice, that leads to an adventure being called "linear" or a "railroad". Again, ultimately every adventure, once played, winds up linear in the strict sense of a single sequence of events in time.



pemerton said:


> This seems to be going back to geography.
> 
> But anyway I don't think this claim seems very plausible. The Green Knight is more interesting than many looping dungeon (or starship, or alien facility, or . . .) scenarios I've encountered. And I don't see how it would be _more_ interesting by changing the sequence of the non-bookend scenes.



I would hazard that the action within each scene is sufficiently interesting and nonlinear that the higher scene-level linearity (assuming the GM sticks to the script) isn't likely to be noticed in play.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> This remark tends to reinforce the impression I'm getting that "linear adventure" has two uses:
> 
> * To describe geography (maybe with an additional premise in the neighbourhood, along the lines of _where a PC is determines what scene the GM frames_);
> 
> * To describe interdependencies between scenes, such that one has to finish a certain way (or within certain parameters) for the next to be framed.



Yes, it has at least those two uses. I mentioned other possible "situations" somewhere in a prior post: locations, NPCs, objects, events/actions. Those could be between scenes or within a scene. They might be coupled (event in a particular location, or event wherever the PCs happen to be), and so on.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 7, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Extraordinary statements (there are ONLY three reasons people play TTRPGs) require extraordinary proof.
> 
> Let me know when there is ... you know, actual _empirical proof through studies or surveys of players_*, and not just people saying so.
> 
> ...



Well, first of all, that isn't really what he's saying. He's saying he can divide players primary agendas, during a game/session/campaign (perhaps) into 3 broad categories. He's NOT saying there aren't other ways to categorize players, nor that players are perfectly consistent, nor that they don't have more than one agenda. Its a solid logical argument made on observation. Surveying everyone to find out may not be feasible in that people don't exactly closely examine their own play in this way either. 

So, sure, its reasonable to ask, "Is there evidence for this?" but really dismissing it out of hand doesn't work either. I mean, have you really read through these essays? There is quite a lot of really insightful observation there. Nobody is forcing you to agree with it, but when it actually works as a way of understanding RPGs, you can't just ignore it. I mean, look at the wide range of games built by reference to these ideas, and to ideas developed with them as a starting point. Where's another body of work that is equivalent?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 7, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> That's fair, and I agree! But that also ties into the "endless loop" that has been described by Torner, et al., in the hobby.
> 
> A. Amateur hobbyist declaring that there's a problem in TTRPGs.
> B. This problem is caused by inconsistent desires/agendas/types of players.
> ...



And what makes anything that Tomer says in any way shape or form any more authoritative than anything I say? Hell, I started playing D&D literally when the first 1974 books showed up in our FLGS. I've written all sorts of material of all kinds for dozens of different games, written a couple of my own games, and several wargames too. Talked to plenty of people, including a number of those that are considered influential and played with them too. I'm not CLAIMING to be some great expert, not at all, but surely I have plenty of reason to be able to stand up and be counted. What about all these academics? Did they run 10,000 hours of RPGs? I have!


Snarf Zagyg said:


> I am perfectly willing to accept that both I am wrong, and Edwards is wrong. In fact, far from being mutually exclusive, I'd say that it's probably _the most likely scenario. _After all, I am just another amateur criticizing an amateur.
> 
> There's a lot of people that know more about the subject than me- which is why I post links and recommend people check it out!



Everyone is wrong, probably half the time, lol.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 7, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> A-1 has some options.  A-2 at first glance looks like it has all sorts of options, but a closer look or a run-through finds it in fact to be _very_ linear in its design* other than a few branches in the lower level.  A-3 has options outdoors then becomes linear once the PCs get into the actual "dungeon" bits, leading to a very railroad-y conclusion which really does need buy-in from the players.
> 
> But A-4 is an odd duck.  It's clearly written with the intent of being quite linear, but in non-tournament play once the PCs get out of jail it's as open-ended as any module out there; yes there's a serious time crunch involved but there's very little restricting what the players can have their PCs (try to) do within that time.  They have an entire small city to explore-befriend-pillage-hide in, and-or they can try to flee the island, and-or they could try to find a place to hunker down and survive what's coming then carry on afterwards, or whatever.
> 
> ...



Yeah, A4 is a weird module, almost a sort of odd little sandbox, except if you don't figure out some stuff before the timer expires, the whole sandbox goes kablooey! lol.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Maybe they just end scene A and courageously frame scene B without asking.



I think there are lot of published adventures that would be improved by this - just hard frame, rather than pretend that the outcomes of action resolution are going to matter and then encourage the GM to contrive the background fiction and/or fudge results so as to get the mandated outcome.



niklinna said:


> Based on your description, I would agree. You could go right from the opening scene to the closing scene. It would be boring, but feasible.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I would hazard that the action within each scene is sufficiently interesting and nonlinear that the higher scene-level linearity (assuming the GM sticks to the script) isn't likely to be noticed in play.



I think what you call the higher scene-level linearity is utterly transparent in the play of The Green Knight. At the end of an encounter, the GM goes through the process of "judgement", that is, noting accruals of Dishonour and also sheddings of Dishonour based on what the PCs did in the encounter. Then, once that's done, and once the players have a chance to decide whether or not one of the PCs undergoes "atonement" (other PCs can accrue 3 Dishonour to allow one PC to shed 1 Dishonour), the GM introduces the next scene.



niklinna said:


> linearity applies at different levels and to different aspects of an adventure. It's how overt the linearity of the design/script is, and how blatant it is in restricting or denying player choice, that leads to an adventure being called "linear" or a "railroad".



I see "railroad" as a different kettle of fish altogether! As I said, I regard node-based design as a way of designing railroads, but I doubt that anyone would call it "linear".

Conversely, The Green Knight is (it seems) linear but I don't see any sense in which it's a railroad. There are no dependencies between scenes, and therefore each scene can resolve however it resolves, with no need to manipulate backstory or fudge results or puts limits around permissible action declarations.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> The idea of "shunting" seems related to the idea of _producing certain outcomes that will support the dependencies between scenes_.



And indeed, the A series has a couple of points where 'certain outcomes' are required, and not guaranteed. OTOH you can basically bail out of most adventures at any point. The difference here being it IS possible to 'mess it up' in a couple places such that you CANNOT proceed (without fudging/alteration of the plot at least).


----------



## niklinna (Jun 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I think there are lot of published adventures that would be improved by this - just hard frame, rather than pretend that the outcomes of action resolution are going to matter and then encourage the GM to contrive the background fiction and/or fudge results so as to get the mandated outcome.



I agree.



pemerton said:


> I think what you call the higher scene-level linearity is utterly transparent in the play of The Green Knight. At the end of an encounter, the GM goes through the process of "judgement", that is, noting accruals of Dishonour and also sheddings of Dishonour based on what the PCs did in the encounter. Then, once that's done, and once the players have a chance to decide whether or not one of the PCs undergoes "atonement" (other PCs can accrue 3 Dishonour to allow one PC to shed 1 Dishonour), the GM introduces the next scene.



Ah right, I forgot about that bit. Rather than "noticed", I should have said it wasn't something the players were likely to bump up against. (But who knows? I haven't sat at every table to ever run the adventure!)



pemerton said:


> I see "railroad" as a different kettle of fish altogether! As I said, I regard node-based design as a way of designing railroads, but I doubt that anyone would call it "linear".



I knew I was taking a chance even mentioning the term! I said earlier that nobody agrees what it means.  But I totally get your point. A roller coaster is a form of railroad, after all! And even real railroads have junction points...although the train engineer has to rely on somebody on the ground to switch the tracks over. Anyhow, pursuing this further would derail the topic at hand so I shall simply regret my mention!



pemerton said:


> Conversely, The Green Knight is (it seems) linear but I don't see any sense in which it's a railroad. There are no dependencies between scenes, and therefore each scene can resolve however it resolves, with no need to manipulate backstory or fudge results or puts limits around permissible action declarations.



Very good point! I stand corrected.

Edit: Fixed a typo.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 7, 2022)

With a scenario with nodes, the most likely railroading situation is a dm not allowing a scene to ‘fail.’ The PCs show up to interrogate a key witness, but either don’t get the clues they would need, or don’t understand the clues given, for them to get to the next ‘level’ of nodes (‘D’ in the linked article).  The other way it might end up a railroad is if they end up at the next part of the scenario but they can’t progress because reasons.  Videogames often work this way, where in order to get to the next bit of content you have to trigger a cut scene by doing x, y, and z.  

I read Alexander’s thoughts on scenario design as being able to create and run a pre-written scenario while at the same time decreasingly the likelihood that the dm will feel the need to railroad the pcs to the next scene.  

I think it can be made more dynamic in various ways.  For example, there could be a timer (‘what happens if the pcs do nothing?’).  Or the dm can just figure out how the pcs actions in one node would change the entire gamestate.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 7, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> That's fair, and I agree! But that also ties into the "endless loop" that has been described by Torner, et al., in the hobby.
> 
> A. Amateur hobbyist declaring that there's a problem in TTRPGs.
> B. This problem is caused by inconsistent desires/agendas/types of players.
> ...



Having dealt with a fair amount of MBTI/Socionics and some other pop psychology, I tend to be skeptical of these sort of typologies. It's why we are still dealing with "Alpha Wolf" BS. With roleplaying games, I find most of the player typologies, including more academic ones, tend to fall short of providing satisfying insight about players in one way or another IMHO. 

I think typologies of roleplaying games - game system "families" and common features they share - would be of greater value. Then layer the X Cultures of Gaming on top of that. 



Snarf Zagyg said:


> In addition, because of the hobbyist nature, the past lessons keep getting forgotten. We just keep re-inventing the wheel.



...as it was written in the The Elusive Shift by St. Peterson the Evangelist? 

Having not read The Elusive Shift yet, I can't really comment in full. I have no doubt that the hobby has been dancing around a lot of the same key underlying issues from the beginning. Likewise, I don't doubt that a lot of early lessons have been forgotten. I am not entirely sure if we are just re-inventing the wheel, even if we are dancing around those same issues. If we are, it's not without good reason, IMHO. Our hobby was changing, is changing, and will change again in response to demographic changes in our hobby and our surrounding culture. And the far greater reach and influence that video games and its theories will undoubtedly make on our hobby cannot be underestimated.A lot of debate that was once in zines moved to Usenet, then to forums, then to Google+ and since elsewhere across the net (e.g., Discord, Reddit, etc.). However, I suspect that a lot has been recontextualized over time. Call and response to past movements and the surrounding culture isn't exactly a new thing outside of roleplaying games. It's a pretty descriptive phenomenon when it comes to artistic and cultural movements as well. I tend to think that falling back on the phraseology of "just keep re-inventing the wheel" does a great disservice to this call and response of our hobby to itself and the wider culture.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> With a scenario with nodes, the most likely railroading situation is a dm not allowing a scene to ‘fail.’ The PCs show up to interrogate a key witness, but either don’t get the clues they would need, or don’t understand the clues given, for them to get to the next ‘level’ of nodes (‘D’ in the linked article).
> 
> <snip>
> I think it can be made more dynamic in various ways.  For example, there could be a timer (‘what happens if the pcs do nothing?’).  Or the dm can just figure out how the pcs actions in one node would change the entire gamestate.



Everything you describe here seems to me to reinforce my view that node-based design is a type of railroading.

We have the idea of _key witness_ - and from the context it seems pretty clear that the GM is the one who decided that this witness is key. We have a _clue the players need_ - and from the context it seems pretty clear that the GM is the one who has determined that the players need this clue. We have a _timer_ that I take it from the context would be set up by the GM, implementing changes to the fiction unilaterally. And we have the possibility of _the GM making unilateral changes to the fiction_ without reliance on a timer or similar device.

You are describing a GM-authored fiction which evolves in accordance with the GM's conception of it. The fact that it is not linear doesn't change that.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Everything you describe here seems to me to reinforce my view that node-based design is a type of railroading.
> 
> We have the idea of _key witness_ - and from the context it seems pretty clear that the GM is the one who decided that this witness is key. We have a _clue the players need_ - and from the context it seems pretty clear that the GM is the one who has determined that the players need this clue. We have a _timer_ that I take it from the context would be set up by the GM, implementing changes to the fiction unilaterally. And we have the possibility of _the GM making unilateral changes to the fiction_ without reliance on a timer or similar device.
> 
> You are describing a GM-authored fiction which evolves in accordance with the GM's conception of it. The fact that it is not linear doesn't change that.



Sure, but then I would need another term to describe a dm who doesn’t let a scenario fail, or let the players ‘skip’ nodes, or have the world react to the PCs dynamically.

edit: I see this structure best for a mystery scenario (like CoC where you have handouts related to each node)  When playing dnd I usually just have an environment with various things going on in different locations.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Sure, but then I would need another term to describe a dm who doesn’t let a scenario fail, or let the players ‘skip’ nodes, or have the world react to the PCs dynamically.



I wasn't sure what the original term was, in relation to which your new term would be another.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Everything you describe here seems to me to reinforce my view that node-based design is a type of railroading.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You are describing a GM-authored fiction which evolves in accordance with the GM's conception of it. The fact that it is not linear doesn't change that.



What about classic map-and-key dungeons that have no script, just corridors and doors and rooms? I mean, in some strict sense that's railroading in that PCs can't just teleport wherever they want. (Oh wait, in D&D they can, once they have the spell. But anyhow!)

What about NPCs you can discover and talk to, who have a relationship diagram (map)? You can talk to Victor, who knows Jennell and Ernie, which is how you might get introduced to or otherwise find out about them. Jennell knows _about_ Ernie but has never met him. Ernie knows nothing about Jennell. Ernie does know Marian, though, but never tells anybody about that; he is in fact having an affair with her and meets her on the sly. Maybe if the PCs spy on Ernie (or Marian, assuming they learn about her some other way) they will find that out. And so on!

So now you've got me wondering about the difference between _structure_ and _railroad_. Players can—or perhaps, _be allowed to_—presumably find creative ways around structure (teleport spells, Streetwise skill tests, whatever), but a railroad pointedly disallows that. Or rather, a scripted railroad disallows (explicity or implicitly), or a GM disallows or allows (possibly in defiance of a script). This gets into territory of who has authority over what in revealing/exploring/generating a story. Does that make sense?


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 7, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> With a scenario with nodes, the most likely railroading situation is a dm not allowing a scene to ‘fail.’ The PCs show up to interrogate a key witness, but either don’t get the clues they would need...



Locking clues behind dice rolls is monumentally terrible design. If the only way for the adventure to continue is to gain a clue, it's automatically gained. Simple as.


Malmuria said:


> or don’t understand the clues given



That's on the players. But thankfully, they're never locked into only visiting the nodes and there's the Three Clue Rule. They can still go wherever they want. It's just that the clues for the mystery are at the nodes. The Alexandrian talks about this at length in the rest of the series you linked to.


Malmuria said:


> for them to get to the next ‘level’ of nodes (‘D’ in the linked article). The other way it might end up a railroad is if they end up at the next part of the scenario but they can’t progress because reasons.



The thing about node-based design that's being left out is the Three Clue Rule. The short version is that for any conclusion the referee wants the PCs to make, there should be three clues pointing to that conclusion. You want the PCs to eventually go to location C, there should be three clues pointing to it. That's what the notation is below the nodes in the link you provided. The zero node (blue) gives you three clues, pointing to A, B, and C. Whichever node you go to also provides three clues, the other two middle nodes and D. The PCs can go wherever they want, even from A to B or A to C, or vice versa. 

The referee is advised to create or move clues if the PCs go "off the map" to point them back to the nodes. This is what Hickman calls soft bumpers. Gently pointing the PCs back to the adventure without preventing them from going where they want. A hard bumper would be something like an impassible mountain or other impenetrable barrier meant to keep the PCs at the right locations.


Malmuria said:


> I read Alexander’s thoughts on scenario design as being able to create and run a pre-written scenario while at the same time decreasingly the likelihood that the dm will feel the need to railroad the pcs to the next scene.



Justin's node-based design is basically what Hickman's been doing for decades, most famously in the Dragonlance modules. He calls it a closed matrix or narrative bumper pool. It's a good mix of linear and open-world design. There is an event that the PCs need to deal with, but instead of it being strictly linear or an impossible to manage perfectly open world, you use node-based design to get the best of both worlds. The freedom of choice akin to an open world but the structure of a more linear adventure.


Malmuria said:


> I think it can be made more dynamic in various ways. For example, there could be a timer (‘what happens if the pcs do nothing?’). Or the dm can just figure out how the pcs actions in one node would change the entire gamestate.



Absolutely.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I wasn't sure what the original term was, in relation to which your new term would be another.



I don't know the original term either, but for the things listed I've seen "GM Force" (with a capital F) used.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 7, 2022)

niklinna said:


> What about classic map-and-key dungeons that have no script, just corridors and doors and rooms? I mean, in some strict sense that's railroading in that PCs can't just teleport wherever they want. (Oh wait, in D&D they can, once they have the spell. But anyhow!)



Just to make clear what page I'm on, which I think is the same page that you're on: I'm thinking White Plume Mountain, Tomb of Horrors, the Caves of Chaos and the like.

I don't see this as railroading, because there are no "dependencies between scenes", "key witnesses", "necessary clues", and in general the players set their own agenda. There is no GM-authored objective that the players have to pursue. (Torchbearer formalises this by getting players to set their goals; though it also pushes a bit towards GM curation by having the GM offer a list of goals!)

I see this as the classic paradigm of straight-up exploratory play, often with a side-helping of gamism (can we beat the dungeon?).

Going back to the six-room dungeon we were talking about upthread, that's perhaps not the most gripping dungeon of all time (though I am thinking of stealing it for Torchbearer!) but I don't see it as a railroad. The players have choices to make, including how to respond to the Bugbears and Goblins, and I don't see that the GM is the one dictating what they should be doing.



niklinna said:


> What about NPCs you can discover and talk to, who have a relationship diagram (map)? You can talk to Victor, who knows Jennell and Ernie, which is how you might get introduced to or otherwise find out about them. Jennell knows _about_ Ernie but has never met him. Ernie knows nothing about Jennell. Ernie does know Marian, though, but never tells anybody about that; he is in fact having an affair with her and meets her on the sly. Maybe if the PCs spy on Ernie (or Marian, assuming they learn about her some other way) they will find that out. And so on!



I see these as borderline cases. In principle, it can be just like the dungeon: the PCs just poke around and explore and take what wins they can get. But because the "environment" of interpersonal interactions is so much more charged than the environment of "Trap in room 3 that Halflings are too light to trigger", I think it is pretty hard to treat the social "dungeon" as a thing to be explored in the same way.

In practice I think the sort of thing described is likely to involve a lot of _players seeing the GM set out their social situation_ and then when the PCs intervene in it, _the GM making decisions that reflect their conception of how the social dramas "should" play out_.



niklinna said:


> So now you've got me wondering about the difference between _structure_ and _railroad_. Players can—or perhaps, _be allowed_—presumably find creative ways around structure (teleport spells, Streetwise skill tests, whatever), but a railroad pointedly disallows that. Or rather, a scripted railroad disallows (explicity or implicitly), or a GM disallows (possibly in defiance of a script). This gets into territory of who has authority over what in revealing/exploring/generating a story. Does that make sense?



It makes some sense, although - and as per my other new thread - I think this focus on the _geography_ of the fiction as a source of constraint could do with further scrutiny.

And I think we're absolutely in the territory of _who has what sort of authority_. For instance, in the node-based adventure, the GM has authority to decide what the PCs care about. Which is expressed via phrases like "key witness", "necessary clue", etc.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> OK, but then what's interesting isn't the "linearity" but rather the dependencies. So let's have a term to describe _that_.
> 
> As I already posted, The Green Knight has no such dependencies.



I got nothin' when it comes to making up terms. 

But, to add even more to the fun, there's two levels of these dependencies; the presence of one of which will make an adventure linear while the other will not.

The first type, the one that to some degree forces linearity, is when something Must Happen in an earlier scene in order that a later one can be accessed and-or played.  A bland-and-boring example might be the trope where the PCs must find a key in one area in order to get through an otherwise-unopenable door in another; or when a scene with the butler must take place or else there is no possible way the PCs can safely access the mistress of the house with whom they need to speak.  Kinda railroad-y, yes, but also quite common.  These are the type of dependencies many of us either don't like at all or tolerate if used sparingly.

The second one, that doesn't force linearity, is when while all scenes are more or less equally accessible the play of some will be (in some cases greatly) affected by whether or not other scenes have already been played.  

An example here might be where the PCs are trying to rescue a prisoner, did they find a stealthy way of avoiding all the guards (i.e. bypassing a variable number of scenes) en route to the prisoner, or did they throw stealth to the wind and just blow away the guards on their way in.*  Put another way, the scene where they reach and rescue the prisoner is in theory going to happen at some point if the PCs are to succeed in their mission, but that scene will play very differently if it is among the first to be played during the adventure rather than among the last.  Note too that this scene sequencing is almost entirely dependent on how the players/PCs choose to approach the mission.

This second type of dependency is IMO just fine, and sometimes almost falls under simple consequences: if you do A first it'll make doing B either easier or harder than if A had not been done (and might even make doing B either impossible or unnecessary).

* - georgraphy factors in here as well.  If the prison is physically laid out in such a way that the PCs have no choice but to plow through lots of guards en route to the prisoner then it's going to be a linear adventure no matter what, with a pre-known number of scenes in it.  But if the prison is laid out in such as way as to allow different approaches (or the PCs can bring resources to bear to allow different approaches e.g. _Passwall _spell, flight, etc.) then the adventure need not be linear at all and - using number of scenes as the measure - the adventure's length cannot be predicted ahead of time.  Maybe they do wade in and encounter every possible scene and-or location and have 6 combat scenes then the actual rescue scene then another combat followed by a chase; or maybe there's only three scenes to the whole thing - stealthing in, rescuing the prisoner, and stealthing out again.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> This remark tends to reinforce the impression I'm getting that "linear adventure" has two uses:
> 
> * To describe geography (maybe with an additional premise in the neighbourhood, along the lines of _where a PC is determines what scene the GM frames_);
> 
> * To describe interdependencies between scenes, such that one has to finish a certain way (or within certain parameters) [...] for the next to be framed.



Correct, except that where I added "[...]" in your quote, put the words "or take place at all".  

There is often a lot of overlap between these two things - geography and scene interdependency - in that in many published adventures each room or area has a specific encounter tied to it, meaning that if you are being geographically forced to hit the areas in a specific sequence you'll by default also be forced to hit those encounters in the same specific sequence.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Going back to the six-room dungeon we were talking about upthread, that's perhaps not the most gripping dungeon of all time (though I am thinking of stealing it for Torchbearer!) but I don't see it as a railroad. The players have choices to make, including how to respond to the Bugbears and Goblins, and I don't see that the GM is the one dictating what they should be doing.



Agreed.  As designed it's a linear adventure, but not a railroad.  If nothing else, the PCs can always turn around and leave.

A DM could of course fairly easily make a railroad out of it (linear adventures are good for this), but that's a different issue.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 7, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Having dealt with a fair amount of MBTI/Socionics and some other pop psychology, I tend to be skeptical of these sort of typologies. It's why we are still dealing with "Alpha Wolf" BS. With roleplaying games, I find most of the player typologies, including more academic ones, tend to fall short of providing satisfying insight about players in one way or another IMHO.
> 
> I think typologies of roleplaying games - game system "families" and common features they share - would be of greater value. Then layer the X Cultures of Gaming on top of that.




I appreciate the thoughtful response. I think we are mostly in agreement. As a general rule, I think it is more valuable to be descriptive that prescriptive- to look at games and find the ways that they overlap (sets) as opposed to come up with typologies and try to jam games into a limited number of them. 

Generally, this also has the benefit of empiricism- which is also the best approach when looking at what players want, etc.

This goes back to the numerous variations of an old joke, which I will provide the version of I learned-
A (Y) engineer is visiting (X) and sees that there are two small towns separated by a river. He proposes building a bridge between them, and is told by the engineers there that they have been looking at the problem for 20 years, and it can never get done. "It is impossible!"

The Y engineer doesn't understand, as he has seen these types of bridges before. So he gets a team together, and over the next six months, builds the bridge. Proud of his achievement, he shows it to the X engineers.

They turn their backs, saying, "Well, maybe it works in practice, but it will never work in theory." 



Aldarc said:


> ...as it was written in the The Elusive Shift by St. Peterson the Evangelist?
> 
> Having not read The Elusive Shift yet, I can't really comment in full. I have no doubt that the hobby has been dancing around a lot of the same key underlying issues from the beginning. Likewise, I don't doubt that a lot of early lessons have been forgotten. I am not entirely sure if we are just re-inventing the wheel, even if we are dancing around those same issues. If we are, it's not without good reason, IMHO. Our hobby was changing, is changing, and will change again in response to demographic changes in our hobby and our surrounding culture. And the far greater reach and influence that video games and its theories will undoubtedly make on our hobby cannot be underestimated.A lot of debate that was once in zines moved to Usenet, then to forums, then to Google+ and since elsewhere across the net (e.g., Discord, Reddit, etc.). However, I suspect that a lot has been recontextualized over time. Call and response to past movements and the surrounding culture isn't exactly a new thing outside of roleplaying games. It's a pretty descriptive phenomenon when it comes to artistic and cultural movements as well. I tend to think that falling back on the phraseology of "just keep re-inventing the wheel" does a great disservice to this call and response of our hobby to itself and the wider culture.




So, a few things. I apologize if I might have conflated two separate things (in my longer posts in the past, I made sure to ... well, to quote the Offspring, _Keep 'Em Separated_). Evan Torner wrote the part about how the same rhetorical tropes w/r/t player and system typologies keep getting used; that's in the book Role-Playing Game Studies. That's the part I keep referencing, and goes through the history, and then provides an example from (2010 I think) of yet another typology. This is how I described it previously-

_First, however, I'd like to start by summarizing Evan Torner's work in the book Role-Playing Game Studies- in noting another attempt to provide a coherent RPG theory, Torner correctly notes that the same rhetorical tropes are consistently used- first, the person provides it in a semi-professional form (zine, on-line BBS, personal blog, forum, wiki, etc.). Second, it continues the same debates we are all familiar with (e.g., realism versus playability; task resolution; game design and play advice etc.). It 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 almost always claim to be a "big tent" and unbiased observer of the typologies seeking only to end the prior debates, while actually 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._

That's the source of that, not Peterson. Peterson is provides the history (with numerous sources!) of how TTRPGs were played and how they evolved in the 70s and into the beginning of the 80s- it's more a history of how wargames evolved into roleplaying games, and the push/pull of different influences. What is fascinating about reading that book is that you see how the debates we keep having now are echoes of the debates they were having then. It can be frustratingly reductive to keep hearing people say that OD&D and the 70s games were just "dungeon crawls," after you _read the actual people debating and arguing about the games, and see the types of games people were playing back then_. 

But this goes back to Torner's article- the reason that we keep seeing these same debates repeat is because of the hobbyist nature of them. People don't learn from the past. There hasn't (until very recently) been a foundation to build upon. Which is why it can be frustrating at times.

To use some examples from this thread; on the one hand, you have people complain that we need to use jargon because we should take the subject seriously, and (to use some analogies others have used) you wouldn't have Einstein explain his special theory of relativity without jargon, and you wouldn't learn how to mountain climb without learning the terms! Which is fair ...

But ... Einstein and physics use real defined terms that people agree upon, not confusing made-up hobbyist terms. Right? So it can be bizarre when I see responses like the one from @AbdulAlhazred who just wrote above you-

_And what makes anything that Tomer says in any way shape or form any more authoritative than anything I say? Hell, I started playing D&D literally when the first 1974 books showed up in our FLGS. I've written all sorts of material of all kinds for dozens of different games, written a couple of my own games, and several wargames too. Talked to plenty of people, including a number of those that are considered influential and played with them too. I'm not CLAIMING to be some great expert, not at all, but surely I have plenty of reason to be able to stand up and be counted. What about all these academics? Did they run 10,000 hours of RPGs? I have!_

...it's Evan Torner. But why listen to him? Well, _because he publishes his work in academic settings so you can actually choose to disagree with him. _Because he has numerous publications (some of them co-authored with William J. White, who wrote the book on the Forge) regarding roleplaying games. It's the same with Peterson- the reason I trust the history in the _The Elusive Shift_ is not because Peterson is saying, "Trust me, I started playing in 1974. My experience is emblematic of the experience of everyone else in the game." It's because he cites the sources! He did the work! 

I feel like I keep circling back around to this point- it's the Goldilocks argument. The jargon used by some people is "just right," because ... reasons, I guess? People who do not want to use that jargon aren't taking the game seriously enough, and people that want to look at what academics or people in the last 15 years have been doing ... well, that's too serious? 

All that said- when I use the phrase, "re-inventing the wheel," I want to stress that I don't mean that there is nothing new that comes out. I think it should be obvious that the games of today are different than those of the 70s and 80s and 90s. I try to keep reiterating that vital work gets done from these movements that react to what is around them. But, just like other areas (computer games, for example). It's about how the hobbyist community doesn't recall that these debates already occurred. It's like seeing someone post something on enworld, and not realize that it's been done before. Except ... for fifty years. However, I do agree with you that the debate gets re-contextualized when the debate occurs at different times. It's just that in most fields, the people that are re-contextualizing the debate are aware of the prior debates. I mean ... imagine having a PhD candidate in English say, "Hey, I have a new idea no one has ever had before. Imagine if ... we didn't worry about the author's intention? I know! Totally new, right?" It's not that the debate can't be re-contextualized, so much as it's helpful to know that the debate already occurred.

Anyway, appreciate the response.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I wasn't sure what the original term was, in relation to which your new term would be another.



My interpretation of what you were saying is that node-based scenario design is a railroad because of all the elements of gm-authored fiction.  I don’t see gm authored fiction—creating the setting, npcs, and points of conflict (“playing the world”)—as inherently railroading.  I use the term more narrowly to different ways a gm might constrain player choice within that broad structure, i.e. with the assumption that the gm is creating the setting, providing npc reactions, etc.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 7, 2022)

btw, the dungeon I linked to earlier is from this video:


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 7, 2022)

Some good examples of very simple node based scenario design might be two introductory scenarios for Call of Cthulhu: Alone Against the Dark (a solo play, basically a choose your own adventure) and The Haunting.  I certainly wouldn’t describe either of these as a “sandbox” because the action happens at particular nodes.  But neither is it necessarily a railroad because the PCs do have options and there are different endings.  It’s not the most dynamic and complex structure out there, but it works as an introduction.

One thought, re: geography: One possible advantage for building more complex scenarios in CoC is that the game takes place in a fantastical version of the real world.  When a gm creates a setting the players are sort of in the dark about all the details.  But if your playing in 1920s Boston, and the the players are at all familiar with that city, they can use that knowledge to go places the keeper did not prepare as a node.  Depending on how the keeper handles that (i.e. by not railroading), it can lead to a more dynamic game.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 7, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> My interpretation of what you were saying is that node-based scenario design is a railroad because of all the elements of gm-authored fiction.  I don’t see gm authored fiction—creating the setting, npcs, and points of conflict (“playing the world”)—as inherently railroading.  I use the term more narrowly to different ways a gm might constrain player choice within that broad structure, i.e. with the assumption that the gm is creating the setting, providing npc reactions, etc.



That is the common usage of railroad. Railroading is when the referee removes player agency. The existence of a setting does not remove player agency. The existence of NPCs does not remove player agency. The existence of monsters or conflicts does not remove player agency. When the referee uses a quantum ogre (i.e. the referee forces the same encounter on the PCs no matter which direction they travel), that's railroading. When the referee says no to a reasonable plan or strategy to preserve the referee's pre-defined story, that's railroading. When the referee prevents any possible solution to a problem or obstacle because they want a singular outcome, that's railroading.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 7, 2022)

The examples of node based design I saw on The Alexandrian I would are basically something I would consider a railroad because while they offer a choice in the order of scenes both player goals and outcomes are still assumed. Very much like most choose your own adventure books. Not all node based design necessarily fits, but the techniques Justin Alexander is advocating certainly does in my estimation.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 7, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Some good examples of very simple node based scenario design might be two introductory scenarios for Call of Cthulhu: Alone Against the Dark (a solo play, basically a choose your own adventure) and The Haunting.  I certainly wouldn’t describe either of these as a “sandbox” because the action happens at particular nodes.  But neither is it necessarily a railroad because the PCs do have options and there are different endings.  It’s not the most dynamic and complex structure out there, but it works as an introduction.



I haven't read or run Alone Against the Dark, but I've run the hell out of The Haunted House...what they're now calling The Haunting. 

It's a mess, honestly. It would work far, far better as a more linear adventure. Or at least a strong start pointing in one obvious (but different than the most obvious) direction. 

The setup is: you're hired to investigate a haunted house. That's it. That's the extent of the setup. Okay...so what's the first thing you do? If you're 99% of the players who've ever gone through this scenario, you literally go directly to the house...to investigate the house...like you're hired to do. Because of course you do.

NPC: "Here's some cash, go find out if that house is haunted." 

PC: "Okay." _B-line for the house_

Designers: "Not like that!" 

Everyone else: "What?"

Which is the opposite of what the designers intent for you to do. They want you to investigate the house...by _not_ going to the house. Instead, you go to the library, the Boston Globe, the Hall of Records, the courts, the police station, explore the neighborhood the house is in, and, based on what you find, you'll be pointed at two bonus locations, the sanitarium and a burned down church. After...after...you hit all or most of those locations, then you're expected to go to the house. 

Why? Because unless you know before going in that the place really is haunted and that there are some incredibly nasty things inside, then you're most likely going to die really, really fast. I mean fast even for Call of Cthulhu. You'd think in the 40 years they've been using that intro scenario they'd have built in something of a better start. 

Basically it's a disconnect between the assume play loop and what the designers actually wrote into the books. They assumed that the players, knowing they're playing CoC, would avoid going to the house (where the obvious danger is) and try to arm themselves with as much info about the house as they could before actually setting foot on the property. Near as I can tell, this assumption was not actually put on a page for the referee or players to read until some time much later, if ever.


Malmuria said:


> One thought, re: geography: One possible advantage for building more complex scenarios in CoC is that the game takes place in a fantastical version of the real world.  When a gm creates a setting the players are sort of in the dark about all the details.  But if your playing in 1920s Boston, and the the players are at all familiar with that city, they can use that knowledge to go places the keeper did not prepare as a node.  Depending on how the keeper handles that (i.e. by not railroading), it can lead to a more dynamic game.



The best and longest game of Call of Cthulhu I've run was an Arkham-based open world sandbox. I used the Lovecraft Country supplements to populate the town (and region). Dropped in as many of the scenarios as I could get my hands on. And let the players go. If they wanted to focus on one scenario/mystery until completed, they could. If they wanted to run back-and-forth across town chasing a dozen leads to a dozen different mysteries, they could.


Malmuria said:


> playing in 1920s Boston...



Don't forget the North End of Boston stank of molasses for years (decades) after the 1919 flood. Especially when the weather turned hot.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 7, 2022)

Campbell said:


> The examples of node based design I saw on The Alexandrian I would are basically something I would consider a railroad because while they offer a choice in the order of scenes both player goals and outcomes are still assumed. Very much like most choose your own adventure books. Not all node based design necessarily fits, but the techniques Justin Alexander is advocating certainly does in my estimation.




I've heard "advanced railroad" used to describe them. Not sure I entirely agree... but I have to say it's hard to see a huge difference between A-B-C and B-C-A.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 7, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I haven't read or run Alone Against the Dark, but I've run the hell out of The Haunted House...what they're now calling The Haunting.
> 
> It's a mess, honestly. It would work far, far better as a more linear adventure. Or at least a strong start pointing in one obvious (but different than the most obvious) direction.
> 
> ...




The haunting has worked for me, though in the current version at least you have a ‘patron’ who sort of indicates there are all these places to find clues.  And you _can_ go to the house first, because there’s also stuff that happens in the neighborhood.  I guess as keeper you can either provide hints as to where to go (I find giving them a map with locations is helpful) or let the scenario ‘fail’ (haven’t had this experience yet).  I think it works fine as an introduction, but yeah, not the most complicated structure


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 7, 2022)

Campbell said:


> The examples of node based design I saw on The Alexandrian I would are basically something I would consider a railroad because while they offer a choice in the order of scenes both player goals and outcomes are still assumed. Very much like most choose your own adventure books. Not all node based design necessarily fits, but the techniques Justin Alexander is advocating certainly does in my estimation.



But what would you call a situation where a GM denies player choice within that structure?  For example, the players meet someone coded as an antagonist.  The GM has prepared this as a combat encounter, but the players decide to negotiate.  For me, railroading is useful to describe a gm who just says “roll initiative” rather than improvise an npc response to their negotiations (leading, perhaps, to an unexpected resolution to the scenario for the gm).  The fact that this encounter was likely (though, again, not necessarily inevitable) due to the scenario structure is not a railroad in that same sense (choose your own adventure is a good description though).


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 7, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I've heard "advanced railroad" used to describe them. Not sure I entirely agree... but I have to say it's hard to see a huge difference between A-B-C and B-C-A.



If the nodes play pretty much the same regardless of the order, I'd agree. But if earlier nodes somehow alter or recontextualise the latter nodes then it is less of a railroad.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 7, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> The haunting has worked for me, though in the current version at least you have a ‘patron’ who sort of indicates there are all these places to find clues.  And you _can_ go to the house first, because there’s also stuff that happens in the neighborhood.  I guess as keeper you can either provide hints as to where to go (I find giving them a map with locations is helpful) or let the scenario ‘fail’ (haven’t had this experience yet).  I think it works fine as an introduction, but yeah, not the most complicated structure



It is CoC, so I'm not sure what you mean by "let the scenario fail". It's CoC. Failure is _always_ an option. PC insanity, PC death, PCs abandoning the scenario, PCs not finishing the scenario with a positive outcome, etc. Do you mean railroading the PCs into completing the scenario with a positive outcome? That's a legit "does not compute" for me. It's Call of Cthulhu. Why are you running CoC if you cannot abide a less than happy ending?


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 7, 2022)

Campbell said:


> The examples of node based design I saw on The Alexandrian I would are basically something I would consider a railroad because while they offer a choice in the order of scenes both player goals and outcomes are still assumed. Very much like most choose your own adventure books. Not all node based design necessarily fits, but the techniques Justin Alexander is advocating certainly does in my estimation.




Well, its certainly possible to have node based design be a railroad; its dependent on whether all roads lead to Rome, as it were.  Its just not intrinsic to the general premise.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 7, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> It is CoC, so I'm not sure what you mean by "let the scenario fail". It's CoC. Failure is _always_ an option. PC insanity, PC death, PCs abandoning the scenario, PCs not finishing the scenario with a positive outcome, etc. Do you mean railroading the PCs into completing the scenario with a positive outcome? That's a legit "does not compute" for me. It's Call of Cthulhu. Why are you running CoC if you cannot abide a less than happy ending?



I mean, maybe they go to the house, die, game over.  Not the most satisfying ending, but lesson learned at least!


----------



## Campbell (Jun 7, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> But what would you call a situation where a GM denies player choice within that structure?  For example, the players meet someone coded as an antagonist.  The GM has prepared this as a combat encounter, but the players decide to negotiate.  For me, railroading is useful to describe a gm who just says “roll initiative” rather than improvise an npc response to their negotiations (leading, perhaps, to an unexpected resolution to the scenario for the gm).  The fact that this encounter was likely (though, again, not necessarily inevitable) due to the scenario structure is not a railroad in that same sense (choose your own adventure is a good description though).




I'd say if the GM is playing to an assumed an outcome or expecting players to act in accordance with a goal set by the GM then it's still a railroad or at least "nudging" which is a nice way of saying railroad. 

If they play it straight then it's not. I just think assumed outcomes tend to lean towards _nudging_ in that direction.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 7, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> I mean, maybe they go to the house, die, game over. Not the most satisfying ending, but lesson learned at least!



It's a nihilistic cosmic horror game. The fun _is_ the shock and horror. A satisfying ending to a CoC game _is_ horror. It's not the PC grindhouse game that so many people mythologize it to be, you can run very satisfying campaigns with it and characters can last years of regular play, but my players are far more happy and satisfied when characters die gruesomely or fall to madness and start blasting the rest of the party. "Random" PC death and madness work far better here than in games like D&D because it pushes genre emulation rather than it's just there and random. Maybe we take a more genre emulation mentality rather than game to beat mentality when we play?


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 7, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I feel like I keep circling back around to this point- it's the Goldilocks argument. The jargon used by some people is "just right," because ... reasons, I guess? People who do not want to use that jargon aren't taking the game seriously enough, and people that want to look at what academics or people in the last 15 years have been doing ... well, that's too serious?



I think that it's a more accurate assessment, at least on my part, to say that while the questions that interest hobbyists and academics overlap, they are not necessarily synonymous. So it is not that the academic jargon or frameworks are "too serious," but, rather, that a lot of the principles, frameworks, and concepts behind the jargon that hobbyists developed tend to be a little more helpful for developing and honing my own play preferences and aesthetics. Maybe that constitutes Goldilocks style "just right," but it's not necessarily because the academic frameworks are "too serious," but, rather, because they typically have a different focus and purpose. 



Snarf Zagyg said:


> All that said- when I use the phrase, "re-inventing the wheel," I want to stress that I don't mean that there is nothing new that comes out. I think it should be obvious that the games of today are different than those of the 70s and 80s and 90s. I try to keep reiterating that vital work gets done from these movements that react to what is around them. But, just like other areas (computer games, for example). It's about how the hobbyist community doesn't recall that these debates already occurred. It's like seeing someone post something on enworld, and not realize that it's been done before. Except ... for fifty years. However, I do agree with you that the debate gets re-contextualized when the debate occurs at different times. It's just that in most fields, the people that are re-contextualizing the debate are aware of the prior debates. I mean ... imagine having a PhD candidate in English say, "Hey, I have a new idea no one has ever had before. Imagine if ... we didn't worry about the author's intention? I know! Totally new, right?" It's not that the debate can't be re-contextualized, so much as it's helpful to know that the debate already occurred.



As an obvious point where we likely agree: it's difficult to recollect debates that many hobbyists never participated in for a variety of reasons (e.g., age, discussion venues, etc.), and a general lack of access to those past records make it difficult to familiarize themselves with what debate came before. It's likely that a reason why theory-crafting from the Forge has the resilience it does (for better or worse) has to do with the medium in which it was discussed and disseminated  (i.e., the Internet). 



Snarf Zagyg said:


> Anyway, appreciate the response.



And likewise.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 7, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> It's a nihilistic cosmic horror game. The fun _is_ the shock and horror. A satisfying ending to a CoC game _is_ horror. It's not the PC grindhouse game that so many people mythologize it to be, you can run very satisfying campaigns with it and characters can last years of regular play, but my players are far more happy and satisfied when characters die gruesomely or fall to madness and start blasting the rest of the party. "Random" PC death and madness work far better here than in games like D&D because it pushes genre emulation rather than it's just there and random. Maybe we take a more genre emulation mentality rather than game to beat mentality when we play?



Sorry, what I meant is a satisfying play session not a satisfying ending.  Let’s say the PCs go investigate the house without searching for other clues, stumble around, and die quickly.  That’s fine, even though the writers of the module wanted the PCs to go to those other “nodes” first.  I think that’s fine, though I can see a keeper wanting the players to get to more “nodes” to get clues, or the players feeling like they don’t know what they did wrong if they went to the house to investigate first


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 7, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Sorry, what I meant is a satisfying play session not a satisfying ending.  Let’s say the PCs go investigate the house without searching for other clues, stumble around, and die quickly.  That’s fine, even though the writers of the module wanted the PCs to go to those other “nodes” first.  I think that’s fine, though I can see a keeper wanting the players to get to more “nodes” to get clues, or the players feeling like they don’t know what they did wrong if they went to the house to investigate first.



Sure. 

To me that's because of poor scenario design and the designers not making their preferred play loop explicit in the text. The referee can either give the players advice, railroad them into hitting the nodes first, or let them flail. For first time players, letting them flail is a terrible idea. For more experienced players, they should know better.

A lot of advice about running The Haunting includes a more pronounced initial push to take your time and not rush to the house. I think my favorite form of that is from Seth Skorkowsky's review/overview of the scenario where he suggests having the quest giver offer a per diem instead of a flat rate. With the explicit suggestion/nudging from a friendly NPC to take a good day or two researching the house up front to pad their bank accounts.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 7, 2022)

pemerton said:


> It makes some sense, although - and as per my other new thread - I think this focus on the _geography_ of the fiction as a source of constraint could do with further scrutiny.



I'm not sure which thread to pursue this on, now! I think that geography and/or—as @Manbearcat distinguished over there—topography, are natural ways to ground action. Are you familiar with the work of Lakoff and Johnson? All about metaphor and more abstract concepts being grounded in embodied spatial relationships.



pemerton said:


> And I think we're absolutely in the territory of _who has what sort of authority_. For instance, in the node-based adventure, the GM has authority to decide what the PCs care about. Which is expressed via phrases like "key witness", "necessary clue", etc.



Yes, this is where the rubber meets the road. In some approaches, the road already has to be there, and somebody has to lay it down before the car can go along it. A car that laid asphalt ahead of it as it went, or a train that laid tracks, would be quite a marvel. Even somebody riding a horse or trekking on foot is only covering ground that already exists. I'm straining the metaphor, I know. But anyhow, to get to authority, you have one privileged participant who has defined some geography (and more) ahead of time (or maybe on the fly), revealing it to other participants, based on what they ask about.

But we do have the (potential) power to create the very world as we go, in collaboration. The geography (and more) could still be created by one privileged participant, on the fly, or that authority could be shared. And as we've discovered, geography itself isn't even necessary for a story (although it's a damn fine staple ingredient, there are others).


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 7, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> TBH, my guess is that if this sort of discussion IS happening today, it is hidden behind invite-only gates.



Back in the yester years there were Zines like Alarums and Excursions. Lots of developer types big names and newbies and total amateurs discussing methodologies.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jun 7, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> Back in the yester years there were Zines like Alarums and Excursions. Lots of developer types big names and newbies and total amateurs discussing methodologies.



Right.  A&E is one of the primary sources JP cites a lot in The Elusive Shift, documenting these discussions from back in the 70s and early 80s.

A&E is still going, BTW, which is pretty awesome.



			ALARUMS AND EXCURSIONS (updated July 2021)


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 7, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Right.  A&E is one of the primary sources JP cites a lot in The Elusive Shift, documenting these discussions from back in the 70s and early 80s.
> 
> A&E is still going, BTW, which is pretty awesome.
> 
> ...



I did artwork for some of the covers  including one with a Dragon rising up through a mushroom cloud


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 8, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> Back in the yester years there were Zines like Alarums and Excursions. Lots of developer types big names and newbies and total amateurs discussing methodologies.




Which, arguably, _were_ invite-only gates, at least in the sense it was the only way you were likely to know about them.  They were relatively easy gates, but it was still easy to not even know they existed.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 8, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Which, arguably, _were_ invite-only gates, at least in the sense it was the only way you were likely to know about them.  They were relatively easy gates, but it was still easy to not even know they existed.



I saw them sold at a local gaming shop originally, I do not know what attracted my attention to them though they were not particularly visually impressive.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 8, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> I saw them sold at a local gaming shop originally




From the time I joined A&E (to make it clear, at the very start of my entry in the hobby--in fact, if not for A&E I probably wouldn't _be_ in the hobby, or would have gotten into it much later) I never saw a copy other than my own or, once I was around a couple, a fellow contributor.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> My interpretation of what you were saying is that node-based scenario design is a railroad because of all the elements of gm-authored fiction.  I don’t see gm authored fiction—creating the setting, npcs, and points of conflict (“playing the world”)—as inherently railroading.  I use the term more narrowly to different ways a gm might constrain player choice within that broad structure, i.e. with *the assumption that the gm is creating the setting, providing npc reactions*, etc.



A question of clarification: is the assumption that I've bolded, in your usage, _sufficient for railroading_, or rather necessary for the broad structure _within which_ railroading is a narrower phenomenon?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Railroading is when the referee removes player agency. The existence of a setting does not remove player agency. The existence of NPCs does not remove player agency. The existence of monsters or conflicts does not remove player agency. When the referee uses a quantum ogre (i.e. the referee forces the same encounter on the PCs no matter which direction they travel), that's railroading.



There are so many unexpressed premises in here, it's hard to unpack them all!

The most obvious ones pertain to authorship: you assume that players _should_ have some sort of authority over situation (so "quantum ogres" are bad) but that they should have _no_ authority over setting. Given the obvious tension between those two premises - how does someone exercise authority over situation if setting is being controlled by someone else? - there must be other premises assumed to, that dissolve the tension: eg that the players can take low-stakes actions, like collecting rumours, that will enable them to learn the content of the setting and hence make choices about which part of the setting to go to and hence which situations to trigger.

Talk about jargon!



Malmuria said:


> Some good examples of very simple node based scenario design might be two introductory scenarios for Call of Cthulhu: Alone Against the Dark (a solo play, basically a choose your own adventure) and The Haunting.  I certainly wouldn’t describe either of these as a “sandbox” because the action happens at particular nodes.  But neither is it necessarily a railroad because the PCs do have options and there are different endings.  It’s not the most dynamic and complex structure out there, but it works as an introduction.
> 
> One thought, re: geography: One possible advantage for building more complex scenarios in CoC is that the game takes place in a fantastical version of the real world.  When a gm creates a setting the players are sort of in the dark about all the details.  But if your playing in 1920s Boston, and the the players are at all familiar with that city, they can use that knowledge to go places the keeper did not prepare as a node.  Depending on how the keeper handles that (i.e. by not railroading), it can lead to a more dynamic game.



The last few times I've played Cthulhu it has been using Cthulhu Dark rather than CoC. One game we set in between-the-wars Boston, the other in late nineteenth century London.

Cthulhu Dark is not a complete RPG, in that it doesn't fully set out the rules for either framing or for resolution. (The author is aware of this: I'm not criticising him.) I used Apocalypse World-techniques of asking questions and building on answers, and Burning Wheel intent-and-task resolution. There were no "nodes", no "key witnesses", no "necessary clues". It worked fine.



Malmuria said:


> But what would you call a situation where a GM denies player choice within that structure?  For example, the players meet someone coded as an antagonist.  The GM has prepared this as a combat encounter, but the players decide to negotiate.  For me, railroading is useful to describe a gm who just says “roll initiative” rather than improvise an npc response to their negotiations (leading, perhaps, to an unexpected resolution to the scenario for the gm).  The fact that this encounter was likely (though, again, not necessarily inevitable) due to the scenario structure is not a railroad in that same sense (choose your own adventure is a good description though).



I bristle at "coded as an antagonist". Unless you just mean that the GM describes them doing something that the players (as their PCs) would rather the NPC not be doing.

If a player says "I say 'Hello'", and the GM responds "roll initiative" then I guess I want to know a few things: is this something that, within the system being used, is a legitimate hard move? For instance, is the attack by the NPC a consequence for a previous failed action?

Or is the player declaring an action - an attempt to talk in a peaceful fashion with the NPC - and the GM is deciding that action fails without calling for a dice roll? In that case, what are the resolution rules for the system? 5e D&D, for instance, says the GM decides if an action has a chance of success or not. Maybe the GM has decided that this NPC is very angry, or is mind-controlled to attack, or whatever. There are other systems, though - eg DitV, BW - that tell the GM to "say 'yes' or roll the dice". In that case, saying "no" would be breaking the rules.

If you are suggesting that a GM who has decided that the NPC is angry, or mind-controlled, or whatever - and hence will attack - should change that decision because the players want a different scene, now we're in the territory of the GM rewriting the setting details based on player desires/suggestions. But above I've quoted @overgeeked saying that it's not railroading for the GM to author a setting or NPC responses.

So now we have two different uses of railroading - twice the jargon!



niklinna said:


> Yes, this is where the rubber meets the road. In some approaches, the road already has to be there, and somebody has to lay it down before the car can go along it. A car that laid asphalt ahead of it as it went, or a train that laid tracks, would be quite a marvel. Even somebody riding a horse or trekking on foot is only covering ground that already exists. I'm straining the metaphor, I know. But anyhow, to get to authority, you have one privileged participant who has defined some geography (and more) ahead of time (or maybe on the fly), revealing it to other participants, based on what they ask about.
> 
> But we do have the (potential) power to create the very world as we go, in collaboration. The geography (and more) could still be created by one privileged participant, on the fly, or that authority could be shared.



In the Cthulhu Dark episodes I mentioned above, there was no "road" already there. I asked the players what they (as their PCs) were doing, they told me, I (as GM) riffed on that, things happened. In the London game, at various points characters travelled north or south of the Thames. When I asked a player where he (as his PC) was rooming, and he answered "The Forlorn Trap", we had no trouble running with that. When one of the players in the Boston game decided his PC was a longshoreman, I started the action at the harbour. When the other PCs went home, we didn't worry about what suburbs their houses were in. I can't remember if it was me or the player of the journalist PC who suggested his house would have a darkroom for developing photos, but that didn't cause any puzzlement. We just did it.

When, at a certain point, I narrated that the home of the legal secretary was on fire, the player (as PC) made sure she escaped from the flames! There seemed no need to work out how long it might have taken cultists (or a shoggoth, or whatever it was that set the fire) to travel from the harbour to the home and back again.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2022)

niklinna said:


> I'm not sure which thread to pursue this on, now! I think that geography and/or—as @Manbearcat distinguished over there—topography, are natural ways to ground action. Are you familiar with the work of Lakoff and Johnson? All about metaphor and more abstract concepts being grounded in embodied spatial relationships.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And as we've discovered, geography itself isn't even necessary for a story (although it's a damn fine staple ingredient, there are others).



I haven't read @Manbearcat's post, but will do so, and follow this up in the other thread.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 8, 2022)

pemerton said:


> A question of clarification: is the assumption that I've bolded, in your usage, _sufficient for railroading_, or rather necessary for the broad structure _within which_ railroading is a narrower phenomenon?



The latter—the GM coming up with and playing the npcs is not railroading, in my usage


----------



## Campbell (Jun 8, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> The latter—the GM coming up with and playing the npcs is not railroading, in my usage



Agreed. As long as there is no intention in either the design or play to direct player behavior.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 8, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Cthulhu Dark is not a complete RPG, in that it doesn't fully set out the rules for either framing or for resolution. (The author is aware of this: I'm not criticising him.) I used Apocalypse World-techniques of asking questions and building on answers, and Burning Wheel intent-and-task resolution. There were no "nodes", no "key witnesses", no "necessary clues". It worked fine.



I definitely want to try both Cthulhu Dark and Brindlewood Bay



pemerton said:


> I bristle at "coded as an antagonist". Unless you just mean that the GM describes them doing something that the players (as their PCs) would rather the NPC not be doing.
> 
> If a player says "I say 'Hello'", and the GM responds "roll initiative" then I guess I want to know a few things: is this something that, within the system being used, is a legitimate hard move? For instance, is the attack by the NPC a consequence for a previous failed action?
> 
> ...




By coded as an antagonist, I just mean contextually.  So the players are working for the harpers and the npc is an ancient evil lich, or the players are aligned with law enforcement and the npc is a mob boss, etc.

I suppose I see the role of the GM in this case to play the NPC “honestly.” If the PCs want to try to bargain with the lich, the GM should consider the lich’s motivations and such, along with whatever die rolls occur, and use that to guide the ensuing action.  That is, the GM is not reacting to player interests extra-diegetically, but to what the characters are doing and how the lich will respond.

Though that’s just me; I think other people (like Colville) suggest GMs pick up on player interest and sometimes modify things ‘behind the screen.’ Not my style.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 8, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> I definitely want to try both Cthulhu Dark and Brindlewood Bay



Cthulhu Dark is a fantastic game. I’ve played and run Call of Cthulhu for decades and I honestly like CD better. Not any pointless cruft between the referee, the players, and the world. This really helps with immersion. The lighter rules also have an isolating effect on the players. Most players are used to rules-heavy games. So without that crutch, it causes a bit of anxiety. Which can help a lot when running horror games.

And no, you don’t need anything that’s not in the book. If you’ve played an RPG before you can handle CD just fine without any extra procedures. If you want them, go ahead. But they’re not required.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 8, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I'm still somewhat at a loss: Umbran says the framing is not relevant to an adventure being linear, but then I'm left with nothing but the text, which is inevitably linear (it begins at page 1, and finishes at page <whatever>).




The framing does not matter, in the sense that, given a path, what motivates you to get to the path doesn't change the path itself.  Whether you get on the water slide because you have been shamed into it by your little brother, or to escape from a loan shark's goons - the water slide goes down, regardless.

Adventures have a shape, a _topology_.  It can be a line.  It can be a branching tree.  It can be a web of multiply connected nodes, and so on.  This topology _does not have to be physical_.  An adventure (say, a mystery) can take place all in a single room, but the topology is of _information_.  Clue A -> Clue B -> Clue C -> Proof D.



pemerton said:


> Reference is made to places/rooms being able to be visited only in order. I live in a house where that is largely true, but that doesn't mean every day of my life in my house is the same!




With respect, if your daily home life resembled a D&D adventure, I don't think you'd have time to write so copiously.  I am not sure your daily life is a suitable analogy.



pemerton said:


> Because different things happen, occasionally different people are in one or the other room, etc.




This is why I say that the geography _ISN'T_ the focus.  The adventure isn't just a set of locations.  If you have a linear adventure in which the PCs go through five linear rooms, and kill a dragon in the sixth, if they go to that location the next day, the dragon's going to be dead.  So, clearly the next day isn't the same adventure, even if it is the same location.



pemerton said:


> It seemed to me that two different groups could play the little 6 room dungeon and have different experiences, depending on choices made, whether or not they have a Halfling who sneaks ahead, etc.




Yep.  If you use a linear adventure with a group of all fighters, the resulting narrative will be different from doing it with all bards. 

This is part of why linear adventures are just fine for many folks - they are interested in a lot of the small events and interactions, and may not care if the big picture isn't something they can change.



pemerton said:


> So it might be the case that we could keep "the adventure" largely intact but change the instructions, and now it wouldn't be linear anymore.




Sure.  And, if you are given a dungeon with five rooms connected in a line, you can _add rooms_, connect them differently, and they aren't in a line any more.  Or, you can take an adventure that isn't linear, and crop stuff out, and make it linear.  That GMs can edit and revise things isn't exactly a revelation.



pemerton said:


> This brings me back to the "cannot". Who imposes the cannot?
> 
> It seems like the _cannot_ is what entails the linearity, rather than vice versa. But where does this "cannot" come from?




Yeah, this reads a lot like you are trying to lead us to a kind of gotcha conclusion.  I'll note that there's a couple of things that impose linearity - one is, as you might surmise, the GM.

The other is practical reality.  Linear adventures are serviceable for many, and simple to run.  The time and effort to create or edit a non-linear adventure may simply not be available.

As an example, we can consider, say, 3E, and imagine a middling-high level adventure.  What is provided is linear, and is constructed to provide the desired rise and fall of tension, and part of that tension is _tactical combat challenges_.

But, in a 3E adventuring day, order can matter a great deal - meeting the BBEG early and late in the adventure can be different tactical challenges, and rewriting high-level tactical challenges in 3E is _NOT EASY_.  Many folks can't do that on the fly and expect to get similarly favorable results.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> 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...).




Just so you know, I'm a physicist.  Doubts should be interrogated, not relied upon.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> The latter—the GM coming up with and playing the npcs is not railroading, in my usage





Campbell said:


> Agreed. As long as there is no intention in either the design or play to direct player behavior.



 Campbell, I think that's a very big proviso!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 8, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I got nothin' when it comes to making up terms.
> 
> But, to add even more to the fun, there's two levels of these dependencies; the presence of one of which will make an adventure linear while the other will not.
> 
> ...



So, the interesting observation here then is that resource systems have a big impact on which type of adventures a given system is going to handle well.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> All that said- when I use the phrase, "re-inventing the wheel," I want to stress that I don't mean that there is nothing new that comes out. I think it should be obvious that the games of today are different than those of the 70s and 80s and 90s. I try to keep reiterating that vital work gets done from these movements that react to what is around them. But, just like other areas (computer games, for example). It's about how the hobbyist community doesn't recall that these debates already occurred. It's like seeing someone post something on enworld, and not realize that it's been done before. Except ... for fifty years. However, I do agree with you that the debate gets re-contextualized when the debate occurs at different times. It's just that in most fields, the people that are re-contextualizing the debate are aware of the prior debates. I mean ... imagine having a PhD candidate in English say, "Hey, I have a new idea no one has ever had before. Imagine if ... we didn't worry about the author's intention? I know! Totally new, right?" It's not that the debate can't be re-contextualized, so much as it's helpful to know that the debate already occurred.
> 
> Anyway, appreciate the response.



Exactly, but there seems to be a lack of understanding as to exactly HOW DIFFERENT the state of thought on RPGs is today than it was in 1974 (or '84, '94, etc.). I don't make a claim about my experience to be some sort of jerk who claims to know more than all the other nerds. What I'm saying is, having been there in 1974 and all those years in between, and ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED in those discussions, and actively played many of the games involved and tinkered with them, and seen what we ACTUALLY DID LEARN from them, the notion that we're just repeating ourselves endlessly is patently absurd. I'm sure Torner et al. THINK they have discovered some great truth there, but personally I think they have cherry-picked, interpreted things in a way that serves their purpose, etc. This is a problem with all research of this kind in the 'social sciences' or general academia, there's really no way to do what is now common in hard science, where BEFORE YOU COLLECT DATA you form a hypothesis and you state exactly how you will interpret the data and which outcomes will produce which conclusions. Time and time again experience has proven that all other approaches are essentially just testing biases.

So, I would not dismiss Evan Torner entirely out of hand. I would just say that it doesn't seem to be part of his agenda to actually see the huge gains in terms of effectiveness of analytical methods, which has completely revolutionized the views of game designers to the point where the vast majority of original RPG output today is both highly original and was pervasively influenced by those methods and the thinking behind them. If it was just "more of the same", then why the revolution in RPG design? I mean, Blades in the Dark would literally have been impossible to conceive of as an RPG in 1990. Not the most talented RPG designers and forward thinking members of the community yet grasped the conceptual framework that was necessary to have in mind in order to design that game. That's not repeating yourself!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 8, 2022)

Campbell said:


> I'd say if the GM is playing to an assumed an outcome or expecting players to act in accordance with a goal set by the GM then it's still a railroad or at least "nudging" which is a nice way of saying railroad.
> 
> If they play it straight then it's not. I just think assumed outcomes tend to lean towards _nudging_ in that direction.



I think 'railroad' is a pretty slippery concept and there are many degrees of 'railroading', and I prefer to use the term in this form, as a verb. I think part of the problem is that a LOT of what goes on in classic 'Trad' play (ala 2e or 5e seemingly preferred paradigm) is effectively the same techniques that are used in hard railroading, but generally softer in effect, and potentially leading to much more open-ended play. So it becomes extremely hard to draw any sort of line because what most of us would do if we run, say, a 5e campaign using published material, would use techniques that are called out as 'railroading' pretty often. Yet we would probably not feel that the overall tenor of play we were seeing had the feeling of being 'a railroad' in any overall sense. 

Speaking for myself, when playing in a game of this type, and that reasonably fairly describes at least some of my 5e play, I don't expect something else. I know what it is, and when I, for example, make a decision about what my character is going to do next, I make that decision with the apparent overall structure of the adventure in mind and where it is likely 'wanting' us to go. I see this with players too, and in fact its a hard thing to overcome when you run Story Now for people that have played WotC D&D for the past 20 years.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 8, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Just so you know, I'm a physicist. Doubts should be interrogated, not relied upon.



Sure, my comment was only about the nature of terminology and how it simply isn't always possible to say things in a 'plain way', and 'plain words' often don't convey what we need to convey. I mean, using the word 'energy' to talk about the energy efficiency of my house is one thing, we all understand the meaning at a level, and in a way, sufficient to have that discussion. In the context of a discussion about how the laws of thermodynamics apply to the Universe as a whole, that common understanding of the term 'energy' is virtually useless. Heck, it isn't even much use in a discussion of garden variety classical thermodynamics!


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 8, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think 'railroad' is a pretty slippery concept and there are many degrees of 'railroading', and I prefer to use the term in this form, as a verb. I think part of the problem is that a LOT of what goes on in classic 'Trad' play (ala 2e or 5e seemingly preferred paradigm) is effectively the same techniques that are used in hard railroading, but generally softer in effect, and potentially leading to much more open-ended play. So it becomes extremely hard to draw any sort of line because what most of us would do if we run, say, a 5e campaign using published material, would use techniques that are called out as 'railroading' pretty often. Yet we would probably not feel that the overall tenor of play we were seeing had the feeling of being 'a railroad' in any overall sense.
> 
> Speaking for myself, when playing in a game of this type, and that reasonably fairly describes at least some of my 5e play, I don't expect something else. I know what it is, and when I, for example, make a decision about what my character is going to do next, I make that decision with the apparent overall structure of the adventure in mind and where it is likely 'wanting' us to go. I see this with players too, and in fact its a hard thing to overcome when you run Story Now for people that have played WotC D&D for the past 20 years.



I think my most fun dnd games have involved a sometimes significant amount of “derailing” (also not the most helpful word).  Where, it is clear what The Quest is, and then the players don’t do that.  The osr ethos helps with this, in that you are more likely to play ‘scoundrels’ than heroes.


----------



## South by Southwest (Jun 8, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> I think my most fun dnd games have involved a sometimes significant amount of “derailing” (also not the most helpful word).  Where, it is clear what The Quest is, and then the players don’t do that.



I firmly agree with this. When I created my current campaign, I wrote a note to myself at the bottom of the title page: "Remember, this game is _meant_ to be broken. If they never break the game, you've failed."

Well, I stand by that maxim and I am happy to report that our campaign has not been a failure; they've broken the game at least a half dozen times now and I am delighted by it. It forces me to think fast, sure, but it's where much of our best stuff is.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 8, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> I firmly agree with this. When I created my current campaign, I wrote a note to myself at the bottom of the title page: "Remember, this game is _meant_ to be broken. If they never break the game, you've failed."
> 
> Well, I stand by that maxim and I am happy to report that our campaign has not been a failure; they've broken the game at least a half dozen times now and I am delighted by it. It forces me to think fast, sure, but it's where much of our best stuff is.



Alternatively, you can approach the game without a planned story that can be broken.  I'm not quite sure I agree with the association of the broken planned story with the game, though.  The latter doesn't require the former, although that's a perfectly cromulent way to do it.


----------



## South by Southwest (Jun 8, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Alternatively, you can approach the game without a planned story that can be broken.  I'm not quite sure I agree with the association of the broken planned story with the game, though.  The latter doesn't require the former, although that's a perfectly cromulent way to do it.



This was my first time DMing, so there was no way I was going to build an actual sandbox game--too wide open for me to run as a newbie. In order to find my own footing, I needed a linear approach. So what I did was build that linear game, populate its regions as much as possible in hopes that players would decide for themselves what was an "adventure hook" for some side activity, throw in a few intentional side quests just in case, and then edit each chapter like crazy as we worked our way through it.

It was a rough start because I so didn't know what I was doing back in March, but I think I've gotten into the swing of it to where at least I'm not frantically chewing my fingernails and trying to remind myself of Matt Colville's tips each Tuesday night.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 8, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> This was my first time DMing, so there was no way I was going to build an actual sandbox game--too wide open for me to run as a newbie. In order to find my own footing, I needed a linear approach. So what I did was build that linear game, populate its regions as much as possible in hopes that players would decide for themselves what was an "adventure hook" for some side activity, throw in a few intentional side quests just in case, and then edit each chapter like crazy as we worked our way through it.
> 
> It was a rough start because I so didn't know what I was doing back in March, but I think I've gotten into the swing of it to where at least I'm not frantically chewing my fingernails and trying to remind myself of Matt Colville's tips each Tuesday night.



I get that, for games like D&D where so much is on the GM to provide for play to occur (the GM is pretty much the only source for much of play information, with players reacting to that).  It's a hard hill to climb.

It's not the only game in town, though.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 8, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> I get that, for games like D&D where so much is on the GM to provide for play to occur (the GM is pretty much the only source for much of play information, with players reacting to that).  It's a hard hill to climb.
> 
> It's not the only game in town, though.



Right. I do think it is the most conceptually simple paradigm for people to understand. OTOH in some ways I think Story Now can actually be 'more natural', as an example. Kids for instance seem to really take to an SN paradigm. The biggest hurdle there can be just imposing enough order on things so it works as a game and not a free-for-all, lol.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 8, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right. I do think it is the most conceptually simple paradigm for people to understand. OTOH in some ways I think Story Now can actually be 'more natural', as an example. Kids for instance seem to really take to an SN paradigm. The biggest hurdle there can be just imposing enough order on things so it works as a game and not a free-for-all, lol.



Really anyone that doesn't have a set in mode of thinking how RPGs are supposed to work does pretty well with lots of games.  The idea that D&D-esque games are the natural default and therefore easiest to learn is false.  It's just the most popular.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 8, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right. I do think it is the most conceptually simple paradigm for people to understand. OTOH in some ways I think Story Now can actually be 'more natural', as an example. Kids for instance seem to really take to an SN paradigm. The biggest hurdle there can be just imposing enough order on things so it works as a game and not a free-for-all, lol.



I was once in a horror con game where we all played little kids at summer camp. The GM just let us do hijinks and little-kid stuff for the first two hours, no form or structure whatever. We forgot it was a horror game, and we arrived at the mess hall for dinner, and everybody else in camp had been slaughtered.

Things ramped up from there, as we snuck around, ran for our lives, and looked for a way to deal with the supernatural menace. It was one of the best game sessions I've ever been in.

In another game a couple years later (same con), we were camp counselors. The GM just let us do hijinks and horny-teenager stuff for the first couple hours, no form or structure whatever. We did remember it was a horror game, and were invoking several tropes of 80s slasher films, but we developed some thick, juicy relationships between our characters and were having tons of fun playing that out. The GM even said, out loud, it was a shame this was a horror game and that the killer had to show up (limited time and all!). And then the rest of the game was suspenseful and such, with us herding terrified campers around and getting picked off by the vengeful spirit. But, we'd been having so much more fun before.

I think it would have been better for the GM to say, eh, screw it, it's a horror con but we're doing this thing and it's going swimmingly, so, no slaughter. If we'd had more time, we could have drawn out both phases for a more satisfying overall session staying true to the premise, but time slots are time slots.

For what it's worth, in the first scenario we actually had a way to defeat the evil thing (and did!), but in the second, it was pretty much impossible. Escape was an option, and one PC did get out (with my possessed character hot on her heels, only to be run over by a police car).

Anyhow, a fair bit of contrast.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 8, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> This was my first time DMing, so there was no way I was going to build an actual sandbox game--too wide open for me to run as a newbie. In order to find my own footing, I needed a linear approach. So what I did was build that linear game, populate its regions as much as possible in hopes that players would decide for themselves what was an "adventure hook" for some side activity, throw in a few intentional side quests just in case, and then edit each chapter like crazy as we worked our way through it.
> 
> It was a rough start because I so didn't know what I was doing back in March, but I think I've gotten into the swing of it to where at least I'm not frantically chewing my fingernails and trying to remind myself of Matt Colville's tips each Tuesday night.



Congrats on taking the plunge. Good for you. We're our own worst critics, so you're probably doing just fine.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 8, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Really anyone that doesn't have a set in mode of thinking how RPGs are supposed to work does pretty well with lots of games.  The idea that D&D-esque games are the natural default and therefore easiest to learn is false.  It's just the most popular.



Mmmmmm, I kind of both agree and disagree at the same time... There's usually an instigator, someone who acts as the 'driver' in these sorts of things, and having a 'DM' who can put together and be in charge of the lion's share of the experience works pretty well with that paradigm. OTOH I don't disagree with you in terms of one way being 'more natural' in a conceptual sense. Its also partly a question of how the rest of society tends to work. Your time is organized by a manager, a teacher, a parent, etc. throughout most organized activities, certainly when talking about younger people.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 8, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Mmmmmm, I kind of both agree and disagree at the same time... There's usually an instigator, someone who acts as the 'driver' in these sorts of things, and having a 'DM' who can put together and be in charge of the lion's share of the experience works pretty well with that paradigm. OTOH I don't disagree with you in terms of one way being 'more natural' in a conceptual sense. Its also partly a question of how the rest of society tends to work. Your time is organized by a manager, a teacher, a parent, etc. throughout most organized activities, certainly when talking about younger people.



You disagree that people who don't have a set idea about how RPGs work tend to pick up on non-D&D RPGs pretty easily?  Because the rest of this seems to be talking about something else, and I'm not following.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 8, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> You disagree that people who don't have a set idea about how RPGs work tend to pick up on non-D&D RPGs pretty easily?  Because the rest of this seems to be talking about something else, and I'm not following.



I'm saying there are logical reasons why the sort of play that is common in D&D games tends to happen, and its not just 'RPG tradition'. OTOH I agree that this doesn't make it 'the most natural way' particularly, just one that arises fairly easily.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 8, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'm saying there are logical reasons why the sort of play that is common in D&D games tends to happen, and its not just 'RPG tradition'. OTOH I agree that this doesn't make it 'the most natural way' particularly, just one that arises fairly easily.



