(RPG Theory) Developing a Lexicon

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
But let's put things in perspective:
The problem with a copper ring weighing as much as a gold necklace is an overly abstract simulation.

Me spending a Hero Point to force the Bond Villain to Monologue and tell me his plan before the Death Ray cuts me in half "because that's what Bond Villains do" isn't even in the same country, let alone ballpark.

Sure, but this is what I'm getting at as far as the spectrum. The Hero Point example is definitively an OOC-based mechanic, but not necessarily what I'd describe as a narrative mechanic. I do perceive it as an attempt to model the reality of the world, that world being that of the Bond films. It grants players an ability to effect events in the world, but not necessarily to influence or create an overarching story, anymore than a wizard casting a Babble spell. But what really intrigues me is that I'm not certain that its the mechanic or the effect itself that makes it OOC, its literally the presentation. For example, imagine that instead of "Hero Points", a Bond rpg character has a pool of points called "Taunt" or "Goad". The player can then use these points in conjunction with making a smart alec remark or witty retort to a spur a response. To take an even more blatant example, take FASERIP's Karma Points vs Icon's "Determination". Both are genre mechanics, but one could easily say one is largely OOC while the other is easily justified as IC.
 
On a related thought, though, in reference to the Bond villain monologueing, I also don't see why a mechanic is needed at all, as this can just be handled by the GM. So part of me wonders in that case who the mechanic is for? the player, or to compensate for a GM who doesn't undertstand the type of game they are running? I've always took somewhat of a dim view of systems that try to provide "training wheels" for GMs ( cough *dungeonworld* cough)
 
On a related thought, though, in reference to the Bond villain monologueing, I also don't see why a mechanic is needed at all, as this can just be handled by the GM. So part of me wonders in that case who the mechanic is for? the player, or to compensate for a GM who doesn't undertstand the type of game they are running? I've always took somewhat of a dim view of systems that try to provide "training wheels" for GMs ( cough *dungeonworld* cough)
Then again, a lot of GMs need training wheels. I'm perfectly happy running the game system equivalent of a unicycle now, but it took me awhile to get here.
 
Then again, a lot of GMs need training wheels. I'm perfectly happy running the game system equivalent of a unicycle now, but it took me awhile to get here.


Point taken, and to be fair, there never was a good "training system" in place. From the beginning it was the assumption the games were aimed at an audience that already had experience GMing wargames. By the time it entered the popular market, there was some meager advice given but it was sort of a sink or swim undertaking, relying on a mix of intuition, common sense, and improvisational skill.
 
On a related thought, though, in reference to the Bond villain monologueing, I also don't see why a mechanic is needed at all, as this can just be handled by the GM. So part of me wonders in that case who the mechanic is for? the player, or to compensate for a GM who doesn't undertstand the type of game they are running? I've always took somewhat of a dim view of systems that try to provide "training wheels" for GMs ( cough *dungeonworld* cough)
It's not a coincidence that you don't see Hero Points as Narrative and you don't understand the need for the "World-Editing" usage.

The purpose of "World Editing" mechanics IS Narrative Authority. It allows the player to, in essence, collaboratively GM.

Now, I'll agree, in the specific case of James Bond, the whole thing is centered around Genre Emulation. However, in the end, that usage does exist.

Personally, I'm not sure looking at every extreme edge case of every single possible use of a mechanic, as well as "Oh well what *could* it have been" is going to change anything.

James Bond 007 is a RPG that includes OOC mechanics for the purpose of emulating the genre of the James Bond Books/Movies. Genre RPG seems like a perfect subtype classification.
 
I just realized I crossed my streams and this is the Lexicon thread, not the Roleplaying thread, so defining every possible use of a mechanic is kinda sorta the point.
[Roseanne Roseannadanna] Nevermind [Roseanne Roseannadanna] :oops:
 
On a related thought, though, in reference to the Bond villain monologueing, I also don't see why a mechanic is needed at all, as this can just be handled by the GM. So part of me wonders in that case who the mechanic is for? the player, or to compensate for a GM who doesn't undertstand the type of game they are running? I've always took somewhat of a dim view of systems that try to provide "training wheels" for GMs ( cough *dungeonworld* cough)

One of the most natural feeling approaches I've seen to the whole bond villain monologue (though it came at it more from the 'heroic speech' side was how Cubicle 7 Doctor Who had talking go first in initiative (haven't run it in a while, so I might be messing it up---but pretty sure this is how it worked). It let that kind of stuff be easy to have happen naturally in play, but didn't have it like a switch players could turn on and off.
 
One of the most natural feeling approaches I've seen to the whole bond villain monologue (though it came at it more from the 'heroic speech' side was how Cubicle 7 Doctor Who had talking go first in initiative (haven't run it in a while, so I might be messing it up---but pretty sure this is how it worked). It let that kind of stuff be easy to have happen naturally in play, but didn't have it like a switch players could turn on and off.
I used to have a player who, whenever an NPC began to speak, would yell "HE'S MONOLOGGING!" And then attack with everything he had. Fortunately, I haven't seen him for years, but it made me very aware of NPCs, speaking for too long and what the function of a given NPC was.
 
Hey Tristam, have you read the book Play Unsafe? It's about using the tools of Improvisation in Roleplaying. Might help with some of the terms you're working on.


I havent heard of it, but will definitely check it out. I've been re-reading Impro, a book I found based on recommendation from Paul Mason years back that really upped my game with portraying NPCs.
 
