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

[Snarf Zagyg]

So, since this keeps coming up, phrased in one form or another, from more than one preson...

Has anyone here ever heard or read, "People like what they like" and thought, Yes, yes, this is very valuable insight.

Since I am the person who uses that phrase most often, perhaps I should explain it.

When I use it, I am referring to the settled law of Judge John Hodgman. The full phrasing as the following:

People like what they like. You can’t force someone to like something. You can expose them to a piece of work, but if they don’t like it, that’s the way it is. You can’t talk them out of it.

And yeah, I think that is not only a valuable insight, I also believe that if people not only understood it, but tried to apply it, they would find their relationships and lives a lot happier.

At the core is a very simple notion- everyone is not the same. People can have different subjective tastes. If not, we would all have the same hobbies, tastes, and art preferences- for example. More importantly, someone can be really smart, be really knowledgeable about a topic, engage in totally good faith ... and still disagree with you.

If most people think about this for even a second, really really think about this, they know it to be true. Two people who both love movies and film criticism, one who loves Wes Anderson and one who doesn't. Or you can see this in your personal life- maybe you love watching bad horror movies, and your significant other doesn't. Or they love Ornette Coleman, and you don't.

In the end, all you can ask is for someone to try something that you love- to share that experience. And if they don't like it, all the talk in the world isn't going to change their mind. You can't force someone to love what you love.

That's really one of the main takeaways, for me. If someone else loves something, and I see that love, the enthusiasm might convince me to try it. The one thing that almost always fails for me (and, I think, for most people) is when people don't share their enthusiasm, but instead mock you for the things you enjoy. That's a little too "comic book guy" and "gatekeeper-y" for me.*

*EDIT- this, by the way, is why I think that the occasional sneering I see w/r/t having "fun" as a goal is the most counterproductive thing a person can possibly say. Yeah, sure, you want to go deeper than that. But my goodness- it's like a parody of any gatekeeper (comic book guy, record store guy, FLGS guy ... always GUY). "Oh, you like {Insert here} because it's FUN? Harumph." Personally, I love to have fun! If someone tells me a game will be fun, I will be a lot more likely to play it. Sometime later, I might unpack why it was fun, maybe. But yeah, fun is a pretty big goal and a good selling point in a hobby.

Anyway, that's what it means. Share your love, and hope that people love it like you do. But be okay if they don't, because not everyone likes the same things. And that's okay.

How about pointing out that something is inherently immune to critique and pointless to analyze because it's wildly popular?

Not a single person has said. As has been said repeatedly, it would be odd to not analyze something that is popular. Most people would agree that "superhero movies" as a genre are popular, right? Do you think it would be weird if, every time on enworld (on in society as a whole), people wanted to discuss and critique superhero films, the conversation got derailed because someone brought up Lars von Trier and everyone started arguing about Dogme 95?

I do!

I can't for the life of me understand what value either of those have. The only goal or result for either would seem to be to try to end the discussion. They certainly never advance it.

That's an interesting point to make! I mean, it would seem counter-productive for someone to repeatedly spend a lot of their own time creating and starting threads with the purpose of ending discussion.

I've been doing it wrong the entire time! Good catch.


EDIT 2- Seriously, though, the purpose of the first phrase ("People like what they like") is just an acknowledgment that people can have different preferences and that's okay. It doesn't mean you can't have your own opinion, or that you can't critique something- but that at certain point an impasse has to occur for the simple reason that preferences are subjective, and arguing over preferences is counter-productive. As for the second- I have to assume you are recalling things that haven't been happening in this thread, or that I am aware of.

 

[Yora]

People know what they like.
But people don't know what they want.

