The Threefold (GDS) model identifies three main goals of RPGs; Drama, Game, and Simulation, with Drama being the story elements, Game being the challenges players would face, and Simulation being inherent consistency. These would later inspire the somewhat infamous GNS Theory, which classified systems and players as either Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist, which was followed by the GEN model of intentions (Gamist, Explorative, Narrative)
One common critique of these is that three are too few, with suggestions like including Socializing as a 4th pillar, or including Competition, Imagination, Strategy, Character, and others to establish longer lists, with no real reason to commit to the idea that there's only three pillars of RPGs.
The simplest model of an RPG is a twofold split between "Fluff" and "Crunch", but I've never found those two to be particularly useful outside of them being rather easy to distinguish what falls into what category. Outside the Threefold model, there are a number other 3-pillared models, including WoTC's modern D&D model that's centered around Roleplaying/Combat/Exploration, the ancient model built around the three class archetypes and consisting of Combat/Magic/Traps and Locks, and even the amusingly specific one of the American Library Association with Socialization, Imagination, and Improving Literacy and Writing Skills.
One particular model that I'm a fan of is the one used by Tomoyo Asano, producer of the Bravely Default series, with the three core concepts of RPGs being "Growth, Battles, and Connection."
I find it provides a relatively clear outline and goals for a designer and GM, and while this model was primarily conceived with video games in mind, it holds up quite well with tabletop games. The latter pillar actually assumes a broader goal, encompassing not only each player's connection to the story, world, and characters, but to the other players as well.
The questions of "Is this good progress for the characters/story?", "Is this a proper challenge?", and "Will the players be able to connect with this?" should be the three a GM asks when making a decision about their game, and while they don't often have easy answers, they are all questions worth asking.
While there's plenty of room to complicate those three by adding more, I have a hard time calling any of them more important than Growth, Battles, and Connection when it comes to what makes players enjoy an RPG.
If you had to commit to a Three Pillared Model for RPGs, what would your three be?
Context, Challenge and Connection
The Context is the framework, the basic idea from which mechanics, fluff, characters spring.
Connection is the reason for players to give a fuck, their connection to the world and characters.
Challenge is just that, challenges for the characters to overcome, from which the story grows.
At least that's how I approach it. Really, though, every view is valid, even GNS, as long as you don't fully subscribe to it and let it control your ideas.
Iunno lol I just wing it.
I think this is a good post.
Did you get it from somewhere or are you wasting it on a /tg/ thread that will go by unnoticed?
To answer the question I think my ideal would be Expression of ideas/Challenge/Interaction... although I think Challenge and Interaction is basically Battles and Connection, now that I think about it.
>>48305392
>At least that's how I approach it. Really, though, every view is valid, even GNS, as long as you don't fully subscribe to it and let it control your ideas.
They are useful as tools to look at and discuss things, but not really useful to make value judgments I think.
>>48305405
Why u samefagging anon?
>>48305178
>The Threefold (GDS) model identifies three main goals of RPGs
No it doesn't.
I think at heart it's all attempts to answer the question of why people play the same games so differently. Be it tactical combat with deep interplay of strategy and tactics, intrigue and politicking built around a story deeply dependent on a base story built of mores and characterization, or wilderness exploration where every drop of clean water and every piton have to be carefully shepherded and accounted for.
The holy grail, of course, is a system that would succeed in allowing all of those players and more besides to have fun at the same table without resorting to "the fighter got his battle in, so now it's the bard's turn to do a story scene" turn-taking. As much as I love 5e, it didn't get there either.
>>48305392
>Really, though, every view is valid, even GNS, as long as you don't fully subscribe to it and let it control your ideas.
GNS is just riddled with problems thanks to what it set out to do, which was not only to present a system of classification, but to say that the three focuses were mutually-exclusive, which is absolutely ridiculous. Aside from excusing deep flaws in a game with that "not being its focus" (like calling a mechanically bankrupt game "Narrativist" or a clunky rule-heavy game "Simulationist"), it encouraged designers to sacrifice vital parts of a game to appeal to imaginary divisions of players.
It's something that's largely outdated, and while it did encourage designers to deeply explore one of those three facets and brought forth plenty of new ideas from these explorations, it simply didn't lend itself towards creating a complete game.
Is this thread basically just virt samefagging some dumb ideas he has, or is he trying to troll with this tl;dr shit?