One of the most natural feeling approaches I've seen to the whole bond villain monologue (though it came at it more from the 'heroic speech' side was how Cubicle 7 Doctor Who had talking go first in initiative (haven't run it in a while, so I might be messing it up---but pretty sure this is how it worked). It let that kind of stuff be easy to have happen naturally in play, but didn't have it like a switch players could turn on and off.


Yeah, Dr Who had Talkers first, then runners, then doers, and fighters last. Its a very good way of modelling the show. Its a "genre conceit" without being a genre mechanic.
 
I cast a Raise Dead spell on this thread!

Here is an interesting academic piece from Miguel Sicart at Game Studies that attempts to define game mechanics and distinguish between rules and mechanics.

It is written for video game design not ttrpgs but may be fruitful at least to identify where it does and doesn't apply to ttrpgs.

There is for obvious reasons a lot more game theory written about video games, although ttrpgs are usually discussed in passing as a precursor to crpgs.

I wonder how much theory, design principles and terminology can be ported from video games to ttrpgs?

Another area to look more into is the extensive theory and design writing on Larps, particularly so-called Nordic Larps. Some of their writing is explictly about ttrpgs, their relation and differences from larps. Also their extensive analysis of role-playing has obvious application to ttrpgs I think.
 
Last edited:
I breached this subject with the definition of an RPG thread, but as all this is churning in my head the last week trying to worm its way out, I figured I'd officially broach the idea of creating a working (and workable) terminology for discussing the finer points of RPGs, devoid of prior misconceptions and prejudices attached to failed RPG theory systems.
Well, as long as that's not an intro to a new way of roleplaying that would totally change the way we play... for that way lays the Forge:grin:!
 
Well, as long as that's not an intro to a new way of roleplaying that would totally change the way we play... for that way lays the Forge:grin:!

Fuck no.

My thoughts since this thread have mostly been along the lines of reclaiming GNS terminology from the Forge, and defining it how everyone actually practically uses it.
 
Fuck no.

My thoughts since this thread have mostly been along the lines of reclaiming GNS terminology from the Forge, and defining it how everyone actually practically uses it.
I know, and that's a noble endeavour:smile:.
Just couldn't resist the temptation:wink:!
 
Dipping my toes in the many, may rpg and larp essays published as part of the Knutepunkt conference.

This one by Evan Torner moves past the tired online debates about 'story' in rpgs to ask how narrative (loosely defined) emerges from play.

I think many of his ideas here about emergence, iteration and reincorpration could apply to ttrpgs as well and help explain how GMs and players shape play.

Particularly useful is how he distinguishes between different kinds of emergence in play:

"Cultivated emergence is emergent play delivering what is promised and expected within the game’s design...

Uncultivated emergence
is unexpected by all parties involved, frequently including the players themselves. It prioritizes the impact of free play over the design itself, while still holding to the agreed-upon themes of the game...

Divergent emergence divorces itself from much of the intended content of the larp, often as the result of overt player action...

Unleashed emergence is the classic depiction of play getting “out of hand,” from the Hollywood-spun delusions of Mazes and Monsters (1982) to the in-game bullying that escalates to actual bullying."

Thinking of these terms with ttrpg examples instead of his larp examples of Killer, Vampire, etc.

Cultivated emergence: investigators going insane or dying horribly near the end of a session in CoC, a dungeoncrawl in early D&D, a political game of Amber. The rules and expectations of the game shape and drive the play.

Uncultivated emergence: playing a character driven politics game in early D&D. Certainly do-able and nothing in the rules prevent it but nothing in the rules or expectations of the game support it. Those unexpected character moments, outbursts of black humour or disaster in play, improvisation of all kinds.

Divergent emergence: perhaps fangs and katanas in VtM (or perhaps not as the rules could be considered to support this playstyle moreso than the fighting of the Beast or politics?); player misbehaviour in-game, usually a refusal to work with other PCs 'because it is what my character would do.' The kind of play parodied in the Community episodes 'Advanced Dungeons & Dragons' and 'Advanced Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.'

Unleashed emergence: perhaps a much greater danger in larp than ttrpgs although the cases of players who act out fantasies of torture and rape at the table, shouting matches and fisticuffs probably qualify.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of Killer, I administered the largest Circle of Death at my highschool at what I remember being 57 players back in 1992. That circle collapsed in only 3 days. I was surrounded by so many sublimely efficient assassins... Cant get away with that kinda stuff in todays schools. As a simulationist sandboxer I'm a huge fan of emergent narrative. Much more enjoyable when it happens organically than when you cant stop feelin the rails. Not the party doing something because something needs to be done, but doing something because you're so there that you're just inspired to do somethin.

As I've said recently in another thread and to quote Kevin Flynn... Chaos... Good news!
 
Speaking of Killer, I administered the largest Circle of Death at my highschool at what I remember being 57 players back in 1992. That circle collapsed in only 3 days. I was surrounded by so many sublimely efficient assassins... Cant get away with that kinda stuff in todays schools. As a simulationist sandboxer I'm a huge fan of emergent narrative. Much more enjoyable when it happens organically than when you cant stop feelin the rails. Not the party doing something because something needs to be done, but doing something because you're so there that you're just inspired to do somethin.

As I've said recently in another thread and to quote Kevin Flynn... Chaos... Good news!

Speaking of Chaos, this essay may be of interest: :dice:

Montola, Markus (2004). “Chaotic Role-Playing. Applying the Chaos Model of Organisations for Role-Playing.” Beyond Role and Play, edited by Markus Montola and Jaakko Stenros. Helsinki: Solmukohta: 157-173.
 