People like what they like, but they generally don't understand what exactly they like about it. They don't fully understand what aspects of a thing makes it something that they like, and how the various aspects are interacting with each other to produce something that they like. This is particularly true with movies and games, which have many more moving parts than what the audience is consciously experiencing in the moment.
You always get fans saying that they really like something, but that they would like it more if you would make a few specific changes. But if the fans don't understand the internal workings of the thing they like, then they also don't know how the final result will change. As a creator, especially when being the creator of the specific work in question, one has a much deeper understanding on how the individual aspects interact together to form a final whole.

I guess the moral of this story is to not design by committee. Design as holistic concepts.
When the next prototype rolls out, you can ask the audience what things they like and what things they don't like, and perhaps what they think why they don't like them. But that's only a pointer at which aspects you could look into again to look for ways that you could refine them. Then check again if they like the changes more or less. It's should not be the audience making their own uninformed edits to the work that you blindly execute.

 

[Campbell]

Speaking personally (as someone who considers themselves a fan of the OSR) my connection is more to playstyle and aesthetics than mechanics. I think playstyle is pretty well understand by referencing stuff like Finch's Old School Primer and the Principia Apocrypha. Games like Into The Odd, The Nightmares Underneath, and Worlds Without Number feel more OSR to me than AD&D playing the more story oriented modules. I am much more of a B/X person though.

@Manbearcat might rake me over the coals for this, but I think games like Torchbearer and Freebooters on the Frontier share old school aesthetics, but have a pretty different playstyle.

Dungeon World is a game that I think has as much of an aesthetic link to the modern game as it does to old school aesthetics. Freebooters feels much more old school to me.

Principia Apocrypha: Principles of Old School RPGs, or, A New OSR Primer

Principia Apocrypha is a new, free Primer for OSR and other Old School Style RPG Gaming in the form of a collection of Apocalypse World-s...

lithyscaphe.blogspot.com

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

People know what they like.
But people don't know what they want.

People like what they like, but they generally don't understand what exactly they like about it.

Two things-

1. That's not exactly what the phrasing is about.

2. If you're designing something, then you are necessarily making choices about the audience.* If it's a commercial product, you want it to sell. The choices you make will be influenced not just by what you consider to be the "best product" or even "what the consumer really wants, but doesn't know yet," but what is likely to sell, with various constraints in place (cost of production, expected market, need for backwards compatibility, etc. etc. etc.).

If you're making a commercial product, then in a very certain way, what you say in the last sentence shouldn't happen ... is what happens. You release the product, the audience (the market) makes its "edits" by either accepting or rejecting your creation (purchase, ignores), and you continue, iterate, or discontinue based upon the audience's feedback.

There is less of this in DIY hobbyist spheres- for example, if you are self-releasing a "pay whatever you want" rules-lite game on itch, then you probably don't care about, or need, commercial success or viability.



*Okay, maybe there is someone, somewhere, that is making something solely for themselves. But for the most part ...

 

[Aldarc]

Since I am the person who uses that phrase most often, perhaps I should explain it.

When I use it, I am referring to the settled law of Judge John Hodgman. The full phrasing as the following:

People like what they like. You can’t force someone to like something. You can expose them to a piece of work, but if they don’t like it, that’s the way it is. You can’t talk them out of it.

And yeah, I think that is not only a valuable insight, I also believe that if people not only understood it, but tried to apply it, they would find their relationships and lives a lot happier.

At the core is a very simple notion- everyone is not the same. People can have different subjective tastes. If not, we would all have the same hobbies, tastes, and art preferences- for example. More importantly, someone can be really smart, be really knowledgeable about a topic, engage in totally good faith ... and still disagree with you.

If most people think about this for even a second, really really think about this, they know it to be true. Two people who both love movies and film criticism, one who loves Wes Anderson and one who doesn't. Or you can see this in your personal life- maybe you love watching bad horror movies, and your significant other doesn't. Or they love Ornette Coleman, and you don't.

In the end, all you can ask is for someone to try something that you love- to share that experience. And if they don't like it, all the talk in the world isn't going to change their mind. You can't force someone to love what you love.