Ah, tradition.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> you don’t need anything that’s not in the book. If you’ve played an RPG before you can handle CD just fine without any extra procedures. If you want them, go ahead. But they’re not required.



This claim appears contradictory: clearly if the game relies upon having prior knowledge of how to use it, it _does_ need something that isn't in the book.

Here are the passages where the author recognises that the book is incomplete (from p 4):

*Unanswered Questions*
Who decides when to roll Insanity? Who decides when it’s interesting to know how well you do something? Who decides when something disturbs your PC? Who decides whether you might fail?

Decide the answers with your group. Make reasonable assumptions. For example, some groups will let the Keeper decide everything. Others will share the decisions.

These rules are designed to play prewritten scenarios, run by a Keeper. If you try improvising scenarios or playing without a Keeper, let me know.​
Additional elements of incompleteness which are not called out, but are fairly clear, follow from p 2:

To know how well you do at something, roll: . . .

For example: you’re escaping from the window of an Innsmouth hotel. On a 1, you crash on an adjoining roof, attracting the attention of everyone around. On a 4, you land
quietly on the roof, but leave traces for pursuers to follow. On a 6, you escape quietly, while your pursers continue searching the hotel.​
There's no explanation of how to work out what the consequences are of doing something poorly (the example helps a bit, but leaves many questions unanswered, starting with "who decides who is around, and how they respond to having their attention attracted?"). It's a little bit clearer on dong something well, but not complete: what happens, for instance, if you leave traces?

Additional principles have to be brought in to answer those questions.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 8, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> I saw them sold at a local gaming shop originally, I do not know what attracted my attention to them though they were not particularly visually impressive.



I remember what I noticed I noticed Lee Gold's name on the cover she had done a Samura  rpg and I got curious.

i think this was it...  Land of the Rising Sun (role-playing game) - Wikipedia


----------



## Campbell (Jun 8, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Ah, tradition.




Not just tradition. Familiarity.

Linear, play through someone else's story type play feel comfortable to just about anyone who has ever played a video game.
That being said it creates a terrible load on most new GMs (especially the way we do it).

What is not true whatsoever is that you graduate to other sorts of play or that they are fundamentally more difficult to learn. Often the opposite is true. Playing more traditional games often makes learning other sorts of roleplaying games more difficult and learning the intricacies of a 500 page + game is fairly daunting.


----------



## payn (Jun 8, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Ah, tradition.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Exactly, but there seems to be a lack of understanding as to exactly HOW DIFFERENT the state of thought on RPGs is today than it was in 1974 (or '84, '94, etc.).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I would not dismiss Evan Torner entirely out of hand. I would just say that it doesn't seem to be part of his agenda to actually see the huge gains in terms of effectiveness of analytical methods, which has completely revolutionized the views of game designers to the point where the vast majority of original RPG output today is both highly original and was pervasively influenced by those methods and the thinking behind them. If it was just "more of the same", then why the revolution in RPG design? I mean, Blades in the Dark would literally have been impossible to conceive of as an RPG in 1990. Not the most talented RPG designers and forward thinking members of the community yet grasped the conceptual framework that was necessary to have in mind in order to design that game. That's not repeating yourself!



I've got no particular view on Torner's work, which I haven't read. But I agree with your basic point.

I think that the sociology of gameplay isn't necessarily relevant to technical questions of game design: for instance, it seems to be within the scope of plausible results from sociological research into gameplay that playing games serves a similar function in American urban communities today as it did thirty years ago. (I'm not saying that's true, or even the most plausible conclusion on the question; just that it doesn't seem so implausible as to be fairly obviously false, or a result that would be greeted with incredulity.) But even if such a thing were true, that wouldn't tell us anything about game design and whether or not it's developed in some way.

The point of a system like Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark, relative to D&D, isn't to change the social system within which gameplay occurs. Nor to change the fundamental reasons why people play games.

The same thing could be said about recipes. Good chefs are inventing new recipes all the time, but not with the goal of changing the basic social logic of food, eating, dining out, etc. That doesn't mean that no chef has ever developed anything new. Likewise for cinema: Citizen Kane didn't revolutionise the social logic of cinema - other inventions from outside the domain of film-making, perhaps most obviously television, have done that - but that doesn't mean it didn't make significant technical innovations within the domain of film-making.

I made a post in a similar vein to yours nearly a decade ago:



pemerton said:


> Lewis Pulsipher was a prominent contributor to White Dwarf in its early days. The following quotes are from his article in an early number of White Dwarf (my copy is in Best of White Dwarf vol 1, 1980):
> 
> _D&D_ players can be divided into two groups, those who want to play the game as a game and those who want to play it as a fantasy novel . . . The escapists can be divided into those who prefer to be told a story by the referee, in effect, with themselves as protagonists, and those who like a silly, totally unbelievable game. . . In California, for example, this leads to referees who make up more than half of what happens, what is encountered and so on, as the game progresses rather than doing it beforehand. . . . [T]he player is a passive receptor, with little control over what happens. . .
> 
> ...



It took time, experimentation, reflection and ultimately a particular group of designers to work out how to do this stuff. You mention Blades in the Dark, but I think the clearest technical realisation of it is Apocalypse World.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I do think it is the most conceptually simple paradigm for people to understand.





AbdulAlhazred said:


> There's usually an instigator, someone who acts as the 'driver' in these sorts of things, and having a 'DM' who can put together and be in charge of the lion's share of the experience works pretty well with that paradigm.
> 
> <snip.
> 
> Its also partly a question of how the rest of society tends to work. Your time is organized by a manager, a teacher, a parent, etc. throughout most organized activities, certainly when talking about younger people.



For non-GM-driven play, a big question is "who instigates, and how?"

That's why most RPGs designed for non-GM-driven play include elements of PC build that give players a reason to have their PCs do certain things. In AW, this _set up the parameters for instigation_ phase is extended into the first session.

It's no coincidence that the play I stumbled into in the second half of the 80s (as per my self-quote just upthread) involved OA and then an all-thieves game. PCs in OA have instigations (families, martial arts masters, etc) built into them; and so do AD&D thieves (ie they want to thieve things!). If PCs don't bring any trajectory with them (and by default, AD&D PCs don't, Traveller PCs don't, RM PCs don't, CoC PCs don't, even Pendragon PCs don't) then getting non-GM-driven play moving will be hard!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2022)

Umbran said:


> The framing does not matter, in the sense that, given a path, what motivates you to get to the path doesn't change the path itself.  Whether you get on the water slide because you have been shamed into it by your little brother, or to escape from a loan shark's goons - the water slide goes down, regardless.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Where does the "topology" of an adventure come from, if not the framing of scenes?

It's not from the physical structure of the book. It's not from the map ("the adventure is not just a set of locations"); and of course not all adventures have maps. (The Green Knight doesn't have a map. The Crimson Bull doesn't have a map, and as I think I already posted, I reckon it's a candidate to be one of the best published adventures of all time.)

I'm reaching the conclusion that it is from _the instructions to the users_.

I'm also reaching the conclusion that _linearity_ is a relatively uninteresting property of adventures. Node-based design produces non-linear adventures that nevertheless seem to me to be railroads. The Green Knight is a linear adventure, yet is not a railroad.


----------



## South by Southwest (Jun 9, 2022)

There was a thread on here back a few months ago in which many members complained that the jargon of "sandboxes" and "railroads" was largely unhelpful because "linear" ≠ "railroad" and "open-world" ≠ "sandbox," which is true. Matt Colville spoke on this eloquently and clearly in his "Running the Game" YouTube series:


P.S.: This is why I say Snarf Zagyg is right and jargon is bad: all too often, all too many people use the jargon thinking they mean one thing by it when in fact it doesn't mean that at all. Even worse, many, many of us use jargon thinking its meaning as we use it is consistent and clear, but on careful analysis it turns out to be neither. At least with plain speech and writing we know reasonably well (1) what each term means, and (2) that it does in fact mean something in the first place.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 9, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I think that the sociology of gameplay isn't necessarily relevant to technical questions of game design





pemerton said:


> The same thing could be said about recipes. Good chefs are inventing new recipes all the time, but not with the goal of changing the basic social logic of food, eating, dining out, etc. That doesn't mean that no chef has ever developed anything new.




A restaurant like Noma seems to certainly have produced innovative dishes, but their ethos of using highly local, highly seasonal ingredients was developed as a response to the problematics of industrial scale food production and agricultural monocultures (and all that is the latest version of a reaction that has happened in waves since the 19th. c.).  Or, we can look at how the gourmet food “scene” in places like LA and New York  has increasingly reflected the cultural diversity of those cities.  Or, how the entire industry has changed in response to the rise of celebrity chef driven restaurants, reality tv, and new media like youtube.

Point is, innovations at the high end of “practical” arts especially—food, fashion, architecture, etc—cannot in my view be easily bracketed off from a) their historical influences and b) social context.  So I think social context is absolutely relevant to understanding design, game or otherwise.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 9, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> There was a thread on here back a few months ago in which many members complained that the jargon of "sandboxes" and "railroads" was largely unhelpful because "linear" ≠ "railroad" and "open-world" ≠ "sandbox," which is true. Matt Colville spoke on this eloquently and clearly in his "Running the Game" YouTube series:
> 
> 
> P.S.: This is why I say Snarf Zagyg is right and jargon is bad: all too often, all too many people use the jargon thinking they mean one thing by it when in fact it doesn't mean that at all. Even worse, many, many of us use jargon thinking its meaning as we use it is consistent and clear, but on careful analysis it turns out to be neither. At least with plain speech and writing we know reasonably well (1) what each term means, and (2) that it does in fact mean something in the first place.



Justin Alexander had a good point about these videos on twitter.  Among some other things, he wrote



> If you decide that a sandbox should just describe any instance of player agency, you would then have two terms for player agency and no term for campaigns where players control scenario selection




Similarly for railroad: if you want railroad to refer to any instance of “gm-authored” fiction (setting, NPCs), then it would be helpful to have another term for what a GM does when they actively constrain player agency and negate player choices, within, even, a linear scenario.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> A restaurant like Noma seems to certainly have produced innovative dishes, but their ethos of using highly local, highly seasonal ingredients was developed as a response to the problematics of industrial scale food production and agricultural monocultures (and all that is the latest version of a reaction that has happened in waves since the 19th. c.).  Or, we can look at how the gourmet food “scene” in places like LA and New York  has increasingly reflected the cultural diversity of those cities.



Perhaps the intended "typically" shouldn't have been elided.

Most cultural artefacts _reflect_ the culture in which they are created. But they don't typically set out to change it. The avant garde are sometimes an exception. Most cultural artefacts aren't in the avant garde. And setting out to change things isn't to change them.

But if I wanted to understand what the technical developments have been in filmmaking since Citizen Kane, I wouldn't read a social history of the avant garde. I'd read a book about technical developments in filmmaking.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 9, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Justin Alexander had a good point about these videos on twitter.  Among some other things, he wrote
> 
> Similarly for railroad: if you want railroad to refer to any instance of “gm-authored” fiction (setting, NPCs), then it would be helpful to have another term for what a GM does when they actively constrain player agency and negate player choices, within, even, a linear scenario.



I think Justin is “misreading” the video. Sandbox is not “any instance of player agency”. Matt addresses this in the videos. He’s specific that these are how video game designers use these terms. 

Sandbox (in video games) is player ability to select “off menu” as it were. To solve problems in ways the designers didn’t imagine. It’s a particular kind of player agency. A close synonym common to RPGs would be shenanigans. To use objects, spells, and abilities in unforeseen ways. That is only one kind of agency. Others include agency in character creation. Agency in actions taken. Agency in words spoken. Etc.

Open world (in video games) is the ability to go anywhere, to select your own goals. It’s what people in RPGs commonly refer to as a sandbox. Hence the confusion.

And that’s not how Matt defines railroad in those videos. So I’m not sure where Justin’s pulling that from. Matt is specific that railroading means denial of player agency in regards to shenanigans and/or path. He’s very specific about the difference between railroad and linear adventure.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 9, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I think Justin is “misreading” the video. Sandbox is not “any instance of player agency”. Matt addresses this in the videos. He’s specific that these are how video game designers use these terms.
> 
> Sandbox (in video games) is player ability to select “off menu” as it were. To solve problems in ways the designers didn’t imagine. It’s a particular kind of player agency. A close synonym common to RPGs would be shenanigans. To use objects, spells, and abilities in unforeseen ways. That is only one kind of agency. Others include agency in character creation. Agency in actions taken. Agency in words spoken. Etc.
> 
> ...



I think his point would be that we still need another word for players choosing the scenario to engage with


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 9, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> I think his point would be that we still need another word for players choosing the scenario to engage with



No, we don't need more jargon.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 9, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> No, we don't need more jargon.



Right, player agency is sufficiently okay, but no new jargon!

Oh, and sandbox.  Have to keep that one.  But no more!


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 9, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> No, we don't need more jargon.



I don’t care about the jargon necessarily, but aren’t those meaningfully separate things?  For example, a hexcrawl where you can go to any hex, or a game where you have to go specifically to the dungeon at hex 6, but once there you can problem solve in any way you can think of.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 9, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> I don’t care about the jargon necessarily, but aren’t those meaningfully separate things? For example, a hexcrawl where you can go to any hex, or a game where you have to go specifically to the dungeon at hex 6, but once there you can problem solve in any way you can think of.



Open world vs closed world. 

Open world lets you go to any hex. 

Closed world means your choices are spam or spam. 

That's how they're used in video games at least.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 9, 2022)

pemerton said:


> It's no coincidence that the play I stumbled into in the second half of the 80s (as per my self-quote just upthread) involved OA and then an all-thieves game. PCs in OA have instigations (families, martial arts masters, etc) built into them; and so do AD&D thieves (ie they want to thieve things!). If PCs don't bring any trajectory with them (and by default, AD&D PCs don't, Traveller PCs don't, RM PCs don't, CoC PCs don't, even Pendragon PCs don't) then getting non-GM-driven play moving will be hard!



GURPS and HERO actually do have that in spite of being really early offering saw them in early 80s.  Where players may define their own mentors / contacts / adversaries / enemies and rivals and so on.... or other events and expect them to enter play or even control how often.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 9, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Open world vs closed world.
> 
> Open world lets you go to any hex.
> 
> ...




Closed World?

Spam or spam?

That is some jargon I’m not acquainted with. I mean I know what “spam” means generally (“to do something over and over”) but I don’t know what it means in this case (possibly because I don’t know the jargon “Closed World”)?


----------



## South by Southwest (Jun 9, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> I mean I know what “spam” means generally (“to do something over and over”) but I don’t know what it means in this case (possibly because I don’t know the jargon “Closed World”)?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 9, 2022)

pemerton said:


> *I've got no particular view on Torner's work, which I haven't read*. But I agree with your basic point.
> 
> I think that the sociology of gameplay isn't necessarily relevant to technical questions of game design: ....




The definition of chutzpah has been defined as the quality of a person who kills their parents, and demands mercy from the court because they are an orphan.

Given that the genesis of this thread regarding jargon that provided *numerous sources and links for modern TTRPG theory*, and that this was done partly because some people repeatedly demand that others read and utilize their preferred jargon, it is ... disheartening that people will dismiss things while blithely acknowledging that they haven't read it.

Of course, the cited section isn't sociology, it's RPG Theorizing by Designers. Which makes sense, because (among other things) the guy does a lot of work _with designers._

I wish I had the certainty to both characterize and dismiss the things I have never read, by people I was unfamiliar with.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 9, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> it is ... disheartening that people rush in to dismiss things while blithely acknowledging that they haven't read it.
> 
> I wish I had the certainty to both characterize and dismiss the things I have never read, by people I was unfamiliar with.



Intellectual curiosity is not a universal trait. Unfortunately.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 9, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Exactly, but there seems to be a lack of understanding as to exactly HOW DIFFERENT the state of thought on RPGs is today than it was in 1974 (or '84, '94, etc.). I don't make a claim about my experience to be some sort of jerk who claims to know more than all the other nerds. What I'm saying is, having been there in 1974 and all those years in between, and ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED in those discussions, and actively played many of the games involved and tinkered with them, and seen what we ACTUALLY DID LEARN from them, the notion that we're just repeating ourselves endlessly is patently absurd.




You don't seem to understand the difference between Torner and Peterson. Peterson did the history (several times, but most recently and interestingly in The Elusive Shift). Torner was discussing the general idea of how RPG theorizing in amateur communities has worked. Different things.

I would recommend ... reading them. Or at least reading about them, and perhaps this might be more clear to you. With or without ALL-CAPS.

While people have personal experiences that we can honor, the entire point of doing things in a systematic fashion is so that you can make generalized observations- not simply have one person say, "This is what I saw, okay?" This is especially true when dealing with history- no matter how connected you were (and you don't indicate it), I somehow doubt your experience in the 70s covers the breadth of history covered in the recent books, which touched on numerous subcultures and referenced primary sources.

But how about this- you can read the very well-sourced books that have come out and tell us where they are wrong? Be specific- as in, "This person discussed X in A&E #Y, and I was actually playing in the MIT mega dungeon, and ..."

Good?



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'm sure Torner et al. THINK they have discovered some great truth there, but personally I think they have cherry-picked, interpreted things in a way that serves their purpose, etc.




Okay! So, since you haven't read any of these books, it's pretty simple to disagree. Again, it's pretty impressive to say that someone (with published and verifiable work) did something wrong when you haven't read it.

Moreover you're confusing two different concepts from two different authors.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> This is a problem with all research of this kind in the 'social sciences' or general academia, there's really no way to do what is now common in hard science, where BEFORE YOU COLLECT DATA you form a hypothesis and you state exactly how you will interpret the data and which outcomes will produce which conclusions. Time and time again experience has proven that all other approaches are essentially just testing biases.




On the one hand, you are rubbishing the soft sciences and general academia, and on the other hand, you are insisting that we trust only you and your word and not ... publication with sourced documents that are avaailable to all.

I would also add that it continues to be odd to me that the same people who insist on jargon seem intent on rubbishing “academia.”



AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, I would not dismiss Evan Torner entirely out of hand. I would just say that it doesn't seem to be part of his agenda ....




It's interesting that you wrote this, given that you didn't bother learning who he is. I am quite sure that his "agenda" isn't what you think.

Perhaps you would read the book by William J. White on the Forge, including his dialogue that includes, inter alia, Evan Torner, and get back to me? Because (all together now) I AM NOT DOING THAT REVIEW.

And, apparently, book reading is anathema to some, I guess?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> GURPS and HERO actually do have that in spite of being really early offering saw them in early 80s.  Where players may define their own mentors / contacts / adversaries / enemies and rivals and so on.... or other events and expect them to enter play or even control how often.



Good point. Superheroes, in particular, are interesting in this respect.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I wish I had the certainty to both characterize and dismiss the things I have never read, by people I was unfamiliar with.



I didn't dismiss it. I expressed a view about the relationship between sociology of gaming, and game design. I teach theoretical sociology, and read work in social philosophy and sociology, which informs my view about whether and how sociology of RPGing bears upon the sort of technical design @AbdulAlhazred was talking about.

The last time I read one of the academic articles you linked to I found it pretty uninspiring (it was ch 4 of the Roleplaying Studies collection published by Routledge). I didn't think its analysis of the relationship between participants, fiction and external materials (dice, etc) was very powerful. (Vincent Baker's is better, in my view.) And going back to it now, I see that Torner is one of the authors!

For instance, consider this from pp 65 and 66 of that chapter:

Any given game is more or less completely described _qua_ game by its _setting_ and _system_.​
_Setting_ is defined as "The fictional background against which the adventures of the PCs are set or the world in which the game takes place." _Adventure_ is defined as

A play scenario enacted as a sequence of in-game events in a TRPG that, in retrospect, can be said to comprise a narrative arc or plot trajectory, with a beginning, middle, and end.In its simplest form, this consists of a hook (a reason for the PCs to get involved or take action, such as finding a treasure map or being hired by a patron), in-play development (eg the exploration of a dungeon and identification of its important features, puzzle, or dangers or interaction with key non-player characters (NPCs) to gather information and extern influence), climax (eg a showdown fight with a major villain or the solution of a central mystery or problem), and aftermath (eg gathering treasure and returning to town or being rewarded or betrayed by a patron).​
And _system_ is defined as

The procedures by which elements in the fiction are introduced, modified, changed or removed. These include strictly game-mechanical procedures, such as combat rules and character generation processes, as well as implicit procedures for scenario or adventure design and worldbuilding. More broadly, it can be taken to mean the broader set of behavioural norms and performative conventions that guide participation in the game, which will vary by play group.​
There's nothing true here that wasn't already said by Vincent Baker, who is not cited in this chapter (Baker is cited in some later chapters -chh 10 and 11 - including by Torner: his work is described as "para-academic"). But it is not as good as what Baker says. The notion of system doesn't seem to be extended to consequences, and doesn't explore the relationship between mechanics and principles; the notions of setting and adventure are very narrow and don't seem to cover some phenomena which would count as RPGs.

Here is the reference to Baker in ch 11:

indie TRPGs and larps have begun experimenting with using RPGs as events that re-present - reflect and critique society - and events that model - through stoking morally transformative experiences but also directly, eg by raising moral questions for players, as in the TRPG _Dogs in the Vineyard_ (Baker 2004) or LARP collection #_Feminism Nano-Games_ (Bushyager, Stark, and Westerling 2106) or by situtaing larps in public space as a form of protest, such as _Amerika_, a Weltschmerz Network larp (2000).[/i]​_

People who are familiar with Edwards work, and DitV, already knew this was happening!_


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> GURPS and HERO actually do have that in spite of being really early offering saw them in early 80s.  Where players may define their own mentors / contacts / adversaries / enemies and rivals and so on.... or other events and expect them to enter play or even control how often.




Its a virtual necessity to be able to put together traditional superhero characters.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2022)

This is from Torner's chapter, p 198:

The Big Model provides an example for theory as a team effort. _The Forge_ participants formed a model that unified and connected different threads. Its components are hardly unique . . . But the Big Model arguably integrated the function components of an RPG . . . It was a first major synthesis that enabled key future work . . .​
Good thing we've all agreed The Forge is terrible!

The same chapter, p 205, says

A core process of RPG play is _task resolution_: determining whether a player character succeeds at a task in the game world.​
This is obviously contentious. And what immediately follows it is wrong: it discusses _fictional positioning_, with reference to Baker's blog, but then goes on to say "Another model is DFK, devised by Tweet" but that is not another model: what has been described in the immediately preceding paragraph is an example of drama resolution. I think Ron Edwards has much more interesting things to say about DFK than Torner does.

Maybe this isn't Torner's best work - I wouldn't know. But I didn't find it terribly profound.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 9, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, the interesting observation here then is that resource systems have a big impact on which type of adventures a given system is going to handle well.



Mayyy-be?  I wasn't even thinking about resource systems/management when I wrote what you quoted.


----------



## chaochou (Jun 9, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I wish I had the certainty to both characterize and dismiss the things I have never read, by people I was unfamiliar with.




It's so nice to see such things _never happen_ on this forum with Forge theory in general, GNS in particular or a whole host of narrativist games - none of which get characterized, criticised and dismissed on the basis of prejudice and speculation by people who have neither read (or in the case of games, played) them.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 9, 2022)

chaochou said:


> It's so nice to see such things _never happen_ on this forum with Forge theory in general, GNS in particular or a whole host of narrativist games - none of which get characterized, criticised and dismissed on the basis of prejudice and speculation by people who have neither read (or in the case of games, played) them.




This is a good point!

Oh, wait. I included the links to the Forge (including the most recent academic work on it) and yet ….

Out of curiosity, is there a Batsignal of some kind that summons you to make these types of comments, or are you more like Beetlejuice?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 9, 2022)

pemerton said:


> This is from Torner's chapter, p 198:
> 
> The Big Model provides an example for theory as a team effort. _The Forge_ participants formed a model that unified and connected different threads. Its components are hardly unique . . . But the Big Model arguably integrated the function components of an RPG . . . It was a first major synthesis that enabled key future work . . .​
> Good thing we've all agreed The Forge is terrible!
> ...




I am confused. So the problem was that (pace earlier) he had an agenda that was anti-Forge?

Okay. You now acknowledge that’s wrong after reading it.

And that you were wrong about the sociology bit?

So now you‘ve read one thing  Torner wrote (again, this is a single author, and I was using him for one proposition- which you elided) and you are claiming that he isn’t precise with his terms like … Ron Edwards … is. The Ron Edwards who came up with the most misleading terminology ever?

After being questioned for criticizing someone with bothering to read or have any knowledge about the subject, you wrote two consecutive posts that reiterated you were previously incorrect, and then wrote the posts showing you quickly skimmed some material in an attempt to continue arguing - not learn or engage or even see where it fit in with what the discussion is about. 

This is why, as in the other thread, people ask for receipts for your claims.

We’re good.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I am confused. So the problem was that (pace earlier) he had an agenda that was anti-Forge?



I didn't say anything about Torner having an agenda. I did say I don't think this work is all that good.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> You now acknowledge that’s wrong after reading it.
> 
> And that you were wrong about the sociology bit?
> 
> After being questioned for criticizing someone with bothering to read or have any knowledge about the subject, you wrote two consecutive posts that reiterated you were previously incorrect, and then wrote the posts showing you quickly skimmed some material in an attempt to continue arguing - not learn or engage or even see where it fit in with what the discussion is about.



Huh? I wasn't wrong. Reading (which you politely characterise as "skimming") confirmed my prior view - that the work is not that good, and adds nothing to Baker's "para-academic" work, and that as social history it has little to say about RPG design. For example, it's actual technical account of how RPGs work is wrong.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> This is why, as in the other thread, people ask for receipts for your claims.



I cited the passages that I disagree with. And explained why. That's how academic argument works.

What do you think is interesting in those three chapters - 4, 10 and 11 - about TTRPGing that tells us new things about gameplay? Why don't you show us some receipts?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 9, 2022)

*Mod Note:*

The partisanship here is pretty obvious, folks.  If the animosity doesn't ratchet down several notches, folks are going to get very pouty when they are removed form the discussion.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Its a virtual necessity to be able to put together traditional superhero characters.



I think its about creating characters with rich interesting backgrounds that have an ongoing impact in their stories... Elric of Melnibone without Yrkoon? I do not think it is genre bound.


----------



## chaochou (Jun 9, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> This is a good point!
> 
> Oh, wait. I included the links to the Forge (including the most recent academic work on it) and yet ….




Well, this will come as something of a shock, but my comment wasn't a singular reference to you or the OP, but a general comment on the D&D playing populace's willingness to comment and criticise the play of games they've neither read nor played. And similarly, the willingness to decide that 'narratavism' must mean whatever they guess it means and then claim that it's the theory at fault rather than their own muddled assumptions.

As to your ad hominem - I await your moderation and threadban with interest.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 9, 2022)

chaochou said:


> As to your ad hominem - I await your moderation and threadban with interest.




*Mod Note:*
I just warned the thread about its level of animosity.  And here you are, after that warning, wishing ill on another poster.

You have chosen to not abandon your animosity, so you are done in this discussion.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> I think its about creating characters with rich interesting backgrounds that have an ongoing impact in their stories... Elric of Melnibone without Yrkoon? I do not think it is genre bound.




It obviously can be beneficial in other genres, but some characters in other genres are, well, kind of disconnected.  That's exceedingly rare in the superhero genre because of how they engage with the setting.  I can think of significant fictional characters who have no notable connections that aren't what look like fellow PCs, no individual enemies that recur, and a number of other things; its virtually unheard of in superheroes, even ones that only exist as part of team books.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Jun 9, 2022)

One frustration I have with the way we use jargon is that the words and definition you use function as a kind of framework for what ideas you can even express-- language can in essence control whats possible in your conceptual space. So I'm comfortable with Forge Jargon as a lens, but defaulting back to it in every conversation especially for non-forge games, makes it hard to discuss ideas that the framework (Edwards mainly) wouldn't endorse or didnt come to as part of their movement. 

This is somewhat problematic especially in the context of words like "simulation" "narrative" and "game" which all have intuitive non forge meanings that predate their codification-- the conceptual drift between their forge meanings and their other meanings aren't imperfections of understanding, they're differences in framework.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 9, 2022)

The-Magic-Sword said:


> One frustration I have with the way we use jargon is that the words and definition you use function as a kind of framework for what ideas you can even express-- language can in essence control whats possible in your conceptual space. So I'm comfortable with Forge Jargon as a lens, but defaulting back to it in every conversation especially for non-forge games, makes it hard to discuss ideas that the framework (Edwards mainly) wouldn't endorse or didnt come to as part of their movement.
> 
> This is somewhat problematic especially in the context of words like "simulation" "narrative" and "game" which all have intuitive non forge meanings that predate their codification-- the conceptual drift between their forge meanings and their other meanings aren't imperfections of understanding, they're differences in framework.



I agree, but I also think that this problem predates the Forge, as Edwards was modifying the preceding, prevailing model (i.e., GDS), which also had its own sense of "simulationism" and "gamism." It gets a bit confusing not only because of the factors you mention, but also because some people still operate from a GDS framework, particularly in their understanding of 'simulationism.'


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> It obviously can be beneficial in other genres, but some characters in other genres are, well, kind of disconnected.



That seems more like a failing than a genre feature nor do I feel it was a core part of the fiction which inspired D&D.   In fact that lack of world connection is a part of D&D that I have blamed the murder hobo phenomena on.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 9, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I've got no particular view on Torner's work, which I haven't read. But I agree with your basic point.
> 
> I think that the sociology of gameplay isn't necessarily relevant to technical questions of game design: for instance, it seems to be within the scope of plausible results from sociological research into gameplay that playing games serves a similar function in American urban communities today as it did thirty years ago. (I'm not saying that's true, or even the most plausible conclusion on the question; just that it doesn't seem so implausible as to be fairly obviously false, or a result that would be greeted with incredulity.) But even if such a thing were true, that wouldn't tell us anything about game design and whether or not it's developed in some way.



Right, I think this is really where I'm coming from as well. Its quite possible that D&D has much the same social function and form that it did in 1981. Discussion of that, which seems to be pretty adjacent to the whole "taxonomies of players" thing that Torner seems to be hung up on, may well be of the form "gosh, this hasn't changed much." I just don't even see the sort of taxonomy-like stuff that is embodied in things like the WotC survey and discussions of 'Timmies' and 'Optimizers' and 'Actors', and 'Explorers' even relates much to what guys like Edwards are talking about. I mean, certainly player and game agendas connect with these classification schemes in some sense, but a set of analytical tools like GNS is aimed at understanding the actual form and process of play, whereas debates about whether people want to fight or explore (all inevitably had within the structural assumptions of Trad D&D generally) don't even relate to that much at all.


pemerton said:


> The point of a system like Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark, relative to D&D, isn't to change the social system within which gameplay occurs. Nor to change the fundamental reasons why people play games.
> 
> The same thing could be said about recipes. Good chefs are inventing new recipes all the time, but not with the goal of changing the basic social logic of food, eating, dining out, etc. That doesn't mean that no chef has ever developed anything new. Likewise for cinema: Citizen Kane didn't revolutionise the social logic of cinema - other inventions from outside the domain of film-making, perhaps most obviously television, have done that - but that doesn't mean it didn't make significant technical innovations within the domain of film-making.
> 
> ...



Right on. I agree that Apocalypse World probably represents the fulcrum or pivot point where modern RPGs emerged in their present form. Games like Sorcerer and Everway and whatnot definitely presaged that, but AW is really the game which presents all the parts in a fully realized cohesive form which can be replicated and elaborated on as a pattern. This is really almost the first time an enduring pattern of game design has arisen which contrasts with the paradigm of D&D at all levels. I mean, there are definitely many variations of mechanical structure (skill systems instead of leveling systems, dice pools, etc. etc. etc.) but with AW you finally get a fundamentally reimagined RPG paradigm in a mature form that isn't just a sort of weird one-off experiment. The coining of the term PbtA itself signifies the final coming out of a revolution in RPGs. 

So sure, Edwards, Baker, et al. may be addressing the same old social and cultural questions and structure that the RPG world has always existed in (though I personally think the cultural milieu has changed a good bit in the last 40 years) but their approach to actual game design and play has a pretty significantly different character. I don't know if Peterson, Torner, White, etc. are actually out there playing these various games or not, but if they aren't acknowledging the significance of this evolution, then they're missing something that feels pretty significant to me!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 9, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> GURPS and HERO actually do have that in spite of being really early offering saw them in early 80s.  Where players may define their own mentors / contacts / adversaries / enemies and rivals and so on.... or other events and expect them to enter play or even control how often.



Hero System (in its various incarnations) starting with Champions offered a LOT of this kind of stuff, yes. You could even define how your powers worked in terms of external things like constraints and what their source might be which could definitely drive play. The game didn't quite go the next step and really make that sort of thing the core driver of play in an explicit way though. Like there's still the conception of a GM who constructs scenarios and runs the players through them. Interestingly when we played Champions my recollection is that things WERE pretty centered on how we wrote our characters. It was a side game, so the person GMing it didn't spend much prep on it (because he was running our D&D campaign too). We did think that was kind of cool, but IIRC the attitude back then was something like "Oh, gosh, this game makes you invent a bunch of backstory. Maybe we shouldn't have given the GM so much ammo to use against us!" lol. Like, the possibility was there, latent in the game, but we didn't really have the conceptual framework constructed in our heads to use it like you might use similar things in BW or even FATE based games today.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I agree, but I also think that this problem predates the Forge, as Edwards was modifying the preceding, prevailing model (i.e., GDS), which also had its own sense of "simulationism" and "gamism." It gets a bit confusing not only because of the factors you mention, but also because some people still operate from a GDS framework, particularly in their understanding of 'simulationism.'




As an observation on this, GDS had to deal with the fact it was originally a conversation between dramatists and simulationists (in its usage); this had two consequences.  First, it probably over-weighted the preference for simulationism, that, while likely more common in that period, was never as significant an interest as its position in GDS would have suggested.  Secondly, since gamism came in late, and was never as well represented as dramatism and simulationism, it tended to get defined by people who weren't much interested in it.  As such it was kind of the red-headed stepchild of the model.

I see some of the same things with GNS: N became defined by a very specific style preference, taking up a big piece of mindspace.  G at least showed some sign of people involved understanding what it was about, but with assumptions that don't seem to entirely to match up with reality.  And the rest of GDS dramatism gets swept into S, which puts it together with GDS sim, which essentially says the whole set of distinctions most of the people who put together GDS were making are, well, trivial.

This shows a fundamental problem with jargon outside of physical description (and perhaps even there); its going to be heavily colored by those who develop the terminology with their own biases and interests.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> That seems more like a failing than a genre feature nor do I feel it was a core part of the fiction which inspired D&D.   In fact that lack of world connection is a part of D&D that I have blamed the murder hobo phenomena on.




I think that privileges a certain sort of fiction, honestly.  It says the only legitimate fiction is that which is situated so that character's position in their very specific part of society is always and primarily going to be relevant.  That excludes a pretty large amount of adventure fiction that well predates D&D, simply because it excludes any character or characters who are chronically on the move.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 9, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Mayyy-be?  I wasn't even thinking about resource systems/management when I wrote what you quoted.



Right, it just seemed apropos. I was thinking for example of the differences in resource models between 4e and 5e (easy to compare since they are 'sister' games). 5e generally plays differently for different PCs depending on the challenges faced (IE casters generally want short workdays, whereas a battlemaster is much less likely to care). 4e will play differently if there is one encounter or five before a long rest, but the difference will be basically identical for all characters. So there may be adventure designs or 'patterns of play' that work better in one than the other.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 9, 2022)

The-Magic-Sword said:


> One frustration I have with the way we use jargon is that the words and definition you use function as a kind of framework for what ideas you can even express-- language can in essence control whats possible in your conceptual space. So I'm comfortable with Forge Jargon as a lens, but defaulting back to it in every conversation especially for non-forge games, makes it hard to discuss ideas that the framework (Edwards mainly) wouldn't endorse or didnt come to as part of their movement.
> 
> This is somewhat problematic especially in the context of words like "simulation" "narrative" and "game" which all have intuitive non forge meanings that predate their codification-- the conceptual drift between their forge meanings and their other meanings aren't imperfections of understanding, they're differences in framework.



This is one of the reason I dislike jargon. It’s infinitely better to discuss the actual ideas behind them and you can more easily see what people actually mean rather than assuming we all mean the same thing. As seen in these threads, even people steeped in the jargon often disagree about the meaning of those words. Though the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis still applies.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Hero System (in its various incarnations) starting with Champions offered a LOT of this kind of stuff, yes. You could even define how your powers worked in terms of external things like constraints and what their source might be which could definitely drive play. The game didn't quite go the next step and really make that sort of thing the core driver of play in an explicit way though. Like there's still the conception of a GM who constructs scenarios and runs the players through them.




Well, the issue is (as someone who had a fair bit indirectly to do with how Champions character construction works) is that its very clear when dealing with superhero characters that there is a great degree of engagement with the world around them and their own specific natures  that they, effectively, walk in the door with (I'm excluding for the moment the "young heroes" subgenre here because it has a slightly different dynamic).

That, however, does not intrinsically say anything about how the players of same are going to interact with that world  outside those specific traits.  While I think its entirely defensible to suggest supers are one of those genre that if not demands, favors engagement on a more authorial level than others, the idea of the borders _in play_ (as compared to during character creation) were still pretty strong then.  Its notable that Hero is still one of the few superhero-supporting systems that has barely even a metacurrency (I think its still optional).  The only other one I know of that vintage that does so is because its author is actively hostile to anything that expects a player to engage with the game on anything but a purely IC level.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Interestingly when we played Champions my recollection is that things WERE pretty centered on how we wrote our characters. It was a side game, so the person GMing it didn't spend much prep on it (because he was running our D&D campaign too). We did think that was kind of cool, but IIRC the attitude back then was something like "Oh, gosh, this game makes you invent a bunch of backstory. Maybe we shouldn't have given the GM so much ammo to use against us!" lol. Like, the possibility was there, latent in the game, but we didn't really have the conceptual framework constructed in our heads to use it like you might use similar things in BW or even FATE based games today.




I'll tell you a little secret; the whole point in having Champions Disadvantages and Limitations set up the way they were was as a method of bribing people to take genre-appropriate flaws that not all of them would likely do if they were just going to be a way of tossing the GM handles on them.  Its essentially a solution to the fact that not everyone playing a superhero game--even people familiar with and fond of the genre--are always going to be willing to abandon the part of their focus is on game just to make the story-structure of the genre look right.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> That excludes a pretty large amount of adventure fiction that well predates D&D, simply because it excludes any character or characters who are chronically on the move.



To the contrary the disconnected murder hobos excludes all but that one type wandering loner who cares about nothing but cash, there is a ton of variation when characters start as part of the world.   And it can include someone hunting them like AVATAR the last airbender. Mobile team with connections that are even international with world spanning goals.

 Nothing anathema to chronically on the move.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 9, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Maybe we shouldn't have given the GM so much ammo to use against us!" lol. Like, the possibility was there, latent in the game, but we didn't really have the conceptual framework constructed in our heads to use it like you might use similar things in BW or even FATE based games today.



Fate does it better in a number of fashions even in original form they made it fairer than for instance the GURPS model.  Ie when you and the DM interacted with your aspects is when they brought there benefits into play and not otherwise.  GURPS did have the philosophy at least if someone had it on their sheets it was the DMS obligation to make sure it entered play.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> It obviously can be beneficial in other genres, but some characters in other genres are, well, kind of disconnected.  That's exceedingly rare in the superhero genre because of how they engage with the setting.  I can think of significant fictional characters who have no notable connections that aren't what look like fellow PCs, no individual enemies that recur, and a number of other things; its virtually unheard of in superheroes, even ones that only exist as part of team books.



I think one of the signal characteristics of Super Heroes as a genre is that the 'rest of the world' is held to be essentially mundane. Whereas Middle Earth, or The Forgotten Realms, can appear as effectively a character to be explored within their relevant genre material, 'Gotham City' is not all that interesting in and of itself. So, inevitably, the writers had to start delving into the nature of the characters themselves. It also helps that each character has a really HUGE corpus of material, so even if character development is only a passing thing, at some point a lot of development will have happened. Thus when we have a Supers game, the model characters for that game are generally significantly fleshed out. Another reason for this is that pretty much every possible variation of super power and shtick, uniform, etc. was long ago invented in some form. You CANNOT simply come out with a concept for a power and a drawing of a character in uniform and have anything new or original. A writer for DC, Marvel, etc. MUST work pretty hard to create anything worth publishing (I mean, they CAN and DO rehash old material of course, but even then they have to put a new spin on it, and characterization is the main way to do that). 

So, the upshot is that Supers is somewhat of a unique genre. Still, @Garthanos point holds, depth of character is hardly a unique trait of superheroes.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> This is one of the reason I dislike jargon. It’s infinitely better to discuss the actual ideas behind them and you can more easily see what people actually mean rather than assuming we all mean the same thing. As seen in these threads, even people steeped in the jargon often disagree about the meaning of those words. Though the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis still applies.




The problem, and this is why attempts to avoid jargon and terms-of-art developing is as doomed to fail as avoiding political parties is, is that it means constantly having to reexplain what you're talking about in a less compact way _every time_.  Anyone who thinks that's what's going to happen with any regularity I have a bridge to sell.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> The problem, and this is why attempts to avoid jargon and terms-of-art developing is as doomed to fail as avoiding political parties is, is that it means constantly having to reexplain what you're talking about in a less compact way _every time_.  Anyone who thinks that's what's going to happen with any regularity I have a bridge to sell.



that is basically a more politic expression of my first post on this thread heh.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> Fate does it better in a number of fashions even in original form they made it fairer than for instance the GURPS model.  Ie when you and the DM interacted with your aspects is when they brought there benefits into play and not otherwise.  GURPS did have the philosophy at least if someone had it on their sheets it was the DMS obligation to make sure it entered play.




The big issue with that approach (what I call pay-at-use rather than pay-up-front) it turns a two-dimensional issue (how often something is a problem and how severe it is) into a one-dimensional one (how often its a problem).  Its not impossible to turn it into a two dimensional one (if your reward system has some room for the benefits to be nuanced in how much you get out of it), I can't say I've ever seen a game that does it.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> The big issue with that approach (what I call pay-at-use rather than pay-up-front) it turns a two-dimensional issue (how often something is a problem and how severe it is) into a one-dimensional one (how often its a problem).  Its not impossible to turn it into a two dimensional one (if your reward system has some room for the benefits to be nuanced in how much you get out of it), I can't say I've ever seen a game that does it.



The montone fate point reward does have that issue... presumably more subtle variation could be made where a very disadvantageous invocation could garner more fate points to create more nuance as you say. (I couldn't imagine not allowing bigger bolder effects by spending more than one fate point)


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 9, 2022)

re: social context
I would be curious if anyone has explored how the popularity of thematically focused independent rpgs are due to dynamics of sexuality, expression of gender, and race.  That is, I can see how the masculinist ethos of combat-heavy dnd might be off putting to some people, who find what they are looking for in a game like Monsterhearts and, just as importantly, the community of people who play Monsterhearts.  Or as this article says



> *A focus on political and social themes. *Common themes include culture, community, ethics. Many storygames are focused on specific issues of progressive politics: Dog Eat Dog with colonialism, Dream Askew with queerness, Night Witches with feminism. Several focus on the internal conflicts and power-struggles of communities (Downfall, Kingdom, The Quiet Year); others are less specific but are always about some social issue (Shock).




So, to understand what’s appealing and useful about these games, we have to take into consideration the social environments in which people get introduced to rpgs (e.g. “nits make lice” style dnd), and the alternative socialities afforded by games with a different and more constrained thematic and aesthetic focus and a more queer friendly community of players.  Similarily, imo dnd is inherently colonial in so many ways; I find ways to deal with this, but I can understand others who nope out of it for that reason.

Btw I see this all the time in the reactionary parts of the osr, where “storygames” is basically a queer coded term (and used in a derogatory sense).  Or even in 5e discussions, where the introduction of particular aesthetics (radiant citadel) or non-combat adventures (witchlight) is met with derision (see other threads on this site).


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> To the contrary the disconnected murder hobos excludes all but that one type wandering loner who cares about nothing but cash, there is a ton of variation when characters start as part of the world.   And it can include someone hunting them like AVATAR the last airbender. Mobile team with connections that are even international with world spanning goals.
> 
> Nothing anathema to chronically on the move.




It is when the scale is such that many connections will be intrinsically be left behind.  You can have an issue of scale where the connections matter wherever you are (such things can be set up in the modern world easily enough), but in a lower-tech setting, the great truth is that your family being in Hamlet A when you are 800 miles from Hamlet A is not going to matter, and at some point the same thing applies to some of your enemies; they're fundamentally regional, and you, well, aren't.

That doesn't necessarily make for loner characters, but it does pretty much make them such that the majority of the connections will either be transient or about others among what can be viewed as the PCs, i.e. other people who normally travel with you.  And that fundamentally limits things in a way that characters who spend the vast majority of their functional lifespan around one city doesn't, but I don't think it makes it less legitimate.

I think there's a different dynamic to the murderhobo, and frankly some of it can be traced back to GMs who use any connections as a club that can seem like an impediment rather than any sort of upside.  There are enough characters in general adventure fiction that are light on that such that while its a virtue to have the tools to encourage that anywhere, its not like people like Conan don't exist.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> that is basically a more politic expression of my first post on this thread heh.




I understand the hostility that can be developed to terms-of-art, I really do; but trying to avoid them is fundamentally a losing battle.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> The montone fate point reward does have that issue... presumably more subtle variation could be made where a very disadvantageous invocation could garner more fate points to create more nuance as you say. (I couldn't imagine not allowing bigger bolder effects by spending more than one fate point)




Yes.  If you had a scale so that it was reasonable to give out 1 point of metacurrency one time and 3 the next, it'd probably work fine.  I'm just not familiar with one where that's true.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> As an observation on this, GDS had to deal with the fact it was originally a conversation between dramatists and simulationists (in its usage); this had two consequences.  First, it probably over-weighted the preference for simulationism, that, while likely more common in that period, was never as significant an interest as its position in GDS would have suggested.  Secondly, since gamism came in late, and was never as well represented as dramatism and simulationism, it tended to get defined by people who weren't much interested in it.  As such it was kind of the red-headed stepchild of the model.
> 
> I see some of the same things with GNS: N became defined by a very specific style preference, taking up a big piece of mindspace.  G at least showed some sign of people involved understanding what it was about, but with assumptions that don't seem to entirely to match up with reality.  And the rest of GDS dramatism gets swept into S, which puts it together with GDS sim, which essentially says the whole set of distinctions most of the people who put together GDS were making are, well, trivial.
> 
> This shows a fundamental problem with jargon outside of physical description (and perhaps even there); its going to be heavily colored by those who develop the terminology with their own biases and interests.



Well, I think it is better to think in terms of the INTERESTS. So, if you are devising a terminology then you are working on something, you have a need to describe things. It may be that you don't need to describe other things in so much detail, and maybe you don't capture all salient aspects of those things. Others encountering your terminology may have different needs, and may be in a different context. Frequently in technical fields the world has moved on, and thus when you look at some discussion in IT (for example) from 20 years ago some of it might not make much sense, or even seem stupid, but it certainly was relevant in the context where the terms were developed! 

It can be similar here. I'd also say that in the specific case of Edwards and 'simulationist' that I am not sure the criticism, and especially the charge of bias, is very well-deserved. I think @pemerton has pointed out that Ron is not uninterested in games other than Narrativist ones, and that he directly and extensively addressed them in his writing. So maybe the charge that GNS only really relates to 'N' is simply a misperception. In the thread which spawned this one I saw much discussion of Simulationist (in GNS terms) agenda related questions which seemed to be directly discussed in Forge articles, and not just as some addendum to a discussion of something else. I'd fall back on @pemerton here again in terms of being much better at citing things than I am, but I know I have read such.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Btw I see this all the time in the reactionary parts of the osr, where “storygames” is basically a queer coded term (and used in a derogatory sense).  Or even in 5e discussions, where the introduction of particular aesthetics (radiant citadel) or non-combat adventures (witchlight) is met with derision (see other threads on this site).




With the aesthetics you're apparently dead on, but non-combat adventures getting a negative response can be rooted in other things, at least two of them:

1. In the D&D-sphere, many classes are, to be blunt, really bad tools the farther you get away from combat.  Even classes with some lean in to other things often tie up a lot of their capability in fundamentally combat-centric abilities.

2. Related to this, most games' mechanical support for non-combat events is, to be charitable, lackluster.  Assuming at least some degree of gamist engagment (because once you completely pull that out it starts to become more and more questionable whether there's a reason to use an RPG as we think of it rather than some form of freeform), you have to have a setup that both allows that engagement with other things, and perhaps as important, allows multiple participants to be involved in some sort of consistent way with what you're doing.  (This is not helped by the fact that, and again this is particularly noticeable in the D&D sphere, there's a fair bit of hostility to mechanics as soon as you get into social or intellectual elements).


----------



## Campbell (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> As an observation on this, GDS had to deal with the fact it was originally a conversation between dramatists and simulationists (in its usage); this had two consequences.  First, it probably over-weighted the preference for simulationism, that, while likely more common in that period, was never as significant an interest as its position in GDS would have suggested.  Secondly, since gamism came in late, and was never as well represented as dramatism and simulationism, it tended to get defined by people who weren't much interested in it.  As such it was kind of the red-headed stepchild of the model.
> 
> I see some of the same things with GNS: N became defined by a very specific style preference, taking up a big piece of mindspace.  G at least showed some sign of people involved understanding what it was about, but with assumptions that don't seem to entirely to match up with reality.  And the rest of GDS dramatism gets swept into S, which puts it together with GDS sim, which essentially says the whole set of distinctions most of the people who put together GDS were making are, well, trivial.
> 
> This shows a fundamental problem with jargon outside of physical description (and perhaps even there); its going to be heavily colored by those who develop the terminology with their own biases and interests.




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.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 9, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> re: social context
> I would be curious if anyone has explored how the popularity of thematically focused independent rpgs are due to dynamics of sexuality, expression of gender, and race.  That is, I can see how the masculinist ethos of combat-heavy dnd might be off putting to some people, who find what they are looking for in a game like Monsterhearts and, just as importantly, the community of people who play Monsterhearts.  Or as this article says
> 
> 
> ...



It’s important to acknowledge that groups are not monoliths. While there are reactionaries in the OSR not everyone in the OSR is reactionary. There are large parts of the community that are now actively creating old-school style storygames. Five Torches Deep is just one example.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, I think it is better to think in terms of the INTERESTS. So, if you are devising a terminology then you are working on something, you have a need to describe things. It may be that you don't need to describe other things in so much detail, and maybe you don't capture all salient aspects of those things. Others encountering your terminology may have different needs, and may be in a different context. Frequently in technical fields the world has moved on, and thus when you look at some discussion in IT (for example) from 20 years ago some of it might not make much sense, or even seem stupid, but it certainly was relevant in the context where the terms were developed!




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.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> It can be similar here. I'd also say that in the specific case of Edwards and 'simulationist' that I am not sure the criticism, and especially the charge of bias, is very well-deserved. I think @pemerton has pointed out that Ron is not uninterested in games other than Narrativist ones, and that he directly and extensively addressed them in his writing. So maybe the charge that GNS only really relates to 'N' is simply a misperception. In the thread which spawned this one I saw much discussion of Simulationist (in GNS terms) agenda related questions which seemed to be directly discussed in Forge articles, and not just as some addendum to a discussion of something else. I'd fall back on @pemerton here again in terms of being much better at citing things than I am, but I know I have read such.




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.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 9, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> re: social context
> I would be curious if anyone has explored how the popularity of thematically focused independent rpgs are due to dynamics of sexuality, expression of gender, and race.  That is, I can see how the masculinist ethos of combat-heavy dnd might be off putting to some people, who find what they are looking for in a game like Monsterhearts and, just as importantly, the community of people who play Monsterhearts.  Or as this article says
> 
> 
> ...



No.  I'd say it's entirely reductionist to make this claim.  Many indie games are narrativist in approach (but nowhere near all) and that approach is focused on protagonism and premise, so there will always be some element of looking into what it means to be a person against some form of adversity.  That this lends itself to various social commentary themes and to help provide spaces for expression, doesn't mean that this is the predominant mode of play or interest in these game. It is certainly an avenue, though. To reduce non-Trad games to 'social commentary games' is to pigeonhole them as merely tools for social exploration, when this is far from the truth.

Also, Apocalypse World release well before the current social zeitgeist, and has done well ever since in being influential, and there's little emphasis on modern social issues there.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> ]Well, the issue is (as someone who had a fair bit indirectly to do with how Champions character construction works) is that its very clear when dealing with superhero characters that there is a great degree of engagement with the world around them and their own specific natures  that they, effectively, walk in the door with (I'm excluding for the moment the "young heroes" subgenre here because it has a slightly different dynamic).
> 
> That, however, does not intrinsically say anything about how the players of same are going to interact with that world  outside those specific traits.  While I think its entirely defensible to suggest supers are one of those genre that if not demands, favors engagement on a more authorial level than others, the idea of the borders _in play_ (as compared to during character creation) were still pretty strong then.  Its notable that Hero is still one of the few superhero-supporting systems that has barely even a metacurrency (I think its still optional).  The only other one I know of that vintage that does so is because its author is actively hostile to anything that expects a player to engage with the game on anything but a purely IC level.



Right, though it does tend to help build a portrait of your PC. So, for instance The Wizard had all his powers invested in a staff (basically because it was a way to game the point system). That both begged the question of what the nature and origin of this staff was (which figured into a couple adventures IIRC, though its been so long I cannot say much about the details) AND of course led to "Oh, and if the staff is stolen/lost/broken then the character is hosed!" which was an obvious flaw for the GM to latch onto!


Thomas Shey said:


> I'll tell you a little secret; the whole point in having Champions Disadvantages and Limitations set up the way they were was as a method of bribing people to take genre-appropriate flaws that not all of them would likely do if they were just going to be a way of tossing the GM handles on them.  Its essentially a solution to the fact that not everyone playing a superhero game--even people familiar with and fond of the genre--are always going to be willing to abandon the part of their focus is on game just to make the story-structure of the genre look right.



Right, and I think we even got that back in the day. We were actually pretty friendly to the idea of building more elaborate backstories and whatnot than a lot of groups (maybe because by the early 80's we were old enough to play in a bit more mature way). I recall that the Traveler campaign I ran at this time also had characters that the players had fleshed out backstories for to a higher degree than normal. Like the Merchant character's Free Trader wasn't just some random ship. In the first adventure he was searching for his father and his father's ship, which they found drifting frozen in space. Between recovering it, fighting with the insurance company and the bank, repairing the damage, etc. he ended up with basically a standard mortgage! This was the sort of play we were always after. Champions was pretty good, though I guess the guy that owned it lost interest or something. 

Its like we ALMOST understood Forge-esque narrative play, but not quite. Like I said before about Apocalypse World, until someone constructed the conceptual framework, the leap to a different method of play could not happen, not even if you had a game that could in principle do it. I think this is similar to how D&D itself required a conceptual leap, all the ideas existed already, but when I saw D&D in action was the first time it all came together in my mind, the full concept of an actual RPG. People often discount, or fail to recognize at the time, conceptual jumps like this, but they are real things. They OFTEN come with a new set of terminology.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 9, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> It’s important to acknowledge that groups are not monoliths. While there are reactionaries in the OSR not everyone in the OSR is reactionary. There are large parts of the community that are now actively creating old-school style storygames. Five Torches Deep is just one example.



I wouldn't characterize Five Torches Deep as any kind of storygame.  It's taking the 5e engine and applying a heavier gamist tilt to the support.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> It is when the scale is such that many connections will be intrinsically be left behind.  You can have an issue of scale where the connections matter wherever you are (such things can be set up in the modern world easily enough), but in a lower-tech setting,



How magical is your fantasy world? Do you have cities with circles of transport I certainly do in my modern fantasy stories for instance.  If you were trying to cleave really strongly to a true medieval this is not the only issue you will run into. 

I had world spanning organizations priesthoods aka distance is not much of an issue when magic is real. and countries with influence due to massive trade on oceans who themselves distributed minor magic (tech effectively)

A lot of early fantasy liked to blur the lines between magic and tech I always like that and figuring out the impact of magic on the world that is reliable seems to always be a lot like potent tech.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 9, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> Fate does it better in a number of fashions even in original form they made it fairer than for instance the GURPS model.  Ie when you and the DM interacted with your aspects is when they brought there benefits into play and not otherwise.  GURPS did have the philosophy at least if someone had it on their sheets it was the DMS obligation to make sure it entered play.



Yeah, I was involved in the early playtesting of GURPS, or maybe I should say 'proto-GURPS' because it had a bit of a complicated history IIRC. I don't recall any of that being central to the conception of the game as originally conceived. OTOH Steve is a pretty sharp guy. I'm sure he was a bit ahead of the pack in terms of taking things in new directions. In any case, what was eventually released had a fairly long genesis, we were playtesting stuff back c. 1979 and the first parts of the actual system didn't get released until almost 6 years later! I've honestly never played it or even read it.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> The problem,.... is that it means constantly having to reexplain what you're talking about in a less compact way _every time_.




Well, at least around here, that seems to happen anyway, especially with GDS/GNS terminology, for reasons already discussed by many - including yourself, iirc. 

So, if the terms aren't saving you from having to re-explain concepts, what's the point of the terms?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> The problem, and this is why attempts to avoid jargon and terms-of-art developing is as doomed to fail as avoiding political parties is, is that it means constantly having to reexplain what you're talking about in a less compact way _every time_.  Anyone who thinks that's what's going to happen with any regularity I have a bridge to sell.



What WILL obviously happen, of course, is that someone will invent a shorthand, and now you have reinvented jargon, except yours is probably idiosyncratic and not understood by anyone that wasn't in the original conversation (unless like the Forge threads or the alt.rec.games threads before them they become popularized).


----------



## niklinna (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> 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.



One thing I find interesting there is that the GNS model did recognize many differences, even incompatiblities or outright competing agendas, within its Simulationist category (more than just process vs. high concept), even as it huddled them all up under that umbrella to claim that they did all share _the same specific contrasts_ in comparison with Gamism and with Narrativism. There was also some talk (from what I've managed to read, not being involved at the time) about how the vast majority of RPG development up to then (and certainly at the time) had been in the realm of Simulationism, less so in Gamism—which had gotten short shrift in the preceding GDS discussion. So, folks were directly familiar with many kinds of Simulationism, but hadn't perhaps explored Gamism all that much to identify competing, incompatibe, or merely different, sub-agendas. The Manyfold approach does get a bit more into that. And Story Now was such a new beast that it seems to be (depending on your viewpoint) the biggest/smallest bucket of the three...the shutdown of & diaspora from the Forge in some senses lost the line of inquiry as it spread out to numerous individual blogs and such, but I can see even from a casual overview of such games that many differences have emerged. I would love to know if someone has dug into that.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 9, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> The montone fate point reward does have that issue... presumably more subtle variation could be made where a very disadvantageous invocation could garner more fate points to create more nuance as you say. (I couldn't imagine not allowing bigger bolder effects by spending more than one fate point)



Doesn't d6 System do something like this? IIRC you BOTH pay up front, AND when you invoke certain things, but it is certainly not as core a part of the system as it is in FATE, nor is there any currency involved, aside from adding or subtracting dice from a pool (or increasing the target number). Still, you can tie together a 'good thing' and a 'bad thing' and the degree of benefit of the good thing helps dictate the degree of penalty of the bad thing when it happens. (d6 System has a lot of divergent mechanics too depending on genre, so not all variations may do this).


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 9, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> To reduce non-Trad games to 'social commentary games' is to pigeonhole them as merely tools for social exploration, when this is far from the truth.




Good thing I’m not doing that, then.  I’m saying that a social analysis of why someone plays game A over game B ought to include the dynamics of identity and the concrete social context in which play happens.

If I was pigeonholeing anything in that post it would be trad dnd, which I described as masculinist, inherently colonial, and merely combat-oriented, when in fact there are lots of other ways to play.

I get why there might be a certain amount of defensiveness around “non-trad” games given how dominant 5e in particular is, but at a certain point it’s just comical.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 9, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> To the contrary the disconnected murder hobos excludes all but that one type wandering loner




Well, hold on a second.

D&D, historically, hasn't mechanically cared a lot if characters had connection to the world.  This _enables_ disconnected murder hobos, but does not mean they are required.  The murder hobos are one possible result, not a rules core element that excludes other character types from play.

Meanwhile, _requiring_ connection in character generation would be a core rules element that does exclude some character types, like the disconnected murder hobo, and the perhaps more nuanced Man With No Name.  

Just so we are clear on that.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 9, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Good thing I’m not doing that, then.  I’m saying that a social analysis of why someone plays game A over game B ought to include the dynamics of identity and the concrete social context in which play happens.



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)?


Malmuria said:


> If I was pigeonholeing anything in that post it would be trad dnd, which I described as masculinist, inherently colonial, and merely combat-oriented, when in fact there are lots of other ways to play.



I think this is terribly reductionist as well.  You might be on better grounds looking at setting material this way.  But, yeah, seems you've already done the pigeonholing.


Malmuria said:


> I get why there might be a certain amount of defensiveness around “non-trad” games given how dominant 5e in particular is, but at a certain point it’s just comical.



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.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 9, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Good thing I’m not doing that, then.  I’m saying that a social analysis of why someone plays game A over game B ought to include the dynamics of identity and the concrete social context in which play happens.




This is one reason to have multiple design models for games.  When all you have is one model, one theory, around game design, you miss aspects of games.  GNS theory may tell you how well your game appeals to desires for G, for N, or for S.  It doesn't help you meet other desires the players might have.  Today, this would include identity desires, but won't be limited to that.

As a highly relevant example of today - GNS theory doesn't inform you about design theory around making a game appealing for remote play.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 9, 2022)

Umbran said:


> *This is one reason to have multiple design models for games. * When all you have is one model, one theory, around game design, you miss aspects of games.  GNS theory may tell you how well your game appeals to desires for G, for N, or for S.  It doesn't help you meet other desires the players might have.  Today, this would include identity desires, but won't be limited to that.
> 
> As a highly relevant example of today - GNS theory doesn't inform you about design theory around making a game appealing for remote play.



But do you believe that this would in anyway reduce the amount of jargon or terminology in the hobby? To be clear, I am not advocating for one model or GNS, but, rather, I am inquiring about what a realist, pragmatic view of the hobby would look like in terms of the amount of accumulated jargon and associated terminology with multiple models, theories, principles, etc.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 9, 2022)

Umbran said:


> This is one reason to have multiple design models for games.  When all you have is one model, one theory, around game design, you miss aspects of games.  GNS theory may tell you how well your game appeals to desires for G, for N, or for S.  It doesn't help you meet other desires the players might have.  Today, this would include identity desires, but won't be limited to that.
> 
> As a highly relevant example of today - GNS theory doesn't inform you about design theory around making a game appealing for remote play.



What a strange thing to say, in this way.  Of course it doesn't.  It doesn't claim to.  No one has ever said, to my knowledge, that GNS is all you need or want.  This is beating up a strawman.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 9, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Well, hold on a second.



OK holding on


Umbran said:


> D&D, historically, hasn't mechanically cared a lot if characters had connection to the world.  This _enables_ disconnected murder hobos, but does not mean they are required.



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?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 9, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> But do you believe that this would in anyway reduce the amount of jargon or terminology in the hobby?




Well, despite the thread title, I don't think the sheer length of the jargon dictionary is the issue.  There are issues around _how we use jargon_.

When there is only one dominant selection of jargon, it is easy to fall into the habit of assuming its adoption and relevance.  When there are multiple sources of relevant jargon, masters of each have to actually think more about their language use.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> How magical is your fantasy world? Do you have cities with circles of transport I certainly do in my modern fantasy stories for instance.  If you were trying to cleave really strongly to a true medieval this is not the only issue you will run into.




I think a setting with that much magitech is a "modern world" for most purposes, but even most incarnations of D&D don't go that far, let alone games like most of the ones in the BRP sphere.  There's a big gap between "true medieval" and what you're talking about; I'll point out it applied to most of the world up until air travel became a thing.

And of course in SF settings, you can have scales such that even though travel is, in an absolute sense, fast, the scale being played on still means it takes weeks to cover the ground.



Garthanos said:


> I had world spanning organizations priesthoods aka distance is not much of an issue when magic is real. and countries with influence due to massive trade on oceans who themselves distributed minor magic (tech effectively)
> 
> A lot of early fantasy liked to blur the lines between magic and tech I always like that and figuring out the impact of magic on the world that is reliable seems to always be a lot like potent tech.




I don't disagree.  I just kind of think that doesn't describe a rather large number of RPG settings.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, and I think we even got that back in the day. We were actually pretty friendly to the idea of building more elaborate backstories and whatnot than a lot of groups (maybe because by the early 80's we were old enough to play in a bit more mature way). I recall that the Traveler campaign I ran at this time also had characters that the players had fleshed out backstories for to a higher degree than normal. Like the Merchant character's Free Trader wasn't just some random ship. In the first adventure he was searching for his father and his father's ship, which they found drifting frozen in space. Between recovering it, fighting with the insurance company and the bank, repairing the damage, etc. he ended up with basically a standard mortgage! This was the sort of play we were always after. Champions was pretty good, though I guess the guy that owned it lost interest or something.




Well, there were always going to be some people who would hop on board the idea, but it seemed desirable from a design standpoint to try to passively encourage even the ones who were resistant to giving GMs that kind of handle to do so.  It was very much a genre support rules setup (the fact that, much as I may emphasize how _particularly_ strong that effect is in supers, its useful to encourage fleshing out in general came later at the hands of people named McDonald and Jackson, so I can't make any claims about that).


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Well, at least around here, that seems to happen anyway, especially with GDS/GNS terminology, for reasons already discussed by many - including yourself, iirc.
> 
> So, if the terms aren't saving you from having to re-explain concepts, what's the point of the terms?




I disagree with your premise.  You may have to do it reasonably frequently, but there's a big difference between that and having to do it with every new participant.  If that wasn't true, no term-of-art _ever_ would be useful, and they simply wouldn't happen.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

niklinna said:


> One thing I find interesting there is that the GNS model did recognize many differences, even incompatiblities or outright competing agendas, within its Simulationist category (more than just process vs. high concept), even as it huddled them all up under that umbrella to claim that they did all share _the same specific contrasts_ in comparison with Gamism and with Narrativism.




Except, as I've noted, it kind of didn't unless you were extremely fixed on elements that were largely trivial from the POV that actually was interested in any of the styles buried in it.  As you note, there were some issues with G too, but not as severe.

Honestly, it comes across as they narrowed Nar enough they didn't have to worry about much of it falling outside the lines and, whether they avowedly cared about them or not, though Gamism and Simulationism could just take care of themselves.



niklinna said:


> There was also some talk (from what I've managed to read, not being involved at the time) about how the vast majority of RPG development up to then (and certainly at the time) had been in the realm of Simulationism, less so in Gamism—which had gotten short shrift in the preceding GDS discussion.




While I do agree GDS Gamism got the least attention (as I said, the fact that out of all the RGFA proponents there were all of three of us who really cared didn't help), I find it kind of--reaching--to suggest Gamism got no development focus.  The early RPG writers were mostly wargamers, after all.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Except, as I've noted, it kind of didn't unless you were *extremely fixed on elements that were largely trivial from the POV that actually was interested in any of the styles buried in it*.  As you note, there were some issues with G too, but not as severe.



This is interesting; could you elaborate?



Thomas Shey said:


> Honestly, it comes across as they narrowed Nar enough they didn't have to worry about much of it falling outside the lines and, whether they avowedly cared about them or not, though Gamism and Simulationism could just take care of themselves.



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



Thomas Shey said:


> While I do agree GDS Gamism got the least attention (as I said, the fact that out of all the RGFA proponents there were all of three of us who really cared didn't help), I find it kind of--reaching--to suggest Gamism got no development focus.  The early RPG writers were mostly wargamers, after all.



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).


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Well, hold on a second.
> 
> D&D, historically, hasn't mechanically cared a lot if characters had connection to the world.  This _enables_ disconnected murder hobos, but does not mean they are required.  The murder hobos are one possible result, not a rules core element that excludes other character types from play.
> 
> ...




Well, a lot of disadvantage systems don't _require_ connection, they're just one of the easiest ways to use them to meet requirements and/or acquire extra points.  As an example, you can build a Champions character who's got no Hunteds, DNPCs or Reputation; you just take things like physical vulnerabilities and psychological limits.  You can do similar things in GURPS.

What it does do is put a thumb on the other side of the scale from the tendency in parts of the hobby that avoid connections at all cost because of either direct consequences of dealing with adversarial GMs, or by inheritance from gaming cultures that evolved out of hitting that.  I'll argue that's most of where you see "murderhobos" come from; its not a particularly expected thing for people to develop who haven't been bit.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

Umbran said:


> This is one reason to have multiple design models for games.  When all you have is one model, one theory, around game design, you miss aspects of games.  GNS theory may tell you how well your game appeals to desires for G, for N, or for S.  It doesn't help you meet other desires the players might have.  Today, this would include identity desires, but won't be limited to that.
> 
> As a highly relevant example of today - GNS theory doesn't inform you about design theory around making a game appealing for remote play.




To be fair, I don't think GNS was designed to be the be-all and end-all of talking about game elements; I certainly know GDS wasn't.  It was specifically talking about a certain layer that made potential problems for people wanting different things out of it.  The Stances discussion in the RGFA days was, for example (mostly) orthogonal.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 9, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2022)

niklinna said:


> 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.



niklinna said:


> 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.



niklinna said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2022)

niklinna said:


> This is interesting; could you elaborate?
> 
> 
> Yes, this is becoming more apparent to me the more I look into it.
> ...



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 (Jun 9, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> 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.



Thomas Shey said:


> 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.)



Thomas Shey said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2022)

niklinna said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2022)

niklinna said:


> 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.



niklinna said:


> 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.



niklinna said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> 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.)


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 9, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> 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.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 9, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> 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.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 9, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> 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. 



Ovinomancer said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> 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.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 9, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> But narrativist games absolutely prioritise certain kind of dramatic logic!



What do they prioritize such kinds of dramatic logic over? And perhaps more significantly, what might they prioritize over such kinds of dramatic logic?


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 9, 2022)

niklinna said:


> 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.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 9, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> 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.



Ovinomancer said:


> 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.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 9, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> 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(


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 9, 2022)

Campbell said:


> 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.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> 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).


----------



## Campbell (Jun 9, 2022)

@Malmuria

I fundamentally disagree that a game like Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World is fundamentally less focused than adventure games like D&D 5e or Conan 2d20. You have to basically ignore the entirety of the game's text and deal with counterproductive procedures to get anything close to the same sort of play. The same could be said for the opposite direction by the way.

I agree that a game like Monsterhearts or My Life With Master is more thematically focused than 5e or Exalted, but then again so is Vampire and L5R. It's not like a trad versus Story Now thing. It's a game to game thing.

Connotationally I also really dislike the focused/narrow bit because it feels like saying traditional games are for everyone and these other games are for weird people.

Also the idea that like you can have the same sort of play experience without the technique and discipline I know is required to get you there is the biggest fundamental issue I have with that particular notion.

Addendum: I am speaking to specific sorts of discipline and technique. Running a trad game well obviously requires different sorts of discipline and technique.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 9, 2022)

Umbran said:


> This is one reason to have multiple design models for games.  When all you have is one model, one theory, around game design, you miss aspects of games.  GNS theory may tell you how well your game appeals to desires for G, for N, or for S.  It doesn't help you meet other desires the players might have.  Today, this would include identity desires, but won't be limited to that.
> 
> As a highly relevant example of today - GNS theory doesn't inform you about design theory around making a game appealing for remote play.



Right, I think one of us made this point in the ancestor of this thread as well. None of these analytical frameworks is really intended to examine every aspect of RPGs. GNS, for example, was not even intended to be applied to GAMES at all, but more to players (and maybe more specifically even to how they happened to play in a given situation). GDS and the various theories and analyses mentioned by the OP likewise. They may each simply capture some different dimension. People probably then think they've said everything that is to be said, foolishly, and thus someone else rushes in and claims the other guy is full of it, ad infinitum.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 9, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> But narrativist games absolutely prioritise certain kind of dramatic logic!



How so?  They do not use dramatic logic to resolve things, nor are choice made to prioritize dramatic logic either when the GM is making a move or the player declaring actions.  Dramatic logic may inform, but it isn't controlling nor is it prioritized.  I don't consider dramatic logic when I'll deciding on actions for my PC in PbtA games or Blades.  Doing so would actually be against the principles of play for players.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 9, 2022)

niklinna said:


> 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.



You don't have that particular cognitive lens, so it doesn't bother you -- it's not an internal cause that you're concerned about (although you may be concerned about others).


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 9, 2022)

Campbell said:


> @Malmuria
> 
> I fundamentally disagree that a game like Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World is fundamentally less focused than adventure games like D&D 5e or Conan 2d20. You have to basically ignore the entirety of the game's text and deal with counterproductive procedures to get anything close to the same sort of play. The same could be said for the opposite direction by the way.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the polite response!

