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

[prabe]

RPGs by their very nature contain some some elements that restrict player agency. People who refuse to admit that fact are hard to have cogent discussions with.

True. There may be things you cannot do because they are impossible (shooting an arrow into the Sun is an example I think I've seen used). There may be things you cannot do because they violate the conceits of the game (restrictions on choices in chargen maybe fall here?). Probably others. None of those things seem like real violations, provided the players know them going in.

 

[Fenris-77]

More broadly, RPGs run on the basis of a social contract and that contract generally serves to constrain both player and GM agency in an agreed on set of ways. Beyond that, the system being played also serves to define the limits of agency for everyone at the table. Personally, I try to add "not being an enormous dickweed" as something that should be a base level constraint on agency, but apparently not everyone agrees.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Calvinball.

But, more seriously, we cannot have a cogent discussion in which we admit that constraints exist, but also we arbitrarily push back on restriction on player agency as BadWrongFun. And that latter happens. A lot.

You recently taught me that responding to you is fraught. As I cannot ignore you, please stop using me as your launching point to attack the discussion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

RPGs by their very nature contain some some elements that restrict player agency. People who refuse to admit that fact are hard to have cogent discussions with.

Further, you can accept that constraints exist and still argue about the usefulness of a specific constraint. We do this all the time IRL with laws -- generally accept that laws exist and yet argue very fine points of distinction as to the justness of a specific application.

 

[Nagol]

Good post.

Couple thoughts:

1) Like you said, I would call the "artificial/contrived" constraints of BitD's setting (Doskvol) "System Force" or perhaps "Premise Constraint." There are also other aspects of the game that keep play bounded as well; the siloed "3-phase" and scene-based nature of play, the lower power curve of the PCs/Crew, and how the Heat mechanics force the players to always consider their profile.

2) Relating directly to the above, consider how close this resembles Basic D&D vs Expert and Champion:

a) Constrained setting of the dungeon in Basic with resolution mechanics that work precisely for that setting + a lower power curve of PCs + Wandering Monster/Exploration mechanics that force the players to consider their "Exploration/Resource" profile...

vs

b) Moving out into the wilderness and urban settings for E and C (which means more options for declared actions) + resolution mechanics that become less focused/fit for purpose + higher power curve of PCs (therefore more answers for obstacles and less pressure-points) + system machinery/clocks (Heat and Wandering Monsters) does less work to force players to consider their profile.

3) Torchbearer mirrors Blades in all ways above (with difference in nuance).

4) Games that have scene-based resolution and/or that have "Journey mechanics" do the same thing; they constrain in the way Doskvol does while they focus/distill/narrow action declarations toward the specific scene premise and resolution mechanics to achieve the scene's "win condition".

---

I think there is also another thing that happens when it comes to the "System Force" of things like the "premise/setting constraint" and Blade's Duskvol and Basic/Torchbearer's adventuring sites and Scene-Based-Resolution/Journey mechanics (D&D 4e, Cortex +, Dungeon World among others); things that constrain a GM away from Force.

Some players can feel somewhat annoyed in their OODA Loop because, due to the zoom/abstraction and level of constraint, they experience a kind of sense of "information loss" (that is the best way I can think to put it) which screws with their transition from Observe to Orient and then from Orient to Decide.

I don't experience this, but its clearly a thing and likely. Some players ( probably @Nagol ) experience this only when their expectations of the game aren't met. Nagol can happily play scene-based resolution games (Fate and probably Cortex+) but he doesn't want scene-based resolution in his D&D (hence he didn't like 4e D&D).

I guess what I'm saying is...freedom from Force can come with a price that may feel like a prison to certain players (I'm using "players" as a catch-all; so participants).

I like premise constraint more than force in the context of constraints previously agreed at the table. I ran a D&D campaign until high level with the premise "all play will occur in this one city" once to show that it can be done decently well. If a player decides to violate the original premise of the agreed campaign (by going to visit a relative in a different city for a RL example), they are the one attempting to apply force. The GM or rest of the table may resist/refuse as the campaign premise is being violated. The same resistance could happen if the GM decides to offer plot lines that leave the city environs as that would also be a violation of campaign premise. If a person tries to break through a brick wall, the wall isn't the thing applying force.

It's not so much information loss in my case I don't think. It's more premise violation. Each game engine comes with expectations both implicit and explicit. Some directly exist in the engine. Others exist because of previous history with the game.

When I sit down to play D&D, I feel part of the implied premises is players will provide meaningful strategic planning including resource allocation/hoarding and a player will play a single character and wholly act within its capabilities. In contrast, when I sit down to play FATE the expectations are the players will help build out the universe in areas where their characters are experts, the players are expected to hunt for advantage in circumstance and situation, and the players are expected to try and provide (or at least not fight) a more cinematic / narrative experience including setbacks, highlighted personal flaws, etc. Dungeonworld (and every other discrete game system) comes with a different set of expectations. Of the former, I prefer to play D&D editions with the aforementioned premises (or other games with similar expectations) as that best matches what I'm looking for as a player. I'm happy to run any number of systems as my preferences as a GM vary dramatically depending on the table experience I'm attempting to achieve for any particular game.

