RPG Theory- The Limits of My Language are the Limits of My World

[Snarf Zagyg]

I tend to agree. Once you get away from a D&D-centric space like ENWorld, most discussion of RPGs in contrast doesn't mention any incarnation of D&D, other than to the degree its lumped in with other traditional games. This wasn't always true--early in the hobby a lot of discussion of new games were framed in contrast to what they did that D&D doesn't--but for most people outside the D&D-sphere (in the sense they don't do it or its not their primary game choice) that fight is long won as far as they're concerned, and they've moved on to working on other issues beyond whether there's better ways to represent characters than classes or better ways to represent armor than AC. It doesn't even come up (and even when it does, its in a kind of "of course" sort of way).

I mean, I think that would be a giant red flag that something should be re-examined.

Imagine if you were trying to think about any other field, and you chose to discard the majority of relevant data about actual observed preferences because it doesn't fit what you want it to be.

It's akin to someone saying, "Yeah, I like discussing music and music theory. I'm not going to talk about hip-hop, or rock, or pop, because that's what people listen to. Opera, on the other hand ... that's where the action is."

It is possible to both appreciate that the hoi polloi isn't going to be on the bleeding (artistic) edge, as well as acknowledge that the revealed preferences of those who are buying and playing the game may account for something useful.

 

[Thomas Shey]

2. Gorice's Gospel: All conversations about TTRPG theory on enworld inevitably become arguments about the Forge.

Its not just here. I've seen that process occur anywhere I see a discussion about TTRPG theory. Its probably because the two are so associated in so many people's minds.

 

[Aldarc]

Because that's where the money is. (Speaking of Engels ...)

Seriously, though. When that much money is spent on triple-A games, and on creating and maintaining MMOs, then you get a lot of work done on the practical aspects of what makes it "good" and "worth playing." In other words, the design and theory aspects of them. Because of the relative paucity of such work in the TTRPG field, a lot of the concepts get borrowed.

IMO. I think @Aldarc has mentioned this as well.

It's where the money is, but it's also a field that has established lingo/jargon for its games and isn't afraid to use it. We're not talking academic level here, but also at a basic amateur fan community level of criticism. I often get the impression that people in the various TTRPG communities are incredibly reluctant to talk about their games in a comparable way that board game or video/computer game enthusiasts talk about their games.* However, in the absence of available terminology to utilize in the TTRPG space, people will draw their terms from elsewhere. In this case, it's predominately video games.

One can't say that this hasn't influenced TTRPG talk either. For starters, one can look at how the term "sandbox" was used in older TTRPG discussions to be synonymous with a "campaign" or a "setting," but the term "sandbox" acquired a more particular meaning as a result of its particular usage in computer games. I saw somewhere online where one of the designers for Wilderlands in the d20 era flat out admitted that they took the term "sandbox" from video games to describe its style of tabletop gaming. I have also seen people talk of settings in terms of being a "theme park" setting.

* I will admit that one of my own frustrations across various TTRPG communities is the hypersensitivity to any potential criticisms particularly about the strengths and weaknesses of a game. Without pointing fingers to D&D, I can recount how I got a heaping amount of backlash among some Cypher System influencers when I tried asking what the Cypher System wasn't good at and its systemic weaknesses. But if every game was "one size fits all" as some game communities make their game out to be then we wouln't nearly have as many game systems, generic or otherwise, out there that we do.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean, I think that would be a giant red flag that something should be re-examined.

Imagine if you were trying to think about any other field, and you chose to discard the majority of relevant data about actual observed preferences because it doesn't fit what you want it to be.

It's akin to someone saying, "Yeah, I like discussing music and music theory. I'm not going to talk about hip-hop, or rock, or pop, because that's what people listen to. Opera, on the other hand ... that's where the action is."

It is possible to both appreciate that the hoi polloi isn't going to be on the bleeding (artistic) edge, as well as acknowledge that the revealed preferences of those who are buying and playing the game may account for something useful.

The problem is that there's an assumption buried in this: that the vast majority of people playing D&D actually have a thought-through preference for the sort of mechanical things it does. Given the number of D&D players I've hit over the years that only even have the vaguest sense other RPGs exist, and in many cases have no opportunity to experience them (other than in a third party sort of way, until recently almost certainly by reading, which for many people is a seriously inadequate way to do so), and given the other factors that produce a lack of interest in straying outside the D&D sphere, its not clear there's so much a general preference as a lot of people who don't even have a sense there's a meaningful choice.

Its about like contrasting McDonalds consumption with consumption of burgers from various much smaller chains; examining the latter could, indeed potentially tell you something, but what its just as likely to tell you is that McDonalds is all over the place and is much better known and most people gravitate to what they're familiar with unless they have a strong reason not to. And that isn't even getting into the extremely strong networking benefits being in the D&D sphere has.

 

[Thomas Shey]

* I will admit that one of my own frustrations across various TTRPG communities is the hypersensitivity to any potential criticisms particularly about the strengths and weaknesses of a game. Without pointing fingers to D&D, I can recount how I got a heaping amount of backlash among some Cypher System influencers when I tried asking what the Cypher System wasn't good at and its systemic weaknesses. But if every game was "one size fits all" as some game communities make their game out to be then we wouln't nearly have as many game systems, generic or otherwise, out there that we do.