Anyway, my point is not about trad vs story now.  It’s about the benefits of considering historical and social context when discussing a game, or more generally why its interesting to do so.

As I posted in the pride month thread, I don’t think “queer games” are just games that engage in certain themes explicitly, so I take your point about not reinforcing that dichotomy.  If anything I think 5e—for reasons that go way beyond game design—affords exploration of personal identity in a way that is reinforced by the culture surrounding the game and that is more visible now than it was, say, 20 years ago.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 9, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> 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(



Sure, but that's not that, so to speak.  The need to have a complication is already determined, and done so without regard to dramatic logic.  Leaning on genre to provide flavor, which is what you're describing, is not prioritizing dramatic logic.  It's leaning on genre tropes to provide flavor and inspiration.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 9, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> You don't have that particular cognitive lens, so it doesn't bother you -- it's not an internal cause that you're concerned about (although you may be concerned about others).



I might say instead that I have a set of cognitive lenses, but I get your point!


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 9, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> How so?  They do not use dramatic logic to resolve things, nor are choice made to prioritize dramatic logic either when the GM is making a move or the player declaring actions.  Dramatic logic may inform, but it isn't controlling nor is it prioritized.  I don't consider dramatic logic when I'll deciding on actions for my PC in PbtA games or Blades.  Doing so would actually be against the principles of play for players.



But the whole premise of how to GM such a game is based on dramatic logic.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 9, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, I think one of us made this point in the ancestor of this thread as well. None of these analytical frameworks is really intended to examine every aspect of RPGs. GNS, for example, was not even intended to be applied to GAMES at all, but more to players (and maybe more specifically even to how they happened to play in a given situation). GDS and the various theories and analyses mentioned by the OP likewise. They may each simply capture some different dimension. People probably then think they've said everything that is to be said, foolishly, and thus someone else rushes in and claims the other guy is full of it, ad infinitum.



I'm actually re-reading the GNS essays right now—specifically Simulationism: The Right to Dream. It definitely examines games in terms of the model's creative agendas and other components (System, Setting, Situation, Character, Color). Also, even though GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory explicitly disavows '"genre" as part of the lexicon', this later essay does talk about it (although not as an essential element, as best I can determine). So that's a likely source of confusion there that I'm in the middle of trying to untangle for myself.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 9, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> 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).



You moved the pea.  Your initial claim is a look at the social implications of people choosing these games because they highlight identity issues.  Here, you've switched to arguing about games being focused at all versus being not focused.  You've altered the argument so that you're defending games that are focused from some imagined claim that I'm saying that claiming games are focused is pigeonholing them.

My comments were to your original claim.  I have no issue with noting some games are focused.


Malmuria said:


> 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.



Okay, your ask about the social implications of choosing games because of identity focuses doesn't seem to even be addressed with this statement.  You've created an example that is trivially dealt with.  I have no problems with your example.  It doesn't expand to any other cases, nor to your initial claims.  It's a red herring.


Malmuria said:


> 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.



I mean, this is only true through specific lenses -- your assuming a particular lens is universal and aiming to discredit any other kinds of analysis with a moral value claim.  I think this gets very far out of bounds, though, so it should probably be dropped.


Malmuria said:


> 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.



No, I can scroll up.  Your post was asking if thematically focused (there's no qualifier to this at this time) indie games are successful because they lean into social identity concerns.  I pointed out that this is not anywhere close to universal, and that such a general claim appears to be trying to pigeonhole the entire indie game segment into socially conscious games for exploring identity.  I still find that to be reductionist statement that isn't at all born out by a look at that segment.  That you've shifted your argument and are claiming offensive at my comment pointed at your original statement -- taking it entirely at face value -- is just moving the goalposts.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 9, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> But the whole premise of how to GM such a game is based on dramatic logic.



It isn't, and please show your work on how you come to this conclusion.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 9, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> It isn't, and please show your work on how you come to this conclusion.



"Frame things that challenge the dramatic needs of the characters" is obviously following dramatic logic. And this is basically the core idea of the game.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 9, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> 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 always took it that GNS 'Sim' is about systems in which the environment is a source of constraints. Whether in Process Sim where the game may attempt to use mechanical and game design features to impose realistic real-world (or alternate world) constraints, or in terms of High Concept Sim where the game may attempt to impose or prioritize specific concepts and focus play around them. There ARE important differences, but each of the 'S' sub-agendas does share certain key traits. Playing in a way that focuses on those agendas tends to have key similarities for this reason. Again, I'd appeal more to @pemerton here, as he seems to have all the relevant citations near to hand.


Thomas Shey said:


> 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.



Sure, and GNS also separates these things, while recognizing that they do share the trait of imposing constraints. While they may do so for fairly different ends, the means are functionally similar and lead to similarities in play, as well as (probably more importantly from Ron's perspective) similarities in game design. 

I mean, GNS actually REALLY WELL describes 3e D&D! And for exactly the reason that its various agendas all seem to fall within 'S' primarily. The way some people see it as a purist-for-system process sim, and others see it as high concept fantasy genre sim is quite well explained this way. Problems also get some spotlight, as you can see how the process sim kind of agenda can clash pretty harshly with HCS too! That is, optimizers are focusing on the process, and someone that wants their character to emulate a high fantasy character is focusing on a concept. They both want constraints/structure to bring these things about, but you run into the classic "I created my character full of drama and the dice killed him off!" 

I'm not entirely sure how, for example, GDS approaches explaining that. I'm not saying it can't, but TBH it doesn't seem to really go there at all AFAICT.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 9, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> "Frame things that challenge the dramatic needs of the characters" is obviously following dramatic logic. And this is basically the core idea of the game.



You'll need to walk that through.  How does that require dramatic logic.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> if you are devising a terminology then you are working on something, you have a need to describe things. It may be that you don't need to describe other things in so much detail, and maybe you don't capture all salient aspects of those things. Others encountering your terminology may have different needs, and may be in a different context.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'd also say that in the specific case of Edwards and 'simulationist' that I am not sure the criticism, and especially the charge of bias, is very well-deserved. I think @pemerton has pointed out that Ron is not uninterested in games other than Narrativist ones, and that he directly and extensively addressed them in his writing. So maybe the charge that GNS only really relates to 'N' is simply a misperception. In the thread which spawned this one I saw much discussion of Simulationist (in GNS terms) agenda related questions which seemed to be directly discussed in Forge articles, and not just as some addendum to a discussion of something else. I'd fall back on @pemerton here again in terms of being much better at citing things than I am, but I know I have read such.



I think Edwards is very interested in a wide range of games. His account of purist-for-system play is excellent. (I don't know how much RM he had played, but obviously he is drawing on deep experience with Champions and RQ.) His account of high concept simulationist play seems to me to pick out key features one sees discussed in relation to CoC, 5e D&D, etc: how to manage scene transitions, how to manage differences in character capabilities, how to make sure the "adventure" unfolds "as it is meant to".



niklinna said:


> I thought the original GNS essay specifically excluded genre from consideration.



I think you're referring to this:

*Why "genre" is not part of the lexicon*
I do not recommend using "genre" to identify role-playing content. A "genre" is some combination of specific setting elements, plot elements, situation elements, character elements, and sometimes premise elements, such that by hearing the term, we are informed what to expect, or in role-playing terms, what to do. On the face of it, the concept would seem to be useful.

The problem is that genres are continually being deconstructed and re-formed, with elements of one being re-combined with others. This is occurring as a non-planned or non-managed historical phenomenon throughout all media. Therefore "genre" may be a fine descriptive label for what is or has been done, but it's not much help in terms of what to do or what can be done.

In many cases, a given genre label will convey to a close group of people a fairly tight combination of values for these variables. However, the same genre label loses its power to inform as you add more people to the mix, especially since most labels have switched meanings radically more than once. And even more importantly, new combinations of values for the key variables may be perfectly functional, even when they do not correspond to any recognized genre label.

Therefore when someone tells me that a game (or story, or whatever) is based on a certain genre, I have to ask a few more questions - and sooner or later, I get real answers in terms of Character, Setting, Situation, or Color. Only then can an initial Premise be identified, and then the next step toward functional, enjoyable role-playing may occur.​
(By "premise" here, Edwards means "whatever a participant finds among the elements [character, setting, situation, colour, system] to sustain a continued interest in what might happen in a role-playing session." That is, it's what we're having fun imagining. Later on he uses "premise" more narrowly, to mean the theme that is addressed/at issue in narrativist play.)

While Edwards caution is helpful - genres are slippery - I don't think it does any harm to say that high concept simulationism is concerned to provide a RPG experience that reinforces the experience of "being there" inside the genre, that is, one or more distinctive sorts of character, setting and/or situation.



niklinna said:


> One thing I find interesting there is that the GNS model did recognize many differences, even incompatiblities or outright competing agendas, within its Simulationist category (more than just process vs. high concept), even as it huddled them all up under that umbrella to claim that they did all share _the same specific contrasts_ in comparison with Gamism and with Narrativism.



It does the same in the context of gamism: the way that competition is (or is not) implemented, and the way that this relates to the presentation of challenge both to the players and in the fiction; and in the context of narrativism, looking at different approaches to prep, and to player vulnerability.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Its quite possible that D&D has much the same social function and form that it did in 1981. Discussion of that, which seems to be pretty adjacent to the whole "taxonomies of players" thing
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I just don't even see the sort of taxonomy-like stuff that is embodied in things like the WotC survey and discussions of 'Timmies' and 'Optimizers' and 'Actors', and 'Explorers' even relates much to what guys like Edwards are talking about. I mean, certainly player and game agendas connect with these classification schemes in some sense, but a set of analytical tools like GNS is aimed at understanding the actual form and process of play, whereas debates about whether people want to fight or explore (all inevitably had within the structural assumptions of Trad D&D generally) don't even relate to that much at all.



Agreed. "Market segmentation" is important from the point of view of commercial product design, including commercial game design.

But we don't distinguish (say) different schools of painting, or different sorts of music, by reference to how they made the "market" feel: we know that the Impressionists shocked Paris, but we don't classify them as we do _because_ they shocked Paris.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I agree that Apocalypse World probably represents the fulcrum or pivot point where modern RPGs emerged in their present form. Games like Sorcerer and Everway and whatnot definitely presaged that, but AW is really the game which presents all the parts in a fully realized cohesive form which can be replicated and elaborated on as a pattern. This is really almost the first time an enduring pattern of game design has arisen which contrasts with the paradigm of D&D at all levels. I mean, there are definitely many variations of mechanical structure (skill systems instead of leveling systems, dice pools, etc. etc. etc.) but with AW you finally get a fundamentally reimagined RPG paradigm in a mature form that isn't just a sort of weird one-off experiment. The coining of the term PbtA itself signifies the final coming out of a revolution in RPGs.



Yep. As you know my favourite is actually Burning Wheel, which predates AW, but I agree that AW is the "pivot point". 



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't know if Peterson, Torner, White, etc. are actually out there playing these various games or not, but if they aren't acknowledging the significance of this evolution, then they're missing something that feels pretty significant to me!



Well, I quoted from some of the chapters in the Routledge collection upthread. As I said, to me they don't seem to be across it. They have definitions of "system" and "setting" and "adventure" that don't seem able to capture the development at all.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 9, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> You'll need to walk that through.  How does that require dramatic logic.



What part you don't get? What is framed is based on creating situations that create a dramatic conflict. The game runs on dramatic logic, it is plain as day.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 10, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> "Frame things that challenge the dramatic needs of the characters" is obviously following dramatic logic. And this is basically the core idea of the game.



What do you mean by "dramatic logic"? It seems to imply a pre-set idea of how things must go.

Challenging dramatic needs is about putting the player/character on the spot, right now, with no obvious answer dictated by dramatic tropes. The action decision and its outcome are not bound by such things, in Blades in the Dark.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 10, 2022)

niklinna said:


> I'm actually re-reading the GNS essays right now—specifically Simulationism: The Right to Dream. It definitely examines games in terms of the model's creative agendas and other components (System, Setting, Situation, Character, Color). Also, even though GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory explicitly disavows '"genre" as part of the lexicon', this later essay does talk about it (although not as an essential element, as best I can determine). So that's a likely source of confusion there that I'm in the middle of trying to untangle for myself.



See my post just upthread.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 10, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'd appeal more to @pemerton here, as he seems to have all the relevant citations near to hand.



See my post not far upthread!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 10, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> 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!



But you CANNOT split out different INTERNAL sources of this logic! Because a game world is PRETEND there is no ACTUAL physics for example. So if a game is trying to impose physics as a realistic constraint, it is really imposing ITSELF, or the conception of the participants, just like if you impose genre logic as a constraint, which is also going to be how it is conceived by the participants. So there is no CORE fundamental difference, they are all "imposition of a conception of how play should proceed" with the details of what that is determining the sub-type of the agenda. 

Meanwhile GDS, IMHO doesn't really relate to the activity of play at all, as a framework it simply categorizes features of system, game artifacts, and to a degree the associated behaviors/conceptions of the players. Thus GDS's 'S' splits away genre emulation based on what I would consider to be less substantive attributes.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 10, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> 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.



But again, when the world is NOT REAL, they are ALL just constraints that are built from conceits! Physics itself is simply a conceit in a world that is not real! This is the kind of thing that I mean when I say that Edwards really cuts deep and focuses on core attributes and GDS is more a catalog of surface attributes.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 10, 2022)

niklinna said:


> What do you mean by "dramatic logic"? It seems to imply a pre-set idea of how things must go.
> 
> Challenging dramatic needs is about putting the player/character on the spot, right now, with no obvious answer dictated by dramatic tropes. The action decision and its outcome are not bound by such things, in Blades in the Dark.




Answer of course is not dictated, but the very act of framing is. This is how dramatic moments in stories are constructed. The protagonist has a dramatic need -> a situation challenging that need occurs. Principles of running story now game are instructions to follow dramatic logic to make this happen.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 10, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> What part you don't get? What is framed is based on creating situations that create a dramatic conflict. The game runs on dramatic logic, it is plain as day.



Okay, so, to you, using dramatic logic just means framing things around the characters according to their dramatic need?  That's nowhere close to what I take from that term.  Logic is used to parse out what comes next -- with these inputs, I use this logic to determine what that implies and what conclusions can be shown from that.  So, dramatic logic would be the logic I'm using to determine how things work out.  But you're using it only to mean 'how do I set things up.'  If that's the form of jargon you wish to use, and you're going to be 100% clear that this is all that you mean by it, then, sure, carry on.  But, I might warn you, it's probably going to cause confusion as to what you mean.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 10, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> But the whole premise of how to GM such a game is based on dramatic logic.



Well, in a sense. It is based mostly on taking a dramatic need of a character (in many cases, it could also be some other conceit/theme) and 'boiling it'. Every time the player narrates an action the game takes that, or its intent, and runs it through some sort of process which produces something, blowback, progress, setbacks, complications, something. That 'something' generally propels things forward into a new situation which is more urgent in some sense. The AIM is to examine the need/conceit and drive play forward. It COULD be dramatic in outcome, or not. Just like an OD&D dungeon crawl will present challenges and MAY produce some sort of narrative of daring-do, or it might just describe how the PCs opened the door to the first room and were instantly stung to death by giant wasps... Most of us are not good enough players or GMs to produce really excellent dramatic narratives out of SN play, and I don't really consciously aim for that. I just try to make each new scene evoke some sort of "Oh my gosh! What now!!!???"


----------



## niklinna (Jun 10, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Answer of course is not dictated, but the very act of framing is. This is how dramatic moments in stories are constructed. The protagonist has a dramatic need -> a situation challenging that need occurs. Principles of running story now game are instructions to follow dramatic logic to make this happen.



I really need to know what you mean by "dramatic logic" to respond. My best guess is something along the lines of "how events should turn out in order to conform to dramatic tropes". That is not at all the same as having a "dramatic need".

Framing is just the setup for what Narrativist play is concerned with: Which of these outcomes do I want most, and what am I willing to pay, what consequences am I willing to risk, to get it? Followed of course by what actually winds up happening. Deciding that isn't beholden to any genre tropes, and, at least in Blades in the Dark, mechanically resolving the outcome is almost entirely mechanical (one might even say Gamist).


----------



## niklinna (Jun 10, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, in a sense. It is based mostly on taking a dramatic need of a character (in many cases, it could also be some other conceit/theme) and 'boiling it'. Every time the player narrates an action the game takes that, or its intent, and runs it through *some sort of process which produces something*, blowback, progress, setbacks, complications, something. That 'something' generally propels things forward into a new situation which is more urgent in some sense. The AIM is to examine the need/conceit and drive play forward. It COULD be dramatic in outcome, or not. Just like an OD&D dungeon crawl will present challenges and MAY produce some sort of narrative of daring-do, or it might just describe how the PCs opened the door to the first room and were instantly stung to death by giant wasps... Most of us are not good enough players or GMs to produce really excellent dramatic narratives out of SN play, and I don't really consciously aim for that. I just try to make each new scene evoke some sort of "Oh my gosh! What now!!!???"



The nature of this "some sort of process which produces something" is more than a little important to the question at hand.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 10, 2022)

niklinna said:


> I really need to know what you mean by "dramatic logic" to respond. My best guess is something along the lines of "how events should turn out in order to conform to dramatic tropes". That is not at all the same as having a "dramatic need".



I'm not really talking about any specific tropes. But the GM is answering to questions of what to frame based on dramatic logic. They don't answer it based on what would make sense or what would be a level appropriate challenge (these are different types of internal logic,) they're answering it based on what would work with the dramatic needs of the character. But this too is a type of internal logic.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 10, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Yep. As you know my favourite is actually Burning Wheel, which predates AW, but I agree that AW is the "pivot point".



hehehe, yeah, BW has done well, and definitely has been used as a basis for a bunch of other interesting games. I think the main reason it didn't quite single-handedly trigger something like AW has is just that it is a bit complex, there are a bunch of moving parts in there. The beauty of AW is its sheer simplicity! You almost cannot fail to grasp what it is about conceptually because there's so little GAME there (in a mechanical or elaborate process sense).


pemerton said:


> Well, I quoted from some of the chapters in the Routledge collection upthread. As I said, to me they don't seem to be across it. They have definitions of "system" and "setting" and "adventure" that don't seem able to capture the development at all.



I definitely think, from examining a bunch of stuff than Torner has written, references to his work, etc. that he's clearly got many views on games, and a lot of familiarity with the culture of GAMERS. None of this is particularly something I would criticize. I just don't think he's got the same level of razor sharp logical mind for what the process of actually playing an RPG consists of at the most core fundamental logical level. Torner is probably the guy you want to go to and discuss what gamers think about and how they communicate, but if I want to build a game itself, or learn about why things happen at the table, I look at Edwards, or Baker, or some of the other people in that category like Czege.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 10, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> But you CANNOT split out different INTERNAL sources of this logic! Because a game world is PRETEND there is no ACTUAL physics for example. So if a game is trying to impose physics as a realistic constraint, it is really imposing ITSELF, or the conception of the participants, just like if you impose genre logic as a constraint, which is also going to be how it is conceived by the participants. So there is no CORE fundamental difference, they are all "imposition of a conception of how play should proceed" with the details of what that is determining the sub-type of the agenda.



I think this is why Edwards distinguishes categories of simulation based on how the participants set about ordering an implementing their conceptions.

In purist-for-system play, system - "a means by which in-game events are determined to occur" - is prioritised. The ambition is that the system, in operation, will generate the setting, situations and characters that the participants want to enjoy imagining. In various ways Classic Traveller, RQ, RM and Champions all aspire to this.

In high concept play, one (or sometimes more) of character, situation and/or setting is prioritised as the object of exploration, and system is subordinated: "The formula starts with one of Character, Situation, or Setting, with lots of Color, then the other two (Character, Situation, or Setting, whichever weren't in first place), with System being last in priority."

GM decision-making or "suspending" of the rules is part and parcel of high concept play, precisely because a consistent and "pure" means for determining what happens is not a high priority. And we can easily see this borne out in many discussions about how to GM D&D, how to GM CoC, etc.

Part of the cleverness of a system like Fate or GUMSHOE is that it reconciles a consistent means with the prioritisation of character (FATE) or situation (GUMSHOE). I don't think this is as fundamental a pivot as AW (that we were discussing not far above), but I think these systems deserve recognition for having squared an important RPGing circle.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 10, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I'm not really talking about any specific tropes. But the GM is answering to questions of what to frame based on dramatic logic. They don't answer it based on what would make sense or what would be a level appropriate challenge (these are different types of internal logic,) they're answering it based on what would work with the dramatic needs of the character. But this too is a type of internal logic.



The fact that the character's needs are dramatic does not make the process of challenging them itself dramatic. It's just giving the player what they asked for (in the "buddy, you asked for it!" sense).


----------



## pemerton (Jun 10, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> hehehe, yeah, BW has done well, and definitely has been used as a basis for a bunch of other interesting games. I think the main reason it didn't quite single-handedly trigger something like AW has is just that it is a bit complex, there are a bunch of moving parts in there. The beauty of AW is its sheer simplicity! You almost cannot fail to grasp what it is about conceptually because there's so little GAME there (in a mechanical or elaborate process sense).



Agreed about BW.

To me, BW is what you get if you love the "feel" of a RQ or RM character sheet, and the idea of crit rolls and hit locations and "how good is my guy at ship-building which of course is not the same as wheel-wrighting", and then impose the extra that is necessary on PC gen - Beliefs, etc - plus the principles for action resolution - "say 'yes' or roll the dice", "intent and task", "let it ride" - that will turn that sort of system from a bit of a hit-and-miss in terms of drama and pacing into this visceral experience that those games always promised.

But if you'd never grown up on those older RPGs, would BW strike you as intuitive or well-motivated in itself? Probably not. Whereas AW rebuilds from the ground up.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I definitely think, from examining a bunch of stuff than Torner has written, references to his work, etc. that he's clearly got many views on games, and a lot of familiarity with the culture of GAMERS. None of this is particularly something I would criticize. I just don't think he's got the same level of razor sharp logical mind for what the process of actually playing an RPG consists of at the most core fundamental logical level. Torner is probably the guy you want to go to and discuss what gamers think about and how they communicate, but if I want to build a game itself, or learn about why things happen at the table, I look at Edwards, or Baker, or some of the other people in that category like Czege.



Agreed.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 10, 2022)

niklinna said:


> The fact that the character's needs are dramatic does not make the process of challenging them itself dramatic. It's just giving the player what they asked for (in the "buddy, you asked for it!" sense).



I don't agree. The GM must actually make judgements what sort of situation would challenge the dramatic need. And of course a situation where dramatic need is challenged is some sort of dramatic conflict. And that the GM makes their decisions based on what would produce such dramatically challenging situations instead of based on some other sort of logic, is still a type of internal logic.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 10, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I'm not really talking about any specific tropes. But the GM is answering to questions of what to frame based on dramatic logic. They don't answer it based on what would make sense or what would be a level appropriate challenge (these are different types of internal logic,) they're answering it based on what would work with the dramatic needs of the character. But this too is a type of internal logic.



What is that logic, though.  What is it inferring and concluding?  You're taking an input into framing -- what's the dramatic need of the PC -- assuming this is about dramatic logic (which it isn't, because nothing is being reasoned out), and stopping right there.  Because, by squinting in this way and only considering this one thing, you can reach your desired conclusions of "there's no difference!"  But, this would mean that we can only consider the reasons why the GM placed a dungeon when we discuss what D&D play is about.  It's a terrible point of focus.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 10, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Answer of course is not dictated, but the very act of framing is. This is how dramatic moments in stories are constructed. The protagonist has a dramatic need -> a situation challenging that need occurs. Principles of running story now game are instructions to follow dramatic logic to make this happen.



Lets get a bit concrete here: My Dungeon World Fighter has a bond which states "I have sworn to protect the halfling." (why doesn't really matter). So, what is the GM in this game going to do? He's going to have an orc rush the halfling! Is protecting the halfling a 'dramatic need', I dunno, but its a 'concern' of the character's and the GM can, and obviously will, use it to put pressure on the character. The player wants to resolve the bond to get XP, so he's going to announce that his fighter leaps into the fray and protects the halfling. The GM declares that the fighter is using the Defend move, and things proceed. Maybe he rolls badly, a snake eyes! The orc shield bashes him out of the way and smacks the halfling, so now the fighter is injured and the halfling is down and the orc is about to skewer him, time for a REALLY desperate move! So, I think its not unfair to call it a dramatic need, but that isn't the only technique. There was the example of the sister that is hanging off the edge of a cliff, and the character is afraid of heights! This one is pitting one of the character's traits/needs against another. Lots of variations exist. You could also simply lean on a conceit that is established by the game. Maybe the game is about how magic comes from summoning demons, but there's always a price. Can you resist the temptation? Should you? Always?

I mean, all play in all games, because all human motivations even in the real world, trivially engages 'dramatic' needs. We all must eat and whatnot, and we all want 'stuff' to make our lives more secure, etc.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 10, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't agree. The GM must actually make judgements what sort of situation would challenge the dramatic need. And of course a situation where dramatic need is challenged is some sort of dramatic conflict. And that the GM makes their decisions based on what would produce such dramatically challenging situations instead of based on some other sort of logic, is still a type of internal logic.



What's that logic?  

See, when people deploy the term "dramatic logic" they mean that you will arrive at the outcome by considering the story needs.  It's a tool for resolution -- how do thing resolve?  They resolve according to the logic of this set of precepts.

By abandoning that and trying to force dramatic logic into the framing, you're creating a different use of the term, but then once you get it in place, you revert to trying to argue the original meaning.  It's also terribly flawed because I don't need to engage in any kind of logical resolution to frame a scene using the thing the player told me they want play to be about.  There's not an internal logic, here.  There's no flow from internal cause to effect.  If the character has the Instinct of Hope, then putting them in a situation where hope is being challenges isn't following some cause to effect logical path defined by dramatic concerns -- there's no logic here at all.  You just do the thing, then play to see what happens (which is also not determined by dramatic logic).


----------



## niklinna (Jun 10, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> What's that logic?
> 
> See, when people deploy the term "dramatic logic" they mean that you will arrive at the outcome by considering the story needs.  It's a tool for resolution -- how do thing resolve?  They resolve according to the logic of this set of precepts.
> 
> By abandoning that and trying to force dramatic logic into the framing, you're creating a different use of the term, but then once you get it in place, you revert to trying to argue the original meaning.  It's also terribly flawed because I don't need to engage in any kind of logical resolution to frame a scene using the thing the player told me they want play to be about.  There's not an internal logic, here.  There's no flow from internal cause to effect.  If the character has the Instinct of Hope, then putting them in a situation where hope is being challenges isn't following some cause to effect logical path defined by dramatic concerns -- there's no logic here at all.  You just do the thing, then play to see what happens (which is also not determined by dramatic logic).



Well there goes the reply I was drafting. I was going to come at it differently, but this pretty well covers it.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 10, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I'm not really talking about any specific tropes. But the GM is answering to questions of what to frame based on dramatic logic. They don't answer it based on what would make sense or what would be a level appropriate challenge (these are different types of internal logic,) they're answering it based on what would work with the dramatic needs of the character. But this too is a type of internal logic.



Well, so, in the case of say a High Concept Simulation, the internal logic is coming from some attribute of the world, it is INTERNAL to the game world, but not internal to the character. Professor X is not attacked by Silver Surfer because he wants something, he's attacked by Silver Surfer because <genre trope here>. Nor is this generally arranged by the player (it could be, but it isn't necessary). Likewise gamist concerns arise outside of the game world entirely. Narrativist ones however arise directly out of attributes of the character itself! I'd also say that, to the extent that some other conceit is instead leveraged, like say the knightly concept of honor in Prince Valiant, that this is likely to shade the game in the direction of HCS, but at the same time if its expression is internal to the PC and scenes are framed against it (IE you are tempted to do things that a knight of honor wouldn't do) it still possesses the attributes of Narrative play. That's how I see it. So, sure there's LOGIC of some sort that drives all play, that logic is just another name for "there's an agenda." but the question is how they differ, not how they are the same.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 10, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> If the character has the Instinct of Hope, then putting them in a situation where hope is being challenges isn't following some cause to effect logical path defined by dramatic concerns



YES IT IS! You literally just outlined the cause and effect and of course it based on dramatic concerns! "What kind of situation will challenge hope" is a dramatic concern! 

And of course the dramatic concerns affect the resolution too, as the GM is supposed to take those into account when introducing complications.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 10, 2022)

When I think of games that operate under genre logic I think about Classic Deadlands, Exalted Third Edition, Vampire The Masquerade 5th Edition, FFG Star Wars, Monster of the Week, Conan 2d20, etc. Games that reinforce genre appropriate outcomes by skewing their systems to those sorts of results and have reward systems that encourage players to act in genre appropriate ways and predefined character concept.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 10, 2022)

Building on @AbdulAlhazred's post just upthread, Edwards says the following:

In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters. The GM and players buy into this framework in order to play at all.

The point is that one can care about and enjoy complex issues, changing protagonists, and themes in both sorts of play, Narrativism and Simulationism. The difference lies in the point and contributions of literal instances of play; its operation and social feedback. . . .

Therefore, when you-as-player get proactive about an emotional thematic issue, poof, you're out of Sim. Whereas enjoying the in-game system activity of a thematic issue is perfectly do-able in Sim, without that proactivity being necessary.​
This is why Pendragon is good for simulationist play - the thematic stuff is all built into the virtue and passion stats and associated mechanics - whereas Prince Valiant is good for (rather  light-hearted) narrativist play - many of the situations are the same as they would be in Pendragon, but it is the players who have to "get proactive" and decide whether they want their PCs to be Galahad types or cowardly varlets or something else. And the system won't judge those choices - only the other players will!

This also relates to something I quoted from Edwards upthread (or in one of the parallel threads):

The design decisions I've made with my current project are so not-RPG, but at the same time so dismissive of what's ordinarily called "consensual storytelling," that I cannot even begin to discuss it on-line. I can see the influences of Universalis, The Mountain Witch, and My Life with Master, but I cannot articulate the way that I have abandoned the player-character, yet preserved the moral responsibility of decision-making during play.​
That idea of "moral responsibility of decision-making" is the other side of the coin of "getting proactive". There's no scope to say "the system made me do it" or "my alignment made me do it" or "I was just playing my belief".

And we can make the point concrete by contrasting Burning Wheel with Fate:

* In Fate, you earn Fate Points for accepting a compel (ie go along with a proposed complication that reflects your character's aspect(s)), or for having an aspect that is attached to your character invoked against you (ie someone complicates your PC's life by reference to something that pertains to your PC).

* In Burning Wheel, you earn a Fate point for manifesting a Belief in play, you earn a Persona point (a bigger fate point) for closing off a Belief in play, you earn a Persona point for Embodiment (defined as roleplay that captures the mood of the table and drives play forward), and you earn a Persona point for Mouldbreaker (defined as vivid roleplaying the making of a decision where the imperative of the situation conflicts with a Belief).​
The logic of Fate is to drive play towards reinforcement of the character. The system makes that happen. The player is responsible for their PC build, but the system tells them what decisions are reasonable ones, once the play gets going.

Whereas Burning Wheel puts the need to choose squarely in front of the player. You can't just say "I was playing my Belief" - why didn't you shoot for Mouldbreaker? That's what makes it narrativist and not sim.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 10, 2022)

@pemerton like the last time you brought this up, this doesn't make any sense to me, and I don't understand why morality would have anything to do with simulationism. The association seems truly bizarre.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 10, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> 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.)




This distinction could be heavily ascribed to the fact almost all the GDS simulation proponents were of a particular stripe of immersionist playstyle; they absolutely did not want to do anything that was not an in-character decision unless it could be pushed down to a pretty much reflexive state (so that most strongly representative mechanics were just an expression of all that immersive decision making.

This is why, for such people, strongly genre-convention games were a nonstarter, in the way the dramatists and gamists (or even less strong simulationists that, say, weren't so attached to immersion); there was no possible way to engage with them without being aware of the genre tropes, and that meant one of two things: either everyone else was too (at which point the whole complexion of the setting changes; as noted it moves villains intrinsically into tragic figures because they can never win but are compelled to try anyway, and that's just the tip of the iceberg) or only their PC is aware of it, at which point they are pushed into being, by the standards of the setting, insane.  The way they wanted to play and that sort of genre (and there are others) _simply wouldn't work_.

The fact its also a pretty brightline distinction even for people more willing to, say, play from authorial stance is to some degree a happy coincidence.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 10, 2022)

niklinna said:


> 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.




One of the things that came up a while back is D&D in particular struggles with the fact that from the start its wanted to have its cake and eat it too about what its combat process represents.  That leads to the eternal grind about what hit points actually do and don't represent, where if it had been set up so they were clearly an unequivocally  a narrative conceit from get-go it'd at least be a nonissue (it likely would have, and still would be, unsatisfying to to a fair number of people but it at least would have had some clarity).


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 10, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 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.




I'm going to strongly disagree thatn Champions does not have a pretty noticable Gamist agenda, and though I don't think it consciously realizes it, so to a lesser degree does Vampire.  Champions also has an overlay of dramatic/narrative and genre emulation on it, but if its recieved criticism its very much because of its gamist and simulationist (in the GDS sense) elements.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 10, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 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).




I don't think I'd have trouble making the distinction (I was around during the second half of its development), but you're probably right about the latter.  Among other things someone would likely come out and play they "realism/versimilitude is just another genre" card and my eyes would roll so hard you'd be able to hear the sonic boom from wherever you live.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 10, 2022)

Campbell said:


> @Malmuria
> 
> I fundamentally disagree that a game like Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World is fundamentally less focused than adventure games like D&D 5e or Conan 2d20. You have to basically ignore the entirety of the game's text and deal with counterproductive procedures to get anything close to the same sort of play. The same could be said for the opposite direction by the way.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure I agree with you about your general point here, but more about this part: is a specialized tool less valuable and more only for weird people than a generalized one?  Though I'm a big fan of generic systems (because its not uncommon for me to want to run campaigns there's no specialized system suitable for the job), I don't consider a specialized system inferior to the generic one; to the contrary, if you're using it for its intended purpose I'll absolutely agree that its usually superior, leaving aside any learning curve and acceptability issues, which are mostly social in nature.

Basically, whild I might use Fantasy Hero or Sabre Fantasy for a given fantasy game that doesn't match up, most likely if I want to run a game in Middle Earth I'm probably going to use The One Ring.



Campbell said:


> Also the idea that like you can have the same sort of play experience without the technique and discipline I know is required to get you there is the biggest fundamental issue I have with that particular notion.




This I tend to agree with.  As I've come to understand PbtA games, I think I'm much clearer on what sort of effect they're trying for.  If I was genuinely trying for that, I'd largely avoid moving outside how they expect to be played (though I'll note @EzekielRaiden seems to have had some success doing so for his purposes, but that may be a "closest available tool" issue).

It just happens to be that for the most part what PbtA games are aiming for is not something I or (more importantly) most of my players happen to want.  In fact in some areas its diametrically opposite of what they want.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 10, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> @pemerton like the last time you brought this up, this doesn't make any sense to me, and I don't understand why morality would have anything to do with simulationism. The association seems truly bizarre.




If it helps replace simulationism with _play that reinforces character concept, genre and narratives tropes_. Pendragon is the quintessential example of what we would call High Concept Simulation. Its focus is feeling like an Arthurian tale. It's passions are there to ensure play resembles Arthurian drama.

A good example of the difference between Story Now play and _play that reinforces character concept, genre and narratives tropes _is Burning Wheel and Exalted Third Edition. Both make the characters central play, but where Burning Wheel questions those beliefs Exalted wants the player to have their character hold to those beliefs in order to play out something that's a mix of wuxia and Greek Tragedy. You get rewarded for staying true to your beliefs and punished for straying from them in Exalted. Burning Wheel just wants you to engage with them.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 10, 2022)

Campbell said:


> If it helps replace simulationism with _play that reinforces character concept, genre and narratives tropes_. Pendragon is the quintessential example of what we would call High Concept Simulation. Its focus is feeling like an Arthurian tale. It's passions are there to ensure play resembles Arthurian drama.
> 
> A good example of the difference between Story Now play and _play that reinforces character concept, genre and narratives tropes _is Burning Wheel and Exalted Third Edition. Both make the characters central play, but where Burning Wheel questions those beliefs Exalted wants the player to have their character hold to those beliefs in order to play out something that's a mix of wuxia and Greek Tragedy. You get rewarded for staying true to your beliefs and punished for straying from them in Exalted. Burning Wheel just wants you to engage with them.



Ah, I see, I get that. It just that such personality mechanics are pretty rare, and I wouldn't in any way see them as an essential simulationistic element. 
I generally greatly dislike mechanics that dictate how characters should behave.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 10, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I always took it that GNS 'Sim' is about systems in which the environment is a source of constraints. Whether in Process Sim where the game may attempt to use mechanical and game design features to impose realistic real-world (or alternate world) constraints, or in terms of High Concept Sim where the game may attempt to impose or prioritize specific concepts and focus play around them. There ARE important differences, but each of the 'S' sub-agendas does share certain key traits. Playing in a way that focuses on those agendas tends to have key similarities for this reason. Again, I'd appeal more to @pemerton here, as he seems to have all the relevant citations near to hand.




I think I understand the commonalities being claimed; I'll just again suggest that these commonalities range from trivial to irrelevant to people focused on "process sim", and often may not be much more so to people who really don't care about that but _do_ care about genre emulation.

Essentially, cats and dogs have a lot of common traits including being mammalian predators, but that doesn't mean their similarities are particularly relevant to people who have a preference in one direction or another.  So you have to ask what purpose your classification of them is actually serving.

That's been my argument; the narrowness of Nar's classification means it served some actual purpose.  Its not clear to me that GNS sim's classification really does.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sure, and GNS also separates these things, while recognizing that they do share the trait of imposing constraints. While they may do so for fairly different ends, the means are functionally similar and lead to similarities in play, as well as (probably more importantly from Ron's perspective) similarities in game design.




I just don't really agree that they do.  Again, genre constraints are a fundamentally story based concern; they're designed to produce a particular look and feel and enable particular kinds of stories.  GDS sim actively rejects story as a reason to structure things in such a way.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I mean, GNS actually REALLY WELL describes 3e D&D! And for exactly the reason that its various agendas all seem to fall within 'S' primarily.




Its not the things a model successfully describes that is the sign of its value; its the number of ones it fails.  It somewhat describes D&D because the latter tries to be all things to all people.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> The way some people see it as a purist-for-system process sim,




I'd tend to describe that in terms that are not particularly charitable, to tell the truth.  I don't think its really defensible once you get into its guts at all.  I think the confusion about what D&D is doing is largely a consequence of it having been used as the all-purpose fantasy tool for so long people don't even recognize the possibility they're hammering nails with the wrench sometimes because they're so used to doing it.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'm not entirely sure how, for example, GDS approaches explaining that. I'm not saying it can't, but TBH it doesn't seem to really go there at all AFAICT.




See above.  I mean, honestly, to use a particularly well known example that originally set of GNS development, there were people who were certain Vampire was a narrative game, and banged away at those nails for all they were worth.  As best I can tell,  D&D for a long time (I won't speak particularly of 5e, though not much I've heard counters this) is a largely gamist structure overlayed on a genre focused target (with the note that its largely become its own subgenre), with some dollops of dramatist and simulationist fragments here and there.  But most of the latter is vestigial, and most of the former is being done on levels that the game only passingly helps you with.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 10, 2022)

@Thomas Shey 

I think the distinctions we raise are only banal to those who take exploratory as a given. As defining what it means to play a roleplaying game.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 10, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> But again, when the world is NOT REAL, they are ALL just constraints that are built from conceits!




I'm just going to say that if you don't see the difference between things that have an acknowledge in-world existence and those that don't we're not going to have a useful conversation about this.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 10, 2022)

Campbell said:


> When I think of games that operate under genre logic I think about Classic Deadlands, Exalted Third Edition, Vampire The Masquerade 5th Edition, FFG Star Wars, Monster of the Week, Conan 2d20, etc. Games that reinforce genre appropriate outcomes by skewing their systems to those sorts of results and have reward systems that encourage players to act in genre appropriate ways and predefined character concept.





I don't really disagree, but I think in some cases its baked in a lot harder than that.  It doesn't just skew the results, it virtually forces it (because some results outside the genre just won't occur unless someone very proactively chases them.  There are superhero games where you outright won't kill someone by accident within the mechanics; there's just no process that will make it happen).


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 10, 2022)

Campbell said:


> @Thomas Shey
> 
> I think the distinctions we raise are only banal to those who take exploratory as a given. As defining what it means to play a roleplaying game.




That might have been true of the GDS Simulationists, but it very much was far from universal with the GDS Dramatists (with only three samples, its hard to judge with their Gamists--it wasn't at least entirely true with me but I'd not care to characterize Gleichman or Szonze).


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 10, 2022)

Hey, @Snarf Zagyg , you finished _Elusive Shift_, right?

Would it be too out of line to say that Steven R. Lortz’s Cannibals & Castaways (1978) is similar to PbtA games in that it’s focused on drama, only has mechanics for dramatically important situations/moves, ignores everything not directly related to the drama of the core premise, and the rest is free role-play.

Because it sure reads like it’s a PbtA game…with slightly different phrasing. What’s the Forge jargon for PbtA games? And isn’t it wild that one very likely was written back in 1978.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 10, 2022)

Powered by the Apocalypse is much more of a design language than a standardized system or type of play. There are a number of games that are Powered by the Apocalypse I consider fairly traditional including The Sprawl, Monster of the Week and Freebooters on the Frontier (which is my second favorite D&D-like). Others like Apocalypse Keys or Bridlewood Bay kind of ride the line transitioning between Story Now and more traditional play.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 10, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Hey, @Snarf Zagyg , you finished _Elusive Shift_, right?
> 
> Would it be too out of line to say that Steven R. Lortz’s Cannibals & Castaways (1978) is similar to PbtA games in that it’s focused on drama, only has mechanics for dramatically important situations/moves, ignores everything not directly related to the drama of the core premise, and the rest is free role-play.
> 
> Because it sure reads like it’s a PbtA game…with slightly different phrasing. What’s the Forge jargon for PbtA games? And isn’t it wild that one very likely was written back in 1978.



It appears very difficult to find a copy of Different Worlds issue 1, where this mini-RPG came from.  I did find issue 2 of Different Worlds, though, where Lortz discussion what he means by dramatic focus in RPGs.  I was hopeful there was something I was unaware of, because he was using language in a way that the Forge used it much later, but that article makes it very clear that he's talking to a pretty traditional RPG structure, just using "dramatic structure" and "dramatic action" to refer to things like rolled random encounters while a part is resting.  I'd still like to review the original text of Cannibals and Castaways, but given the follow-up discussion the next issue, it doesn't look at all like he was talking to the same things as what Apocalypse World is doing (or any other strong narrativist supporting RPG).

You can read that article in issue 2 of Different Worlds by Lortz here.

I am curious why you'd ask someone that hasn't shown any understanding of how games like Apocalypse World operate what they think, though.  Is it the strange appeal to authority -- he should know because he read the same book you did?  And that trumps people with many decades of combined experience playing and discussing these games?


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 10, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> 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(



Touchstones have a long history extending all the way back to Appendix N in a bespoke pen 'n' paper fantasy adventure tabletop game called D&D. Nowadays, a lot of designers will move their own Appendix N/Touchstones towards the beginning of the book as a means to set tonal, thematic, and genre expectations and get readers excited.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 10, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Hey, @Snarf Zagyg , you finished _Elusive Shift_, right?
> 
> Would it be too out of line to say that Steven R. Lortz’s Cannibals & Castaways (1978) is similar to PbtA games in that it’s focused on drama, only has mechanics for dramatically important situations/moves, ignores everything not directly related to the drama of the core premise, and the rest is free role-play.
> 
> Because it sure reads like it’s a PbtA game…with slightly different phrasing. What’s the Forge jargon for PbtA games? And isn’t it wild that one very likely was written back in 1978.



I've frequently posted that the earliest game I'm aware of that has anything like a PbtA structure - player side moves triggered on the basis "if you do it, you do it" that then establish the constraints on GM narration - is Classic Traveller (1977). But it's not, and obviously not, full-blooded PbtA: to begin with, the account of the referee role is not entirely consistent with the PbtA structure; and it has some resolution mechanics that are not "moves" in the relevant sense (the main ones, which I've often complained about, being those for onworld exploration).


----------



## pemerton (Jun 10, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> I am curious why you'd ask someone that hasn't shown any understanding of how games like Apocalypse World operate what they think, though.  Is it the strange appeal to authority -- he should know because he read the same book you did?  And that trumps people with many decades of combined experience playing and discussing these games?



Didn't you get the memo? @AbdulAlhazred is only anecdote until an interview with him is published by an academic press, at which point he becomes a data-point!

(To be clear: there are methodological techniques in the social sciences that can handle the criticism implicit in my remark; and the relationship between the knowledge of the research subject, and the knowledge created by the researcher, is something that has been much explored from a variety of methodological and political angles. I don't think the dismissal of AbdulAlhazred in this thread is consistent with those approaches, though.)


----------



## FrogReaver (Jun 10, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Didn't you get the memo? @AbdulAlhazred is only anecdote until an interview with him is published by an academic press, at which point he becomes a data-point!
> 
> (To be clear: there are methodological techniques in the social sciences that can handle the criticism implicit in my remark; and the relationship between the knowledge of the research subject, and the knowledge created by the researcher, is something that has been much explored from a variety of methodological and political angles. I don't think the dismissal of AbdulAlhazred in this thread is consistent with those approaches, though.)



Maybe I have someone ignored but where is this dismissal you are speaking of?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jun 10, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Hey, @Snarf Zagyg , you finished _Elusive Shift_, right?
> 
> Would it be too out of line to say that Steven R. Lortz’s Cannibals & Castaways (1978) is similar to PbtA games in that it’s focused on drama, only has mechanics for dramatically important situations/moves, ignores everything not directly related to the drama of the core premise, and the rest is free role-play.
> 
> Because it sure reads like it’s a PbtA game…with slightly different phrasing. What’s the Forge jargon for PbtA games? And isn’t it wild that one very likely was written back in 1978.




Well, I'd love to say yes ... but not really. While Stephen Lortz can often sound like a proto-Vincent Baker, including breaking down how games work (and what they are) for design purposes- as well as providing "actual play" transcripts of his mini-games, there is still a difference in his conception.

Cannibals & Castaways, for example, attempts to put the fiction first (not "F"iction "F"irst) by creating a closed system wherein the rules are opaque and unknown to the players, simple, but predetermined. The referee, on the other hand, has no discretion in terms of the rules.

It's a fascinating game, but at a basic level keeping the (simple) rule set away from the players ... even though the referee has no discretion ... would differentiate it from a PbtA game, IMO.

That said, when you read some of what he wrote, you are reminded that history may not repeat, but it often rhymes.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 10, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> That said, when you read some of what he wrote, you are reminded that history may not repeat, but it often rhymes.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 10, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> YES IT IS! You literally just outlined the cause and effect and of course it based on dramatic concerns! "What kind of situation will challenge hope" is a dramatic concern!
> 
> And of course the dramatic concerns affect the resolution too, as the GM is supposed to take those into account when introducing complications.



I think the issue here is we all just have very different things in mind when we use the word 'drama'. One of its senses is to label any fiction relating to characters and events which is neither tragedy nor comedy. More narrowly a story who's subject matter is serious and intense, and generally involves conflict. You seem to focus on the 'serious and intense conflict' element, which is (in a general sense) something that is likely to emerge from Narrativist play. OTOH there's a great question as to whether anything which is comprehensible as a STORY (IE has a recognizable plot and cast of characters) will necessarily arise from such play. I think that is the sense in which some posters like @Manbearcat, @pemerton, @niklinna perhaps, and others have resisted using the label. Speaking for myself I'm not dead set against it, but I do think that calling it 'dramatic' play is not always going to be on the mark. The aim is not so much drama as it is 'play to see what happens'. That is, producing a satisfying narrative is not a priority, finding out where the situation goes and how the characters involved are affected and how they evolve is more the point. Dramatic literature/performance does OVERLAP there, but it is also MUCH more concerned with plot structure, pacing, etc. than an RPG is.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 10, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> This distinction could be heavily ascribed to the fact almost all the GDS simulation proponents were of a particular stripe of immersionist playstyle; they absolutely did not want to do anything that was not an in-character decision unless it could be pushed down to a pretty much reflexive state (so that most strongly representative mechanics were just an expression of all that immersive decision making.
> 
> This is why, for such people, strongly genre-convention games were a nonstarter, in the way the dramatists and gamists (or even less strong simulationists that, say, weren't so attached to immersion); there was no possible way to engage with them without being aware of the genre tropes, and that meant one of two things: either everyone else was too (at which point the whole complexion of the setting changes; as noted it moves villains intrinsically into tragic figures because they can never win but are compelled to try anyway, and that's just the tip of the iceberg) or only their PC is aware of it, at which point they are pushed into being, by the standards of the setting, insane.  The way they wanted to play and that sort of genre (and there are others) _simply wouldn't work_.
> 
> The fact its also a pretty brightline distinction even for people more willing to, say, play from authorial stance is to some degree a happy coincidence.



Right, and I think this is strongly related to my observation that one of the early themes in thinking about RPGs was that if you could just make your game a perfectly immersive simulation, such that the rules literally produced, sheerly by appeal to internal logic, the milieu appropriate outcomes, then magically this would be a sort of perfect RPG where everyone would be perfectly in character and all the action would 'make sense' and produce entirely genre-appropriate outcomes. It was, obviously, a pipedream, but a whole generation of RPG designers chased their tails for years on that quest. Obviously nobody thought they would actually reach 'RPG Nirvana', but much of the early tweaking on D&D, for instance, had this general character (IE if we can only make combat realistic, then other things will follow, so we have to 'fix hit points'). My guess is this was the early genesis of all the ICE 'Law' books which, around the end of this period, were grouped together as Rolemaster.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 10, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I'm going to strongly disagree thatn Champions does not have a pretty noticable Gamist agenda, and though I don't think it consciously realizes it, so to a lesser degree does Vampire.  Champions also has an overlay of dramatic/narrative and genre emulation on it, but if its recieved criticism its very much because of its gamist and simulationist (in the GDS sense) elements.



Mmmm, well, in some respects Champions can be moderately crunchy, though IIRC things like combat have a somewhat abstract aspect. I think it is one of those games which took GAME seriously enough to try to achieve a decent level of playability (unlike a lot of early '80s/late '70s RPGs). Still, it seems mostly focused on what I would label 'HCS concerns'. V:tM... Hmmmm, if it had any pretentions to be gamist in any sense, the sheer lack of quality of its rules (which the author claims is deliberate!) would seem to remove it from real consideration. Certainly any 'gamism' in that game is purely accidental! Those are my opinions on it. I think we just don't operate from generally similar definitions. 'Gamism' to me has to really be trying to create challenge and generally some reward/score kind of construct (though it may not be explicit in a lot of games).


----------



## Xetheral (Jun 10, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Speaking for myself I'm not dead set against it, but I do think that calling it 'dramatic' play is not always going to be on the mark. The aim is not so much drama as it is 'play to see what happens'. *That is, producing a satisfying narrative is not a priority, finding out where the situation goes and how the characters involved are affected and how they evolve is more the point.* Dramatic literature/performance does OVERLAP there, but it is also MUCH more concerned with plot structure, pacing, etc. than an RPG is.



(Emphasis added.) To clarify, by demphasizing the importance of producing a satisfying narrative, are you saying that you're ok if the outcome of play is an _unsatisfying_ narrative? Or are you saying that you're ok if the outcome of play isn't a narrative at all?

In either case, how do you see the label "narratativism" as applying to your style of play?


----------



## Campbell (Jun 10, 2022)

@Xetheral

Speaking personally when playing something like Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel I'm not looking for a satisfying narrative. I'm looking for a raw, visceral experience. One where we basically lay it all on the line creatively and see what comes out. I don't want polish. I want tension and emotion. It's an opportunity to experiment creatively. I don't want players making decisions for the story or to curate outcomes as a GM. I want us all to see where it all leads.

For a more polished experience I tend to look to games like Vampire, Deadlands or Legend of the Five Rings. When we play those games, we are looking for a polished satisfying narrative. We actively coordinate with each other to build something more cohesive and satisfying in the way that a long running TV show feels satisfying. We try to make sure characters are polished and vivid, that there is a good flow and intersecting play between characters. That characters feel true to established vibes. We still don't really engage in fudging or the like, but we do absolutely collaborate for the sack of the narrative.

For me these are different sorts of experiences. Each is vital to me.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 10, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I think I understand the commonalities being claimed; I'll just again suggest that these commonalities range from trivial to irrelevant to people focused on "process sim", and often may not be much more so to people who really don't care about that but _do_ care about genre emulation.



OTOH from my perspective pure 'process sim' simply doesn't exist. People have beaten their heads against that wall, but there's no such thing, you cannot meaningfully simulate a world, so it instantly breaks down and ceases to exist in all actual play. What people really end up at is either HCS, or purist-for-system. For instance, I have talked about the quixotic quest to make the 'perfect sim game' that would magically produce the RP experience people wanted. The problem is, the real world is not dramatic, and just adding, say, magic and dragons, doesn't change that. If it was, our actual lives would be dramatic stories, but they're not... So as soon as actual play happened, the GM or some other participant had to try to inject the drama or whatever it was that would make the story go. Either that was some sort of system that used not-in-world logic (or attempted to describe something that drove play AS an in-world element) OR it drew from some sort of conceit/concept and incorporated rules/process which would become the focus. This is all very handily described using a structure along the lines of GNS. It makes NO SENSE AT ALL, isn't even addressed in GDS terms. So we see that what you call 'process sim' actually devolves into 2 closely related patterns which GDS doesn't recognize the relatedness of.


Thomas Shey said:


> Essentially, cats and dogs have a lot of common traits including being mammalian predators, but that doesn't mean their similarities are particularly relevant to people who have a preference in one direction or another.  So you have to ask what purpose your classification of them is actually serving.



So, phylogenetic cladistics is useless. Huh, I'm sure that's news to many 1,000s of PhD level biologists and paleontologists, lol. Clearly there are all sorts of useful theses which can be drawn from the degree of relatedness of different organisms. I understand that you may not recognize the criteria for the ontology being used in GNS, for whatever reason. I'm perfectly willing to accept that GDS, as a different ontology, might also have value. I mean, in biology there are many ontologies as well (such as the division of animals into groups like fish, fowl, domestic, and game animals for instance) that use different criteria and can have different utilities.


Thomas Shey said:


> That's been my argument; the narrowness of Nar's classification means it served some actual purpose.  Its not clear to me that GNS sim's classification really does.



Sure, we will just have to differ on that.


Thomas Shey said:


> I just don't really agree that they do.  Again, genre constraints are a fundamentally story based concern; they're designed to produce a particular look and feel and enable particular kinds of stories.  GDS sim actively rejects story as a reason to structure things in such a way.



But the similarity still exists, lol. I have pointed them out, so I think it is better to just table the whole discussion.


Thomas Shey said:


> Its not the things a model successfully describes that is the sign of its value; its the number of ones it fails.  It somewhat describes D&D because the latter tries to be all things to all people.



It was merely an example. We can view what any RPG is doing in terms of agenda and analyze it. I'd be more interested in contrasting Forge-era GNS with more modern formulations (I don't think any of them label themselves as GNS).


Thomas Shey said:


> I'd tend to describe that in terms that are not particularly charitable, to tell the truth.  I don't think its really defensible once you get into its guts at all.  I think the confusion about what D&D is doing is largely a consequence of it having been used as the all-purpose fantasy tool for so long people don't even recognize the possibility they're hammering nails with the wrench sometimes because they're so used to doing it.



Well, as I said before, I don't even believe that the idea of 'process sim' is a viable concept. Nobody can accomplish it, so it doesn't actually exist in the real world as an actualized agenda. One way to view 3e is sort of as a result of competing philosophies which attempt to deal with that fact, though apparently without much deep understanding of the issue...


Thomas Shey said:


> See above.  I mean, honestly, to use a particularly well known example that originally set of GNS development, there were people who were certain Vampire was a narrative game, and banged away at those nails for all they were worth.  As best I can tell,  D&D for a long time (I won't speak particularly of 5e, though not much I've heard counters this) is a largely gamist structure overlayed on a genre focused target (with the note that its largely become its own subgenre), with some dollops of dramatist and simulationist fragments here and there.  But most of the latter is vestigial, and most of the former is being done on levels that the game only passingly helps you with.



See, from my perspective there's very little left in D&D that is gamist. I mean, its a game, and it certainly has some general success and failure criteria (and still contains the original leveling concept, which is fundamentally gamist). So, OK, there's a part of it that is kind of a gamist core, but I think the game is almost pure HCS in that it has effectively become a game ABOUT the D&D subgenre of fantasy. So, maybe we actually are pretty close to agreeing on 5e 

I don't have a strong view on V:tM. It too seems to me to be pretty much HCS. It has mechanics which make your character "play like a vampire" and its purpose seems to be to provide a game where the action and concerns of the PCs are centered on vampire tropes, largely drawn from the Ann Rice vampire milieu, with some elaborations and adding in some elements from late '80s Urban Fantasy. In GNS terms it isn't really Narrativist at all, though I suspect there were people who spun it more in that direction, perhaps. I don't have a really good understanding of the details of the RP mechanics though, so I'm not sure exactly all of what you could do there.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 10, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Hey, @Snarf Zagyg , you finished _Elusive Shift_, right?
> 
> Would it be too out of line to say that Steven R. Lortz’s Cannibals & Castaways (1978) is similar to PbtA games in that it’s focused on drama, only has mechanics for dramatically important situations/moves, ignores everything not directly related to the drama of the core premise, and the rest is free role-play.
> 
> Because it sure reads like it’s a PbtA game…with slightly different phrasing. What’s the Forge jargon for PbtA games? And isn’t it wild that one very likely was written back in 1978.



Hard to say, as issue #1 is one of the ones not available on the Internet Archive, and Different Worlds Publications web site is no longer functioning. As I remember it is a pretty abstract kind of game. Without going back over the text I'd be hard pressed to express an opinion about it. I would note that there definitely are various places where early games give just a glimpse of the idea of things like this. It just didn't enter into common parlance until the mid-90s, generally speaking. Toon, for instance, is a game which basically entirely eschews any sort of reference to realism at all, as well as any kind of gamist elements (you cannot die, there's no meaningful 'stuff' your character can accumulate, no notion of experience, etc.), and it introduces '4th wall breaking' mechanics, all in the early 1980s. It was a fairly successful game too.


----------



## Xetheral (Jun 10, 2022)

Campbell said:


> @Xetheral
> 
> Speaking personally when playing something like Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel I'm not looking for a satisfying narrative. I'm looking for a raw, visceral experience. One where we basically lay it all on the line creatively and see what comes out. I don't want polish. I want tension and emotion. It's an opportunity to experiment creatively. I don't want players making decisions for the story or to curate outcomes as a GM. I want us all to see where it all leads.
> 
> ...



Thanks for explaining! In the various discussions of PbtA and BW, I've noticed the emphasis posters have placed on raw, visceral experience. (That wasn't part of my PbtA play, but I suspect my MC wasn't using the system fully in line with the design intent.) However, I'd previously understood that desire as interest in creating a narrative that was raw and visceral, and that a system that produces narratives of that sort was the design goal. Indeed, that emphasis on creating that particular type of narrative was where I understood the term "narrativism" to came from.

So I appreciate you explaining that in your experience the desire for raw, visceral experience is divorced from any desire for a satisfying narrative. That helps me learn more of the nuance! In your experience does the demphasis on satisfying narratives mean the term "narrativism" itself is misleading, or is there another way that you see the label "narrativism" as applying to PbtA and BW (and/or to the the goals of players of those systems)?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 10, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> It appears very difficult to find a copy of Different Worlds issue 1, where this mini-RPG came from.  I did find issue 2 of Different Worlds, though, where Lortz discussion what he means by dramatic focus in RPGs.  I was hopeful there was something I was unaware of, because he was using language in a way that the Forge used it much later, but that article makes it very clear that he's talking to a pretty traditional RPG structure, just using "dramatic structure" and "dramatic action" to refer to things like rolled random encounters while a part is resting.  I'd still like to review the original text of Cannibals and Castaways, but given the follow-up discussion the next issue, it doesn't look at all like he was talking to the same things as what Apocalypse World is doing (or any other strong narrativist supporting RPG).
> 
> You can read that article in issue 2 of Different Worlds by Lortz here.



Interesting. I don't see anything there which would indicate Steve was thinking in any way beyond stock classic D&D. His definitions are based entirely on a very stock D&D dungeon crawl example, and there's no mention of anything like the possibility of building scenes to address character concerns, or in terms of the kind of snowballing and playing to find out what happens that characterize a more modern notion of Narrativist play. His mental model assumes a group of plunderers who's concerns are political power, riches, and survival. While it certainly doesn't preclude the existence of motives and needs beyond what he defines, I can't say that he's got a notion that this could be a part of, or actual focus of, the RPG. Likewise the nature of the fiction and its relation to the different participants is extremely classic Gygaxian D&D based, with no hint that other arrangements might be possible. 

I don't know how this discussion relates to the Cannibals & Castaways example mini-RPG presented in issue #1, but given that he calls this out as a follow up discussion to the issues raised in that previous article it is hard to understand why he would revert to such a classic structure as an example if he'd just invented Narrativist play! I mean, nothing in the issue #2 article is ANTITHETICAL to potential Narrativist play, it just doesn't hint at any awareness of the possibility at all, beyond the simple observation that the character's dramatic needs can be viewed as motive and a driver of play. Had he just considered the possibility of individualistic needs and the rise of resulting conflicts as a potential focus of play he'd have taken a BIG step, but it seems from just this text that he didn't make that leap.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 10, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Didn't you get the memo? @AbdulAlhazred is only anecdote until an interview with him is published by an academic press, at which point he becomes a data-point!
> 
> (To be clear: there are methodological techniques in the social sciences that can handle the criticism implicit in my remark; and the relationship between the knowledge of the research subject, and the knowledge created by the researcher, is something that has been much explored from a variety of methodological and political angles. I don't think the dismissal of AbdulAlhazred in this thread is consistent with those approaches, though.)



Right, I am not really trying to assert an authority that is beyond what is reasonable. In fact, not much at all. I'm simply observing that I, and thus by extension MANY other people who post here, probably possess quite extensive real-world experience with RPGs, including their design, aspects of RPG culture and related culture, etc. My guess is that if the cited experts the OP references were here, we could give them a pretty thorough examination in our own terms. I think they are probably going to prove to be quite knowledgeable, but not unassailable, and probably not even particularly insightful on some points. 

There's a sense, particularly, in which I think that discussions of the analysis of RPGs in terms of their fine structure and how they actually work in specific instances of play, how the processes, system, participants, etc. interact in that detailed act of playing out the game, is only really addressed by a very few. I don't think this is really the thrust of, for instance, Peterson, at all, nor of Torner. I don't even think it is the primary thrust of some attempts at analysis like GDS. But when I read Baker talking about clouds and arrows and the actual unvarnished going down to brass tacks of "what is happening here" I see a level where none of these others I mentioned here have gone. There's a fundamentally different character to it, and only a limited number of other people seem to have thoroughly thought things out at that level, in which list I include Edwards. I take MY experience through the lens of what these people are saying, and I see that detailed level of what is happening and how and why laid bare.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 10, 2022)

Xetheral said:


> (Emphasis added.) To clarify, by demphasizing the importance of producing a satisfying narrative, are you saying that you're ok if the outcome of play is an _unsatisfying_ narrative? Or are you saying that you're ok if the outcome of play isn't a narrative at all?
> 
> In either case, how do you see the label "narratativism" as applying to your style of play?



Hmmmm, personally I think the agenda is mostly concerned with something close to 'play to find out what happens'. The results may well not be a very satisfying narrative. They may have some dramatic character but if written as a story would represent horrible pacing, presentation, and quite possibly fairly inconsistent characterization, amongst other possible flaws (it might also come across as completely illogical and break suspension of disbelief for example). None of these things is necessarily a deal breaker in RPG terms though. As for '[not] a narrative at all', I don't think that is generally possible, though I guess you could probably invent an RPG that could produce something completely incoherent. I am not sure how you would play it...

As for how 'narrativism' fits as a label? I'm not entirely sure it does. I think the focus is generally on Character. Really it might be more useful to use labels that are derived from what the focus is, like Character Focused, Plot Focused, Environment Focused, etc. but honestly I am probably not the one to try to parse all that out. The existing labels at least have the virtue of already being established... lol.


----------



## soviet (Jun 10, 2022)

I have a vague sense that this is why some TV shows fail. I like it when I am surprised, when the rules or my expectations are subverted (including unexpected character deaths). But once you get to the final season or so, Dramatic Expectations take over, and suddenly the surviving main characters are now invulnerable and wild coincidences happen to put them in the 'right place' so that the 'poetic thing' happens. Good narr play for me is about _not_ doing that, instead it's about loading up the stakes so that every outcome is exciting and just letting the chips fall where they may (even at a risk that some threads don't quite fire, or end in damp squibs, etc).


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 10, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, and I think this is strongly related to my observation that one of the early themes in thinking about RPGs was that if you could just make your game a perfectly immersive simulation, such that the rules literally produced, sheerly by appeal to internal logic, the milieu appropriate outcomes, then magically this would be a sort of perfect RPG where everyone would be perfectly in character and all the action would 'make sense' and produce entirely genre-appropriate outcomes. It was, obviously, a pipedream, but a whole generation of RPG designers chased their tails for years on that quest. Obviously nobody thought they would actually reach 'RPG Nirvana', but much of the early tweaking on D&D, for instance, had this general character (IE if we can only make combat realistic, then other things will follow, so we have to 'fix hit points'). My guess is this was the early genesis of all the ICE 'Law' books which, around the end of this period, were grouped together as Rolemaster.




Well, like I said, GDS was kind of a conversation between people who might have viewed it that way and people who very much wouldn't (among other things, the latter recognized that the sort of stylization I talk about with superhero games was a thing, and that you couldn't approach it just from in-setting logic and have it work properly, because parts of it didn't run on in-setting logic).  If nothing else, the GDS managed to convey across that divide that it _was_ a divide, and acting like it wasn't was doing no one any favors.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 10, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Mmmm, well, in some respects Champions can be moderately crunchy, though IIRC things like combat have a somewhat abstract aspect.




To a degree, but it still makes a pretty strong effort to have a heavy game engagement in parts of the game, especially combat; you don't see games that don't care about the game aspect doing things like the "Move By", the Hero System Block, and other related mechanics; these are not just the gestures toward being significant for game play some similar ones are in other games; they have some actual teeth.

(Noteably, I have never found another game system that felt so satisfactory to play a martial artist in, because you have such a degree of engagement and decision making).



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think it is one of those games which took GAME seriously enough to try to achieve a decent level of playability (unlike a lot of early '80s/late '70s RPGs). Still, it seems mostly focused on what I would label 'HCS concerns'.




I'll give you an example of something that tips the system's hand in how much it cares about game.  Hero System movement is very much set up to largely force staying on a battleboard.  Even supers with very high strategic speeds have acquired them with methods that don't mean those speeds matter (at least to anywhere near the degree) tactically.  If you look at other popular superhero RPGs, its almost unique in that (though at one time M&M had it, that disappeared by 2e, and the only other one I know that does something like it is BASH UE).  Its very much in many ways counter-genre (though it does serve to prevent certain degenerate counter-genre results too, but on the whole it stands out how much unlike the genre it looks in this area).

There are other examples; its notably visible how hard it was until the current edition to be _really_ immune to handgun fire.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> V:tM... Hmmmm, if it had any pretentions to be gamist in any sense, the sheer lack of quality of its rules (which the author claims is deliberate!) would seem to remove it from real consideration. Certainly any 'gamism' in that game is purely accidental! Those are my opinions on it. I think we just don't operate from generally similar definitions. 'Gamism' to me has to really be trying to create challenge and generally some reward/score kind of construct (though it may not be explicit in a lot of games).




I think, again, it was very gamist in some areas of focus, but largely out of habitualization.  It was just incompetent about it.  Again, there's too many things in, say, the combat system that want you to engage with it on a very detailed and specific level to be otherwise.  This was the game system that _was_ adapted for the Street Fighter game at one point after all.


----------



## Xetheral (Jun 10, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> There's a sense, particularly, in which I think that discussions of the analysis of RPGs in terms of their fine structure and how they actually work in specific instances of play, how the processes, system, participants, etc. interact in that detailed act of playing out the game, is only really addressed by a very few.



I suspect you may be right that few have gone into the "fine structure", but I think that's mostly because different types of analysis (and different styles of play!) hinge on differing levels of generality.

The fine structure analysis by Edwards, et al., definitely led to novel structures of play, and that fine structure analysis is crucial to explaining how those novel structures differ from previous structures. So it makes sense that those whose gaming preferences include those novel structures are heavily focused on the fine structure analysis that defines them.

But for those whose gaming preferences do _not_ include those novel structures, it makes sense to me that they would focus their analysis at a higher level of generality. After all, if the games they're interested in all have similar fine structure, fine structure analysis isn't going to have anything meaningful to say about the differences between them (or the differences in preferences of the people who play them). I think that's why fans of what GNS labels as simulationism (SIM) tend to perceive the GNS view of SIM as overly reductionist: by working at GNS' low level of generality, the fine structure analysis elides the diversity found within SIM at higher levels of generality. Conversely, I think that's why fans of what GNS labels as narrativism (NAR) perceive analytical frameworks that don't take into account the fine structure differences between NAR and SIM as necessarily incomplete.

And of course, when it comes to conceptual structures, no level of generality is privileged over any other. (As a trivial example we could go to an even lower level of generality than GNS which would elide _all_ of the diversity in RPGs found at higher levels, which I think everyone would agree would be unhelpfully reductionist.) Both those whose gaming preferences are most usefully unpacked at a lower level of generality and those who preferences are most usefully unpacked at a higher level of generality have perfectly good reasons for focusing on the level of analysis that is most useful to them personally. (But thanks to some of the less flattering aspects of human nature, it's not surprising that people vociferously defend the utility of the level of analysis that is most useful for them personally. At this point I think it's fair to say that both camps feel attacked by the other.)

Returning to the original point, if I'm right that GNS as an analytical approach is most useful specifically to those whose gaming preferences include the types of games that GNS enabled, then I think it makes sense that academic treatments of the hobby as a whole tend to focus their analysis at a higher level of generality than GNS. Preference among types of games aren't evenly distributed, after all. That could mean that the academics in question aren't as familiar with the fine structure analysis of GNS as its proponents are, or it could mean that they frame their analysis to appeal to the largest possible audience. Either way, I think the comparative absence of academic treatment of GNS's fine structure analysis is understandable (regardless of whether or not it is justifiable) as a reflection of the distribution of interests of the RPG player base at large.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 10, 2022)

Xetheral said:


> Thanks for explaining! In the various discussions of PbtA and BW, I've noticed the emphasis posters have placed on raw, visceral experience. (That wasn't part of my PbtA play, but I suspect my MC wasn't using the system fully in line with the design intent.) However, I'd previously understood that desire as interest in creating a narrative that was raw and visceral, and that a system that produces narratives of that sort was the design goal. Indeed, that emphasis on creating that particular type of narrative was where I understood the term "narrativism" to came from.
> 
> So I appreciate you explaining that in your experience the desire for raw, visceral experience is divorced from any desire for a satisfying narrative. That helps me learn more of the nuance! In your experience does the demphasis on satisfying narratives mean the term "narrativism" itself is misleading, or is there another way that you see the label "narrativism" as applying to PbtA and BW (and/or to the the goals of players of those systems)?




I'm not particularly wedded to the exact terminology. I tend to prefer the epitaphs (Step On Up, Right To Dream, Story Now) to the isms because with the isms people often try to assign whatever meaning feels right to them whereas the epitaphs are clearly terms of art. I also would change out Story Now for Visceral Protagonism if I could. With that change I feel those phrases are pretty descriptive.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> I did find issue 2 of Different Worlds, though, where Lortz discussion what he means by dramatic focus in RPGs.  I was hopeful there was something I was unaware of, because he was using language in a way that the Forge used it much later, but that article makes it very clear that he's talking to a pretty traditional RPG structure, just using "dramatic structure" and "dramatic action" to refer to things like rolled random encounters while a part is resting.



I think this is a bit of an underselling of what Lortz says in the article.

His discussion of RPGs-as-cinema has resonance with Robin Laws' articulation of similar ideas. (I would assume that Laws had encountered Lortz's work, but don't know that.) You're correct that the discussion of how questions are posed and sequences resolved rests on a pretty traditional structure, including about the authority of the GM over scene-framing, stakes and content ("the art of 
running an RPG lies in the game-master’s ability to order moves and sequences into a dramatically satisfying whole").

But this is interesting:

Every sequence of moves is motivated by some dramatic question. From the demonstration, we see that a game-master can determine if a sequence has ended by asking whether or not its motivating question has been answered. When a sequence has ended, the play seems to have come to a dead end, the game-master and players can determine the most appropriate course to pursue by asking if there are any dramatic questions left unanswered. If there are, the game-master can determine the best scale for the next sequence by examining the nature of its motivating question. If there are no questions left unanswered, the game-master and the players know it’s time to set new goals for the characters, and start a new adventure.​
I've had RPG experiences that would have benefitted from this advice!



