What roleplaying theories have helped you be a better GM/Player/Designer?

[PhoenixPhyre]

After some recent interactions, I realized that I'm guilty of letting my general distaste for social-science theorizing unfairly color my views on roleplaying theory.

To remedy that, I want to ask the Playgrounders for the theory that has made the biggest impact on their playing, game-leading (in whatever system), or design of roleplaying games.

I don't promise to agree, but I promise to approach the topic with an open mind.

So what theories/theorists are out there that you've learned from? Even if you ultimately disagree with their conclusions, reading what others write can often spark new ideas.

Sources or "read more" links would be greatly appreciated.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Failing forward. The result of a die roll should rarely be "nothing happens". This can mean success with a price, it can mean failure with a further complication. As an addendum, if they fail a roll, don't allow rerolls on that thing until the situation has dramatically changed.

Roll dice or say yes.

Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes. If nothing’s at stake, say yes to the players, whatever they’re doing. Just plain go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they’re there. If they want it, it’s theirs. Sooner or later— sooner, because your town’s pregnant with crisis— they’ll have their characters do something that someone else won’t like. Bang! Something’s at stake. Launch the conflict and roll the dice. Roll dice or say yes. Roll dice or say yes. Roll dice or say yes."
Don't be obstructionist about random stuff. If it's not important then just say yes. If they want to describe their character doing a cool thing that doesn't ultimately matter and has no real stakes, just say yes to it. Only roll dice when there's a conflict at hand.

[Vitruviansquid]

1. 60% of playing an RPG is simple social interaction, only 40% has anything to do with what the RPG actually is (mechanically, fluff, etc.). You want a good game? Play with interesting, cooperative people and be prepared to compromise on all the petty issues that see discussion on this board.

2. Make simple things, allowing them to accrue complexity organically, during play. A good example of this is characters. When you make your character concept, make it simple to start with, and then layer on personality, skills, and perspective as reactions to what occurs during the game. This will make your character feel more a part of the gameworld and make what occurs in the game seem more important and interesting.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Failing forward. The result of a die roll should rarely be "nothing happens". This can mean success with a price, it can mean failure with a further complication. As an addendum, if they fail a roll, don't allow rerolls on that thing until the situation has dramatically changed.

Roll dice or say yes.

Don't be obstructionist about random stuff. If it's not important then just say yes. If they want to describe their character doing a cool thing that doesn't ultimately matter and has no real stakes, just say yes to it. Only roll dice when there's a conflict at hand.

This I strongly agree with. Realizing that not everything needs a dice roll has made a difference. I don't really think of this as a theoretical result, but that may just be my personal blindness. Was there an original source for this? I've seen it in several game systems, but did that start somewhere in particular?


1. 60% of playing an RPG is simple social interaction, only 40% has anything to do with what the RPG actually is (mechanically, fluff, etc.). You want a good game? Play with interesting, cooperative people and be prepared to compromise on all the petty issues that see discussion on this board.

2. Make simple things, allowing them to accrue complexity organically, during play. A good example of this is characters. When you make your character concept, make it simple to start with, and then layer on personality, skills, and perspective as reactions to what occurs during the game. This will make your character feel more a part of the gameworld and make what occurs in the game seem more important and interesting.

I agree with both of these. As above, do these ideas come from some first-principles source or are they just "empirical rules" (those generated by playing a lot and looking backward to find what's worked?

I'm interested here not just in "how to be a good DM/Player/Designer", but what sources are there--who should I read for first-principles or other theoretical (as opposed to "here's what's worked for me") reasoning.

[S@tanicoaldo]

NEVER split the party, did that in my first five games and they didn't work out.

[Vitruviansquid]

I agree with both of these. As above, do these ideas come from some first-principles source or are they just "empirical rules" (those generated by playing a lot and looking backward to find what's worked?


These are rules I found by playing.

[Darth Ultron]

It's the Mind of the Audience Or players. Change everything in the adventure so that it is done for the players. Nothing is more important than how each scene is going to affect the players. Make sure the content engages them and reels them in. Use the characters to tease the viewer and pull them along desperately wanting more. Note, yes, the Players.


Frame for Emotion Emotion is the ultimate goal of each scene encounter.


Less is More- The whole basic idea that the DM only needs to toss out a small seed of an idea and a player will have it grow like crazy in their mind. Hide parts of the event so that the mind of the audience is engaged. "transferring the menace from the game story into the mind of the players."

Use Humor to Add Tension It's the unexpected gag, the coincidence, the worst possible thing that can go wrong - all can be used to build tension.

[ImNotTrevor]

To mention specific and named THEORIES,

I like the concept of Stances. I don't remember all of them off the top of my head, but they had things like:
Pawn Stance: Controlling the PC as if they were a game piece. (Strategic, top-down decisionmaking)

Actor Stance: Controlling the PC by assuming their character and making decisions purely based on their personality and drives, and nothing more.

Author Stance: Creating post-facto reasons for a character to have done something. (Use this to avoid fights. I know your character would usually murder the Rogue. Come up with a reason she doesn't.)

Director Stance: Being a mini-GM for a moment as setting up scene stuff.

I feel like I'm missing a couple, but anyways...

Different people like different stances more than others, but generally speaking you move between stances from situation to situation. Considering combat tactics that would work is almost always Pawn Stance. Acting things out is, shockingly, Actor Stance. Describing your armor or the super cool killmove you just did is Director Stance, etc.

I like it because having knowledge of the stances lets me watch for them. My brother-in-law plays with me occassionally, and he does Director Stance stuff all the time with minimal prompting, but he dislikes Pawn Stance related stuff and tends to want to skip it. Another of my players loves a mix of Actor Stance and Director Stance, and genuinely does just want neat things to happen. Yet another of my players is really big on Pawn Stance stuff, and really engages with the strategic end. It helps me balance things out according to who is at my table, because I'm watching for it.

