S/Z: On the Difficulties of RPG Theory & Criticism

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bawylie]

I think we DO have those theories, about craft, about content, about design, etc.

Maybe not “we” the RPG community - but we do have them. Those discussions, that shared language of theory and criticism, is all over videogame design. That we might dismiss videogame design “because it’s not TTRPGs”, is unfortunate.

I couldn’t really tell you why “our” discussions don’t run like “their” discussions - but everything “we” lack is one neighborhood over.

Perhaps, and this is just a guess, our people got sidetracked by these nonsense theories and loaded terms - trying to argue themselves and their practice right - instead of trying learn how to perfect a craft. And we’re left with the realities of those stupid-wars.

Meanwhile, videogame theory, design, criticism has been tested by the fires of capitalism. Where good ideas get bought and bad ones don’t. (Speaking VERY broadly here. I appreciate you granting me some rhetorical leeway or a few grains of salt). They’ve darn near perfected the Shooter as a genre, for example. I don’t care much for shooters but look at the progress from wolfenstein to COD, and on.

Maybe we need to start looking somewhere other than amateur RPG theorists’ pet issues if we want to have the kinds of conversations you’re talking about.

Just as likely, I’m just some dummy on the Internet. And what do I know?

 

[prabe]

I'm in a similar position to what I think you describe, because I have only intermittently been enough into RPGs to care much about design and/or theory, and while I've played in more games than I can remember, there are some (relative) biggies I missed, because the group/s I was in never played them. I'm in a place now where I care about theory-type stuff, at least so I know what rules I'm breaking, but it can feel as though there are decades' worth of stuff to try to sort through, and there are some people who casually use names and terms and language I haven't seen before in this context. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (at least at first) that they're not trying to be opaque, but that doesn't mean they aren't opaque.

Then again, I had to figure out some of the things you were talking about in, e.g., cinema by more or less breaking down what the words mean. Fortunately, that's more purely descriptive, and no one is (really seriously) going to argue there's onetrueway there.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@lowkey13

Martin Scorcese’s recent comments on the Marvel movies and their cinematic quality come to mind. There is still plenty of debate even when there is accepted terminology in place.

So, what can be done about the four obstacles you cite?

1) Lack of agreed upon framework/terminology
2) Argumentative connotations of terms used
3) RPG Theory being inextricably linked to other battles
4) Conflation of normative (“ought”) and descriptive (“is”)

You say that RPG theory discussion is still worthwhile. Or potentially so, at least. And you provide a general warning that caution is needed in discussion, and I think that’s true. But what more is needed? What can we specifically do to address the specific obstacles you’ve offered?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[prabe]

Well, a few are simple (IMO).

Concentrate on the small scale play examples, and avoid sweeping theories of generalization.

Examine RPGs individually to see if they are accomplishing the goals that they set out to do.

Attempt to look for small examples in play; if you really want to develop grand theories, specifically denote them as normative. To use an analogy, you can either analyze a movie on its own terms, or you can publish Dogme 95, but don't confuse the two.

Borrow basic critical theory from other disciplines; literature, video games, film, music, and rhetoric generally. Avoid re-inventing the wheel.

But that's me.

I don't disagree with any of these, but I think it's possible, while examining whether an RPG does what it sets out to do, to explore the question of why it does or doesn't. Small (or at least specific) examples seem like the right place to start, here, but it doesn't seem likely that one can answer the "why" question without at least resorting some to theory, which might lead to problems of scale.

Also, while I agree that much of the theory work has been done, in, e.g., film or literature, there are considerations that feel important. First, someone really into RPGs might not know the vocabulary of film theory (to pick an example); if you're using film theory to talk about RPGs, you might want to be prepared to unpack your references. Heck, you might want to be prepared to unpack any and all specialized vocabulary, and not make people feel stupid for needing it (to be honest, I don't get this as an intent here, but it's an easy lapse). Second, RPGs will probably need at least some of their own theory. This doesn't mean there's no point in borrowing from other criticism and theory, but be aware that what you borrow may be an imperfect fit.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about!

It seemed like it! I found that whole discussion to be pretty interesting, overall.

Now, let's say you like art films. Like Scorsese (using the clarified NY Times comments), you prefer ... wait for it ... character-driven cinema. You prefer cinema as "art" as opposed to mere pop "entertainment."

Obviously, one can start with an interesting observation- while Scorsese rightly notes the tension in what he is doing with Hitchcock, I don't know that he fully credits the divide; prior to Cahiers du Cinéma and the French New Wave, Hitchcock wasn't truly embraced as an auteur, but as a mere "genre" director- the equivalent of our ... Marvel movies today.