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't see anything there which would indicate Steve was thinking in any way beyond stock classic D&D. His definitions are based entirely on a very stock D&D dungeon crawl example, and there's no mention of anything like the possibility of building scenes to address character concerns, or in terms of the kind of snowballing and playing to find out what happens that characterize a more modern notion of Narrativist play. His mental model assumes a group of plunderers who's concerns are political power, riches, and survival. While it certainly doesn't preclude the existence of motives and needs beyond what he defines, I can't say that he's got a notion that this could be a part of, or actual focus of, the RPG. Likewise the nature of the fiction and its relation to the different participants is extremely classic Gygaxian D&D based, with no hint that other arrangements might be possible.



Agreed - this was how it seemed to me.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 11, 2022)

pemerton said:


> But this is interesting:
> 
> Every sequence of moves is motivated by some dramatic question. From the demonstration, we see that a game-master can determine if a sequence has ended by asking whether or not its motivating question has been answered. When a sequence has ended, the play seems to have come to a dead end, the game-master and players can determine the most appropriate course to pursue by asking if there are any dramatic questions left unanswered. If there are, the game-master can determine the best scale for the next sequence by examining the nature of its motivating question. If there are no questions left unanswered, the game-master and the players know it’s time to set new goals for the characters, and start a new adventure.



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


----------



## innerdude (Jun 11, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 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.






Snarf Zagyg said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Jun 11, 2022)

niklinna said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2022)

innerdude said:


> 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. 



innerdude said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2022)

innerdude said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2022)

innerdude said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2022)

innerdude said:


> 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 (Jun 12, 2022)

innerdude said:


> 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 (Jun 12, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> 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. 



AbdulAlhazred said:


> 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_.



Garthanos said:


> 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.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 12, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Fate certainly is a toolkit, not a game, so I agree it won't necessarily give you a complete solution. As for Gods & Monsters, there was a version that was included in one of the FATE books. I'm pretty sure you can download it from their web site, along with most of the generic system stuff. It was designed as an example of a fairly limited focus RPG (the rules are pretty short and just reference back to the core material). I hadn't seen it in a standalone form before, but TBH FATE gets a bit tangled, they put out a slew of books that all overlap and partially replace each other, I never really was sure what was what after the original stuff came out.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 13, 2022)

A (very) long discussion of William White’s book about The Forge





__





						47 – White – Tabletop RPG Design in Theory and Practice at the Forge – Ranged Touch
					






					rangedtouch.com
				




I haven’t finished it, but it’s an interesting overview.  So far more a long review and discussion of the book itself.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 13, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> A (very) long discussion of William White’s book about The Forge
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks. I'm going to give it a listen later this week.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 13, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> A (very) long discussion of William White’s book about The Forge
> 
> 
> 
> ...



almost 4 hours! Ouch! lol. I MIGHT be able to skim the book in less time...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 13, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> almost 4 hours! Ouch! lol. I MIGHT be able to skim the book in less time...



Essentially you can skip to minute 30:40 where the first substantive statements are made about what the book actually says about The Forge, which is summarized as:

1) The Forge community was organized around encouraging participants to design and publish actual RPGs. This was effective, as MANY titles can be seen to have been either launched there or gained some degree of inspiration and motivation there (it had a specific forum dedicated to this function).

2) The 'Big Model' is "Consistent with academic theories of role-playing Games." and White apparently goes on to substantiate this claim.

3) It is a forum, you should consider it as such, a whole lot of individual contributions by different people at different times, etc. (much like, say, EnWorld...) . My reading of this is that it is kind of an admonition to stop painting the thing with a wide brush and pretending it is characterized by 2 or 3 posts or posters. It isn't. There were over 4,500 members and several hundred thousand posts. 

Beyond that White seems to think that the forum on actual play was extremely important and is often largely ignored. I mean, without reading the book its hard to say what White actually thinks overall, but the reviewers seem to feel that he's more just laying out and analyzing The Forge, and not passing a whole lot of judgment on it one way or the other. His statements about GNS/The Big Model etc. sounds to me a heck of a lot like he thinks it is a highly useful and theoretically sound analytical framework. Anyone who's thesis is "GNS is nonsensical BS which is rejected by academic game studies" would be best not to cite White! lol. Again, I don't have access to the book myself, but as much of the review as I've been able to go through seems to invalidate such a thesis.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 13, 2022)

Listed to the whole thing, and it's an interesting discussion.  It's mostly an extended analysis of White's book, methods, thesis, etc.  It seems that White's book is more what they call "reportage" and a kind of archive analysis, and in that sense is interesting from a media studies perspective.  White was a participant at the Forge, so that seems to affect the point of view, and there's not necessarily a critical lens in the book.

Anyway, the discussion obviously (4 hours...) includes a lot more than that summary.  One of the more interesting things about this podcast episode is the way they think about how online discussions can be archived and made available, the social dynamics of web forums, and the fact that much contemporary discourse occurs in ephemeral, private spaces (discord, twitter, slack) that will make this kind of book difficult to write in the future.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 13, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Listed to the whole thing, and it's an interesting discussion.  It's mostly an extended analysis of White's book, methods, thesis, etc.  It seems that White's book is more what they call "reportage" and a kind of archive analysis, and in that sense is interesting from a media studies perspective.  White was a participant at the Forge, so that seems to affect the point of view, and there's not necessarily a critical lens in the book.
> 
> Anyway, the discussion obviously (4 hours...) includes a lot more than that summary.  One of the more interesting things about this podcast episode is the way they think about how online discussions can be archived and made available, the social dynamics of web forums, and the fact that much contemporary discourse occurs in ephemeral, private spaces (discord, twitter, slack) that will make this kind of book difficult to write in the future.



Right about the 2 hour mark is the start of the review of the chapter on Forge Theory, haven't had time to listen to that part of the review yet, but I'll comment once I get a chance.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 15, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right about the 2 hour mark is the start of the review of the chapter on Forge Theory, haven't had time to listen to that part of the review yet, but I'll comment once I get a chance.



Seems like there's really not much said about GNS itself, except for a whole lot of reviewer griping about the word 'incoherent', who's meaning, oddly they don't seem to fully grasp (I mean the plain meaning, not the technical meaning as used in GNS). Anyway, it didn't seem terribly enlightening, although apparently White had some pretty strong praise for the way discussions were often handled, the kinds of really insightful questions that were asked, etc.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 15, 2022)

The podcast, I'm learning, is about academic game criticism in general.  I liked how they tried to situate both White and the Forge alongside other intellectual history, for example, in talking about the way knowledge was produced through a web forum, how engaging with Edwards was similar to the scene of psychoanalysis, etc.

Anyway, not to jump back into it, but I'm actually still confused about Incoherence vs Hybrid.  From everything I've read it seems that incoherence-->dysfunctional play and hybrid is functional play addressing multiple agendas.  Is that basically correct?


----------



## soviet (Jun 15, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> The podcast, I'm learning, is about academic game criticism in general.  I liked how they tried to situate both White and the Forge alongside other intellectual history, for example, in talking about the way knowledge was produced through a web forum, how engaging with Edwards was similar to the scene of psychoanalysis, etc.
> 
> Anyway, not to jump back into it, but I'm actually still confused about Incoherence vs Hybrid.  From everything I've read it seems that incoherence-->dysfunctional play and hybrid is functional play addressing multiple agendas.  Is that basically correct?



My recollection is that incoherence _can_ lead to disfunctional play, but that some of the time this is averted by the users drifting the game towards one agenda or the other in the heat of play, by ignoring the input that doesn't seem to 'make sense'. Hybrid play is as you say, a deliberate and functional combination of two agendas.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 15, 2022)

Incoherence in my mind speaks to two different core issues that are better off being talked about separately:

1.  No Unity of Purpose: Players want fundamentally different sorts of play, and everyone is basically playing their own private game that happens to involve other people.

2. Counterproductive Procedures: We're all on the same page, but the game we are playing wants us to do things that do not help us achieve our shared agenda or even cut against it. A really good example is Vampire - The Masquerade's extremely detailed set of combat mechanics. In the Vampire groups I was a part of I remember the collective sigh that would come across the whole group the moment a fight was about to start, particularly if Celerity was a thing.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 15, 2022)

Funnily, I've spotted this thread as I was typing out "The Eastern taxonomy" in another tab. Huh.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Jun 15, 2022)

Campbell said:


> 2. Counterproductive Procedures: We're all on the same page, but the game we are playing wants us to do things that do not help us achieve our shared agenda or even cut against it. A really good example is Vampire - The Masquerade's extremely detailed set of combat mechanics. In the Vampire groups I was a part of I remember the collective sigh that would come across the whole group the moment a fight was about to start, particularly if Celerity was a thing.



Just as an aside I'm curious to know the issues. My experience I'd assess as limited and my memory a little foggy on VtM - all I remember was that celerity was pretty useful in a scrap.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 15, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> Just as an aside I'm curious to know the issues. My experience I'd assess as limited and my memory a little foggy on VtM - all I remember was that celerity was pretty useful in a scrap.




Celerity gave extra actions when you activated it.  Besides meaning you were resolving multiple actions for those with it, anyone who didn't have it was twiddling their thumbs waiting for those who did.

(This is over and above the fact that Vampire had a combat system that seemed to be belong in a different game with a different avowed focus).


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 15, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> Just as an aside I'm curious to know the issues. My experience I'd assess as limited and my memory a little foggy on VtM - all I remember was that celerity was pretty useful in a scrap.



Celerity is basically several extra turns. And with how VtM works, it's a real big time sink.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 15, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> The podcast, I'm learning, is about academic game criticism in general.  I liked how they tried to situate both White and the Forge alongside other intellectual history, for example, in talking about the way knowledge was produced through a web forum, how engaging with Edwards was similar to the scene of psychoanalysis, etc.
> 
> Anyway, not to jump back into it, but I'm actually still confused about Incoherence vs Hybrid.  From everything I've read it seems that incoherence-->dysfunctional play and hybrid is functional play addressing multiple agendas.  Is that basically correct?



I really have no idea. My impression of the way 'incoherent' is really meant to be used, or most usefully employed, is simply to label play as having more than one agenda without any real attempt to bring them together into a coherent whole. (and this definition of incoherent, as the antonym of coherent in its sense of 'having a single unified purpose and direction' is the one that the podcasters seem not to have grokked, they seemed to only want to use the definition which is a synonym for 'unintelligible'). So, that would be my contribution to any discussion of the term, it is merely a way to say "there are multiple agendas and they are not integrated into some sort of unified game process." Now, that may result in something 'unintelligible', but I don't think that's intended and it would be a rather extreme way to describe play of an RPG! I mean, in that sense of the word, no play I ever saw was incoherent, not even close. Yet I think Edwards' use of the term is acceptable once you parse out the different meanings. There are other words that might be used, like 'inharmonious', but they don't really sound that good to me. 

As for 'hybrid', if you have blended multiple approaches into a single smoothly working whole, then it seems like a decent word for it. I don't know anything about the history of using this term in 'Forge Speak' myself. My understanding is that Edwards at some point wrote an essay or made some posts pointing out that it was not impossible to have multiple agendas, but that games catering to such would want to do so in a conscious way. This is not a surprising, given that the whole thrust of what was being hashed out at The Forge seems to be summarized by "RPGs should be consciously designed to achieve specific ends in light of XYZ."


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 15, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Celerity gave extra actions when you activated it.  Besides meaning you were resolving multiple actions for those with it, anyone who didn't have it was twiddling their thumbs waiting for those who did.
> 
> (This is over and above the fact that Vampire had a combat system that seemed to be belong in a different game with a different avowed focus).



Right, it basically has ALL the problems of AD&D 1e Psionics, except its not really an optional and avoidable part of the system...


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 15, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, it basically has ALL the problems of AD&D 1e Psionics, except its not really an optional and avoidable part of the system...




Yeah.  Its one of the few things I outright agree with Ron Edwards about; Vampire was a game where the mechanics and the theoretical point of the game don't seem to even have a passing relationship to each other for the most part (Humanity and Blood Points perhaps being the exception).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 15, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Yeah.  Its one of the few things I outright agree with Ron Edwards about; Vampire was a game where the mechanics and the theoretical point of the game don't seem to even have a passing relationship to each other for the most part (Humanity and Blood Points perhaps being the exception).



Yeah, the currencies seem like they could work. I've not actually played, so I'm a bit fuzzy on exactly how they get integrated into the flow of things.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 16, 2022)

Campbell said:


> Incoherence in my mind speaks to two different core issues that are better off being talked about separately:
> 
> 1.  No Unity of Purpose: Players want fundamentally different sorts of play, and everyone is basically playing their own private game that happens to involve other people.
> 
> 2. Counterproductive Procedures: We're all on the same page, but the game we are playing wants us to do things that do not help us achieve our shared agenda or even cut against it. A really good example is Vampire - The Masquerade's extremely detailed set of combat mechanics. In the Vampire groups I was a part of I remember the collective sigh that would come across the whole group the moment a fight was about to start, particularly if Celerity was a thing.




Those seem to be both causes for dysfunction, correct?  That is, incoherence-->dysfunction unless supporting multiple agendas is a design goal (hybrid) or play moves to one agenda over another (drift).  It can be solved either at the level of design or the level of play, but it is a problem that needs to be solved or else you end up with something dysfunctional.  Is that a decent reading of it?


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 16, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, that would be my contribution to any discussion of the term, it is merely a way to say "there are multiple agendas and they are not integrated into some sort of unified game process."



Specifically for Edwards, it seems that incoherence leads to dysfunction if not identified and resolved.  Dysfunction being gameplay that is not fun or successful.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 16, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Those seem to be both causes for dysfunction, correct?  That is, incoherence-->dysfunction unless supporting multiple agendas is a design goal (hybrid) or play moves to one agenda over another (drift).  It can be solved either at the level of design or the level of play, but it is a problem that needs to be solved or else you end up with something dysfunctional.  Is that a decent reading of it?



I prefer a less negative spin on it. That is, maybe the different players are playing 'their own game', but its quite possible that this works! It is possible, at least, that the ways it doesn't work are worth enduring so that everyone gets to do their own thing. 

Now, case 2 seems worse to me. If the game doesn't work, well you can obviously drift/customize, but it would be straight up better if it better supported your agenda in a consistent way.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 16, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I prefer a less negative spin on it. That is, maybe the different players are playing 'their own game', but its quite possible that this works! It is possible, at least, that the ways it doesn't work are worth enduring so that everyone gets to do their own thing.
> 
> Now, case 2 seems worse to me. If the game doesn't work, well you can obviously drift/customize, but it would be straight up better if it better supported your agenda in a consistent way.



I would agree with that...but would Edwards?


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 16, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I prefer a less negative spin on it. That is, maybe the different players are playing 'their own game', but its quite possible that this works! It is possible, at least, that the ways it doesn't work are worth enduring so that everyone gets to do their own thing.
> 
> Now, case 2 seems worse to me. If the game doesn't work, well you can obviously drift/customize, but it would be straight up better if it better supported your agenda in a consistent way.




Well, sometimes people just decide mid-campaign that what they're there about is not what they avowedly were there about in regards to what they said at the start.  Admittedly I've been known to look at them and go "You couldn't have told me you wanted to do something like this at the start so I worked with a system that had more systemic support for it, could you?"


----------



## Campbell (Jun 16, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Those seem to be both causes for dysfunction, correct?  That is, incoherence-->dysfunction unless supporting multiple agendas is a design goal (hybrid) or play moves to one agenda over another (drift).  It can be solved either at the level of design or the level of play, but it is a problem that needs to be solved or else you end up with something dysfunctional.  Is that a decent reading of it?




I don't consider the second really dysfunction. It's not like optimal, but it's not like terrible either. It involves wasting some time and like ignoring / going around systems, but play can still be functional. How much you are willing to put up with is group dependent.

The first is absolutely dysfunctional in my mind. While in any group there will be some differences, we need to be there to play fundamentally the same game. It's something we're supposed to be doing together.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 16, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> I would agree with that...but would Edwards?



Ask me if I care? lol.

EDIT: I mean if I care what Edwards thinks, lol.


----------



## Xetheral (Jun 16, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I really have no idea. My impression of the way 'incoherent' is really meant to be used, or most usefully employed, is simply to label play as having more than one agenda without any real attempt to bring them together into a coherent whole. (and this definition of incoherent, as the antonym of coherent in its sense of 'having a single unified purpose and direction' is the one that the podcasters seem not to have grokked, they seemed to only want to use the definition which is a synonym for 'unintelligible'). So, that would be my contribution to any discussion of the term, it is merely a way to say "there are multiple agendas and they are not integrated into some sort of unified game process." Now, that may result in something 'unintelligible', but I don't think that's intended and it would be a rather extreme way to describe play of an RPG! I mean, in that sense of the word, no play I ever saw was incoherent, not even close. Yet I think Edwards' use of the term is acceptable once you parse out the different meanings. There are other words that might be used, like 'inharmonious', but they don't really sound that good to me.



Interesting--that's not a usage of coherent I'm familiar with. All the usages I know of (other than the scientific definition) are much more general than that, and don't require only a _single_ unified purpose/direction. The closest I can find is Merriam-Webster's usage 3a of "cohere" to mean "to become united in principles, relationships, or interests" but even that is still far broader than the usage you're proposing as it allows for the possibility of being unified among _multiple_ principles, relationships, or interests.

Do you have a specific dictionary in mind where you're seeing that narrow usage? If not, is it possible you're applying the specificity (and neutrality) of the physics definition of "coherent" to the context of the non-scientific definition? If you are (or if Edwards was) using a nonstandard definition of "coherent" that could explain some of the disagreement on the usage of the related term "incoherent".

Then again, there are a lot of dictionaries out there, so it's entirely possible that there's one that recognizes a useage where the specificity of the scientific definition bleeds over into the non-scientific definition! If so, please let me know which one.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> As for 'hybrid', if you have blended multiple approaches into a single smoothly working whole, then it seems like a decent word for it. I don't know anything about the history of using this term in 'Forge Speak' myself. My understanding is that Edwards at some point wrote an essay or made some posts pointing out that it was not impossible to have multiple agendas, but that games catering to such would want to do so in a conscious way. *This is not a surprising, given that the whole thrust of what was being hashed out at The Forge seems to be summarized by "RPGs should be consciously designed to achieve specific ends in light of XYZ."*



(Emphasis added.) I tend to agree with the bolded statement. From what I've read it seems like that normative statement was practically taken as axiomatic at The Forge. 

Actually, is it possible that "incoherent" at The Forge may best be understood simply as jargon referring to games or play that do not adhere to that normative axiom? That would nicely complementary the definition you discuss for "hybrid".


----------



## pemerton (Jun 16, 2022)

We don't need to speculate about what Edwards said about _incoherence_ and _dysfunction_. His writings on the topic are easily available online.

In the original GNS essays, Edwards says some things about incoherence here:

In terms of design, the issue is incoherence, defined here as failure to permit any Premise (or any element of Exploration) to be consistently enjoyed. I think that any and all RPG designs have some identifiable relationship with the GNS modes, out of the following possibilities.

*Focused: the design facilitates a specific, identifiable Premise (or area of Exploration).
*Semi-adaptable: the design is at least compatible with more than one Premise and/or Exploration across GNS goals. (Whether this category even exists, or whether it merely reflects correctable incoherence, is debatable.)
*General: the design facilitates a specific mode, but permits a range of Premises or Explorations within that mode.
*Kitchen sink: the design utilizes layers and multiple options such that any specific point of play may be customized to accord with GNS goals. (This design often ends up being a general Simulationist one, however.)
*Incoherent 1: the design fails to permit one or any mode of play. In its most extreme form, the system may simply be broken - too easily exploited, or internally nonsensical, or lacking meaningful consequence, to pick three respective possibilities for Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism.
*Incoherent 2: more commonly, the design presents a mixed bag among the modes, such that one part of play is (or is mostly) facilitating one mode and other parts of play facilitate others.​In terms of actual play, yes, one "can" bring "any" GNS focus to "any" RPG - but I argue that in most cases the effort and informal redesign to do so is substantial, and also that the effort to keep focused on the new goals as play progresses is even more substantial. This chapter discusses why that effort needs to be there at all. . . .

Can multiple GNS goals be satisfied by a single game design? It may be possible, but it is not easy. As mentioned before, merely aligning topics of Exploration with those of Premise is probably not effective. I conceive of two types of *hybrid*: (1) two modes are simultaneously satisfied in the same player at the same time, of which I am highly skeptical; and (2) two modes can exist side by side in the design, such that differently-oriented players may play together, which might be possible. Some possible candidates for the latter include these.

*G + S: Rifts.
*N + G: Champions 1st-3rd editions; I'm interested as well in seeing the upcoming Elfworld and a proposed game from Hogshead Publishing regarding fantasy weaponry.
*N + S: Little Fears and UnderWorld (these games' degree of "abashedness" exists squarely on the border of the two modes).​
*Drift* is a related issue: the movement from one GNS focus to another during the course of play. I do not think that "drift" reflects hybridized design (in which both modes are indeed present), but rather correctable incoherence (moving toward coherence in one mode). Historically, drifting toward Gamism is very common; it isn't hard to understand that a frustrating and incoherent context can be turned into an arena for competition. Internet play has illustrated some distinctive drifting: Amber moves from abashed Narrativism either to Simulation with Exploration of Character or to Gamism with the emphasis on interpersonal control; Everway moves from abashed Narrativism to Simulationism with the emphasis on Exploration of Situation. . . .

Unfortunately, functional or nearly-functional hybrids are far less common than simply incoherent RPG designs.

The "lesser," although still common, dysfunctional trend is found among the imitators of the late-1970s release of AD&D, composed of vague and scattered Simulationism mixed with vague and scattered Gamism. Warhammer is the most successful of these. Small-press publishers pump out these games constantly, offering little new besides ever-more baroque mechanics and a highly-customized Setting (Hahlmabrea, Pelicar, Legendary Lives, Of Gods and Men, Fifth Cycle, Darkurthe: Legends, and more). Another, similar trend is the never-ending stream of GURPS imitators.

The "dominant" dysfunctional system is immediately recognizable, to the extent of being considered by many to be what role-playing is: a vaguely Gamist combat and reward system, Simulationist resolution in general (usually derived from GURPS, Cyberpunk, or Champions 4th edition), a Simulationist context for play (Situation in the form of published metaplot), deceptive Narrativist Color, and incoherent Simulationist/Narrativist Character creation rules. This combination has been represented by some of the major players in role-playing marketing, and has its representative for every period of role-playing since the early 1980s.

*AD&D2 pioneered the approach in the middle 1980s, particularly the addition of metaplot with the Dragonlance series.
*Champions, through its 3rd edition, exemplified a mix of Gamist and Narrativist "driftable" design, but with its 4th edition in the very late 1980s, the system lost all Metagame content and became the indigestible mix outlined above.
*Vampire, in the early 1990s, offered a mix of Simulationism and Gamism in combat resolution, but a mix of Narrativism and Simulationism out of combat, as well as bringing in Character Exploration.​
The design is hugely imitated, ranging from Earthdawn, Kult, and In Nomine, to the mid-1990s "shotgun attack" of Deadlands, Legend of the Five Rings, and Seventh Sea.

All of these games are based on The Great Impossible Thing to Believe Before Breakfast: that the GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story's protagonists. This is impossible. It's even absurd. However, game after game, introduction after introduction, and discussion after discussion, it is repeated. 

Consider the players who were excited about the vampire concept for role-playing. What happens when they try to play Vampire: the Masquerade? Well, they try to Believe the Impossible Thing, and in application, the results are inevitable.

*The play drifts toward some application of Narrativism, which requires substantial effort and agreement among all the people involved, as well as editing out substantial portions of the game's texts and system.
*The play drifts toward an application of Simulationism in which the GM dominates the characters' significant actions, and the players contribute only to characterization. This is called illusionism, in which the players are unaware of or complicit with the extent to which they are manipulated.
*Illusionism is not necessarily dysfunctional, and if Character or Situation Exploration is the priority, then it can be a lot of fun. Unknown Armies, Feng Shui, and Call of Cthulhu all facilitate extremely functional illusionism. However, it is not and can never be "story creation" on the part of all participants, and if the game is incoherent, illusionism requires considerable effort to edit the system and texts into shape.​*Most likely, however, the players and GM carry out an ongoing power-struggle over the actions of the characters, with the integrity of "my guy" held as a club on the behalf of the former and the integrity of "the story" held as a club on behalf of the latter. . . .​
The often-repeated distinction between "roll-playing" and "role-playing" is nothing more nor less than Exploration of System and Exploration of Character - either of which, when prioritized, is Simulationism. Thus our players, instead of taking the "drift" option (which would work), may well apply themselves more and more diligently to the metaplot and other non-Narrativist elements in the mistaken belief that they are emphasizing "story." The prognosis for the enjoyment of such play is not favorable.

One may ask, if this design is so horribly dysfunctional, why is it so popular? The answer requires an economic perspective on RPGs, in addition to the conceptual and functional one outlined in this essay, and is best left for discussion.​
In the next chapter he adds this:

When AD&D was released in its late 1970s form, its content encouraged a "more is better" approach. The more players, the better. The more time spent, the better. The longer the sessions, the better. The longer the sessions continued, the better. Nearly all role-playing games used AD&D as the starting point for presentation purposes, even those with vastly different systems and philosophies of play, and so this dysfunctional approach remains with us to this day. The term "campaign" is especially misleading, as in wargaming it denotes a specific set of events from point A in time to point B in time, whereas in role-playing it denotes playing indefinitely.

For those forms of role-playing that emphasize "story" in the general sense (see Chapter Two), this approach is completely unsuitable. What is a "story" to be, in terms of individual sessions and all-sessions? In role-playing culture, one is often assumed either to be playing a "campaign," which means it should go on forever, or a "one-shot" session which aside from the connotation of being superficial is simply too short for many sorts of stories. The functional intermediate of playing the number of sessions sufficient for the purpose of resolving a story is nowhere to be found in the texts of role-playing. . . .

I think the most common dysfunction . . . is GNS incompatibility. At the highest-order level, if the people simply have entirely different goals, then actual play continually runs into conflicts about priorities and procedures based on those different goals. I think everyone who's familiar with the theory knows that this is a "no fault, no blame" criterion. I like potatos, you like pink lemonade, have a nice game with your own group.

More difficult incompatibilities also exist within each of G, N, or S. People may share the the large-scale GNS goal, but be accustomed to or desire different standards for [various features of play]. In this case, dysfunction arises from (a) trying to resolve the differences during play itself, and (b) anyone being unwilling to compromise about the differences.

Drift is the usual method for dealing with this level of discord. It is a fine solution for resolving within-mode differences, if everyone is willing to give a little. However, drift has a dark side, or degeneration, the disruption or subversion of the social contract such that what is happening is not more fun, at least not at the group level. . . .

The tragedy is how widespread GNS-based degeneration really is.​
In the subsequent three essays, Edwards says some things about "incoherent" game design here:

Abashed" refers to design that must be Drifted in order to play because incompatible priorities are present among different parts of the rules. It's different from Incoherent design in that such Drift is easy and minor. Technically, an Abashed game is already at least two modes (or sub-modes) . . .

As far as I can tell, Simulationist game design runs into a lot of potential trouble when it includes secondary hybridization with the other modes of play. Gamist or Narrativist features as supportive elements introduce the thin end of the metagame-agenda wedge. The usual result is to defend against the "creeping Gamism" with rules-bloat, or to encourage negatively-extreme deception or authority in the GM in order to preserve an intended set of plot events, which is to say, railroading. In other words, a baseline Simulationist focus is easily subverted, leading to incoherence.

Whether this issue can be resolved by future designs and Social Contracts is unknown. Speaking historically, though, AD&D2, Vampire, and Legend of the Five Rings are especially good examples of incoherent design that ends up screwing the Simulationist. You have Gamist character creation, with Narrativist rhetoric (especially in Vampire). You have High Concept Simulationist resolution, which is to say, easily subverted by Gamism because universal consistency is de-emphasized. And finally, you have sternly-worded "story" play-context, which in practice becomes game-author-to-GM co-conspiracy. The net result is a fairly committed Simulationist GM presiding over a bunch of players tending toward more agenda-based play of different kinds. . . .

I think that we need to distinguish between Simulationist elements vs. coherent design - the former have certainly been widespread, but mainly in incoherent games, with AD&D and Vampire as the chief examples.​
There is some elaboration on that last point here:

The most striking feature across role-playing history is the astonishing shift in the late 1980s from assuming that Gamist play was the default to practically nothing - limited mainly to "old AD&D," various D&D imitators, Shadowrun, or Rifts.

I think this rarity is mainly a matter of rejection by texts that facilitated other preferred modes of play. I specifically include AD&D2 to be included in this shift, as I consider it to be mainly incoherent with various and sometimes-contradictory doses of Simulationist design scattered throughout, going all the way back to the Wilderness Survival Guide and the Dragonlance modules. I also think that the various setting-derivative AD&D2 boxed sets of the early 1990s (Al-Qadim, Dark Sun, Planescape, et al.) explicitly facilitate Illusionist Simulationist play.​
The first of the later essays has no use of the word "dysfunction" that I can find. The second does, and so does this one. The diagnoses of dysfunctional play about competing agendas among participants - eg gamists who wreck or break simulationist-oriented play, or would-be narrativists who struggle with the GM over control of the story in a game that the GM is intending to be high concept simulationist with the GM making the major plot decisions. I think this is pretty consistent with what is said in the original GNS pieces: dysfunction, when it occurs, is often (not always) a result of incompatible creative agendas.

The problem with incoherent game texts is not that they make such dysfunction inevitable - no claim of that nature is made that I can see - but that they make it more likely, by encouraging RPGers to refrain from asking _What is their creative agenda?_ and _How are the particular techniques and procedures set out in this rules text going to help achieve that agenda?_

Edwards is obviously not unaware that a very common way to resolve these questions in the real world, playing a system like AD&D 2nd ed, is for the GM to take charge and impose their will. He does doubt whether that's the only resolution that's possible.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 16, 2022)

Xetheral said:


> Interesting--that's not a usage of coherent I'm familiar with. All the usages I know of (other than the scientific definition) are much more general than that, and don't require only a _single_ unified purpose/direction. The closest I can find is Merriam-Webster's usage 3a of "cohere" to mean "to become united in principles, relationships, or interests" but even that is still far broader than the usage you're proposing as it allows for the possibility of being unified among _multiple_ principles, relationships, or interests.



American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition:
coherent

1. Sticking together; cohering
2. Marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts.

incoherent
1. Lacking cohesion, connection, or harmony; not coherent.
2. Unable to think or express one's thoughts in a clear or orderly manner.

The reviewers of White object to 'incoherent' by stating it has ONLY meaning 2 above, and are oblivious to meaning 1. As to "multiple principles, relationships, or interests" I'm not sure what you mean by that. I think coherent definition #2 above talks about "aesthetically consistent relation of parts." It isn't a question of multiplicity, it is a question of aesthetic consistency and thus things 'sticking together' and possessing 'cohesion, connection, or harmony' (or the lack thereof). So I think what RE means by 'incoherent' is literally that, but the reviewers took the meaning #2 of incoherent and assumed that was the only possible reading he could have meant, and thus objected to the term on the basis of claiming it implies that a lack of adherence to a single GNS agenda literally implies that the game participants will be unable to express themselves clearly. 

It simply appeared to be a rather narrow and ill-considered criticism by the podcasters. Lets give them the benefit of the doubt, you often stumble a bit when speaking live.


Xetheral said:


> Do you have a specific dictionary in mind where you're seeing that narrow usage? If not, is it possible you're applying the specificity (and neutrality) of the physics definition of "coherent" to the context of the non-scientific definition? If you are (or if Edwards was) using a nonstandard definition of "coherent" that could explain some of the disagreement on the usage of the related term "incoherent".



See above... this was simply the first dictionary definition that popped up for each word in a DuckDuckGo search. It is a commonly used and perfectly cromulent dictionary AFAIK (not being some great expert on such).


Xetheral said:


> Then again, there are a lot of dictionaries out there, so it's entirely possible that there's one that recognizes a useage where the specificity of the scientific definition bleeds over into the non-scientific definition! If so, please let me know which one.



Yeah, I'd be interested to know if there is some great degree of divergence of opinion on these words. I mean, I certainly agree that people use 'incoherent' to mean "someone said something to me and it was impossible to understand." but that seems at best a specific variation of a secondary meaning of the word.


Xetheral said:


> (Emphasis added.) I tend to agree with the bolded statement. From what I've read it seems like that normative statement was practically taken as axiomatic at The Forge.
> 
> Actually, is it possible that "incoherent" at The Forge may best be understood simply as jargon referring to games or play that do not adhere to that normative axiom? That would nicely complementary the definition you discuss for "hybrid".



Well, hmmmmmm. I think games could legitimately 'just happen to be coherent' and that's fine. In fact the original D&D game is pretty darn coherent! Especially in its more realized B/X form, where it is QUITE clear what the object of the game is, and AFAICT all of its mechanics and advice are pretty focused on that. However, lets give the authors some credit, while they may not have thought in terms of specific ends WRT agenda, they were certainly conscious designers with specific goals.

I think it is fair to say that most games which are designed fairly naively will most likely exhibit some lack of coherence of design. Even when substantial intent exists, without a framework which can describe play in a way which allows a thorough analysis of agenda it is hard to 'get it right'. I mean, 2e is a beautiful example of a game that is VERY incoherent. OTOH in terms of how it was actually played by most people it probably worked fine, 90% of the time. I know it failed spectacularly for me in one instance (after which I never ran it again) but I think most people just ran modules or whatnot and assumed that the rough parts were just the cost of playing RPGs generally.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 16, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, hmmmmmm. I think games could legitimately 'just happen to be coherent' and that's fine. In fact the original D&D game is pretty darn coherent! Especially in its more realized B/X form, where it is QUITE clear what the object of the game is, and AFAICT all of its mechanics and advice are pretty focused on that.



So completely divergent from AD&D


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 16, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> So completely divergent from AD&D



I don't think 1e is TOO far 'out there', its a mix of G and various flavors of S, and it definitely reneges on the promise at the start of the PHB to deliver a kind of 'epic high fantasy' play (at least until you get to high levels, which is intended to require a long period of skilled play). OTOH mostly in practice it is a game of skilled play gamist dungeon crawling and hex crawling. If you stick to just using the reaction system, and the morale/obedience systems, for everything social, then you are playing it as I suspect Gygax mostly intended. Certainly when you warp off into purely RPed social stuff, then the game kind of falls all apart. Its a lot better than 2e though, with its "there's a story and by gosh the GM should cheat to make it happen if he's gotta!" craziness (when coupled with a rule system that forces you to do exactly that constantly).


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 16, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't think 1e is TOO far 'out there', its a mix of G and various flavors of S, and it definitely reneges on the promise at the start of the PHB to deliver a kind of 'epic high fantasy' play (at least until you get to high levels, which is intended to require a long period of skilled play). OTOH mostly in practice it is a game of skilled play gamist dungeon crawling and hex crawling. If you stick to just using the reaction system, and the morale/obedience systems, for everything social, then you are playing it as I suspect Gygax mostly intended. Certainly when you warp off into purely RPed social stuff, then the game kind of falls all apart. Its a lot better than 2e though, with its "there's a story and by gosh the GM should cheat to make it happen if he's gotta!" craziness (when coupled with a rule system that forces you to do exactly that constantly).



I felt like there were plenty of mixed messages  between G and S. His huge explanation of HP was an attempt to give simulation to that high fantasy and very game oriented mechanic.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 16, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't think 1e is TOO far 'out there', its a mix of G and various flavors of S, and it definitely reneges on the promise at the start of the PHB to deliver a kind of 'epic high fantasy' play (at least until you get to high levels, which is intended to require a long period of skilled play). OTOH mostly in practice it is a game of skilled play gamist dungeon crawling and hex crawling. If you stick to just using the reaction system, and the morale/obedience systems, for everything social, then you are playing it as I suspect Gygax mostly intended. Certainly when you warp off into purely RPed social stuff, then the game kind of falls all apart.



I disagree with the last bit here.  The game doesn't fall apart when things move into purely RPed social stuff, it more just gets out of the way - like it should.

Which makes sense if one sees the mechanics mostly as being means to abstract that (mostly physical action stuff) which almost universally cannot be replicated at the table, leaving things which _can_ be (at least vaguely) replicated at the table for the players and-or GM to do with as they can/will.


AbdulAlhazred said:


> Its a lot better than 2e though, with its "there's a story and by gosh the GM should cheat to make it happen if he's gotta!" craziness (when coupled with a rule system that forces you to do exactly that constantly).



If the focus of the rules agrees with the intended outcome then that's coherence, isn't it?

Whether it's a coherence one likes or not is an entirely different question.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 16, 2022)

pemerton said:


> The first of the later essays has no use of the word "dysfunction" that I can find. The second does, and so does this one. The diagnoses of dysfunctional play about competing agendas among participants - eg gamists who wreck or break simulationist-oriented play, or would-be narrativists who struggle with the GM over control of the story in a game that the GM is intending to be high concept simulationist with the GM making the major plot decisions.* I think this is pretty consistent with what is said in the original GNS pieces: dysfunction, when it occurs, is often (not always) a result of incompatible creative agendas.*
> 
> The problem with incoherent game texts is not that they make such dysfunction inevitable - no claim of that nature is made that I can see - but that they make it more likely, by *encouraging RPGers to refrain from asking What is their creative agenda? and *_*How are the particular techniques and procedures set out in this rules text going to help achieve that agenda?*_







AbdulAlhazred said:


> American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition:
> coherent
> 
> 1. Sticking together; cohering
> ...




For the purposes of its use in the forge essays quoted above, I think the key thing is the relationship between incoherence and dysfunction.  It might not be strict causation, but there seems to be a strong association between the two in his thinking, such that a lack of consistency or sticking together might very well produce unsuccessful and unfun gameplay if not addressed.  And incoherent game design inhibit players to have a clear understanding of their creative agenda, i.e. to "think or express one's thoughts in a clear or orderly manner," hence people thinking they are doing 'roleplay not rollplay' but not being clear about what that means for the game they are playing.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 16, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I disagree with the last bit here. The game doesn't fall apart when things move into purely RPed social stuff, it more just gets out of the way - like it should.
> 
> Which makes sense if one sees the mechanics mostly as being means to abstract that (mostly physical action stuff) which almost universally cannot be replicated at the table, leaving things which _can_ be (at least vaguely) replicated at the table for the players and-or GM to do with as they can/will.




I think it falls apart if you tend to view the game mechanics as the means of how we determine what happens in the game. If that’s how you think of the mechanics, then anytime they become absent, or “get out of the way”, then it would seem something has gone wrong. For many of us, and (importantly) for many games, there’s no distinction between actions based on physical or social lines. Game mechanics are applied to all to determine what happens.

For folks (or games) that look at it this way, having some situations where rules apply and others where they do not just seems odd. The reasons for not using rules some of the time seem questionable.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 16, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I disagree with the last bit here.  The game doesn't fall apart when things move into purely RPed social stuff, it more just gets out of the way - like it should.



Well, but it doesn't always. Frankly I think if you set up a game with certain parameters and its focus is going to be mostly this stuff, then you can have a pretty good game, but when the random dungeon loot party goes and does social, meh things don't really play that well in a lot of cases.


Lanefan said:


> Which makes sense if one sees the mechanics mostly as being means to abstract that (mostly physical action stuff) which almost universally cannot be replicated at the table, leaving things which _can_ be (at least vaguely) replicated at the table for the players and-or GM to do with as they can/will.
> 
> If the focus of the rules agrees with the intended outcome then that's coherence, isn't it?
> 
> Whether it's a coherence one likes or not is an entirely different question.



In the case of 2e it is REALLY incoherent! The game very vehemently claims its purpose is creating fantastical fantasy stories about heroic adventurers. It then provides a whole set of rules that are meant mainly for dungeon crawls, and oriented towards test-of-player-skill type play (though with NWPs grafted on, which is a whole other topic, but also about incoherence). This just DOES NOT WORK, unless the GM fudges heavily, at best. I mean, 99.9% of all people playing 2e simply read past the 'its a story game' part and ignored it totally and played 1e revised, but if you actually read 2e and try to play the game that is described in the books, it just cannot be done without lots of GM force. Worse, half the players are likely to play '1e revised' and the GM and the other players are trying to play '2e story game' and the two don't mix at all, fudging in a skill test dungeon crawl is cheating, pure and simple.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 16, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> For the purposes of its use in the forge essays quoted above, I think the key thing is the relationship between incoherence and dysfunction.  It might not be strict causation, but there seems to be a strong association between the two in his thinking, such that a lack of consistency or sticking together might very well produce unsuccessful and unfun gameplay if not addressed.  And incoherent game design inhibit players to have a clear understanding of their creative agenda, i.e. to "think or express one's thoughts in a clear or orderly manner," hence people thinking they are doing 'roleplay not rollplay' but not being clear about what that means for the game they are playing.



Well, I think that when Edwards started saying 'dysfunction' that is a more judgmental statement, but the podcast guys didn't even reach there, they just dissed on incoherent itself and defined it in a way that was clearly not what RE intended...


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 16, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think it falls apart if you tend to view the game mechanics as the means of how we determine what happens in the game. If that’s how you think of the mechanics, then anytime they become absent, or “get out of the way”, then it would seem something has gone wrong. For many of us, and (importantly) for many games, there’s no distinction between actions based on physical or social lines. Game mechanics are applied to all to determine what happens.
> 
> For folks (or games) that look at it this way, having some situations where rules apply and others where they do not just seems odd. The reasons for not using rules some of the time seem questionable.



I don't think it is odd at all and I fully get where @Lanefan is coming from. Have you ever been at a LARP? There almost never is rules for social stuff yet that tends to be the main part of many LARPs.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 16, 2022)

I don't understand why damn near 20 years later we are so caught up on the words of one man who has said lots of things since and designed a lot of games. It's not as if Ron being wrong about thing would make him wrong about everything. That's not the way any of this works.

That first sort of incoherence that Ron and most of us at the Forge saw - that of players playing fundamentally different sorts of games - that does not happen at the vast majority of tables. What we missed is that despite rules pulled from wargames the vast majority of games lacked differences of creative agenda because they didn't use the rules in their 500-page books. They used unwritten rules that were socially enforced to keep games centered on story and setting. We kept looking at the rulebooks, instead of the actual play when it came to coherence. To a certain extent people like Vincent Baker absolutely understood that Vampire, Shadowrun, Ars Magica, AD&D Second Edition were all pretty much expensive paper weights outside of the setting material.

The actual game structure, reward systems and expectations were all part of a system of elaborate mostly unspoken social norms. This is fundamentally why power gamers and rules lawyers are looked down upon - they're trying to play the game in the book. Not the game we are actually playing.

That second sort was pretty widespread and still kind of is, although less and less with games like 5e, Numenera, Edge of the Empire, Conan 2d20, Vampire 5e, L5R 5e. They largely drop a lot of the war gaming stuff they don't care about. They can be played in setting/story exploration mode mostly without ignoring the rules. There's a whole lot less getting in the way of GM curated play. The resource management minigames in 5e are a sort of proud nail that way, but can be finessed much more easily than AD&D.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 17, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> For the purposes of its use in the forge essays quoted above, I think the key thing is the relationship between incoherence and dysfunction.  It might not be strict causation, but there seems to be a strong association between the two in his thinking, such that a lack of consistency or sticking together might very well produce unsuccessful and unfun gameplay if not addressed.



Yes. See every post ever about powergamers mucking up a 2nd ed AD&D, 3E, PF (not PF2) or 5e game.

See every post ever about players who don't build their PCs to fit the GM's campaign/plot, or who won't follow the hooks the GM is setting out.

See every post ever about the 5 min working day and how to solve it.

The sorts of posts I've just described are not rare. They are common. And they are manifestations of game texts and game rules being "incoherent" in the sense intended.

Is resolving those issues an inevitable cost of RPGing? Some people think so. Edwards doesn't.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 17, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't think it is odd at all and I fully get where @Lanefan is coming from. Have you ever been at a LARP? There almost never is rules for social stuff yet that tends to be the main part of many LARPs.




That doesn't actually change his point, you know.  The fact some people draw a sharp line of demarcation between social or mental tasks and others does not change how odd that looks to those who consider the whole point in game rules being to resolve how things occur in games.  It just says the first group is not the second group.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 17, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Is resolving those issues an inevitable cost of RPGing? Some people think so. Edwards doesn't.



What do you mean by this?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 17, 2022)

Campbell said:


> That first sort of incoherence that Ron and most of us at the Forge saw - that of players playing fundamentally different sorts of games - that does not happen at the vast majority of tables. What we missed is that despite rules pulled from wargames the vast majority of games lacked differences of creative agenda because they didn't use the rules in their 500-page books.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This is fundamentally why power gamers and rules lawyers are looked down upon - they're trying to play the game in the book. Not the game we are actually playing.



I think this first sort of "incoherence" - playing different games - still seems to manifest in PC gen. That seems to be where the issues around powergamers ("optimisers") mostly show up.



Campbell said:


> That second sort was pretty widespread and still kind of is, although less and less with games like 5e, Numenera, Edge of the Empire, Conan 2d20, Vampire 5e, L5R 5e. They largely drop a lot of the war gaming stuff they don't care about. They can be played in setting/story exploration mode mostly without ignoring the rules. There's a whole lot less getting in the way of GM curated play. The resource management minigames in 5e are a sort of proud nail that way, but can be finessed much more easily than AD&D.



I think that last sentence is right - the 5-minute/6-8 encounter issue hasn't gone away.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 17, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't think it is odd at all and I fully get where @Lanefan is coming from. Have you ever been at a LARP? There almost never is rules for social stuff yet that tends to be the main part of many LARPs.




Sure, I was explaining the difference in view. That there are people and games that do things as @Lanefan described is not in doubt. I’ve never LARPed, but I’ve played plenty of other games that have such a system. 

I was explaining why such a system may seem odd to folks who play differently. And I kind of posed the question of what it accomplishes.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 17, 2022)

Campbell said:


> I don't understand why damn near 20 years later we are so caught up on the words of one man who has said lots of things since and designed a lot of games. It's not as if Ron being wrong about thing would make him wrong about everything. That's not the way any of this works.



I'm just trying to understand the thesis or arguments being made (and thanks for your clarification).  I think I understand, but I was confused in the other thread because it seemed like "incoherence" specifically was not referring to the arguments RE made about dysfunction.  I would agree it's not necessarily useful to get hung up on words; but then, to the OP's point, that perhaps demonstrates the limited usefulness of terminology/jargon absent context, especially when a particular term can be interpreted in quite different ways.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 17, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> What do you mean by this?



I mean that it's not an inevitable feature of RPGing that the GM, or the table, have to work out how to resolve the issues I described.

Consider the extended rest issue in 5e D&D. Depending on the rate (relative to encouners) at which players are allowed to regain all their resources, the game will play quite differently; and if daily-limited casters are allowed to regain their resources with the same frequency as short rest-based fighters, their nova-ing will overshadow or crowd out the fighters (and rogues) unless the GM uses various techniques (spotlighting, "job for Aquaman", etc) to deal with the issue.

This is not inevitable. 4e D&D, for instance, doesn't have this issue. Burning Wheel is a very different mechanical chassis from 4e D&D, and in many ways is more traditional with "at will" warriors and recovery-based casters, but it doesn't have the issue either.

Or consider the issue of players building PCs that will fit the GM's campaign and take up the GM's hooks. The AD&D 2nd ed PHB has no instructions or advice to players about how to build PCs that will (i) fit together (other than some light-touch stuff in the alignment section), and (ii) fit the GM's game. Edwards describes the phenomenon this way:

individually-conducted character creation often produces differing conclusions about the point of play from player to player, which is to say, the characters are fully plausible and created by the rules, but are also manifestly incapable of interacting in terms of any one person's desired genre/setting. The classic example in fantasy-adventure play is the party including a paladin and an assassin . . .​
And in the context of 5e play, I still see discussions online about players building PCs that don't fit the game or whose Backgrounds get ignored of whatever.

This isn't inevitable either. The rulebooks can set out instructions differently, tell the GM to nominate the PC backgrounds to the players, etc. Eg Torchbearer tells each player to "write a goal" for their PC at the start of each session, which "should be appropriate to the adventure". And the sample adventure elaborates: "After introducing the rumor and framing the first scene, instruct the players to write their goals or choose from our examples". The basic procedures of the game make sure that there will be no mismatch between what the PCs' goals are, and the scenario the GM is framing them into.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 17, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't think it is odd at all and I fully get where @Lanefan is coming from. Have you ever been at a LARP? There almost never is rules for social stuff yet that tends to be the main part of many LARPs.



LARPs and TTRPGs are very different beasts. When participating in a LARP there is necessarily a type of total immersion, you literally ARE your character, physically. There may be conventions related to resolving things that people cannot obviously risk doing, like lethal combat and whatnot, but the WHOLE IDEA is to play out the action as closely as possible to reality, any other action is simply a 'kludge' that is required because we're in the real world still.

The situation in a TTRPG is entirely different. It is quite possible, and IMHO often quite desirable to have uniform resolution processes. It really IS quite odd when they don't exist. I mean, odd in the sense that social situations, for example, in D&D aught to be as potentially lucrative and also dangerous as anything else, but yet we just say what happened, no hard adjudication at all. Its actually pretty weird when you think about it. I mean, why not just resolve combat that way too? lol.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 17, 2022)

Campbell said:


> I don't understand why damn near 20 years later we are so caught up on the words of one man who has said lots of things since and designed a lot of games. It's not as if Ron being wrong about thing would make him wrong about everything. That's not the way any of this works.
> 
> That first sort of incoherence that Ron and most of us at the Forge saw - that of players playing fundamentally different sorts of games - that does not happen at the vast majority of tables. What we missed is that despite rules pulled from wargames the vast majority of games lacked differences of creative agenda because they didn't use the rules in their 500-page books. They used unwritten rules that were socially enforced to keep games centered on story and setting. We kept looking at the rulebooks, instead of the actual play when it came to coherence. To a certain extent people like Vincent Baker absolutely understood that Vampire, Shadowrun, Ars Magica, AD&D Second Edition were all pretty much expensive paper weights outside of the setting material.
> 
> ...



So, how do you square this with the fact that more than half of the Forge is ACTUAL PLAY being analyzed? I mean, go read White, he literally breaks it down. Honestly, I wasn't there, and I have surely not read through 10's of thousands of posts, but it is 100% certainly true that a huge number of them were exactly diagnosing people's real play. Yet you assert that everyone on the site was entirely mired in some textbook analysis of rulebooks and paid no attention to that. Heck, White even elaborates on how RE himself spent considerable efforts on these analyses and was quite adept at dissecting play and explicating what it consisted of and why it worked a certain way. Not rulebooks, play.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 17, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> What do you mean by this?



He means exactly what he said. There is a vast ocean of ink on this site that has been spent asserting that these issues of coherence in D&D are simply "the way RPGs are." I mean, sure such posters assert some nostrums in terms of 'fixing' individual instances of them. Often various parties at the table are vilified for being stubborn, disruptive, too rigid, whatever. The factors in game design and organization/process of play that actually lead to them? Those are literally assumed to be gospel of RPGs. I cannot tell you how many times I've read posts that LITERALLY state "This is how RPGs are, the GM has to do XYZ, and the player must do ABC, that's how it is!" in response to some suggestion that this is not all there is to RPGs. Usually, but not always, its some variation of common play of D&D, with trad GM/Player roles, etc. I will literally put money on we can go to the D&D threads and find one where virtually exactly this was posted TODAY, because it happens every single day. Its common as rain.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 17, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Celerity gave extra actions when you activated it.  Besides meaning you were resolving multiple actions for those with it, anyone who didn't have it was twiddling their thumbs waiting for those who did.
> 
> (This is over and above the fact that Vampire had a combat system that seemed to be belong in a different game with a different avowed focus).



Oh man this brings back memories.  In the one VTM game I played in long long ago I was the  only PC without celerity.  When combats started I would just leave the table for awhile and declare myself to be cowering in the background.

Bad game design, that bit.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> He means exactly what he said. There is a vast ocean of ink on this site that has been spent asserting that these issues of coherence in D&D are simply "the way RPGs are." I mean, sure such posters assert some nostrums in terms of 'fixing' individual instances of them. Often various parties at the table are vilified for being stubborn, disruptive, too rigid, whatever. The factors in game design and organization/process of play that actually lead to them? Those are literally assumed to be gospel of RPGs. I cannot tell you how many times I've read posts that LITERALLY state "This is how RPGs are, the GM has to do XYZ, and the player must do ABC, that's how it is!" in response to some suggestion that this is not all there is to RPGs. Usually, but not always, its some variation of common play of D&D, with trad GM/Player roles, etc. I will literally put money on we can go to the D&D threads and find one where virtually exactly this was posted TODAY, because it happens every single day. Its common as rain.



So I went to the D&D board and found this one: D&D 5E - Best way to deal with greedy players and magic items in a fun game.

There's also this one, which seems like it is laying the groundwork for the sort of thing you describe: D&D 5E - Tomb of Annihilation - Valindra's role (spoilers)


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 17, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Oh man this brings back memories.  In the one VTM game I played in long long ago I was the  only PC without celerity.  When combats started I would just leave the table for awhile and declare myself to be cowering in the background.
> 
> Bad game design, that bit.




It was one of those attempts to represent superhuman speed (early Shadowrun did another) that while it absolutely showed the advantage it presents, had knock-on effects in game play that made it, honestly a really bad way to do it.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> LARPs and TTRPGs are very different beasts. When participating in a LARP there is necessarily a type of total immersion, you literally ARE your character, physically. There may be conventions related to resolving things that people cannot obviously risk doing, like lethal combat and whatnot, but the WHOLE IDEA is to play out the action as closely as possible to reality, any other action is simply a 'kludge' that is required because we're in the real world still.



And I don't really think tabletop games are significantly different. Or at least they don't need to be. To a lot of people immersing to and inhabiting the character is the point in both. And my tabletop games have always been rather LARPy. People talking in character a lot and emoting for their characters. Look at Critical Role. A lot of it is LARPy, they do not dress up, but the players immerse in their characters and act as their characters the best they can. 



AbdulAlhazred said:


> The situation in a TTRPG is entirely different. It is quite possible, and IMHO often quite desirable to have uniform resolution processes. It really IS quite odd when they don't exist. I mean, odd in the sense that social situations, for example, in D&D aught to be as potentially lucrative and also dangerous as anything else, but yet we just say what happened, no hard adjudication at all. Its actually pretty weird when you think about it. I mean, why not just resolve combat that way too? lol.



Rules are tools. You use them when you need them, but they don't have to define what the game is about, and there are many situations for which you don't need the rules for.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 17, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> It was one of those attempts to represent superhuman speed (early Shadowrun did another) that while it absolutely showed the advantage it presents, had knock-on effects in game play that made it, honestly a really bad way to do it.



The basic problem is, in any even vaguely realistic sense, the guy who can move and react 2-10x faster than everyone else is so utterly out of their league in every respect that they cannot reasonably be engaged with on a meaningful basis (though there might be some tricks you could employ to negate this advantage). So, as soon as your game espouses any sort of simulationist agenda in which even a vague sense of things corresponding to reality coupled with such an ability is part of the game, you will run into this. Either it needs to be a trope "all vampires are blindingly fast and thus normal humans are as sheep to them." or this sort of combat ability needs to be super limited or mostly unavailable for some other reasons, etc. The problem of course is that players will always try to find a way to take something really powerful and get around its limitations in game systems that are at all gamist, and/or where other aspects of the game make such correspond with an agenda.

So it was bad in the sense that it undermined game play. Now, if how well you fight wasn't really that important, and the game focused on something else entirely, or every PC did the same thing, then it wouldn't really be a problem. This is pretty well explicated by considering it a gamist/HCS agenda mismatch.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> The basic problem is, in any even vaguely realistic sense, the guy who can move and react 2-10x faster than everyone else is so utterly out of their league in every respect that they cannot reasonably be engaged with on a meaningful basis (though there might be some tricks you could employ to negate this advantage). So, as soon as your game espouses any sort of simulationist agenda in which even a vague sense of things corresponding to reality coupled with such an ability is part of the game, you will run into this. Either it needs to be a trope "all vampires are blindingly fast and thus normal humans are as sheep to them." or this sort of combat ability needs to be super limited or mostly unavailable for some other reasons, etc. The problem of course is that players will always try to find a way to take something really powerful and get around its limitations in game systems that are at all gamist, and/or where other aspects of the game make such correspond with an agenda.
> 
> So it was bad in the sense that it undermined game play. Now, if how well you fight wasn't really that important, and the game focused on something else entirely, or every PC did the same thing, then it wouldn't really be a problem. This is pretty well explicated by considering it a gamist/HCS agenda mismatch.



Or it's as simple as saying one player getting 4 turns while another gets 1 isn't fun for the another.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 17, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> And I don't really think tabletop games are significantly different. Or at least they don't need to be. To a lot of people immersing to and inhabiting the character is the point in both. And my tabletop games have always been rather LARPy. People talking in character a lot and emoting for their characters. Look at Critical Role. A lot of it is LARPy, they do not dress up, but the players immerse in their characters and act as their characters the best they can.



Sure, you can run a LARP in a way that is as close as possible to a TTRPG and it COULD be similar to the way some people play. I don't think this means we have to assume that this is either typical or that it constrains TTRPGs. I'd wonder why people would bother with a LARP like that, it is a little odd, but people do all sorts of stuff. The LARPs I've been exposed to were rather different, but its not like I'm deep in that!

The point to me is it is downright odd to think that it wouldn't make sense to have uniform mechanics. Again, why if you don't want to use rules in one area of the game, do you want to use them in another? Its all 'resolving conflict' in the final analysis (and even more ultimately, deciding how things progress).


Crimson Longinus said:


> Rules are tools. You use them when you need them, but they don't have to define what the game is about, and there are many situations for which you don't need the rules for.



Sure, TO ME, it is like a carpenter who only uses power screw drivers indoors and drives all screws outdoors by hand. Its a bit odd...


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 17, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> And I don't really think tabletop games are significantly different. Or at least they don't need to be. To a lot of people immersing to and inhabiting the character is the point in both. And my tabletop games have always been rather LARPy. People talking in character a lot and emoting for their characters. Look at Critical Role. A lot of it is LARPy, they do not dress up, but the players immerse in their characters and act as their characters the best they can.




None of this is changed by the use of mechanics or not. Using dice to determine outcomes to actions in no way inhibits anyone from inhabiting or portraying their character. 



Crimson Longinus said:


> Rules are tools. You use them when you need them, but they don't have to define what the game is about, and there are many situations for which you don't need the rules for.




Sure, this is true. But as @AbdulAlhazred said, you could do the same with combat. What determines where rules are "needed" and "not needed"? It's all subjective, of course, depending on the game in question and the desires and expectations of the participants. But this is either a design choice or a playstyle choice that has implications. 

Removing some kind of resolution mechanic for social actions essentially means that the GM is deciding the outcome of such actions. If the GM is deciding the outcome, then the GM is determining the way the game goes. This may or may not be a problem for any given group, but we should not ignore it as a fact. 

What I find hard to reconcile is how often this approach is coupled with the idea of the GM as a neutral arbiter. That the GM should set aside their personal biases and opinions about the events of play, and then render some reasonable and fair judgment free of their own concerns. 

I mean, isn't that what dice (or any similar randomizing element) do? 

To me, when I see this approach suggested, I just don't quite get it. If the GM's ultimate aspiration is to behave as dice do, then why not just use dice? Why require a person to behave in a way that people tend to not behave? What is gained by having a person decide instead of dice? What more is there to the matter? 

The exception is folks who don't want the GM to be a neutral arbiter, but instead acknowledge that they want the GM to actively steer the direction of the game to deliver the "most fun". That's an approach that I think is clear and understandable.


----------



## Xetheral (Jun 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition:
> coherent
> 
> 1. Sticking together; cohering
> ...



To clarify, the original sense you presented for "coherent" was: "having a _single_ unified purpose and direction." (Emphasis added.) I questioned if there was a source for that usage, since I wasn't familiar with a usage of "coherent" that was restricted to unitary purposes or directions.

Your response, however, cites an American Heritage definition that doesn't support the idea that coherence is a question of quantity, and you also say: "[incoherence] isn't a question of multiplicity". I'm thinking that means I misread your original definition of coherent as placing too much emphasis on the word "single". Based on your expanded discussion above (which I greatly appreciate) am I correct in now understanding that you think something can be "coherent" even if it has multiple purposes and directions, as long as those purposes and directions have sufficient "aesthetic consistency"?

If so I completely agree that that would be a standard usage! I'm just not confident that it's the same usage Edwards had in mind, as it would mean that "coherence" is an entirely subjective question of aesthetic consistency. I was under the impression that Edwards instead approached "coherence" as something that could be determined objectively by counting agendas, but I could be mistaken on that point.

Do you happen to know whether Edwards considered hybrid games to be coherent despite having multiple agendas, or whether he considered them not dysfunctional despite being incoherent? I think resolution of that question would go a long way towards determing whether Edwards use of "incoherent" was a standard usage as your describe above, or was instead jargon based on non-standard usages of "coherent" and "incoherent".


----------



## niklinna (Jun 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sure, you can run a LARP in a way that is as close as possible to a TTRPG and it COULD be similar to the way some people play. I don't think this means we have to assume that this is either typical or that it constrains TTRPGs. I'd wonder why people would bother with a LARP like that, it is a little odd, but people do all sorts of stuff. The LARPs I've been exposed to were rather different, but its not like I'm deep in that!
> 
> The point to me is it is downright odd to think that it wouldn't make sense to have uniform mechanics. Again, why if you don't want to use rules in one area of the game, do you want to use them in another? Its all 'resolving conflict' in the final analysis (and even more ultimately, deciding how things progress).
> 
> Sure, TO ME, it is like a carpenter who only uses power screw drivers indoors and drives all screws outdoors by hand. Its a bit odd...



No weirder than using boffer weapons to hit people in combat, and talking to them when having a conversation.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 17, 2022)

niklinna said:


> No weirder than using boffer weapons to hit people in combat, and talking to them when having a conversation.




But there's a consistency there, no? No randomizing element in either case. Or at least, not from your basic description. Again, I know next to nothing about LARP.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 17, 2022)

In my experience when social influence is resolved through the mechanic of _GM exclusively decides what the NPC does, thinks and feels and other players exclusively decide what their characters do, think and feel _one of three is usually going on:

We are limiting the social context to one that is a close facsimile to the social context at the table. Often you see this in games where every discussion involves reasonable actors and conflicts are resolved by providing rational arguments. It's also often accompanied by players playing characters that are basically self-inserts into the game's setting.
NPCs are actually puzzles. The trick to get an NPC to do what you want them to do is to engage in investigations, asking open ended questions and leveraging information found elsewhere. NPCs are mostly static and do not act upon each other except when provoked by player character actions. I call this a _social crawl_.
We are engaging in collaborative storytelling using improv style principles. Decisions from both players and GMs are made based on narrative outcomes we think would make for a better story. Often there is a level of player to GM and player to player negotiation of outcomes that exists either formally or informally through social cues.

In my experience most of the traditional RPGs and LARPs I have been part of follow these play structures in some combination. Nordic LARPs are almost exclusively #3.

Addendum: To give credit where it is due I did not coin _social crawl. _The term comes from a meat space discussion I had with Paul Czege about a game he was designing based on experience with some old school modules like Keep on the Borderlands and especially Castle Amber in a certain. It's basically a dungeon crawl, except you are exploring people instead of dungeon rooms.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 17, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> But there's a consistency there, no? No randomizing element in either case. Or at least, not from your basic description. Again, I know next to nothing about LARP.



Boffer combat doesn't involve a randomizing element, no. There are different ways of handling damage (calling numbers, versus immediate disable of any limb hit, and others). I haven't played in rock/paper/scissors larps. Even then I can imagine a fairly clear line of demarcation between things that can be fully enacted, and things that have to be randomized because of safety or real-world impossibility.

Edit: Fixed a typo.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sure, you can run a LARP in a way that is as close as possible to a TTRPG and it COULD be similar to the way some people play. I don't think this means we have to assume that this is either typical or that it constrains TTRPGs. I'd wonder why people would bother with a LARP like that, it is a little odd, but people do all sorts of stuff. The LARPs I've been exposed to were rather different, but its not like I'm deep in that!



You're misunderstanding. I'm not talking about running a LARP like TTRPG, I'm talking about running a TTRPG like a LARP. 

Social interaction in TTRPG can be handled like it is in a LARP, i.e. by the players portraying their characters by acting and the GM doing the same for the NPCs. 



AbdulAlhazred said:


> The point to me is it is downright odd to think that it wouldn't make sense to have uniform mechanics. Again, why if you don't want to use rules in one area of the game, do you want to use them in another? Its all 'resolving conflict' in the final analysis (and even more ultimately, deciding how things progress).



Because the players can talk in my living room, but I don't want them physically swinging swords in my living room. (Though it would be easy to arrange, I have swords in my living room!) I don't think this is particularly hard to understand.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sure, TO ME, it is like a carpenter who only uses power screw drivers indoors and drives all screws outdoors by hand. Its a bit odd...



That would be odd. But it is completely flawed comparison.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 17, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> None of this is changed by the use of mechanics or not. Using dice to determine outcomes to actions in no way inhibits anyone from inhabiting or portraying their character.



That's very YMMV thing. To some it absolutely does. I'm fine with very rules light social rules like occasional simple skill rolls, albeit even those may sometimes produce jarring results, but extensive social rules like Exalted 2e's social combat rules are poison to immersion for me. If you constantly need to interrupt the natural and intuitive flow of conversation to deal with the rules then that's not great.



hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, this is true. But as @AbdulAlhazred said, you could do the same with combat. What determines where rules are "needed" and "not needed"? It's all subjective, of course, depending on the game in question and the desires and expectations of the participants. But this is either a design choice or a playstyle choice that has implications.



Yes, it is subjective. But it also means that lack of extensive social rules is a feature to some people rather than a flaw. And this is far from rare sentiment.



hawkeyefan said:


> Removing some kind of resolution mechanic for social actions essentially means that the GM is deciding the outcome of such actions. If the GM is deciding the outcome, then the GM is determining the way the game goes. This may or may not be a problem for any given group, but we should not ignore it as a fact.
> 
> What I find hard to reconcile is how often this approach is coupled with the idea of the GM as a neutral arbiter. That the GM should set aside their personal biases and opinions about the events of play, and then render some reasonable and fair judgment free of their own concerns.
> 
> ...




I don't think the GM can ever be truly "neutral" arbiter. Though this doesn't mean they necessarily need to make decisions based on directing the 'story' in some particular direction. (Though that's fine too.) If the GM has a good mental image of the NPCs, they can simply aim to portray them with integrity. The NPC react to what the PCs say according to their nature. And sure, what that exactly means is a judgment call, but GMing is full of judgement calls.


----------



## Xetheral (Jun 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> The point to me is it is downright odd to think that it wouldn't make sense to have uniform mechanics. Again, why if you don't want to use rules in one area of the game, do you want to use them in another? Its all 'resolving conflict' in the final analysis (and even more ultimately, deciding how things progress).



This is where I think my earlier post about granularity fits in. Your claim that "it's all resolving conflict" is both true and meaningful at a specific level of generality.

At a higher level of generality where differences in types of conflict are the focus of analysis, however, your claim elides the differences that the analyzers are interested in. Accordingly, your claim is less meaningful at that higher level of generality, despite still being true.

Thus, I don't think the second part of your claim--that it's all resolving conflict _in the final analysis_--is accurate. It suggests that the lower-generality analysis most relevant to you is somehow more important than the higher-generality analysis that is most relevant to some others.

In other words, I don't think it's in any way "odd" (to use your wording) for (e.g.) those who focus on the in-fiction differences between types of conflicts to want separate mechanics whose differences reflect the in-fiction distinctions that are important to them.

After all, it's a general principle of modeling that to preserve relationships in the system being modelled, similar things should be modelled similarly and different things should be modelled differently. At the level of generality you're focused on, conflict resolution is all similar, and so it makes sense to you to have one mechanical system to model it. At a higher level of generality, conflict resolution is not all similar, and so it makes sense to others to have separate mechanical systems to model it.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 17, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> You're misunderstanding. I'm not talking about running a LARP like TTRPG, I'm talking about running a TTRPG like a LARP.
> 
> Social interaction in TTRPG can be handled like it is in a LARP, i.e. by the players portraying their characters by acting and the GM doing the same for the NPCs.
> 
> Because the players can talk in my living room, but I don't want them physically swinging swords in my living room. (Though it would be easy to arrange, I have swords in my living room!) I don't think this is particularly hard to understand.



To me, the question is: should an RPG be run like a LARP?

I don't think it should. For the simple reason that it prevents players from playing characters they can't embody. No everyone plays these games to be an actor. If you run for actors, it'll work. But for those of us who don't, or unless your players are always willing to "be on" it won't work. You have a super-smart player...who can never play a less smart character. You have a super-persuasive player...who can never play a less persuasive character. I like player skill up to a point. But I like players being able to try characters different from themselves more.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 17, 2022)

Xetheral said:


> To clarify, the original sense you presented for "coherent" was: "having a _single_ unified purpose and direction." (Emphasis added.) I questioned if there was a source for that usage, since I wasn't familiar with a usage of "coherent" that was restricted to unitary purposes or directions.
> 
> Your response, however, cites an American Heritage definition that doesn't support the idea that coherence is a question of quantity, and you also say: "[incoherence] isn't a question of multiplicity". I'm thinking that means I misread your original definition of coherent as placing too much emphasis on the word "single". Based on your expanded discussion above (which I greatly appreciate) am I correct in now understanding that you think something can be "coherent" even if it has multiple purposes and directions, as long as those purposes and directions have sufficient "aesthetic consistency"?



Its an interesting question. So, I think it may, to a degree, be a perspective-dependent thing. Sticking to RPGs, there could be coherency at a certain level, but maybe not at all levels. Like, an example might be the combat system in V:tM, which as I understand it (being not super familiar with this particular game specifically) is rather 'crunchy' and seems intended to be pretty gamist (rewarding expert play and requiring an exercise of skill to achieve the greatest success, possibly including a reward system for such). This seems fairly coherent, in and of itself, its a game, you play the game well, you win. Now, is the WHOLE GAME very coherent? Maybe not so much.

Maybe more generally yes, I think its possible for things that have different purposes to form a coherent whole. Aesthetic consistency certainly seems like a way to express that. There might be other ways, in specific fields too, I'm not personally wedded to aesthetics as the only possible measure.


Xetheral said:


> If so I completely agree that that would be a standard usage! I'm just not confident that it's the same usage Edwards had in mind, as it would mean that "coherence" is an entirely subjective question of aesthetic consistency. I was under the impression that Edwards instead approached "coherence" as something that could be determined objectively by counting agendas, but I could be mistaken on that point.



Well, maybe, I'm not sure. I mean, as forms of entertainment with goals and tastes that are primarily coming from the participants its hard to say what 'objective' ultimately means. I think the objective part is in terms of being able to say "gosh, if 100 different people play this game, AD&D 2e, its likely they will run into this certain kind of situation in play, often." Now, ULTIMATELY, you can only say objective things like that, you can't judge anything at all. There are no known criteria by which to render objective judgment on the world (at least that more than about 3 people will generally agree on). I like the Buddhist formulation of this concept: Om, gate gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhi soha! Roughly "the world is empty of meaning and this is a truth beyond meaning."


Xetheral said:


> Do you happen to know whether Edwards considered hybrid games to be coherent despite having multiple agendas, or whether he considered them not dysfunctional despite being incoherent? I think resolution of that question would go a long way towards determing whether Edwards use of "incoherent" was a standard usage as your describe above, or was instead jargon based on non-standard usages of "coherent" and "incoherent".



Eh, I don't know. I'm not that much of a Forge Guru, lol. My impression is that he meant incoherent in the sense of 'not sticking to one agenda coherently', and thus that any 'multiple agenda' game is in some sense incoherent, but that it might be designed in such a way as to achieve overall aesthetic consistency at some level (presumably by resolving the issues raised by the clash of agendas in some deliberate way). This would then be a 'hybrid agenda situation' and presumably functional. Would it still be incoherent? You would have to ask Ron how he would answer that, but again maybe @pemerton, having a rather good mind for quotations, can cite something on that. I really have a lousy memory for such things!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 17, 2022)

niklinna said:


> No weirder than using boffer weapons to hit people in combat, and talking to them when having a conversation.



I've done rather a lot of that, lol. Rattan and compressed foam and etc. too! Ever been hit in the nuts by a 2lb mace? Fun stuff! Anyway, I would call those two activities totally consistent, you act out everything (modulus the fact that boffers and such are not 100% realistic). Equally possible, but only really making sense in TTRPG play IME, you can dice for everything. A third possibility is a ref can decide everything. Obviously some permutations of these are available where 'actions' are divided up into multiple categories to which different solutions are applied. All of these logically can exist, although 'boffers at the table' is a BAD idea (trust me).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 17, 2022)

Xetheral said:


> This is where I think my earlier post about granularity fits in. Your claim that "it's all resolving conflict" is both true and meaningful at a specific level of generality.
> 
> At a higher level of generality where differences in types of conflict are the focus of analysis, however, your claim elides the differences that the analyzers are interested in. Accordingly, your claim is less meaningful at that higher level of generality, despite still being true.
> 
> ...