The other concept I like is Bleed.
Bleed is bidirectional. Sometimes stuff you are feeling personally will bleed down to your character (you're peeved about your cat being an a-hole and so now your character is a little less patient than usual because YOU are in a bad mood.)
Sometimes stuff your character is feeling will bleed up to you. (One of my players became rather stressed because her character was stressed, and we had to remind her the game wasn't real. Had a good chuckle and carried on when she was OK again.)
Watching for Bleed is helpful in monitoring player moods and such. While I don't babysit my players, we are adults having an interaction and some of the games we play can go to vulnerable or uncomfortable places for a time. (Honestly, if I had a therapy license I'd probably be doing research into TRPGs as therapy. Seriously.) So being able to notice that hey, Lori is having a reaction to this scene, allows me to gauge if I can really dig in or need to back off, or if a scene probably isn't going to go well because someone has some weird Bleed stuff going down and I can talk about that with them during the break.

So there you go.

[Telok]

Fail gracefully.

As the DM your monsters and npcs are supposed to suffer defeat. If a monster isn't strong enough, or if the players do something that negates the monster, you follow a simple 3 step process: 1) Do not pout or whine. 2) Analyze the failure. 3) Learn and adapt.

Under no circumstances should you be petulant or angry. Do not secretly add to the monster or introduce new things out of nowhere to 'make it challenging'. Do not punish the players. It was your fault if the encounter was weak and creative thinking from the players is to be commended. Learn from this and adjust.

I got this one from computer programming. In programming failing gracefully means that the program detects an error and either continues to function (skip the error action and go to the next action) or if it must halt then it doesn't trash the system (ideally you release resources back to the operating system, don't corrupt data, save data and return useful information to the user). Computers can only follow instructions, bad instructions are your fault. You have to learn what works (try to learn why too) and getting mad at the machine does no good.

Players are not a computer. They are much more perceptive and reactive. Players do not appreciate whining and pouting.

[Florian]

"System Matters" - Forge. A very simple thing, game systems are always written with certain goals and gaming styles in mind, which can mostly be seen by how their reward structures work. A system works best when used as intended and no system is ever truly universal. This also means critical observations of how oneself plays and being honest with what you want and need, even if there's a conflict there.

"Toy, Play, Game" - Behavioral Sciences, Product Design: This is about the multiple overlapping uses and stages of engagement an object or activity can have.
Toy: Activity related to the object, non-directional, solo.
Play: Activity using the object, directional, solo or group.
Game: Structured rules directing "Play" while using the object, solo or group.
Products are often successful in the mainstream because they offer all three levels of engagement simultaneously (see LEGO, D&D, WoW...). In context of TTRPG discussions, two facets of it seem to be important:
- Games that have a "toy mode" are fun because they offer "off table" activity, like character building, writing fan fiction, being open to immersion.
- There's also "hostile overlap" between those activities, like character building and actual game not matching, rules and immersion not matching, switching between the three modes not happening as intended.
Example: Games often have some kind of "crafting system" attached to amuse players. Picking something up from the "Sandbox" discussion, we have a case of hostile overlap when 3 players want to explore the sandbox, the fourth player is only there to amusing himself by crafting.

"Exploration" - Forge: Defining what the game is all about. Answering the question "what is going to be explored here?" should answer that and also inform the rules."Character Exploration" means that the main goal is trying to immerse yourself into your character and see the world thru their eyes, while "world exploration" tries making the world come alive while "Drama Exploration" cares about the narrative structure. This is one of the main reasons for conflict and trouble at game tables when not spoken about. Example: an OSR gm will understand "sandbox exploration" vastly different from VtM players.

[Floret]

If we're looking for actual theory, I'm gonna say GDS theory. Which funnily enough was introduced to me with GNS terminology (That I still find fits better...).

Examining the fact that TTRPGs are played for different reasons, differentiating those and putting names to it greatly helped me to know what to look for in games, and tailor my style of both playing and GMing to what I most enjoy.
That said, I think the model falls a bit short in some aspects, and there are reasons not included in it. The most interesting deviation in my personal tastes is a desire for interesting, cool and engaging rules - which is not traditionally covered by gamism which is more concerned about the challenge which in turn interests me... less, to say the least. (Look, rolling dice is fun, but certain ways are *more* fun.)

Beyond that... "Do cool stuff". Somehow, it took Shadowrun: Anarchy to teach me that lesson, though it doesn't really have it explicit. More or less... Do not concern yourself with the realism of sth you could introduce, but make it interesting. A game profits little from having yet two other statistically average guards - but a halforc and a traitor to another nation? Those stay in memory. (Of course, I don't care much about simulationism, so take that with a grain of salt ;) ) Basically, it took some while for me to shake a certain "keep things realistic" intuition.

[Frozen_Feet]

Internal versus external motivation. That's a basic categorization between motives of a person as relates to whatever activity, based on whether the reasons for the activity are based on internal enforcement (such as the behaviour itself feeling "fun") or external enforcement (someone gives you a cookie for doing the thing).

Very basic thing in pedagogy and virtually necessary for any reasonable analysis of why people play RPGs at all, as well as reward structures built into the game mechanics etc..

[Satinavian]

For me it was GNS.

Not because GNS is particularly good but because it sparked many many discussion in forums i visited then and introduced me to many new viable ways to do our hobby and to a lot of related concepts (like Threefold or stances).
Afterwards discussions were far more productive as everyone had a new vocabulary.

All of this did help in groups to find actual causes of existing problems and ways that might help. And it also did help me with rule design priorities even if i never tried to make a pure game the way GNS told people to do. But being aware of different things people might want from the rules is clearly helpful.

Never had much fun with most of the rest coming from the Forge, because even in the GNS framework the S part was always what i cares about most, while still enjoying G but N was the least interesting thing for me ever. (Same with GDS and D). Which means most of those experimental systems were utterly unappealing (but i have some fond memories of a game trying to excel at Gamism and restricting the GM options and then tasking him to achieve a TPK).




I can't think of anything else that had a similar impact. There were a couple of theories that somewhat accurately described what i already kinda knew but those did not influence me as player/GM or designer. Those are things like
- Player types : there are several list and they kinda work. But i can't really do much with that information
- Participationism : When i read the blog (or was it a long forum post ?) and instantly recognized it as something some of my groups did.
- Barby Gaming : This non-derogative expression for gamers that invest a lot of time in plot-irrelevant details of their character and background and might even value their PC more than the whole story is something i knew. It is also what Florian seems to call 'toy'

[Lorsa]

One good thing that I got out of all of The Forge theorizing was the concept of the "social contract" and its importance for the game. Once I became aware of it and started discussing expectations about the game in more detail, it made them better. They also pointed out that the GM doesn't need to have all the jobs typically associated with it, and once I started asking my players if they were okay with, for example, me also being a rules arbiter etc, it made things better.