But the thing is, because there are generally accepted definitions both of criticism and of theory, you can generally understand both his criticism, and where it falls short!

Absolutely. I don’t think there’s a “right” answer to the discussion. I quite enjoy most of the Marvel movies, and similar films. I wouldn’t say that they aren’t art or aren’t cinema. But I can understand how many would view them as less emotionally resonant than other films.

Doesn’t make it any less or more a film.

The fundental divide, here, is that you are using Scorsese's comments as an indication that theory and criticism should provide definitive answers as to quality and what should be done; this is, IMO, completely incorrect.

That’s odd. I didn’t think that simply mentioning the discussion committed me to one side or the other, or to any specific stance about the matter.

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Well, a few are simple (IMO).

Concentrate on the small scale play examples, and avoid sweeping theories of generalization.

Examine RPGs individually to see if they are accomplishing the goals that they set out to do.

Attempt to look for small examples in play; if you really want to develop grand theories, specifically denote them as normative. To use an analogy, you can either analyze a movie on its own terms, or you can publish Dogme 95, but don't confuse the two.

Borrow basic critical theory from other disciplines; literature, video games, film, music, and rhetoric generally. Avoid re-inventing the wheel.

But that's me.

Those are all pretty reasonable, if a bit general. I definitely don’t disagree.

 

[pemerton]

The only well-developed theoretical and critical approach to RPGs I'm familiar with is The Forge. (That's not to say there aren't others; just that I'm not familiar with them.)

The main purpose of The Forge was to understand causes of dissatisfaction with WW/Storyteller-type RPGing, and to establish alternative approaches to design of RPGs. This required some analysis. Some people (eg me) have found the analysis helpful independent of that particular goal (I'm not a RPG designer).

For instance, as someone who played Rolemaster as my primary game for nearly two decades, I think The Forge's account of (what they call) purist-for-system RPGing is far more illuminating than (eg) anything I ever read on the ICE forums. As good analysis should, it gave me insight into what I was doing in my game that I didn't previously have. It also helped me understand how I could move away from some of the assumptions embedded in RM's designs without giving up on some of the fundamentals of RPGing.

One of the observations made on The Forge which was surprising to some of the participants is that early RPGing was (i) an alternative to WW/Storyteller style which (ii) had many things (not everything) in common with the sort of designs being produced at The Forge. This is why there has been a noticeable presence of Forge contributors in OSR context (eg most recently I discovered that Christopher Kubasik, author of The Interactive Toolkit which is practically a proto-manifesto for The Forge, has an ongoing blog in praise of 1977 Classic Traveller).

Obviously most OSR play and design proceeds independently of this convergence. But it's an interesting outcome of Forge theorising.

Here's a passage from The Traveller Book (1982, p 123); it is found in a description of types of adventures, and has no equivalent in the 1977 version of Classic Traveller:

The choreographed novel [my emphasis] involves a setting already thought out by the referee and presented to the players; it may be any of the above settings [ship, location or world], but contains predetermined elements. As such, the referee has already developed characters and setting which bear on the group's activities, and they are guided gently to the proper locations. Properly done, the players never know that the referee has manipulated them to a fore-ordained goal​

For RPGers who want to use the approach describe in this passage, The Forge has nothing to offer and I don't know of any alternative useful body of criticism. Probably the main reason The Forge has nothing to offer is that The Forge places a great premium on transparency of technique and resolution, whereas the approach set out in the passage just quoted emphasises "gentle guidance" and "manipulation" that the players don't know about. (The Forge calls this illusionism.)

 

[Tun Kai Poh]

1) Lack of agreed upon framework/terminology
2) Argumentative connotations of terms used

This is especially true in the "lyric game" circles I hang around, on Twitter and itch.io. Jay Dragon's done a good job of trying to lay out the many clashing definitions of "system" in the "System Matters" vs "System Doesn't Really Matter" debate.

Ritual Almanac 1: Beginnings by Possum Creek Games, Jay Dragon

The January 2020 collection of thoughts around lyric RPGs.

possumcreek.itch.io

This essay in Ritual Almanac 1 really helps to defuse the problems that rise when people try to talk about "System Matters" - because the truth is that people are usually using very different definitions of "system" as Jay points out. I really like this analysis because it reminds me that my "system" is not necessarily someone else's definition. Sometimes there is a lot of invisible play culture at the table that gets assumed, and if you count that as part of "system" then of course it matters...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*