This is particularly pronounced if you go into a dedicated community to a game system; I've seen it in two or three I was involved with over the years. But yes, its what I saw someone refer to (talking about the Fate community some years ago) as "Its apparently both a floor wax and a desert topping." I suspect its because people who come from a particular angle, where a specific system literally serves all their needs pretty well, have trouble imagining it not doing so for others, and therefor assume any question in this regard is a veiled attack.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Another thread, ostensibly about one thing (discussing the division of narrative authority within 5e) turned into another thing (jargon-filled general discussion about RPG theory).

How is that second thing really all that different or unexpected or undesirable, compared to thing one?

Well, yeah! Look at the big disclaimer I wrote at the beginning of the thread-

Please note that I am going to try and use words in their, um, natural language (it's 5e!) so as to allow a multiplicity of opinions. To the extent that I accidentally employ jargon, it is not intentional, and I will explain any terms I use if they are meant to be "terms."

And then I ended with this-

One thing I have seen repeatedly is a conflict in that interstitial area- the Player declaration prior to the DM narration. And this is where I think that it is worth exploring, at your own table, what level of narrative control and authorial responsibility should Players have? What is acceptable?

I don't think that there is a single, correct, answer. For example, if you using 5e to do a "old school" dungeon crawl with a keyed map, and descriptions of the things in each room, you should probably avoid having Players describe new things in the rooms. On the other hand, if the party goes into a bustling metropolis that hasn't been full described, is there any harm in having the Players narrate the name and location of the place they are staying, such that it becomes part of the fiction of the world? Or is this something that your table prefers remains exclusively within the province of the DM?

I put this out not because I have an answer, but simply to outline the issues and to see what other people say. So, have at it!

To answer your question, I think that we see a lot of the same conversations/discussions/debates/arguments with a lot of the same people. Some of them don't play 5e or believe it's a system worth playing, really. Which is totally acceptable- different people like different things!

But I do think that these conversations can be alienating to many players and GMs, since they often rely on specialized jargon, or refer to things "everyone knows" (posts from years ago) or theories from two decades ago, or demand people post long and involved excerpts from their own games or refer to prior ones to participate in the conversation.

...and I was hoping for an inclusive thread for people who don't normally join in to be able to discuss those concepts in the context of 5e and see what they had to say, since I don't see that very often. New voices getting to express themselves.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you might be a master of instigating food fights and then appearing after the fact to decry the terrible mess that others have made. I don't necessarily think that's what's happening, but I'm not Not seeing a certain twinkle in your eye...

Not really! Well, probably not? I prefer to think that I am trying to see what people have to say about certain topics, and then, after I am again shocked by the thread drift, move on to something else.*

I'm more Charlie Brown, always shocked that Lucy yanked the football away. Next time, though. Next time!


*Honestly, once I post the thread starter, I don't usually contribute too much. I've said what I've had to say! And I already know the rest of what I'm going to say- it's much more interesting to see what other people write.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is particularly pronounced if you go into a dedicated community to a game system; I've seen it in two or three I was involved with over the years. But yes, its what I saw someone refer to (talking about the Fate community some years ago) as "Its apparently both a floor wax and a desert topping." I suspect its because people who come from a particular angle, where a specific system literally serves all their needs pretty well, have trouble imagining it not doing so for others, and therefor assume any question in this regard is a veiled attack.

If you go into a fate community and constantly talk about non-fate it comes across as proselytizing and I think that’s what’s happening with the pushback you are seeing.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The problem is that there's an assumption buried in this: that the vast majority of people playing D&D actually have a thought-through preference for the sort of mechanical things it does.

Well, I would say that there's an assumption behind that statement as well!

Look, two things could be going on. Not even mutually exclusive.

1. People are stupid, and they don't know any better, so they just play D&D because they are stupid. Which is, roughly paraphrased, what you are saying. If that's true, then that is worth examining. Just like it's worth examining why people eat McDonald's when there are better options. You can't just assert something- you have to look at the evidence and examine what it means. Or, to go back to my example, "People who like hip hop and rock and pop music don't have any real preferences. They would listen to opera if they just knew better." As a general rule, the "people are stupid and don't know better" argument generally isn't a great one. IMO.

2. People like what they like. It's possible that there are reasons that you aren't considering (or that you are, and are discounting) for people to have different preferences. For example, it could be as simple as, "People know about other games, and they might like other games, but because D&D is so common, it is the default game for any mixed group of people." Again, though, this is worth examining.

 

[Aldarc]

This is particularly pronounced if you go into a dedicated community to a game system; I've seen it in two or three I was involved with over the years. But yes, its what I saw someone refer to (talking about the Fate community some years ago) as "Its apparently both a floor wax and a desert topping." I suspect its because people who come from a particular angle, where a specific system literally serves all their needs pretty well, have trouble imagining it not doing so for others, and therefor assume any question in this regard is a veiled attack.

Interestingly enough, I distinctly remember seeing Rob Donoghue (and/or Clark Valentine) flat out say that Fate can't do everything. There are limitations and weaknesses to the various game systems out there, and (most) designers rarely carry the same delusions that some fans have about game systems having no known limitations or weaknesses.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Interestingly enough, I distinctly remember seeing Rob Donoghue (and/or Clark Valentine) flat out say that Fate can't do everything. There are limitations and weaknesses to the various game systems out there, and (most) designers rarely carry the same delusions that some fans have about game systems having no known limitations or weaknesses.

Often designers (at least competent ones) are forced to take a broader view than people who play or even GM games. And in cases where they don't, its often extremely obvious.