RPG Theory

A lot of systems actually function in a way that evokes similar feelings or works well with what it's trying to accomplish. Dread works via Jenga tower, and other work via dice bidding or token spending rather than placing complete and heavy reliance on dice rolls alone.

The way in which we engage with the game is quite important, and some systems incorporate that into the game rather than simply using a catch-all dice rolling system to convey a specific setting. Consider the first Resident Evil, where the horror comes as much from the monsters as it does from the very limited character controls, making the player feel helpless and vulnerable in the face of these monsters.

Really, I think it's more artistry than science at this point, and study can help shine a light into it, but there's so many variables to work with that it needs a whole lot of study to grasp it as a whole.

Well, one, Veeky Forums talks about GNS a WHOLE LOT, and two GNS theory does nothing but divide people on arbitrary guidelines.

I'd wish GNS never existed, but if it didn't exist then it would be harder to filter people who insist on forcing people into little boxes of what kinds of fun they can have so I'm somewhat thankful for that.

I wouldn't go that far, but yes its usefulness is quite limited.

>It's really new
Not him, but that's incorrect. Many people have been playing hypothetical games where they take on different roles for quite some time, both as hobby and as profession. You ARE correct in the statement that RPGs in general are fairly new, as they codified the experience and gave it a solid, unified ground base to work off of.

Moving on to the thread question:
>Why is GNS and RPG theory in general not discussed more on Veeky Forums?
I think that's because it's incredibly hard to pick a portion of where to start. RPGs are so different once you get off that base that most theory discussion will revolve around granular bits that will vary, as old Gygax would put it, your milieu.

I've drawn a picture to reflect this.

This.

It's completely unfounded theory that separates our community rather than unifies it, and was basically used by Forgefags to shit on people because NARRATIVE IS THE CLEARLY SUPERIOR CHOICE.

>A lot of systems actually function in a way that evokes similar feelings or works well with what it's trying to accomplish.

Definitely, I was talking more about homebrew/indie stuff, people who create things out of hobby instead of professionally.

Well, it depends on what you consider NEW. It's older than video games, for example, and board games and war games, which are the very basis of the mechanical side of RPGs, have been around for even longer.

I study Graphical Design actually, every research and project I make related to game theory has been started by me or my peers, the actual institution has very little to offer on that regards. It's part of the reason I want to do it, to help lay some academic ground for the area.

>The prevalence of sacred cows in RPGs is crazy.

Yup, it's one of the worse things in the hobby, really.

>Why is GNS and RPG theory in general not discussed more on Veeky Forums?
Because GNS theory is stupid bullshit?

GNS isn't discussed anymore because its a failed theory. It doesn't work, the rise of the OSR was pretty much the nail in the coffin.

>A movement that lauds antiquated approach to game design is a nail in the coffin of an attempt to clean up our understanding of RPGs and show what parts RPGs may consist of

The problem with GNS theory wasn't that it was wrong, it was the fact that it was encouraged as an excuse to remove the G and especially the S, specifically from the original poster of the theory.

The actual discussion of GNS as a reference for game mechanics is fine.

For example: Let's talk about concentration from 5e. I can talk about Concentration in terms of all three aspects of GNS.

Gaming-wise: Concentration brings a much needed balance of spell usage to magic-users in that prior, it was incredibly difficult to strip a magic-user of a spell they had cast, especially the more dangerous ones that could break battles or stack incredibly easy with other effects.

Simulation-wise: Concentration fits well within it's own lore, providing a physical, universal reason for why certain spells cannot stack on each other. It can also bring into discussion how concentration is used and in what way it can be broken, such as when a ship beneath the wizard begins rocking too hard, or when the Sorcerer is trying to maintain a spell while panicked by a monster.

Narrative-wise: Concentration fills the gap that was lacking in previous editions that a wizard must maintain focus on the spell. Previous editions, it was possible to knock a wizard out of the cast itself, but not the spell. This didn't meet up with the general narrative of spell casters having strenuous mental strain. It also encourages fighters and others to protect the one giving them the spell enhancements.

All three elements of this trio should be present in most game design elements, and I feel that if one branch is missing, it might be prudent to go back and fill in some more on the RPG in question. What IS a mistake is using it to encourage and purposefully design mechanics that only adhere to two, or even just ONE of the three.

>It doesn't work, the rise of the OSR was pretty much the nail in the coffin.

What the fuck are you on about? How is one thing related to the other?

>OSR
Could you expand on that? I'm not familair what OSR tries to do apart from revive old school games. In general I'd say new games are better at getting players to get along and have more 'effective' mechanics. Effective in the sense of getting everyone to have fun.

>GNS as a tool for Narrative superiority
>G N and S are mutually exclusive
I'm not sure how these opinions that are commonly held on Veeky Forums came about, since it's really not the case in any of the stuff I've read on it.