I am a little bit unclear as to what the higher level of generality is.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 17, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> To me, the question is: should an RPG be run like a LARP?
> 
> I don't think it should. For the simple reason that it prevents players from playing characters they can't embody. No everyone plays these games to be an actor. If you run for actors, it'll work. But for those of us who don't, or unless your players are always willing to "be on" it won't work. You have a super-smart player...who can never play a less smart character. You have a super-persuasive player...who can never play a less persuasive character. I like player skill up to a point. But I like players being able to try characters different from themselves more.



Right, this is all the age-old classic debate about player-focused play vs character-focused play (aka role-play vs roll-play in some circles). I agree with you, it is one possible consideration. When I come at the whole question more from a Narrativist (and specifically Story Now) type of perspective then we can STILL have this same debate (because there's no reason why the ideas related to staying in character or not go away in SN). So, TYPICALLY most of the SN games I'm really familiar with seem to operate on the basis of using mechanics to resolve everything, and using the same mechanics across the board, or at least reusing a couple of specific approaches in many situations. Some instead do create different 'phases' or 'modes of play' in which the rules differ somewhat. 

Certainly I could see attempting to do SN like OD&D non-combat where there basically are not rules, but only 'markers' (alignment, ability scores, race, class) plus avowed character background. This could be extended to a more elaborate system of traits, though past a certain point it would probably shade into 'rule based adjudication' again. Will it work? I'm not sure, gotta think about that one


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> The basic problem is, in any even vaguely realistic sense, the guy who can move and react 2-10x faster than everyone else is so utterly out of their league in every respect that they cannot reasonably be engaged with on a meaningful basis (though there might be some tricks you could employ to negate this advantage). So, as soon as your game espouses any sort of simulationist agenda in which even a vague sense of things corresponding to reality coupled with such an ability is part of the game, you will run into this. Either it needs to be a trope "all vampires are blindingly fast and thus normal humans are as sheep to them." or this sort of combat ability needs to be super limited or mostly unavailable for some other reasons, etc. The problem of course is that players will always try to find a way to take something really powerful and get around its limitations in game systems that are at all gamist, and/or where other aspects of the game make such correspond with an agenda.




There are ways to hose it down some, though.  Notably, later editions of SR, instead of having most of the actions before the actions of the single-action (or even multiple but slower) opponents, had them occur after.  It was still a pretty notable benefit, but not as utterly crippling to be on the wrong end of.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> So it was bad in the sense that it undermined game play. Now, if how well you fight wasn't really that important, and the game focused on something else entirely, or every PC did the same thing, then it wouldn't really be a problem. This is pretty well explicated by considering it a gamist/HCS agenda mismatch.




It has to be really focused in other areas, however, and you can't make it any kind of choice whether to do it or not if it is partly focused on combat, otherwise the lack of it becomes a trap option.

(Its not a coincidence that I only know _one_ superhero game that tried to represent superspeed that way, and it was notoriously called out for it).


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 17, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> Or it's as simple as saying one player getting 4 turns while another gets 1 isn't fun for the another.




Let's not forget that they not only get 4 to 1, they get their four _first_.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 17, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Boffer combat doesn't involve a randomizing element, no. There are different ways of handling damage (calling numbers, versus immediate disable of any limb hit, and others). I haven't played in rock/paper/scissors larps. Even then I can imaging a fairly clear line of demarcation between things that can be fully enacted, and things that have to be randomized because of safety or real-world impossibility.




But of course, in practice that's true of social interactions, too, unless people are playing characters visually and knowledgeably similar to themselves.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 17, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> To me, the question is: should an RPG be run like a LARP?
> 
> I don't think it should. For the simple reason that it prevents players from playing characters they can't embody. No everyone plays these games to be an actor. If you run for actors, it'll work. But for those of us who don't, or unless your players are always willing to "be on" it won't work. You have a super-smart player...who can never play a less smart character. You have a super-persuasive player...who can never play a less persuasive character. I like player skill up to a point. But I like players being able to try characters different from themselves more.




This is commonly my view too, but you frequently get people who's response is, when stripped down to the ground "I don't care.  The primary purpose in the game is the social interactions done between the actual players and the GM, and if that fairness interferes with that, then we'll just have to do without that fairness."  There's really no answer to that; its an unbridgeable gulf.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> LARPs and TTRPGs are very different beasts. When participating in a LARP there is necessarily a type of total immersion, you literally ARE your character, physically. There may be conventions related to resolving things that people cannot obviously risk doing, like lethal combat and whatnot, but the WHOLE IDEA is to play out the action as closely as possible to reality, any other action is simply a 'kludge' that is required because we're in the real world still.



Still no reason not to at least try to LARP what one can at the table, which includes nearly all social situations.


AbdulAlhazred said:


> The situation in a TTRPG is entirely different. It is quite possible, and IMHO often quite desirable to have uniform resolution processes. It really IS quite odd when they don't exist. I mean, odd in the sense that social situations, for example, in D&D aught to be as potentially lucrative and also dangerous as anything else, but yet we just say what happened, no hard adjudication at all. Its actually pretty weird when you think about it. I mean, why not just resolve combat that way too? lol.



We don't and can't resolve combat that way due to a) the players' own sense of self-preservation and b) the criminal codes of nearly every country in the world. 

So, for combat we need an abstraction; and that's what the game rules give us.  It also turns out to be handy for the game rules to give us abstractions for other physical activities e.g. elimbing walls, jumping crevasses, sneaking around guards, and so forth.

What we don't need an abstraction for is talking.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 17, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Still no reason not to at least try to LARP what one can at the table, which includes nearly all social situations.
> 
> We don't and can't resolve combat that way due to a) the players' own sense of self-preservation and b) the criminal codes of nearly every country in the world.
> 
> ...



Yeah, that was apparently unclear as I wrote it, obviously people cannot bash each other with maces to resolve combat. I meant, why wouldn't we resolve combat by talking? Why is it different from any other type of conflict?


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> The point to me is it is downright odd to think that it wouldn't make sense to have uniform mechanics.



I don't have nearly the same fondness fo runiform mechanics that you seem to, in that even when mechanics are required I prefer they be bespoke to the thing they are trying to absrtact rather than shoehorned into a unified system that generally doesn't do as good a job as would bespoke mechanics.


AbdulAlhazred said:


> Again, why if you don't want to use rules in one area of the game, do you want to use them in another? Its all 'resolving conflict' in the final analysis (and even more ultimately, deciding how things progress).
> 
> Sure, TO ME, it is like a carpenter who only uses power screw drivers indoors and drives all screws outdoors by hand. Its a bit odd...



Where what I prefer is a system that maps to a carpenter having a full bag of tools, in each case using the tool that is best for the job at hand, and sometimes realizing that in fact no tools are required for this particular job as it can either be done by hand or doesn't need a carpenter in order to get done.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 17, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> That's very YMMV thing. To some it absolutely does. I'm fine with very rules light social rules like occasional simple skill rolls, albeit even those may sometimes produce jarring results, but extensive social rules like Exalted 2e's social combat rules are poison to immersion for me. If you constantly need to interrupt the natural and intuitive flow of conversation to deal with the rules then that's not great.




I can see how the scale of the mechanics may impact this to some extent, so that's a fair point. Some people will find heavy mechanics in this area to be distracting to what they want to do. I generally find heavy mechanics to be distracting overall, so I don't think I was considering a game with extensive social mechanics so much as some social mechanics. 



Crimson Longinus said:


> Yes, it is subjective. But it also means that lack of extensive social rules is a feature to some people rather than a flaw. And this is far from rare sentiment.




Yeah, we agree here. The initial comment was in response to @Lanefan who said:


Lanefan said:


> The game doesn't fall apart when things move into purely RPed social stuff, it more just gets out of the way - *like it should.*




And I was pointing out how "should" is probably not correct, because for some people and some games, that very much is the game falling apart. Emphasis above mine. 

That there are multiple ways this may work, not should work, is not at all what I'm disagreeing with. Quite the opposite. 



Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't think the GM can ever be truly "neutral" arbiter. Though this doesn't mean they necessarily need to make decisions based on directing the 'story' in some particular direction. (Though that's fine too.) If the GM has a good mental image of the NPCs, they can simply aim to portray them with integrity. The NPC react to what the PCs say according to their nature. And sure, what that exactly means is a judgment call, but GMing is full of judgement calls.




Some folks absolutely claim the GM should be neutral. I agree with you that it's not something that's really possible, or at least, I think it's more difficult than is worth the effort. I mean, if you want neutral, there are easier ways to get it. 

I think when it comes to the output of actions, the GM very much is directing the story. They may not be doing so toward some predetermined path, but they are determining in the moment how things will go. Which is fine....some amount of that is to be expected. I just like when there is input from the system as well as the GM and the players. Some amount of input beyond just the GM's conception of the NPC or situation. 

But as above, these are matters of preference.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, that was apparently unclear as I wrote it, obviously people cannot bash each other with maces to resolve combat. I meant, why wouldn't we resolve combat by talking? Why is it different from any other type of conflict?



Partly because - and think about real life for a moment - most of the time a combat (or test of skill) ends up hard-resolving one way or another: someone wins, someone loses, or the skill-test succeeds or fails; and either way it's done and over.

But how often in reality does a social situation ever hard-resolve like that?  Not very, I'd posit, which is why we have constructs like votes and polls and so forth to push things forward when such is essential.  Most social situations otherwise tend to soft-resolve if they resolve at all - I mean, how often have you gone out with a friend for a beer, got into a friendly debate or chat over something, and had that chat or debate never come to an actual resolution before you went home for the night?

What this means is that having mechanics that can generate hard-resolves for physical things (combat, tests of skill, etc.) are far more reflective of reality than are mechanics that want to generate hard-resolves for social situations.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 17, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> So, for combat we need an abstraction; and that's what the game rules give us. It also turns out to be handy for the game rules to give us abstractions for other physical activities e.g. elimbing walls, jumping crevasses, sneaking around guards, and so forth.
> 
> What we don't need an abstraction for is talking.




My view is that me talking to my friends about pretend events has as much in common with any important, high-stakes social interaction as rolling dice does with actual combat.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 17, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Partly because - and think about real life for a moment - most of the time a combat (or test of skill) ends up hard-resolving one way or another: someone wins, someone loses, or the skill-test succeeds or fails; and either way it's done and over.



Thinking about real life conflict, including war, battles, and conflict... not really. It often adds further complications, particularly when looking at large-scale state conflicts but this is also true even if we look at the small-scale of school-yard bullies. Someone may be die at the end of a physical conflict whereas the stakes may not go there for a social conflict, but wins and loss states are still present in both.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 17, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> This is commonly my view too, but you frequently get people who's response is, when stripped down to the ground "I don't care. The primary purpose in the game is the social interactions done between the actual players and the GM, and *if that fairness interferes with that*, then we'll just have to do without that fairness." There's really no answer to that; its an unbridgeable gulf.



The social interaction between referee and players is the absolute cornerstone of RPGs. Near as I can tell anything that gets in the way of that conversation should be jettisoned. But, players not being able to play characters different from themselves severely limits what RPGs can do. 

I don't think there is an answer for all players, all referees, for all time. But we don't need one. Different people play these games for different reasons. Some favor the ability of players to play anything. Some favor not having mechanics for social interaction. They get to decide as a group how things are handled.

Personally, I don't see how having mechanics for social stuff interferes with the player-referee real-world interactions. It just requires that the referee police the players' character choices and/or you roll for everything. Which are both whole other cans of worms.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 17, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I don't have nearly the same fondness fo runiform mechanics that you seem to, in that even when mechanics are required I prefer they be bespoke to the thing they are trying to absrtact rather than shoehorned into a unified system that generally doesn't do as good a job as would bespoke mechanics.
> 
> Where what I prefer is a system that maps to a carpenter having a full bag of tools, in each case using the tool that is best for the job at hand, and sometimes realizing that in fact no tools are required for this particular job as it can either be done by hand or doesn't need a carpenter in order to get done.



Right, the problem that arose with that was the old 'nothing works with anything else' problem. So, for example you can't make a magic item in AD&D that adds to your to-hit and your initiative roll, because for some unfathomable reason they use different sized dice. If you have a part of the game that is basically not using formal mechanics, then you obviously cannot apply anything of that sort to it at all! I mean, how do you handle 'Charm Person' in classic D&D? There are as many ways as their are DMs! The crazy part with AD&D was, it HAS a set of social rules, reaction tables, morale, obedience, etc. but it doesn't interact with any spells whatsoever! (maybe the DMG lists a modifier or two for specific spells, I don't recall OTTOMH). 4e shows the true power of the opposite, you can basically describe any sort of possible fictional effect using its mechanical 'language' to make it function in the process of play. 

I mean, I'm not averse to the argument that "no rules are best for X" particularly, but I have little regard for the notion that very different rules work well for different things. You gotta cross a pretty high bar to convince me that's for the best in any given case. I mean, in terms of D&D's just rolling different dice in every situation, FEH! Every toss of dice can be translated to some probability, and all probabilities have a common scale, and can generally translate pretty well to things like a d20. This is really fundamentally why when I wrote my own game, I just stuck to the basic d20 format, it just works, there's very little point to other formats.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 17, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Partly because - and think about real life for a moment - most of the time a combat (or test of skill) ends up hard-resolving one way or another: someone wins, someone loses, or the skill-test succeeds or fails; and either way it's done and over.
> 
> But how often in reality does a social situation ever hard-resolve like that?  Not very, I'd posit, which is why we have constructs like votes and polls and so forth to push things forward when such is essential.  Most social situations otherwise tend to soft-resolve if they resolve at all - I mean, how often have you gone out with a friend for a beer, got into a friendly debate or chat over something, and had that chat or debate never come to an actual resolution before you went home for the night?






Lanefan said:


> What this means is that having mechanics that can generate hard-resolves for physical things (combat, tests of skill, etc.) are far more reflective of reality than are mechanics that want to generate hard-resolves for social situations.



Well, yeah, I get your meaning of course. OTOH in terms of RPG play I'm a 'hit them with a clue hammer square in the forehead' kind of guy. In my experience subtlety is not a virtue in most cases in RPG play. In the case of a game with subject matter in the realm of what D&D has, how often does something that isn't critical and decisive actually require playing out at all? I mean, my own system has 'Interlude', which is a mode of play where 2 characters could sit around a bar philosophizing if that's what the players really wanted, and of course no dice will be tossed, because nothing is at stake! So, yes, if that's what people were meaning by 'social without mechanics' we're all on the same page. OTOH when something IS at stake, in HoML at least, you will do an SC (or part of one, or more than one). That means there isn't actually a hard and specific mapping of mechanics to exact actions within the fiction, necessarily either. Quite a few things could simply be "Oh, yeah, setup, that just happens" or a number of things could get a summary check on Persuade that just tells us generally where things were going and did you make headway on your quest.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 17, 2022)

niklinna said:


> No weirder than using boffer weapons to hit people in combat, and talking to them when having a conversation.



But isn't conversation in a LARP, or at @Lanefan's RPG table, "boffered"?

I mean, in real life conversation - especially in high-stakes situations - people shout at one another, use cutting words, cry, storm out, say things they regret later, stumble, mutter under their breath, etc, etc. There are real emotions and those emotions are inseparable from what is said and heard.

But in a LARP or sitting at a table no one wants that. So if the character I'm playing is trying to bully the character you're playing, I don't actually try and ground your sense of self into the ground, which is what I would do in the real world if I was trying to bully you. I pretend, and you pretend. In some sense I suspect the boffered weapons are actually more verisimilitudinous.

To me, this goes back directly to @Campbell's post about the three modes of "social only" resolution. Either we're negotiating stuff essentially as participants at the table, in which case any overlay of histrionics is nothing more than that - the real action is in working out what we all do just as if we were working out where to go out for dinner. Or the GM's histrionics are clues to NPC motivations/backstories which the players then figure out (the "social crawl"). Or we're cooperating in story telling in some fashion.

But what we're not doing is actually modelling social interaction. I'm not actually generating, in you, any of the internal mental and emotional processes that occur when you fall in love with someone or are scared of someone or feel embarrassed or shamed by someone.

Which is also why @AbdulAlhazred's remark about resolving combat by talking is dead on! The cognitive process of deciding whether or not my character - as described - has yelled enough at your character to bully you into submission is no different from the cognitive process of deciding whether or not my character - as described - has wielded a sword sufficiently deftly to disarm and/or disable your character. It's a complete illusion to think that in the social case there is some genuine modelling or replication of the actual mental and emotional processes you character would be undergoing.



overgeeked said:


> To me, the question is: should an RPG be run like a LARP?
> 
> I don't think it should. For the simple reason that it prevents players from playing characters they can't embody. No everyone plays these games to be an actor.



I'm not an actor. But from what I understand about how actors do their job, the comparison to acting is misplaced.

Suppose a script involves a scene in which one character hurls abuse at another, and the second character runs off in tears. The actors performing in that scene don't need to decide how their characters react. The actor playing the second character doesn't need to decide how much abuse their character can take, or whether or not their character would stand up to the other one. The script already answers that question for them! Or a different example: in a TV ad one character winks at another, charming them so much that the winked-at character gives them <a kiss, a rose, a chocolate, a car - whatever is salient for the ad). This doesn't mean that one human being _actually_ charmed another with a wink; and it doesn't mean that one human being reached the conclusion, by some process of reasoning or intuition, that another human being's wink was so charming that it made sense that it would charm another.

Again, they are just following the script.

So in RPGing, where does the script come from? Again, this take us back to @Campbell and @AbdulAlhazred's posts. The GM can write the script but then keep it secret from the players, so they have to puzzle it out: this is the "social crawl". The players and GM can write a script together: this is improv-style cooperative storytelling. We can roll dice to determine the script: this is AbdulAlhazred's uniform mechanics. Or we can converse among friends with no script and actually engage in a social process: this is Campbell's first mode, in which the social role play is really just a group of friends sitting around negotiating stuff among themselves.



Crimson Longinus said:


> To a lot of people immersing to and inhabiting the character is the point in both.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> People talking in character a lot and emoting for their characters.



I like to inhabit my character and emote for my character. But as I've just posted, this doesn't tell us anything about how social interaction is resolved. Because unless the social interaction is very low-key, and thus the stakes for the two interacting characters are not wildly different from the stakes for the two game participants (again, this is @Campbell's first mode), it won't be the emoting and inhabitation that is resolving things. Because I won't actually be falling in love with your, or scared of you, or emotionally crushed by you, or actually having induced in me any of the actual causal processes that are ostensibly taking place in my character's head and heart.

So how is the script authored? Rolling the dice to generate it - @AbdulAlhazred's suggestion - is one way, and involves no less inhabitation and emoting than any other. Compared to @Campbell's first and second modes (respectively, actual real world low stakes negotiation, or social crawling) I think it involves much more inhabitation and emoting. And compare to the third mode (cooperative storytelling) I think it is a way for reducing contrivance, and opening the door to more visceral inhabitation by imposing hard limits on whose character feels what.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I mean, my own system has 'Interlude', which is a mode of play where 2 characters could sit around a bar philosophizing if that's what the players really wanted, and of course no dice will be tossed, because nothing is at stake! So, yes, if that's what people were meaning by 'social without mechanics' we're all on the same page. OTOH when something IS at stake, in HoML at least, you will do an SC (or part of one, or more than one).



Right.

The last "two characters in a bar" scene I recall in my play was two PCs in Prince Valiant who were both wooing the same lady (one a knight, at that time the other a squire). They were debating who should yield to whom. This wasn't a social crawl - it was PC vs PC, not PC vs NPC. It wasn't analogous to two PCs working out whether to explore the left or the right archway first - ie it wasn't actual negotiation in the real world as a proxy for actual negotiation in the fiction. So that left three options: the players actually try and generate the feelings (towards one another; towards the lady) that their PCs feel, and genuinely act on those, and drink ales, and keep going until the situation actually resolves, or not (ie we replicate real life, with all the wash-up and hard feelings and hangovers and broken friendships that that involves); or the players make a decision about who yields (cooperative storytelling); or we roll some dice.

We did the third: opposed Fellowship checks. Which tied, so neither yielded to the other and both continued to woo the lady. (Play to find out what happens!)


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 17, 2022)

pemerton said:


> But isn't conversation in a LARP, or at @Lanefan's RPG table, "boffered"?
> 
> I mean, in real life conversation - especially in high-stakes situations - people shout at one another, use cutting words, cry, storm out, say things they regret later, stumble, mutter under their breath, etc, etc. There are real emotions and those emotions are inseparable from what is said and heard.
> 
> ...



I simply must conclude that you do not do, nor get, the sort of immersion based 'method acting' that is common in LARPs. It is not real, but it is more than just "pretending." And people actually feel their character's feelings and inhabit the mental position of their characters and make decisions from there.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 17, 2022)

Xetheral said:


> Do you happen to know whether Edwards considered hybrid games to be coherent despite having multiple agendas, or whether he considered them not dysfunctional despite being incoherent? I think resolution of that question would go a long way towards determing whether Edwards use of "incoherent" was a standard usage as your describe above, or was instead jargon based on non-standard usages of "coherent" and "incoherent".





AbdulAlhazred said:


> Eh, I don't know. I'm not that much of a Forge Guru, lol. My impression is that he meant incoherent in the sense of 'not sticking to one agenda coherently', and thus that any 'multiple agenda' game is in some sense incoherent, but that it might be designed in such a way as to achieve overall aesthetic consistency at some level (presumably by resolving the issues raised by the clash of agendas in some deliberate way). This would then be a 'hybrid agenda situation' and presumably functional. Would it still be incoherent? You would have to ask Ron how he would answer that, but again maybe @pemerton, having a rather good mind for quotations, can cite something on that. I really have a lousy memory for such things!



I posted some extensive quotes from Edwards upthread:


pemerton said:


> We don't need to speculate about what Edwards said about _incoherence_ and _dysfunction_. His writings on the topic are easily available online.
> 
> In the original GNS essays, Edwards says some things about incoherence here:
> 
> ...


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 17, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Right.
> 
> The last "two characters in a bar" scene I recall in my play was two PCs in Prince Valiant who were both wooing the same lady (one a knight, at that time the other a squire). They were debating who should yield to whom. This wasn't a social crawl - it was PC vs PC, not PC vs NPC. It wasn't analogous to two PCs working out whether to explore the left or the right archway first - ie it wasn't actual negotiation in the real world as a proxy for actual negotiation in the fiction. So that left three options: the players actually try and generate the feelings (towards one another; towards the lady) that their PCs feel, and genuinely act on those, and drink ales, and keep going until the situation actually resolves, or not (ie we replicate real life, with all the wash-up and hard feelings and hangovers and broken friendships that that involves); or the players make a decision about who yields (cooperative storytelling); or we roll some dice.
> 
> We did the third: opposed Fellowship checks. Which tied, so neither yielded to the other and both continued to woo the lady. (Play to find out what happens!)



Well, sounds hella boring way to solve a situation that would be fodder for some great roleplaying. I wouldn't play in a game like this.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 17, 2022)

pemerton said:


> But isn't conversation in a LARP, or at @Lanefan's RPG table, "boffered"?
> 
> I mean, in real life conversation - especially in high-stakes situations - people shout at one another, use cutting words, cry, storm out, say things they regret later, stumble, mutter under their breath, etc, etc. There are real emotions and those emotions are inseparable from what is said and heard.
> 
> ...



I like your analysis. I expect the response will be, and I can sympathize with it, is that there's SOME verisimilitude in being "in the character's shoes." Sort of like there is some verisimilitude in the use of boffers to play out the action of a fight. Neither one is REALISTIC, but there is some bit of visceral experience involved. I might not bully another player into an emotional crack up, but I might lightly inhabit that state of mind and use it to react in a somewhat more authentic way. I mean, personally I'm more in your camp than not, I think playing a role is never THAT similar to the 'real thing'. However, it isn't arguable that talking through something, and play acting, is different from rolling dice. I have to accept that some people will prefer the former over the latter for reasons which are probably not really fully rational and articulable.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 17, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I like your analysis. I expect the response will be, and I can sympathize with it, is that there's SOME verisimilitude in being "in the character's shoes." Sort of like there is some verisimilitude in the use of boffers to play out the action of a fight. Neither one is REALISTIC, but there is some bit of visceral experience involved. I might not bully another player into an emotional crack up, but I might lightly inhabit that state of mind and use it to react in a somewhat more authentic way. I mean, personally I'm more in your camp than not, I think playing a role is never THAT similar to the 'real thing'. However, it isn't arguable that talking through something, and play acting, is different from rolling dice. I have to accept that some people will prefer the former over the latter for reasons which are probably not really fully rational and articulable.



Right. It is hella more like the real thing than a dice roll is.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 17, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Well, sounds hella boring way to solve a situation that would be fodder for some great roleplaying. I wouldn't play in a game like this.



It depends on where your line is. Some players don’t want to embody their characters to that extent. But when you get past the RP and neither side budges, how do you resolve something like that? To me, the best way to do it is RP the scene until things come to a head and you end up repeating yourself. That’s where the roll comes in. To resolve the conflict that can’t be resolved through role-play. I agree, skipping the RP and just rolling sounds duller than dirt. But I don’t think that’s what the poster suggested.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 17, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Right. It is hella more like the real thing than a dice roll is.



Maybe, maybe not. I have known a number of war veterans in my lifetime, one at least who was involved in combat, brutal kill and die merciless combat. Nothing you can do that is pretend is in any way shape or form similar to that, so no pretend combat even faintly resembles the real thing in any of the ways that really matter. IME something similar can be said for RP of other kinds of situations. Certainly many common everyday situations could undoubtedly be role played out in a way that is a lot more realistic than rolling dice, or feels more realistic. I don't think that's true for high stakes situations. I talked an armed man out of killing people one time, many years ago, I guarantee you cannot role play that! I mean, you can go through the motions, but it is about as real as RPing that time my buddy's patrol got overrun by an NVA regiment, like a candle compared to a Saturn V rocket.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 17, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> The social interaction between referee and players is the absolute cornerstone of RPGs. Near as I can tell anything that gets in the way of that conversation should be jettisoned. But, players not being able to play characters different from themselves severely limits what RPGs can do.
> 
> I don't think there is an answer for all players, all referees, for all time. But we don't need one. Different people play these games for different reasons. Some favor the ability of players to play anything. Some favor not having mechanics for social interaction. They get to decide as a group how things are handled.
> 
> Personally, I don't see how having mechanics for social stuff interferes with the player-referee real-world interactions. It just requires that the referee police the players' character choices and/or you roll for everything. Which are both whole other cans of worms.




But that's the point; there are people who _do_ see any mechanics of any account as getting in the way of that, and as long as that's how they see it that way, they have the view you express in your first sentence.  There's different degrees of how much mechanics before they see it that way, but in some cases its virtually any at all.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 17, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I simply must conclude that you do not do, nor get, the sort of immersion based 'method acting' that is common in LARPs. It is not real, but it is more than just "pretending." And people actually feel their character's feelings and inhabit the mental position of their characters and make decisions from there.



Stuff that's not real is pretence, isn't it?

Conversely, inhabiting the mental position of the character would mean that it's real.  The point of method acting, as I understand it, is that the feelings are real.

But how much storming out in anger actually happens at your table? Or falling in love? And are you saying that the GM is doing this for multiple characters at once?

I certainly don't think the Critical Role players are doing this. They aren't method acting. They're performing in the same sort of way an actor would do on a TV ad.



Crimson Longinus said:


> Well, sounds hella boring way to solve a situation that would be fodder for some great roleplaying. I wouldn't play in a game like this.



We have other things we're doing and want to do. After framing the checks, we resolve them. I'm reporting something from a few years ago, but I imagine the scene probably took 15 minutes to resolve.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 17, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> But that's the point; there are people who _do_ see any mechanics of any account as getting in the way of that, and as long as that's how they see it that way, they have the view you express in your first sentence.  There's different degrees of how much mechanics before they see it that way, but in some cases its virtually any at all.



Okay. But so what? Some people play that way. Not everyone does. I don’t see the problem. Everyone has preferences and will gravitate to games that work how they want or hack games to work how they want. That’s the DIY aspect of the hobby working as intended.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 17, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> It depends on where your line is. Some players don’t want to embody their characters to that extent. But when you get past the RP and neither side budges, how do you resolve something like that? To me, the best way to do it is RP the scene until things come to a head and you end up repeating yourself. That’s where the roll comes in. To resolve the conflict that can’t be resolved through role-play. I agree, skipping the RP and just rolling sounds duller than dirt. But I don’t think that’s what the poster suggested.




That said, "duller than dirt" is preferable to some people who would find getting into that kind of scene deep enough to do an even halfway competent job as extremely stressful, as they're heavily non-confrontational, and there being no real stakes doesn't change that.  This is why this is an area where any decision you make on how to resolve things excludes some people and/or tells some people simply not to participate in this part of the game.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 17, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Okay. But so what? Some people play that way. Not everyone does. I don’t see the problem. Everyone has preferences and will gravitate to games that work how they want or hack games to work how they want. That’s the DIY aspect of the hobby working as intended.




"So what" is it produces the uncrossable divide I mentioned earlier.  And it pays to keep that in mind or you find you go into discussions with assumptions other people simply don't share, perhaps at all.

(But also I think you're extremely optimistic that everyone has the selection options to just chose a game that lands where they want on this spectrum.  There can be any number of reasons where people's options are "play with this particular group and how they play or not at all.")


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I like your analysis. I expect the response will be, and I can sympathize with it, is that there's SOME verisimilitude in being "in the character's shoes." Sort of like there is some verisimilitude in the use of boffers to play out the action of a fight. Neither one is REALISTIC, but there is some bit of visceral experience involved. I might not bully another player into an emotional crack up, but I might lightly inhabit that state of mind and use it to react in a somewhat more authentic way. I mean, personally I'm more in your camp than not, I think playing a role is never THAT similar to the 'real thing'. However, it isn't arguable that talking through something, and play acting, is different from rolling dice. I have to accept that some people will prefer the former over the latter for reasons which are probably not really fully rational and articulable.



People's preferences are what they are.

Given that I've cried tears in playing a character, I've probably emoted as much as many ENworlders.

But the script had to come from somewhere. I didn't cry tears because someone or something actually reduced me to tears. I made a decision about what my character would feel, and then used memories (of experiences in my own life, and also of the person I knew who had had an experience most like that my character was undergoing) to generate that feeling in myself, which thus led me to cry.

In the bullying case, you as a player might inhabit the state of mind of someone who is being bullied. But I doubt that many people advocate that the bully should inhabit that state of mind, and imagine taking pleasure in reducing others to tears! Rather, we rely on the player of the bully to convey the idea that their character is a bully, and then except the other players to somehow internalise that in their response. They're not actually being bullied.

Or think of a romance case. The world is full of passes and pick-up lines that fail, one night stands who won't go away, broken hearts, etc. Is anyone saying that we should have those things among the friends at a RPG table? In real life there are many social situations that simply don't resolve, people who never speak again, etc. Unless one character is permanently out of the game, how is that going to work at the RPG table?

The script has to come from somewhere. And the creation of the script is logically independent of the emoting or inhabiting of the character.



Crimson Longinus said:


> Right. It is hella more like the real thing than a dice roll is.



I've cried watching Maggie Cheung in Ashes of Time. It was a lot more real than any RPGing I've ever seen or participated in. But she was following a script.

The notion that scripting and emotional power are at odds isn't one I can agree with.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I talked an armed man out of killing people one time, many years ago, I guarantee you cannot role play that!



That's the sort of thing I have in mind. But also more prosaic moments that still involve emotional processes that are irrevocable and are not going to be emulated at the table: propositioning someone; being prepared to break someone's heart; being screamed at by one's boss for an hour; calming a student who is in tears in your office; deciding whether or not to take a sick child to the hospital in the middle of the night, or instead to wait until morning and see if they feel any better.

Someone has to make a decision. The character won't script themself.


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> The players and GM can write a script together: *this is improv-style cooperative storytelling.* We can roll dice to determine the script: this is AbdulAlhazred's uniform mechanics. Or we can converse among friends with no script and actually engage in a social process: this is Campbell's first mode, in which the social role play is really just a* group of friends sitting around negotiating stuff among themselves.*






pemerton said:


> But how much storming out in anger actually happens at your table? Or falling in love? And are you saying that the GM is doing this for multiple characters at once?




Your points here are generally sensible but perhaps put too much a fine point on the distinction between inhabiting a character and free form cooperative storytelling.  Both can be done in the third person, as it were.  That is, I can say, "when my character hears that, she storms out of the room in anger."  And I can say that either because it's what I think the character would do or because I think it would make a good story.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 18, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> That said, "duller than dirt" is preferable to some people who would find getting into that kind of scene deep enough to do an even halfway competent job as extremely stressful, as they're heavily non-confrontational, and there being no real stakes doesn't change that.  This is why this is an area where any decision you make on how to resolve things excludes some people and/or tells some people simply not to participate in this part of the game.



Yes. It’s literally unavoidable no matter what you do or play someone will be excluded in some fashion. You can either accept that or not play games. The best you can hope for is a good session zero where (most) people are (mostly) on the same page. 


Thomas Shey said:


> "So what" is it produces the uncrossable divide I mentioned earlier.  And it pays to keep that in mind or you find you go into discussions with assumptions other people simply don't share, perhaps at all.



To me this reads like “remember water is wet.” Yes, different people have different preferences and play games for different reasons. Obviously. We either accept that as a universal truth or we prevent any possible further conversation about games and gaming by insisting on bringing it up and talking about it ad nauseam. 


Thomas Shey said:


> But also I think you're extremely optimistic that everyone has the selection options to just chose a game that lands where they want on this spectrum.



If they’re self-aware enough to know what their preferences are, there’s a nearly infinite variety of games to choose from. All they have to do is look. Or hack. Or write it themselves. 


Thomas Shey said:


> There can be any number of reasons where people's options are "play with this particular group and how they play or not at all."



Hard pass. Especially now with how prevalent online gaming is. I’m sure you can come up with a wild hypothetical, but that seems pointless. All you have to do is go online and be willing to take a chance.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Stuff that's not real is pretence, isn't it?
> 
> Conversely, inhabiting the mental position of the character would mean that it's real.  The point of method acting, as I understand it, is that the feelings are real.



Yes, it is real and pretence at the same time. You pretend to be someone so hard that you (at least in some small sense) become them. I'm not particularly interested in untangling the semantics of this, I assume we both understand what is meant.




pemerton said:


> But how much storming out in anger actually happens at your table? Or falling in love?



These have happened. Granted, only in LARPs someone physically storms off rather than announcing that their character does that.



pemerton said:


> And are you saying that the GM is doing this for multiple characters at once?



No, GM is by necessity doing very light version at best. 



pemerton said:


> I certainly don't think the Critical Role players are doing this. They aren't method acting. They're performing in the same sort of way an actor would do on a TV ad.



I don't agree. They aren't that good actors, the emotional reactions are quite real.




pemerton said:


> We have other things we're doing and want to do. After framing the checks, we resolve them. I'm reporting something from a few years ago, but I imagine the scene probably took 15 minutes to resolve.



I find it weird that you opted for a dice roll to _avoid_ getting in the heads of the characters at an important and emotional moment. That to me seems so counterproductive for what I want from RPGs that I really cannot even begin to unpack it.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> The script has to come from somewhere. And the creation of the script is logically independent of the emoting or inhabiting of the character.



It is not. By inhabiting the character you gain intuitive understanding of their feelings and what they would do, and those in turn contribute to the "script."


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Your points here are generally sensible but perhaps put too much a fine point on the distinction between inhabiting a character and free form cooperative storytelling.  Both can be done in the third person, as it were.  That is, I can say, "when my character hears that, she storms out of the room in anger."  And I can say that either because it's what I think the character would do or because I think it would make a good story.



@Campbell's point, as I understood it, is that when you decide "that's what my character would do" you typically have in mind some further constraint, along the lines of _the game has to go on_ or _so-and-so can respond to that in such-and-such way_.

In real life, some stormings out are actually the end of things. But how often at RPG tables do people make decisions that are actually the ends of things?

Part of the point of non-consensual resolution systems, as I see them, is that they create more space for harder resolution by shifting responsibility for carrying the fiction elsewhere.

For instance, if you declare "My character storms out!" and I now have to decide how my character reacts, the pressure is on me not to do something that will bust up the game.

If you declare "My character storms out!" and then some resolution process is invoked, that sets parameters for how I respond and clearly allocates authority to some other game participant to say the next thing, that pressure is relieved.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> These have happened. Granted, only in LARPs someone physically storms off rather than announcing that their character does that.



I mean _actual_ storming off in anger. Not saying "My character storms off in anger" while talking calmly to one's friends, or walking away while putting on an angry face.



Crimson Longinus said:


> I find it weird that you opted for a dice roll to _avoid_ getting in the heads of the characters at an important and emotional moment. That to me seems so counterproductive for what I want from RPGs that I really cannot even begin to unpack it.



This seems confused. The players play their PCs. They each describe their affections for Violette, I think one has a handkerchief from her, etc. Neither agrees the other has a stronger claim on her affections. Neither is going to yield lightly. What happens next?

The actual players are friends. And they are not competing with one another for anything. There is no real-world proxy for Violette. So there is no real-world basis for testing the strength of the fellow-feeling of the two characters against the strength of their devotion to Violette. (That's before we even get into the stylisation that is part of the pseudo-Arthurian framing for all this.)

And it's not like debating which door to go through, in which each player adduces reasons until an agreement is reached to go one way or another. There's no balance of reasons here on which each might come to agree. (Contrast: suppose that one of the PCs had to marry Violette in order to achieve a diplomatic resolution of a crisis. That might be something to be resolved via negotiation and reasoned agreement, which might even include coming up with a solution where no one has to marry Violette after all.)

An contest of Fellowship answers the question _What happens next?_


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> By inhabiting the character you gain intuitive understanding of their feelings and what they would do, and those in turn contribute to the "script."



I think that people sometimes act in ways that surprise even them. We don't always intuitively understand ourselves or others.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I mean _actual_ storming off in anger. Not saying "My character storms off in anger" while talking calmly to one's friends, or walking away while putting on an angry face.



I mean that would only happen in LARP. Because in TTRPG you usually only act as much as you can do by sitting on your chair.



pemerton said:


> This seems confused. The players play their PCs. They each describe their affections for Violette, I think one has a handkerchief from her, etc. Neither agrees the other has a stronger claim on her affections. Neither is going to yield lightly. What happens next?



What happens, is what the players feel their characters would do in a such a situation. That's basically how roleplaying works.



pemerton said:


> The actual players are friends. And they are not competing with one another for anything. There is no real-world proxy for Violette. So there is no real-world basis for testing the strength of the fellow-feeling of the two characters against the strength of their devotion to Violette. (That's before we even get into the stylisation that is part of the pseudo-Arthurian framing for all this.)
> 
> And it's not like debating which door to go through, in which each player adduces reasons until an agreement is reached to go one way or another. There's no balance of reasons here on which each might come to agree. (Contrast: suppose that one of the PCs had to marry Violette in order to achieve a diplomatic resolution of a crisis. That might be something to be resolved via negotiation and reasoned agreement, which might even include coming up with a solution where no one has to marry Violette after all.)
> 
> An contest of Fellowship answers the question _What happens next?_



And I think it is a boring way to answer that question. I also really don't understand why the reason being politics rather than love would change the matter, except it being about less important thing. 



pemerton said:


> I think that people sometimes act in ways that surprise even them. We don't always intuitively understand ourselves or others.



Perhaps. And good enough immersive mental model can produce such surprises.

I really don't get wanting to outsource the very core of roleplaying to some dice. I would never get onboard with that.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 18, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Okay. But so what? Some people play that way. Not everyone does. I don’t see the problem. Everyone has preferences and will gravitate to games that work how they want or hack games to work how they want. That’s the DIY aspect of the hobby working as intended.



Sure, and all 'jargon' was ever doing was to help us describe what worked for whom and how and why so we could do it better.  Do I get to call the thread? hehehehe.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 18, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I really don't get wanting to outsource the very core of roleplaying to some dice. I would never get onboard with that.



I think it depends on how much of a game you want in your RPG. Some people want to RP their way through persuading the guard to let them pass, others want to throw a die and get on to the good stuff. It takes all kinds. Horses for courses and all that.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 18, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Your points here are generally sensible but perhaps put too much a fine point on the distinction between inhabiting a character and free form cooperative storytelling.  Both can be done in the third person, as it were.  That is, I can say, "when my character hears that, she storms out of the room in anger."  And I can say that either because it's what I think the character would do or because I think it would make a good story.



I expect there are not too many RPGs where a player's engagement with the character, and control of its actions, is not present at this level (there are some, and there are certainly situations where many/most RPGs might prevent that or gate it through some process). So, lets say your 4e character was engaged in an SC of some sort that was primarily social. You, the player, decide, based on something an NPC says, that your character would 'storm out'. OK. I mean, what the implication for that is, that's going to be primarily determined by the GM considering where the SC goes from there (or if it is just done, stick a fork in it). Just because we're playing, say, a Story Now kind of a game, doesn't mean we can't do such things. Sure, the GM may well want some dice to be thrown as part of deciding 'what happens next'. Still, the player is in the driver's seat here, and can act out whatever they want to a great degree.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 18, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Yes. It’s literally unavoidable no matter what you do or play someone will be excluded in some fashion. You can either accept that or not play games. The best you can hope for is a good session zero where (most) people are (mostly) on the same page.




I think when it comes to this (and the related question of intellectual actions) the line is a lot more common than others, though.



overgeeked said:


> To me this reads like “remember water is wet.” Yes, different people have different preferences and play games for different reasons. Obviously. We either accept that as a universal truth or we prevent any possible further conversation about games and gaming by insisting on bringing it up and talking about it ad nauseam.




Except this is an area I've seen a few too many people who take it as a truism that social interactions are or aren't completely different from other types.  So I don't think emphasizing it is, indeed, pointless; among other things its notably and area people don't usually move much from their positions on.



overgeeked said:


> If they’re self-aware enough to know what their preferences are, there’s a nearly infinite variety of games to choose from. All they have to do is look. Or hack. Or write it themselves.




This is wonderful if you can find anyone to play them.  Ask around for how easy that is for a lot of people sometime.



overgeeked said:


> Hard pass. Especially now with how prevalent online gaming is. I’m sure you can come up with a wild hypothetical, but that seems pointless. All you have to do is go online and be willing to take a chance.




And get a time frame that works for you, people you can deal with, have an Internet that's reliable and can be run for extended periods without excessive cost and a number of other things this statement assumes.  You're projecting on other people here pretty heavily.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> But isn't conversation in a LARP, or at @Lanefan's RPG table, "boffered"?
> 
> I mean, in real life conversation - especially in high-stakes situations - people shout at one another, use cutting words, cry, storm out, say things they regret later, stumble, mutter under their breath, etc, etc. There are real emotions and those emotions are inseparable from what is said and heard.
> 
> ...



This is mostly cool, but: I did some larping back in the day, and I very much wound up inhabiting my character and feeling his emotions and acting directly based on his personality and values, especially when hit by a major upset or shock to those things.

It was...kinda traumatic, actually. My larp community wasn't really oriented that way (I hadn't even heard of nordic larp or jeepform yet), and they didn't know how to handle it. One person finally took the initiative to deal with it, both in and out of game. I learned the hard way to distance myself from my characters a lot more.

My understanding is that in nordic larp folks immerse very deeply (they have jargon for it! "Bleed" and such). But this also means they have _support_ for handling situations like the ones I faced. So, yeah, folks don't want it—when it causes problems. But when it's properly managed, it looks like some folks do.

(Edited for clarity.)


----------



## Malmuria (Jun 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> @Campbell's point, as I understood it, is that when you decide "that's what my character would do" you typically have in mind some further constraint, along the lines of _the game has to go on_ or _so-and-so can respond to that in such-and-such way_.
> 
> In real life, some stormings out are actually the end of things. But how often at RPG tables do people make decisions that are actually the ends of things?
> 
> ...



In Blades in the Dark, I can see the gm in this situation making a fortune roll.  Perhaps the storming out makes an npc reconsider the exchange.  Let's say the result of the roll is a success with complications--the npc makes amends, but you are in a worse position with this npc going forward, or a clock is ticked indicating rising conflict.  

On the one hand, it's good to break it down like that, and give the gm tools to concretely track these relationships.  On the other hand, the end result is kinda the most obvious thing that would happen?  It's more that the mechanics guide the gm decision making process and make the results transparent to the table rather than setting a hard boundary on what happens next.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> @Campbell's point, as I understood it, is that when you decide "that's what my character would do" you typically have in mind some further constraint, along the lines of _the game has to go on_ or _so-and-so can respond to that in such-and-such way_.
> 
> In real life, some stormings out are actually the end of things. But how often at RPG tables do people make decisions that are actually the ends of things?



---shrug--- I've done it, more than once - roleplayed my character-as-character and-or myself-as-player right out of a game simply by following what that character would do.  Part of the game.


pemerton said:


> Part of the point of non-consensual resolution systems, as I see them, is that they create more space for harder resolution by shifting responsibility for carrying the fiction elsewhere.
> 
> For instance, if you declare "My character storms out!" and I now have to decide how my character reacts, the pressure is on me not to do something that will bust up the game.



Here I disagree.  Personally, I think the pressure is on you to do what your character would do; and if it busts up the game* then so be it.

* - though if a couple of characters leaving is all it takes to bust up a whole game then IMO that game wasn't very robust to begin with.  I mean, in theory there's always room for replacement characters, and the departed characters still survive in the setting for later use or return or whatever their players desire.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 18, 2022)

niklinna said:


> This is mostly cool, but: I did some larping back in the day, and I very much wound up inhabiting my character and feeling his emotions and acting directly based on his personality and values, especially when hit by a major upset or shock to those things.
> 
> It was...kinda traumatic, actually. My larp community wasn't really oriented that way (I hadn't even heard of nordic larp or jeepform yet), and they didn't know how to handle it. One person finally took the initiative to deal with it, both in and out of game. I learned the hard way to distance myself from my characters a lot more.




The term I've heard is "Bleed".



niklinna said:


> My understanding is that in nordic larp folks immerse very deeply (they have jargon for it! "Bleed" and such). But this also means they have _support_ for handling situations like the ones I faced. So, yeah, folks don't want it—when it causes problems. But when it's properly managed, it looks like some folks do.
> 
> (Edited for clarity.)




Or, I could have just finished reading your post. 

(I saw some of this effect when I used to MUSH, since, oddly enough, I found interacting through text exchange more intimate than I do in person or voice (I speculate its because you're not constantly reminded the person at the other end is not their character, and possibly because its accepted to do a lot more framing)).


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2022)

niklinna said:


> This is mostly cool, but: I did some larping back in the day, and I very much wound up inhabiting my character and feeling his emotions and acting directly based on his personality and values, especially when hit by a major upset or shock to those things.
> 
> It was...kinda traumatic, actually. The larp community wasn't really oriented that way (I hadn't even heard of nordic larp or jeepform yet), and they didn't know how to handle it. One person finally took the initiative to deal with it, both in and out of game. I learned the hard way to distance myself from my characters a lot more.
> 
> My understanding is that in nordic larp folks immerse very deeply (they have jargon for it! "Bleed" and such). But this also means they have _support_ for handling situations like the ones I faced. So, yeah, folks don't want it—when it causes problems. But when it's properly managed, it looks like some folks do.



This is a great post. I think it illustrates a couple of significant things.

First, I think it highlights the external/internal aspect. When we talk about resolving social interaction by free RPGing, are we meaning that players should set about inducing emotional responses in others? That's a huge part of social interaction in the real world - we smile at people, yell at them, sometimes manipulate them. Or are we meaning that players should imagine that such things are happening to their PCs, and induce appropriate emotional responses in themselves?

I can't speak for the Nordic LARPers, but nothing I hear about (say) @Lanefan's table, or similar sorts of description of free RPing, makes me think that people are advocating for the external manifestations of social behaviour. That players should actually set about getting other players to make decisions for their characters by seducing or bullying or charming or manipulating them.

They are talking about the internal aspect - the player imaging their PC being subject to certain things. And what those "certain things" are can be determined in all sorts of ways.

Second, I think it highlights the issue of social disruption vs just-keep-on-playing. @Crimson Longinus posts "in TTRPG you usually only act as much as you can do by sitting on your chair" but that doesn't get to the point I asked, which is _Do people really storm out in anger?_. In your LARPing something like that really happened - and the game couldn't just keep going! But when I pretend that my character is storming out in anger, but I'm not actually angry with anyone, that's not a modelling of a real-world process. It's sheer authorship, and again the authorship can be structured and decided in all sorts of ways.



Crimson Longinus said:


> I also really don't understand why the reason being politics rather than love would change the matter, except it being about less important thing.



One is a sphere of rational negotiation. The other is not.



Crimson Longinus said:


> What happens, is what the players feel their characters would do in a such a situation. That's basically how roleplaying works.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I really don't get wanting to outsource the very core of roleplaying to some dice. I would never get onboard with that.



In situations which aren't like the one @niklinna describes, the script and the performance are not the same thing.

What happens if each player feels that their PC really wants the hand of Violette? Then they will never relent. But in real life people sometimes relent in such situations. And what makes them relent are factors that simply don't come to bear when two friends are performing their PCs to one another at a kitchen table.

For example, in the real situation one person realises that their friendship is more important to them than their romance, and hence gives up on the wooing in order to save the friendship. But at the RPG table there is no actual friendship that is at stake (assuming, once again, that we're not in a situation like the one @niklinna described). So nothing stops each player sticking to his conviction that his PC will not relent. (And this is just one example. Many more could be given.)

The basic structure of the issue, in game play terms, is _finality_ - bringing something to a conclusion. The factors that produce that in real-life social encounters aren't present in a RPG which involves conversation among friends. (Unless it's in the sphere of rational negotiation, in which the relevant factor - the balance of reasons - is present.)



Crimson Longinus said:


> Perhaps. And good enough immersive mental model can produce such surprises.



I've got doubts about this.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Second, I think it highlights the issue of social disruption vs just-keep-on-playing. @Crimson Longinus posts "in TTRPG you usually only act as much as you can do by sitting on your chair" but that doesn't get to the point I asked, which is _Do people really storm out in anger?_. In your LARPing something like that really happened - and the game couldn't just keep going! But when I pretend that my character is storming out in anger, but I'm not actually angry with anyone, that's not a modelling of a real-world process. It's sheer authorship, and again the authorship can be structured and decided in all sorts of ways.



Here we have a big difference between tabletop and real larp though. Somebody storms away from the table, that can upset the whole game. Somebody storms out in a larp, there are plenty of other people and things going on. A particular interaction might have been upset, but unless somebody puts on the white headband (or equivalent out-of-game signifier), they are still around and somebody else might approach them to talk about the matter, in or out of character (or both), as the situation warrants.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> In Blades in the Dark, I can see the gm in this situation making a fortune roll.  Perhaps the storming out makes an npc reconsider the exchange.  Let's say the result of the roll is a success with complications--the npc makes amends, but you are in a worse position with this npc going forward, or a clock is ticked indicating rising conflict.
> 
> On the one hand, it's good to break it down like that, and give the gm tools to concretely track these relationships.  On the other hand, the end result is kinda the most obvious thing that would happen?  It's more that the mechanics guide the gm decision making process and make the results transparent to the table rather than setting a hard boundary on what happens next.



I'm not sure what you mean by "the most obvious thing".

Here's one example that your post reminded me of, contrasting two approaches to social resolution. From one poster:


Derren said:


> Storming the ship is imo a bad idea. First getting on it in space undetected (or rather so that is it not seen as an attack) is very unlikely as they can always check back with Enlil about your story.
> Second unless you have some heavy and high TL gear you might be rather outgunned, especially if it turns out that you are dealing with a Black Ops operation.
> Third, you are the aggressor  against the Imperium. That not only means that you have to deal with any reinforcements from Enlil, depending on Lis connections you might be catapulted into the list of the sectors most wanted. Unless you find any convincing evidence on that ship you can forget setting foot on Enlil and any average or higher law level world. Until you find some very good proof about the bioweapons you would basically be outlaws (And if Li is Black Ops and not Rogue even evidence would not save you)
> 
> ...





Derren said:


> Information gathering.
> Logs, flight plans to discover additional bases, scans from Olyx it has made, infornation about any ships that are considered friendly and thus likely part of the conspiracy. Bios from the crew for eventual blackmail, communication logs with Olyx, etc.
> Get creative.





Derren said:


> The last thing you want is having civilians on board while you are involved in illegal bioweapon research.
> Someone can pretend to have a medical emergency but you run the risk of being separated from the rest and shoved into a low berth or drugged with fast. They probably also have enough scientists on board to discover the ruse quickly.



This is an illustration of how a GM might extrapolate social responses via free roleplaying, using their own conception of how a NPC might behave.

From another poster:


chaochou said:


> If I was going to try and get aboard the cruiser it wouldn't be through violence, and probably not stealth either.
> 
> I'd be looking to broadcast a distress signal and claim to have a life support malfunction and multiple system failures - throw the ship into a slow awkward spin to make it look convincing. Something to get you on board the target ship with a credible reason to be there and as little suspicion as possible.





chaochou said:


> The boat missed its last three maintenance checks - one of the hazards of a tight schedule running illegal operations and a bureacratic mix-up the last time they docked. Currently grounded except as a last-ditch lifepod. See, I can make up fiction too.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



This is an approach which I think is more likely to follow from using a randomiser, like (say) a reaction throw (which is the canonical method in 1977 Traveller), or from some other constraint on what _someone_ is allowed to say.

In Apocalypse World, a similar thing might constitute an attempt to Seduce/Manipulate, if the PCs have something implicit or express to offer the captain. Otherwise it triggers a soft move from the GM: the rules make it clear that the GM is the one who has to keep the ball in the air, not the player.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2022)

niklinna said:


> Here we have a big difference between tabletop and real larp though. Somebody storms away from the table, that can upset the whole game. Somebody storms out in a larp, there are plenty of other people and things going on. A particular interaction might have been upset, but unless somebody puts on the white headband (or equivalent out-of-game signifier), they are still around and somebody else might approach them to talk about the matter, in or out of character (or both), as the situation warrants.



Absolutely.

Hence - in the context of TTRPGing - when we're talking about a GM portraying NPCs, or when we're talking about players portraying their PCs interacting with on another, I think the idea of deciding simply by inhabiting the character starts to lose its purchase. We don't want people to storm away from the table, especially if they're our friends who have turned up to spend the afternoon hanging out with us! And so we don't set about inducing, in them, the sorts of emotions that would lead someone to storm out. Rather, we ask them to imagine that someone is trying to do that, and/or has done that, and then to author something in response.

But how to we decide what to ask them to imagine? Do they imagine someone yelling at them? Do they imagine someone yelling at them so hard they can't take it any more? Do they imagine someone yelling at them so hard they can't take it any more and storm off?

Most versions of D&D go as far as the first possibility: one participant is allowed to establish _this person is yelling at this other person_, but then whoever is in charge of that other person gets to decide the rest.

Burning Wheel goes as far as the second possibility: one participant is allowed to establish _this person is yelling at this other person_, and then if a check (Intimidate is the most obvious candidate) succeeds, the other person's controller has to roll a Steel check. Depending on how that ends up, the other person might find that their character is not able to take it any more! (But they still get to decide how they respond to the failed Steel check, from a limited menu of options.)

Marvel Heroic RP goes as far as the third possibility: one participant is allowed to establish _this person is yelling at this other person_, and then if a check succeeds might impose a Storm Off complication on the other character. How that resolves in the fiction will depend on the dice size of the complication, among other things, but the controller of the other character isn't allowed to just narrate fiction as if no such complication was part of it.

I don't think any of these approaches is at odds with inhabiting and emoting a character.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> Hence - in the context of TTRPGing - when we're talking about a GM portraying NPCs, or when we're talking about players portraying their PCs interacting with on another, I think the idea of deciding simply by inhabiting the character starts to lose its purchase. We don't want people to storm away from the table, especially if they're our friends who have turned up to spend the afternoon hanging out with us! And so we don't set about inducing, in them, the sorts of emotions that would lead someone to storm out. Rather, we ask them to imagine that someone is trying to do that, and/or has done that, and then to author something in response.



Even in larps there's a gradient to immersion, and either way, such a thing must be acknowledged and accounted for, or problems are likely. Changing one's level of immersion is a skill, and it isn't one that's deliberately taught or supported in my limited experience larping. Again, I hear things are different in the nordic/jeepform community.



pemerton said:


> But how to we decide what to ask them to imagine? Do they imagine someone yelling at them? Do they imagine someone yelling at them so hard they can't take it any more? Do they imagine someone yelling at them so hard they can't take it any more and storm off?



And then there's the possibility of actually being yelled at, which I have seen in both larps and tabletop games. I've been luckier in my tabletop games, in that even in very heated exchanges, the people involved are capable of communicating at the same time that they are in fact playing a part. So somebody might get legitimately worked up in character, and slam the table or kick back their chair, but they don't actually leave the room (and the game). This is a side jaunt from where you're going, of course, but I figured it worth pointing out.



pemerton said:


> Most versions of D&D go as far as the first possibility: one participant is allowed to establish _this person is yelling at this other person_, but then whoever is in charge of that other person gets to decide the rest.
> 
> Burning Wheel goes as far as the second possibility: one participant is allowed to establish _this person is yelling at this other person_, and then if a check (Intimidate is the most obvious candidate) succeeds, the other person's controller has to roll a Steel check. Depending on how that ends up, the other person might find that their character is not able to take it any more! (But they still get to decide how they respond to the failed Steel check, from a limited menu of options.)
> 
> ...



They aren't necessarily at odds, but I can see how a context switch can upset the mental state of inhabiting and emoting a character, and for some players that's a no-go. But again, changing one's level of immersion is a skill that can be developed, much like actors taking direction in between (and sometimes during!) takes. I will refrain from linking to the infamous Christian Bale rant, however. 

The nuts and bolts of a game mechanic dictating one's character's response, though, that's ultimately a player preference. If you really don't like it, you're not gonna enjoy games that do that very much. Me, I'm fine with it, as long as the mechanic allows results to be informed by my character's values & such.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2022)

niklinna said:


> there's the possibility of actually being yelled at, which I have seen in both larps and tabletop games. I've been luckier in my tabletop games, in that even in very heated exchanges, the people involved are capable of communicating at the same time that they are in fact playing a part. So somebody might get legitimately worked up in character, and slam the table or kick back their chair, but they don't actually leave the room (and the game). This is a side jaunt from where you're going, of course, but I figured it worth pointing out.



I tend to see these as cases where the contrast between what's real and what's pretend is successfully maintained.



niklinna said:


> They aren't necessarily at odds, but I can see how a context switch can upset the mental state of inhabiting and emoting a character, and for some players that's a no-go. But again, changing one's level of immersion is a skill that can be developed, much like actors taking direction in between (and sometimes during!) takes. I will refrain from linking to the infamous Christian Bale rant, however.



Now I have to Google the rant, whose infamy hasn't quite reached me yet!

<watches rant, returns to post>

As you say, Bale is being directed. And is following a script. He's not authoring his character's response (at the level of generality that we use in RPGing action declarations, like "I point my gun at the prisoner" or "I point my gun at the Terminator"). If there's a cut, and a new bit of direction is given, he has to cope with that. Likewise when RPGing, we might want to know - OK, what's going to happen next? - and we roll some dice and then people go back to portraying their characters.

This happens _all the time_ in RPG combat! (Which is what is being filmed in the Bale rant.) Why does the fact that it's talking rather than shooting make a difference? Human emotions are human emotions.

And I know that there is an answer to my question in the previous paragraph: traditionally RPG combat doesn't involve human emotion at all but is purely a wargame. But that just shows how this whole "combat needs mechanics but social doesn't" thing rests on premises about how the game has to be set up which are not only not self-evident, but have been expressly rejected by a range of RPGs for 30+ years now. Like in Prince Valiant (1989), where the degree of emotional investment of the character affects their combat dice. Which clearly invites the player to inhabit their character and portray their emotions (which I've seen players do, playing Prince Valiant PCs). But they also roll the dice to find out what happens.

To me it seems like there's another issue in play here, too, which I think is driven home by the next part of your post:



niklinna said:


> The nuts and bolts of a game mechanic dictating one's character's response, though, that's ultimately a player preference. If you really don't like it, you're not gonna enjoy games that do that very much.



What you seem to be positing here is a RPGer who can only _perform_ their character if they also get to _author_ their character; perhaps only if they also get to author their character _right in the moment of performing them_.

So first, any comparison of that RPGer to an actor (method or otherwise) seems out of place. The whole thing about acting - as driven home by the Bale rant - is that the performance is distinct from the authorship.

Second, what happens if you and I are both that sort of RPGer, and my conception of my character and your conception of your character collide in the moment of performance? Like your character and my character are at odds, and your character is the sort who _never gives in_, or at least who won't give in here, and my character is the sort who _never gives in_, or at lest who won't give in here? I gather that, in one of the Fast & Furious offshoots, this issue between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Stratham was resolved by having each deliver exactly the same number of blows and then both falling out the window? (Or being blown up, or some other thing that made it a tie.)

As far as gameplay is concerned, it seems to me there are three basic solutions.

One is the "neo-trad" solution: everyone gets to play their character as they conceive it, and the GM's job is to manage things - including maybe convenient explosions - to make sure all the character conceptions can all be preserved through the course of play.

A second involves the sorts of social cues that @Campbell describes - someone decides to give in based on some communicated signal or imperative that is not based on the play of their PC but is necessary to keep the game going. (A stronger version of this: players don't build or play PCs who can come into conflict with other PCs; an even stronger version is when they don't even come into conflict with other _characters_ - I saw that sometimes at AD&D 2nd ed tables.)

A third involves looking to some external cue, like the dice, to help tell us what happens next. That means that instead of clinging to our PCs in the neotrad style, we play our characters like stolen cars, wearing the dings with pride! That doesn't mean we can't inhabit them, emote them, even identify with them a bit.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> A third involves looking to some external cue, like the dice, to help tell us what happens next. That means that instead of clinging to our PCs in the neotrad style, we play our characters like stolen cars, wearing the dings with pride! That doesn't mean we can't inhabit them, emote them, even identify with them a bit.



Seems to me the problem is that there is a certain segment of the RPG community who are entirely sold on the idea that the only way to inhabit and identify with your character is free roleplay. Honestly, and I don't mean this as a bash on people who hold this view, but it feels VERY MUCH like the way many people are fixed on the idea that the GM provides all of the fiction, and acts as a referee with plenary authority, that every single thing in play must stem from some in-game cause, etc. These are ALL very old traditional ideas about RPGs that trace back to the 1970s and are often just blindly accepted and perhaps not even examined in a lot of cases. RPG people seem to be 2 almost separate communities, one is VERY STODGY and the other is the opposite, lol.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 18, 2022)

I dunno, to be fair immersive play is always very individual and idiosyncratic in how it works for people; the fact that for some mechanics are actively intrusive does not surprise me.  I can look at it from a distance since I rarely try to play immersively face to face at all (but then, I had no trouble playing immersively when I was typing poses including action, dialog, and quasi-narrative, so my own take is arguably just as idiosyncratic).


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Seems to me the problem is that there is a certain segment of the RPG community who are entirely sold on the idea that the only way to inhabit and identify with your character is free roleplay.



Yes there are.

As I posted, it hits a wall when two free roleplayers won't budge. The solution that I'm most familiar with is to make sure - via the sort of GM control of the fiction you also mention - that the main focus of play isn't something that will generate deep but opposed commitments from the various players of the various protagonists.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I dunno, to be fair immersive play is always very individual and idiosyncratic in how it works for people; the fact that for some mechanics are actively intrusive does not surprise me.



As I posted, this means either that they don't inhabit their PCs when resolving (say) a climb or a fight, or else that they don't use mechanics for those activities either.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> As I posted, this means either that they don't inhabit their PCs when resolving (say) a climb or a fight,



Correct.  Use the abstractions when they are needed, but not when they are not needed.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Yes there are.
> 
> As I posted, it hits a wall when two free roleplayers won't budge.



Just as can happen in real life, sometimes two people dig in their heels and either agree to disagree or just keep arguing.

I'm happy to let 'em argue all night if they want, as long as it stays in character.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 18, 2022)

I really don't have time or energy to address this now. There seems to be such fundamental disagreements regarding _what roleplaying even is_ that I wouldn't know how to start to unpack this. 

I just say that to me the point of roleplaying is attempting to inhabit the mind of a fictional character the best I can and making decisions as them. Everything else is bells, whistles and other optional extras.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> As I posted, this means either that they don't inhabit their PCs when resolving (say) a climb or a fight, or else that they don't use mechanics for those activities either.




I suspect from past discussion, that for most of them, they don't.   Or with the latter they're in-and-out.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Correct.  Use the abstractions when they are needed, but not when they are not needed.



But they're never needed. For instance:



Lanefan said:


> I'm happy to let 'em argue all night if they want, as long as it stays in character.



They can thrust and parry all night, as long as it stays in character.


----------



## soviet (Jun 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> This is a great post. I think it illustrates a couple of significant things.
> 
> First, I think it highlights the external/internal aspect. When we talk about resolving social interaction by free RPGing, are we meaning that players should set about inducing emotional responses in others? That's a huge part of social interaction in the real world - we smile at people, yell at them, sometimes manipulate them. Or are we meaning that players should imagine that such things are happening to their PCs, and induce appropriate emotional responses in themselves?
> 
> ...



Great post. 

It's very easy to stick to one's guns when there are no stakes and no real external considerations. Witness threads like this. How often do they end with anyone switching positions or conceding a fundamental point? Basically never, right? How often do they even end at all rather than being closed by the mods or just eventually petering out?

Consider what this would look like if we were at a WotC design retreat to plan the next edition, or at a UN panel on setting a global standard of RPGing. Suddenly we _can't_ just fold our arms and keep repeating the same platitudes. We have a real time limit and real pressure to come to an actual agreement. I might not be _convinced_ that the DMG should have a chapter on props and funny voices, but I might be concerned about looking too obstructionist if I continue trying to block it. I might want to give in on this because I'm hoping for your support on the Types of Polearms chapter that's _my_  pet project. Or I might offer a compromise and suggest a couple pages on each thing in the appendix instead. The point is, we are under external pressure that make some sort of resolution necessary. 

'Just talk it through, like real life' is nerd thinking. (I am also a nerd.) For one thing, the construction of your argument and the literal words you say  is only a small part of any social interaction. Body language, emotions, external pressures... these are all largely absent from our 'simulation'. The proof of this is also in the results at the table - how often does the NPC fail to be convinced about giving the PCs the hook for the next adventure? How often does an NPC get convinced to do _more_ than was anticipated by the GM, and spill their guts completely, or give up their life of crime and come adventuring with the PCs (where this was not already a conceivable possibility)? I venture to say the answer is 'very very rarely'.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Yes there are.
> 
> As I posted, it hits a wall when two free roleplayers won't budge. The solution that I'm most familiar with is to make sure - via the sort of GM control of the fiction you also mention - that the main focus of play isn't something that will generate deep but opposed commitments from the various players of the various protagonists.



Yeah, I have really never seen it happen to any great degree. Sometimes players, in the guise of their PCs, disagree and cannot resolve their disagreement via RP. Either they do it some other way (as you suggest) or typically the GM simply introduces some new fiction that either presents a more immediate concern or unilaterally decides the issue (IE by mooting it entirely). Some of these solutions might be pretty compatible with Narrativist concerns. Like, the girl in question picks one of the PCs, rejecting the other suitor. This obviously can raise various questions and push things this way or that, but it certainly feels like a kind of GM move that would be quite in keeping with how PbtA games approach things, for instance.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 18, 2022)

soviet said:


> Great post.
> 
> It's very easy to stick to one's guns when there are no stakes and no real external considerations. Witness threads like this. How often do they end with anyone switching positions or conceding a fundamental point? Basically never, right? How often do they even end at all rather than being closed by the mods or just eventually petering out?
> 
> ...



Right, this gets back to the whole "it is not a real world, and it doesn't behave like one" thing. IMHO though this kind of assertion is viewed in a dim light by those who have built their thinking about play on the edifice of being entirely in character, or others where the issue is process-sim as a form of verisimilitude, etc.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 18, 2022)

pemerton said:


> But they're never needed. For instance:
> 
> They can thrust and parry all night, as long as it stays in character.



This is absurd.

Players with weapons thrusting and parrying at each other all night would eventually attract the attention of the local police; and before it did I'd be constantly having to both recruit new players and find places to hide bodies.  Again, absurd.

Abstractions are required in order that combat (and various other tests of skill not do-able at the typical gaming table) be able to exist in the game, and in the setting.

It is in no way, however, absurd to think of a social situation being resolved without abstraction simply via those at the table talking to each other in-character.  With rare exceptions talking doesn't usually attract police attention, nor does it produce a body count.  Abstractions are not required here.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 18, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> This is absurd.
> 
> Players with weapons thrusting and parrying at each other all night would eventually attract the attention of the local police; and before it did I'd be constantly having to both recruit new players and find places to hide bodies.  Again, absurd.
> 
> ...




Setting aside the idea of people actually wielding weapons…can’t the players simply continue describing their actions? Why must there be rules for all that? We can just talk it out.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 18, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Setting aside the idea of people actually wielding weapons…can’t the players simply continue describing their actions? Why must there be rules for all that? We can just talk it out.



Not like _any _rules for a tabletop game can sufficiently model the chaotic nature of actual combat anyway.


----------



## Eric V (Jun 18, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Just as can happen in real life, sometimes two people dig in their heels and either agree to disagree or just keep arguing.
> 
> I'm happy to let 'em argue all night if they want, as long as it stays in character.



And everyone else at the table does...what, exactly?  Just wait for two stubborn people to get over themselves and realize they are all playing a game together?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 18, 2022)

Eric V said:


> And everyone else at the table does...what, exactly?  Just wait for two stubborn people to get over themselves and realize they are all playing a game together?




I was talking with some folks about being perfectly willing to just watch when a game becomes focused on just one character or two for a while, and my character is uninvolved. I tend to be a fan of the other players and their characters, and I’m genuinely curious about what will happen to them. So when the game goes in a direction where my character isn’t involved, I don’t mind watching what happens and what the players decide to have their characters do. 

But if it was just to argue endlessly without either coming to some compromise or in some way invoking rules to make a decision, I’d probably smash my face into the table in the hopes of succumbing to unconsciousness rather than listen to such self indulgent nonsense.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 18, 2022)

It seems to there has been some bizarre strawman summoning going on here. "You cannot resolve social situation via in-character talking because it leads to an infinite debate that will never end." This is not a thing. It doesn't happen. This thread has again become completely detached from the reality.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 18, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> It seems to there has been some bizarre strawman summoning going on here. "You cannot resolve social situation via in-character talking because it leads to an infinite debate that will never end." This is not a thing. It doesn't happen. This thread has again become completely detached from the reality.




This post certainly depicts otherwise:


Lanefan said:


> I'm happy to let 'em argue all night if they want, as long as it stays in character.




I will happily sit by and not play if other players are engaged in meaningful play. 

Watching two people argue in character… I give that about five minutes before I tell then to wrap it up so we can move on.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 18, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> It seems to there has been some bizarre strawman summoning going on here. "You cannot resolve social situation via in-character talking because it leads to an infinite debate that will never end." This is not a thing. It doesn't happen. This thread has again become completely detached from the reality.



How many discussion threads have you seen end with both sides simply agreeing on everything within a few hours' time? At a guess, in the entire time you've been engaged with discussions in geek-spaces on the internet that's happened zero times. 

Now, invite the players at your table to just go wild and decide as the referee to never step in and curtail things to get the game moving for everyone at the table. See how long it takes them to settle their argument on their own without your intervention. If you're not willing to let that play out in real time at your table, it's fair to say you already know how much of a problem this would be.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 18, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I was talking with some folks about being perfectly willing to just watch when a game becomes focused on just one character or two for a while, and my character is uninvolved. I tend to be a fan of the other players and their characters, and I’m genuinely curious about what will happen to them. So when the game goes in a direction where my character isn’t involved, I don’t mind watching what happens and what the players decide to have their characters do.
> 
> But if it was just to argue endlessly without either coming to some compromise or in some way invoking rules to make a decision, I’d probably smash my face into the table in the hopes of succumbing to unconsciousness rather than listen to such self indulgent nonsense.



Depends on my character, and just how in character I'm supposed to be. I can think of some that I've played who would probably just slit the arguing character's throats, lol.

EDIT: Oh, actually, I remember one! He was a berserker type with a Horn of Valhalla, so he would just pull the thing out and blow it, lol. I think that party was eventually TPKed pretty much due to exactly that.... I was playing in character, HONEST!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 18, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> It seems to there has been some bizarre strawman summoning going on here. "You cannot resolve social situation via in-character talking because it leads to an infinite debate that will never end." This is not a thing. It doesn't happen. This thread has again become completely detached from the reality.



Agreed, but I still don't see why we need rules for combat if we don't have them for other stuff.... What makes it different?


