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

[hawkeyefan]

I lofted this idea a while ago and it didn't seem to gain much traction, but, let's try again.

To me, most RPG's are not games in and of themselves. They are game creation engines. You never actually play an RPG - you play the campaign (whether it's predetermined or created as you go) using the rules for that RPG. Which means that every single campaign is a largely self contained game that is not repeatable at another table. The game consists of the campaign+rules+players. And, because of those three variables, you can never reproduce a given game at another table.

Which makes any sort of shared language discussion EXTREMELY difficult as each group develops its own game and then, once that game (campaign) is finished, they create another game - possibly similar but not the same - for the next campaign.

I mean, it's laughable to think that my Primeval Thule game with no core casters and almost 100% home brew created is the same game as my Dragon Heist game where I ran the pre-made module. And neither are the same game as my Ghosts of Saltmarsh campaign, despite all three using 5e rules.

When no two instances of any RPG ever have the same starting, middle or end points, how can they be considered to be the same game? And, since my game, your game and Bob's game over there, despite maybe using the same RPG system, share virtually no commonalities (I'm using Ravnica, you're using a home-brew world and Bob's set in Ravenloft) how can we really have a common language for discussion?

There are the rules of baseball....and then there is any given game of baseball, which will play out in its own unique way according to the rules. I don't think that this means that no one ever actually plays baseball.

So although I understand what you're saying, I don't know how much that distinction matters? Or how much it would impact discussion.

 

[TwoSix]

When no two instances of any RPG ever have the same starting, middle or end points, how can they be considered to be the same game? And, since my game, your game and Bob's game over there, despite maybe using the same RPG system, share virtually no commonalities (I'm using Ravnica, you're using a home-brew world and Bob's set in Ravenloft) how can we really have a common language for discussion?

I think "no commonalities" might be somewhat strong. Obviously a game of Blades in the Dark is very different from a game of AD&D 1E, but they're a lot more similar to each other then they are to a group game of Smash Brothers, and all of those are more similar than having people over to do a barn-raising.

I would say they're certainly related enough that we can discuss concepts like categories and procedures. If they were entirely disparate, I think it would be obvious to everyone that we shouldn't even bother to try, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[FrogReaver]

On the other hand, a shared vocabulary can make it easier for people who disagree to disagree in a meaningful way without dancing around issues of terminology. If we can agree first about what is at stake, we can more profitably disagree in way that makes sense to both sides.

Also, I'm not sure how you meant it @pemerton , but I would suggest that the stripping away of the comfortable and comforting can be a very good thing, at least when those comforting and comfortable things are barriers to mutual understanding and dialogue.

I've found that the party which gets to define the terms gets to win the argument more often than not.

 

[Fenris-77]

I've found that the party which gets to define the terms gets to win the argument more often than not.

I tend to prefer a more communal and organic process for the definition of terms for just that reason.

 

[FrogReaver]

I tend to prefer a more communal and organic process for the definition of terms for just that reason.

I don't think such a process exists.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've found that the party which gets to define the terms gets to win the argument more often than not.

This assumes that people wanting to discuss how games work are really just trying to win an argument. I don't care what or how you play, except that you have fun when you do. These kinds of discussions have greatly improved my game, not because someone else won an argument and convinced me of something, but because I became more aware of how I play games and what other methods exist. This let me tailor my play to better achieve the goals I always wanted, but didn't fully understand because I lacked the means (or motivation) to examine them. Now, I play how I want, but know how I do it.

 

[FrogReaver]

This assumes that people wanting to discuss how games work are really just trying to win an argument.

Not at all. One can understand the importance of defining terms in shaping the discussion and not be engaging in the discussion for the purpose of "winning an argument".

I don't care what or how you play, except that you have fun when you do. These kinds of discussions have greatly improved my game, not because someone else won an argument and convinced me of something, but because I became more aware of how I play games and what other methods exist. This let me tailor my play to better achieve the goals I always wanted, but didn't fully understand because I lacked the means (or motivation) to examine them. Now, I play how I want, but know how I do it.

Sounds good.

 

[Hussar]

There are the rules of baseball....and then there is any given game of baseball, which will play out in its own unique way according to the rules. I don't think that this means that no one ever actually plays baseball.

So although I understand what you're saying, I don't know how much that distinction matters? Or how much it would impact discussion.

But, the thing is, if you play baseball, you follow the rules as instructions. The rules straight up tell you, these players play these positions. This person pitches, these people, on the other team, bat. You can follow the steps exactly as written down and EVERY game of baseball (presuming they are playing from the same rulebook) will follow exactly the same steps.

There are no steps inherent in most RPG's. When you play an RPG, for example, what's the first step? Character creation? Campaign creation? Something else? Note, those can both be true - some games start with chargen and then proceed, others start with campaign creation and then proceed. Neither is more correct than the other.

And that's just the starting point of an RPG. No two tables start the exact same way. There are always considerable differences between one table and the next. And these aren't cosmetic differences. These are differences that will completely alter how the game plays.

Sure, in baseball, the players change, but, the game never does. You play one side until you get three out and then play the other side. You don't suddenly decide to add sharks to the outfield or play in roller skates half way through. Every game of baseball, from little league all the way through to the pro's plays identically. Baseball is a complete game. RPG's are not.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not at all. One can understand the importance of defining terms in shaping the discussion and not be engaging in the discussion for the purpose of "winning an argument".

Okay, to what purpose is the discussion being shaped, then? This seems a rephrasing of your initial statement without much change. I'm open to accept I've misinterpreted you, but this doesn't clarify your position for me much.

I mean, there appears to be some goal you have in mind for the discussion to be shaped towards? I can understand that, as some discussions along these lines are, indeed, aimed at elevating one style or play or game above others. I'm not interested in doing so, or, really, I'm not afraid to state my opinion on playstyles as my opinion and see no need to control the terminology to clearly state my preferences and dislikes. Instead, I seek terminology that describes as accurately as possible, even if it's a bit uncomfortable. I was resistance to the concept of Force, to name a current discussion, because I used it and felt that that term was derogatory. But, it's not, it's descriptive. When I use Force now, I do it recognizing that I am, indeed, overriding player input to push my preference for the game. I limit my applications, and try to do so in a principled manner (my principles being having a fun game, which occasionally means I need to Force the game away from areas where I'm not prepared or ready to improvise and/or areas I or other players have indicated are uncomfortable for them). But, I do it, and I no longer mind the term Force because it is an good description of the tool.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Hussar - There are a significant number of academically inclined people who would disagree with that point of view. The challenge is, in fact, to come up with criteria and ways to describe the many and varied RPGs, usually by virtue of the concepts, mechanisms, and other things they share, rather than by examining the ways in which they differ.

To use you own analogy, the rules of baseball are also not a complete game. You need both the rules, and the game as played. Even using that example, there are different ways that baseball gets realized on the field despite sharing a rules set, much in the same way that, for example, 5e D&D can look markedly different at two different tables. To move away from your analogy, I think the fact that the baseball games you describe all use a common rules set, while the RPGs you compare them to do not, might index a weakness in your choice of comparison.