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

[Snarf Zagyg]

Again, it's not about “high culture, low culture”. What I'm saying is, outside of the world of TTRPGs, it's unlikely that someone self-identifies as a fan of something doesn't have even cursory knowledge of other things.

That is not at all a true comment, in my opinion.

It (1) elevates TTRPGs to a position of specialness that isn't true, (2) posits that TTRPG fans are more stupid than fans in any other area, and (3) overlooks the nature of fandom.

Many fans (fanatics) are known not for their exacting knowledge of the world outside of their fandom, but, instead, the lack of interest. Not all! Some acquire more knowledge (usually to mock or belittle or argue with fans of other things), but for the most part ... yeah.

Here on the enworld there is a bias towards old school and dungeoncrawling in D&D discussions, probably because it's only us old timers use forums these days, but take a trip to /r/DnD. Look what advice people there give or ask for. For me, it's clear as day that there are at least some people who would be better served with something other than D&D.

I think that there is also a bias against it. The whole "how do you play your D&D" is a constant tension in the threads. I do agree that enworld skews older and more DM-centric, so there are more conversations about history, etc. (although certainly not to the extent of more specialized forums, like OD&D on Proboards or Dragonfoot or Canonfire or any innumerable more specialized ones), but there are a ton of prominent people that vocally push back against that. Makes it fun!

Finally, I don't disagree that some people might be better served with something other than D&D. That's never been in dispute. But that's not an interesting point to me (I'm not saying that it's a bad point, just not interesting to me). Because TTRPGs are social games that involve multiple people with different distributions of authority, it is rare to find that a table consistently is playing a game that is the optimum choice for everyone at the table. I think it's almost inevitable that someone at the table is compromising by playing the game.* And that's true, whether it's D&D, or Blades in the Dark, or some FKR, rules-lite game.

I have a little more that is responsive to you, in a way, but I will respond to a different poster with a second post.

*There are no universals. Some people have managed to acquire long-term groups where it might be possible that every single individual is in alignment and the game is a perfect encapsulation of what they want to do! But generally, I believe that people elevate having fun together over a specific desire that their individual need is paramount every session.

 

[Umbran]

Thus, it was ironic that such a comment came from you.

Mod note:
I said, just yesterday, that we should avoid making this personal. You seemed to agree with that.

This is the opposite of avoiding. Please, just keep the personal commentary to yourself.

 

[FrogReaver]

Mod note:
I said, just yesterday, that we should avoid making this personal. You seemed to agree with that.

This is the opposite of avoiding. Please, just keep the personal commentary to yourself.

Apologies for taking it too far.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Campbell apologies to you as well.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is such a good framework for the “Well D&D must be doing something right” discussion that I’m shocked I haven’t seen it before. The same exceptionalism and sense of almost occult mystery. At the risk of going even further afield it reminds me of people who proclaim that anyone who’s massively wealthy must be a genius and also worthy of respect, if not adulation. What’s that, his father owned an emerald mine? Tut tut! Even the born-ultra-rich must bootstrap themselves to greater heights!

Well, I'm glad that you thought it was a good framework. I hope you understand that I am choosing not to respond to the post because it is, for some people (like me) deeply insulting. If anyone can appreciate hyperbole, I can. But I don't really enjoy having the same group denigrate my playing preferences again. I'll explain after the jump!

Dismissing foundational and inherited advantages doesn’t just muddy the conversation. It posits a world where those advantages provide just a tiny head-start, and everything else in the competition is fairness and merit. That’s not our world.

And as others have mentioned, there’s the somewhat inscrutable but ultimately boring (to me) question of the power of D&D’s branding. Personally I think the influence of branding, and resistance to the notion that brand success might have nothing to do with inherent quality, ties into ‘Merica and Musk as well, but that’s obviously a bigger and even more off-topic conversation.

Imagine a slightly different perspective. Let me take this away from 5e for just a second before going back in, because it's not really about 5e. Whenever there is a conversation about TTRPG theory, or something interesting, it always ends up being the same people talking about the same things. It's not like 'Murika (I mean, really?). It's more like a high school cafeteria, where the same bullies patrol the area. They make fun of all the kids for either being part of the "crowd" (who wants to be like all those people, they don't even know what they want) or they make fun of any other smaller group that isn't like them. No other conversations are allowed, or they get shouted down (or reported to the principal).

I can understand this because I've seen it occur. Do you want to have a conversation about FKR and the recent re-discovery of interest in rules-lite neo-Arnesonian games? Yeah, no. Sorry. Can't talk about that. It doesn't fit in the box for the cool kids. Do you want to have a jargon-free discussion about 5e, so you tag it with "5e" and say it's about 5e and try your darnedest ? Yeah, no, can't talk about that either. Even though it's a 5e discussion, you aren't allowed to have it because it's ... 'Murika?

This thread wasn't about 5e at all; it's about the rejection of this singular dogmatic approach. That's what this thread was about. Umbran got it in one.