Some excellent stuff in the above linked essay by Montola.

"One of the common pitfalls of game mastering is the assumption that games could or should be controlled. Writing stories is a tempting but usually unsuccessful way of creating games. One key to successful game mastering is understanding the chaotic nature of role-playing and understanding how a game can be guided despite its chaotic nature..."

CHAOS: THE BASICS

"A chaotic system is an unpredictable but non-random system. The unpredictability is based on three properties, which are used to define the chaotic systems. These are nonlinearity, recursivity and dynamism (Aula 1996, 197, also Aula 1999)...

Nonlinearity means that the changes in the beginning are not linearly transferred to the end result...In the context of tabletop role-playing, the dice (for an example) are used to generate feeling of randomness by nondiegetic nonlinearity; As the way the dice are thrown has no predictable effect on the end result, the dice are used to bring more chaos to the game...

Recursivity means that the end result of the first situation is used as the beginning of the next one...In the context of roleplaying, it means that the diegeses constructed by role-playing are used as the basis for further role-playing (see Montola 2003)...

Dynamism means that the way the system changes is subject to change as the system changes. In role-playing, the way the characters act changes when the characters change themselves...

The result of nonlinearity, recursivity and dynamism is that over time the system becomes increasingly difficult to predict as the (non-random) changes accumulate..."

ATTRACTORS

"Even though they are unpredictable, the chaotic systems tend to follow attractors. Attractor is a dynamic pattern of behaviour the chaotic system tries to follow. If the state of the system changes too far from the attractor, the system acquires a new attractor...

In role-playing context, the idea of an attractor is very important. Instead of writing stories or scripts, the game masters have to understand that they can write attractors at best.

When a mysterious wizard gives the character a mission, an attractor is created leading to the dragon’s cave and back again... As the game progresses, players themselves decide whether to follow their attractors or pick new ones as they go...

The mathematicians call the important crossroads of attractors bifurcation points. They are the critical points where the system decides whether to follow one attractor or another. The character might decline the mysterious stranger’s offer, or the dice might make the character unable to sneak into the dragon’s cave..."

INTEGRATIVE AND DISSIPATIVE

"Easier than controlling how a role-play proceeds is controlling how strong the attractors are – controlling how chaotic or orderly the game will be.

In a completely orderly game, the attractors would be solid and unchangeable; There wouldn’t be uncertainty, collaboration or interaction – the players couldn’t affect the plots constructed by the game master at all.

In an absolutely chaotic game, there wouldn’t be anything tying the game together; There wouldn’t be characters nor any kinds of attractors. Hence, all the role-plays must be somewhere between the two extremes...

Integrative role-playing takes the game towards order. In integrative playing the players try to go along the attractors, making good stories and allowing themselves to be guided by the game master or the larpwrights.

An integratively playing GM or larpwright seeks to provide the players with attractors and story seeds and ensuring that by following them, the players get to have a good game.

Dissipative role-playing takes the game towards chaos. Dissipatively playing players try to forge their fortunes themselves, creating their own attractors and enjoying their freedom within the world of the game.

A dissipative GM or larpwright facilitates this progress by providing the players and characters with interesting options and ensuring that there’s a meaningful play whatever the players choose to do...

When both the game master and the players play integratively, the game becomes very orderly – the players try to keep on the trails the game master pushes them to.

As a consequence, the dramatic story progresses fairly quickly. The result may be what the Threefold Model calls ‘dramatist’ playing: a game focusing on story instead of immersion, simulation or winning.

If both the game master and the players play dissipatively, the result is a chaotic game focusing on the characters’ relationships and personalities instead of plots. The simulationist playing of the Threefold Model can usually be seen as rather chaotic...

In addition to these basic cases, there are two special cases (usually found only in tabletop) worth some extra attention; a direction-seeking game and a rebelling game...

A direction-seeking game emerges when players play integratively and game master plays dissipatively. The GM provides no direction to players, who would play a well-prepared story instead of everyday life in a chaotic world...

A rebelling game is the opposite of the direction-seeking game. In a rebelling game, the players refuse to play the readymade plots of the GM, dissipating the play instead.

Usually both direction-seeking and rebelling can be considered as problems caused by participants’ different expectations on the game...

On the scale from dissipative to integrative, taboo breaking techniques (overruling player actions, fate-play, rewriting diegetic history) can be considered over-integrative. They integrate the game, but as they remove interaction, dynamism or recursivity, they also change the core of role-playing essentially."

I've added some italics and line breaks for online readability.
 
Last edited:
Not that I don't think you have noble intentions, but honestly, I doubt that this will ever stop people from having an aneurysm over someone using the term story to describe what is going on in their game world and then having an 8 page argument over what story means.

Hell, it will probably just make it worse because people will use the common definition of the word and then someone will have an endless argument based on some jargon definition that isn't even universal to the entire hobby.
 
Not that I don't think you have noble intentions, but honestly, I doubt that this will ever stop people from having an aneurysm over someone using the term story to describe what is going on in their game world and then having an 8 page argument over what story means.

Hell, it will probably just make it worse because people will use the common definition of the word and then someone will have an endless argument based on some jargon definition that isn't even universal to the entire hobby.

I don't detect the same concern and hostility among younger players and especially game designers over these distinctions, which are really just grudges left over from the internet Forge Wars.

I suspect it will all be forgotten in less than a generation. Look at how older D&D players call themselves 'grognards' now when most of the original 'grognard' wargamers hated D&D.
 