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 18, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Agreed, but I still don't see why we need rules for combat if we don't have them for other stuff.... What makes it different?



It has been explained several times and it also is super obvious. So at this point I'm not sure what more can be said. You can talk for real, you usually can't fight fore real. 

And yes, you could resolve fights by talking about the fight,* but that is removed from what is being emulated in way resolving talking via talking isn't. 

(* And people do this. I have done it. It is what one does in a freeform RP without rules.)


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> It has been explained several times and it also is super obvious. So at this point I'm not sure what more can be said. You can talk for real, you usually can't fight fore real.



But we're not talking about 'for real', nobody entirely talks 'for real' either. My point is different anyway. If it works to talk through social stuff (and other things I suppose) then why does it not work to talk through combat. Surely talking through it avoids attempting to act it out just as well as rolling dice does.


Crimson Longinus said:


> And yes, you could resolve fights by talking about the fight,* but that is removed from what is being emulated in way resolving talking via talking isn't.



I just don't understand this statement. I mean, sure it is more removed from actual combat, perhaps (I'll just grant it for the sake of argument anyway) but it is certainly NOT more removed from actual combat than rolling dice is! Thus there is some other reason, obviously.


Crimson Longinus said:


> (* And people do this. I have done it. It is what one does in a freeform RP without rules.)



Sure, we have all played story time...


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> But we're not talking about 'for real', nobody entirely talks 'for real' either. My point is different anyway. If it works to talk through social stuff (and other things I suppose) then why does it not work to talk through combat. Surely talking through it avoids attempting to act it out just as well as rolling dice does.



I already said it works. You can do that. But it is so removed from actually physically doing the combat that it doesn't have similar immediate immersiveness advantage than resolving talking via talking has. Or at least not for me. YMMV.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> This is absurd.
> 
> Players with weapons thrusting and parrying at each other all night would eventually attract the attention of the local police; and before it did I'd be constantly having to both recruit new players and find places to hide bodies.  Again, absurd.
> 
> Abstractions are required in order that combat (and various other tests of skill not do-able at the typical gaming table) be able to exist in the game, and in the setting





hawkeyefan said:


> Setting aside the idea of people actually wielding weapons…can’t the players simply continue describing their actions? Why must there be rules for all that? We can just talk it out.



What @hawkeyefan says is exactly what I meant. The two players describe their PCs thrusting and parrying until they talk it out.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> It seems to there has been some bizarre strawman summoning going on here. "You cannot resolve social situation via in-character talking because it leads to an infinite debate that will never end." This is not a thing. It doesn't happen. This thread has again become completely detached from the reality.



The point is that _what makes it end_ is that someone makes a decision about what a character would do.

And there are other ways of making that decision than sheer social negotiation.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I already said it works. You can do that. But it is so removed from actually physically doing the combat that it doesn't have similar immediate immersiveness advantage than resolving talking via talking has. Or at least not for me. YMMV.



Right, but what is the perceived advantage of using dice for that?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 19, 2022)

pemerton said:


> What @hawkeyefan says is exactly what I meant. The two players describe their PCs thrusting and parrying until they talk it out.



I think we all understand, FUNDAMENTALLY, why this isn't the normal process. It is because D&D was originally a wargame, and the main focus of that game was, obviously, combat. 'Talky stuff' was simply not considered central enough to the core early play agenda to require burning rules bandwidth on it. Exploration stuff DID have dice and rules, as we know. The very most basic social stuff, what happens when you unexpectedly meet up with a monster, DOES have a reaction roll though.

So, it was just when you got into the more dynamic "we try to convince the shopkeeper..." where dice were not considered all that needed. This has just become memorialized in a common pattern of play that obviously persists, though when people asked the question the other effect was to lead to the development of social skill systems (which already existed in other games, so it was not exactly a leap). 

D&D is just VERY STODGY! lol. At least some parts of the D&D world are! Not to say this is bad, some people just figured out how they liked playing a long time ago and are not really experimenting much anymore.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, but what is the perceived advantage of using dice for that?



Not having to try to mentally model, and make decisions regarding, very complicated physical processes the players likely are not experts of.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think we all understand, FUNDAMENTALLY, why this isn't the normal process. It is because D&D was originally a wargame, and the main focus of that game was, obviously, combat. 'Talky stuff' was simply not considered central enough to the core early play agenda to require burning rules bandwidth on it. Exploration stuff DID have dice and rules, as we know. The very most basic social stuff, what happens when you unexpectedly meet up with a monster, DOES have a reaction roll though.
> 
> So, it was just when you got into the more dynamic "we try to convince the shopkeeper..." where dice were not considered all that needed. This has just become memorialized in a common pattern of play that obviously persists, though when people asked the question the other effect was to lead to the development of social skill systems (which already existed in other games, so it was not exactly a leap).
> 
> D&D is just VERY STODGY! lol. At least some parts of the D&D world are! Not to say this is bad, some people just figured out how they liked playing a long time ago and are not really experimenting much anymore.



That's not really the reason. The real reason has been stated several times: we can talk for reals, but it is harder to fight for reals. It also is hard to mentally model fights without any rule structure. This is not complicated.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> That's not really the reason. The real reason has been stated several times: we can talk for reals, but it is harder to fight for reals. It also is hard to mentally model fights without any rule structure. This is not complicated.



One of the many reasons to go with rules light or ultra-light. Describe it however you want and make a simple roll. Done. No complicated rules and the players' knowledge or lack thereof of physical violence is irrelevant.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 19, 2022)

You can trivially have a rules-mediated, structured freeform conversation about combat. There are plenty of systems that easily handle combat resolution the same way they handle other conflicts. Combat doesn’t have to rely upon an intricate engine with action economy + codified turn + rationed PC resource scheme to be both rewarding and highly functional.

Hence, this is why the argument that _you need intricate combat mechanics as a user interface to facilitate functional play_ is a complete dead end. 

It’s totally cool to just stick with “I dig intricate D&D combat for the funsies even if I find it anti-immersive (FYI - that is the testimonial given here by others…that is not my own position).” It’s an entirely defensible on its own (but it becomes a calamity when you try to defend other takes like “I don’t want my D&D to have x because it’s not immersive” when one of the cornerstones of D&D is anti-immersive to you).


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> That's not really the reason. The real reason has been stated several times: we can talk for reals, but it is harder to fight for reals. It also is hard to mentally model fights without any rule structure. This is not complicated.




I think it’s a huge factor. Fighting is a big part of the game. It’s a big part of many games. Nothing wrong with that, it simply is so. The hobby’s roots in wargaming are a big influence.

I think the reason I’d consider that as more meaningful than the “we can talk for reals” angle is because of the gulf between what most of us tend to accomplish with talking and what RPG characters often do. 

Look at your description below:



Crimson Longinus said:


> Not having to try to mentally model, and make decisions regarding, very complicated physical processes the players likely are not experts of.




Replace the word “physical” with “social”. Haggling with the shopkeeper? Sure…simple stuff like that we can likely model pretty well. Courtly intrigue, international diplomacy, hostage negotiation…high stakes things like that aren’t resolved with simple talking. They’re as complicated as combat and just as unfamiliar to most players.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 19, 2022)

Eric V said:


> And everyone else at the table does...what, exactly?



IME jump in and takes sides, or argue a third point.


Eric V said:


> Just wait for two stubborn people to get over themselves and realize they are all playing a game together?



Or ignore them and carry on...


----------



## Eric V (Jun 19, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> IME jump in and takes sides, or argue a third point.
> 
> Or ignore them and carry on...



And that's a game night?


----------



## niklinna (Jun 19, 2022)

Eric V said:


> And that's a game night?



Hey, you take what you can get!


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Hence, this is why the argument that _you need intricate combat mechanics as a user interface to facilitate functional play_ is a complete dead end.



It also isn't what anyone has argued for.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think it’s a huge factor. Fighting is a big part of the game. It’s a big part of many games. Nothing wrong with that, it simply is so. The hobby’s roots in wargaming are a big influence.



It is a reason why D&D has such complicated and extensive combat mechanics. But it is not the reason for combat mechanics being prioritised over social mechanics in general. I've been in a lot of LARPS that in which basically only rules were for physical conflict, (usually super light like rock-paper-scissors etc) and the game's focus was solely on the social situation.



hawkeyefan said:


> Replace the word “physical” with “social”. Haggling with the shopkeeper? Sure…simple stuff like that we can likely model pretty well. Courtly intrigue, international diplomacy, hostage negotiation…high stakes things like that aren’t resolved with simple talking. They’re as complicated as combat and just as unfamiliar to most players.



I simply don't agree with this. These things are not completely unlike more mundane social conflicts everyone is familiar with. People can imagine such things, to sufficient degree that they feel pretty real to them (and if this is actually "realistic" doesn't really matter, it just needs to feel like it is.) It is exactly these sort of tense high stakes social situations many LARPs are build around, people play these sort of situations by talking and immersing all the time, so it seems utterly ludicrous to me to claim that this is somehow super difficult. 

Also, if you don't want to immerse and roleplay situations like this and just rather roll the dice to move on, then what is even the point? This is the good stuff, why would you want to roll the dice to skip it?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Haggling with the shopkeeper? Sure…simple stuff like that we can likely model pretty well.



I have two memories of trying to haggle in any serious way, both in Morocco.

The first time, I offered about a quarter (maybe a third?) of what had been asked for. And the offer was immediately accepted.

The second time, there was back and forth. At one point the vendor made a hidden, written note of what the final price would be after we finished. He was correct.

In a RPG, I could play myself; but unless the GM is as skilled at haggling as that vendor in Fez, what are we actually modelling?



hawkeyefan said:


> Courtly intrigue, international diplomacy, hostage negotiation…high stakes things like that aren’t resolved with simple talking. They’re as complicated as combat and just as unfamiliar to most players.





Crimson Longinus said:


> if you don't want to immerse and roleplay situations like this and just rather roll the dice to move on, then what is even the point? This is the good stuff, why would you want to roll the dice to skip it?



I don't see why you're imputing these desires to @hawkeyefan (or to anyone else posting in this thread).


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I don't see why you're imputing these desires to @hawkeyefan (or to anyone else posting in this thread).



It's due the words people have been writing.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> It also isn't what anyone has argued for.




If someone is saying D&D players (or they themselves) “don’t speak combat-ese so a combat engine allows us to speak combat-ese sufficient to process information and make decisions that feed back to and from the user and the imagined space…” well, that is exactly what they’re saying.

_It’s a UI to bridge a comprehension gap/language barrier to facilitate functional play_

They then go on to say “I/we speak/comprehend _human talky _so I/we don’t need mechanics for that.“


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> If someone is saying D&D players (or they themselves) “don’t speak combat-ese so a combat engine allows us to speak combat-ese sufficient to process information and make decisions that feed back to and from the user and the imagined space…” well, that is exactly what they’re saying.
> 
> _It’s a UI to bridge a comprehension gap/language barrier to facilitate functional play_



You don't need _intricate _combat mechanics for that. Like you said, you can handle it relatively rules light or even completely freeform. 



Manbearcat said:


> They then go on to say “I/we speak/comprehend _human talky _so I/we don’t need mechanics for that.“



First. Most people have better intuitive understanding of social interaction than combat. I don't think this is at all controversial. But that's not even the main point. Resolving talking via talking has very strong correspondence, resolving combat via talking doesn't. You can do the latter, but it doesn't have the same advantage than the former has.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 19, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I disagree with the last bit here.  The game doesn't fall apart when things move into purely RPed social stuff, it more just gets out of the way - like it should.



Quits being a game aka RPG and you pretty much do not get to play anyone but yourself. To me that is falling a part


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> Quits being a game aka RPG and you pretty much do not get to play anyone but yourself. To me that is falling a part



You could argue it technically isn't terribly much 'a game' at that point. Which is not a big deal in my book. RPGs are very unlike most other games to begin with and the term 'game' is vague anyway.

But of course you can play a character different from you and it is weird to think that you couldn't. Most of the characterisation doesn't depend on the rules. Actors can play characters that are not like them (even when improvising) and authors can write characters that are not like them. They don't need rules to do this.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 19, 2022)

We have decent intuition about the things we experience on a day-to-day basis but painting all social interaction with a broad brush is not helpful here. The social pressures and social norms of working from home for a software company for insistence feels nothing like the cadence, social pressures and norms of my experience as an active-duty soldier in my 20s. Even when I was a soldier talking to those infantry and artillery guys was a whole nother ball game.

Then bring it into social experiences that are incredibly far removed from our experiences as humans living in the modern world. What does it feel like to exist in pseudo Edo Period Japan as a samurai trained from birth to never show weakness or anger, to always have to maintain your composure in an environment where everyone you socialize with walks around carrying six foot razor blades? Do you have an intuition of what social interaction looks like then? What if the Emperor is a god and there are spirits and ghosts around every corner?

What about parlaying with a dragon who has lived for 600 years?


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

Campbell said:


> We have decent intuition about the things we experience on a day-to-day basis but painting all social interaction with a broad brush is not helpful here. The social pressures and social norms of working from home for a software company for insistence feels nothing like the cadence, social pressures and norms of my experience as an active-duty soldier in my 20s. Even when I was a soldier talking to those infantry and artillery guys was a whole nother ball game.
> 
> Then bring it into social experiences that are incredibly far removed from our experiences as humans living in the modern world. What does it feel like to exist in pseudo Edo Period Japan as a samurai trained from birth to never show weakness or anger, to always have to maintain your composure in an environment where everyone you socialize with walks around carrying six foot razor blades? Do you have an intuition of what social interaction looks like then? What if the Emperor is a god and there are spirits and ghosts around every corner?
> 
> What about parlaying with a dragon who has lived for 600 years?



Right. But to me the whole point of roleplaying is that you try to imagine that and immerse into it the best you can. It may be far from perfect, but the goal still is clear. I really don't see what's even the point of playing if we give up on this.

Seriously, at this point I don't even understand what people want to get out of RPGs.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

Campbell said:


> We have decent intuition about the things we experience on a day-to-day basis but painting all social interaction with a broad brush is not helpful here. The social pressures and social norms of working from home for a software company for insistence feels nothing like the cadence, social pressures and norms of my experience as an active-duty soldier in my 20s. Even when I was a soldier talking to those infantry and artillery guys was a whole nother ball game.
> 
> Then bring it into social experiences that are incredibly far removed from our experiences as humans living in the modern world. What does it feel like to exist in pseudo Edo Period Japan as a samurai trained from birth to never show weakness or anger, to always have to maintain your composure in an environment where everyone you socialize with walks around carrying six foot razor blades? Do you have an intuition of what social interaction looks like then? What if the Emperor is a god and there are spirits and ghosts around every corner?
> 
> What about parlaying with a dragon who has lived for 600 years?




I think there is a difference between feeling the end result has to be a perfect approximation of the reality versus viewing this as  fun thought experiment, a fun empathy experiment or game where you think through: what is it like for someone in X environment to have to operate in a certain way; what is it like for a dragon who is 600 years old. The fun for me in this, whether I am reading a book where a writer is trying to answer that question in the context of a story, or an RPG where we are doing so through PCs and NPCs, is seeing what answers other people arrive at, seeing where I arrive at, etc. I think much of this is going to begin with analogies that are familiar to us of course. But again its a game of imagination. Much of the fun comes from trying to imagine things that are distant from our own experiences.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Right. But to me the whole point of roleplaying is that you try to imagine that and immerse into it the best you can. It may be far from perfect, but the goal still is clear. I really don't see what's even the point of playing if we give up on this.




For me this is half the fun of making a character and then trying to play the character. Or more broadly as groups. I remember making a campaign where I sat down for like two weeks and thought about what the social and cultural ramifications of elves being immortal but suscpeptible to death through things like injury would be. It is a pretty common trope in RPGs and fantasy, and it can be fun to sit down and think 'but has anyone considered this aspect?'. Ultimately I ended up with different elven societies responding to the problem of immortality contingent on not being injured with different cultural responses. Is this how it would really play out? I have no idea. But I had a lot of fun and the players seem to find my answers to these kinds of questions interesting in play


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> You don't need _intricate _combat mechanics for that. Like you said, you can handle it relatively rules light or even completely freeform.
> 
> 
> First. Most people have better intuitive understanding of social interaction than combat. I don't think this is at all controversial. But that's not even the main point. Resolving talking via talking has very strong correspondence, resolving combat via talking doesn't. You can do the latter, but it doesn't have the same advantage than the former has.




I read you.

But here is the thing.

You consider yourself rational, well-informed. and well-reasoned. Confident in your arguments.

I consider myself the same and I’m similarly confident.

In all of our exchanges (and the innumerable others on these boards), how many times have folks minds been changed by people who consider themselves rational, well-reasoned, we’ll-informed folks who are confident in their arguments!

So some encoded method of resolving these inevitably intractable social interactions (the same kind that would be happening in the imagined space by the same kinds of folks like you and me!) would be a mighty nice facilitator-of-play imo!


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> But of course you can play a character different from you



A character with different social capabilities to me.. sorry no...


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> So some encoded method of resolving these inevitably intractable social interactions (the same kind that would be happening in the imagined space by the same kinds of folks like you and me!) would be a mighty nice facilitator-of-play imo!




This is actually one of the reasons I dislike strong mechanical means for resolving social interactions (just as a personal preference; more on this further down). People do what they want, what they have to, what other factors are driving them. Truly changing a persons mind is very rare, changing their heart even more rare. But even in discrete moments of social interaction where it isn't about changing the persons view but convincing them to do  or not do something (as an example the guard being talked into giving you the key), I think boiling that to a roll of some kind, feels very much like it falls short for me, because some people, under no circumstances unless they are coerced are going to give in (especially if they are working a job where they know they will be held responsible if the key is missed). For me, I much prefer to deal with this through RP and knowing the characters motivations. How this plays out will obviously vary from group to group: so if you want a consistent outcome whenever a player offers Y, that might not be a good fit. But what I am more interested in are characters with consistent motivations. A good example of how this might be used is in Goodfellas when they steal the security guards key and make a copy. And do so they found his weakness (women), had a woman distract him, and made the key copy without him knowing. That is all fairly manageable social interaction stuff in an RPG if the GM is playing with motivations fairly. This also allows the players to engage in the problem and puzzle solving aspect of RPGs that for me is a huge part of the enjoyment of play (i.e. how do we get that key? How do we find a way of distracting him? etc). One of the things that instantly kills the fun for me as a player is stuff like this being handled by a roll

That said, tastes vary, I find you have to run the game for the group of players you game with, not with a group of players who are replicas of your own tastes and preferences. So I am not going to spoil it for others if they want to use a system with social mechanics, and when I run games, I try either pick or make a system that balances my desire for social interactions being driven by what happens in play, with some players desires for a mechanical approach. One interesting observation I do have here is people themselves are often inconsistent or seemingly inconsistent in their preferences (what bothers someone today, might not bother them in a different moment that is pretty much the same but for some reason doesn't trouble them when it arises, and the opposite: what doesn't bother someone yesterday might suddenly bother them today; and it all may just be today they happened to scrutinize things a little more than they did before). Anyone who has had *protracted (Edit: corrected this word) *discussions or debates about movies probably has seen the same thing. So I think be adaptable to the players and to what is driving them at a given moment is also something that makes me a little flexible on this point in practice. For me, at the end of the day I want to have a good time gaming with my friends. I am much less concerned about what box that fits into by the end of the session, and much less concerned about whether the game did everything exactly the way I would have wanted it to.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Also, if you don't want to immerse and roleplay situations like this and just rather roll the dice to move on, then what is even the point? This is the good stuff, why would you want to roll the dice to skip it?




No one has said that it should be skipped. A dice roll being used to resolve the matter, or to inform the situation in a meaningful way. It’s meant as a randomizing element so that there’s something going on besides “GM says”. 

So if you’re trying to convince someone to help you, you’d still portray that in some way…state your case, bring up whatever points you think are relevant…and the GM would portray the NPC. But once the situation is clear… you want X and have mentioned Y and Z as your supporting argument…then we roll to see how it turns out.

No one is saying to just skip any/all character portrayal. 



Crimson Longinus said:


> You could argue it technically isn't terribly much 'a game' at that point. Which is not a big deal in my book. RPGs are very unlike most other games to begin with and the term 'game' is vague anyway.
> 
> But of course you can play a character different from you and it is weird to think that you couldn't. Most of the characterisation doesn't depend on the rules. Actors can play characters that are not like them (even when improvising) and authors can write characters that are not like them. They don't need rules to do this.




As you say, RPGs are their own thing. I can’t play Sherlock Holmes as brilliantly as Doyle can because I don't benefit from also being the author of the story. Doyle is authoring both the character and the mystery with which the character’s engaged. So it’s very easy for him to portray intuitive leaps by Holmes. He also benefits from being able to edit and redraft his work until it suits. Not so with an RPG player. 

If I’m playing a brilliant character of the Holmes variety, I don’t have such benefits. What I may have in place are game mechanics that help me portray such a character, either in the form of character/class abilities and the like, or perhaps simply in how the game plays. 

Could I fake an English accent and ramp up my vocabulary a bit, and use some catch phrases like “Elementary!” or “The game is afoot!”? Sure. I can portray Holmes at the surface level. But that doesn’t make me a brilliant detective. It doesn’t impart on me what it would feel like to be capable of such brilliant insights any more than swinging a foam sword makes me know what it’s like to be a warrior. 



Bedrockgames said:


> I think boiling that to a roll of some kind, feels very much like it falls short for me, because some people, under no circumstances unless they are coerced are going to give in (especially if they are working a job where they know they will be held responsible if the key is missed).




Right. But who decides that the NPC absolutely won’t give in? In a more traditional game, this is likely something that the GM has decided beforehand, or (in my experience) at the moment it becomes relevant to play. This is the GM determining how the situation will go. 

A more narrative game would say to let the roll determine the outcome. So if the player rolls poorly and the guard is unconvinced to assist, then the GM would say something like “You can see a zealous light in his eyes as he curls his lip at your offer of a bribe” or what have you. 

The second removes some of the GM authority and replaces it with input from the system. 



Bedrockgames said:


> A good example of how this might be used is in Goodfellas when they steal the security guards key and make a copy. And do so they found his weakness (women), had a woman distract him, and made the key copy without him knowing. That is all fairly manageable social interaction stuff in an RPG if the GM is playing with motivations fairly.




This is a great example. But how is it played out? No rolls at all? The PCs don’t make a roll to learn the guard has a vice they can exploit?

If all of this is simply determined ahead of time, and the PCs just assemble the info in the proper way then I don’t see how this isn’t a case of the GM authoring the problem, the solution, and the outcome, with the players merely working to discover the GM’s story.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> No one has said that it should be skipped. A dice roll being used to resolve the matter, or to inform the situation in a meaningful way. It’s meant as a randomizing element so that there’s something going on besides “GM says”.
> 
> So if you’re trying to convince someone to help you, you’d still portray that in some way…state your case, bring up whatever points you think are relevant…and the GM would portray the NPC. But once the situation is clear… you want X and have mentioned Y and Z as your supporting argument…then we roll to see how it turns out.
> 
> No one is saying to just skip any/all character portrayal.



Right. And this is common way to handle this and how I usually do it in games like D&D. And it is fine, but it is not the only way to do it. These are things that are really easy to do freeform, and many games do just that. Also, the important part why I'm fine with this in some tabletop games is that it is used only "against" NPCs. The GM has a different role, their intuitive understanding of the NPCs probably isn't as deep as the players have of their characters, and advocating for the NPCs isn't their only job anyway. But I absolutely wouldn't want PC decisions to resolved via a dice roll. My role as a player is to make decisions for my character, so if we outsource that to the rules or the dice, I no longer need to be there.




hawkeyefan said:


> As you say, RPGs are their own thing. I can’t play Sherlock Holmes as brilliantly as Doyle can because I don't benefit from also being the author of the story. Doyle is authoring both the character and the mystery with which the character’s engaged. So it’s very easy for him to portray intuitive leaps by Holmes. He also benefits from being able to edit and redraft his work until it suits. Not so with an RPG player.
> 
> If I’m playing a brilliant character of the Holmes variety, I don’t have such benefits. What I may have in place are game mechanics that help me portray such a character, either in the form of character/class abilities and the like, or perhaps simply in how the game plays.
> 
> Could I fake an English accent and ramp up my vocabulary a bit, and use some catch phrases like “Elementary!” or “The game is afoot!”? Sure. I can portray Holmes at the surface level. But that doesn’t make me a brilliant detective. It doesn’t impart on me what it would feel like to be capable of such brilliant insights any more than swinging a foam sword makes me know what it’s like to be a warrior.




Sure. But this is about problem solving or "winning" aspect of the characterisation. And, yes, rule structures help there, though they might not necessarily be terribly immersive. But that's really is not the core of characterisation, at least not to me.  Holmes is sort of manic depressive emotionally stunted unconventional genius. You only need the rules to help with the genius part.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 19, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> This is actually one of the reasons I dislike strong mechanical means for resolving social interactions (just as a personal preference; more on this further down). People do what they want, what they have to, what other factors are driving them. Truly changing a persons mind is very rare, changing their heart even more rare. But even in discrete moments of social interaction where it isn't about changing the persons view but convincing them to do  or not do something (as an example the guard being talked into giving you the key), I think boiling that to a roll of some kind, feels very much like it falls short for me, because some people, under no circumstances unless they are coerced are going to give in (especially if they are working a job where they know they will be held responsible if the key is missed). For me, I much prefer to deal with this through RP and knowing the characters motivations. How this plays out will obviously vary from group to group: so if you want a consistent outcome whenever a player offers Y, that might not be a good fit. But what I am more interested in are characters with consistent motivations. A good example of how this might be used is in Goodfellas when they steal the security guards key and make a copy. And do so they found his weakness (women), had a woman distract him, and made the key copy without him knowing. That is all fairly manageable social interaction stuff in an RPG if the GM is playing with motivations fairly. This also allows the players to engage in the problem and puzzle solving aspect of RPGs that for me is a huge part of the enjoyment of play (i.e. how do we get that key? How do we find a way of distracting him? etc). One of the things that instantly kills the fun for me as a player is stuff like this being handled by a roll
> 
> That said, tastes vary, I find you have to run the game for the group of players you game with, not with a group of players who are replicas of your own tastes and preferences. So I am not going to spoil it for others if they want to use a system with social mechanics, and when I run games, I try either pick or make a system that balances my desire for social interactions being driven by what happens in play, with some players desires for a mechanical approach. One interesting observation I do have here is people themselves are often inconsistent or seemingly inconsistent in their preferences (what bothers someone today, might not bother them in a different moment that is pretty much the same but for some reason doesn't trouble them when it arises, and the opposite: what doesn't bother someone yesterday might suddenly bother them today; and it all may just be today they happened to scrutinize things a little more than they did before). Anyone who has had *protracted (Edit: corrected this word) *discussions or debates about movies probably has seen the same thing. So I think be adaptable to the players and to what is driving them at a given moment is also something that makes me a little flexible on this point in practice. For me, at the end of the day I want to have a good time gaming with my friends. I am much less concerned about what box that fits into by the end of the session, and much less concerned about whether the game did everything exactly the way I would have wanted it to.




Gotcha.

Here is the thing though. It doesn’t have to be “one roll (to convince/diplomance or whatever).”

Take PBtA social conflict resolution. When you seduce/parley/persuade (etc) you need some kind of leverage or you need to exert force. Now you can do the latter, but you’re assuming the liability that comes with the threat of violence and you’re going to be held accountable for it. So not putting the looming escalation of violence on the table means that you’re engaging with the NPC in a protracted exchange to identify the NPC’s dramatic need (Instinct in PBtA parlance) for leverage. That will mean lots of conversation + moves triggered and made (Defying Danger, Reading a Person etc). The conversation can take lots of twists and turns as a result and the gamestate and situation (and possibly setting) will dynamically change as a result.

Same thing goes with Dogs in the Vineyard. Your dice put down as your Traits/Belongings/Relationships employed in the effort of “Just Talking” aren’t just those dice (and how you manage your dice pool with your subsequent See/Raise/Reverse the Blow etc) but also what you say. And they all plays out back and forth until the matter is settled and someone can’t go on (so they have to Fold or Escalate to Violence or Mortal…and assume that liability and be held accountable for it).

And there’s lots of other different but distantly kindred schemes.

That stuff “feels” like a vital, dynamic social exchange with things being said and attached moves being made and dice beig thrown and the gamestate responding until all matters are settled.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Right. But who decides that the NPC absolutely won’t give in? In a more traditional game, this is likely something that the GM has decided beforehand, or (in my experience) at the moment it becomes relevant to play. This is the GM determining how the situation will go.
> 
> A more narrative game would say to let the roll determine the outcome. So if the player rolls poorly and the guard is unconvinced to assist, then the GM would say something like “You can see a zealous light in his eyes as he curls his lip at your offer of a bribe” or what have you.




The GM decides for NPCs, the Players decide for PCs. It isn't the GM determining how the situation will go if he is playing fairly, because how the situation goes isn't the point, the point is an honest character interaction. The players are still free to do what they want (they could stab the NPC to death and take what they need from them for example). But the point is the GM should have a clear idea going in of what the NPCs motives and and not fit those motives to some kind of outcome the GM wants. At least for me, that is how I approach it. It still isn't going to appeal to you if you don't like this kind of play but much of the reason I play this way is, as a GM I hate having preset outcomes and I hate guiding the players along. All I care about when I am running the NPC is what that NPC is motivated by, cares about, and what responsibilities they have. If the players make a proposal to that NPC or try to trick that NPC in some way (like in the goodfellas example), I am going to honest think through how the NPC reacts based on what I know about their motives (and if I can't decide for some reason, I might roll a die, but usually I have a good sense of it). 

I am not saying you can't have a more narrative approach. I am not trying to persuade someone who wants something different than I do in an RPG, that they should want what I want. I am saying this is what works for me. Even when I play narrative games, I much prefer something closer to what I am describing like Hillfolk that tends to be about things like what the characters want (and there are mechanics underlying some aspects of that but I find them fairly unobtrusive to the above style that I outlined). This is actually a game I really like because it does a good job of captured the 'all we did was role-play' aspect of play that can be fun, but because it is oriented around scenes and scene framing it doesn't just meandering and become characters talking endlessly in an inn: it leads to dramatic places. 



hawkeyefan said:


> The second removes some of the GM authority and replaces it with input from the system.




Sure, if you don't like GM authority in these situations, by all means use these systems. I don't have a problem with GM authority extending to NPCs motivations and behaviors. If a don't like how a particular GM does things, I might not play in games where that person GMs, but mostly I game with people who, even if they think about NPCs differently than I do, are good faith when it comes to this stuff.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> Here is the thing though. It doesn’t have to be “one roll (to convince/diplomance or whatever).”




I get that. I just used a roll because it is an example of a social mechanic that particularly grates against what I am talking about, and it rolling for social interaction even comes up in games like D&D (at least in recent editions).


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> It has been explained several times and it also is super obvious. So at this point I'm not sure what more can be said. You can talk for real, you usually can't fight fore real.
> 
> And yes, you could resolve fights by talking about the fight,* but that is removed from what is being emulated in way resolving talking via talking isn't.




The argument is, without context and a lot of factors you can't bring to the table, the social interaction isn't really any more like its real equivalent than the fight would be.

I'll note that you can absolutely narrate a fight sequence as long as you have some idea of how they work at least in a fictional sense and come to a collective conclusion.  I did it MUSHing any number of times.  All it requires is participant players of good will who want to see how the fight comes out rather than want to "win".


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> Take PBtA social conflict resolution. When you seduce/parley/persuade (etc) you need some kind of leverage or you need to exert force. Now you can do the latter, but you’re assuming the liability that comes with the threat of violence and you’re going to be held accountable for it. So not putting the looming escalation of violence on the table means that you’re engaging with the NPC in a protracted exchange to identify the NPC’s dramatic need (Instinct in PBtA parlance) for leverage. That will mean lots of conversation + moves triggered and made (Defying Danger, Reading a Person etc). The conversation can take lots of twists and turns as a result and the gamestate and situation (and possibly setting) will dynamically change as a result.
> 
> Same thing goes with Dogs in the Vineyard. Your dice put down as your Traits/Belongings/Relationships employed in the effort of “Just Talking” aren’t just those dice (and how you manage your dice pool with your subsequent See/Raise/Reverse the Blow etc) but also what you say. And they all plays out back and forth until the matter is settled and someone can’t go on (so they have to Fold or Escalate to Violence or Mortal…and assume that liability and be held accountable for it).
> 
> ...




And I am pretty open about playing games that do things that either fall outside my preferences or handle things in a mechanical way I wouldn't normally do. The PBtA games haven't really appealed to me when I have read through them (maybe if I played them I would have a different reaction, but I haven't done so yet). Just something about them doesn't land for me and I don't know what it is (and I wouldn't say it is even their social mechanics). 

I haven't played Dogs in the Vineyard so I don't know how I would react to that system 

I can say what I tend to dislike is when social mechanics are: rolls, interfere with how I like to RP, or are a whole mini game unto themselves. I want what the characters say, what their motives are, etc to be the focus. Again this is why a system like Hillfolk worked for me. That is narrative. It has mechanics for handling certain aspects of exchange. But overall the mechanics are not obtrusive into the dialogue: the dialogue, character motives, and relationships seem to be given a lot of primacy.

I just prefer it to be organic and not mechanically drive. 

That said I am not always opposed to this stuff. The Doctor Who RPG had a great initiative system that let "talkers" go first and that kind of gets at the bit you point to about not jumping straight into combat (it also felt organic in play). I used something like that myself in the wuxia RPG I did where there is a Talking and Analysis phase in the initiative system that occurs before combat begins (to help build up that feeling of swords about to be drawn as duelists assess one another, try to psych one another out, etc). 

But at the end of the day, for me, I tend to place priority in play on the things I expressed before: handling social exchanges organically, with motivations, what is actually said and done and such being the factors that drive a lot of decision making (without having to resort to a mechanical system on top of that as well: except in maybe minor or very intuitive ways for me like asking a player to make a roll to detect a sudden change of facial expression or a person reaching for their gun: but all that is pretty ad hoc for me).


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> The argument is, without context and a lot of factors you can't bring to the table, the social interaction isn't really any more like its real equivalent than the fight would be.



Hard disagree on that. Resolving talking via talking definitely has a far higher correspondence than resolving fighting via talking.



Thomas Shey said:


> I'll note that you can absolutely narrate a fight sequence as long as you have some idea of how they work at least in a fictional sense and come to a collective conclusion.  I did it MUSHing any number of times.  All it requires is participant players of good will who want to see how the fight comes out rather than want to "win".



Yes. Absolutely. I've done it too. It can be done just fine.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Not having to try to mentally model, and make decisions regarding, very complicated physical processes the players likely are not experts of.




The problem is you're making the assumption that a lot of social interactions are not, effectively, very complicated psychological processes the players are not experts in.  Just because you do some social interactions doesn't make the latter not true.  It honestly, means you likely think your emulation of the ones you aren't familiar with are closer to reality than they actually are.  Someone who has never seduced someone or roused a crowd likely doesn't meaningfully understand how to do it any more than someone who hasn't been in a sword fight how to do it.

In addition, in both cases there are variables well below the level anyone is going to simulate in a game that can have significant impact on the outcome.  Dice are a rough and tumble emulation of that in every other area; I get that people don't want them to be here, but its just that--not wanting them to be.

I'm generally sympathetic to the view that there's a look-and-feel difference to physical actions and social actions that some people find matters strongly to them in how they're resolved; but I don't think attempts to show their really different in how well people understand them holds water.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Hard disagree on that. Resolving talking via talking definitely has a far higher correspondence than resolving fighting via talking.




Outside of social areas you're familiar with, I'd argue it has, if anything, a worse one.  Its just one people think they understand better than they do.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> The argument is, without context and a lot of factors you can't bring to the table, the social interaction isn't really any more like its real equivalent than the fight would be.
> 
> I'll note that you can absolutely narrate a fight sequence as long as you have some idea of how they work at least in a fictional sense and come to a collective conclusion.  I did it MUSHing any number of times.  All it requires is participant players of good will who want to see how the fight comes out rather than want to "win".




I would love a game where that is possible (maybe there is one that achieves it I just don't know about). What I have found in practice is, for whatever reason, people are much more okay with social interactions being handled through talking and negotiating without a system or without random elements, but with fighting they really seem to want random and mechanical elements. I'd love to play a game where the GM decides based on either what is plausible or what works dramatically (not both mixed together but two possible 'legal schools of thought' for the GM to follow). Because so often in games you do things that would work in real life or in a movie, but don't work because you have to roll, characters have HP (or whatever the game's equivalent of HP is), HP aren't realistic, etc. I think a small random element would always be a bit helpful here, but largely keeping it to what is going on in game is something I'd love to have (I haven't tried too many diceless games, perhaps some of those do things like this). There is always a chance a bullet misses there is always the punchers chance in close quarter combat. An example of what I am talking about is the players arranging the perfect assassination, and it failing utterly because the system says so, when everyone at the table is left feeling that outcome doesn't align with all the prep that was going on the part of the players and all the things they said they did. Some systems this is less of a problem than others, but it is a real issue.

I think lets RP combat is always a tough sell. 

One observation as a possible reason here is we all have experience with social interaction just by virtue of being human. That is how we do things. But we don't all have experience with combat (and even if we do have experience fighting, we might only have experience with one type of fighting: someone may have been in brawls but never been military combat for example, or been in military combat but never a sword fight).


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Right. And this is common way to handle this and how I usually do it in games like D&D. And it is fine, but it is not the only way to do it. These are things that are really easy to do freeform, and many games do just that. Also, the important part why I'm fine with this in some tabletop games is that it is used only "against" NPCs. The GM has a different role, their intuitive understanding of the NPCs probably isn't as deep as the players have of their characters, and advocating for the NPCs isn't their only job anyway. But I absolutely wouldn't want PC decisions to resolved via a dice roll. My role as a player is to make decisions for my character, so if we outsource that to the rules or the dice, I no longer need to be there.




Oh, sure. I am not challenging that there are multiple ways to do it. But remember, this part of the conversation came about when someone said (paraphrasing) "mechanics should get out of the way when it comes to social interaction- the game doesn't fall apart when you don't use rules". So some of us pointed out why some folks actually feel the game does fall apart when the rules aren't used, and why we like social mechanics. So here we are. I am not saying that the most popular and what appears to be the default approach of the majority of games is somehow not valid. I'm saying why it isn't the only way to do things. 

As for PC v PC type of situations, I think it depends. I can understand people being hesitant to yield any control on their PC, especially in a more traditional game where that's often their sole point of input into the game world. But I think that people often behave in unexpected and irrational ways, and I think that often these kinds of things happen as a result of peer or social pressure, or the perception there of. So I don't really mind if there are some mechanics that may allow this. 

I know some games handle it by first asking "is this something your character could possibly be convinced?" and if the player says yes, then we go to the dice. If the player says no, then that's the answer. I don't find this approach to be jarring to my sense of character or my control of the character. 

So as you say, there are multiple ways it can be handled, and not all of them need to trample on a player's control of their character. 



Crimson Longinus said:


> Sure. But this is about problem solving or "winning" aspect of the characterisation. And, yes, rule structures help there, though they might not necessarily be terribly immersive. But that's really is not the core of characterisation, at least not to me.  Holmes is sort of manic depressive emotionally stunted unconventional genius. You only need the rules to help with the genius part.




Not so much about winning, but about engaging in the game. If we're playing a game where one of the PCs is Sherlock Holmes, I think it's safe to assume that there's a mystery afoot. So engaging with that mystery is a big part of play. How the character does so is vital. The portrayal of Holmes's other traits... the emotional stuff, the social awkwardness.... they are most important in how they impact his ability to do what he does. Having rules for this...penalties of some kind, or at least deficiencies in stats absolutely can help portray character. 

Without there being rules, then there's not really a game going on, and what we'd be doing is little more than cosplay.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Outside of social areas you're familiar with, I'd argue it has, if anything, a worse one.  Its just one people think they understand better than they do.



I don't agree that this is true, but even if it was, it really doesn't matter. If people _feel_ that that the freeform social interaction is very close to the real one then that's good enough, even if it objectively wouldn't be terribly realistic.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> The problem is you're making the assumption that a lot of social interactions are not, effectively, very complicated psychological processes the players are not experts in.  Just because you do some social interactions doesn't make the latter not true.  It honestly, means you likely think your emulation of the ones you aren't familiar with are closer to reality than they actually are.  Someone who has never seduced someone or roused a crowd likely doesn't meaningfully understand how to do it any more than someone who hasn't been in a sword fight how to do it.




I think if your goal is perfect realism, sure. I don't know what it is like to be a secret agent in another country trying to persuade an asset to sell their country's secrets. And if you put me in that situation, I'd probably just end up bungling it because I have no experience with it, I don't understand the complexities. But I do have a lot of film and book analogies I can draw on for the purposes of play. And I have a lot of non-spy experience in my life that I can draw on as an approximation. I think for those of us interested in live RP at the table, this is where that is fun. But at least for me the goal isn't to achieve any kind of realism. 

Still, I don't think any RPG can really capture the complex psychological processes and other details going on in a real social interaction either. I mean we are still working on software in computers that can pass as human, and I've never encountered a video game that gave me a believable social interaction as part of play, so I don't even think computer systems could do it either at this stage (we probably still don't know enough about the brain to truly know that process and build a system that emulates it). So I think if the bar is capturing the 'very complicated psychological processes', it is doubtful anything will fulfill that. 

Also just because this free form RP, it doesn't mean you can't stop to look things up or ask someone at the table who knows about a subject that comes up. I do that a lot and don't find it disruptive. For instance if a player knows a lot about firearms, and the players go to a gunstore, I would probably ask that player for help answering questions that come up.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Also, if you don't want to immerse and roleplay situations like this and just rather roll the dice to move on, then what is even the point? This is the good stuff, why would you want to roll the dice to skip it?



Your good stuff is someone else's allergy. The "everyone's preferences are different" truism cuts all ways.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't agree that this is true, but even if it was, it really doesn't matter. If people _feel_ that that the freeform social interaction is very close to the real one then that's good enough, even if it objectively wouldn't be terribly realistic.




This came up in the adventure believability thread but I call this knowing what franchise you are in. For me what matters is knowing what kind of logic the GM is applying to these sorts of situations (Are we in a Tarantino movie, in something more like game of thrones, a documentary, a grounded political film, a realistic war movie, or something crazy like Evil Dead). If I know we are in a zany action adventure campaign, my expectations of what outcomes to see from certain exchanges will be different than if we are playing something closer to A Few Good Men.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 19, 2022)

If people understood social interactions as easily as some claim, it's hard to imagine that Conventions would be the hotbeds of inappropriate and problematic social behaviors (e.g., assault, harassment, abuse, etc.) that they are.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 19, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> The GM decides for NPCs, the Players decide for PCs. It isn't the GM determining how the situation will go if he is playing fairly, because how the situation goes isn't the point, the point is an honest character interaction. The players are still free to do what they want (they could stab the NPC to death and take what they need from them for example). But the point is the GM should have a clear idea going in of what the NPCs motives and and not fit those motives to some kind of outcome the GM wants. At least for me, that is how I approach it. It still isn't going to appeal to you if you don't like this kind of play but much of the reason I play this way is, as a GM I hate having preset outcomes and I hate guiding the players along. All I care about when I am running the NPC is what that NPC is motivated by, cares about, and what responsibilities they have. If the players make a proposal to that NPC or try to trick that NPC in some way (like in the goodfellas example), I am going to honest think through how the NPC reacts based on what I know about their motives (and if I can't decide for some reason, I might roll a die, but usually I have a good sense of it).




Sure! Again, as I said above to @Crimson Longinus this tangent of the conversation came about when someone said that social mechanics should not be used. None of us are saying that the method we'd classify as traditional isn't valid. We're just saying why there are other methods and what makes them valid and/or appealing. 



Bedrockgames said:


> I am not saying you can't have a more narrative approach. I am not trying to persuade someone who wants something different than I do in an RPG, that they should want what I want. I am saying this is what works for me. Even when I play narrative games, I much prefer something closer to what I am describing like Hillfolk that tends to be about things like what the characters want (and there are mechanics underlying some aspects of that but I find them fairly unobtrusive to the above style that I outlined). This is actually a game I really like because it does a good job of captured the 'all we did was role-play' aspect of play that can be fun, but because it is oriented around scenes and scene framing it doesn't just meandering and become characters talking endlessly in an inn: it leads to dramatic places.




Those dramatic places are indeed the point. In PbtA and similar games (I think Hillfolk applies here, I'm only familiar with it because you've mentioned it and I looked into it a bit!) everything is meant to be in service to those dramatic points. I'm playing Stonetop (a Dungeon World hack) and my character has Harmony as his instinct. His sense of Harmony is constantly being challenged or brought up during play. Can he find a harmonious solution? Is there something for which he'd set Harmony aside? That's what play is about. 



Bedrockgames said:


> Sure, if you don't like GM authority in these situations, by all means use these systems. I don't have a problem with GM authority extending to NPCs motivations and behaviors. If a don't like how a particular GM does things, I might not play in games where that person GMs, but mostly I game with people who, even if they think about NPCs differently than I do, are good faith when it comes to this stuff.




Right, but then you are largely creating the criteria that is allowed to work. Talking will only work if they find out about the guard's vice, but they can always stab him! 

You're narrowing the paths forward. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just is a thing. It has an impact on play. It shifts it more toward "let's figure out the solution the GM has in mind for this" and away from "let's come up with a solution for this". 



Bedrockgames said:


> I would love a game where that is possible (maybe there is one that achieves it I just don't know about). What I have found in practice is, for whatever reason, people are much more okay with social interactions being handled through talking and negotiating without a system or without random elements, but with fighting they really seem to want random and mechanical elements. I'd love to play a game where the GM decides based on either what is plausible or what works dramatically (not both mixed together but two possible 'legal schools of thought' for the GM to follow).




So I have a question and it is sincere.... do you think this is because most players are perfectly fine to just kind of play along to the GM's story? 

I don't mean that as an insult. I played that way for many years and loved quite a bit of it. I still play that way at times. Just not all the time. It's a perfectly fun way to play.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Not so much about winning, but about engaging in the game. If we're playing a game where one of the PCs is Sherlock Holmes, I think it's safe to assume that there's a mystery afoot. So engaging with that mystery is a big part of play. How the character does so is vital. The portrayal of Holmes's other traits... the emotional stuff, the social awkwardness.... they are most important in how they impact his ability to do what he does. Having rules for this...penalties of some kind, or at least deficiencies in stats absolutely can help portray character.




Holmes is a good example for a lot of reasons. I have used him to help address this in some of my own writing in games. I think this gets at a fundamental preference divide people don't even realize they have until it comes up in play as a problem or in discussions like this. There are different ways this can be expressed, but something like "Do you want to be Sherlock Holmes or do you want to be in a Sherlock Holmes story". I think the former is more in line with the old 'kind of playing a version of yourself but Sherlock holmes' where you are the one solving the mystery (you as a player have to find the clues, piece them together, solve the mystery). Whereas if you want to be in a Sherlock Holmes story, you expect that if you are sherlock holmes, then you have all his problem solving abilities and intellect. You the player might not, maybe you couldn't' solve a mystery to save your life, but the system should allow you to play a character who can. Again, my particular phrasing (be sherlock versus be in a story) is somewhat inelegant. But both these approaches are totally valid. And if you give someone A when they want B, it is going to create issues. So understanding this aspect is useful. I run a lot of mystery and investigation adventures so this is just something that crops up naturally when you do it a lot.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 19, 2022)

Edited double post


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure! Again, as I said above to @Crimson Longinus this tangent of the conversation came about when someone said that social mechanics should not be used. None of us are saying that the method we'd classify as traditional isn't valid. We're just saying why there are other methods and what makes them valid and/or appealing.




In that case I wouldn't say they should not be used. I think it is entirely preference if you like them or not.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 19, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I would love a game where that is possible (maybe there is one that achieves it I just don't know about). What I have found in practice is, for whatever reason, people are much more okay with social interactions being handled through talking and negotiating without a system or without random elements, but with fighting they really seem to want random and mechanical elements.




You can have mechanical elements without them being random; in the MUSH I was referring to you had some definitional material at least, and you could have at least a simple maneuver approach to unfold into a more complete fight sequence.

But there are also numerous issues that can come up, especially if you don't have both participants actually on the same page, even if they think they are.  And it requires some degree of people being able to balance their interior character stuff with thinking about the world around them, the genre they're in, and what's reasonable.  Bluntly, even people who can do that can't always do it consistently, and a lot more on one level or another kind of don't _want_ to.

It also, as you reference later, helps if everyone understands what level of realism or dramatic functionality they're aiming at; you can otherwise get some dissonance where people are both honestly trying to get an output but they're not aiming for the same kind of output.

And people talk about games requiring trust, but this sort of thing requires it tenfold.  Because you have very limited mechanics to catch you if you fall.




> One observation as a possible reason here is we all have experience with social interaction just by virtue of being human. That is how we do things. But we don't all have experience with combat (and even if we do have experience fighting, we might only have experience with one type of fighting: someone may have been in brawls but never been military combat for example, or been in military combat but never a sword fight).




But that's it; people assume some experience with social interactions means they understand how to extend it.  That's not a premise I think actually holds water.  Other people obviously do, but the astonishment they have that people don't share that view is, well, a bit much.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Right, but then you are largely creating the criteria that is allowed to work. Talking will only work if they find out about the guard's vice, but they can always stab him!




Sure but this is where fairness and not railroading comes in. If the players comes up with a way to find the vice, let them find the vice if it is reasonable. And the discovery of the vice is something that might fall to mechanics if the players are doing something like spying on the person for example. Some of this could fall outside the realm of social interaction and into other mechanics of the game. But in most of my campaigns I don't take pains to conceal weakness if players look for them. The example I gave from Goodfellas, that would probably be pretty easy to find out by just asking around (if someone is a notorious womanizer, then surely other people will know about it: and it might even be easy to figure out just having a conversation with the person themselves). The only time I worry about weaknesses being more complicated to find would be in things like monster hunts where finding a werewolf's specific weakness is the adventure itself. And even then, I'm not going to be particularly precious about keeping that information from the players if they are looking in  places that would reasonably yield the info


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't agree that this is true, but even if it was, it really doesn't matter. If people _feel_ that that the freeform social interaction is very close to the real one then that's good enough, even if it objectively wouldn't be terribly realistic.




The latter is a legitimate position, but at that point you shouldn't be surprised that people don't agree "good enough" actually, well is.  To them it very much _does_ matter.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> You're narrowing the paths forward. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just is a thing. It has an impact on play. It shifts it more toward "let's figure out the solution the GM has in mind for this" and away from "let's come up with a solution for this".




Personally I wouldn't phrase it this way. But I also don't think this distinction is terribly important. For me, this isn't having a solution in mind. All I have in mind is the NPCs motivations and weaknesses (and even then the players may probe further into the NPCs personality to find things I hadn't thought of where I have flesh out the NPC further in play). But I am sitting there thinking: in order to trick this NPC they have to find his womanizing weakness, get a woman to seduce them, then copy the key. In the case of the Goodfellas example, that is just a scheme the players would have concocted themselves based on what they found out. But it could have gone in a number of other directions (for example if they had decided to take a close look at his finances it might have gone in a different direction). For me, I want to be just as surprised about where things go as the players.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 19, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Holmes is a good example for a lot of reasons. I have used him to help address this in some of my own writing in games. I think this gets at a fundamental preference divide people don't even realize they have until it comes up in play as a problem or in discussions like this. There are different ways this can be expressed, but something like "Do you want to be Sherlock Holmes or do you want to be in a Sherlock Holmes story". I think the former is more in line with the old 'kind of playing a version of yourself but Sherlock holmes' where you are the one solving the mystery (you as a player have to find the clues, piece them together, solve the mystery). Whereas if you want to be in a Sherlock Holmes story, you expect that if you are sherlock holmes, then you have all his problem solving abilities and intellect. You the player might not, maybe you couldn't' solve a mystery to save your life, but the system should allow you to play a character who can. Again, my particular phrasing (be sherlock versus be in a story) is somewhat inelegant. But both these approaches are totally valid. And if you give someone A when they want B, it is going to create issues. So understanding this aspect is useful. I run a lot of mystery and investigation adventures so this is just something that crops up naturally when you do it a lot.




It's an interesting take. I don't know if they need to be mutually exclusive, though. Like, I think what would make me feel like I was Sherlock Holmes would be to somehow be able to make intuitive leaps that are borderline supernatural (benefitting as they do from being fictional). Just playing Sherlock Holmes but essentially limited to my personal ability? It may involve less mechanics, which for some people may enhance immersion, but it also means I'm just me in a Sherlock Holmes hat, and to me, that's much more immersion breaking. Or worse, the mystery needs to be suitably dumbed down to allow me a chance to figure it out. I'm at least smart enough to recognize that kind of thing, and that would smack the Sherlock Holmes hat right off my head and stomp it into the floor. 



Thomas Shey said:


> Outside of social areas you're familiar with, I'd argue it has, if anything, a worse one. Its just one people think they understand better than they do.




What I find interesting is that there are people I know, and if I walked up and punched them in the face, I'm sure I would be able to reasonably predict what would happen afterwards. Those same people, if I walked up and hugged them, I have no idea how they'd respond. 

This idea that combat is inherently more complicated than social interaction doesn't seem quite right to me. At least, not enough to treat it as a given in all cases.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 19, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Personally I wouldn't phrase it this way. But I also don't think this distinction is terribly important. For me, this isn't having a solution in mind. All I have in mind is the NPCs motivations and weaknesses (and even then the players may probe further into the NPCs personality to find things I hadn't thought of where I have flesh out the NPC further in play). But I am sitting there thinking: in order to trick this NPC they have to find his womanizing weakness, get a woman to seduce them, then copy the key. In the case of the Goodfellas example, that is just a scheme the players would have concocted themselves based on what they found out. But it could have gone in a number of other directions (for example if they had decided to take a close look at his finances it might have gone in a different direction). For me, I want to be just as surprised about where things go as the players.




Yeah, I get that! I think the motive so to speak is there....portray this NPC with integrity. I can understand that. 

But when you are also the one who crafts the NPC and their place in things, when you determine these traits, they have an impact on play. Deciding to place an incorruptible guard at a key door has an impact on the game, certainly a different impact than placing a guard who is open to bribes would have.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> But that's it; people assume some experience with social interactions means they understand how to extend it.  That's not a premise I think actually holds water.  Other people obviously do, but the astonishment they have that people don't share that view is, well, a bit much.




But again I think you are setting the bar way higher than anyone here is. No one is saying because they understand how buying a loaf of bread works they can realistically depict how a cocaine deal is going to go down. An accurate and objectively real outcome is not the goal. They want believable and fun for the group. For that you just need enough experiences to draw on as analogies. Your players aren't expecting you to morph into a hardened drug lord like you spent 9 months in deep immersive research in an outlaw motorcycle gang or something. They are mostly expecting stuff drawn from mundane experiences, tv and maybe what you read about it. 

I don't have any astonishment that people don't share the view. People want different things. That's the way the hobby has been from the beginning.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Right. But to me the whole point of roleplaying is that you try to imagine that and immerse into it the best you can. It may be far from perfect, but the goal still is clear. I really don't see what's even the point of playing if we give up on this.
> 
> Seriously, at this point I don't even understand what people want to get out of RPGs.



A lot of people seem to want to play a board game where there are no limits on choices. Others want to express their creativity in making their own playing piece. Others want to act and improvise in character. Others want to immerse themselves in a world. Others want an excuse to hang out with their friends and play. Others want...

Some people focus on one of those, others focus on two or more.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 19, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think if your goal is perfect realism, sure. I don't know what it is like to be a secret agent in another country trying to persuade an asset to sell their country's secrets. And if you put me in that situation, I'd probably just end up bungling it because I have no experience with it, I don't understand the complexities. But I do have a lot of film and book analogies I can draw on for the purposes of play. And I have a lot of non-spy experience in my life that I can draw on as an approximation. I think for those of us interested in live RP at the table, this is where that is fun. But at least for me the goal isn't to achieve any kind of realism.




But then, you've seen a lot of sword fights in books and films too, haven't you?  And even if you've done no combat of any sort, you've done a lot of physical activity across the course of your life.

So in the end, the difference is you're comfortable with assuming your narrative emulation of one is adequate and the other isn't.  But that's the issue--its one of comfort, not something that can be demonstrated its more true with one than the other.



Bedrockgames said:


> Still, I don't think any RPG can really capture the complex psychological processes and other details going on in a real social interaction either.




They don't capture the physical processes in combat and results either.  This is incredibly obvious when you look at injury systems in RPGs, but its true of all of it.  All you do is get one that's close enough for your purposes.

As I said, from where I sit it appears that two things go on, one I find more legitimate than the other:

1. People are more comfortable offloading physical processes on mechanics than they are with social (and to some degree intellectual) ones.  That's fine; it can turn on how distant you feel from one or the other, and what value you get out of resolving them narratively rather than mechanically.

2. They think they have a better model for resolving social situations outside their experience than they do physical ones outside their experience.  This is a massive assumption I don't think is warranted, but that some people take as a baseline that is not subject to argument.

In addition, there's a certain blindness to the fact at least some of them are okay with a problem in one area they aren't in another.  As has been noted, some people are really bad at a lot of social interactions; if they're expected to be able to do so effectively in a game, they effectively can't play; they certainly can't play any character type that would be dependent on it.  If you required some of the same people to actually make decisions in combat or climbing a mountain to a significant degree to participate in those, they'd have nothing but bad things to say about it.  But since its not their ox being gored with the social issue, its okay there.





Bedrockgames said:


> Also just because this free form RP, it doesn't mean you can't stop to look things up or ask someone at the table who knows about a subject that comes up. I do that a lot and don't find it disruptive. For instance if a player knows a lot about firearms, and the players go to a gunstore, I would probably ask that player for help answering questions that come up.




Watch how a fair number of GMs react to that, though.  This is a case where the desire for speed in games with some people trumps damn near everything.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> What I find interesting is that there are people I know, and if I walked up and punched them in the face, I'm sure I would be able to reasonably predict what would happen afterwards. Those same people, if I walked up and hugged them, I have no idea how they'd respond.
> 
> This idea that combat is inherently more complicated than social interaction doesn't seem quite right to me. At least, not enough to treat it as a given in all cases.




Combat isn't more complicated, but I do think it is more chaotic and harder to predict. And that might be part of it here. Usually I find most social situations play out as I imagine they would. If I am planning on having a difficult conversation with someone, and I know them, I am rarely surprised by the reactions they have over the course of the conversation. People do surprise you from time to time, and something very random, like giving a person a hug out of the blue, especially if you've never hugged them before, that might be more difficult to gauge (even then I feel like I have a sense of who would hug me back and who would react negatively to a sudden hug). 

But I do think there is something to this point as it relates to fighting. It might be hard to predict what will happen in a fight with someone you've never fought with before. But if you spent several days a week sparing with the same person, in the same way you spend time each week talking to a friend, you probably would have a good idea of how things might play out in a fight. There may be a more chaotic and random element because it is a physical act and you might slip or the person might try to do something you aren't expecting intentionally, but it is more predictable the more familiar you are with a person's movement and habits. How you could translate that into an all talking combat system though I am not sure.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Watch how a fair number of GMs react to that, though.  This is a case where the desire for speed in games with some people trumps damn near everything.




I think 


Thomas Shey said:


> They don't capture the physical processes in combat and results either.  This is incredibly obvious when you look at injury systems in RPGs, but its true of all of it.  All you do is get one that's close enough for your purposes.




I definitely would agree they do not. I think there are reasons combat tends to be resolved mechanically more than social stuff in RPGs, that aren't related to realism (I think part of it may be we expect combat to be exciting and unpredictable as part of the fun).


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 19, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> What I find interesting is that there are people I know, and if I walked up and punched them in the face, I'm sure I would be able to reasonably predict what would happen afterwards. Those same people, if I walked up and hugged them, I have no idea how they'd respond.
> 
> This idea that combat is inherently more complicated than social interaction doesn't seem quite right to me. At least, not enough to treat it as a given in all cases.



I think it's a lot of cart-before-the-horse thinking. We're gamers. We play games. Most games have rather involved rules for combat, but very few rules for socialization. That's the trad game template at least. And some of us have internalized that over decades of play. So we assume that's not only how games should work but how the world actually works. Which is a really silly thing to do. 

In a fight, you have mostly no control over your instinctual response and it comes in one of three varieties: fight, flight, or freeze. 

In a conversation, you have a literal infinite variety of choices...almost all of which are entirely up to you.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

It is not really about accuracy of the model. But talking feels more like talking than talking feels like fighting. The former has immediate immersiveness in the way latter doesn't. YMMV and all that, but I don't think this concept is even remotely weird or hard to get.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 19, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't have any astonishment that people don't share the view. People want different things. That's the way the hobby has been from the beginning.




That was directed mostly at Longinius who I usually sympathize with, but who who seemed baffled that people were making the argument that just roleplaying the social elements wasn't any better than just doing so in a swordfight.  That there's a vast difference to him is fine, but acting like its shocking that others feel differently is being a little tunnel-vision about the whole discussion.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> But then, you've seen a lot of sword fights in books and films too, haven't you?  And even if you've done no combat of any sort, you've done a lot of physical activity across the course of your life.
> 
> So in the end, the difference is you're comfortable with assuming your narrative emulation of one is adequate and the other isn't.  But that's the issue--its one of comfort, not something that can be demonstrated its more true with one than the other.




Absotluely and they do inform my rulings when players do something like try to leap to a chandelier. But I think in combat, because its the 'action' part of the game, we want the excitement of a system, especially one with dice rolls. I have no problem admitting for me, when it comes to feats of daring and combat in RPGs, the excitement for me is in the roll of the die and I am particularly drawn to games where the stakes of death are higher.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> It is not really about accuracy of the model. But talking feels more like talking than talking feels like fighting. The former has immediate immersiveness in the way latter doesn't. YMMV and all that, but I don't think this concept is even remotely weird or hard to get.




But seriously, man, you do seem to think people who disagree are coming from a weird place.  See the problem here?


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 19, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> But I do think there is something to this point as it relates to fighting. It might be hard to predict what will happen in a fight with someone you've never fought with before.




I wouldn’t challenge this reasoning at all. I would simply say that trying to convince someone I’ve never interacted with before would be just as difficult.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 19, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> In a conversation, you have a literal infinite variety of choices...almost all of which are entirely up to you.




I don’t agree with this. Sometimes I choose to be angry. But very often, I become angry or I become sad with no control over that.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, I get that! I think the motive so to speak is there....portray this NPC with integrity. I can understand that.
> 
> But when you are also the one who crafts the NPC and their place in things, when you determine these traits, they have an impact on play. Deciding to place an incorruptible guard at a key door has an impact on the game, certainly a different impact than placing a guard who is open to bribes would have.




Sure but that would be a choice the GM is making to create challenges that can't be overcome. And maybe in a particular setting corruptible guards are rare. As long as they have motivations, responsibilities, etc, there still may be a way to get the key though (even if it can't be done with a bribe). I think a lot of it boils down to the GM being open minded when the players try things. If your starting point is: I don't want the players to ever get this key. Then the problem is the GM's starting point, not the RP method. That is like when you make an adventure and write it so the players have to go through A, B, C and D to get to the end (even if they figure out a clever short cut from A to D). I once had a whole campaign built around a big bad elven Emperor. I think in something like the first session or two, the players got hold of a teleport spell or scroll and used that to teleport right into his bed chamber and murder him. It was very anticlimactic, it isn't what I expect, but it was a victory they deserved because the plan worked. I think this approach definitely works better when the GM walks into each session and campaign with fewer expectations of where things will go.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> But seriously, man, you do seem to think people who disagree are coming from a weird place.  See the problem here?



I'm sorry, I really have hard time getting how someone wouldn't get it. This probably is some sort of blind spot to me, I don't know... I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I also genuinely cannot fathom how it is not obvious that talking feels more like talking than talking feels like fighting...  

It feels we are talking past each other, and I'd like to unpack this further, but I really don't know how.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> It is not really about accuracy of the model. But talking feels more like talking than talking feels like fighting. The former has immediate immersiveness in the way latter doesn't. YMMV and all that, but I don't think this concept is even remotely weird or hard to get.



The trouble you're running into the is very basis of the game is conversation. So everything is already handled via conversation between the referee and players. Occasionally dice are involved, too. Yes, conversation representing conversation feels more "natural" as you're using the game mechanic (conversation) that exactly mirrors the activity it represents (conversation). But for literally everything else, you're using the game mechanic (conversation) for something that is not actually that thing (everything that's not conversation). 

It's one of those "water is wet" statements. Yes, conversation feels more like conversation than fighting feels like conversation. But that's entirely beside the point. 

The point is: different people have different preferences. You want to maximize conversation and minimize dice. Great. Have at it. Others want to minimize conversation and maximize dice. That's not weird or wrong or bad...it's just not your preference. BTW, the preferences thing also applies to the way we think and what we find odd, weird, hard, or easy. Something that's easy for you to grok is impossible from someone else; something that's easy for them to grok is impossible for you.

I think turning an RPG into a small-circle community improv theater without dice is weird. You seem to think it's the only and best way to play. I think it's weird that people would even care about RAW and not run everything as rules light / near free-form as you possibly could to avoid the headache of RAW...and to others the mere thought of that is akin to blasphemy. Fair enough. To each their own.

Neither is wrong; neither is right. I think it's the main obstacle to having these conversations. Everyone is so convinced they're right and their way is the only right, just, and perfect way that they cannot fathom others have different preferences or styles.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> The trouble you're running into the is very basis of the game is conversation. So everything is already handled via conversation between the referee and players. Occasionally dice are involved, too. Yes, conversation representing conversation feels more "natural" as you're using the game mechanic (conversation) that exactly mirrors the activity it represents (conversation). But for literally everything else, you're using the game mechanic (conversation) for something that is not actually that thing (everything that's not conversation).
> 
> It's one of those "water is wet" statements. Yes, conversation feels more like conversation than fighting feels like conversation. But that's entirely beside the point.



It is not besides the point, it is the point!



overgeeked said:


> The point is: different people have different preferences. You want to maximize conversation and minimize dice. Great. Have at it. Others want to minimize conversation and maximize dice. That's not weird or wrong or bad...it's just not your preference. BTW, the preferences thing also applies to the way we think and what we find odd, weird, hard, or easy. Something that's easy for you to grok is impossible from someone else; something that's easy for them to grok is impossible for you.
> 
> I think turning an RPG into a small-circle community improv theater without dice is weird. You seem to think it's the only and best way to play. I think it's weird that people would even care about RAW and not run everything as rules light / near free-form as you possibly could to avoid the headache of RAW...and to others the mere thought of that is akin to blasphemy. Fair enough. To each their own.
> 
> Neither is wrong; neither is right. I think it's the main obstacle to having these conversations. Everyone is so convinced they're right and their way is the only right, just, and perfect way that they cannot fathom others have different preferences or styles.



I am not saying anything about any preferences being wrong. I am merely responding to some people seemingly not getting why mechanically abstracting conversation (instead of handling it via conversation) is a different thing than mechanically abstracting fighting (instead of handling it via conversation.) There are valid reasons for mechanically abstracting either, I am not arguing against that. But it is a different sort of trade-off. In the case of conversation via conversation there is a correspondence that is harmed by the abstraction, but in the case of fighting there was no such correspondence in the first place.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> It is not besides the point, it is the point!



For you.


Crimson Longinus said:


> I am not saying anything about any preferences being wrong. I am merely responding to some people seemingly not getting why mechanically abstracting conversation (instead of handling it via conversation) is a different thing than mechanically abstracting fighting (instead of handling it via conversation.)



There's a lot of variables that go into a conversation. This is the internet. Some people will argue just to argue. Some people absolutely have to have the last word no matter what. Some people are simply contrarian. Some people will reject a premise because they don't like the conclusion. Some people's brains work differently. What's child's play to an astrophysicist is incomprehensible to an auto mechanic. And vice versa. Etc.

You don't get that other people don't see what you think is obvious. Okay. Cool...now what? You have two choices: keep arguing that their brains should work differently than they apparently do or accept it. The former seems entirely counterproductive while the latter at least allows the thread to continue.


Crimson Longinus said:


> There are valid reasons for mechanically abstracting either, I am not arguing against that. But it is a different sort of trade-off. In the case of conversation via conversation there is a correspondence that is harmed by the abstraction, but in the case of fighting there was no such correspondence in the first place.



Some people want the abstraction more than the correspondence. Some people do not play RPGs for the same reasons you do. So, to you, that correspondence is of paramount import...while to others, just getting on with things and not having yet another hour-long conversation with yet another shopkeep is infinitely more important than correspondence. 

To me, shopping should be handled with a list of things the players want and the referee signing off on them or rejecting them as needed. That's it. To me, RPing though shopping is to utterly miss the point of RPGs. I get to go shopping in my real life. Playing a game where I have to RP through shopping sounds like a nightmare. Either let me write a list or throw a die and be done with it. Let me get on with the cool stuff...you know...all the stuff that I can't do in the real world.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 19, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> Quits being a game aka RPG and you pretty much *do not get to play anyone but yourself. *To me that is falling a part



Why, when I'm role-playing a character in-character based on what that character would think and-or do, would you assume I'm just playing myself?

Further, in my view it's still part of a game even if the game's actual mechanics aren't being used in that moment.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Some people want the abstraction more than the correspondence. Some people do not play RPGs for the same reasons you do. So, to you, that correspondence is of paramount import...while to others, just getting on with things and not having yet another hour-long conversation with yet another shopkeep is infinitely more important than correspondence.



That's fine. I am not disagreeing with any of this. I have only tried to clarify why handling conversation via conversation has correspondence in a way handling fighting via conversation doesn't. Whether one values that correspondence of course is a matter of preference.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> It is not really about accuracy of the model. But talking feels more like talking than talking feels like fighting. The former has immediate immersiveness in the way latter doesn't. YMMV and all that, but I don't think this concept is even remotely weird or hard to get.




It’s not weird or hard to get. I absolutely understand the point. 

I just think the similarity isn’t nearly as meaningful as you do.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 19, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Outside of social areas you're familiar with, I'd argue it has, if anything, a worse one.  Its just one people think they understand better than they do.



Sure - but as it's a game of imagination anyway, what's wrong with us just taking our misunderstandings and running with them anyway?

To use (was it @pemerton 's?) example from upthread: I've never done any real-life haggling like he has but that doesn't stop me from trying it in an RPG setting and seeing what happens.  

Hell, I can take any number of social things I've never been-done-said in real life and try portraying them through my characters; and if those portrayals accidentally veer into inaccuracy or even parody then so be it.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> That's fine. I am not disagreeing with any of this. I have only tried to clarify why handling conversation via conversation has correspondence in a way handling fighting via conversation doesn't. Whether one values that correspondence of course is a matter of preference.



Okay. Maybe take a moment to recognize that you've gone from trying to clarify to being aghast that others don't understand it. If your goal is clarification, you apparently cannot reach it.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> It also isn't what anyone has argued for.



Well.... kinda! I mean, speaking for myself, I am kind of poking the issue with a stick, because as I said earlier, its easy enough to 'get it'. D&D started out based on a wargame and the essence of wargames is combat rules, usually with randomizers (dice) included. They also tend to at least pretend to some degree of modeling reality (WH40k and its ilk aside). It has been asserted that nobody really knows jack about combat in any realistic sense, and we all agree it cannot be 'played out' (even in LARPs really, but certainly not at the table). So the options are 'talk it through' or 'wargame it'. Talking it through kind of generally (maybe not for certain formulations of games) run us into the Czege Principle, unless it is left 100% to the GM to decide all consequences. Thus I take it that dice effectively are really a way for the GM to offload this burden. Since she cannot really say what would 'really happen' she's got to either rule according to some goals (agenda) or else submit it to the dice/mechanics almost entirely. 

So, the question boils down to whether or not the situation is thus on the 'social conflict' side of the house. Personally I kinda think its pretty much the same. While people can certainly pretend that character action X produces reaction Y in some NPC, its pretty much entirely up to the GM. There could just as easily be reactions A, B, C, or D instead and they could trivially be justified by details of the character's backstory or nature that are simply too subtle to be included in any world description. People are extremely complex and while we can often judge an individual in real life with full access to various queues, even that is pretty dicey, let alone judging a mere 2 sentence outline of one which you cannot even visualize. The GM is thus in ESSENTIALLY the exact same situation as they would be in terms of combat, they simply have to either resort to a randomizer/mechanics, or answer "what happens when I do X?" according to some sort of agenda.

There REALLY ARE only a few elements available to any theory on why one is traditionally preferred over the other, at least by some people. They just prefer it! Combat has traditionally been using randomizers/mechanics and doing it the other way, while consistent, runs into matters of tradition. Meanwhile the argument against using mechanics in social conflict exactly mirrors that, tradition. Yes, you may feel more 'in character', but then we get to a final question about that. How do you achieve the notion that the GM is not simply following a script or their own agenda? If they are, and that is perfectly fine (which I guess it must be) then we finally land back at why that isn't acceptable for combat, and we are DOUBLE justified in concluding it can only be a matter of tradition and really nothing else. See what I mean?


