[WARNING]

If the layout of this devlog feels horrible and the images are all over the place, try getting the article as a PDF from the download section. It's free :)

[/WARNING]

In RPG design conversations I constantly  find myself reaching for some sort of “dictionary” because people talk about things that have no name, or use names that are obscure to others, or refer to shared names but meaning different things. As a result, misinformation and misunderstandings are commonplace.

There are already places that could be used as reference (for example the Big Model wiki) but are written in a way that I don’t find very clear, or express concepts I find outdated or disagree with. Or they carry enough baggage to prevent readers from accepting them because of past conflicts that have little to do with actual game design.

So here I’ll collect a few terms I personally use often, with a linkable explanation in my own words, in light of my own design experiences over the years. Maybe it will end up being useful for others too.

This is entry #01.

Enjoy :)

Coherence

In RPG design theory there is the idea of “play coherence” to indicate whether game participants behave in harmony. Coherent play is inherently good play, a fun and satisfying experience: no matter what we are doing, we are in harmony about it, we appreciate each other's contributions. Coherence is what we have when we are all on the same page, so to speak.

Game content (rules, mechanics, prose, illustrations, etc) can be designed to promote coherent behaviour. For brevity’s sake a game designed with this philosophy in mind can be said to be a “coherent game” or a “coherent design”.

By the same token, incoherent play behaviour translates inherently into an unsatisfactory and unpleasant experience. People seek different things out of the game, resulting in play choices and actions that end up disrupting one another’s enjoyment.

Designs that ignore or misunderstand coherence easily end up promoting incoherent behaviour. For brevity’s sake a game designed this way can be said to be an “incoherent game” or an “incoherent design”.

That said, no element is ever in/coherent in and of itself. It always depends on its interactions with the rest of a game’s system. The complexity of a game’s text also plays a role, breeding misunderstandings about what certain elements might mean, making it more difficult for participants to be on the same page.

This also means that the same game could have both some elements that work together to promote coherent play and some other elements that introduce dissonant play alternatives, promoting incoherent play.

It also matters if the core elements of a game are all coherent to one another and only some fringe details pull away, or if the incoherence is right between different core elements.

In/Coherent Games

When someone says that a certain game is coherent or incoherent they are using a BIG simplification meant to convey, with a single adjective, all the concepts I have just explained. It’s an imperfect way to communicate, but it is often functional and useful, if we can all understand what is being meant by that.

Traditional / Modern

The Traditional/Modern terminology has nothing to do with the publication year of a game. Some Modern games saw the light in the 70s and 80s, while most contemporary games are 100% Traditional. Instead, these words entered common RPG parlance to stand in for more controversial and/or misunderstood ones.

A Traditional RPG is any game with the following characteristics:

1. the core elements of the game facilitate, directly or indirectly, the play behaviour known as System-0
   1. there is one GM and one or more Players
   2. the GM describes, and has authority over, everything surrounding the PCs
   3. the Players describe what their PCs want to do
   4. the GM says what the Players need to do for their PCs to succeed (roll dice, draw cards, spend points, play-act a conversation, bring food, etc)
   5. the Players do it
   6. the GM decides if the outcome is positive or not, and then describes it
2. Everything else in the game text is largely incoherent, but also trivial, as it’s just meant to inspire Players and GM in their System-0 activity. The GM is the true game system.

This design has both PROs and CONs, but analysing them is beside the point of this article. Suffice it to say that the vast majority of mainstream commercial RPGs, especially those published after the mid-80s, are Traditional. Or Trad for brevity.

A Modern RPG is any game that is not Traditional. This usually means games with a design that tends to be more coherent than not.

To make things more interesting, in recent years (late 2010s / early 2020s) Trad games have started to adopt elements typical of Modern designs. This in itself doesn’t necessarily help much in terms of coherence (again, coherence is about the interaction among elements) but it’s starting to influence Trad design and culture in promising ways. Some like to call such games Neo-Trad, although where exactly the line is, is anyone’s guess. Personally I don’t find it useful for design purposes. But it is an encouraging sign for the overall social discourse, which has historically been quite toxic.

Examples