Last edited:
The concept of Order vs. Chaos is interesting.

A character-driven sandbox game with a system that simply tries to model physics is certainly highly chaotic...it can basically go anywhere within the in-setting reality.

Attempting to place an overarching metagame structure, whether to achieve genre-emulation, narrative cohesiveness or control, or to provide strategic and tactical game choices will certainly tend to make a game more orderly in one sense...at the the expense of disallowing other types of play.

Nothing really we don't already know, but phrased in a way that might not trigger people the way other terms do.
 
Integrative role-playing takes the game towards order. In integrative playing the players try to go along the attractors, making good stories and allowing themselves to be guided by the game master or the larpwrights.

(...)

Dissipative role-playing takes the game towards chaos. Dissipatively playing players try to forge their fortunes themselves, creating their own attractors and enjoying their freedom within the world of the game.

This kind of thing drives me nuts. The belief that only way a good story can be made in an RPG is if it originates from the GM and is imparted down unto complacent players is utter garbage. And I'm not talking about the ethos which rejects the idea of RPGs being inherently focused on the creation of story (which I agree with, obviously); I mean that the belief that collaborative storytelling can only be successful if you have one dominant storyteller and all the other storytellers become passive and "receptive" is a really broken philosophy that betrays a basic failure to comprehend the dynamics of collaborative storytelling.

It's also not unusual for these arguments to fundamentally contradict themselves, as you can see here with the claim that characters pursuing their objectives is the polar opposite of (and inimical to) "making a good story". In every other medium in the world, such a claim would be laughably absurd. But here we're supposed to nod along and say, "Oh, yes, yes. The only way for a good story to happen at the gaming table is if the main characters in the story have no personal motivations and are driven along only by by the mechanical apparatus of the plot."
 
This kind of thing drives me nuts. The belief that only way a good story can be made in an RPG is if it originates from the GM and is imparted down unto complacent players is utter garbage. And I'm not talking about the ethos which rejects the idea of RPGs being inherently focused on the creation of story (which I agree with, obviously); I mean that the belief that collaborative storytelling can only be successful if you have one dominant storyteller and all the other storytellers become passive and "receptive" is a really broken philosophy that betrays a basic failure to comprehend the dynamics of collaborative storytelling.

It's also not unusual for these arguments to fundamentally contradict themselves, as you can see here with the claim that characters pursuing their objectives is the polar opposite of (and inimical to) "making a good story". In every other medium in the world, such a claim would be laughably absurd. But here we're supposed to nod along and say, "Oh, yes, yes. The only way for a good story to happen at the gaming table is if the main characters in the story have no personal motivations and are driven along only by by the mechanical apparatus of the plot."

Hm, interesting, I didn't read it that way, I don't see any assumption that character and plot are opposed.

Perhaps it isn't clear because I'm excerpting the essay but he locates actual role-playing as a range of play along a spectrum of integrative and dissipative play, he doesn't present one as superior to the other at all or assume any game can or should be purely one or the other:

"Hence, all the role-plays must be somewhere between the two extremes..."

And in the very thesis statement:

"One of the common pitfalls of game mastering is the assumption that games could or should be controlled. Writing stories is a tempting but usually unsuccessful way of creating games."

He isn't advocating for a strongly integrative approach at all but instead creating Attractors, which are actually quite similar to your idea of Nodes, that the PCs react and make decisons to.

He is describing two different kinds of play, not in a prescriptive way, which is the tiresome method which always kills discussion but in a descriptive way.

He is saying that to be too integrative or dissipative can cause issues but the closing statement here is more a warning about being overly integrative not dissipative:

"They integrate the game, but as they remove interaction, dynamism or recursivity, they also change the core of role-playing essentially."

Of course there is a level of simplification in the integrative/dissipative idea but I'm not seeing where he advocates for plot over character for there to be a 'good story.' In fact, he seems to be questioning the very notion of trying to make play, which is inherently chaotic, a 'good story' by conventional standards.

Here are the examples he gives, I don't think he is claiming one is superior to the other here either. Some of the examples are extremes for emphasis, other show his notions of integrative/dissipative do not always fall on a trad/modern axis :

"Examples of integrative methods for game masters and larpwrights

• Choose the focus of the game properly. When all characters are SWAT-officers, the GM can concentrate on running SWAT operations instead of pondering whether some random people have the guts to attack the terrorists hijacking their plane.

• Define and communicate the play’s genre and style well. Everyone should know whether the western is Fistful of Dollars or Shanghai Noon.

• Fill the characters’ backgrounds with ‘triggers’. If orcs killed the character’s mother, you can predict the effects of bringing orcs to the stage.

• Manage time and cut the game. Instead of finding out whether the strange wizard’s offer is enough for the poor halfling, start the game right from the scene where the poor sod’s already heading far away with a dozen dwarves.

Examples of integrative methods for players

• Do what you think is best for the story or what you guess your GM expects you to do. Give up your freedom for the epic story.

• Eat all the plot hooks you encounter.

• Include other characters to your plans; avoid secrets and encourage collectivism.

Examples of dissipative methods for game masters and larpwrights

• Create a lot of personal plots for the characters and encourage conflict between them. When every character tugs the web of intrigue to his own direction, chaos ensues.

• Give players ‘irrelevant’ information about the game world. The more they know, the more options they have.

• Use supporting cast played by players (tabletop). Instead of the GM playing every NPC, handing an ex-girlfriend to some player produces unpredictable but working results.

