"The term 'GNS' is moronic and annoying" – well this should be an interesting interview

[AbdulAlhazred]

I can see introducing the unwelcome being applicable to early d&d combat and dungeon/world design as well. Except it’s just as much about introducing the exceptionally welcome as the unwelcome.

I think it might be better to say that rules often REGULATE, probably as in preventing the arbitrary achievement of, reward states. You only achieve success, or get XP, in Dungeon World according to certain procedures. If you can't roll 7+, you can't move towards your goal. If you don't roll 6-, you won't get XP. Nor will you get XP unless you retire bonds, or one of several other activities that relate to the type of activities the game intends to produce narrative about.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it might be better to say that rules often REGULATE, probably as in preventing the arbitrary achievement of, reward states. You only achieve success, or get XP, in Dungeon World according to certain procedures. If you can't roll 7+, you can't move towards your goal. If you don't roll 6-, you won't get XP. Nor will you get XP unless you retire bonds, or one of several other activities that relate to the type of activities the game intends to produce narrative about.

This is a bit amusing. Nothing you did wrong or me. But I wasn’t talking about dungeon world the game but Dungeon creation and world creation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don’t think that’s the takeaway.

Well, AFAIK this post is in response to my post which ultimately starts with something I said, so I think the takeaway in this case is mine to name!

One might say that realism (or at least genre realism) and playability are often in opposition.

I think that's probably true beyond a certain point.

If you were to invent a hyper-realistic game that was as playable as the most playable and currently less realistic ones, then I think you’d find people generally flock to that.

I don't agree. I don't think it would garner any more interest than other RPGs, except on the basis of its other attributes. I mean, it would likely more appeal to people who like such games, but I think they'd as likely pick any game that was otherwise pleasing to them and passed a certain threshold of authenticity.

Such a game doesn’t currently exist and I doubt it ever can. So what we can glean is that on a practical level people prefer some combination of realism and playability over maximizing either. But that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t prefer more realism if it could be added with no impact on playability.

I am not convinced we CAN glean that, actually. As I said, if there was a preference for more realism, then wouldn't games, however gradually become more and more perfect in that dimension? There would be a focus on honing their realism/authenticity and new clever tricks would gradually emerge which pushed that boundary of 'playable yet authentic'.

And yet, what is the general trend, seemingly, in RPGs in actuality. It seems to me it is towards somewhat more abstract systems that focus more on 'story concerns', either in terms of Story Now Narrativist play being optimized for, or maybe neo-trad, etc. The ENTIRE thrust of RPG design in the last 30 years seems almost entirely in that direction -granted with an ever growing list of tweaked versions of throw dice to see what happens going basically in random directions at the same time.

Another major branch of RPG evolution has occupied itself almost entirely with SHEDDING any pretense of realism/authenticity/simulation whatsoever, stripping the rules down to a bare minimum framework of combat and exploration (OSR). Though again, I wouldn't claim all OSR games did much of the stripping down. Some of the proponents of minimalism have gone even further into micro games, or 'no rules at all' FKR, like Cthulhu Dark, which is barely a game at all (arguably isn't one until you figure out how you want to play it).

No, I see no sign that there is any impetus or overall preference for realism at all. Just some people who have a higher minimum threshold for what amount of it must exist, but nothing more than that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, AFAIK this post is in response to my post which ultimately starts with something I said, so I think the takeaway in this case is mine to name!

I think that's probably true beyond a certain point.

I don't agree. I don't think it would garner any more interest than other RPGs, except on the basis of its other attributes. I mean, it would likely more appeal to people who like such games, but I think they'd as likely pick any game that was otherwise pleasing to them and passed a certain threshold of authenticity.

I am not convinced we CAN glean that, actually. As I said, if there was a preference for more realism, then wouldn't games, however gradually become more and more perfect in that dimension? There would be a focus on honing their realism/authenticity and new clever tricks would gradually emerge which pushed that boundary of 'playable yet authentic'.

And yet, what is the general trend, seemingly, in RPGs in actuality. It seems to me it is towards somewhat more abstract systems that focus more on 'story concerns', either in terms of Story Now Narrativist play being optimized for, or maybe neo-trad, etc. The ENTIRE thrust of RPG design in the last 30 years seems almost entirely in that direction -granted with an ever growing list of tweaked versions of throw dice to see what happens going basically in random directions at the same time.

Another major branch of RPG evolution has occupied itself almost entirely with SHEDDING any pretense of realism/authenticity/simulation whatsoever, stripping the rules down to a bare minimum framework of combat and exploration (OSR). Though again, I wouldn't claim all OSR games did much of the stripping down. Some of the proponents of minimalism have gone even further into micro games, or 'no rules at all' FKR, like Cthulhu Dark, which is barely a game at all (arguably isn't one until you figure out how you want to play it).

No, I see no sign that there is any impetus or overall preference for realism at all. Just some people who have a higher minimum threshold for what amount of it must exist, but nothing more than that.

The WHOLE point was that you won’t see that because trade offs exist for adding in more realism and people aren’t willing to trade too much of those other things for more realism. That doesn’t mean they don’t want more realism. It means they don’t want those trade offs.

 

[pemerton]

The WHOLE point was that you won’t see that because trade offs exist for adding in more realism and people aren’t willing to trade too much of those other things for more realism. That doesn’t mean they don’t want more realism. It means they don’t want those trade offs.

But why is RM, for example, not growing, if there is a demand for realism?