Another theory I have just started utilizing is the eight aesthetics of play, converted from video game design to TRPG use by The Angry GM. I think it captures people's motivations pretty well.

The stances as described by ImNotTrevor seem quite promising as well.

The "GNS" categories, as described by The Forge, never quite resonate with me, so they've never been useful. In fact, trying to use that theory might actually make games worse.

[Cluedrew]

As much as it might make some people's blood pressure spike, I got to throw out: GNS

However I don't actually know if it is "the GNS theory", I just heard the terms being used in context, extrapolated what they meant and built up a theory around that. It is sort of a composition chart, factoring in how much rules are about figuring out what would actually happen, shaping the story or providing (tactically) interesting choices to the player. I think that part is the same as the GNS theory, I've never checked actually. I also have no idea how they then made the jump to a game short focus on one of the corners, you could have a system that is a roughly even mix of two or even all three and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

Although for the biggest effect on how I design I have to go for orthogonal unit differentiation. It is not a phrase I use often (as it is second in pretentiousness only to ludum-narrative dissonance*) and I usually just call it non-equivalence or non-comparable. As an example "what is the DPS value of being able to wall run?" The two can't directly be compared, because how useful each is depends on situation, possibly changing objectives and all sorts of other things that makes them almost impossible to compare. The original theory was about my enemy design against a presumably fixed player, I merged it with some informal thoughts I had and not mostly apply it to character build options. In a weird way it makes balance easier when things are so different you are not entirely sure what to balance them against. Usually you just have to make sure each option has a way to shine and the people who like that option will find it.

I would also like to say there is good social-science. However it tends to be boring as most good science progresses slowly, in a series of small well thought out steps. So if you ever hear something radically different or a huge leap forward, they are probably wrong. They might not be but probably.

* Also kind of relevant, as it is a fancy way of saying that mechanics and the story don't match. There may be some subtle points I am missing. But still relevant to role-playing games.

[erikun]

A player is responsible for being the person who engages their character with the game. It's almost never the case where the character simply has no options in how they would proceed, so it is up to the player to choose options which cause the character to engage with the game and what's happening in it. The player chooses what their character does, they choose to what extent they do so, and so it is the player's choice if the character jumps into the hole (provoking the game further) or does not (preventing it from derailing into irrelevant stupidity). That does also mean taking the time to shut up: there will also be times when the character certainly shouldn't be talking or acting, letting other players get a chance and have the spotlight themselves. So being responsible for the character and being responsible for engaging with the game also means knowing when it is appropriate for the character to be holding back.

And sure, sometimes a character just doesn't work with a group or a campaign. But those times are when the player needs to work at either creating a reason for the character to work in the game, or giving a reason for the character to leave and bring in a new one (with GM discussion). It's a bit of work, sure, but the GM shouldn't be the only person at the table coming up with ideas.

[Frozen_Feet]

Also, I am compelled to point out that the actual game theory, and models examining co-operation between players in situations such as the Prisoner's dilemma, is pretty damn relevant to roleplaying games. It also explains why supposedly rational people may fail to act in their common interest when there is a hitch in communication. And offers ways around this.

Really, if the only thing you learn of game theory is how to analyze whether co-operation is actually a good strategy in a given game scenario, you're way ahead of the curve compared to most players and game masters.

[Jormengand]

The Alexandrian article on letting it ride (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/38313/roleplaying-games/the-art-of-rulings-part-8-let-it-ride) basically made it into my latest game as an actual mechanic known as a "Roll duration".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Are there a compilation of GDS or GNS articles anywhere someone can link to? I've only read about them (usually from partisans on one side or another).

The part about styles of motivation sounds like some advice in the 4e D&D DMG about what players might be motivated by and how to play to their desires while avoiding the pathological sides that often come up. It also mentions that real people are a mix of motivations, and that mix can fluctuate over time.

For example it talks about those who are Slayers (its term)--those who like to kill enemies and enjoy the descriptions. As a pathology it lists that sometimes they can get bored with anything that's not killing things. I've had a few players who were strongly oriented that way--I made sure to include plenty of fighting as well as pushing them to find ways to contribute when it wasn't "kill things" time.


Also, I am compelled to point out that the actual game theory, and models examining co-operation between players in situations such as the Prisoner's dilemma, is pretty damn relevant to roleplaying games. It also explains why supposedly rational people may fail to act in their common interest when there is a hitch in communication. And offers ways around this.

Really, if the only thing you learn of game theory is how to analyze whether co-operation is actually a good strategy in a given game scenario, you're way ahead of the curve compared to most players and game masters.

I would be slightly wary of a too-direct application of the simpler forms of game theory (prisoner's dilemma, etc) to RPGs. There are a lot of assumptions made to make the game theory tractable that don't hold in more complicated settings.

The principles are still true (cooperation requires give-and-take to be effective, etc), but the implementation becomes radically more difficult outside of simplified scenarios. This is true for theory across the fields--it's easy to violate a core assumption and enter nasal-demon territory. Usually more powerful theories (those that give clearer guidance) also have more stringent operating assumptions.

It's like the old saying: "the only difference between principle and practice is that in principle there is no difference, while in practice there is."

[Max_Killjoy]

What I've gained from the discussion of RPG theory in general: the general awareness and reminder that different gamers want and enjoy different things, that different gamers do the RPG thing differently, experience it differently, think and feel differently during play, etc.

From actual specific "theories"... not a whole hell of a lot.

[Frozen_Feet]

I would be slightly wary of a too-direct application of the simpler forms of game theory (prisoner's dilemma, etc) to RPGs. There are a lot of assumptions made to make the game theory tractable that don't hold in more complicated settings.


Especially on the game design side you can apply game theory very directly. The laziest way is to introduce discreet game theoretic problems as sub-problems in a more complex game. The next laziest way is to built a more complex scenario on top of simpler problem, so that the complex scenario reduces to a known problem as one of its failure modes. The most intuitive example would be an actual prison break scenario reducing to a prisoner's dilemma if communication between player characters breaks down.