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 19, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> The trouble you're running into the is very basis of the game is conversation. So everything is already handled via conversation between the referee and players. Occasionally dice are involved, too. Yes, conversation representing conversation feels more "natural" as you're using the game mechanic (conversation) that exactly mirrors the activity it represents (conversation). But for literally everything else, you're using the game mechanic (conversation) for something that is not actually that thing (everything that's not conversation).



The difference is in-character conversation vs out-of-character (or meta) conversation.  In-character conversation is the social-interaction piece of the game and is IMO the piece that rarely if ever needs to involve game mechanics.  Out-of-character conversation isn't what's being talked about here.

Ideally it's easy for all involved to tell one type of conversation apart from the other, be it by use of different voice tones or phrasing or accents or whatever.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 19, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> It’s not weird or hard to get. I absolutely understand the point.
> 
> I just think the similarity isn’t nearly as meaningful as you do.



Yeah, that's fair enough.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 19, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Why, when I'm role-playing a character in-character based on what that character would think and-or do, would you assume I'm just playing myself?
> 
> Further, in my view it's still part of a game even if the game's actual mechanics aren't being used in that moment.



Because you can't not be yourself?  When you do this, it's you thinking about how to be someone else, but it's still you.  You aren't going to have thoughts or feelings that wouldn't occur to you.  

And there's nothing wrong with that.  The more I've considered this kind of play, the more I've moved to "puzzle box" play when I use it -- I'm presenting a puzzle to be solved that players are poking at for clues until they figure it out and solve the puzzle.  The idea that I can actually present the thinking of a 1,000 year old vampire or 6,000 year old dragon or and immortal embodiment of elemental fire -- things that have radically different thinking than I do -- is increasingly unrealistic to me.  So I either want to build them out as a puzzle to be solved or I want useful mechanics to hang my play on.  Just freeforming is really just trying to engage what I think about immortal embodiments of elemental fire and not actually immortal embodiments of elemental fire (or what have you).  I suppose it works well enough if I'm portraying a shopkeep, because I've been a shopkeep, but I still can't predict how real world shopkeeps will react to things very well, especially having heavily armed and pushy customers around thinking they can wink and get better prices.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> You could argue it technically isn't terribly much 'a game' at that point. Which is not a big deal in my book. RPGs are very unlike most other games to begin with and the term 'game' is vague anyway.
> 
> But of course you can play a character different from you and it is weird to think that you couldn't. Most of the characterisation doesn't depend on the rules. Actors can play characters that are not like them (even when improvising) and authors can write characters that are not like them. They don't need rules to do this.



Sure, but very few people are good actors! The college I attended had a pretty highly acclaimed acting program, so I played a good bit of D&D with some seriously talented actors (like some of them have spent their lives as professional actors, though none you would probably have heard of). I learned very quickly just how much they could bring to the APPEARANCE of being in character. Interestingly though, I don't really think any of those people had any greater insight into real people than anyone else does, except at the level of 'reading' them. In other words, I think people can certainly take a script and play a part, but I don't think people are especially good at realistically predicting what other people will do in an open-ended situation. Doing that really requires deep knowledge of the subject and a lot of subject matter experience. For example in WWII the allies had Hitler's Psychotherapist from when he lived in Vienna, plus a lot of data on him (since he was obviously a public figure). They did a fairly good job of sussing out his likely actions, but they were still pretty much entirely unable to say which possibilities would actually come to pass. Likewise I don't think there's any hope of realistically portraying ANY character in an open-ended sense. So NPCs at least, they act according to some GM agenda based pattern. PCs, well, you have fun imagining what they will do and doing something, and it doesn't have to match with anyone's expectations, obviously. So it works, within that set of bounds.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Right. But to me the whole point of roleplaying is that you try to imagine that and immerse into it the best you can. It may be far from perfect, but the goal still is clear. I really don't see what's even the point of playing if we give up on this.
> 
> Seriously, at this point I don't even understand what people want to get out of RPGs.



Obviously there are a bunch of different possible agendas!  I think we all recognize that. I wouldn't take the questioning on this topic as an attack on any given method, or criticism, more as an analytical process. By asking such questions as "why dice for combat but not social" we explicate how these things work, what our tastes are, how we think about these things, and that informs our thinking on the topic generally.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 19, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> The difference is in-character conversation vs out-of-character (or meta) conversation. In-character conversation is the social-interaction piece of the game and is IMO the piece that rarely if ever needs to involve game mechanics. Out-of-character conversation isn't what's being talked about here.



I'm including the meta-conversation as a game mechanic. When the referee describes the situation to the players, when the players ask clarifying questions, when the players declare their intentions and actions, and when the referee describes the outcome of those actions...that's all engaging the game's mechanics. It's just not the mechanics on a character sheet nor are dice always involved.

I disagree about dice, character sheets, and mechanics being involved with in-character social interaction. RPing it all was fun up to a point...though after the first hour or so it lost its luster. I can do without the hammy accents and having long and involved conversations with random NPCs. I'd rather skip ahead to the important conversations. The pointless little conversations are like all the pointless filler fights in most dungeons. Fewer, more important, meaningful, and impactful conversations/fights please.


Lanefan said:


> Ideally it's easy for all involved to tell one type of conversation apart from the other, be it by use of different voice tones or phrasing or accents or whatever.



Maybe for you. For me the fewer players "pulling a voice" the better.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 19, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> The GM decides for NPCs, the Players decide for PCs. It isn't the GM determining how the situation will go if he is playing fairly, because how the situation goes isn't the point, the point is an honest character interaction. The players are still free to do what they want (they could stab the NPC to death and take what they need from them for example). But the point is the GM should have a clear idea going in of what the NPCs motives and and not fit those motives to some kind of outcome the GM wants.



Sure, but 99.9% of the time the ACTUAL situation at the table  is that one of the players comes up with some sort of plan, and that plan depends on some sort of interaction with an NPC going one way or the other way, and all the GM has to go on is basically "this is one of the guards." Maybe he's got a CRUMB more than that, "this guard is especially vigilant, but he has a soft spot for attractive women." Now, he's got to judge this situation. OF COURSE one of the main things that is going to be on his mind is "will this hairbrained scheme that Joe came up with bypass half my prep?" There's no actual way to say what the NPC would 'realistically' do. As you say, people vary in their reactions from day-to-day or even hour-to-hour for a huge variety of reasons! Nobody can say there's any one 'realistic' vs 'unrealistic' outcome. So, the decision comes down to the GM arbitrating based on his or her view of what will produce a fun/interesting/engaging/name your agenda here outcome!


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 19, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I'm sorry, I really have hard time getting how someone wouldn't get it. This probably is some sort of blind spot to me, I don't know... I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I also genuinely cannot fathom how it is not obvious that talking feels more like talking than talking feels like fighting...
> 
> It feels we are talking past each other, and I'd like to unpack this further, but I really don't know how.




Fair enough.  But at least I think you have seen enough of us respond to understand that to some of us at least, its, at best, a matter of degree, so unless you think we're not arguing in good faith, you're just gonna have to accept this is not a first principal case you can just assume when talking to other people in the discussion.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 19, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Sure - but as it's a game of imagination anyway, what's wrong with us just taking our misunderstandings and running with them anyway?




Well, the fact people won't have the _same_ misunderstanding, for one thing.

That's always the thing with mechanics; they may not be right, they may not fit everyone's understanding of what's being represented, but everyone can at least understand what they are.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 19, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Combat isn't more complicated, but I do think it is more chaotic and harder to predict. And that might be part of it here. Usually I find most social situations play out as I imagine they would. If I am planning on having a difficult conversation with someone, and I know them, I am rarely surprised by the reactions they have over the course of the conversation. People do surprise you from time to time, and something very random, like giving a person a hug out of the blue, especially if you've never hugged them before, that might be more difficult to gauge (even then I feel like I have a sense of who would hug me back and who would react negatively to a sudden hug).
> 
> But I do think there is something to this point as it relates to fighting. It might be hard to predict what will happen in a fight with someone you've never fought with before. But if you spent several days a week sparing with the same person, in the same way you spend time each week talking to a friend, you probably would have a good idea of how things might play out in a fight. There may be a more chaotic and random element because it is a physical act and you might slip or the person might try to do something you aren't expecting intentionally, but it is more predictable the more familiar you are with a person's movement and habits. How you could translate that into an all talking combat system though I am not sure.



How random really is combat though? I mean, sure, there must be SOME random element. However, I recall years ago when I was engaged in SCA combats (not that they are exactly realistic, but I think they do engage the sorts of skillset that would realistically matter in actual melee combat) there was a guy. He was invincible. I mean, truly invincible. Nobody ever touched him. He ended up 'King of the East' simply by beating every single one of many rather talented people one after another without even basically breaking a sweat. Even the guy whom I knew who was extraordinarily fast and cunning and would pull some really surprising move couldn't touch this person. He was just so fast, so strong, and so remarkably athletic that there was a 0.0% chance you would ever win against him. I don't care if the man slipped on a banana peel, he'd still have won. What I'm saying is, I am not so sure how random these kinds of things really are! Sure, between equally (un)skilled fighters, yeah, but there's a point of disparity at which you don't need dice anymore!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sure, but 99.9% of the time the ACTUAL situation at the table  is that one of the players comes up with some sort of plan, and that plan depends on some sort of interaction with an NPC going one way or the other way, and all the GM has to go on is basically "this is one of the guards." Maybe he's got a CRUMB more than that, "this guard is especially vigilant, but he has a soft spot for attractive women." Now, he's got to judge this situation. OF COURSE one of the main things that is going to be on his mind is "will this hairbrained scheme that Joe came up with bypass half my prep?" There's no actual way to say what the NPC would 'realistically' do. As you say, people vary in their reactions from day-to-day or even hour-to-hour for a huge variety of reasons! Nobody can say there's any one 'realistic' vs 'unrealistic' outcome. So, the decision comes down to the GM arbitrating based on his or her view of what will produce a fun/interesting/engaging/name your agenda here outcome!




I don't think the number is 99 percent. But whatever it is, I think it is bad GMing to stop at "this is one of the guards" (especially if the players are interrogating that aspect of the scenario). I always stop, take a moment and right down some concrete things so I have something to work with when the players try something. And if the players start probing further, you need to come up with traits and motives if you don't have them. That doesn't mean they all have to have obvious ways of being bribed or deceived, but there should be some details there. 

And again, no one is talking about what the NPC would "realistically do" this keeps getting brought up but everyone who is engaging in this type of play has said realism isn't the goal. When I've explained the goal it is more about the fun of playing out situations with characters who have motivations and goals and aren't just 'one of the guards'. This isn't about simulating realistic social interactions. It is about what aspect of play we find enjoyable. 

So it isn't about realism. But it is about "I know the guard needs gold to pay off his debts to Fan Batu", and then I can assess whether the players offering him gold would be enough to sway him (or if they have a plan involving gold to distract him if that would work). Its about engaging the RP, puzzle solving and character driven side of play. It isn't about running war-games of prison break scenarios to find out what would realistically happen. 




> OF COURSE one of the main things that is going to be on his mind is "will this hairbrained scheme that Joe came up with bypass half my prep?"




I used the example of the players bypassing a whole campaign to kill a big bad in my own experience to make the point that his isn't how I would do it. And I would further say, I don't think prioritizing prep that way is beneficial (I take a pretty minimal approach to prep once i have a campaign set up for this reason). But yes, if the GM is allowing metaconcerns like whether the players will bypass parts of the adventure prep as a way of judging how the NPC reacts, then that is an issue. I've learned to not care about whether they bypass things or not. And it helps with a lot with having sessions I find enjoyable as a GM.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 19, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> How random really is combat though? I mean, sure, there must be SOME random element. However, I recall years ago when I was engaged in SCA combats (not that they are exactly realistic, but I think they do engage the sorts of skillset that would realistically matter in actual melee combat) there was a guy. He was invincible. I mean, truly invincible. Nobody ever touched him. He ended up 'King of the East' simply by beating every single one of many rather talented people one after another without even basically breaking a sweat. Even the guy whom I knew who was extraordinarily fast and cunning and would pull some really surprising move couldn't touch this person. He was just so fast, so strong, and so remarkably athletic that there was a 0.0% chance you would ever win against him. I don't care if the man slipped on a banana peel, he'd still have won. What I'm saying is, I am not so sure how random these kinds of things really are! Sure, between equally (un)skilled fighters, yeah, but there's a point of disparity at which you don't need dice anymore!




There's a couple of things you have to keep in mind.

1. The fact that most combat sports are not extremely realistic matters; among other things, they usually try to minimize some of the factors that dice represent because, honestly, they can easily get you hurt.  SCA is a little better than some because they'll do actual outdoors fighting in the like, but how often did you fight somewhere where there was a lot of low hanging branches?  Muddy patches?  Loose gravel?  I'm betting even in the Wars there was some avoidance of bad footing and similar things, and in regular indoor bouts.  Same with trying to avoid issues with weapons and armor.  Most of the time people in real combats have a lot more trouble avoiding these sorts of things, but when they show up is, if not literally random, is well below the level that is going to be managed manually by a GM (if, even, they should).  A lot of that significant but low level clutter is handled by dice rolls.

2. Being random doesn't mean some differences in capability can't pile up.  One of the issues with big linear die roll systems like D20 and D100 resolutions is that they overemphasize the randomness.  You have to have really massive differences in capability before its always obvious how much those differences actually matter can come in.  This was very obvious to me early on being both a RuneQuest and Hero System convert early; while I loved both games, RQ's percentage system meant you could sometimes end up with a lot of, well, crap rolls that made the gap between you and less skillful opponents seem less than it was.  It didn't mean you still didn't win a lot of fights, but it overemphasized the outliers.  On the other hand in Hero, if you had one guy with an 8 CV and one guy with a 3, the chances the latter guy would ever even get a hit in before he went down was--pretty slim.  That's because the 3D6 resolution could push the probabilities to where the chances of failure were pretty minuscule.  That wasn't what you expected most fights to be, but it could occur, and you'd still have room for outliers but have them be genuinely outliers.  Some die pool systems can produce a similar result.   Even in more modest differences, the probabilities can be more more slanted because they aren't going to produce a linear set of steps (you could get that result with a percentile system by messing with tables, but tables are usually a bad word in the hobby, so...)


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> How random really is combat though? I mean, sure, there must be SOME random element. However, I recall years ago when I was engaged in SCA combats (not that they are exactly realistic, but I think they do engage the sorts of skillset that would realistically matter in actual melee combat) there was a guy. He was invincible. I mean, truly invincible. Nobody ever touched him. He ended up 'King of the East' simply by beating every single one of many rather talented people one after another without even basically breaking a sweat. Even the guy whom I knew who was extraordinarily fast and cunning and would pull some really surprising move couldn't touch this person. He was just so fast, so strong, and so remarkably athletic that there was a 0.0% chance you would ever win against him. I don't care if the man slipped on a banana peel, he'd still have won. What I'm saying is, I am not so sure how random these kinds of things really are! Sure, between equally (un)skilled fighters, yeah, but there's a point of disparity at which you don't need dice anymore!




I do kind of tie back to this in my second paragraph. I think I agree with the last part of your post: the bigger the differences in size, skill, experience, and athleticism, the less random (or at least the more predictable) the outcome. If I walk into a ring and mike Tyson walks into a ring. A quick visual comparison of us will pretty much tell you I won't be the person walking out of the ring. And like I said in my second paragraph, when people get familiar with one another in sparring, the outcome is more predictable. But there are still things like a punchers chance, and chaos that is just a little harder to track I think than you have in a conversation (not that conversations can't be chaotic but fighting is an explosive, physical contest, whereas social interactions are more of an exchange of ideas, opinions, points and emotions). And I don't think this so much about what fighting is versus what social interaction is, I was just trying to address why it might be that there is this frequent sense that "you can do social interaction without mechanics, but you have to do combat with them". I think a lot of that comes down to what we perceive combat to be. 

But like I said elsewhere, I think it has a lot more to do with we want combat to unrpedictable and exciting in a game, and we, or at least many of us, want social interaction to be more like dialogue and behavior we have full control over. And the other side of this is modeling that control you have over dialogue and behavior, in combat, seems rather difficult (because the modeling we are talking about is pretty 1:1). For whatever reason people seem more comfortable with letting the GM decide how Emperor Fabio responds to you throwing a burrito in his face, than letting the GM decide if the burrito lands in his face. Maybe we feel a sense of randomness when we throw a burrito at someone that we don't feel when we decide how to respond to having a burrito thrown at us. I don't know


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 19, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I used the example of the players bypassing a whole campaign to kill a big bad in my own experience to make the point that his isn't how I would do it. And I would further say, I don't think prioritizing prep that way is beneficial (I take a pretty minimal approach to prep once i have a campaign set up for this reason). But yes, if the GM is allowing metaconcerns like whether the players will bypass parts of the adventure prep as a way of judging how the NPC reacts, then that is an issue. I've learned to not care about whether they bypass things or not. And it helps with a lot with having sessions I find enjoyable as a GM.




I think the issue is that people aren't always as good at keeping things out of their decision process as they think, or even want.  Assuming they even want to, which isn't always a given.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Obviously there are a bunch of different possible agendas!  I think we all recognize that. I wouldn't take the questioning on this topic as an attack on any given method, or criticism, more as an analytical process. By asking such questions as "why dice for combat but not social" we explicate how these things work, what our tastes are, how we think about these things, and that informs our thinking on the topic generally.



To be clear here, I am not saying you can't have social combat or mechanics for social interactions. You absolutely can. I tend to find mechanics obtrusive for that, but it is just personal opinion. Broadly I think the reason why the answer to that question is often "dice for combat, no dice for social" is something we can come up with logical explanations for, but fundamentally you are talking about a sense people get from the experience of trying to do both. For some reason, combat feels more at home with dice, and social interaction feels more at home without dice for a lot of people (speaking generally). But I don't think the split is huge. It isn't like a 90 percent want no dice and 10 percent want dice. It seems closer to 50-50 in all the discussions I have had.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I think the issue is that people aren't always as good at keeping things out of their decision process as they think, or even want.  Assuming they even want to, which isn't always a given.




There is a lot of excused middle here though. All I can say is I have had plenty of situations where the players bypassed a ton of prep because they made a choice like this, and I didn't have the guard be unbribeable. Can a GM be 100% objective and fair all the time? No of course not. GMs are human beings. Some days you make better rulings than others. The goal is to be as fair and open minded in your rulings as you can. To not allow those kinds of considerations to enter into your decision as much as you can. The fact that you might once in a while unconsciously let bias enter into a ruling, even if 90 percent of the time you are making pretty impartial rulings, I think doesn't undermine the enjoyment of this type of play. And on the player side it also requires a certain amount of trust in the GM. If you are examining every choice the GM makes under a critical microscope, because you are worried about some residual bias creeping in,  you might not enjoy this type of play. Personally I don't get too hung up on these issues whether I am a player or a GM. Perfection isn't the goal. The goal is to enjoy gaming with our friends.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 19, 2022)

For me, most of that is a very good reason for opposed rolls or rolled DCs. I don’t have to figure all that out. I can just roll, see what the dice says, and go from there. It’s also a great way to reduce referee bias. I don’t decide how tough or amicable the guard is, the dice do. Unless they’re loaded, the dice are always fair. The same cannot be said of the meat-sack running the game. 

The PCs’ plan rests on a guard, make a roll to see how vigilant the guard is. The PCs’ want to try to seduce or persuade the guard, make a roll to see how susceptible the guard is.

And frankly, the referee shouldn’t be worried about a roll bypassing a chunk of their prep. If a single roll can bypass a chunk of your prep you’ve prepped the wrong stuff.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> For me, most of that is a very good reason for opposed rolls or rolled DCs. I don’t have to figure all that out. I can just roll, see what the dice says, and go from there. It’s also a great way to reduce referee bias. I don’t decide how tough or amicable the guard is, the dice do. Unless they’re loaded, the dice are always fair. The same cannot be said of the meat-sack running the game.
> 
> The PCs’ plan rests on a guard, make a roll to see how vigilant the guard is. The PCs’ want to try to seduce or persuade the guard, make a roll to see how susceptible the guard is.
> 
> And frankly, the referee shouldn’t be worried about a roll bypassing a chunk of their prep. If a single roll can bypass a chunk of your prep you’ve prepped the wrong stuff.




Which is fine, but for those of us who like the puzzle solving and RP aspect, the reason a single roll for it (whether it be something like a Bluff or Diplomacy--and I understand those particular mechanics are often much more nuanced if you actually read them and apply them as written) is it can bypass the planning the PCs do, the things they actually say, etc. Sometimes if you give the guard a 50 dollar bill, it should work 100% of the time. Where I would introduce a random element (and it might not be in the form of a social skill roll but it could be) is when that is unclear to me when I am running the NPC). And granted you can bestow a bonus if the players do particularly excellent things in their planning. But at that point, you are effectively stacking the deck anyways because you are persuaded by their plan yourself and if you were just dealing with the RP you'd probably green light the guard submitting to them. 

Again, I am easy going in play. I am not going to ruin anyone's time if they like rolling for this (and plenty of people do). But I've found these kinds of mechanics, since I became aware of them, muck with an aspect of play that is very enojyable to me. Now other people might enjoy this same aspect of play and find rolling enhances it. I am not saying my experience is the objective one experience. The time it was most clear to me the difference it made was when I shifted from running Ravenloft in 3rd edition (which has a lot of social and investigatory skills) to Ravenloft using 2E (which is the system I played Ravenloft with). I remember having the distinct feeling when I would play Ravenoft 3E that it just felt off. And I often chalked the difference up to nostalgia because I had played Ravenloft 2E in the 90s from high school into my early 20s. SO I figured it might just have been that it was a formative early game experience. But the moment I changed systems, it felt like the old days again. And the difference was in things like social mechanics (in 2E the closest you had in the PHB to that was the Etiquette Non-weapon proficiency but that was a knowledge roll that specifically mentions it doesn't replace roleplaying: in the Skills and powers books I think there were more options but I didn't use those as they came very late in the 2E run; some of the setting books offered up other NWPs, but NWPs themselves were optional and any additional ones offered in supplements entirely at the GMs discretion). There were other reasons too (3e combat feels very different for example, CR ratings are much more integral to 3rd edition). And I had played plenty of other systems that had and did not have social skills but seeing how that played out in the same setting with different editions (where one edition had social skills and the other didn't) laid it out pretty clearly for me. 

Again, sure some people wouldn't have this experience at all. But I always found those Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy and even Gather information, racially changed how the game felt to me


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 19, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> And frankly, the referee shouldn’t be worried about a roll bypassing a chunk of their prep. If a single roll can bypass a chunk of your prep you’ve prepped the wrong stuff.



I think I take a different view here, which sufficiently clever or lucky players should always be able to 'beat the adventure' instantly if they find an instant win. Whether I have a lot of prep, or just expected they would be occupied with dealing with a particular challenge for a longer period of time, I think a truly exciting aspect of play is granting wins, no matter how much they might seem to circumvent the 'story' the 'campaign' the 'adventure' the 'dungeon' or 'the prep'. A single roll being able to bypass what the GM has prepped is fine by me. Sometimes those kind of unexpected breaks are exciting developments.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> It's due the words people have been writing.





Crimson Longinus said:


> Seriously, at this point I don't even understand what people want to get out of RPGs.



That could be you cue to rethink your reading of what people are writing.

For instance, you suggested that @hawkeyefan and I want to roll dice to _skip_ social interactions. Whereas we both posted about _resolving_ social interactions.

Given that the thread has moved on several pages, and peeking ahead at just one of them I see that @hawkeyefan has replied making some similar points to mine, but with more elaboration, I'll leave it at that for the moment.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Holmes is sort of manic depressive emotionally stunted unconventional genius. You only need the rules to help with the genius part.



Do you? Back in my Rolemaster days, if a player felt that their PC was suffering some sort of emotional or mental trauma they would often call for a roll on the Depression critical table. They felt it made more sense, in the inhabitation of their characters, for the mental state of the character to manifest via the resolution process.

Conversely, if Holmes is depressed but this is only colour and has no effect on his prospects of doing things, then in terms of RPGing is he _really_ depressed?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 20, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think
> 
> 
> I definitely would agree they do not. I think there are reasons combat tends to be resolved mechanically more than social stuff in RPGs, that aren't related to realism (I think part of it may be we expect combat to be exciting and unpredictable as part of the fun).



I think this is really the kind of last word thing. Its fun. I mean, the draw of having combat as an activity in the game is SO YOU CAN ROLL DICE. Its just been accepted that fighting is the dice rolly part, and social is the purely talky part, and that is just how it is (at least in a good chunk of RPG play). Explanations won't really illuminate anything beyond that.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> I absolutely wouldn't want PC decisions to resolved via a dice roll. My role as a player is to make decisions for my character, so if we outsource that to the rules or the dice, I no longer need to be there.



This reinforces my suggestion that you might want to reread what some posters are saying.

I'm not describing a context where _the player no longer needs to be there_. Your remark actually reminds me of people who say that in a game that uses a non-D&D authority structure _the GM no longer needs to be there_ - but obviously the role of the GM in a system like Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel is fundamental.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 20, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> It’s not weird or hard to get. I absolutely understand the point.
> 
> I just think the similarity isn’t nearly as meaningful as you do.



Right, I'm of the same mind. Two players at a table talking bears almost no resemblance to a Dwarf Ranger bargaining with a Green Dragon for the life of his friend. It is just not equivalent at all. I can tell you FOR SURE it is not equivalent to bargaining with a guy who is holding a gun!


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 20, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Do you? Back in my Rolemaster days, if a player felt that their PC was suffering some sort of emotional or mental trauma they would often call for a roll on the Depression critical table.



I am sure they could! 



pemerton said:


> They felt it made more sense, in the inhabitation of their characters, for the mental state of the character to manifest via the resolution process.
> 
> Conversely, if Holmes is depressed but this is only colour and has no effect on his prospects of doing things, then in terms of RPGing is he _really_ depressed?



That it is not in the rules doesn't make it mere colour. And of course it has an effect about how he does things, if faithfully roleplayed (and why wouldn't it?) Also, if the player doesn't determine the mental state of their character, what they're doing then? Just replace the player with mental state and reaction charts!

Have you done a lot of freeform RP or participated in LARPs? Rules are not really terribly necessary for roleplaying. They're what I would call an optional extra.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 20, 2022)

pemerton said:


> This reinforces my suggestion that you might want to reread what some posters are saying.
> 
> I'm not describing a context where _the player no longer needs to be there_. Your remark actually reminds me of people who say that in a game that uses a non-D&D authority structure _the GM no longer needs to be there_ - but obviously the role of the GM in a system like Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel is fundamental.



You literally resolved how the knights would behave regarding the lady via a fellowship roll.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> This idea that combat is inherently more complicated than social interaction doesn't seem quite right to me. At least, not enough to treat it as a given in all cases.



There's the further thing, as I mentioned upthread, that the boundary between _combat_ and _social/emotional_ is pretty porous.

There's low-hanging stuff here like morale rules. (Classic Traveller had PC-affecting morale rules back in 1977!)

But there's more than that too. Does a player get a bonus to their combat dice if their PC is defending someone to whom they're devoted? D&D answers _no_ (with a few exceptions in the original MM, like dragons getting bonuses when defending their children). But many RPGs answer _yes_, or at least permit that as an answer.

A potentially more distasteful example, but one that surely comes up from time to time, is how well a PC resists interrogation. Even in AD&D I could imagine calling for a save vs Death Magic. The idea that every PC is as resilient as the best-trained commando, if that's how the player wants to play them, seems to me a departure from verisimilitude.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 20, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Right, I'm of the same mind. Two players at a table talking bears almost no resemblance to a Dwarf Ranger bargaining with a Green Dragon for the life of his friend. It is just not equivalent at all. I can tell you FOR SURE it is not equivalent to bargaining with a guy who is holding a gun!



But if you feel that, then what's the point of the game? If you believe that it is impossible to immerse into situations unlike your normal real life experience, then what are we even doing? What it the purpose of the game if not that?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 20, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think the number is 99 percent. But whatever it is, I think it is bad GMing to stop at "this is one of the guards" (especially if the players are interrogating that aspect of the scenario). I always stop, take a moment and right down some concrete things so I have something to work with when the players try something. And if the players start probing further, you need to come up with traits and motives if you don't have them. That doesn't mean they all have to have obvious ways of being bribed or deceived, but there should be some details there.
> 
> And again, no one is talking about what the NPC would "realistically do" this keeps getting brought up but everyone who is engaging in this type of play has said realism isn't the goal. When I've explained the goal it is more about the fun of playing out situations with characters who have motivations and goals and aren't just 'one of the guards'. This isn't about simulating realistic social interactions. It is about what aspect of play we find enjoyable.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I think we're not exactly very far off in our thinking. I agree, its not about considering what is ACTUALLY realistic, just what could be sustained by some appeal to logic and not entirely strain people's sense of verisimilitude. Since the mid 90's I've basically just not done prep myself beyond a very basic "here's a list of statblocks I'll print out because they are very likely to come in handy tonight" kind of thing. Generally in 4e play I'd prep a few possible fights, maybe kind of sketch out for myself what a location or two that is plausibly going to come up in play looks like, but mostly that just made it easier at the table, not because I was like "I really want THIS to happen!" Although I admit to definitely 'doing up' some big 'boss battle' type stuff now and then. Usually though that was because the players had pretty much told me "we're doing X and want to accomplish Y" and then I had a week off to really give it the deluxe treatment. 

But in terms of these kinds of 'what is the guard like?' types of things, FOR ME at least, its always an open question really. I don't have something predefined. Maybe I have the underboss and a couple key henchmen of an established 'front' described in a little detail, but not mooks. Which means, in my style of play/prep, it is best to dice for all this kind of stuff, like "OK, does the hulky fighter distract the woman guarding the door?" Maybe! Lets dice for it!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 20, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> There's a couple of things you have to keep in mind.
> 
> 1. The fact that most combat sports are not extremely realistic matters; among other things, they usually try to minimize some of the factors that dice represent because, honestly, they can easily get you hurt.  SCA is a little better than some because they'll do actual outdoors fighting in the like, but how often did you fight somewhere where there was a lot of low hanging branches?  Muddy patches?  Loose gravel?  I'm betting even in the Wars there was some avoidance of bad footing and similar things, and in regular indoor bouts.  Same with trying to avoid issues with weapons and armor.  Most of the time people in real combats have a lot more trouble avoiding these sorts of things, but when they show up is, if not literally random, is well below the level that is going to be managed manually by a GM (if, even, they should).  A lot of that significant but low level clutter is handled by dice rolls.



Yes, it is a valid point. I think if we're battling amidst the trees in the dark, then its possible anything could happen, etc.


Thomas Shey said:


> 2. Being random doesn't mean some differences in capability can't pile up.  One of the issues with big linear die roll systems like D20 and D100 resolutions is that they overemphasize the randomness.  You have to have really massive differences in capability before its always obvious how much those differences actually matter can come in.  This was very obvious to me early on being both a RuneQuest and Hero System convert early; while I loved both games, RQ's percentage system meant you could sometimes end up with a lot of, well, crap rolls that made the gap between you and less skillful opponents seem less than it was.  It didn't mean you still didn't win a lot of fights, but it overemphasized the outliers.  On the other hand in Hero, if you had one guy with an 8 CV and one guy with a 3, the chances the latter guy would ever even get a hit in before he went down was--pretty slim.  That's because the 3D6 resolution could push the probabilities to where the chances of failure were pretty minuscule.  That wasn't what you expected most fights to be, but it could occur, and you'd still have room for outliers but have them be genuinely outliers.  Some die pool systems can produce a similar result.   Even in more modest differences, the probabilities can be more more slanted because they aren't going to produce a linear set of steps (you could get that result with a percentile system by messing with tables, but tables are usually a bad word in the hobby, so...)



Eh, my feeling on that is you can create lopsided outcomes as virtually guaranteed results with any style of mechanics. I mean, lets think about AD&D. What is the chance that a level 1 fighter would beat a level 4 fighter? Its VERY unlikely! It might happen 10% of the time, at most, probably even less given expected loot and equipment differences and whatnot. AT BEST if you stripped both of them down to AC10 the lower level guy would have maybe, what, 1 chance in 4, if that? he'd definitely have to hit at least twice and do good damage without getting hit back. I mean, sure, you CAN have bad luck, but you should have been in our TB2 game last week. I must have rolled 8 or 10 checks that night, most with 5 or more dice, and I think THE BEST I managed was to get an average roll once, all the rest were quite poor! I don't really get the feeling the dice are any less swingy in that game than in D&D. Now, dice pools COULD be a lot less swingy, if they are implemented in very specific ways (IE always working on sums of dice for instance). Still, overall there's a pretty solid sweet spot for how much luck dice need to inject that modern RPG designers are all pretty well aware of. Few games designed in the last 10-15 years miss that window.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 20, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> But if you feel that, then what's the point of the game? If you believe that it is impossible to immerse into situations unlike your normal real life experience, then what are we even doing? What it the purpose of the game if not that?



That's where we differ. I am clearly getting a bit different thing from it than you are. I mean, watching a movie is not like BEING THERE, right. You CAN still identify with the character. I can't actually get THAT close to what it would be like to be there, but I can still appreciate the situation for what it is, and 'play the part'. So, FOR ME, its fine if there's some randomizers in there, maybe some mechanics that operate to resolve what my PC does (IE like the Traveller morale rules @pemerton mentioned). And like he or someone mentioned, there are DEFINITELY times when you don't consciously have any control over yourself.

Like a time sticks in my mind: I was walking with my girlfriend out around where I lived at night. We must have taken a bit of a wrong turn and all of a sudden this loud sharp hissing sound started up, coming from several directions! I must have run 50 yards before I even knew my feet were moving! Talk about a morale check! I mean, I'm not a particularly nervous type that way, but man I was just spooked, and so was my girlfriend. It was just a bunch of sprinklers, we wandered onto a golf course by accident and they just happened to start up. Surely that kind of thing seems like a cool possible outcome in a game, but I'd never have thought of it myself. I'd never have believed it would happen except I experienced it.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 20, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> That's where we differ. I am clearly getting a bit different thing from it than you are. I mean, watching a movie is not like BEING THERE, right. You CAN still identify with the character. I can't actually get THAT close to what it would be like to be there, but I can still appreciate the situation for what it is, and 'play the part'.



Right. But to me what is unique to RPGs is the being there part. So that's why I see it as fundamental. 



AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, FOR ME, its fine if there's some randomizers in there, maybe some mechanics that operate to resolve what my PC does (IE like the Traveller morale rules @pemerton mentioned). And like he or someone mentioned, there are DEFINITELY times when you don't consciously have any control over yourself.
> 
> Like a time sticks in my mind: I was walking with my girlfriend out around where I lived at night. We must have taken a bit of a wrong turn and all of a sudden this loud sharp hissing sound started up, coming from several directions! I must have run 50 yards before I even knew my feet were moving! Talk about a morale check! I mean, I'm not a particularly nervous type that way, but man I was just spooked, and so was my girlfriend. It was just a bunch of sprinklers, we wandered onto a golf course by accident and they just happened to start up. Surely that kind of thing seems like a cool possible outcome in a game, but I'd never have thought of it myself. I'd never have believed it would happen except I experienced it.



Sure, such things can happen. And perhaps sparing use of such effects in a game might be perfectly fine. Though the rules telling you "your character is very afraid" still doesn't give you that experience of being afraid. It would be far more powerful if you were so immersed in the character, and the GM would describe the situation so well, that you would be genuinely afraid. Granted, that is hard, but that's what I would aim for.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> It would be far more powerful if you were so immersed in the character, and the GM would describe the situation so well, that you would be genuinely afraid. Granted, that is hard, but that's what I would aim for.



Upthread you were asking what morals, emotions etc had to do with simulationism; and why "high concept simulation" is characterised as a type of simulationism. Well, in this post you've answered your own questions!


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 20, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Upthread you were asking what morals, emotions etc had to do with simulationism; and why "high concept simulation" is characterised as a type of simulationism. Well, in this post you've answered your own questions!



Did I? How? Also, I don't remember asking about emotions, it was just about morals. (But it has been a long thread, so who knows?  )

So earlier you described dictating morals being a feature of simulationsm. I assume you now mean this applies to emotions too.

So does this mean then, that you practice simulationism as you embrace mechanics that can dictate characters' emotions, and I don't, as I favour just describing the situation but leaving the ultimate interpretation to the player?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think in combat, because its the 'action' part of the game, we want the excitement of a system, especially one with dice rolls. I have no problem admitting for me, when it comes to feats of daring and combat in RPGs, the excitement for me is in the roll of the die and I am particularly drawn to games where the stakes of death are higher.



I GM much more often than I play.

But the last two times I've played, the moments where I've held my breath as dice are rolled have been social, not combat. (In my Burning Wheel play I think there might be one combat every two or three sessions.) I (as my PC) tried to persuade my brother to throw off the yoke of his "master" (an as-yet unidentified NPC) and join me in restoring our family to its rightful place and status; I rolled the Command dice; and failed. My brother turned his face away, and rode off in his cart to complete the errand his master had sent him on.

For me, resolving that as a puzzle (eg what leverage can I use to turn my brother from loyalty to the master back to loyalty to family) would have been an uninspiring experience. Trying to persuade him, and then seeing the dice land as they did, was more like a slap in the face. It stung: just like in a real world interaction that goes badly, there was the sense of what might have been, but wasn't to be.



hawkeyefan said:


> Sometimes I choose to be angry. But very often, I become angry or I become sad with no control over that.



This is the flipside of the slap in the face: in a different session playing a different character, I went to do a cruel and ruthless thing - murdering an innkeeper for his cashbox - and my friend who was GMing the scene at that moment called for a Steel check. I failed, and so hesitated. The hesitation allowed another character to act, and the innkeeper's life was saved.

In both cases, the "script" being established in part by the dice didn't make it harder for me to inhabit my character. It helped me understand what my character was doing and feeling.



Crimson Longinus said:


> I also genuinely cannot fathom how it is not obvious that talking feels more like talking than talking feels like fighting





Crimson Longinus said:


> But talking feels more like talking than talking feels like fighting. The former has immediate immersiveness in the way latter doesn't.



Talking where I get to choose at every moment how I respond, and when I know that the person I'm talking to gets to choose how they respond, doesn't feel much like the sort of talking that for me is more characteristic of RPGing - that is, talking where the stakes and emotional investment are very high.



Crimson Longinus said:


> You literally resolved how the knights would behave regarding the lady via a fellowship roll.



Consider two RPGs in which magic-use is possible: classic D&D where the player has to choose a small loadout of spells, from a not-quite-as-small list; and Doctor Strange as statted in Marvel Heroic RP, where just about any magical effect you can think of is permissible as an action declaration. Would we say that, in the D&D case, _there is no need for the player_?

Or consider D&D combat, which is resolved via dice-rolling: would we say that the player may as well not show up, because it's just dice and charts that are telling us how the combat plays out?

In the Prince Valiant game, two PCs are wooing the same lady. Various actions are played out; each becomes aware that the other is a rival. They go to the tavern to discuss the situation man-to-man, over some ales. The discussion occurs, and each has stated their case and explained why Violette would be better off with him and why the other ought to stand aside; and neither budges. The question, then, is _is that it?_ Is a player's decision that their character won't yield to another determinative? Or is it a statement of stakes, to then be resolved.

We resolved it, via opposed Fellowship checks (which, as it happened, produced a tie - so the rivalry continued). How you would infer from that that _the player may as well not be there_ is a mystery to me. Apart from anything else, who do you think is setting the stakes?


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 20, 2022)

pemerton said:


> This is the flipside of the slap in the face: in a different session playing a different character, I went to do a cruel and ruthless thing - murdering an innkeeper for his cashbox - and my friend who was GMing the scene at that moment called for a Steel check. I failed, and so hesitated. The hesitation allowed another character to act, and the innkeeper's life was saved.
> 
> In both cases, the "script" being established in part by the dice didn't make it harder for me to inhabit my character. It helped me understand what my character was doing and feeling.



Why don't the GM describe the pitiable and terrified look of the innkeeper, why don't you know how your character would react to that?



pemerton said:


> Talking where I get to choose at every moment how I respond, and when I know that the person I'm talking to gets to choose how they respond, doesn't feel much like the sort of talking that for me is more characteristic of RPGing - that is, talking where the stakes and emotional investment are very high.



You immerse in the situation, you emotionally invest to it, then it will feel more like a real high stakes situation!



pemerton said:


> In the Prince Valiant game, two PCs are wooing the same lady. Various actions are played out; each becomes aware that the other is a rival. They go to the tavern to discuss the situation man-to-man, over some ales. The discussion occurs, and each has stated their case and explained why Violette would be better off with him and why the other ought to stand aside; and neither budges. The question, then, is _is that it?_ Is a player's decision that their character won't yield to another determinative?



In my book, if they so feel, then yes, yes it is.



pemerton said:


> Or is it a statement of stakes, to then be resolved.
> 
> We resolved it, via opposed Fellowship checks (which, as it happened, produced a tie - so the rivalry continued). How you would infer from that that _the player may as well not be there_ is a mystery to me. Apart from anything else, who do you think is setting the stakes?



The player outsourced their decision to the dice. Sure, in practice they of course don't do this for every decision they have to make, but if they did, they wouldn't need to be there. (Though I find it hilarious that the dice too refused to settle the matter.)

How was it first determined that the characters were interested in this lady in the first place? Was that due the dice too? If not, why not?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 20, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Right. But to me what is unique to RPGs is the being there part. So that's why I see it as fundamental.
> 
> 
> Sure, such things can happen. And perhaps sparing use of such effects in a game might be perfectly fine. Though the rules telling you "your character is very afraid" still doesn't give you that experience of being afraid. It would be far more powerful if you were so immersed in the character, and the GM would describe the situation so well, that you would be genuinely afraid. Granted, that is hard, but that's what I would aim for.



Yeah, TB2 has conditions like 'Angry' and 'Afraid', and TBH they are just mechanics. I don't even see where they ESPECIALLY relate very well to the fiction. That is, they COULD, the GM certainly can dish them out only in a way that matches the fiction, and @Manbearcat does in our game to a degree, but 'Afraid' for instance is a fairly light condition and so it comes up pretty often. Most of the time I think it is kind of loosely tied to fiction, at most. Especially since being angry seems a bit transitory, but given how the mechanics work in TB2 it will usually persist until you camp, at the very least. I kind of take the names with a grain of salt. IMHO this is always a likely outcome with condition mechanics in games, whether mental or physical, they end up kind of just standing in for "whatever might plausibly create a mechanical effect similar to what you're experiencing." 4e tended to use them that way too, but it was also careful to give them pretty generic names, like 'dazed', and then limit them to a specific short timeframe too.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 20, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Why don't the GM describe the pitiable and terrified look of the innkeeper, why don't you know how your character would react to that?



No, if I knew how my character would react to any given situation, why play it? I literally want to Play to Find Out! My character is like an uncharted country. Honestly this is a bit like how I conceive exploring my own character and mind in the real world!


Crimson Longinus said:


> You immerse in the situation, you emotionally invest to it, then it will feel more like a real high stakes situation!



But see, FOR ME, that is the point of saying at various points that sitting at a table acting is not much like actually being in high stakes situations. It doesn't feel like one, not at all. I draw this conclusion from the (admittedly few) actual high stakes situations I've found myself in. I agree, if my goal was to actually feel very much like I was dealing with a life-and-death social situation, then RPGs don't really do that for me. They can give a taste, and allow a lot of fun imagining, but I don't think we (at least I) get too close to the genuine feelings. I mean, maybe I'm a cold bastard, or maybe I have a poor appreciation of my own feelings. Its hard to say!


Crimson Longinus said:


> In my book, if they so feel, then yes, yes it is.
> 
> 
> The player outsourced their decision to the dice. Sure, in practice they of course don't do this for every decision they have to make, but if they did, they wouldn't need to be there. (Though I find it hilarious that the dice too refused to settle the matter.)
> ...



I'd turn it back the other way and consider combat. Who decides, and how, that combat is going to be initiated? Obviously it isn't NECESSARILY constrained to the same sort of process as its resolution. It could be a simple decision of some of the players or GM, or a result of a toss of the dice, etc.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 20, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, TB2 has conditions like 'Angry' and 'Afraid', and TBH they are just mechanics. I don't even see where they ESPECIALLY relate very well to the fiction. That is, they COULD, the GM certainly can dish them out only in a way that matches the fiction, and @Manbearcat does in our game to a degree, but 'Afraid' for instance is a fairly light condition and so it comes up pretty often. Most of the time I think it is kind of loosely tied to fiction, at most. Especially since being angry seems a bit transitory, but given how the mechanics work in TB2 it will usually persist until you camp, at the very least. I kind of take the names with a grain of salt. IMHO this is always a likely outcome with condition mechanics in games, whether mental or physical, they end up kind of just standing in for "whatever might plausibly create a mechanical effect similar to what you're experiencing." 4e tended to use them that way too, but it was also careful to give them pretty generic names, like 'dazed', and then limit them to a specific short timeframe too.




I think the Torchbearer model is best internalized with the following orientation:

_"When am I *not *Angry, Afraid, and Exhausted?"_

Effectively, you're perpetually all of those emotions/dispositions.  The question becomes _"when does it stick/when does the anger, fear, exhaustion really get to me? (the game's answer to that is *when you have the Condition*)"_

And I think I may disagree a little bit that the conditions don't map to the fiction.

When you're angry, you aren't thinking clearly (your ability to be your best self and recall your wisdom is impacted).

When you're afraid, the risk assessment profile of your decisions and actions changes as you're less apt to put yourself out there and assume liability and press against the unknown.

When you're exhausted, your vitality is sapped in all things you do and the things that are customarily second nature to you cease to be so.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 20, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I'm including the meta-conversation as a game mechanic. When the referee describes the situation to the players, when the players ask clarifying questions, when the players declare their intentions and actions, and when the referee describes the outcome of those actions...that's all engaging the game's mechanics. It's just not the mechanics on a character sheet nor are dice always involved.
> 
> I disagree about dice, character sheets, and mechanics being involved with in-character social interaction. RPing it all was fun up to a point...though after the first hour or so it lost its luster. I can do without the hammy accents and having long and involved conversations with random NPCs. I'd rather skip ahead to the important conversations. The pointless little conversations are like all the pointless filler fights in most dungeons. Fewer, more important, meaningful, and impactful conversations/fights please.



My bar for "impactful" is somewhat lower than yours, I suspect.

Sure, I don't often want to play through haggling with shopkeepers; but the initial conversation where you get to know some of the local gate guards is worth playing out as it sets references for later play: the gate guards know the PCs and the PCs (and the players) get a chance to know what makes these guards tick as a group and as individuals.

And playing out seemingly innocuous conversations sometimes has the potential to unearth info that otherwise wouldn't come to light.  An example of that came up in the session I just finished running - during an evening the PCs were swapping war stories with some soldiers; and the potential was there to dig out some interesting-to-other-people info about the Legions had the right questions been asked and-or had the conversation drifted the right way, but that didn't happen and so, info not gained.

And ANY conversation between PCs is worth playing out if the players so desire.


overgeeked said:


> Maybe for you. For me the fewer players "pulling a voice" the better.



There's times in the past I've been tempted to insist players use different voices for their characters, to get around and forestall "my character didn't say that" arguments.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 20, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> For me, most of that is a very good reason for opposed rolls or rolled DCs. I don’t have to figure all that out. I can just roll, see what the dice says, and go from there. It’s also a great way to reduce referee bias. I don’t decide how tough or amicable the guard is, the dice do. Unless they’re loaded, the dice are always fair. The same cannot be said of the meat-sack running the game.



Well, ideally the meat-sack is fair; or at least ascribes to be.


overgeeked said:


> And frankly, the referee shouldn’t be worried about a roll bypassing a chunk of their prep. If a single roll can bypass a chunk of your prep you’ve prepped the wrong stuff.



Not sure I agree here.  A single roll - or, more often, a single action or short series of actions - can often bypass lots of prep.  That doesn't mean the wrong stuff was prepped, it just means that the players (often by sheer luck) found a way of not engaging with a large chunk of it.  The trick is not to marry your prep and to be ready to let large swathes of it go at a moment's notice.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 20, 2022)

pemerton said:


> There's the further thing, as I mentioned upthread, that the boundary between _combat_ and _social/emotional_ is pretty porous.
> 
> There's low-hanging stuff here like morale rules. (Classic Traveller had PC-affecting morale rules back in 1977!)




I like morale and reaction adjustment rules in D&D. To me those aren't particularly intrusive into the sorts of things I am talking about. Morale I think is good because GMs often forget in the heat of combat whether a creature or enemy would flee, surrender, etc. These days I don't use moral, I go more by my sense of what the NPC or monster would do (and I operate with the assumption that most people want to survive). But I think moral works perfectly fine in place of this. Redaction adjustment I particularly like as a social mechanic because it doesn't interfere with what is being said or done, it sets the stage for how people react and what their initial disposition towards players is

I agree the boundary between combat and social stuff is sometimes porous, but I also think there is a distinct difference between saying hello and slapping someone in the face. Those two things feel very different to us, and I think that difference in feel is why some people are more comfortable with rules for combat but fine with no rules for social interaction. And again, if people like social mechanics there is nothing wrong with that, social mechanics have gotten more and more popular as the decades have gone by (to the point that I even include them in my own game, even though my personal ideal in play is no social mechanics at all).


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 20, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> My bar for "impactful" is somewhat lower than yours, I suspect.



A fair assessment. 


Lanefan said:


> Sure, I don't often want to play through haggling with shopkeepers; but the initial conversation where you get to know some of the local gate guards is worth playing out as it sets references for later play: the gate guards know the PCs and the PCs (and the players) get a chance to know what makes these guards tick as a group and as individuals.
> 
> And playing out seemingly innocuous conversations sometimes has the potential to unearth info that otherwise wouldn't come to light.  An example of that came up in the session I just finished running - during an evening the PCs were swapping war stories with some soldiers; and the potential was there to dig out some interesting-to-other-people info about the Legions had the right questions been asked and-or had the conversation drifted the right way, but that didn't happen and so, info not gained.
> 
> And ANY conversation between PCs is worth playing out if the players so desire.



I’ve found it to be a great delaying tactic for timid players. Their characters generally aren’t at risk in town (I run West Marches), so wasting entire sessions in town talking is a treat way to avoid any risks. 


Lanefan said:


> There's times in the past I've been tempted to insist players use different voices for their characters, to get around and forestall "my character didn't say that" arguments.



Fair point. That’s why I have everything said at the table that’s not mechanics or direct questions from the player to the referee is something the characters actually say to each other.

If the players are planning, so are their characters. They generally don’t have a telepathic link that allows them to have instant unobservable conversation. Player 1 says they want to kill someone to Player 2…that’s Character 1 saying it to Character 2 in game. Same applies to combat. Battle planning during the battle is characters shouting their plans across the battlefield. 


Lanefan said:


> Well, ideally the meat-sack is fair; or at least ascribes to be.



Ideally. 


Lanefan said:


> Not sure I agree here.  A single roll - or, more often, a single action or short series of actions - can often bypass lots of prep.  That doesn't mean the wrong stuff was prepped, it just means that the players (often by sheer luck) found a way of not engaging with a large chunk of it.  The trick is not to marry your prep and to be ready to let large swathes of it go at a moment's notice.



Absolutely fair.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 20, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yes, it is a valid point. I think if we're battling amidst the trees in the dark, then its possible anything could happen, etc.




Even something as simple as fighting on _gravel_ can change the certainty of a process non-trivially.  Or the fact someone slept badly the night before.  Naturally when the issue is clear-cut enough this will be moved up a step and function as modifiers, but the GM is unlikely to micromanage things enough to represent the sleep example, or more limited versions of the gravel example (where there's loose patch on the mountain trail but the whole trail isn't loose).  That's the sort of below-the-radar thing a lot of randomness represents.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Eh, my feeling on that is you can create lopsided outcomes as virtually guaranteed results with any style of mechanics. I mean, lets think about AD&D. What is the chance that a level 1 fighter would beat a level 4 fighter? Its VERY unlikely! It might happen 10% of the time, at most, probably even less given expected loot and equipment




That's usually more about the secondary mechanic of hit point elevation, though.  Hit point elevation isn't a model used much outside of D&D.  Set those two fighters at the same hit points (which, after all, could happen if the 4th level fighter just rolled consistently crappy as he levelled) and the differences are much less significant.  The 4th level fighter just isn't that much better that it can't get drowned out in the D20 swing.  The only reason he can be expected to do so reliably in the normal case is that the D&D hit point model actually emphasizes defense much more strongly than offense in progression (back in the day at least), so the 4th level fighter can take four hits to the first level's one.

I didn't use RQ as an example by coincidence; you don't have a secondary process to hide behind in the system, and the range of capability is relatively compressed.  A fighting type with his relevant skills at 75% and his opponent at 50% (a fairly significant difference by the standards of the system) have about a 37.5% and a 12.5% chance of landing a successful attack respectively (because of the interactive nature of attack and defense).  In other respects they aren't likely to be radically different; the 75% fighter might have a couple more points of armor, but that isn't even a given.

This isn't radically different from the model a number of games use, except that often there defense value is a flat one rather than a roll.  So my point that there's still a big difference between a linear die and a multiple die approach still applies.

[Sometimes there's a different sort of secondary mechanism in the form of some kind of metacurrency, but how that's implemented varies so much that its difficult to say whether it makes the gap between skill levels more pronounced or less).


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 20, 2022)

pemerton said:


> There's the further thing, as I mentioned upthread, that the boundary between _combat_ and _social/emotional_ is pretty porous.
> 
> There's low-hanging stuff here like morale rules. (Classic Traveller had PC-affecting morale rules back in 1977!)
> 
> But there's more than that too. Does a player get a bonus to their combat dice if their PC is defending someone to whom they're devoted? D&D answers _no_ (with a few exceptions in the original MM, like dragons getting bonuses when defending their children). But many RPGs answer _yes_, or at least permit that as an answer.



This brought to mind Mythras where such a devotion or allegiance is treated like a skill itself and where one might use Bard/Warlord style inspiration skills to get it to apply to more situations than it was normally. (It feels like a rule in process of being developed)


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 20, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> I think the Torchbearer model is best internalized with the following orientation:
> 
> _"When am I *not *Angry, Afraid, and Exhausted?"_
> 
> ...



Right, I'm not saying the conditions are completely divorced from the fiction, but the coupling is fairly loose. I think the point is probably more to RP and leverage them to describe what happens vs thinking of it as "I was doing X and I got angry and it failed" or something like that.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 20, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I GM much more often than I play.
> 
> But the last two times I've played, the moments where I've held my breath as dice are rolled have been social, not combat. (In my Burning Wheel play I think there might be one combat every two or three sessions.) I (as my PC) tried to persuade my brother to throw off the yoke of his "master" (an as-yet unidentified NPC) and join me in restoring our family to its rightful place and status; I rolled the Command dice; and failed. My brother turned his face away, and rode off in his cart to complete the errand his master had sent him on.
> 
> For me, resolving that as a puzzle (eg what leverage can I use to turn my brother from loyalty to the master back to loyalty to family) would have been an uninspiring experience. Trying to persuade him, and then seeing the dice land as they did, was more like a slap in the face. It stung: just like in a real world interaction that goes badly, there was the sense of what might have been, but wasn't to be.



Sure, I can see how you can build suspense and tension with dice in  a social interaction. What I am saying is just a guess as to why there is a sense among some people that they are fine with combat needing mechanics but may not feel social interactions need mechanics. I think there is probably a lot of stuff that goes into the reasons. The expectation that combat have a kind of gambling excitement to me, struck me as a possibility. But that isn't to say others aren't going to want the same from social mechanics. 

Thinking about this a little deeper I think where I come from with it, is combat is something I would rather not have mechanics for at all if there were a method that could capture the same organic free flowing approach to social interaction that would resonate with me in combat. Fundamentally the state of play you have in free form social interaction is my preferred state in an RPG overall (with moments of randomness of course to heighten the excitement and unpredictability. I use initiative for example. even though I can't stand its impact on the flow of things. It immediately changes the feel of play and creates a sense that we are in another game space for me. But I use it because when I have tried to do freeform, no initiative combat, when it works its great, but it only seemed to work for a small number of players (if I had a table of players who all got how to interject their actions without an initiative order, and we all gelled, it was brilliant, but 70 percent of the time that wasn't the case, and you'd usually have at least 1-2 players getting seriously tripped up by the lack of initiative order). Whereas I find I don't run into as many problems on the social interaction end of keeping things freeform and organic. And that is just initiative. And I find things are much more contested for me in combat. If someone says they stab my character with a knife, my mind isn't really sure if they would hit me or not. I feel I do need that random element (even if it were just something as gimmicky as the player needing to land a nerf ball in a nerf hoop at the table). Whereas in a social interaction I feel a lot more confident about how another character's words are going to land with my character.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 20, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Those dramatic places are indeed the point. In PbtA and similar games (I think Hillfolk applies here, I'm only familiar with it because you've mentioned it and I looked into it a bit!) everything is meant to be in service to those dramatic points. I'm playing Stonetop (a Dungeon World hack) and my character has Harmony as his instinct. His sense of Harmony is constantly being challenged or brought up during play. Can he find a harmonious solution? Is there something for which he'd set Harmony aside? That's what play is about.




Hillfolk is great. Like I said it does have a kind of metacurrency that applies to shifting the balance in some social situations, but I find the way it works is largely in the background and non-obtrusive (and when it does intrude, the trade off is worth it in my opinion). One reason I love HIllfolk, is I think Laws is a very good writer and wonderful at explaining concepts that could be difficult to convey in an RPG. Hillfolk, to me, felt like being immersed in one of those classic miniseries we used to get in the 70s and 80s (_I, Claudius_, _Shogun_, _Jesus of Nazareth_, _Roots_, etc). It would work great for more modern shows too like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones. 




hawkeyefan said:


> So I have a question and it is sincere.... do you think this is because most players are perfectly fine to just kind of play along to the GM's story?
> 
> I don't mean that as an insult. I played that way for many years and loved quite a bit of it. I still play that way at times. Just not all the time. It's a perfectly fun way to play.




Sorry I missed this question before. 

This isn't how I would see it in the games I run. I'm not a fan of playing along with the GMs story on either side of the screen. I don' think it is generally the case either (because combat outcomes could also be part of a story the GM has in mind). Also in a lot of the groups I have played in where the style was "figure out what the GM has planned for the story", those groups also seemed to have less trouble than I did with social mechanics. I think some people are just more trusting of people 'reporting' their reaction to dialogue than we are to them determining whether a bullet hits its target. I think part of that is if I have an interaction with an NPC and PC, if there is any question on the players part about why the NPC reacted the way he or she did, it is pretty easy for me to explain why and for the players to see the logic or lack of logic behind it. Where's with a bullet, I don't think that is as intuitive and it is also usually am much more contested thing to boot. I can give reasons, but people have a sense that there is an X factor when you bring physics into it I think (not that there aren't x factors in in social interactions, but they feel more easy to hand wave than for combat to me). Another reason may also be that in the case of the bullet I am not just deciding of NPCs, I am deciding for them too. So me saying the bullet hits you will naturally lead to 'but I am taking cover'. Personally as a GM, that is something I feel like I need to roll for. In dialogue sequences players are in full control of their characters minds and words, and I am in full control of the NPCs mind and words. I don't feel the need to roll for that, and that interaction is a fun part of the game for me. If we reverse those things, I am suddenly having less fun and struggling to make sense of combat.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 20, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Even something as simple as fighting on _gravel_ can change the certainty of a process non-trivially.  Or the fact someone slept badly the night before.  Naturally when the issue is clear-cut enough this will be moved up a step and function as modifiers, but the GM is unlikely to micromanage things enough to represent the sleep example, or more limited versions of the gravel example (where there's loose patch on the mountain trail but the whole trail isn't loose).  That's the sort of below-the-radar thing a lot of randomness represents.



Sure, I think its fair to say that forgone conclusions are not the sort of thing that we want to come up in play anyway!


Thomas Shey said:


> That's usually more about the secondary mechanic of hit point elevation, though.  Hit point elevation isn't a model used much outside of D&D.  Set those two fighters at the same hit points (which, after all, could happen if the 4th level fighter just rolled consistently crappy as he levelled) and the differences are much less significant.  The 4th level fighter just isn't that much better that it can't get drowned out in the D20 swing.  The only reason he can be expected to do so reliably in the normal case is that the D&D hit point model actually emphasizes defense much more strongly than offense in progression (back in the day at least), so the 4th level fighter can take four hits to the first level's one.



Sure, but so what? I mean, just looking at a d20, you have a possibility of 20:1 against you and 1:20 for you. If one single toss of the dice decides everything, that's still 94% defeat, 5% victory, and 1% ties (roughly). That seems FAIRLY lop-sided. I mean, a requirement to toss 3 dice and get 3 sixes would mean you would win 1 in 216 times, less than with the d20, but still in terms of what games care about both are "you won't do this often." So, I agree in principle that a plain old d20 can't produce very low success probability outcomes on its own. I'm just not sure it matters, and I'd generally think you want more chances than one anyway.

So, yes, D&D models things with 2 numbers, but it still gets to the same point. Beyond that, offense generally DOES grow for fighters, though usually in a more step-wise fashion (IE you get a magic item that adds a big increment of damage bonus at some point). Obviously D&D fighters are a bit of a bodge too, they really don't have a very good incremental damage increase mechanism that is built in (there are bonus attacks, but they too are very big discrete steps at only a few levels).


Thomas Shey said:


> I didn't use RQ as an example by coincidence; you don't have a secondary process to hide behind in the system, and the range of capability is relatively compressed.  A fighting type with his relevant skills at 75% and his opponent at 50% (a fairly significant difference by the standards of the system) have about a 37.5% and a 12.5% chance of landing a successful attack respectively (because of the interactive nature of attack and defense).  In other respects they aren't likely to be radically different; the 75% fighter might have a couple more points of armor, but that isn't even a given.
> 
> This isn't radically different from the model a number of games use, except that often there defense value is a flat one rather than a roll.  So my point that there's still a big difference between a linear die and a multiple die approach still applies.
> 
> [Sometimes there's a different sort of secondary mechanism in the form of some kind of metacurrency, but how that's implemented varies so much that its difficult to say whether it makes the gap between skill levels more pronounced or less).



I'm not sure what it is in your RQ example that wouldn't be very similar in many D&D fights. I mean, I will agree with you that some systems model things such that modest changes in a skill (or something similar) will produce non-linearly better odds of success. This should be pretty easy to achieve in a d20 or similar system, you simply need to apply it through some sort of mechanics (IE a non-linear skill bonus or something like that).


----------



## Campbell (Jun 20, 2022)

So obviously the language we use to describe a particular phenomenon or experience is important. A big issue in our discussions is universalizing both experiences and preferences.

When people say things like _*the *point of roleplaying games is to feel like you are there in the moment_ and _you do not understand what people value about roleplaying games_ that's universalizing preferences.

When people say things like _social mechanics are not needed or detract from the experience of feeling like you are there in the moment _you are universalizing your experiences, often without acknowledging the full breadth of how different social mechanics work. A lot of the language used seems to be shaming people who find value in these things to help them feel like their character in the moment. Of course no one needs anything. We can all roleplay with no rules whatsoever. However there is no shame in using whatever tools you have available that help you get to where you need to be. This is hard stuff, no matter how you do it. We'll probably all fall short, but there is a lot of value in grasping regardless of how we go about it.

Some of this probably comes down to different standards, different sorts of social interactions and how integral social stuff is to the play experience. In both more traditional games and Story Now fare the vast majority of my play experience involves what 5e would call the social pillar. Like 90%+. It also focuses on relationships and deeply personal stuff more often than not. In roughly 6 months of weekly Deadlands play we have not gone on one traditional adventure. We have had maybe 6 violent altercations and used the full combat system 3-4 times. Tons of tense social scenes though.

For my needs I don't just need social scenes to work well when we're all fresh, engaged and on our A games. I need this stuff to still work when we are on the tailwind of a 4-5 hour session where we have been doing social scenes like for 3+ hours. Every session.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 20, 2022)

Campbell said:


> So obviously the language we use to describe a particular phenomenon or experience is important. A big issue in our discussions is universalizing both experiences and preferences.
> 
> When people say things like _*the *point of roleplaying games is to feel like you are there in the moment_ and _you do not understand what people value about roleplaying games_ that's universalizing preferences.
> 
> When people say things like _social mechanics are not needed or detract from the experience of feeling like you are there in the moment _you are universalizing your experiences, often without acknowledging the full breadth of how different social mechanics work. A lot of the language used seems to be shaming people who find value in these things to help them feel like their character in the moment. Of course no one needs anything. We can all roleplay with no rules whatsoever. However there is no shame in using whatever tools you have available that help you get to where you need to be. This is hard stuff, no matter how you do it. We'll probably all fall short, but there is a lot of value in grasping regardless of how we go about it.




I think good faith and follow up questions can go a long way here. There are people who will universalize these things, and there are people who conflate their preferences with how things ought to be. Throughout this thread I've tried to make clear that I am talking about what takes me out of the moment personally, versus what I think are reasons some people might prefer mechanics for combat but no mechanics for social interaction. In some cases though you sleep into casual language. 

In terms of the whole 'point of roleplaying'. I don't think that is ever very fruitful in topics. Its why I don't like proscriptive definitions in these discussions either. Im happy to say why I game, but I think when we start setting up what the point of gaming is or what the meaning of the three letters in RPG amount to, it gets very prescriptive and is usually just used to hold up this style or that style of play. It is a broad medium that gets used in lots of different ways. 

When it comes to shaming a style of play, I tend to look at what someone's intentions seem to be. We generally are going to paint our style in positive language and styles we don't get or dislike in more neutral potentially negative language. I try not to, but even when I was bringing up the Sherlock Holmes example it occurred to me I was describing my preferred style as "Being Sherlock Holmes" (still I find that a useful way to describe the distinction I've noticed in preference). I don't think you are ever going to see a universal lexicon around play style, adventure structure, because things have all sprouted from numerous different pots.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 20, 2022)

I mean, it's obvious, the point of roleplaying is to take hot skinny goth guys home after the session.

They keep getting older, tho...


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 20, 2022)

I find the starting point of these conversations extremely difficult.

1)  I run games.  I want them to be games.  I want the game aspect to be front-and-center.  I want the gamestate to be moved by players playing and interacting with me, with each other, and with system.  I want success/failure/the shared fiction to rise and fall on the intersection of this stuff which is very "game primacy" lets say.

2)  I'm also a person in meat-space.  Despite how confident and assertive I might play at being (or actually be...who knows), I realize that I am not remotely sovereign in any social situation that counts.  I'm bound by several external and internal inputs (from endocrine system to unconscious processing to past trauma and rote behavior regime born of it) and there is nothing I can do about it (if I'm even aware of it).  My perceived autonomy doesn't remotely match up to my very finite actual autonomy.  An NPC or a PC that acts entirely outside of the scope of this very limited sovereignty/autonomy is not remotely compelling to me nor is it relatable.  Social environments/conflicts where you're in total control and get to decide outcomes and modulate stakes at your discretion couldn't be less interesting to me.



So how do I engage on these subjects when folks' approaches to 1 and/or 2 differs from mine so deeply.

I really have no idea.  

But I do know that (1) and (2) are foundational to the divide on social mechanics.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 20, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> 2)  I'm also a person in meat-space.  Despite how confident and assertive I might play at being (or actually be...who knows), I realize that I am not remotely sovereign in any social situation that counts.  I'm bound by several external and internal inputs (from endocrine system to unconscious processing to past trauma and rote behavior regime born of it) and there is nothing I can do about it (if I'm even aware of it).  My perceived autonomy doesn't remotely match up to my very finite actual autonomy.  An NPC or a PC that acts entirely outside of the scope of this very limited sovereignty/autonomy is not remotely compelling to me nor is it relatable.  Social environments/conflicts where you're in total control and get to decide outcomes and modulate stakes at your discretion couldn't be less interesting to me.




It is a whole other topic but I think humans can both have things like hormones, past experience, etc that impact their impulses and thoughts, and still have a will and an ability to choose what they do with those impulses. Again, deep topic, but I don't know that we should sacrifice the idea of free will in a game discussion so freely  Probably a topic for another thread though lol 

That said, I don't think the is a point that can be readily dismissed. People do have impulses, some people have issues controlling those impulses, people do have mental scars, and physical conditions that impact their mind. You either hand wave that or fold it all in somehow. I think giving NPCs flaws that help drive their decisions is something entirely appropriate when you are making NPCs (and something that ought to be factored into their decision making). Appropriate for PCs too. When people interact they usually aren't logic machines, how tired they are, how hungry, how much pain they are in, what their natural impulses are, etc those are all going to factor in. This is one of the reasons lots of games have character flaws (and usually mechanics to see those flaws are something the character can hold in check). Flaws and things like horror or fear checks, those obviously get different reactions from some people (a lot of gamers who share my sensibilities express a dislike of losing control of their character through these things). But even though I value social interaction and am not big on social mechanics, I view these mechanics as fair and highly plausible. 

Some people simply don't want to deal with all that though, so they are content to just eyeball how much that stuff is weighing on a PC or NPC when the character makes a choice (for example if I know my NPC is stressed because his organization is losing a conflict with another, I'm probably going to play him a little differently: even if there isn't any deep mechanical tissue to that aspect of play).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 20, 2022)

Manbearcat said:


> 1)  I run games.  I want them to be games.  I want the game aspect to be front-and-center.  I want the gamestate to be moved by players playing and interacting with me, with each other, and with system.  I want success/failure/the shared fiction to rise and fall on the intersection of this stuff which is very "game primacy" lets say.




I like some elements of this. I wouldn't say it is front and center but one of the reasons I hated linear, CR driven adventures in the d20 era was they were so predictable and so much of the system seemed built around reducing the unexpected surprise that comes with it being a game (there were less 'things can turn on a dime' in the rolls it felt to me). So there are definitely areas of the game where I want this: having the possibility of a character unexpectedly falling to his death crossing a bridge at the start of an adventure is something that I kind of enjoy because it raises the stakes of the whole experience. It is also why I enjoy things like encounter tables and other random elements in play.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 21, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Why don't the GM describe the pitiable and terrified look of the innkeeper, why don't you know how your character would react to that?



The innkeeper was unconscious at the time. I did decide how my PC would act - I decided to murder him. But then I found that I hesitated. In the fiction, the hesitation wasn't voluntary - it reflected that my character isn't as cold and ruthless as he thought he was. At the table, the hesitation wasn't voluntary either - it resulted from the failed Steel check.



Crimson Longinus said:


> How was it first determined that the characters were interested in this lady in the first place? Was that due the dice too? If not, why not?



I can't recall the details but I don't think dice were involved. As best I recall, she didn't seek to woo them. When NPCs have sought to woo or seduce a PC, then dice have been used. (Hence one of the PCs in this episode married - he couldn't say no to the lady in question, nor to her father - and later on became infatuated with someone else.)

Dice are a technique of resolution.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 21, 2022)

@Bedrockgames

When it comes to social mechanics, I tend to favor those that impact player decision making rather than choose what they must do. Like when you are Angry in Masks you have difficulty connecting with people but can still try. You can resolve the condition by lashing out violently or one of the other player characters can try to talk you down. This sort of thing basically mimics the sort of difficulties and incentives we deal with in that emotional state (especially the insecure teenagers you play in Masks).

The player still retains complete autonomy, only certain things become more rewarding and others more difficult.  You still play everything out. Still choose what your character does at every moment. Just not what they want or how they feel all the time.

I feel these sorts of mechanics do a good job of modeling the impact our impulses have on us, while still acknowledging we still actively choose what we do for the most part.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 21, 2022)

pemerton said:


> The innkeeper was unconscious at the time. I did decide how my PC would act - I decided to murder him. But then I found that I hesitated. In the fiction, the hesitation wasn't voluntary - it reflected that my character isn't as cold and ruthless as he thought he was. At the table, the hesitation wasn't voluntary either - it resulted from the failed Steel check.



I'd consider this rather serious violation of player agency. (Though of course as it is part of the game everyone presumably willingly signed up to, it really isn't.) But I really hate mechanics like this, and they are sort of things that make me feel my agency is violated. It is my job to decide what the my character does or how they react, and I won't appreciate the GM or the system, or the GM using the system, telling me otherwise.



pemerton said:


> I can't recall the details but I don't think dice were involved. As best I recall, she didn't seek to woo them. When NPCs have sought to woo or seduce a PC, then dice have been used. (Hence one of the PCs in this episode married - he couldn't say no to the lady in question, nor to her father - and later on became infatuated with someone else.)



Right, And that I find unacceptable too. Seriously, this is the dice playing the characters. To me this way worse than any other sort of railroading, the GM via the rules is mind-controlling the characters. I would refuse to play a game like this.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 21, 2022)

Campbell said:


> When it comes to social mechanics, I tend to favor those that impact player decision making rather than choose what they must do. Like when you are Angry in Masks you have difficulty connecting with people but can still try. You can resolve the condition by lashing out violently or one of the other player characters can try to talk you down. This sort of thing basically mimics the sort of difficulties and incentives we deal with in that emotional state (especially the insecure teenagers you play in Masks).
> 
> The player still retains complete autonomy, only certain things become more rewarding and others more difficult.  You still play everything out. Still choose what your character does at every moment. Just not what they want or how they feel all the time.
> 
> I feel these sorts of mechanics do a good job of modeling the impact our impulses have on us, while still acknowledging we still actively choose what we do for the most part.