I like your picture, it seems to demonstrate the opposite of what you're saying though
> it's incredibly hard to pick a portion of where to start
You drew a picture is MS paint which is a start, was it particularly hard?

I guess the real problem is when you're talking about one thing when everybody thinks you're talking about something else.

That's one of the benefits of GNS. Whatever it's other faults, at least it gives us a common vocabulary. Now if only we were working with the same definitions...

>I'm not sure how these opinions that are commonly held on Veeky Forums came about, since it's really not the case in any of the stuff I've read on it.
I was pretty much explaining how they're not mutually exclusive except as elements of game design.

>I like your picture, it seems to demonstrate the opposite of what you're saying though
I didn't explain it particularly well, and honestly, I'm redeveloping these thoughts as we speak, so some of what I say might just be me rambling through the format of text while I strengthen what the ideas themselves are.

However, to clarify, that picture is meant ONLY in reference to game design elements, and not actual games. If you asked me to put D&D somewhere on that picture, I would not be able to as that's not what the picture represents nor should it represent. Likewise, as I said above, I could put the Concentration rule from 5e onto every pillar on that picture and discuss how it affects the game.

The thing people seem to miss about GNS is that is isn't so much about game design as it was about game play. It was used to describe what players wanted out of roleplaying, with that basis it was then used to analyse game design.

It's well and good that Concentration in your 5e example makes sense in all contexts, and I believe you're right that a well-rounded RPG should be fleshed out in all three, but I can bet that the designers of 5e's chief concern was Gamist, making things balanced. This is because of the market, the type of RPGer, that they're appealing to.

It's not a matter of "which box does this fall into?" it is instead "what kind of player is this made for?"

>GNS
>Narrative elitists' model underlining that you have to choose, and Narrativism is the only correct choice.
I'm not a fan of GNS, but this is pretty cool still, thanks OP. I'm studying vidya and I've written some about TRPG theory but it mostly ends up being my opinions with nothing to go on since there aren't any comprehensive theories that I actually agree with.

>designers of 5e's chief concern was Gamist, making things balanced.
Actually, their game design philosophy was based on three things that they noticed that people really wanted which they call the Three Pillars of Adventure, which was exploration, combat, and Social Interaction. Which aren't wrong either, but I think all three of those apply to the RPG base as opposed to separate branches.

Trying to make things balanced was a very real intention, but that was tried in 4e as well, which was met with disparity from the fanbase. Instead, they tried to focus on all aspects of the game while keeping in mind the failures of 3.PF.

I meant just for the Concentration rule, other parts have different focuses.

5e's a game about being adventures who become more powerful over time, facing greater and greater challenges. The "being adventurers" bit is all Simulationist, trying to accurately portray characters, locations, societies; with some Narrative sprinkled on top (Inspiration is a nice touch). Combat (the ever-increasing challenge) is all balanced competition.

The fact DnD is so popular means it has to do everything and do it well, since people want to do so many different things with it. Overall its still appealing to Simulationist-Gamist players.

One thing I wish games would do more is say "this is X kind of game, if you're looking for Y it's not for you". But that's usually a no-no as you want people to buy your book even if they're not going to like it.

>One thing I wish games would do more is say "this is X kind of game, if you're looking for Y it's not for you"
Honestly, this doesn't appeal to me too much. Books that are too specific can usually do that one specific thing really well, but nothing else. Meaning I dropped an average of $50 on a book that I might, MIGHT use 1 or 2 times in my life to capture a certain flavor my group might be feeling, and then put it right back up on the shelf to collect dust until I finally decide "who am I kidding" and take it down to the FLGS.

One of the more positive strengths of TRPGs in general is the fact that it is so highly reactive to the player shenanigans. When you start getting more and more dug out into a specific flavor of TRPG, I think eventually you run into road blocks that will make you put it down like I do, or just plain get bored of running the same type of game over and over again.

See:
youtube.com/watch?v=cG0YF3_Sc8U

>They are simultaneously devoted to and miserable in their hobby.

Every board on Veeky Forums in a nutshell.

well said.

So how do you go about designing an RPG or trying to homebrew out a perceived problem in whatever you're playing? You're going to apply some general principles, what are they?

Dude, at this point I've pretty much given up on ever writing a heartbreaker because I can't muster up the time for something nobody's gonna play anyways.
If I ever designed a system, it would be a 2d6 or 3d6 roll under you only increased skills, not attributes, and every level you got both a passive and an active feat. Passive feats are just general goodies, active feats are like spells or powers and cost Willpower or Stamina to use. There would also be Test Your Luck like in Fighting Fantasy.
But I have to stop. I've sunk too much time thinking about something I'll never make, and it always somehow changes every time I think about it, until I don't remember what it used to be.

>They thought that "show up with a character" was sufficient prep
It's hard to take a theory on gameplay seriously when at the very end you're pelted with some form of "People should play the way I WANT THEM TO"