It is okay to have a favored framework, but for goodness sake realize that it is only a framework, not TEH TRVTH!

That's why I put in a number of different resources- and because I don't consider myself the arbiter of the truth either, I included in the list of sources what I think is the best, and most representative, example of something that I think is kinda divisive. And if that book is too expensive, you could just look at Playground Worlds (available on-line with a link) starting on page 232. It's all good.

People like what they like.

So yeah, I see a lot of really smart people on enworld. I'm sure you do too- and I keep noticing that most of them don't participate in any of these conversations (I'm not going to name them or 'at' them because I respect their choice- obviously, they are smarter than I am because they avoid these threads). Which is sad to me- because they often have a wealth of real-world experience that I'd like to hear from, and would be more interesting and valuable than just seeing the same quote from (designer who shall not be named) trotted out again. Not to mention that we sometimes see newer people that post here, and don't see again because they get shouted down in conversations because they didn't play some indie game or were aware of someone's playing transcript from 3 years ago.

Finally, I think the issue with 5e (and why it was introduced) keeps getting misunderstood. There is a cadre of people that routinely dismiss it because it is popular (well, for other reasons too, but that's neither here nor there*). It's just branding. Or it's just because people don't know any better. Which are common refrains we often hear to explain away popularity in all sorts of areas- but those explanations usually don't hold up.**

It's far more productive, and interesting, to examine what else is behind that. There are a number of plausible reasons- network effects (it's easier to find a game because "everyone" knows how to play D&D). Division of authority (games that only require a single truly engaged person, the DM, require less 'buy in' from every member of the group and are therefore more likely to be successful with a mixed group of people). Second-best (the concept that D&D does a number of different things "well enough" to make it an overall first choice, even though it might not be any particular person's first choice- kinda like a TTRPG social choice or Arrow's theorem). The reward loop of D&D and the persistent campaign leads to long-term engagement (XP+level+more abilities and rinse/repeat). Or maybe because D&D has a long culture of homebrew and expansions and "hackability," it is considered an incomplete ruleset and people are comfortable modifying it to their needs- which is not the case with other complete rulesets.

I don't have an answer- but those are some ideas, and I think exploring them are better and less insulting than 'Murika, truck yeah. More importantly, if someone doesn't want to engage in discussing the application of theory to 5e (whether it's simple design theory, or division of authority, or whatever), there's a simple solution- don't. You don't have to mock the people that do want to discuss it.

The point is not that 5e is good because it is popular, the point is only that it is bizarre to ignore the most popular TTRPG and the largest dataset when it comes to discussing TTRPG theory.

So I'm going to wrap this up here. And why I usually exit threads after a short period of time. Everything that really needed to be said is in the original post.


*I do think that some portion of the pushback and non-engagement with this specific issue is because it would necessarily require asking about 5e's relative popularity vis-a-vis other versions, and what that says about whether certain aspects of the prior versions, whether it's Gygaxian skilled play and high mortality, 3e's high crunch, or some of 4e's innovations, are effective in broadly popular games at this time. To acknowledge that 5e is broadly popular is to acknowledge that the design decisions of 5e, that are not in accord with prior versions, might be part of that success.

**"Apple fans only like their products because of branding." "The only reason people buy SUVs is because of branding and marketing." "MCU fans only like their movies because they are marketed better." etc. Yeah, marketing and branding can be important- but there's always something more to learn. Marketing and branding works by exploiting things that consumers already like and want.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

@Snarf Zagyg I suppose there's not much point in responding, since it sounds like you're dropping this post on your way out the door, and also saying that "Everything that really needed to be said is in the original post," raises the question: Why bother starting a thread, if what you're really doing is writing a blog post, and then getting increasingly frustrated when people disagree?

But I will note that this business of presenting those who criticize the absolutely dominant status quo (in any industry or other context) as bullies patrolling the cafeteria is 100 percent the asymmetric problem I'm trying to surface, as far as talking about D&D goes. Why can't film critics hail the absolute artistic genius of all things MCU, as evidenced by their box office success? Darn snobbish bullies. How dare people poke fun at 'Merica, or make jokes about white privilege or whatever sports team is currently dominant or anything else that, by nearly all quantifiable measures of success, is winning. What bullies, squeaking away...somewhere down there. Don't they know there's no honor in punching up, since, you see, Goliath's size is really a disadvantage, since it makes him such an easy target!

If we're going to talk about anything on a meaningful level related to mechanics, theory, etc. and not just "what's your favorite setting/race/class," why should anything be sacred? PbtA and all of its offshoots are open for criticism and comparison. OSR games too. Toss a barb about WoD players into a thread and you'll get a laugh emoji. Why do D&D and its players have to be treated so gingerly?

I mean, I guess you've already answered that, including busting out the old "People like what they like" maxim, the purpose of which I'm never sure of, except to try to short-circuit further analysis by somehow shaming the participants. But, at least in this sense, I suppose I'm shameless.