As a player, the usefull skill is to learn to identify factors which make a problem amenable to reduction. These situations occur naturally through play even without being designed. Not all situations within complex games are complex; you don't need to make simplistic assumptions to make the situation tractable, you can just wait for a tractable situation to occur. (Further discussion on such situational awareness would seque into discussion of tactics and strategy which is already normal in the hobby. On non-game theoretic side, every roleplayer would likely benefit from reading Sunzi's Art of War, Chess analysis, and history of Kriegspiel.)

[Florian]

What I've gained from the discussion of RPG theory in general: the general awareness and reminder that different gamers want and enjoy different things, that different gamers do the RPG thing differently, experience it differently, think and feel differently during play, etc.

Well, that tends to lead to question the why? and how? of it, which in turn leads to examining some of the apparently inherent contradictions that are part of the hobby, such as rules-driven vs. agency or player-driven, wanting "quality story" vs. agency and such.

[Wraith]

While I wouldn't necessarily call it a theory about role-playing per say, one of the first essays that I read on gaming and game theory was Sirlin's Scrub Mentality blog.

While more typically aimed at competitive video games that traditional table top games, or even RPGs at all, it was probably the first time that I came across a formal examination and codification of the social contract between players; specifically that different people come to the table with different expectations which are ingrained, assumed to be universal and often completely unacknowledged or vocalised.

In fact, a lot of Sirlin's stuff gave me much to think about while I was learning to GM. Everyone is sitting down to play the same game.... but are they doing it in the same way? For the same reasons? Under the same values? What do they think they're getting into, and how will they react if that's not what they get, or if another player has assumed something different and neither of them can articulate their disjunction?

It's all very simple and far more widely understood nowadays, of course, but I lost a lot of assumptions about why and how people play games in a very short amount of time - although admittedly I had to translate it through a non-VG filter at times.

A second theory was one of my own - far less formal and more to do with just gaming habits than the theories suggested so far - is one of my key rules when DMing: Never say "No".

I usually have to defend this theory from immediate accusations of "you can't give players whatever they want, it'll spoil the game!", and allow me to pre-empt that argument thus: Never saying 'no' is NOT the same as always saying 'yes'.

The thing is, I am a firm believer that the DM should be trying to make a game that is fun, and in return the players should try to have fun in the game; no one is "working for" the other's amusement, you're working together to find a way to enjoy the situation that has been presented.
As such, if a player asks you for something, they're trying to tell you that they want to do something fun... So let them.

Small scale, it's trivial stuff that doesn't matter. The PCs are in a bar fight, say, and the Rogue asks if there is a chandelier in the room - the obvious answer is 'yes', even in the seediest and low-rent of dives, because your player is indicating to you that he wants to do something interesting with a chandelier. Will that destroy your game because you imagined the roof to be a bit lower? Probably not. Maybe she asks if there's a big table in the middle of the room? Well, why not? Maybe it didn't look like there was one when you first described the room, but since then maybe a really fat guy has got up and left and now you can see behind where he was sitting?

Large scale, it's not about letting your players have everything they want, but letting them think that they can get it at some point, so that they can enjoy the journey.
Maybe they'll ask you for a magic item? The worst answer is "no, you can't have it" because that cuts the conversation dead and tells the player that you're not interested in letting them do what they want. A far better answer is "there isn't one here, but there appears to be a map with a big X drawn on it...." - here, you're telling your player that they might be able to get their item *if* they work for it and follow the adventure. Perhaps they ask you for a big pile of rubies? "No, no rubies" is bad; "A devil appears in a cloud of brimstone and offers you a ruby the size of your head... *If* you can beat him in a contest of skill and wits...."

As I said, it's very informal and more of a suggestion than an actual theory, but so long as you're prepared to negotiate I maintain that you should always let your player at least try to get what they want. :smallsmile:

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, that tends to lead to question the why? and how? of it, which in turn leads to examining some of the apparently inherent contradictions that are part of the hobby, such as rules-driven vs. agency or player-driven, wanting "quality story" vs. agency and such.

Which in the case of formal "theories" that attempt to dissect and categorize, has lead almost entirely to the theorizers trying to impose their Gaming GUT on the entirety of all gamers and all gaming everywhere, bringing in a lot of external baggage from superficially similar pursuits, and going beyond description to the error of prescription.

[CharonsHelper]

The "GNS" categories, as described by The Forge, never quite resonate with me, so they've never been useful. In fact, trying to use that theory might actually make games worse.

It's one of those theories which is a bit interesting to discuss - but it's MUCH less concrete than The Forge's theory on it. Plus - I think that it's 100% descriptive and should not be used prescriptively - which is where I agree with you that doing so will make a game worse.

[Cluedrew]

Are there a compilation of GDS or GNS articles anywhere someone can link to? I've only read about them (usually from partisans on one side or another).As far as I know The Forage should have some, as it seems to be the source of it. However that seems to be wrapped up in an agenda so I have never bothered to check.

To Wraith: Is that "Yes, but..." or something different.

To Max_Killjoy: Yeah, but all we have to do to fix that is don't impose those ideas. For example I use GNS as an organization system while completely disregarding many of the conclusions people seem to have drawn from it. I say seem because I don't actually know how they arrived at that conclusion. May have been one of those "if you don't have evidence you go out and make some" things.

[shadow_archmagi]

Decisions are roleplaying meat. All scenes contain some decisions (Put a PC in a sterile locked room and they can decide whether to be angry, bored, excited about a chance to really sit down and think for a bit....) but in general, your game should be focused around generating interesting decisions. When you end a session, start the next one at the next interesting intersection, even if you have to jump ahead a little bit. You can use the fast forward button much more than you'd think without ruffling any feathers.

[Max_Killjoy]

To Max_Killjoy: Yeah, but all we have to do to fix that is don't impose those ideas. For example I use GNS as an organization system while completely disregarding many of the conclusions people seem to have drawn from it. I say seem because I don't actually know how they arrived at that conclusion. May have been one of those "if you don't have evidence you go out and make some" things.


From what I've seen, these "theorists" can't seem to avoid trying to make reality fit their theories -- that is, yes, it has often been a case of going out and getting evidence to support their theory, rather than testing their theory against the evidence. A real theory is falsifiable, most gaming "theories" aren't.

