Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance

[Aura]

This is the first time I've read something from John Wick, and I'm rather unimpressed. He's seems to hold some rather strong opinions (basically making claims) with rather weak rationale or evidence to match. Two examples:

(1) In World of Warcraft*, he notes a friend kicked off a roleplaying server for talking in character. This isn't reflected in any of the WoW community guidelines I've seen, and nothing is given to back up this remarkable claim. And yet, he uses it as and example in support of his argument. (He also seems rather ignorant of WoW, in general, when he talks about leveling being the point of the game.)

(2) It's already been noted how narrow his opinion of what a roleplaying game is seems to be. One aspect of his position that stands out to me is a character must be rewarded when he/she does something consistent with the character's motivations as part of the very definition of a RPG. While I can understand a reasonable argument can be made against penalizing such activity (and he seems to speak on that), no clear argument is made for an essential nature of roleplaying rewards.

In short, I feel the quality of his arguments don't rise to the boldness of his claims.

PS: I'm a personal fan of the adage, "Roleplaying is its own reward." As such, I'm usually happy so long as roleplaying is not actively penalized by the game.

*Note: I'm not supporting that WoW is a RPG in this section, but merely that his argument concerning it is ill-conceived.

 

[pemerton]

When you have imbalanced systems, roleplaying is hurt because the most logical choice is to always choose the better option.

<snip>

Games without balance lead to cookie cutter characters because if you have an option that is clearly better than other options, why handicap yourself?

In an unbalanced system, why would you choose an option you know is less effective? Or, rather, why would you consistently choose less effective options? It's not rational.

The issue, though, is the measure of "effectiveness".

It's not rational to choose options that are less effective for getting what you want out of the game. But, depending on the game and what you want out of it, that doesn't mean that it's not rational to choose options that don't maximise your PC's chances of success in action resolution, nor that it's not rational to choose options that don't maximise your PC's chances of earning additional PC build resources.

For instance, by choosing to play a character who has strong wants, and by roleplaying my character as acting on those wants, I don't necessarily maximise my chances of success in action resolution. But if the GM is adjudicating failure in a "fail forward" fashion, then I might get more of what I want out of the game - namely, dramatically engaging play - than if I played a character who was more cautious, took fewer risks, and hence was less likely to fail attempted actions.

Christopher Kubasik discusses this in the essays I linked to upthread:

The narrative of most roleplaying games is tactical simulation fiction. This style of story revolves around weapons and split second decisions made during combat. Such stories discourage flamboyant behavior though flamboyant behavior is often a vital part of the fiction that the games try to model - because better combat modifiers are gained with conservative tactics. Characters in these simulation stories are clever, resilient and skilled. They're ready for combat and often not much else. Their goals usually boil down to the acquisition of power of one kind or another. Indeed, their goals, desires and even identities seldom have much to do with the story struggling to be told. Typically, characters of modern roleplaying stories are indifferent mercenaries hired in a bar or heroes who run to the rescue only after a threat arises. . . .

The rules and wargaming baggage of most roleplaying games lead to a certain kind of story: stories filled with ambitionless mercenaries who wait around in bars for employment; heroes who have no reason to get out of bed in the morning but for the vile plans of a someone they've never met; and stories that stop in mid-narrative for lengthy, tactical tactical-laden fights. . . .

[M]any people mistake character for characterization.

Characterization is the look of a character, the description of his voice, the quirks of habit. Characterization creates the concrete detail of a character through the use of sensory detail and exposition. . . .

But a person thus described is not a character. . . .

Character is action. . . .

Goals are an integral part of the character; they define who the character is. Without a goal a character has no reason to get out of bed in the morning. Or, should he stumble out of bed in order to get to his job at the toy factory, he still is not worth following. He is not a character. He is living out his life as person, but not the driving force of a story. . . .

Because this Goal is so vital your character can indulge in all sorts of ridiculous, extraordinary, and even dangerous behavior in pursuit of this goal. We're not looking for the characters who want what is safe and steady, who can rationalize their Goals out of existence because it might mean trouble. We want characters who throw themselves with wild abandon into their desires, dreams and passions!

Be surprising! Let your character's passions and Goals drive him to actions that calmer men would not commit. . . .