I also don't flip out when someone says Shadowrun 5th edition, the game I've been running for a while now, is not for them, has an unwieldy system, is worse than 2e, worse than Cyberpunk 2020 or Red, etc. I don't imagine them as bullies or wannabe cool kids. Because I'm not married to this game for the rest of my life, and it does some very specific things well (IMO) that I want to do right now, and pretty soon I'll say goodbye to the system, maybe forever.

I'm not saying everyone should be system-promiscuous. But I reserve the right to be confused when anyone gets this offended by criticism of the game or system they're currently using.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Snarf Zagyg I suppose there's not much point in responding, since it sounds like you're dropping this post on your way out the door, and also saying that "Everything that really needed to be said is in the original post," raises the question: Why bother starting a thread, if what you're really doing is writing a blog post, and then getting increasingly frustrated when people disagree?

But I will note that this business of presenting those who criticize the absolutely dominant status quo (in any industry or other context) as bullies patrolling the cafeteria is 100 percent the asymmetric problem I'm trying to surface, as far as talking about D&D goes. Why can't film critics hail the absolute artistic genius of all things MCU, as evidenced by their box office success? Darn snobbish bullies. How dare people poke fun at 'Merica, or make jokes about white privilege or whatever sports team is currently dominant or anything else that, by nearly all quantifiable measures of success, is winning. What bullies, squeaking away...somewhere down there. Don't they know there's no honor in punching up, since, you see, Goliath's size is really a disadvantage, since it makes him such an easy target!

If we're going to talk about anything on a meaningful level related to mechanics, theory, etc. and not just "what's your favorite setting/race/class," why should anything be sacred? PbtA and all of its offshoots are open for criticism and comparison. OSR games too. Toss a barb about WoD players into a thread and you'll get a laugh emoji. Why do D&D and its players have to be treated so gingerly?

I mean, I guess you've already answered that, including busting out the old "People like what they like" maxim, the purpose of which I'm never sure of, except to try to short-circuit further analysis by somehow shaming the participants. But, at least in this sense, I suppose I'm shameless.

I also don't flip out when someone says Shadowrun 5th edition, the game I've been running for a while now, is not for them, has an unwieldy system, is worse than 2e, worse than Cyberpunk 2020 or Red, etc. I don't imagine them as bullies or wannabe cool kids. Because I'm not married to this game for the rest of my life, and it does some very specific things well (IMO) that I want to do right now, and pretty soon I'll say goodbye to the system, maybe forever.

I'm not saying everyone should be system-promiscuous. But I reserve the right to be confused when anyone gets this offended by criticism of the game or system they're currently using.

Maybe they aren’t getting offended because there’s simply criticism but because of some other aspect of how the criticism is presented (like the ‘Merica comparison above) or how even 5e tagged discussions about rpg theory get turned into discussions about non-5e games.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Maybe they aren’t getting offended because there’s simply criticism but because of some other aspect of how the criticism is presented (like the ‘Merica comparison above) or how even 5e tagged discussions about rpg theory get turned into discussions about non-5e games.

Or how any conversations about theory ends up derailed by the same topics (and/or same individuals). Even this thread that is discussing a specific book (Elusive Shift) and providing resources from a variety of viewpoints.

 

[Malmuria]

The success of 5e is obviously a lot about branding and market dynamics. But playing it, and seeing others play it and get into rpgs for the first time, I think what it suggests to me is, to put it pithily, ‘system doesn’t matter.’ Or doesn’t matter to the degree and in the ways that some people think it does. There’s an element to a game system that affords a playstyle by simply not getting in the way. So, we don’t actually need mechanics for fantasy shopping. The character and world building prompts in the game do a better job, without rules, to give people the fantasy shopping simulator they desire. Making sure the ‘system has a say’ would make the experience less fun. When people are trying to perform, having to refer to mechanics can be disruptive. (Similarity we can say that critical role was influential for 5e’s success. But what makes dnd a good vehicle for that kind of game? What about dnd produces the Matt mercers of the world?)

With regards to character, I think the way that dnd evokes fantasy archetypes is a big part of why people like it. I prefer osr games with streamlined classes and races. But I’ve realized that is not what my players like. And from reading things online, I infer that most players are wrapped up in the backstory and/or build of their characters. They are not concerned with authoring the fiction of the world because they are in charge of authoring the fiction of the one thing they care about, their characters (and their character’s pets).

 

[Campbell]

Maybe they aren’t getting offended because there’s simply criticism but because of some other aspect of how the criticism is presented (like the ‘Merica comparison above) or how even 5e tagged discussions about rpg theory get turned into discussions about non-5e games.

A lot of the time when this happens it's because people make bold assertions about what's possible in roleplaying games or use D&D discussions to pontificate about all roleplaying games. See all the discussion around how railroading is necessary if you want to have a game about anything other than dungeon crawling. See also the sandbox / railroad spectrum stuff.

I also think some 5e super fans have a pretty limited (and overly conservative with a lowercase c) perspective of what 5e is actually capable of when pushed. This includes stuff like the authority models used by a lot of people inspired by Critical Role.