• Use plot points (as in Theatrix), fate chips (as in Deadlands) et cetera (tabletop). Players using out-of-character options to affect the attractors usually increase chaos – unless they choose to use them to follow the pre-set plots. Nothing gives a stronger twist to an attractor than cavalry summoned by player’s plot option at the last minute.

• Portray the world as a realistic, rational whole. Characters are people in the world just like all the NPCs. There is no plot, just six billion entities to interact with.

• Give players a right to control the diegetic world with true statements (tabletop). Instead of player asking GM whether there’s a café on the street, the player has the right just to declare that his character goes to the comfy French café on the other side of the road.

Examples of dissipative methods for players

• Be a Turkuist immersionist; forget the drama and larpwrights’ intentions.

• Write a heap of interesting background for your character if the game master allows. Making your character secretly a closeted homosexual turns social relationships around.

• Talk about ‘nonessential’ things; religion, movies, politics – anything goes."
 
Last edited:
The concept of Order vs. Chaos is interesting.

A character-driven sandbox game with a system that simply tries to model physics is certainly highly chaotic...it can basically go anywhere within the in-setting reality.

Attempting to place an overarching metagame structure, whether to achieve genre-emulation, narrative cohesiveness or control, or to provide strategic and tactical game choices will certainly tend to make a game more orderly in one sense...at the the expense of disallowing other types of play.

Nothing really we don't already know, but phrased in a way that might not trigger people the way other terms do.

Yeah most of it will be familiar to anyone experienced to RPGs but isn't that what theory/lexicon should be: a terminology that clarifies play and mechanics?
 
Yeah most of it will be familiar to anyone experienced to RPGs but isn't that what theory/lexicon should be: a terminology that clarifies play and mechanics?

Exactly so.

The only point is to facilitate communication. Unfortunately for the last decade or so RPG Theory has been used primarily for the opposite.
 
I'm in the process of writing the GM sections of Phaserip. I complete about a dozen pages a day, most of which will probably not survive editing, but I find the hardest part is the introduction of RPG concepts where I have to explain what I mean because there is no standardized language for so many aspects of our hobby. And I struggle with how "Ivory Tower" I can get away with. Do I assume every reader will know the difference between a One-shot and a Campaign, and that the concepts are blurry because a One-shot can become a Campaign, or a Campaign can be composed on One-Shots, and both are an adventure, but an adventure is usually not the same kind of campaign as a Sandbox?
 
Last edited:
I'm in the process of writing the GM sections of Phaserip. I complete about a dozen pages a day, most of which will probably not survive editing, but I find the hardest part is the introduction of RPG concepts where I have to explain what I mean because there is no standardized language for so many aspects of our hobby. And I struggle with how "Ivory Tower" I can get away with. Do I assume every reader will know the difference between a One-shot and a Campaign, and that the concepts are blurry because a One-shit can become a Campaign, or a Campaign can be composed on One-Shots, and both are an adventure, but an adventure is usually not the same kind of campaign as a Sandbox?
I'd say that is a question of personal ambition. If you think you can get your game in the hands of non-gamers, it isn't a bad idea to go over some basics. If not, it's the section that people will skim or even skip it.

I'm editing Strange Tales of Songling at the moment. With the GM advice chapter, I had some of the most game-specific information moved to the beginning of the chapter as a way to signal to experienced gamers that there is actually new information here. Don't jump past it to the monster chapter.

Your distinction between an adventure and a sandbox is interesting. I don't use those terms in quite that way, but I understand what you saying. To further muddle the definitions for you, I find that you can have a campaign that is a sandbox, but it contains small linear adventures within it that the players can choose to engage with. Linear adventures can also have sections within them that are sandboxes where the players can wander around freely before hopping back on the path.
 
Hence the desire for new terms with solid definitions to avoid connotations and misapprehensions.
A fool's errand. Focus instead on describing what it is you are doing.

For example
I run campaigns that are consisted of multiple interlinking sessions focusing players interacting with a setting as their character. My role is to adjudicate what they do as their character. I use the rules of a game like Traveller, GURPS, modified OD&D, Harnmaster, etc to handle much of what the players attempt to do as their character. The rules I choose reflect the reality of the setting I am using for the campaign. The rules never cover everything that that the players want to do as their characters. In that case I will use what I described about the setting and the general design principle of the rules we are using as the basis for adjudicating. For example in OD&D ruling that require rolls will generally be made with a d20. With Traveller it will be 2d6.

I also bring the setting to life that the player interact with as their character. I do this with a combination of techniques.

I have a list of NPCs and their movitation.
I have a list of events that will occur as if the character never existed.
I modify the list of event during and after session in light of what the player do or don't do as their characters.
My creativity comes into play in coming with interesting consequences for the above.
The players are free to do anything their character can do within the setting.
I will talk to the players about their goals and plan to determine what to focus on in between sessions.

Out of game
I expect the players exhibit good sportsmanship i.e. good manners while playing a game.
I will discuss rulings to a point.
Prior to running a campaign I will throw out various ideas that I am prepared to run along with back and forth discussion on what the players want to play.

In general if I have the personal interest I can bring a setting to life as a virtual reality for the players to explore and interact with as their character doing whatever is fun for them. I used to gravitate to rules where the mechanics have a one to one correspondence to what players do as their characters like GURPS. In the past decade, I loosen up considerably and now comfortable with more abstract mechanics.