Look for problems! . . .

Why should problems built into a character be balanced against a proportional advantage? The implication is that you only take bad stuff to be more powerful. . . . [Y]ou build problems into your character's background and decisions because they're entertaining.​

If the GM is going to have NPCs or the other forces of the campaign world destroy your character for pursuing his/her goal, then that is a reason to focus only on characters optimised for mechanical effectiveness. But if the GM adjudicates in a way that accommodates your play of your PC in pursuit of his/her goal, other options open up.

I think one of the earliest examples of this, although not always recognised as such, was the all-thief campaign in AD&D. The AD&D thief is not really mechanically optimal from any point of view, but in the classic all-thief campaign this doesn't matter, because the GM frames challenges and adjudicates resolution in a way that fits with the idea of the campaign and keeps things moving along. It's quite feasible to generalise this approach beyond the all-thief campaign.

None of the above is an argument against balance of mechanical effectiveness. It's an argument that its absence doesn't have to lead to cookie-cutter characters, provided that the appropriate techniques are adopted by the GM in framing and adjudicating action resolution.

 

[Umbran]

I have to disagree with this bit. RPG theory is just people's ideas about how to make RPGs more fun.

If your theory leads you to say things like, "D&D is not an rpg," then I say, no, your theory is not just ideas about how to make rpgs more fun.

If we don't think that's worthwhile, then what are we doing on these forums?

Well, a great deal of our discussion is not theoretical, but is about people and practical application.

And having common definitions of words is important. How else are we going to talk about things? It is silly to get bent out of shape about someone's theories though. The stuff Wick put up is obviously in development and should be taken as such. The blog looks like something that was posted so the author could use others' criticism to improve his own ideas.

The author spends a bit of effort identifying and establishing himself as an authority. That's a *disincentive* to comment, a rhetorical setting of a bar one must reach before input will be considered valid, setting up defenses for his position beforehand. That does not at all read like something intended to invite criticism (except from maybe his designer buddies, but he didn't need to post it publicly to get that).

 

[Janx]

The author spends a bit of effort identifying and establishing himself as an authority. That's a *disincentive* to comment, a rhetorical setting of a bar one must reach before input will be considered valid, setting up defenses for his position beforehand. That does not at all read like something intended to invite criticism (except from maybe his designer buddies, but he didn't need to post it publicly to get that).

I think credentializing is a tricky thing. Like you say, it certainly sets a bar of "if you don't work in this industry, you aren't my peer"

But half the time, it's also saying "I'm not just some guy in a basement, I actually have experience and knowledge in this space"

Putting it up at the top, probably hurt his paper. If he'd had a blurb at the bottom (like most tech news articles do) that says "John Wick has worked in the RPG design industry for 20 years. He is best known for his games XYZ and ABC"

At that point, it's less posturing, and more just making his bonafides known if somebody reads the whole thing.

 

[Umbran]

Putting it up at the top, probably hurt his paper. If he'd had a blurb at the bottom (like most tech news articles do) that says "John Wick has worked in the RPG design industry for 20 years. He is best known for his games XYZ and ABC"

It was on his personal blog, where he has an entire "About" page on which he gives his credentials, so he already has a big honkin' footnote on the whole thing. The point is entirely unnecessary in the original context, and would only serve a purpose if he actively thought folks would be quoting it wholesale out of context, which isnt' all that common a practice. That makes it difficult to read as something as other than (perhaps unconscious) posture choice.

Whether it hurt the work depends on who his basic intended audience is. For some, the Appeal to Authority right at the start is a sign of rhetorical weakness. If anything, it makes us scrutinize the other points more closely, as the basic function of the appeal is to get you to gloss over weaknesses. But appeal to authority does work on many.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

If your theory leads you to say things like, "D&D is not an rpg," then I say, no, your theory is not just ideas about how to make rpgs more fun.

Well, a great deal of our discussion is not theoretical, but is about people and practical application.

So you don't like his theories. That's legit. That's different than entirely rejecting the idea of having theories about RPGs, which is what it sounded like you were saying before. And practical application is always practical application of our personal ideas of how to make an RPG fun. And that's all theories are, our ideas of what works.