I still don't like it, but yes, this is _much _better way to do this than simple "you must" or "you can't."


----------



## Campbell (Jun 21, 2022)

Agency is one of those words we use that actually means different things to different people  :

It could mean your ability to decide what your characters aims are.
It could mean the autonomy to go wherever and do whatever. To decide what your character thinks, does, says and feels if not always their aims.
It could mean your ability to make decisions that decidedly impact the shared fiction / game state / game world.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 21, 2022)

Campbell said:


> Agency is one of those words we use that actually means different things to different people



For that reason it's not a word I normally use.

I think about _who_ can change _which bits_ of the fiction, using _what techniques and processes_ (eg framing, resolution, by fiat, if the dice go their way, etc), and _subject to what constraints_.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 21, 2022)

Campbell said:


> Agency is one of those words we use that actually means different things to different people  :



Sure. That is absolutely true. And different people find different facets of the agency meaningful or important. I obviously don't think that @pemerton is in any way wrong wanting to play games where the players can decide that towers exist but cannot decide who their characters marry. But I don't terribly much care for the former and the latter is an absolute no go.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 21, 2022)

I think it depends on what you want out of play. Or what a game is about. Or some combo of those things. 

I typically find with my 5E D&D characters (I’ve made two PCs in the last year or so after previously being the forever GM of my group) that I have a very strong sense of the character before we even really begin play. Not entirely crystal clear…there’s some areas of uncertainty or blank spots to fill in. But between class, background, alignment, and BIFTs, I have a good sense of the person. During play, I’m portraying the character with this picture of them in mind. 

With other games, that’s not quite the case. My Stonetop character for example, I had just as many details going in… a class of sorts (the Judge, arbiter and chronicler of the town), a background of sorts (Prophet, his god speaks to him), an alignment of sorts (the Instinct of Harmony), and some connections with other PCs and NPCs (good friends with one of the other PCs, was an orphan raised by his uncle, looked up to a blind town elder, followed around by a young girl who idolizes him). That’s a pretty clear picture. But my concept of him is much less certain than with my D&D characters. 

I’m not quite certain exactly why. I think it’s just the way some of these elements are designed. How they’re worded. Like Alignment compared to Instinct. Alignment is more about behavior. A person is good or evil, they observe laws or they don’t, and so on. Instinct is more a goal. Or a means to a goal, perhaps. Instinct is much less about telling you how a character will behave. 

Because of that, it invites a certain amount of exploration of the character. How important is the Instinct? What will they do to achieve it? How far will they go? 

Such questions aren’t as relevant when we’ve already classified a character as good or evil. 

That seems to be a part of it. I expect there’s more to it, though. But ultimately, in one game I’m more depicting my character, and in another I’m more exploring my character. The idea of depiction is somewhat at odds with learning about the character from without.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 21, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sure, I think its fair to say that forgone conclusions are not the sort of thing that we want to come up in play anyway!
> 
> Sure, but so what? I mean, just looking at a d20, you have a possibility of 20:1 against you and 1:20 for you. If one single toss of the dice decides everything, that's still 94% defeat, 5% victory, and 1% ties (roughly). That seems FAIRLY lop-sided. I mean, a requirement to toss 3 dice and get 3 sixes would mean you would win 1 in 216 times, less than with the d20, but still in terms of what games care about both are "you won't do this often." So, I agree in principle that a plain old d20 can't produce very low success probability outcomes on its own. I'm just not sure it matters, and I'd generally think you want more chances than one anyway.




The issue is that people feel compelled to actually use all those steps, so you rarely see the actual degree of imbalanced success you were talking about.  I'm not sold that's a deliberate choice so much as a side effect of using a big linear die, since you don't get it to nearly the degree with other systems, and they seem to be fine with that.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, yes, D&D models things with 2 numbers, but it still gets to the same point. Beyond that, offense generally DOES grow for fighters, though usually in a more step-wise fashion (IE you get a magic item that adds a big increment of damage bonus at some point). Obviously D&D fighters are a bit of a bodge too, they really don't have a very good incremental damage increase mechanism that is built in (there are bonus attacks, but they too are very big discrete steps at only a few levels).




But the point is that compared to the other models I mentioned, they grow very slowly relative to a static number.  That's largely a historical accident of the choice of die resolution as much as anything else.  But its what people in that sphere are used to now.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'm not sure what it is in your RQ example that wouldn't be very similar in many D&D fights. I mean, I will agree with you that some systems model things such that modest changes in a skill (or something similar) will produce non-linearly better odds of success. This should be pretty easy to achieve in a d20 or similar system, you simply need to apply it through some sort of mechanics (IE a non-linear skill bonus or something like that).




Sure.  But the point is, you don't see it done there.  And a large part of that is because people who actually want that aren't, for the most part, playing D&D.  RQ's resolution being quite as swingy as it is is every bit as much a historical accident of die choice as D&D, far as that goes, it just makes the fact more visible because of the lack of the elevating hit point buffer as a defensive method.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 21, 2022)

Campbell said:


> @Bedrockgames
> 
> When it comes to social mechanics, I tend to favor those that impact player decision making rather than choose what they must do. Like when you are Angry in Masks you have difficulty connecting with people but can still try. You can resolve the condition by lashing out violently or one of the other player characters can try to talk you down. This sort of thing basically mimics the sort of difficulties and incentives we deal with in that emotional state (especially the insecure teenagers you play in Masks).
> 
> ...




This, by the way, is the model I prefer for such things; I think of it as putting the proper thumb on the scale rather than totally bypassing the player/GM input to the matter.  Of course like a lot of things, it depends on people playing in good faith (a GM or player who is very resistant to having such things apply can stubbornly decide they're going to ignore those effects come hell or high water) but there's no help for that.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 21, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> The issue is that people feel compelled to actually use all those steps, so you rarely see the actual degree of imbalanced success you were talking about.  I'm not sold that's a deliberate choice so much as a side effect of using a big linear die, since you don't get it to nearly the degree with other systems, and they seem to be fine with that.



As a game designer, my feeling is that if I'm giving you one chance in 216 of success, its almost like a fraud, because people are optimistic and they will expect that they will pay off on that sometimes, but they won't, not in any reasonable finite amount of playing. So no, I don't even want those to exist, and I ESPECIALLY don't want them to be non-obvious (and believe me, dice pool odds are mostly very obscure to people!). I mean, I'm a math guy and I am not going to tell you off the top of my head what the odds are of winning an opposed check in TB2 where I have 8 dice and the other guy has 12 dice (all 4-6 contribute one success to each side). Is it one chance in 3? I bet, without resorting to some online dice odds calculator, that nobody has that answer on a first reading (sure, we can all probably figure it out if we really want to, but at the table?). OTOH everyone knows the odds yielded by a d20, and at least 5% chance of success, while not great, WILL come up now and then. 

For all these reasons I stuck to a d20 based design for my own game. I'm not pooping on dice pools or anything, I just think their virtues are overrated. PbtA's 2d6 always rolled straight up by the player is not bad either. I think people are pretty likely to understand that a 7 is 6 times more likely than a 12, for example.


Thomas Shey said:


> But the point is that compared to the other models I mentioned, they grow very slowly relative to a static number.  That's largely a historical accident of the choice of die resolution as much as anything else.  But its what people in that sphere are used to now.



Meh, again, 95% of the time you want odds in the 25-75% range anyway. Now and then you want something as low as 5% perhaps. I don't really see the growth curve of D&D and such as a bad thing, personally.


Thomas Shey said:


> Sure.  But the point is, you don't see it done there.  And a large part of that is because people who actually want that aren't, for the most part, playing D&D.  RQ's resolution being quite as swingy as it is is every bit as much a historical accident of die choice as D&D, far as that goes, it just makes the fact more visible because of the lack of the elevating hit point buffer as a defensive method.



I don't know about that. I mean, TSR's FASRIP basically did EXACTLY that (admittedly its a d100 system, but in a practical sense it is the same issues). People love that thing, it works great, they still play it and hack on it, and its been out of print for 30 years! I mean, sure, it isn't a super common technique (though other games certainly have used it) but my point was just that it is very doable, you don't need dice pools. They are OK, but the math is kind of a PITA, actually.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 22, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> As a game designer, my feeling is that if I'm giving you one chance in 216 of success, its almost like a fraud, because people are optimistic and they will expect that they will pay off on that sometimes, but they won't, not in any reasonable finite amount of playing. So no, I don't even want those to exist, and I ESPECIALLY don't want them to be non-obvious (and believe me, dice pool odds are mostly very obscure to people!).




But this is acting like only the extremes are relevant.  As an example, if you have two Hero characters who have the same CV, they're hitting vaguely around 50% of the time.  But add 3 to either CV, and that drops to 25%/75%.  Add one more and it goes to 90%/10%.  I think that very much does serve a purpose, and is not beyond people's comprehension.

(Your point about how obscure full dice pools can get is valid, but it still tends to be incremental without being trivial).



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I mean, I'm a math guy and I am not going to tell you off the top of my head what the odds are of winning an opposed check in TB2 where I have 8 dice and the other guy has 12 dice (all 4-6 contribute one success to each side). Is it one chance in 3? I bet, without resorting to some online dice odds calculator, that nobody has that answer on a first reading (sure, we can all probably figure it out if we really want to, but at the table?). OTOH everyone knows the odds yielded by a d20, and at least 5% chance of success, while not great, WILL come up now and then.




The question is, do you want it to come up that often?  Given the number of rolls made in combat in particular?



AbdulAlhazred said:


> For all these reasons I stuck to a d20 based design for my own game. I'm not pooping on dice pools or anything, I just think their virtues are overrated. PbtA's 2d6 always rolled straight up by the player is not bad either. I think people are pretty likely to understand that a 7 is 6 times more likely than a 12, for example.
> 
> Meh, again, 95% of the time you want odds in the 25-75% range anyway. Now and then you want something as low as 5% perhaps. I don't really see the growth curve of D&D and such as a bad thing, personally.




Then we just disagree.  I don't see too much point any more in having advancement that's mostly illusory unless its gone on a long time.  I'd rather have it a bit less frequent but noticable.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't know about that. I mean, TSR's FASRIP basically did EXACTLY that (admittedly its a d100 system, but in a practical sense it is the same issues). People love that thing, it works great, they still play it and hack on it, and its been out of print for 30 years! I mean, sure, it isn't a super common technique (though other games certainly have used it) but my point was just that it is very doable, you don't need dice pools. They are OK, but the math is kind of a PITA, actually.




Notice that FASERIP is table-driven; and the table does a bunch of other things at once.  Care to point at a modern game that isn't a retroclone of that that goes that route?  The current version of RM, maybe?  The hobby has stopped being a fan of table-driven resolution a long time ago.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 22, 2022)

Campbell said:


> Agency is one of those words we use that actually means different things to different people  :
> 
> It could mean your ability to decide what your characters aims are.
> It could mean the autonomy to go wherever and do whatever. To decide what your character thinks, does, says and feels if not always their aims.
> It could mean your ability to make decisions that decidedly impact the shared fiction / game state / game world.



For me it's the sum of 1 and 2 above, with at most a bit of 3.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> For that reason it's not a word I normally use.



That's something of a change, given that I'm fairly sure you're the person who first introduced me to the term.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 22, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> As a game designer, my feeling is that if I'm giving you one chance in 216 of success, its almost like a fraud, because people are optimistic and they will expect that they will pay off on that sometimes, but they won't, not in any reasonable finite amount of playing. So no, I don't even want those to exist,



I do. 

Sure it's not going to pay off very often but what that means is that it'll likely be a spectacular and memorable moment when it does.

Then again, I tend to prefer more than some that luck be a somewhat significant part of the game.


AbdulAlhazred said:


> Meh, again, 95% of the time you want odds in the 25-75% range anyway. Now and then you want something as low as 5% perhaps. I don't really see the growth curve of D&D and such as a bad thing, personally.



Where IMO there's many a time when even 1% isn't granular enough for what I want, but getting anything finer-tuned is a headache and so I usually stick with d% for granularity.

That said, I've found it's much more efficient to batch a series of tables together once and thereafter roll d1000 (or even d10000) than to roll d20 and-or d100 on a table and then a bunch of subtables (e.g. random magic item determination in the 1e DMG).  With one big table like this it's also much easier to leave a gap for later addition of new entries.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 22, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> That said, I've found it's much more efficient to batch a series of tables together once and thereafter roll d1000 (or even d10000) than to roll d20 and-or d100 on a table and then a bunch of subtables (e.g. random magic item determination in the 1e DMG). With one big table like this it's also much easier to leave a gap for later addition of new entries.



It’s a great way to generate tables though. Break it out into smaller chunks, easier steps to complete. Ten magic bags is easier to do than 1000 magic items.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 22, 2022)

When it comes to dice pools, I think the dice we roll are about more than odds. There are some fun tactile elements to some forms of dice pools. Especially the push your luck elements in something like 2d20, Classic Deadlands and Blades in the Dark. The choose which dice to keep elements in something like Legends of the Five Rings Fifth Edition, Edge of the Empire or Cortex Plus can also feel really fun and enable some gameplay decisions.  Plus rolling more dice to represent power just like feels powerful. Adding 2 dice to a dice pool is just fun for me than adding +3 to a d20 roll.

There is a lot of power in ritual and dice pools really build on ritual to help capture the feel of the game. Like handing over a d6 when you're helping in Burning Wheel feels like helping.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 22, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> But this is acting like only the extremes are relevant.  As an example, if you have two Hero characters who have the same CV, they're hitting vaguely around 50% of the time.  But add 3 to either CV, and that drops to 25%/75%.  Add one more and it goes to 90%/10%.  I think that very much does serve a purpose, and is not beyond people's comprehension.



Yeah, I just don't see why that should be the case. I mean, if we want one guy to win 75% of the time, give him a +5! I don't think that non-linear systems are bad or wrong, I just don't see the advantage of the added complexity. And then its harder to have a big degree of advancement because the pools get large after a while, etc. I'll play anything, I just find systems that use fixed size dice easier and quicker. Have you ever played/read Strike! Its a beautiful game, works great, uses a single d6 for resolution, has no problems.


Thomas Shey said:


> The question is, do you want it to come up that often?  Given the number of rolls made in combat in particular?



Sure, I can work with that. If you really want some kind of 'crit system' or something, then consult some more dice when it comes up. I mean, 4e for example just maxes out damage on a 20. That is a highly workable system, it gives you a high end spectacular result now and then, but it isn't crazy enough that it has to be 1 in 1000 level kind of odds. Stuff that unlikely just won't come up anyway, realistically. Beyond that, its perfectly possible in 4e to gate more spectacular effects behind item attributes, powers, etc. It actually has a rich set of mechanics for "wow that was awesome!" Low probability gating awesome/terrible stuff is, TBH, not a model that I think leads to good games anyway.


Thomas Shey said:


> Then we just disagree.  I don't see too much point any more in having advancement that's mostly illusory unless its gone on a long time.  I'd rather have it a bit less frequent but noticable.



I don't know what you mean by 'illusory'. Here's the thing about level-based advancement, D&D style, and modern games. Level advancement is an awesome mechanic, and I still vehemently insist it is the central element of D&D's enduring success as a product. However, in classic D&D it was combined with troupe play, and highly level-themed content in a game that has very clear-cut concrete reward systems. Playing D&D at "The Bunker" back in the early days, with 100's of other players in a club, that stuff WORKED. I mean, I cannot even tell you how super well it works! I'm a level 4 cleric, baby I kick ass! Your level 1 fighter, he better kiss my toes and keep the orcs off, 'cause I'm the boss man on this here expedition. Every time the wandering monster table tosses some undead at us, they going up in flames! Plus you're going to get healed, a lot!


Thomas Shey said:


> Notice that FASERIP is table-driven; and the table does a bunch of other things at once.  Care to point at a modern game that isn't a retroclone of that that goes that route?  The current version of RM, maybe?  The hobby has stopped being a fan of table-driven resolution a long time ago.



Yes, it runs off a very simple single table. That was really a stroke of genius in game design BTW. Folding everything into that table is really elegant. While it may be true that such tables are not currently in style, there are actually equivalents that are VERY commonly used. Dramasystem for example, which is pretty popular and used for quite a few indie games, uses a card-based system, which is just a table by another name. It isn't the only current era system to do that either. I mean, cards are nice in that they are very easily edited tables, but they really are still tables.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 22, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I do.
> 
> Sure it's not going to pay off very often but what that means is that it'll likely be a spectacular and memorable moment when it does.
> 
> ...



Yeah, see, I don't personally consider "Spectacular because it randomly happens 1 time in 500." to be useful game design. The probability that said thing will happen at a really interesting moment in the game is not even 1 in 500, it is probably more like 1 in 1 million. Even if the odds are much better than that, its not really all that special when it is just luck of the dice. I want to DO something that is spectacular, not just witness it randomly happening. I'd much rather go with a design like 4e (or 5e for that matter) where if you want spectacular, you plan it out, work on it, set it up, and make it happen. At that point, I don't want ANY dice involved in that sort of play. The worst thing game mechanics can do is poop on someone's big spectacular well-earned thing!


Lanefan said:


> That said, I've found it's much more efficient to batch a series of tables together once and thereafter roll d1000 (or even d10000) than to roll d20 and-or d100 on a table and then a bunch of subtables (e.g. random magic item determination in the 1e DMG).  With one big table like this it's also much easier to leave a gap for later addition of new entries.



Meh, well, I mean, if we're talking about tables to randomly generate stuff, that comes with its own different set of considerations. I don't have a big objection to a huge list of obscure possibilities. I'm of the opinion that most of the effort is wasted with resolvers of that type, but whatever. I'd note that nobody, not even Gygax, really used random treasure tables except as a kind of fill-in. You got Razor by actually going through the dungeon and finding it, there wasn't anything random about it. I expect the 'big name' magic items like high end staves, rods, holy swords, stuff like that were not generally earned by lucky dice rolls.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 22, 2022)

Campbell said:


> When it comes to dice pools, I think the dice we roll are about more than odds. There are some fun tactile elements to some forms of dice pools. Especially the push your luck elements in something like 2d20, Classic Deadlands and Blades in the Dark. The choose which dice to keep elements in something like Legends of the Five Rings Fifth Edition, Edge of the Empire or Cortex Plus can also feel really fun and enable some gameplay decisions.  Plus rolling more dice to represent power just like feels powerful. Adding 2 dice to a dice pool is just fun for me than adding +3 to a d20 roll.
> 
> There is a lot of power in ritual and dice pools really build on ritual to help capture the feel of the game. Like handing over a d6 when you're helping in Burning Wheel feels like helping.




For me I find dice pools simpler and more fun. I'm okay with any type of die resolution system (if I want a clear transparent sense of probability, I would go with something like a d100 based system like Chaosium has). But one thing I like about dice pools is they both cloud numbers (so it is harder for a math wiz to calculate the probability on the fly, while being pretty intuitive, so everyone has a sense of their chances). People will vary on this of course (we have had plenty of discussions on dice and probabilities here before), but I find dice pools, if they are done well and aren't too wonky (which admittedly some can become), are closer to my feeling of what it is like to attempt something in life. 

They do have downsides. All approaches have a downside. One is scaling. There are ways around it. Some more and some less elegant. But at the same time one of the reasons why I like dice pools is you avoid some of the crazier scaling you used to see in the d20 era (I loved 3E but some of those DCs got a little ridiculous for my taste). With a dice pool, obviously depending on how it is done, there is usually always at least a chance of success (and dice pools tend to lean on things succeeding in general if they aren't too wonky). And there are people for whom, wonky dice pools are enjoyable too (I don't like dice pools that get too fiddly, but I have seen a number of players who clearly enjoy when dice pools almost become a game unto themselves). 

Admittedly I am biased. I use dice pools in my own systems. But I chose dice pools because I like how they feel (and for me the fondest is purely about the mechanic because I actually like very few games that use dice pools: I always enjoyed the dice pool aspects of those games, but I was often not a fan of the settings they were attached to). 

All that said, I do get that dice pools are a tough sell (I've been selling dice pool games for over ten years and so I know it is just a fact: if you make a game with dice pools, there is a percentage of players for whom that will be a non-starter). So it is one of those things where, if you are designing a game, you have to ask yourself if the enjoyment that the feel of dice pools brings to you is worth that (because you won't get the same resistance to something like a die+bonus, or a percentile system). For me, it is important that the games I am making are games I want to play and enjoy (I like d20 for example but I would have been miserable if I were making d20 games for the past 13 years).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 22, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> For me I find dice pools simpler and more fun. I'm okay with any type of die resolution system (if I want a clear transparent sense of probability, I would go with something like a d100 based system like Chaosium has). But one thing I like about dice pools is they both cloud numbers (so it is harder for a math wiz to calculate the probability on the fly, while being pretty intuitive, so everyone has a sense of their chances). People will vary on this of course (we have had plenty of discussions on dice and probabilities here before), but I find dice pools, if they are done well and aren't too wonky (which admittedly some can become), are closer to my feeling of what it is like to attempt something in life.
> 
> They do have downsides. All approaches have a downside. One is scaling. There are ways around it. Some more and some less elegant. But at the same time one of the reasons why I like dice pools is you avoid some of the crazier scaling you used to see in the d20 era (I loved 3E but some of those DCs got a little ridiculous for my taste). With a dice pool, obviously depending on how it is done, there is usually always at least a chance of success (and dice pools tend to lean on things succeeding in general if they aren't too wonky). And there are people for whom, wonky dice pools are enjoyable too (I don't like dice pools that get too fiddly, but I have seen a number of players who clearly enjoy when dice pools almost become a game unto themselves).
> 
> ...



Yeah, its interesting. While I have a visceral like for the d20, dice pool systems (at least in the old days) had the patina of 'new tech' so they kind of made your game seem shiny and sophisticated. That can be nice! d100, for me at least, OTOH always held this sort of feeling of early klunky skill-based systems that only kinda half worked, lol. I mean, its probably subjective, but at least for me d20 systems seem possibly a bit trad, but simple and elegant. Dice pool systems seem weird and inscrutable and attempting to be 'high tech', and d100 systems just seem overly technical but not really doing anything better than a good old d20, lol.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 22, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, I just don't see why that should be the case. I mean, if we want one guy to win 75% of the time, give him a +5!




Because it sets up the advancement so it runs into diminishing returns, and doesn't require you to use a die range and then ignore most of it?



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't think that non-linear systems are bad or wrong, I just don't see the advantage of the added complexity. And then its harder to have a big degree of advancement because the pools get large after a while, etc. I'll play anything, I just find systems that use fixed size dice easier and quicker. Have you ever played/read Strike! Its a beautiful game, works great, uses a single d6 for resolution, has no problems.




From my POV a game system using a die that small intrinsically has problems, because I don't think things should be compressed that much.  And of course you can have a big degree of advancement, you just don't do it all with to-hit.  What you also probably don't do is have advancement do a bunch of things at once.  None of those are flaws from where I sit.

I don't think this conversation is useful to continue.  We value too different a set of things in a game here for this conversation to do anything but show that.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 22, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> For me I find dice pools simpler and more fun. I'm okay with any type of die resolution system (if I want a clear transparent sense of probability, I would go with something like a d100 based system like Chaosium has). But one thing I like about dice pools is they both cloud numbers (so it is harder for a math wiz to calculate the probability on the fly, while being pretty intuitive, so everyone has a sense of their chances).




That's--not always true.  It can be for a relatively simple one, but for an illustration of how to do this so its completely opaque, look at original Storyteller; once you're varying both target numbers per die and number of dice, I'd claim most people's intuitions are almost certainly faulty and they'll largely figure out they have no real sense of chances over time.

I'm not also sure I consider "can't figure the probabilities" a virtue, but I suspect you're more talking about precise probability (though I'm not sure why people being able to do that is a problem).




Bedrockgames said:


> Admittedly I am biased. I use dice pools in my own systems. But I chose dice pools because I like how they feel (and for me the fondest is purely about the mechanic because I actually like very few games that use dice pools: I always enjoyed the dice pool aspects of those games, but I was often not a fan of the settings they were attached to).
> 
> All that said, I do get that dice pools are a tough sell (I've been selling dice pool games for over ten years and so I know it is just a fact: if you make a game with dice pools, there is a percentage of players for whom that will be a non-starter). So it is one of those things where, if you are designing a game, you have to ask yourself if the enjoyment that the feel of dice pools brings to you is worth that (because you won't get the same resistance to something like a die+bonus, or a percentile system). For me, it is important that the games I am making are games I want to play and enjoy (I like d20 for example but I would have been miserable if I were making d20 games for the past 13 years).




I'm really surprised, unless its just people coming out of the D&D-sphere, given the long history of dice pools.  I mean, they go all the way back to the original Star Wars game, so I don't know why there's be any ingrained resistance.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 22, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, its interesting. While I have a visceral like for the d20, dice pool systems (at least in the old days) had the patina of 'new tech' so they kind of made your game seem shiny and sophisticated. That can be nice! d100, for me at least, OTOH always held this sort of feeling of early klunky skill-based systems that only kinda half worked, lol. I mean, its probably subjective, but at least for me d20 systems seem possibly a bit trad, but simple and elegant. Dice pool systems seem weird and inscrutable and attempting to be 'high tech', and d100 systems just seem overly technical but not really doing anything better than a good old d20, lol.




There's two big advantages to a percentile system over a D20, neither or which has to matter to anyone, but both of which do to some:

1. If you want to, you can vary advancement in less than 5% jumps;
2. More importantly, you can bake more special results into the roll without needing secondary rolls or running into some other math weirdness.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 22, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Because it sets up the advancement so it runs into diminishing returns, and doesn't require you to use a die range and then ignore most of it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think it just boils down to general preferences, yes. What I really liked about the Strike! concept though was interesting, and its a bit of a different discussion. Because Strike! uses such a small die, the philosophy is "only big stuff matters", so instead of thinking about 100 different things that might make small differences in the situation, just think in terms of the one or two big dramatic ones. It promotes a very 'cinematic' type of approach, because of course this is exactly what you do in film, you can't really portray 100 different things, you show off the 2 critical things that made the situation be heavily in your character's favor. I mean, there's actually STILL a nice range here. So you can go from -2 to +2, which is 5 possible different situations ranging from "this is very risky" to "this is very likely to succeed". Obviously you could also have -3/+3 for a 'sure thing' either way, though that gets used very sparingly of course.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 22, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think it just boils down to general preferences, yes. What I really liked about the Strike! concept though was interesting, and its a bit of a different discussion. Because Strike! uses such a small die, the philosophy is "only big stuff matters", so instead of thinking about 100 different things that might make small differences in the situation, just think in terms of the one or two big dramatic ones.




Yeah, that's not a view I share.  Its a big part of why I dislike D&D5e advantage, as a matter of fact.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 22, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> That's--not always true.  It can be for a relatively simple one, but for an illustration of how to do this so its completely opaque, look at original Storyteller; once you're varying both target numbers per die and number of dice, I'd claim most people's intuitions are almost certainly faulty and they'll largely figure out they have no real sense of chances over time.
> 
> I'm not also sure I consider "can't figure the probabilities" a virtue, but I suspect you're more talking about precise probability (though I'm not sure why people being able to do that is a problem).




Sure, I said dice pool systems can be more involved, and that can certainly cloud things (Vampire would be an example of a game where I found it rather difficult to have a sense before rolling how good my chances are). 

What I men by can't figure out the probabilities, is the player is gauging more by the situation itself than by the numbers, and so they aren't sitting there tallying them to arrive at a clear probability. This is just a matter of preference. Personally I find it a better play experience when a player doesn't know they have a 10% chance, but rather have a sense that the chance is rather low. To me that matches more how I experience life in general.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 22, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Yeah, that's not a view I share.  Its a big part of why I dislike D&D5e advantage, as a matter of fact.



hehe, you won't like HoML, as I took 5e advantage and made that THE way you modify things to account for situational stuff. You take cover, you get advantage (or give disadvantage as the case may be). Beyond that your static bonuses for specific things will of course be significant (weapon proficiency, ability bonus, etc.). Of course in this game which power you are using, and whether you put in power or fate, etc. will make a big difference in terms of what you roll and what the total bonus is. I must say, paring it down this much does help make things go faster!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 22, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Sure, I said dice pool systems can be more involved, and that can certainly cloud things (Vampire would be an example of a game where I found it rather difficult to have a sense before rolling how good my chances are).
> 
> What I men by can't figure out the probabilities, is the player is gauging more by the situation itself than by the numbers, and so they aren't sitting there tallying them to arrive at a clear probability. This is just a matter of preference. Personally I find it a better play experience when a player doesn't know they have a 10% chance, but rather have a sense that the chance is rather low. To me that matches more how I experience life in general.



Yeah, obviously IRL we don't know what the probabilities are, but we have a fairly good handle on RELATIVE risk, which is harder to gauge.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 22, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I'm really surprised, unless its just people coming out of the D&D-sphere, given the long history of dice pools.  I mean, they go all the way back to the original Star Wars game, so I don't know why there's be any ingrained resistance.




It isn't just D&D. I've encountered it with players who a role master and GURPS fans too (and other systems). Something being around for a long time doesn't mean there aren't people who dislike it. I've been gaming since the mid-80s and dice pools, as far back as I can remember, have been one of those things certain players just don't like. This has also matched my experience trying to sell a dice pool based system to people. Type in dice pools on a forum and you will find lots of people saying how they just don't like them. I don't share their view but I can see that it exists (and I also realize you aren't going to talk someone out of a preference: even if they express reasons for why they don't like something, and you address those reasons, my sense with these things is there is usually more of an underlying 'feel' for why the person doesn't like them and that would still be present even if other criticisms were addressed)


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 22, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, its interesting. While I have a visceral like for the d20, dice pool systems (at least in the old days) had the patina of 'new tech' so they kind of made your game seem shiny and sophisticated. That can be nice! d100, for me at least, OTOH always held this sort of feeling of early klunky skill-based systems that only kinda half worked, lol. I mean, its probably subjective, but at least for me d20 systems seem possibly a bit trad, but simple and elegant. Dice pool systems seem weird and inscrutable and attempting to be 'high tech', and d100 systems just seem overly technical but not really doing anything better than a good old d20, lol.




I am cool with d10 and d100. But when it comes to being married to a system (that I know I will have to play quite regularly and work with when I want to design) I found the dice pool approach is what worked best for me. Still I love Call of Cthulhu, I was on board for every edition of D&D up to the last two, and I am always happy to play an RPG with any system


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 22, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> hehe, you won't like HoML, as I took 5e advantage and made that THE way you modify things to account for situational stuff. You take cover, you get advantage (or give disadvantage as the case may be). Beyond that your static bonuses for specific things will of course be significant (weapon proficiency, ability bonus, etc.). Of course in this game which power you are using, and whether you put in power or fate, etc. will make a big difference in terms of what you roll and what the total bonus is. I must say, paring it down this much does help make things go faster!




You're not alone, its a trend I've seen in other places but it seriously puts me off.  I don't insist on everything stacking indefinitely (the Shadow of the Demon Lord boon/bane approach is okay to me) but the "Once you've gotten this much benefit or problem nothing else matters" is a nonstarter to me.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 22, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Sure, I said dice pool systems can be more involved, and that can certainly cloud things (Vampire would be an example of a game where I found it rather difficult to have a sense before rolling how good my chances are).




You and everyone else.



Bedrockgames said:


> What I men by can't figure out the probabilities, is the player is gauging more by the situation itself than by the numbers, and so they aren't sitting there tallying them to arrive at a clear probability. This is just a matter of preference. Personally I find it a better play experience when a player doesn't know they have a 10% chance, but rather have a sense that the chance is rather low. To me that matches more how I experience life in general.




The issue I always have with this is people's sense of "what rather low" is can vary too much.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 22, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, obviously IRL we don't know what the probabilities are, but we have a fairly good handle on RELATIVE risk, which is harder to gauge.




To me that is what certain dice pools capture. I have a sense of what my actual long jump max might be, but a physics with a tape measure probably could set a number to it. If I am in a root chase in a relatively realistic game and encounter a gap between buildings that is 32 feet, I wouldn't probably know the exact distance by looking and I probably wouldn't know that exceeds the max record for a human long jump. It is about how doable it looks to me, and I might be overconfident and make that leap not realizing it is a doomed effort 

Also one area these things with probability really break down in RPGS is it is really hard to capture real world physics in a game system. I've played some heavy realism games and they mostly achieve a good degree of plausibly (probably good enough for most people). But I don't think you'd be able to take real world situations and match probabilities to what they are in the game itself. But for me I am not even looking for that. Most of my campaigns are closer to movie logic. When they are realistic, they are realistic in the way Goodfellas is.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 22, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> The issue I always have with this is people's sense of "what rather low" is can vary too much.




Again, if you like dealing in concrete numbers and everyone having a shared sense of objective probability, this approach might not be a fit for you. For me it is how I prefer to game. I find over time, as a group gets to know one another, they start to understand what 'rather low' means for one person. But the sense of what is 'rather low', because it is language and not numbers, going vary from person to person to a degree.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 22, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> You and everyone else.




When I first played Vampire, I was mainly a Ravenloft GM. But we played every game, and some of the games at the time, had wild ways of figuring out success or strange subsystems. This didn't tend to phase me and most people I think. Something about the way vampire dealt with successes, just didn't connect with me, but part of that was I was coming at it as a player, not a GM or someone who had all the books (I read Vampire the Masquerade when it came out, thought it was refreshing and interesting, but I wasn't going to run it, and I wasn't huge into the modern vampire genre, so I didn't invest the time with the mechanics that I might have if it were more in my wheelhouse). However someone in my group loved it, ran it all the time, so I was in a number of regular vampire campaigns. He clearly got the way success worked, as did a number of other people at the table who were more invested in the game. Part of it was I didn't really expend the mental energy on it that I did for other systems. Add to that, I was a Ravenloft GM, and there was a degree of competition between those two settings  and fandoms


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 22, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> You're not alone, its a trend I've seen in other places but it seriously puts me off.  I don't insist on everything stacking indefinitely (the Shadow of the Demon Lord boon/bane approach is okay to me) but the "Once you've gotten this much benefit or problem nothing else matters" is a nonstarter to me.



Yeah, I just like the way it cuts against the whole 'process sim' kind of mentality of game design. It really doesn't bring a lot to the table in a more narrative focus to have a bazillion different factors that reflect fiction vs "how much tension should their be in this scene?" So, obviously these sorts of system design things wrap back into the whole agenda and theory thing. I certainly would think that a game intended to simulate something, say mountain climbing expeditions, would have to have a long list of factors that could be relevant at various points.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 22, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> The issue I always have with this is people's sense of "what rather low" is can vary too much.



Interestingly I believe there have been game design studies to determine how frequent of failure is frustrating and they came back with the old adage 2 out of 3 aint bad. I would not be surprised if they didnt investigate other perceptual parameters.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 22, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> Interestingly I believe there have been game design studies to determine how frequent of failure is frustrating and they came back with the old adage 2 out of 3 aint bad. I would not be surprised if they didnt investigate other perceptual parameters.



And then there are people who play Souls games.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 22, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> To me that is what certain dice pools capture. I have a sense of what my actual long jump max might be, but a physics with a tape measure probably could set a number to it. If I am in a root chase in a relatively realistic game and encounter a gap between buildings that is 32 feet, I wouldn't probably know the exact distance by looking and I probably wouldn't know that exceeds the max record for a human long jump. It is about how doable it looks to me, and I might be overconfident and make that leap not realizing it is a doomed effort
> 
> Also one area these things with probability really break down in RPGS is it is really hard to capture real world physics in a game system. I've played some heavy realism games and they mostly achieve a good degree of plausibly (probably good enough for most people). But I don't think you'd be able to take real world situations and match probabilities to what they are in the game itself. But for me I am not even looking for that. Most of my campaigns are closer to movie logic. When they are realistic, they are realistic in the way Goodfellas is.



Right, so as I mentioned to @Thomas Shey I think this gets back into the agenda thing. So, for the most part, I like playing games that are more 'movie physics' and probably don't generally include situations that read as "you must jump the 32 foot gap" but more "this is a dangerous looking gap, jumping it is going to be HARD!" If you fail, the answer in fiction might be "well, it was more than hard, it was impossible!" This is one of those areas where things can get funny, like with 4e and battlemaps, you have a grid, you have this objective measure. This means actually that 4e combats weirdly interpret things a bit differently than an SC likely would. Games are quirky though, and it still manages to work.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 22, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, I just like the way it cuts against the whole 'process sim' kind of mentality of game design. It really doesn't bring a lot to the table in a more narrative focus to have a bazillion different factors that reflect fiction vs "how much tension should their be in this scene?" So, obviously these sorts of system design things wrap back into the whole agenda and theory thing. I certainly would think that a game intended to simulate something, say mountain climbing expeditions, would have to have a long list of factors that could be relevant at various points.




I don't think its even virtuous in a game sort of fashion, as it leads to degenerate processes.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 22, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> And then there are people who play Souls games.



Including my son...  there is a problem with the question though and that includes how much and what exactly counts as a success and can you have lesser successes that build up. Beating my old score in many games is a success for instance.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 22, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, see, I don't personally consider "Spectacular because it randomly happens 1 time in 500." to be useful game design. The probability that said thing will happen at a really interesting moment in the game is not even 1 in 500, it is probably more like 1 in 1 million. Even if the odds are much better than that, its not really all that special when it is just luck of the dice. I want to DO something that is spectacular, not just witness it randomly happening. I'd much rather go with a design like 4e (or 5e for that matter) where if you want spectacular, you plan it out, work on it, set it up, and make it happen.



For me, if it's that planned out it becomes far less spectacular and far more a quasi-foregone conclusion.  Fun to pull off, sure, but also much less exciting.

The spectacular comes when you're down to your last hit point and pull off that 1-in-200* critical hit that takes down the far-superior foe one segment before you'd have almost certainly met your end. (I've DMed this very situation, by the way, and it was truly awesome!)

The spectacular comes when you're fleeing a terrifying foe and have one chance of escape, that being to leap (against considerable odds) across a wide gap to a suspended cage above a large pit and hope the pursuer fails the same leap and falls. (I've DMed this one too, also awesome; though safely getting him back from the cage to solid ground later proved to be a challenge  )

* - odds approximate, but 1/d20 followed by 1/d10 is, I think, 1 in 200.


AbdulAlhazred said:


> Meh, well, I mean, if we're talking about tables to randomly generate stuff, that comes with its own different set of considerations. I don't have a big objection to a huge list of obscure possibilities. I'm of the opinion that most of the effort is wasted with resolvers of that type, but whatever. I'd note that nobody, not even Gygax, really used random treasure tables except as a kind of fill-in. You got Razor by actually going through the dungeon and finding it, there wasn't anything random about it. I expect the 'big name' magic items like high end staves, rods, holy swords, stuff like that were not generally earned by lucky dice rolls.



I use random magic item tables All. The. Time. as that's how I determine what's for sale in any given place at any given time the PCs happen to visit there and ask.

Excel (and a friend with good Excel-fu) for the win, baby!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 22, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I don't think its even virtuous in a game sort of fashion, as it leads to degenerate processes.



I think there are reasons you would do it. One of the functions of a GM in that kind of game would be to squelch problems of that sort. It also assumes reasonably virtuous play. I'm thinking of a game, for example, that would let you model trying to climb Mt Everest for the first time. Make it very realistic! It should be workable and the challenges will be relevant and contextual simply by virtue of the narrow scope and subject matter. Obviously if you want to study the psychological factors in the team and how they might lead to disaster, then maybe THAT is a bit different game of course, but "can we get to the top by solving various logistical and climbing problems?" seems like a viable RPG. Its actually fairly close to the original model in D&D dungeon crawls. I'd note that the AH Survival game is of this nature, and it was how you were intended to play out overland expeditions in OD&D. It actually makes sense, it is just a detailed set of realistic rules for that environment (though you would add monsters to the mix of course).


----------



## pemerton (Jun 22, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> That's something of a change, given that I'm fairly sure you're the person who first introduced me to the term.



I'd doubt that.

EDIT: I did a search. I used "agency" in this post from 2018: What is *worldbuilding* for?

I seem to have been picking up on @AbdulAlhazred use of the term in the same thread.

I did another search. You were engaging in debates about "agency" back in 2014: D&D 5E - Simulation vs Game - Where should D&D 5e aim?


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 22, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> Including my son...  there is a problem with the question though and that includes how much and what exactly counts as a success and can you have lesser successes that build up. Beating my old score in many games is a success for instance.



Lesser successes building up ->Say my goal is killing the monster if it takes 6 attacks without any intermediate success ie ->miss miss miss miss miss kill... that would rarely fulfill the 2 out of 3 aint bad.  But if 2 out of 3 attacks provide success feedback, such as depleting hit points and knocking the enemy around or other noticeable effects then it  doesn't matter if it takes even 6 attacks to kill. *assuming those lesser wins are sufficiently felt as wins.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 23, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think there are reasons you would do it. One of the functions of a GM in that kind of game would be to squelch problems of that sort. It also assumes reasonably virtuous play. I'm thinking of a game, for example, that would let you model trying to climb Mt Everest for the first time. Make it very realistic! It should be workable and the challenges will be relevant and contextual simply by virtue of the narrow scope and subject matter. Obviously if you want to study the psychological factors in the team and how they might lead to disaster, then maybe THAT is a bit different game of course, but "can we get to the top by solving various logistical and climbing problems?" seems like a viable RPG. Its actually fairly close to the original model in D&D dungeon crawls. I'd note that the AH Survival game is of this nature, and it was how you were intended to play out overland expeditions in OD&D. It actually makes sense, it is just a detailed set of realistic rules for that environment (though you would add monsters to the mix of course).




I was unclear in what I was saying; what I was suggesting that from a game point of view, I don't think the all-or-nothing of advantage/disadvantage produces good results; it encourages you to find the minimal way to get advantage and then not bother, because the rests is effort with no reward.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 23, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> And then there are people who play Souls games.



Failure is almost meaningless in Souls games, though.

I see "YOU DIED" screen in Dark Souls much more often then I reload my save in Silent Hill 2, but the former is like "oh, okay, I'll try something different then" and the latter makes me want to punch a hole through my screen.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 23, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I'd doubt that.
> 
> EDIT: I did a search. I used "agency" in this post from 2018: What is _worldbuilding_ for?
> 
> ...



I'm thinking it was more like 2010 or so, but not a biggie either way.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 23, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> Failure is almost meaningless in Souls games, though.
> 
> I see "YOU DIED" screen in Dark Souls much more often then I reload my save in Silent Hill 2, but the former is like "oh, okay, I'll try something different then" and the latter makes me want to punch a hole through my screen.



Though not a Souls game, I love how Hades makes failure an integral part of the gameplay, including the narrative. It makes dying and failing kind of fun.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 23, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I was unclear in what I was saying; what I was suggesting that from a game point of view, I don't think the all-or-nothing of advantage/disadvantage produces good results; it encourages you to find the minimal way to get advantage and then not bother, because the rests is effort with no reward.



Yes I call it lacking nuance...


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 23, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> Yes I call it lacking nuance...





Same.  Like I said, I can see why they want to discourage hunting for every bonus imaginable, but there's better ways to do that.


----------



## Crimson Longinus (Jun 23, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Same.  Like I said, I can see why they want to discourage hunting for every bonus imaginable, but there's better ways to do that.



Such as? 

I didn’t like advantage/disadvantage when I first heard about it, but in practice it works really smoothly.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 23, 2022)

Crimson Longinus said:


> Such as?
> 
> I didn’t like advantage/disadvantage when I first heard about it, but in practice it works really smoothly.




There's two I've seen.

1. Just reduce the number of different types of bonuses.  That way its still possible to hunt for a few, but it doesn't turn into the 3e stack-a-million-bonuses thing.  This is the PF2e approach.

2. Diminishing returns. Shadow of the Demon Lord has what are called boons and banes.  A boon adds +1D6 to the roll; a bane subtracts -1D6.  You can have multiples of any of them _but you only get the best_.  So if you've got three boons on your attack roll, you roll the D20, roll 3D6, and add the best of the D6 rolls to the value.  It means its still somewhat useful hunting for multiples, but less and less so.

Edit: And to be clear, I don't really care how smoothly it works; it produces a result I don't like twice over; it makes only bothering with the first benefit what you do, and then it makes it matter too much.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 23, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> There's two I've seen.
> 
> 1. Just reduce the number of different types of bonuses.  That way its still possible to hunt for a few, but it doesn't turn into the 3e stack-a-million-bonuses thing.  This is the PF2e approach.
> 
> ...



I really would not like the approach you are suggesting. The advantage/disadvantage has the merit of being a meaningful buff/debuff amid the swingyness of the D20. Most of the modifiers in the past were not that meaningful in the variance of the D20 unless you could stack them and the +-1d6 only approaches advantage/disadvantage at the upper limits. You are adding more moving parts with little or no gain.
YMMV


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 23, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I really would not like the approach you are suggesting. The advantage/disadvantage has the merit of being a meaningful buff/debuff amid the swingyness of the D20.



I think the point is that not every buff/debuff has to be the same degree of "meaningful" in order to be relevant.

The other, perhaps bigger, thing with using straight +/- vs adv-disadv is that results can go outside the 1-20 range, which opens up a boatload more design space even if that range isn't expanded by very much (note that 3e D&D really overdid this!).


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 23, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I really would not like the approach you are suggesting. The advantage/disadvantage has the merit of being a meaningful buff/debuff amid the swingyness of the D20. Most of the modifiers in the past were not that meaningful in the variance of the D20 unless you could stack them and the +-1d6 only approaches advantage/disadvantage at the upper limits. You are adding more moving parts with little or no gain.
> YMMV




And does.  I think the average of +5 that the 2D20 roll does is too much for one increment, and doesn't permit more in part specifically because its that strong.  I know a lot of people like it; that's quite clear.  I'm absolutely not one of them and consider it a fundamental design error.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 23, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I think the point is that not every buff/debuff has to be the same degree of "meaningful" in order to be relevant.
> 
> The other, perhaps bigger, thing with using straight +/- vs adv-disadv is that results can go outside the 1-20 range, which opens up a boatload more design space even if that range isn't expanded by very much (note that 3e D&D really overdid this!).



While I agree, I vastly prefer dis/advantage over mod hunting. There's almost nothing more tedious in a game than watching a player stop the game to hunt down and accumulate all those potential +1s. Just give them advantage. Done.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 23, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Same.  Like I said, I can see why they want to discourage hunting for every bonus imaginable, but there's better ways to do that.





Thomas Shey said:


> And does.  I think the average of +5 that the 2D20 roll does is too much for one increment, and doesn't permit more in part specifically because its that strong.  I know a lot of people like it; that's quite clear.  I'm absolutely not one of them and consider it a fundamental design error.



Every edition of D&D prior to 5e has had more subtlety even if too many subtle benefits were stacked in some cases.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 23, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> And does.  I think the average of +5 that the 2D20 roll does is too much for one increment, and doesn't permit more in part specifically because its that strong.  I know a lot of people like it; that's quite clear.  I'm absolutely not one of them and consider it a fundamental design error.



even just having greater and lesser advantage....


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 23, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> While I agree, I vastly prefer dis/advantage over mod hunting. There's almost nothing more tedious in a game than watching a player stop the game to hunt down and accumulate all those potential +1s. Just give them advantage. Done.



Fine until the character would have a net +5 and -1 (i.e. say three advantages and one disadvantage) which in the advantage system cancels out to net-zero where it should be +4.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 23, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Fine until the character would have a net +5 and -1 (i.e. say three advantages and one disadvantage) which in the advantage system cancels out to net-zero where it should be +4.



Eh. I’m fine with the slight loss in resolution just to avoid the ever increasing stack of minutes wasted hunting down +1s. Plus or minus 5-10% isn’t worth bothering with.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 23, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> Every edition of D&D prior to 5e has had more subtlety even if too many subtle benefits were stacked in some cases.




I can get how people want to stay away from the way the process as it played out in 3e, but this seems like a massive overcorrection.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 23, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Eh. I’m fine with the slight loss in resolution just to avoid the ever increasing stack of minutes wasted hunting down +1s. Plus or minus 5-10% isn’t worth bothering with.



That's more than a slight loss in resolution, if you're going from +1 (5%) to whatever average-% bonus advantage gives (if memory serves someone once worked out it's about the same on average as +3 or +4 but I forget where or even if I saw that).

It's also more than a slight loss in resolution if you're going from +20% (+5 and -1) to flat 0 (adv-disadv cancelling out).

But more important, there's no variance to it.  You've got three options - advantage, disadvantage, or flat - and that's it.  Personally, I'd like a lot more possible granularity.

The way to get around people wasting time bonus hunting is to have fewer and easy-to-track things be what give bonuses.  As with many other things, 3e went overboard on how much stacking you could do; it's not the model to try emulating here.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 23, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> The way to get around people wasting time bonus hunting is to have fewer and easy-to-track things be what give bonuses.  As with many other things, 3e went overboard on how much stacking you could do; it's not the model to try emulating here.




Yup.  I mentioned at least two other games that manage to avoid that without just having the three-case situation.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 23, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> That's more than a slight loss in resolution, if you're going from +1 (5%) to whatever average-% bonus advantage gives (if memory serves someone once worked out it's about the same on average as +3 or +4 but I forget where or even if I saw that).



Sorry, but a 5-10% loss is slight.


Lanefan said:


> It's also more than a slight loss in resolution if you're going from +20% (+5 and -1) to flat 0 (adv-disadv cancelling out).



Well, sure. But that’s not how dis/advantage works. If it’s worth about +3 or more, it’s worth advantage. If it’s worth about -3 or more, it’s worth disadvantage. So you don’t have situations like you describe. If the bonus/penalty is smaller than that it’s generally ignored. Because it’s not worth tracking. 


Lanefan said:


> But more important, there's no variance to it.  You've got three options - advantage, disadvantage, or flat - and that's it.  Personally, I'd like a lot more possible granularity.



There’s a lot more than that. Auto success, auto failure, and the referee still sets the DC. Things like cover still give out +2 or +5 AC to the target, sidestepping dis/advantage.


Lanefan said:


> The way to get around people wasting time bonus hunting is to have fewer and easy-to-track things be what give bonuses. As with many other things, 3e went overboard on how much stacking you could do; it's not the model to try emulating here.



To each their own. I’d rather use dis/advantage and be done with it than ever have to waste time on players nitpicking +1s. But then I’m weird in that I think you could use dis/advantage for a whole lot more things perfectly well. Like prof bonus, skills, prof saves, class abilities, and a bunch more.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 23, 2022)

Under estimating the low numbers is psychological. Some person has a +2 to hit compared to another assuming they are roughly equal adversaries _with ones defenses roughly comparable to the others attacks_ the one with superior attacks deliver both 20 percent more damage and 10 percent more frequent special effects (like proning or whatever depending on versions).   Its much more significant if its harder to hit could be triple the chance to hit and so on and yes its less significant if you already have a great chance of hit.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 23, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Sorry, but a 5-10% loss is slight.



I think there is a communication error Lan will correct me if I am wrong he is referring to resolution  ... the resolution of  +0 +1 +2 +3 +4 + 5 with negatives could be described as 11
the resolution of   -5 and 0 and 5 as  only 3


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 24, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> I think there is a communication error Lan will correct me if I am wrong he is referring to resolution  ... the resolution of  +0 +1 +2 +3 +4 + 5 with negatives could be described as 11
> the resolution of   -5 and 0 and 5 as  only 3



Thanks G but I think instead of this @overgeeked is trying to get across the idea that +1 (5%) or +2 (10%) isn't enough of a bonus to make a real difference.  I happen to disagree, in that I can't count the number of times I've seen a simple +1 or -1 make the difference to a roll's outcome, but I acknowledge the point he's trying to make.

You, of course, are quite correct as well - +5 to -5 in steps is more granular than in effect just + 0 - possibilities.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 24, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Sorry, but a 5-10% loss is slight.



Not in my books.


overgeeked said:


> There’s a lot more than that. Auto success, auto failure, and the referee still sets the DC. Things like cover still give out +2 or +5 AC to the target, ...



All those things also exist in a bonus system, so this becomes a wash.


overgeeked said:


> To each their own. I’d rather use dis/advantage and be done with it than ever have to waste time on players nitpicking +1s. But then I’m weird in that I think you could use dis/advantage for a whole lot more things perfectly well. Like prof bonus, skills, prof saves, class abilities, and a bunch more.



Where I think they're already using it for far too much.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great mechanic.  But only at certain times-situations, mostly when a result outside the range of 1-20 isn't desired and-or one just wants to push the odds away from a very bad (or very good) roll.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 24, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Thanks G but I think instead of this @overgeeked is trying to get across the idea that +1 (5%) or +2 (10%) isn't enough of a bonus to make a real difference.



I understood just felt you were talking past each other since you meant differences of result resolution


Lanefan said:


> I happen to disagree, in that I can't count the number of times I've seen a simple +1 or -1 make the difference to a roll's outcome, but I acknowledge the point he's trying to make.



D&Ds often all or nothing result makes it significant in my opinion and more so in some editions.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 24, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I was unclear in what I was saying; what I was suggesting that from a game point of view, I don't think the all-or-nothing of advantage/disadvantage produces good results; it encourages you to find the minimal way to get advantage and then not bother, because the rests is effort with no reward.



Meh, usually there's one nice big fat cinematic element there which you take. The rest? What is really gained? If you are playing old school 'skilled play' D&D, then sure, that would probably be a fairly valid criticism. I'm not aiming for that. I think tactics are fun, and HoML for instance HAS those, but just not to an extreme. You get into a good position, you take cover, you enable some sort of protection, etc. and that does what you need. It also makes the fiction very clear, you ducked behind the pillar, the manticore's spikes ricochet off the stone, breaking away chips of rock and flying off into the darkness, it missed! Why do I need to sort through three different possible explanations for that when one will do?

There are also potentially other things you can say about this too. For example PCs in my game get to pick defenses, and the players make all the checks. So, they have a bunch of different kinds of choices potentially already. In other kinds of situations there is a challenge framework, you are not likely to be rolling a check that represents every factor and element of the success of your plan entirely in one toss of the dice (I mean, maybe that will happen, maybe it won't). So, does every factor have to play into every roll? I don't think so. 

All told my feeling was that directness and simplicity and just a very clean interface to story telling is the key thing I'm going for, not an exercise in generating a laundry list of modifiers to scrounge for on every roll. But obviously there can be different factorings of what does what, why, and where in a game.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 24, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> There's two I've seen.
> 
> 1. Just reduce the number of different types of bonuses.  That way its still possible to hunt for a few, but it doesn't turn into the 3e stack-a-million-bonuses thing.  This is the PF2e approach.
> 
> ...



So, HoML actually does all of these things in some measure. Its pretty much a 4e engine, at least that's the starting point, and so you have bonuses, but they ALL fall within 1 of 4 types, level, ability, proficiency, and permanent. Notice, NONE of those can vary based on the situation at the table! That is to say, they can to the degree you could pick up a different weapon and gain/lose a proficiency bonus, and permanent bonuses can be 'keyed' any way you want (IE apply only when certain tags exist on the target of an attack, etc.). Still, the bonuses cannot stack within a type, so AT MOST you can have 4, and level and ability bonus are pretty cut-and-dried at that! (I guess an item could change your ability, etc. I mean anything is possible).

Again, if you want to gain different sorts of results, use different powers, spend power, leverage practices (which change the ability score and skill that are relevant) etc. Players can have a big effect on how well their plans turn out, it really IS a tactical game, but you will never be sitting at the table trying to figure out all the bonuses that are in play, it just won't happen. My philosophy here is a very strong "invest in the things that will make the game play most appealing at the table." This is an ethos that should be recognizably derived from 4e's design philosophy. Even as complex games 4e and HoML are rather easy to play at the table, especially for the GM.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 24, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> even just having greater and lesser advantage....



I thought about it, but consider, if instead you do things like design your monsters with a bit more varied defenses, then hitting a weaker one is going against a 2-4 point lower DV, which might as well be considered the same as an equivalent attack bonus, right? I mean, there's a lot of things along these lines that PCs can do. They can use various forms of synergy to increase their offense and defense in a whole variety of ways. I just think that dice modifiers are a cumbersome way to handle a lot of that. And if you now start in with 2 levels of 'advantage' and 'disadvantage', which things get each one? Now some stuff stacks but other stuff doesn't, or there's got to be some other more complicated rule. I'm really not convinced it adds enough to the game design to make up for all that. I really had the way Strike! just stripped away a lot of the cruft of 4e but left the real essence of what it was doing intact. I just translated that philosophy to d20 (purely for reasons of taste really). Also doing it that way makes it pretty simple to convert 4e content in most cases. Pretty much any 4e monster will 'work' in HoML with a few tweaks to terminology and updated numbers.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 24, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Fine until the character would have a net +5 and -1 (i.e. say three advantages and one disadvantage) which in the advantage system cancels out to net-zero where it should be +4.



At least in my system you do have advantage/disadvantage cancellation, yes, so any disadvantage cancels your advantage, again this is just a lot simpler to process at the table than adding up lots of things that give each and figuring out which is more. That process would also encourage just larding one or the other onto lots of stuff! It would undo the whole point. 

In terms of actual modifiers on the d20, they don't stack, and you take the most advantageous, so if something gives a -1 permanent bonus, and something else gives a +1, indeed you just get the +1. This doesn't come up a huge amount. Penalties are fairly rare for one thing. Ability score modifier 0 just means you are pretty bad at something, lol. Its possible perhaps to get something like a 'cursed weapon' that was -1 permanent bonus, but then chances are you won't have a +1 to cancel it out, since very few things grant permanent bonuses! If you do have something that gives a +1 in most situations, that would be a really nice bennie to have!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 24, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Thanks G but I think instead of this @overgeeked is trying to get across the idea that +1 (5%) or +2 (10%) isn't enough of a bonus to make a real difference.  I happen to disagree, in that I can't count the number of times I've seen a simple +1 or -1 make the difference to a roll's outcome, but I acknowledge the point he's trying to make.
> 
> You, of course, are quite correct as well - +5 to -5 in steps is more granular than in effect just + 0 - possibilities.



I've found in actual playtest with HoML that @overgeeked is correct. It just doesn't make that much difference in terms of experience of play, which is what I care about. Nobody remembers how some obscure +1 was the exact margin that changed the course of the game. They will remember how your clever getting of advantage let you gank the bad guy at the last second! My experience with RPG play says "Always use the big clue hammer!"


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 24, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I thought about it, but consider, if instead you do things like design your monsters with a bit more varied defenses, then hitting a weaker one is going against a 2-4 point lower DV, which might as well be considered the same as an equivalent attack bonus, right?



How does that work  you just choose not to attack monsters with better DV huh...  sounds like nonsense. Oh you mean rock paper scissors on FRW ... ummmm unless everyone has flexibility thats not gonna work.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 24, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> And if you now start in with 2 levels of 'advantage' and 'disadvantage', which things get each one? Now some stuff stacks but other stuff doesn't, or there's got to be some other more complicated rule.



Not that tricky really much ado about nothing 


AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'm really not convinced it adds enough to the game design to make up for all that.



I may not like the density that Lan would prefer but as it stands it really lacks nuance in 5e  its all or nothing and I find that meh.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 24, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Meh, usually there's one nice big fat cinematic element there which you take. The rest? What is really gained?




That people are less likely to just pick the low hanging fruit to get there and stop.  If you don't understand why that matters to some people, I don't think I'm going to be able to explain it.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 24, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> How does that work  you just choose not to attack monsters with better DV huh...  sounds like nonsense. Oh you mean rock paper scissors on FRW ... ummmm unless everyone has flexibility thats not gonna work.



Well, in HoML different weapons base on different abilities, and may also attack different defenses. Or you may just use a different power, they are not generally too hard to get. Speaking for myself when I describe a creature I think the description should be indicative of what its strong and weak defenses are, etc.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 24, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> That people are less likely to just pick the low hanging fruit to get there and stop.  If you don't understand why that matters to some people, I don't think I'm going to be able to explain it.



It shouldn't be a problem, not every game is a solution to genre/agenda preferences for everyone. In terms of Jargon though, we can analyze that and sort it out. HoML is intended to be a mostly pretty narrative game, its about what sort of hero you are, how you engage with your heroism, and what happens when you do heroic stuff. So, there isn't really a strong emphasis on lots of detailed realistic factors in play. It is more intended to answer questions about what was the awesome thing you did that won the fight, etc. Now, it does still have a tactics element to the game, but it is a little less focused on 'tactics as actions' and more on 'tactics as applying conceptual tools of tactical thinking' is how I would put it.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 24, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> It shouldn't be a problem, not every game is a solution to genre/agenda preferences for everyone. In terms of Jargon though, we can analyze that and sort it out. HoML is intended to be a mostly pretty narrative game, its about what sort of hero you are, how you engage with your heroism, and what happens when you do heroic stuff. So, there isn't really a strong emphasis on lots of detailed realistic factors in play. It is more intended to answer questions about what was the awesome thing you did that won the fight, etc. Now, it does still have a tactics element to the game, but it is a little less focused on 'tactics as actions' and more on 'tactics as applying conceptual tools of tactical thinking' is how I would put it.




Which is all fair, but then you shouldn't be surprised if that's not the effect everyone else is trying for.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 24, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Which is all fair, but then you shouldn't be surprised if that's not the effect everyone else is trying for.



Sure, never criticized anyone else's goals. I just provided a logical explanation and description of what I did and why. Heck, its just a game I invented, I don't even expect anyone to read it, let alone play it, or care about what I did, to be perfectly honest.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 24, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sure, never criticized anyone else's goals. I just provided a logical explanation and description of what I did and why. Heck, its just a game I invented, I don't even expect anyone to read it, let alone play it, or care about what I did, to be perfectly honest.




However, remember this was my reaction to "Meh, usually there's one nice big fat cinematic element there which you take. The rest? What is really gained?"  The answer is "plenty, but just not things you prioritize."


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 24, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> However, remember this was my reaction to "Meh, usually there's one nice big fat cinematic element there which you take. The rest? What is really gained?"  The answer is "plenty, but just not things you prioritize."



Yes, you may gain something, I would not. Instead I gained something by going on to the rest of the scene without being bogged down in figuring out so many modifiers. Obviously I value that more than you do and it is my priority. You wouldn't find it so it seems. I mean, when someone asks such a question, it is just a question.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Jun 25, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yes, you may gain something, I would not.




Yes, but then why are you asking the question to me in response?  It only makes sense when you assume a common set of aims.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Instead I gained something by going on to the rest of the scene without being bogged down in figuring out so many modifiers. Obviously I value that more than you do and it is my priority. You wouldn't find it so it seems. I mean, when someone asks such a question, it is just a question.




See above.  Frankly, it comes across as either a rhetorical ploy or an assumption of universalism here.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 25, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, in HoML different weapons base on different abilities, and may also attack different defenses. Or you may just use a different power, they are not generally too hard to get. Speaking for myself when I describe a creature I think the description should be indicative of what its strong and weak defenses are, etc.



Its not as flexible as you would like yet I suspect


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 25, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yes, you may gain something, I would not. Instead I gained something by going on to the rest of the scene without being bogged down in figuring out so many modifiers.



TALK about absolutist either its figuring out so many modifiers it bogs you down or its just restricted to one which may or may not actual have an effect (advantage can be no effect),

Its called an argument that excludes the middle.

When you only have a small party and only a really limited number of ways of gaining situational benefit it probably matters less.

In a larger party, the density of viable sources goes up. What if you could get double flank (call it surrounded) for advantage and normal flank for lesser.

In support of Lan wanting even more like +1 to +5
What if your Warlord gives you a tactical speech describing a battle plan for a known location maybe?  before the battle and your bard sings a song to inspire (and it gives advantage but at higher levels its full advantage) you never ever have cause to try and find flanking? doesn't that seem wrong? 

Perhaps the solution to the above instead of allowing more than 2 stackables like the 5 mentioned might be to have one of them defined in terms of the other (like the bard or warlords ability making flanking easy in some fashion and trivial at high level)

It just seems very very easy to have one sort of situational advantage that makes things less interesting in terms of battlefield choices.

They made the Bards inspire pure stacking in 5e and ignored their keep it just advantage... I wonder why? Because all or nothing with no stacking is boring


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 25, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> TALK about absolutist either its figuring out so many modifiers it bogs you down or its just restricted to one which may or may not actual have an effect (advantage can be no effect),
> 
> Its called an argument that excludes the middle.
> 
> ...



Well, there are a lot of possible responses to this: I mean, the basic and most fundamental one is the 'clue hammer' response. If I'm fundamentally interested in what the narrative does, and in a clear explication of the story, then I don't GENERALLY want a lot of small factors contributing to each activity, as it is not really a very clear and concise 'story'. So, I tend to shy away from the more traditional 'stacks of situational modifiers' approach.

That being said, when you have something that is, let us say, 'environmental', it could be manifested as a single permanent modifier that is included in the situation. This might be a way to implement something like "I inspired everyone with a song" for example. However, there are a TON of other ways for that to be implemented as well, so its not like anyone needs to die on the hill of 'there must be stacks of modifiers'.

For instance, in HoML we have power, measured in power points. Power also has a source, which can matter when you get into doing stuff outside your normal 'shtick'. A 'bardic inspiration' could thus give you a power point, or allow you to use power as if it had a different source, both of which could be significant. It could give you a permanent bonus to your DR, produce some sort of action economy advantage, or lots of other things. Honestly, once you stop focusing on stacking bonuses, a lot of other options could open up. Heck, maybe there should be an 'inspired' condition, that would be cool!


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 25, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> Its not as flexible as you would like yet I suspect






AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, there are a lot of possible responses to this: I mean, the basic and most fundamental one is the 'clue hammer' response. If I'm fundamentally interested in what the narrative does, and in a clear explication of the story, then I don't GENERALLY want a lot of small factors contributing to each activity, as it is not really a very clear and concise 'story'. So, I tend to shy away from the more traditional 'stacks of situational modifiers' approach.




Game level play loses its real support



AbdulAlhazred said:


> That being said, when you have something that is, let us say, 'environmental', it could be manifested as a single permanent modifier that is included in the situation.



Yes one can foist things off on the DM


AbdulAlhazred said:


> This might be a way to implement something like "I inspired everyone with a song" for example. However, there are a TON of other ways for that to be implemented as well, so its not like anyone needs to die on the hill of 'there must be stacks of modifiers'.



5e made the Warlords temp hit points to do something "different" and of course gave it to everyone willing to spend the feat (and mucked up other warlord stuff too) and yes other effects are possible but in general cases if you fail to hit or succeed on that skill check tadah you are back to D&Ds gee that was a boring waste of choice and often also a bleh use of resource. Black and White results do not impress me just like On or Off benefits.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 25, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, there are a lot of possible responses to this: I mean, the basic and most fundamental one is the 'clue hammer' response. If I'm fundamentally interested in what the narrative does, and in a clear explication of the story, then I don't GENERALLY want a lot of small factors contributing to each activity, as it is not really a very clear and concise 'story'. So, I tend to shy away from the more traditional 'stacks of situational modifiers' approach.
> 
> That being said, when you have something that is, let us say, 'environmental', it could be manifested as a single permanent modifier that is included in the situation. This might be a way to implement something like "I inspired everyone with a song" for example. However, there are a TON of other ways for that to be implemented as well, so its not like anyone needs to die on the hill of 'there must be stacks of modifiers'.
> 
> For instance, in HoML we have power, measured in power points. Power also has a source, which can matter when you get into doing stuff outside your normal 'shtick'. A 'bardic inspiration' could thus give you a power point, or allow you to use power as if it had a different source, both of which could be significant. It could give you a permanent bonus to your DR, produce some sort of action economy advantage, or lots of other things. Honestly, once you stop focusing on stacking bonuses, a lot of other options could open up. Heck, maybe there should be an 'inspired' condition, that would be cool!



Physical environment can play a role here too - you could be fighting on ground consecrated to an opposing deity, for example, giving +1 on everything (to-hit, damage, saves, checks, etc.) to the ground's defenders and -1 on everything to you, the invaders; never mind that your divine spells or effects are greatly reduced in effect here.  Somehow draw the defenders off of their sacred ground and fight there, and these factors go away.

Simply saying all the defenders have advantage and all the attackers have disadvantage while on that ground doesn't work for two opposing reasons: one, if advantage is easily cancelled out by disadv (and vice-versa) there's so many ways of doing so that the whole thing becomes almost moot; or two, if adv and disadv cannot easily be cancelled out then it's way too big a benefit/penalty.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 26, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> ttackers have disadvantage while on that ground doesn't work for two opposing reasons: one, if advantage is easily cancelled out by disadv (and vice-versa) there's so many ways of doing so that the whole thing becomes almost moot; or two, if adv and disadv cannot easily be cancelled out then it's way too big a benefit/penalty.



He suggest other things not necessarily advantage but like other forms of "advantage" such as all defenders have bonus temp hit points and all attackers take one extra damage from each attack this would be planned in advanced more often but they could become semi standard or dynamically.  Not finding it super sized satisfying (but kind of OK if the numbers already work out).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 26, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Physical environment can play a role here too - you could be fighting on ground consecrated to an opposing deity, for example, giving +1 on everything (to-hit, damage, saves, checks, etc.) to the ground's defenders and -1 on everything to you, the invaders; never mind that your divine spells or effects are greatly reduced in effect here.  Somehow draw the defenders off of their sacred ground and fight there, and these factors go away.
> 
> Simply saying all the defenders have advantage and all the attackers have disadvantage while on that ground doesn't work for two opposing reasons: one, if advantage is easily cancelled out by disadv (and vice-versa) there's so many ways of doing so that the whole thing becomes almost moot; or two, if adv and disadv cannot easily be cancelled out then it's way too big a benefit/penalty.



Well, I agree that just tossing advantage/disadvantage out there as some sort of blanket thing, or something you can just 'turn on' etc. is bad. At least in the design of my game it isn't THAT easy to get! I mean, if you want to arrange your tactics properly, which may involve some difficulty or risk at times, then you CAN probably get advantage OFTEN at the time and place you really want it most.

I still say other things are probably better choices and more interesting. As HoML is written, if you granted, say, a +1 permanent bonus as an environmental effect, it would still stack/not stack with other sources of said type of bonus (though it would probably also be a bonus to X, where X might be attack checks, defense checks, or perhaps some other sort of checks). So, some characters might NOT be measurably better off, but it won't hurt them and if its sufficiently beneficial for the party overall I don't think that sort of thing would be a big issue. However, I could just as easily see an environmental effect being something like "Free Action, once per turn, remove the dazed condition from your character." or something like that (obviously you'd want to make it a condition that the scenario probably inflicts fairly often).

I'm not categorically opposed to the use of bonuses (or penalties perhaps) as a tool. I just think its always worth considering first if something else is going to serve equally well or better.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 26, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> He suggest other things not necessarily advantage but like other forms of "advantage" such as all defenders have bonus temp hit points and all attackers take one extra damage from each attack this would be planned in advanced more often but they could become semi standard or dynamically.  Not finding it super sized satisfying (but kind of OK if the numbers already work out).



I mean, one thing that can be said positively for bonuses as a design, they are a pretty darn well known quantity. So sometimes maybe they should be the preferred option. I just got a lot of tired of all the fiddling with bonuses and the constant reworking of character sheets that 4e particularly (but 5e is somewhat guilty as well, though a lot less) tends to encourage. Its fine for when a game is like "I'm a game, lets focus on my gizmos." but I was trying to kind of have my cake and eat it too there, lol. Like its a tactically interesting game, but also less fiddly.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 26, 2022)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I mean, one thing that can be said positively for bonuses as a design, they are a pretty darn well known quantity. So sometimes maybe they should be the preferred option.



In PF2 straight up bonuses have different effects depending on how high your total reaches and the action performed...  but the cause of the advantage does not matter its applied by the actor in a sense automatically. Now RQ almost had something like that too... its not exactly new and countless others have degree of success having effects built in.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 26, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> In PF2 straight up bonuses have different effects depending on how high your total reaches and the action performed...  but the cause of the advantage does not matter its applied by the actor in a sense automatically. Now RQ almost had something like that too... its not exactly new and countless others have degree of success having effects built in.



While I'm not sold on hard-coding degree-of-success into the rules, I've always used an informal version in that, where it makes sense, a spectacularly high or low roll is likely to give more impressive results (for better or worse!) than will a middling roll that barely succeed or fails.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 27, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> While I'm not sold on hard-coding degree-of-success into the rules, I've always used an informal version in that, where it makes sense, a spectacularly high or low roll is likely to give more impressive results (for better or worse!) than will a middling roll that barely succeed or fails.



I am pro having some idea of the results I get as a player I like my player choices to be more nuanced too. But some insane chart heavy games go crazy I am anti-that saw one of them whose computed results for attacks was based on medical stats  sigh.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 27, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> I am pro having some idea of the results I get as a player I like my player choices to be more nuanced too. But some insane chart heavy games go crazy I am anti-that saw one of them whose computed results for attacks was based on medical stats  sigh.



Yeah, anything can be taken too far.   And it's ironclad guaranteed that because it can be, someone out there will.


----------