The consequence of my style of referee is that reward players that proactive. Players that are shy or not assertive tend to fade into the background. Although I managed to mitigate some of this by using a round robin technique to give each players to describe things. For example in D&D when the party arrives in town. I will give each player (or smaller group depending) about five to ten minute then move on the next players. It takes experience to look for a suitable stop point so make the switch seamless. For example leaving a shop to go to the next one is a good point to switch to another player.

My style does not cater to players that like to act cinematiicly with a lot of drama and flair. Since my focus is on bring a setting to life for the player to inhabit as their character. This means the setting has a life of it's own. It has it own rules and rhythm that doesn't function as a chorus background to heroics of the players. Note thinking this means gritty and realistic is a false assumption. It means that to get ahead, understand what going on around your character, and make your decision wisely with that knowledge.

Although my style of rulings haven't changed, you describe what you want to do as your character. I will tell you if it succeed, failed, or what rolls are needed. Except with OD&D and other minimalist RPGs I use the underlying design principles to craft a ruling rather than looking it up in one of the GURPS rulebook. I still prefer RPGs that are more grounded in reality.

So jargon and definition of terms are not required. Just a clear description of what you do and do not do.
 
I am all about running Sandbox Campaign. But... anything can be made the work if the setting and premise are compelling. All theory are useless, including my own, when used as a prediction.

They are only useful if they

A) Describe the circumstance under which the attempt to use it was made.
B) Describe was done and why.
C) Describe the result.

In the form, theory wank is useful. Because you can look at A to see if it relevant to your circumstances and to your group. If so then it is worth reading what was tried in B, and the results in C.

"One of the common pitfalls of game mastering is the assumption that games could or should be controlled. Writing stories is a tempting but usually unsuccessful way of creating games. One key to successful game mastering is understanding the chaotic nature of role-playing and understanding how a game can be guided despite its chaotic nature..."

This describing a campaign where unfolding events are strictly controlled by the referee, and the players choice are constrained to specific options. For many of my friends, I know this to be unappealing. Why? Because they prize the freedom to choose what they do as their character. It forms a major part of the fun playing tabletop roleplaying games.

A smaller group doesn't give a shit. They are there because they enjoy the company and some of the nuts and bolts of doing things as their character. For example combat. But mostly it is to be there as their friends. The people that I know that are like this their typical reaction to a choice is "Whatever the group decides I am good with."

While rare I made campaign work where the events are predetermined and choices are constrained. And it worked because the premise and setting were compelling enough that the players were willing to go along for the ride. For example Slaver series, Desert of Desolation all worked. In contrast Dragonlance did not work. The players didn't like the premise enough to sacrifice the control over what their character can do.

The best thing a RPG can do is explain why it made the choices it did. Not in some separate designer notes but throughout the text. Gamebook authors need to quit presenting things as the word of god and say some like

Rob's Note:
hit points as presented are an abstraction of several factor including physical resistance to injury. Ultimately what it represents is combat endurace. A character with twice as many hit points can last twice as long in combat. What that get distilled down to is dependent on the circumstance of combat and injuries suffered. The most common question is how to translate this to descriptions of physical injury. These rules assume that the amount of physical injury is relative. Somebody who lost 3 out of 9 (1/3) hit points has suffered the same amount of physical injury as somebody who suffered 8 out of 24 hit points (also 1/3).

Then the person reading it fully informed. How much detail one need to go into depend on what feed back you got during playtesting the rules. The rulebook is a conversation between you and the person wanting to be a player or a referee. However keep in mind at some point having a pure reference is far more useful. So you will have to juggle the two to find the best mix.
 
Trying to use these terms for both roleplaying and narrative roleplaying is just going to be hopelessly confusing I think.
Isn't that the point of terminology? To settle on a consistent meaning?
I think a lexicon that develops naturally out of necessity makes some sense (and to an extent we have that). One that is constructed and extensive, which requires people learning a whole vocabulary of terms, in my view tends to become exclusionary, and I would generally not be in favor of that in the gaming community.
I partly agree and party disagree. Looking at TristramEvans TristramEvans proposed first set of terms, I wonder what conversation he's trying to have. The terms shape the conversation, while emergent terminology is shaped by the conversation.

At the same time, people will argue endlessly over terminology that doesn't have an "official" definition. Sometimes it's good to have a word defined somewhere so people can get past that. Often, people argue over word definitions because they are used subtly to imply acceptability.

My favorite example is how for many years (and even still among some holdouts) I would encounter people who would insist that rap is not music. It's actually a pointless distinction, because people buy it from music sites and listen to it on headphones and enjoy the sounds. What they're really trying to say is that this stuff sucks and doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as whatever genres they love so much.

So if we can avoid that, then I have no problem with someone coming along to provide a fixed definition that most people can agree on. It will be easier to agree on terms that don't implicitly favor one form of play over another
I like the idea of a 'lens neutral approach', I just don't know how many terms we actually need to describe things like breaking character
I agree with this. I'm also not sure if improv theater is the right place to start for terminology.
Yeah, maybe. The problem with that is simulate what? Narrative mechanics simulating the literary genre conventions of the Slasher Horror Genre would be simulating as well and not be the same thing at all.
Realism is a problematic term for some reason with people. Verisimilitude Engine might work.
See, now we're coming up with some decent terminology.

This leads me to wonder at TristramEvans TristramEvans: what kinds of conversations are you trying to improve? You've proposed a bunch of terms that specifically deal with the role-playing side of the coin, as opposed to mechanics. Are certain discussions getting bogged down in disagreements over terminology, or do you think there are some sides of gaming which we're having trouble putting into words?
 