[Florian]

From what I've seen, these "theorists" can't seem to avoid trying to make reality fit their theories -- that is, yes, it has often been a case of going out and getting evidence to support their theory, rather than testing their theory against the evidence. A real theory is falsifiable, most gaming "theories" aren't.

Guy, were having some serious talks for a while now and the only one going ape crazy is you. Please do consider that "the Forge" or the way that "research" in soft sciences conducted at certain universities is not really the standard outside certain circles.

[PhoenixPhyre]

From what I've seen, these "theorists" can't seem to avoid trying to make reality fit their theories -- that is, yes, it has often been a case of going out and getting evidence to support their theory, rather than testing their theory against the evidence. A real theory is falsifiable, most gaming "theories" aren't.

This has been my default stance on the matter for a long time.

I can see (more so now than before) the value of descriptive advice that says "here's a pattern that we've observed and here are some techniques that we've found to enhance/diminish that pattern." This includes attempts to categorize (non-exhaustively and non-exclusively) player motivations and tricks for speaking to certain motivations. Those can be evaluated and used as tools where applicable and ignored where not applicable.

I have a much harder time with claims that "this is how/why people game", "this is the right/best/only way to play" or other derived-from-first-principles prescriptions. They have seemed to me to be mostly post hoc rationalizations of the presenter's preferred style, cloaked in language to hide that agenda. Rarely are they actually tested with any kind of rigor or blindness--often you just have cherry-picked anecdata. Which is fine for rules of thumb, but less so for claiming the mantle of science.

Applying theories developed in other contexts (game theory, pedagogical theory, etc) to new contexts isn't just a simple translation issue. If I tried to "teach lessons" (using pedagogy theory) at the gaming table, I'd have books thrown at me. If I tried to manipulate events to reach optimal outcomes for myself (the core of game theory), I'd be shunned as not being a team player. Concepts (like the existence of a pareto-optimal solution from game theory or the various "how to ask a question that enhances thinking" techniques from pedagogy) transfer reasonably well, but the exact implementation differs strongly because the underlying purposes, assumptions, and audience are quite different.

[MeimuHakurei]

Discarding the notion that metagaming is bad - being aware of a monster's abilities not only doesn't hurt the game, it also allows the players to actually make informed decisions about their attacks based on the enemies' capabilities. Related to that is the Murky Mirror - the idea that players are just as much part of the game as the characters, so you should have the players be mindful of their actions as they can be reflected in-game (don't be a gotcha DM about it though) and that they don't have to jump through hoops just to convey basic information.

[Florian]

I can see (more so now than before) the value of descriptive advice that says "here's a pattern that we've observed and here are some techniques that we've found to enhance/diminish that pattern."

Take heart and try to engage with some RPG circles outside your regular and easy culture and the thing/problem gets more pronounced. RPG culture is far from monolithic and each local variety has developed very differently. Yes, that also means that D&D, which is the baseline in the U.S. is more or less unimportant outside of it because the mainstream is different. Try to get an overview how broad that field/hobby actually is and you're stunned.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Take heart and try to engage with some RPG circles outside your regular and easy culture and the thing/problem gets more pronounced. RPG culture is far from monolithic and each local variety has developed very differently. Yes, that also means that D&D, which is the baseline in the U.S. is more or less unimportant outside of it because the mainstream is different. Try to get an overview how broad that field/hobby actually is and you're stunned.

That's why I started this topic. And so far all I've gotten are the following:

* Useful pieces of empirical advice. This, while good, makes me think that the value is mostly in the empirically-derived parts, not theory.
* Citations to agenda-driven theories (like Forge). These are so obviously (and self-admittedly) biased as to confirm my prior.
* Vague statements about about how I just need to go out and look for it. This is non-responsive.

I'm looking for specifics. Specific resources. Specific theoretical predictions/techniques. Specific ways they've made your specific games better. Even if they're not an exhaustive survey, they're a place to start. An avenue to explore.

Instead I'm getting (possibly not intentionally) a "git gud nub/oh you poor ignorant fool" vibe from you. And that, coupled with the lack of specifics and actionable information from the premier proponent of theory here (or so it seems), makes me less likely to go seek out gaming theory. Because if the proponents can't give me a good reason to (specific examples and testimonials) and act in an elitist manner, my Baysian prior that "gaming theory is a bunch of elitists with agendas who don't have much that's useful to say" is being strengthened.

[Max_Killjoy]

This has been my default stance on the matter for a long time.

I can see (more so now than before) the value of descriptive advice that says "here's a pattern that we've observed and here are some techniques that we've found to enhance/diminish that pattern." This includes attempts to categorize (non-exhaustively and non-exclusively) player motivations and tricks for speaking to certain motivations. Those can be evaluated and used as tools where applicable and ignored where not applicable.

I have a much harder time with claims that "this is how/why people game", "this is the right/best/only way to play" or other derived-from-first-principles prescriptions. They have seemed to me to be mostly post hoc rationalizations of the presenter's preferred style, cloaked in language to hide that agenda. Rarely are they actually tested with any kind of rigor or blindness--often you just have cherry-picked anecdata. Which is fine for rules of thumb, but less so for claiming the mantle of science.

Applying theories developed in other contexts (game theory, pedagogical theory, etc) to new contexts isn't just a simple translation issue. If I tried to "teach lessons" (using pedagogy theory) at the gaming table, I'd have books thrown at me. If I tried to manipulate events to reach optimal outcomes for myself (the core of game theory), I'd be shunned as not being a team player. Concepts (like the existence of a pareto-optimal solution from game theory or the various "how to ask a question that enhances thinking" techniques from pedagogy) transfer reasonably well, but the exact implementation differs strongly because the underlying purposes, assumptions, and audience are quite different.

That has been exactly my experience with any RPG theory that attempts to be a GUT and/or a prescriptive framework, whether we're talking about Forge-GNS, this "toy/play/game" concept, or others.

It is helpful and constructive to ask people "why do you game?" or "how do you game?", or even to say "this is why and how others have said they game", or "this is what others have found works for them".

It is insulting and corrosive and divisive to tell people "this is why you game" or "this is the best way to game".




That's why I started this topic. And so far all I've gotten are the following:

* Useful pieces of empirical advice. This, while good, makes me think that the value is mostly in the empirically-derived parts, not theory.
* Citations to agenda-driven theories (like Forge). These are so obviously (and self-admittedly) biased as to confirm my prior.
* Vague statements about about how I just need to go out and look for it. This is non-responsive.