 

[FrogReaver]

But why is RM, for example, not growing, if there is a demand for realism?

The tradeoffs I’ve mentioned in the last 3 posts now.

 

[Emberashh]

In response to the bolded part, of course we can.

No, we cannot. Unless, of course, we can be honest that we're just embracing the death of the author and own that we're disregarding any notion that they had a reason for designing in the way they did.

As far as the rest, there is no why RPGs were designed the way the were that's true for all RPGs any more than there is a single why a novel was written that was true for all novels

...why are you repeating my point back to me?

But they're kind of making an argument for what they think RPGs could/should be.

Thats not what I'm reading. This is what I mean about why reinterpreting just isn't appropriate.

The statement "the purpose of an rpg's rules is to create the unwelcome and the unwanted in the game's fiction." is not communicating the same thing as "RPG rules should be X". And this a direct quote, not something we're trying to infer from a game.

If its come to a point where we have to make up explanations for why this isn't the kind of statement it is, then I cannot consider anything being said to that end to be in good faith.

Its okay to may be just say thats a bad quote rather than trying to rationalize it.

was Baker’s saying why he thinks RPGs have rules

See above.

And yes, its one line. But its the one I take issue with, because its a loaded premise and one that goes on to contribute to why rpg theory becomes this esoteric, wishy washy thing that doesn't actually do anything helpful other than keep internet arguments going.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. I don’t think rpg designers way back when had any clue what welcoming the unwelcome was, but you can still see elements of it in their games. One reason i suppose is that games at their fundamental level (at least most games) are all about welcoming the unwelcome to some degree. To win one must risk losing after all.

This is still disregarding why the actual humans made their decisions. If one wants to own death of the author then so be it, but one has to acknowledge thats what one is doing.

And to make another analogy, imagine if I go back and start insisting something you wrote actually means this, and I disregarded any attempt for you to correct me on what you meant.

Gygax and co don't have the ability to come tell us all directly why X decision was made, but that doesn't make it okay to act they just cobbled the game together like monkeys with typewriters. They didn't, no more than you did if I started reinterpreting something you said.

And just to cut to the point, remember that theres a whole idea in the theory about why those decisions were made. Its literally in the topic title.

GNS is bunk, but the idea of a game being built around simulating a world to some degree isn't, and that is why those mechanics exist. Random encounters don't exist because of this idea about the unwelcome; they exist because of course theres random monsters running around the dungeon.

A phrase I liked from one of the posts I read was "Gygaxian Naturalism", which as I'm finding out right now, apparently is an actual thing coined to describe Gygax's methodology for worldbuilding, so go figure, there's the proof in the pudding.

But that is not writers' room.

At this point I think most everyone here has their own idea of what that phrase even means.

From my perspective, and the perspective that I observe when I leave this discussion and go look at any random example of the phrase coming up when somebody describes these games, is that the writers room as a phrase refers literally to when the game has to stop to sit and negotiate over how to proceed. Its about authoring characters lives rather than living them.

Its never been about coming up with plots. Never. I honestly have no idea where that is even coming from or why.

And just for the fun of it, I went and found some reddit posts that explicitly make it clear thats whats being referenced:

1 2 3 4

This ones on the BITD subreddit; not a single person there tried to say the game wasn't doing this. Most who spoke to it made it clear it was intentional.

And heres a tangentially related one I feel compelled to share because this poster is my spirit animal.

Haven't found a single one yet that talks like its about plotting, so I still don't know where its coming from.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Not going to wade in too much here but:

1. Sitting around with others to discuss how best for the plot to proceed in an imaginary world is not fun (for me).
2. Sitting around with others immersed in my character playing in an imaginary world and acting/reacting to whatever happens in it is fun (for me).

 

[FrogReaver]

This is still disregarding why the actual humans made their decisions. If one wants to own death of the author then so be it, but one has to acknowledge thats what one is doing.

No. That’s fully acknowledged. They can make their decision for X and still end up being Y. Not everything is mutually exclusive.

And to make another analogy, imagine if I go back and start insisting something you wrote actually means this, and I disregarded any attempt for you to correct me on what you meant.

No one is doing anything like that. No one said d&d was designed by conscious decision to do this. Doesn’t mean there isn’t alot of this present in the design though.

Hugs and co don't have the ability to come tell us all directly why X decision was made, but that doesn't make it okay to act they just cobbled the game together like monkeys with typewriters. They didn't, no more than you did if I started reinterpreting something you said.

I don’t think having some personal reason for deciding to design the game x way is mutually exclusive with the idea of cobbled together. Cobbling together doesn’t mean monkey on a typewriter.

And just to cut to the point, remember that theres a whole idea in the theory about why those decisions were made. It’s literally in the topic title.

Yep. Not being disputed nor denied.

GNS is bunk, but the idea of a game being built around simulating a world to some degree isn't, and that is why those mechanics exist. Random encounters don't exist because of this idea about the unwelcome; they exist because of course theres random monsters running around the dungeon.

I agree, mechanics in early D&D were created to simulate the world. But random encounters (and many other things) are still unwelcome, regardless of why they were originally created. Both things can be true.

 

[soviet]

It would absolutely be a problem, morally, if the purpose of the laws that govern our society was to introduce the unwelcome.

I don't think this is true. This is a rule of law question. The law should treat everyone equally. To pull an example entirely out of thin air, if someone appears to have committed certain crimes, they should face trial and sentencing like everyone else, even if (hypothetically) they were a past and/or future leader of that country.