Isn't that the point of terminology? To settle on a consistent meaning?

Unfortunately, it usually doesn't work that way - people end up assigning their own meanings to the terms, and discussion quickly derails as people use the same word to describe two or more different things.

As a simple example, look at "GNS", and it's components of Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism. There's common usage of these terms (which maps closer to GDS), and the actual, defined, authoritative definitions of them as posted on the Forge. This is a case where the terms generated from a single authoritative source, were well defined by that source, were not commonly used (GNS, and Narrativism, at least), and people still drift from the original definitions.
 
I'd say that is a question of personal ambition. If you think you can get your game in the hands of non-gamers, it isn't a bad idea to go over some basics. If not, it's the section that people will skim or even skip it.

Yeah, that's what I'm struggling with a bit. I don't assume my game will be anyone's first RPG, but I'm not sure how far down the rabbithole of the hobby I can safely make assumptions in order to get my points across. I definitely have as a goal for Phaserip providing advice for GMs that goes deeper than most RPGs bother with, but I don't want it to only be accessible to the hardcore forum crowd.

I'm editing Strange Tales of Songling at the moment. With the GM advice chapter, I had some of the most game-specific information moved to the beginning of the chapter as a way to signal to experienced gamers that there is actually new information here. Don't jump past it to the monster chapter.

That's certainly something to take into consideration.

Your distinction between an adventure and a sandbox is interesting. I don't use those terms in quite that way, but I understand what you saying. To further muddle the definitions for you, I find that you can have a campaign that is a sandbox, but it contains small linear adventures within it that the players can choose to engage with. Linear adventures can also have sections within them that are sandboxes where the players can wander around freely before hopping back on the path.

Yeah, it's all really muddled as far as that goes. And I was just using that as one example because I'd been writing a section on putting together a campaign vs running a one-shot, and I'd find myself jumping summersaults in the text trying to explain what I mean, and waxing on about the differences and exceptions, before throwing most of the pages out. But ultimately that's what I mean, the lack of a technical language for our hobby conflicts with my goal of "precise and succinct" writing. Sure I can ramble on for pages and pages, but I want the maximum useful information in an economy of pages.
 
Isn't that the point of terminology? To settle on a consistent meaning?

Unfortunately that seems to conflict with the unspoken point of most online posting - to argue as much as possible.

I partly agree and party disagree. Looking at TristramEvans TristramEvans proposed first set of terms, I wonder what conversation he's trying to have. The terms shape the conversation, while emergent terminology is shaped by the conversation.

Honestly this thread is a Necro from a long time ago, and I havent gone back and reread my original posts because I kinda considered it a failure on my part. I had a seed of an idea, but it didn't really sprout the fruit I wanted, and I think at one point I was just playing around with Improvisational theatre terms, but none of it went anywhere and I essentially "went back to the drawing boards" on my thoughts on the matter. The recently aforementioned chaos game theory stuff is far more useful/interesting than anything I'd proposed.

At the same time, people will argue endlessly over terminology that doesn't have an "official" definition. Sometimes it's good to have a word defined somewhere so people can get past that. Often, people argue over word definitions because they are used subtly to imply acceptability.

My favorite example is how for many years (and even still among some holdouts) I would encounter people who would insist that rap is not music. It's actually a pointless distinction, because people buy it from music sites and listen to it on headphones and enjoy the sounds. What they're really trying to say is that this stuff sucks and doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as whatever genres they love so much.

So if we can avoid that, then I have no problem with someone coming along to provide a fixed definition that most people can agree on. It will be easier to agree on terms that don't implicitly favor one form of play over another

I completely agree with all of that, and I think that's been the failure of previous widespread attempts at RP Theory/terminology, they were heavily biased to the gaming preferences of those authors. Which is why it has to be a collaborative effort I think, because there are aspects of the hobby, styles of gameplay, that even though I have no animosity towards, I also recognized I'm just not qualified to theorize about.

I'm also not sure if improv theater is the right place to start for terminology.

I personally found that Improv theatre techniques "upped my game" so to speak, as a roleplayer. Several of them have been very useful for me as a game-master playing NPCs, which I think was one of my weaknesses originally. I again think my initial old posts to this thread went to far with that, and was the wrong approach starting with the terms and then assigning them to RPGs, but I also think there's a utility there, especially with an established lexicon, that has some utility insofar as describing certain unnamed aspects of the roleplaying side of roleplaying games. But not in the way I was approaching it before

This leads me to wonder at TristramEvans TristramEvans: what kinds of conversations are you trying to improve?

I'm not interested in theory in regards to game design, to be honest. I think people are going to design the sorts of games they like, and I think the division in the hobby right now is very similar to that "rap" stuff you mentioned earlier. What interests me about RPG theory is only how it can be used to improve aspects of play, whether thats actually roleplaying a character or how rulings/mechanics are applied during a game to specific ends.

You've proposed a bunch of terms that specifically deal with the role-playing side of the coin, as opposed to mechanics.

Yeah, I do think this is the "undeveloped" part of the hobby, and at the same time the most intimidating for new players. How many times have you introduced a new player to RPGs and heard the phrase "I can't act", and responded with "you don't need to be an actor"?

I mean, maybe never but that's been REALLY common in my life. Like omnipresent.

I guess I think that there's room in our hobby for people who want to be better roleplayers , to provide advice for roleplaying, as opposed to technical mastery, which seems to be the majority of the focus for "improvement" that the hobby has focused on in general.