I'm looking for specifics. Specific resources. Specific theoretical predictions/techniques. Specific ways they've made your specific games better. Even if they're not an exhaustive survey, they're a place to start. An avenue to explore.

Instead I'm getting (possibly not intentionally) a "git gud nub/oh you poor ignorant fool" vibe from you. And that, coupled with the lack of specifics and actionable information from the premier proponent of theory here (or so it seems), makes me less likely to go seek out gaming theory. Because if the proponents can't give me a good reason to (specific examples and testimonials) and act in an elitist manner, my Baysian prior that "gaming theory is a bunch of elitists with agendas who don't have much that's useful to say" is being strengthened.


Yeah, we're pretty much on the same page, at least on this topic.

[Max_Killjoy]

Take heart and try to engage with some RPG circles outside your regular and easy culture and the thing/problem gets more pronounced. RPG culture is far from monolithic and each local variety has developed very differently. Yes, that also means that D&D, which is the baseline in the U.S. is more or less unimportant outside of it because the mainstream is different. Try to get an overview how broad that field/hobby actually is and you're stunned.


You say this as if somehow we don't know these things. You keep insisting that we shouldn't see shades of the Forge debacle here, and yet you keep coming across exactly as the True Believers there did.

"Oh, these guys aren't on board with the theory I'm touting, this obviously means that they need to be educated and enlightened and develop a broader view of things. If they really understood, they'd already have converted to our way of thinking."

(And we won't even get into the ever-aggravating "D&D is the baseline" / Playgrounder's Fallacy thing.)

[D+1]

It is not a crime for a PC to be good at something.
Nobody has a right to be a jerk.
If someone feels that a DM cannot be trusted such that they must be held to the same rules as the players then someone doesn't understand the point of there being a DM.
"I don't know," and, "The rules don't say," are acceptable responses.
Player understanding and cooperation is improved if the DM explains WHY they rule as they do, and players deserve more than, "Because I said so".
The DM gets to overrule the rules. Always. But just because they can doesn't mean they should (also, see previous line).
The game is focused around the PC's, not the NPC's.


That's why I started this topic. And so far all I've gotten are the following:

* Useful pieces of empirical advice. This, while good, makes me think that the value is mostly in the empirically-derived parts, not theory.
* Citations to agenda-driven theories (like Forge). These are so obviously (and self-admittedly) biased as to confirm my prior.
* Vague statements about about how I just need to go out and look for it. This is non-responsive.

I'm looking for specifics. Specific resources. Specific theoretical predictions/techniques. Specific ways they've made your specific games better. Even if they're not an exhaustive survey, they're a place to start. An avenue to explore.

Instead I'm getting (possibly not intentionally) a "git gud nub/oh you poor ignorant fool" vibe from you. And that, coupled with the lack of specifics and actionable information from the premier proponent of theory here (or so it seems), makes me less likely to go seek out gaming theory. Because if the proponents can't give me a good reason to (specific examples and testimonials) and act in an elitist manner, my Baysian prior that "gaming theory is a bunch of elitists with agendas who don't have much that's useful to say" is being strengthened.

Theory is useful, but we learn by doing. Theory is NOT game play.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The idea that a well designed game tells a GM how to GM it and expects them to follow that design.


There are a million ways to GM games; Apocalypse World calls for one way in particular. This chapter is it. Follow these as rules. The whole rest of the game is built upon this.

[Max_Killjoy]

Theory is useful, but we learn by doing. Theory is NOT game play.


I've also found talking about the theories to be far more helpful and useful than the actual theories themselves.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've also found talking about the theories to be far more helpful and useful than the actual theories themselves.

To be perfectly honest, speaking as someone who has training as a theoretical physicist, I feel the same way about many theories in my scientific sub-field. Few theories are groundbreaking--it's mostly seeing what you can steal from that theory or bodge onto the other theory that's useful in practice. Amalgamating all the different ideas into one whole. Despite being ugly and patchwork, it actually works. Which is more than can be said for a lot of the original theories themselves.

I learn from discussing with experts quite a bit.

[Cluedrew]

Useful pieces of empirical advice. This, while good, makes me think that the value is mostly in the empirically-derived parts, not theory.... but theories should be driven by evidence, otherwise they are just guesses really. {Checks} OK, seems to depend on who you ask, but really if you don't have anything to back up your theory, you are really just guessing.

Actually, poking at this highlighted something, by "roleplaying theories" do you mean conceptual modals that describe and predict how things will happen in a role-playing game? I just sort of realized that I had assumed that usage, but I think a couple other people have been using it other ways.


I'm looking for specifics. Specific resources. Specific theoretical predictions/techniques. Specific ways they've made your specific games better. Even if they're not an exhaustive survey, they're a place to start. An avenue to explore.I can point you at the GDC talk that the slide show I got the formalization of non-comparison from if you want. Umm... other than that; earlier today I decided to up the "simulation" aspect of my system a bit, but I haven't actually made those changes yet so I can't tell you if they actually helped.

[Satinavian]

To be perfectly honest, speaking as someone who has training as a theoretical physicist, I feel the same way about many theories in my scientific sub-field. Few theories are groundbreaking--it's mostly seeing what you can steal from that theory or bodge onto the other theory that's useful in practice. Amalgamating all the different ideas into one whole. Despite being ugly and patchwork, it actually works. Which is more than can be said for a lot of the original theories themselves.

I learn from discussing with experts quite a bit.

Then just look at the whole Forge stuff. Sure, it is biased. And not really working all that well. But it can be used for what you want.

You could start with the Threefold Model or GDS which is not strictly FORGE yet afaik, but contains the basic ideas later expanded on. It's mostly descriptive. http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/

Next comes GNS from Ron Edwards.The three components are slightly different, especially N. But more importantly this theory actually makes testable predictions about what works and what doesn't as a theory should and provides advice for game design. And many people used this device to craft games that follow only one of those branches. But over the years they had to admit that the theory is deeply flawed, that it does not describe many well working ways of play accurately and that the more focussed games are not actually better just maybe more fitting for certain groups.