 

[Janx]

So you don't like his theories. That's legit. That's different than entirely rejecting the idea of having theories about RPGs, which is what it sounded like you were saying before. And practical application is always practical application of our personal ideas of how to make an RPG fun. And that's all theories are, our ideas of what works.

I think Wick's problem is his stated theories led him to state stupid things like "D&D is not an RPG"

Disputes about how D&D has evolved asside (ex 4e being more like WoW allegedly), D&D was the first RPG, and therefore any definition that rules out D&D is most likely flawed.

I think theories that don't lead to practical fun for players/GMs are likely just extremist dogma.

Because D&D itself is many things to many people (as in its varied aspects appeal to different kinds of gamers), I'm wary of theories that utterly destroy D&D by sculpting it into a focussed emphasis on one kind of play.

But that's my beef with the article, even though there's some nuggets in Wick's ideas that I agree with.

 

[Janx]

It was on his personal blog, where he has an entire "About" page on which he gives his credentials, so he already has a big honkin' footnote on the whole thing. The point is entirely unnecessary in the original context, and would only serve a purpose if he actively thought folks would be quoting it wholesale out of context, which isnt' all that common a practice. That makes it difficult to read as something as other than (perhaps unconscious) posture choice.

Whether it hurt the work depends on who his basic intended audience is. For some, the Appeal to Authority right at the start is a sign of rhetorical weakness. If anything, it makes us scrutinize the other points more closely, as the basic function of the appeal is to get you to gloss over weaknesses. But appeal to authority does work on many.

Perhaps part of the problem with the article is PR. Wick has not diplomatically represented the idea he'd like to gain support for. He has failed some "how to make your point" aspects. He's detracted from his own work with his appeal to authority for example. He's made extreme statements like "D&D is not an RPG" which puts the listener on the defensive.

So at this point, Wick's writing is useless. The only value to be gained is if there's any nuggets of ideas to be recycled. Spotlight Balance is certainly valid consideration for game design. It may or may not depend on Game Balance, but at this point Wick isn't a credible source of insight on that.

 

[occam]

A big part of the problem with Wick's article is his (re-)definition of the term "roleplaying". If a game has some method in its rules whereby one can create a customized in-game character, a role, to play, then it's a roleplaying game. (Cue several examples of RPGs where creating customized characters isn't possible.) That's the meaning of the terminology as it was first defined. Calling the game that engendered that definition "not a roleplaying game" is ridiculous twisting of words. Unless your intent is to generate a lot of useless arguing over semantics, you don't get to redefine a term in use for 40 years. Use different words.

 

[Umbran]

So you don't like his theories. That's legit. That's different than entirely rejecting the idea of having theories about RPGs, which is what it sounded like you were saying before.

What I said was that theory means less than balance. I also said that balance is sometimes important. So, I don't see how I am rejecting having theories.

I'm rejecting pushing ahead on the basis of theory without due consideration of the result in practice.

And I return to the theory leading to calling D&D not an rpg. How, pray tell, is that resulting in practical improvement of anyone's game? You saw, did you not, what happens when people who just play different editions of the game call what the others do "not D&D", right? Same thing here, but he's doing it to tens or hundreds of thousands of people at once.

And practical application is always practical application of our personal ideas of how to make an RPG fun. And that's all theories are, our ideas of what works.

How to put this...

In the physical world, there is theoretical science, and there is Engineering. Physics, chemistry, biology... even computers have the distinction, as a computer scientist does much different things than a software engineer. They're really different skillsets - generating theory is a different activity than applying theory into real-world application in useful form. While one person can do both, it is important to remember the difference, and not mistake the theoretical construct for something that should be put directly to real-world application.

Most important is to remember that the theoretical construct is a *theoretical* construct. A model. It is not reality in and of itself. Your model can be incorrect, or have some corr3ect bits, but some notable flaws that don't represent reality. Many theoretical constructs may be beautiful and elegant, and completely fail when the rubber meets the road. This goes especially when you're talking about theory that intersects human psychology and social factors, like out own group leisure activities.

A theory that makes the claim that D&D is not an RPG tumbles into such a pitfall - completely failing to realize that it has gotten into an area where psychology and social factors far outweigh whatever useful value there is in the purely theoretical distinction the author wants to try to make.