Are certain discussions getting bogged down in disagreements over terminology, or do you think there are some sides of gaming which we're having trouble putting into words?

Yeah, but even moreso, I see almost any conversation where a person tries to use any of the available terminology to express their point almost inevitably and immediately devolves into an argument over terms and implications of those terms, real or perceived.
 
Unfortunately that seems to conflict with the unspoken point of most online posting - to argue as much as possible.
I can be so naive...
Honestly this thread is a Necro from a long time ago, and I havent gone back and reread my original posts because I kinda considered it a failure on my part.
I have no problems with necroed threads, but it's somehow embarrassing when I didn't realize it (like now).
I think that's been the failure of previous widespread attempts at RP Theory/terminology, they were heavily biased to the gaming preferences of those authors.
Yes, that's very true. That's how definitions of role-playing tend to devolve.
I'm not interested in theory in regards to game design, to be honest...What interests me about RPG theory is only how it can be used to improve aspects of play
OK, that makes a lot of sense to me. At this point, game design seems...trivial to me. There's a lot less of an art to game design than there is for game mastering.
How many times have you introduced a new player to RPGs and heard the phrase "I can't act", and responded with "you don't need to be an actor"?
That reminds me of something sorta similar. I have this weird pet peeve against players telling me what their characters are talking about in the third-person. I want to hear the quotation marks from the players. Don't say:

"I ask the bartender whether he knows if anyone needs help."

I usually tell the player to go ahead and do that. I want to hear:

"I ask the bartender 'Do you know anyone who needs help?'"

We need a term for that! "Third-personing"? So I guess I can see where you're coming from; there may be a terminological gap, here.
 
You want a theory?
Here's a theory.

This is pretty good, I very much agree with the statement at the begining that you are attempting to be descriptive not prescriptive in defintion. An important step so we don't end up in the same endless debates.

Paul Mason in his essay "In Search of the Self: A Survey of the First 25 Years of Anglo-American Role-Playing Games" (2004). Beyond Role and Play, pg 1-14 notes a consistent problem in RPG community/fan theory:

"Much of this debate, like others before and since, was primarily political arguments seeking to establish the superiority of one form or approach over another."

That sums up one of the main reasons that RPG theory has so often been seen as running in place for decades. Because of it we don't see much advance beyond the same tired debates that Mason identified in the zines and APAs of the 70s and 80s.

I think the best contribution to RPG theory (outside the Alexandrian blog) from the online RPG community so far is the Threefold Theory, but I think there John H. Kim's summarization of the theory has been very important, so far in my reading of larp and RPG theory I see it being referenced constantly (JK is also a semi-regular contributor to the Knutepunkt books btw). It is unfortunate he seems to have removed his Darkshire link because it is often referenced.

Isn't that the point of terminology? To settle on a consistent meaning?
...
I agree with this. I'm also not sure if improv theater is the right place to start for terminology.

Outside of science agreed-upon terms can be tricky, I think it is best to do what most academics do: define your terms first then present your thesis/argument. Some may see that as a bit 'running in place' but it helps tremendously with clarity.

And I can't agree that we shouldn't be looking to improv theatre for terminology. Keithstone's Impro is already a classic source for RPGs for instance. I understand some may be uncomfortable drawing on such sources because they are 'arty' and supposedly pretentious or more substantially that RPGs are a different if related form, but I think we need to more past those concerns. Always carefully noting the real differences between forms but trying to learn more via what is similar. The is the whole point of comparative or multi-disciplinary studies.

RPGs are a radically hybrid form so as Zak notes they don't fit comfortably into standard game theory.

So far from my limited reading I'd say that despite the majority of the RPG community being more comfortable with video games than larp, larp theory is far more useful than most video game theory in relation to ttrpgs.

Vast amounts of video and boardgame theory has to be ignored when reading it because the way that rules and mechanics restrict play in those forms rarely applies to ttrpgs. In this I think that Brian Gleichman is completely wrong (see the comments section). But then he also in his 'A Gamers Manifesto' states: "I reject the concept of play without the equal of a map and miniatures together with solid rules covering the elements of range, line of sight, and terrain. Any other style of play is lazy and nothing more than dependence upon GM handouts." Talk about prescriptive rather than descriptive, lol. :dice:

We will need to be very catholic in drawing on a wide range of sources (video games, larps, theatre, sociology) to construct a viable RPG theory, including resisting the tendency towards an anti-intellectual rejection of all academic sources and approaches.

While there are certainly excesses in modern academia it is often whole-sale caricatured, there are still plenty of academics doing good work in clear if sometimes difficult and rigorous language.

For instance, one of the best contributions to RPG theory remains Gary Alan Fine's use of the sociological concepts and terms 'frames' and 'engrossment' in relation to RPGs in his classic academic book Shared Fantasy: Role-Playing as Shared Social Worlds.

In fact I think Fine's use of the term engrossment is more accurate and useful than the exhaused and politicalized term 'immersion.' Both terms seem to be taken from Goffman's Frame Analysis (1974) and engrossment seems to have been used there in reference to theatre performances.
 
Last edited:
I didnt know John Kim shut down his site. That's a huge piece of online RPG history, I hope its well backed up on the Wayback Machine
 
And BTW I love Paul Mason's writings from Imazine, and his wonderful RPG, and a pdf of Beyond Role and Play has been sitting on my harddrive for a while, but it's now the first pdf I pulled up on my new tablet for nighttime reading.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top