What this whole debacle also did provide are many techniques to make certain kind of games. Many things we still find in narrative driven games as well as many tools of player empowerment were invented while trying to find ways to apply GNS.
First incarnation http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html but you will find many other texts on the Forge going into detail over aspects or discussing applications or questions.


After GNS the Forge went back to more descriptive stuff (basically trying to find what went wrong). Now we have the Big Model which still contains the GNS core but expands it with lots of other stuff happening in an RPG. But outside of providing vocabulary i don't see a lot of new useful applications which is why it is not widespread and people still use older, simpler GNS variants if they use Forge stuff at all.http://rpgmuseum.wikia.com/wiki/The_Big_Model

[Wraith]

To Wraith: Is that "Yes, but..." or something different.

That's certainly one way that I have had it described; while I'm not learned in the subject area myself, I'm told that it's a staple of improvisational theatre to always agree, but also to prompt for expansion and elaboration.

Yes, But?, Yes, And? and Yes, If? are all ways that it has been described back to me; as I said, my 'theory' isn't really formal or codified, so interpret it however you think appropriate.

[ufo]

I don't have an academic source, unfortunately, since this is something I'm relaying third hand. A friend who studies play design anecdotally mentioned that there are many mutually exclusive attempts to define "what is play?", but almost every suggested definition to some extent includes control and experience. In other words, if you give someone control in a situation that they can draw experience from, it becomes a joyful activity.

I wouldn't say that this applies wholesale to roleplaying games - there are legitimate and important reasons to use roleplaying to explore scenarios that take away control. Nonetheless, I think that it is useful to keep in mind as criteria for making your game enjoyable.

[RazorChain]

Mostly roleplayng theories have come to me from different systems rather than studying the theory itself. Therefore I urge people to try diffetent systems.

What theory had taught me is Roleplaying games are vast and we are all playing different games even with the same system. Computer games have subcatagories like FPS, RPG, TBS, RTS but Roleplaying games haven't done that properly.

Then we are telling each other that we are having badwrongfun because we like different aspects of the game

[RFLS]

Something I've learned from Fate and had refined by FFG's Star Wars and PbtA games is that rolling the dice for a simple binary success/failure can be a detriment in some cases. Sometimes it's fun for the PC to succeed, but something goes wrong, or for the PC to fail, but they get something useful out of it. It's codified into those games, but I think that it can be applied in a lot of other areas. For instance, if you're playing 3.x, and you ask for a Spot (or Perception, whatever) roll, maybe they fail and don't see the enemy thieves sneaking up on them, but, they notice that some of the bushes nearby have been moved. In a binary success/failure, the enemy would jump them and combat starts. If you give them just that one more tidbit, they might go looking, or wake up the party for a game of cat and mouse, or something else.

This has been useful to me in the games I run because I find the way in which players choose for their characters to act and interact more interesting than finding out whether they succeed. This is not the case for all gamers. Some people want to tell a game with a straightforward quest story where it's Good vs. Evil, and introducing shades of grey into that can muddy it and detract from that kind of tale.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Something I've learned from Fate and had refined by FFG's Star Wars and PbtA games is that rolling the dice for a simple binary success/failure can be a detriment in some cases. Sometimes it's fun for the PC to succeed, but something goes wrong, or for the PC to fail, but they get something useful out of it. It's codified into those games, but I think that it can be applied in a lot of other areas. For instance, if you're playing 3.x, and you ask for a Spot (or Perception, whatever) roll, maybe they fail and don't see the enemy thieves sneaking up on them, but, they notice that some of the bushes nearby have been moved. In a binary success/failure, the enemy would jump them and combat starts. If you give them just that one more tidbit, they might go looking, or wake up the party for a game of cat and mouse, or something else.

This has been useful to me in the games I run because I find the way in which players choose for their characters to act and interact more interesting than finding out whether they succeed. This is not the case for all gamers. Some people want to tell a game with a straightforward quest story where it's Good vs. Evil, and introducing shades of grey into that can muddy it and detract from that kind of tale.

I've used a fair number of graduated success checks in 5e (usually situation dependent on what the successes are):

Fail by 5 or worse: Pure negative result.
Fail by less than 5: Something, often success at a cost or some kind of information.
Succeed by less than 5: Normal success.
Succeed by more than 5: Success + something extra (if that makes sense).

Always moving the situation forward and makes repeating that same strategy pointless. The biggest thing that helped me was reading (in a couple places) to only roll for things where there is a) a significant doubt as to success and b) interesting consequences for failure.

a) If the player is quite likely to succeed and the consequences for failure are not extreme, don't even bother to roll. They succeed. If the player can't succeed (because the task is impossible), don't even bother to roll--they fail. For most of those latter cases, the character would probably know that it's impossible and should get a warning about that. With this point, presume competence. Assume that the character is doing his best to succeed unless specifically told otherwise--taking appropriate precautions, using good form, looking for openings, etc.

b) If the (doable) action has no consequences other than time and time's not important, they succeed. If the (doable) action has no consequences other than time and time's important and the action can be reasonably repeated, roll once. After that, let the player take 10x as long, after which they automatically succeed. Same goes for small material costs--if they're baking a cake and ruin one, but have plenty of time and ingredients, they can try again and again until they succeed. So let them succeed right away, fast-forwarding through the time. Err on the side of keeping the action moving forward.

[RFLS]

I've used a fair number of graduated success checks in 5e (usually situation dependent on what the successes are):

Fail by 5 or worse: Pure negative result.
Fail by less than 5: Something, often success at a cost or some kind of information.
Succeed by less than 5: Normal success.
Succeed by more than 5: Success + something extra (if that makes sense).

As un-enthused as I've become about 3.x in the last few weeks, this is something that PF 2e is doing that I'm excited to see; they're codifying pretty much exactly what you described.


Always moving the situation forward and makes repeating that same strategy pointless. The biggest thing that helped me was reading (in a couple places) to only roll for things where there is a) a significant doubt as to success and b) interesting consequences for failure.

a) If the player is quite likely to succeed and the consequences for failure are not extreme, don't even bother to roll. They succeed. If the player can't succeed (because the task is impossible), don't even bother to roll--they fail. For most of those latter cases, the character would probably know that it's impossible and should get a warning about that. With this point, presume competence. Assume that the character is doing his best to succeed unless specifically told otherwise--taking appropriate precautions, using good form, looking for openings, etc.

b) If the (doable) action has no consequences other than time and time's not important, they succeed. If the (doable) action has no consequences other than time and time's important and the action can be reasonably repeated, roll once. After that, let the player take 10x as long, after which they automatically succeed. Same goes for small material costs--if they're baking a cake and ruin one, but have plenty of time and ingredients, they can try again and again until they succeed. So let them succeed right away, fast-forwarding through the time. Err on the side of keeping the action moving forward.