>>48305561
I think the key is not to look at the differences, but the similarities.
Dividing things between combat and non-combat seems intuitive, but at the same time there's plenty of carry-over concepts. There's push and pull, challenges and opportunities, mechanics and narration, all to determine the outcome of a scene.
It should be less of a question of how to get a fighter and a bard to endure each other at the table, but to make a story scene as exciting as a battle and a battle as exciting as a story scene.
Quick Time events were not the answer.
The four pillars of GURPS are:
>"chases, climbs, combats, and craftiness
Climbing is especially important and a player character without a decent climbing skill is just asking for trouble.
>>48305690
Hi /v/
>>48305392
Connection and Challenge I can understand, but Context seems somewhat static and limiting. And, ultimately, the other two also depend on context to a fair degree.
>>48305849
I don't think combat vs non-combat are that separate concepts, they're basically conflict resolution but with different means. I think the problems in a system arise when the same task (conflict) is resolved with different mechanics depending whether it's combat or not. For example, in D&D combat and skill challenges are both entire subsystems of their own with little overlap between them.
I think a better way for categorizing games is to see how the conflict resolution is approached, that is, is the system trying to simulate realism (i.e. work as a physics engine for the game world) or simulate a type of narrative (i.e. works to generate certain kind of story, be it drama or pulp or whatever).
>>48306069
D&D does use subsystems, but both combat and non-combat are resolved with the core d20 system. I think the major problem is that the six stats are split rather poorly, with Charisma being the major problem child.
>>48305540
/thread
>>48305540
>>48306243
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Model
>The Threefold Model or GDS theory of roleplaying games is an attempt to distinguish three different goals in roleplaying.
>>48306229
Really? I actually consider wisdom to be dumber, since it governs perception for some reason.
Also, I dislike the STR/CON split.
>>48305690
GNS theory predated virt's bullshit. It comes from one of those way too full of themselves RPG forums like RPGnet or Forge or some bullshit, I don't remember because I don't fucking care.
Anyway, GNS is fucking bunk, and the fact that it was a popular idea among wannabe "indy" devs was a huge detriment to the hobby as there became a huge chunk of people who couldn't comprehend the idea that any given halfway decent RPG won't fucking fall into only one of three distinct categories, and trying to design their games around GNS theory only made said games total shit.
>>48306308
D&D stats aren't perfect, but Charisma is a problem child in this instance because it establishes itself as the "roleplaying stat", creating a sharp divide between who will be good outside of the dungeon and who won't be.
>>48306278
And what's your point? That wikipedia is full of a lot of bullshit and trash articles? Because in that case you're correct.
>>48306401
I think it's fair to trust wikipedia more than you, random anonymous person who has done nothing to substaniate anything.
>>48305540
If you have an alternative idea, I'd welcome hearing it. Denial without proof or explanation is kind of useless to a good discussion.
>>48306386
Not really? All the stats let you do more than things that are only useful in a dungeon.
The real divide is not in the stats, but the class abilities.
...
Although approaching CHA from the other way around, I see your point, as CHA is ONLY useful in social situations, unless you have a class feature that makes use of it. Even INT can be used to identify enemies.
I actually had been considering how to make CHA useful for everyone, so it's not designated dump-stat #1 for combat characters. I was toying with the idea that higher CHA lets you impose your will on more magic items, or bring out more of their potential.
>>48306229
Of course d20 is rolled, but I'm talking about how suddenly you break out the combat mat and start talking about initiative rolls and standard actions and stuff like that, when you want to convince a dude with violence vs. convincing a dude with words which would often be just a (single!) skill roll. Different sub-systems for achieving the same result, see?
>>48306339
Doesn't mean he's not the one posting it, though.
>>48306457
Supply proof of the theory's correctness first.
>>48306549
Yes, and no.
While that tends to be the assumption, you could just as easily have combat reduced to a single attack roll, ie. a 10th level fighter vs. a simple drunk farmer, while diplomacy can be a complex series of bluffs, knowledge checks, performances and spells, up to the point where you have to pull out the combat mat and arrange where everyone is sitting at the dinner party.
Most groups I've played with lean far away from these extremes and closer to your own, but it's not really that unworkable, especially in 5e where skills are less vital.
>>48306717
>>48306727
I don't think anyone here is actually supporting it or claiming its correct.
Ass, tits, and hips.
The three pillars of adventure are exploration, social interaction, and combat.