The game I sit down to play is one whose expectations and premises match what I want to do in the game. If a game revision drifts too far from its previous expectations and premise then it needs to get reevaluated as to whether it still belongs in the line up of games I'll use or if there is a game in my line up that better meets those expectations.

 

[Fenris-77]

Further, you can accept that constraints exist and still argue about the usefulness of a specific constraint. We do this all the time IRL with laws -- generally accept that laws exist and yet argue very fine points of distinction as to the justness of a specific application.

Yup, and discussion this sort makes up a significant portion of threads on this board. The usefulness of constraint A, for me, is primarily about the extent to which it correctly or usefully indexes the social contract of the table and the expectations of the participants as to how the diegetic frame will be defined.

 

[Umbran]

They can. Strangely the very notion that others can have unconscious biases is more often used as a justification for disregarding what they say than for reevaluating what we believe.

It isn't strange at all, when you note that the mind isn't a general use logical processor. Neurologically - humans make judgements about their own actions, and other people's actions, using physically different parts of the brain. The brain does nto do a check for consistency between these judgements. So, yes, when someone else does a thing, and when you do a thing, you'll think of those things differently.

As such it's possible that the whole focus on unconscious bias is actually a large contributor to remaining bias.

Yes, because there's no reliable system for it, and there's no testing of hypotheses. A dude steps up, says X, Y, and Z, and you like it or you don't, and there's no real attempt to double check the posits against anything but anecdotal personal experience.

I think you underestimate the power of internet persuasion. While we rarely see an immediate change in someone - our words can have a profound impact on others beliefs.

The research I've read on it (which is relevant to my work) has said otherwise. Or, I should say, yes, we can have a profound effect, but that effect is generally to make people entrench into their own preferred preconcieved notions.

I thought double blind was to eliminate 2 different issues. A truly double blind test makes it impossible to cheat and also tests for the placebo effect.

Double blind works to eliminate bias arising from both the researcher and the subject.

Peer review primarily helps ensure accuracy of the work. A small part of that may be control for bias but that's more a side effect than the purpose.

With respect, given that the point is that bias impacts accuracy... it isnt' a side effect.

By the way, is it possible that most of this focus around unconscious bias is itself biased?

A couple of posts within 24 hours is a "focus" now?

I'll cop to the point coming from my own bias, if you'll cop to trying to lessen and reject and win points knocking it down as your bias.

That said, I think the notion of unconscious bias is being overplayed these days. It's not that it doesn't exist. It's that people are more able to sit it aside than what we are being told IMO.

Looks at the internet.
Looks at this passage.
Sure. By my own admission, handing you evidence to the contrary isn't likely to change your mind.

 

[Umbran]

I think they were trying to define science, and science-adjacent fields and terms.

They were trying to understand how things work. They were trying to seek clarity about the world around them.

And those languages (or theories, I guess) were factually wrong. I'm not sure how the comparison is relevant to something I'm thinking of as more like literary theory, but I'm willing to be enlightened.

Literary theory tells us Faulkner, Melville, Dostoyevski and Joyce are awesome. If you want similar results, by all means emulate literary theory.

 

[Umbran]

Philosophy of science has only pretty modest application to the study or practice of criticism.

Yes. So, you seem to say that as if it is assumed to be a good thing, and that the resulting criticism is relevant to anyone other than those doing the criticizing. I don't know if that's well-established....

Or, am I mistaken in assuming you want the criticism to actually be relevant? If you don't really care if your critical framework to reflect what works for actual players, then sure, you don't need to borrow from science.

Meanwhile... D&D 5e went not to critics, but to statistically relevant numbers of people actually playing games, and came back with what seems to be the most popular game ever.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yes. So, you seem to say that as if it is assumed to be a good thing, and that the resulting criticism is relevant to anyone other than those doing the criticizing. I don't know if that's well-established....

Well, RPG theory and criticism has impacted RPG design and many designers have a theoretical underpinning for their projects that's probably significantly different than what used to be the case. Is that a good thing? IDK for sure, but probably.

Or, am I mistaken in assuming you want the criticism to actually be relevant? If you don't really care if your critical framework to reflect what works for actual players, then sure, you don't need to borrow from science.

I'm not sure the extent to which RPG theory has borrowed from the philosophy of science. Does that have to be the case in order for it to be meaningful? I'm a bricolage man when it comes to theory and critical lens, and in terms of usefulness for both design and understanding I'd say current theory passes the usefulness and relevancy tests. YMMV of course.

Meanwhile... D&D 5e went not to critics, but to statistically relevant numbers of people actually playing games, and came back with what seems to be the most popular game ever.

I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about how theory may or may not have impacted the 5e design process. I don't think it somehow obvious that it didn't though, certainly not just because they also went to statistically relevant numbers of people actually playing games.