I think the Alexandrian article linked earlier in the thread discussed exactly this. It's useful advice. If a task is actually impossible because of the fiction, you might consider pointing them at something in the fiction that states and/or demonstrates its impossibility.

[Max_Killjoy]

Something I've learned from Fate and had refined by FFG's Star Wars and PbtA games is that rolling the dice for a simple binary success/failure can be a detriment in some cases. Sometimes it's fun for the PC to succeed, but something goes wrong, or for the PC to fail, but they get something useful out of it. It's codified into those games, but I think that it can be applied in a lot of other areas. For instance, if you're playing 3.x, and you ask for a Spot (or Perception, whatever) roll, maybe they fail and don't see the enemy thieves sneaking up on them, but, they notice that some of the bushes nearby have been moved. In a binary success/failure, the enemy would jump them and combat starts. If you give them just that one more tidbit, they might go looking, or wake up the party for a game of cat and mouse, or something else.


Graduated checks, "how long do you take" checks, "how well did you do" checks, etc, can all be fairly system, theory, and style neutral. I've used all those in WEG d6, HERO, oWoD (Vampire etc), and other systems.

Instead of "can you make five checks to climb this wall" or "you keep trying until you succeed", just have them roll once for how long it takes -- it's a matter of when, not if.




This has been useful to me in the games I run because I find the way in which players choose for their characters to act and interact more interesting than finding out whether they succeed. This is not the case for all gamers. Some people want to tell a game with a straightforward quest story where it's Good vs. Evil, and introducing shades of grey into that can muddy it and detract from that kind of tale.


I'm not sure how "pass-fail" rolls and "black and white moral stories" really tie to each other at all. Shades of success can happen in a Good vs Evil campaign, and pass-fail can be used for rolls in a "grey and brown morality" campaign.

[RFLS]

I'm not sure how "pass-fail" rolls and "black and white moral stories" really tie to each other at all. Shades of success can happen in a Good vs Evil campaign, and pass-fail can be used for rolls in a "grey and brown morality" campaign.

Yea, there were some mental gymnastics between the two points. In my experience, the less binary a system is, the more the edges between factions get mixed, which makes for a less straightforward plot. OTOH, a binary social check means that you're always sure of who is on which side. That Diplomacy check of 23 means that that guard is on your side now. In fairness, this may simply be a product of the specific D&D games I've been a part of, which tended to adhere very closely to the core rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As un-enthused as I've become about 3.x in the last few weeks, this is something that PF 2e is doing that I'm excited to see; they're codifying pretty much exactly what you described.

I think the Alexandrian article linked earlier in the thread discussed exactly this. It's useful advice. If a task is actually impossible because of the fiction, you might consider pointing them at something in the fiction that states and/or demonstrates its impossibility.

I'm not too fond of global codification of such things--they're too situation-dependent in my experience. Some things really are binary. Those should be small things where you can gradually accumulate successes instead of one failure = total loss.

My go-to example for the "that's impossible" is a player saying that he's going to swing off the chandelier...when you're miles away from the nearest chandelier in the forest. Or trying to jump to the moon. Basically anything where the character would know that's not possible.


Graduated checks, "how long do you take" checks, "how well did you do" checks, etc, can all be fairly system, theory, and style neutral. I've used all those in WEG d6, HERO, oWoD (Vampire etc), and other systems.

Instead of "can you make five checks to climb this wall" or "you keep trying until you succeed", just have them roll once for how long it takes -- it's a matter of when, not if.


Or don't roll at all, if time's not critical. The difference between taking 10 minutes and 15 minutes (when you have all day) is rarely important enough to adjudicate. Now if you're on a tight clock, then sure. Roll to see how long it takes. If a single failure is critical (falling would put you into the hands of the waiting forum trolls, for example), then you better make your one check.


Yea, there were some mental gymnastics between the two points. In my experience, the less binary a system is, the more the edges between factions get mixed, which makes for a less straightforward plot. OTOH, a binary social check means that you're always sure of who is on which side. That Diplomacy check of 23 means that that guard is on your side now. In fairness, this may simply be a product of the specific D&D games I've been a part of, which tended to adhere very closely to the core rules.

I hate one-check mind-control in social situations. It's one reason I'm firmly against system-mandated hard social TN. They're too easy to break wide open.

[RazorChain]

This has been useful to me in the games I run because I find the way in which players choose for their characters to act and interact more interesting than finding out whether they succeed. This is not the case for all gamers. Some people want to tell a game with a straightforward quest story where it's Good vs. Evil, and introducing shades of grey into that can muddy it and detract from that kind of tale.

This has kind of been gradual change of interest as well. First was to introduce fail states that were not TPK or death. Then it was moral grey choices. Now it is more more how the characters feel and react to things.


Yea, there were some mental gymnastics between the two points. In my experience, the less binary a system is, the more the edges between factions get mixed, which makes for a less straightforward plot. OTOH, a binary social check means that you're always sure of who is on which side. That Diplomacy check of 23 means that that guard is on your side now. In fairness, this may simply be a product of the specific D&D games I've been a part of, which tended to adhere very closely to the core rules.

I don't think this has to do with binary or not, having a quick conversation never going to inspire some long lasting loyalty from the guard. If the rules tell you that you can zap the guard with your diplomacy power to inspire his loyalty and you don't want that then changing systems might be in order. The way I run things is that often the PC's know who the bad guys are but can't do much about it. They know that Francis Corleone is a criminal and is he is opposing them and stirring up all kinds of trouble, but he's also the part of the nobility and they don't have any proof yet to take him down.

[Jay R]

What the players want today is a quick, easy way to defeat the encounter.

But what they will want tomorrow is to have brilliantly and bravely turned the tables to barely survive a deadly encounter where it looked like they were all about to die.