That's really one of the main takeaways, for me. If someone else loves something, and I see that love, the enthusiasm might convince me to try it. The one thing that almost always fails for me (and, I think, for most people) is when people don't share their enthusiasm, but instead mock you for the things you enjoy. That's a little too "comic book guy" and "gatekeeper-y" for me.*

*EDIT- this, by the way, is why I think that the occasional sneering I see w/r/t having "fun" as a goal is the most counterproductive thing a person can possibly say. Yeah, sure, you want to go deeper than that. But my goodness- it's like a parody of any gatekeeper (comic book guy, record store guy, FLGS guy ... always GUY). "Oh, you like {Insert here} because it's FUN? Harumph." Personally, I love to have fun! If someone tells me a game will be fun, I will be a lot more likely to play it. Sometime later, I might unpack why it was fun, maybe. But yeah, fun is a pretty big goal and a good selling point in a hobby.

Anyway, that's what it means. Share your love, and hope that people love it like you do. But be okay if they don't, because not everyone likes the same things. And that's okay.

I will say that in my discussions about other games or systems, I don't necessarily expect that other people will or must like the games that I discuss. I rarely, if ever, go in to these discussions with the intent of convincing other people into liking these games. I understand fulll well that other people have different tastes, and they are entitled to them. I like playing other games, and not every game is designed with a D&D-esque framework. (And I do think that you, Snarf Zagyg, likely would also enjoy playing them, and I would be more than delighted to play these games with you.)

When I discuss these other games, however, I would appreciate it if other people took a little time understanding these games, how they work and play as games, and why others may like them instead of repeating blatant misunderstandings or falsehoods about the games or telling me that I'm engaging in badwrong-not true-roleplaying because I may play games with metagame currencies, robust social mechanics (e.g., Fate, Cortex, etc.), or greater player authority over the fiction. (These have all happened to me here on ENWorld within the past year too.). I don't enjoy having other games I like playing being condescendingly referred to as "bespoke" or the subject of special pleading about them being more specialized or less customizable/kit-bashable than D&D.

I don't necessarily like having my own personal tastes repeatedly be on trial, raked through the coals, or having to justify its own existence over against the hegemony of traditional gaming, which I myself also partake in and enjoy. That doesn't make me feel welcome, and it's almost a miracle that I'm still here on ENWorld given the crap people have said about my gaming preferences. And also being someone who liked 4e during the time of the Edition Wars here? shudders I did not go looking to be a part of the "theory camp." It happened to me, largely as a byproduct of my own preferences (for liking 4e, for liking Fate, for liking Dungeon World, for liking Blades in the Dark, etc.) constantly being interrogated by others here.

It would be nice if what you wrote here was equally or fairly applied to all the people who spent their time on ENWorld punching down at marginalized gaming preferences rather than those of us who were occasionally having to punch up.

 

[payn]

People know what they like.
But people don't know what they want.

People like what they like, but they generally don't understand what exactly they like about it. They don't fully understand what aspects of a thing makes it something that they like, and how the various aspects are interacting with each other to produce something that they like. This is particularly true with movies and games, which have many more moving parts than what the audience is consciously experiencing in the moment.
You always get fans saying that they really like something, but that they would like it more if you would make a few specific changes. But if the fans don't understand the internal workings of the thing they like, then they also don't know how the final result will change. As a creator, especially when being the creator of the specific work in question, one has a much deeper understanding on how the individual aspects interact together to form a final whole.

I guess the moral of this story is to not design by committee. Design as holistic concepts.
When the next prototype rolls out, you can ask the audience what things they like and what things they don't like, and perhaps what they think why they don't like them. But that's only a pointer at which aspects you could look into again to look for ways that you could refine them. Then check again if they like the changes more or less. It's should not be the audience making their own uninformed edits to the work that you blindly execute.

This is often overstated. In fact, I've seen it used as a weapon against folks enough that I pretty much default to giving people the benefit of the doubt they understand what they want.

 

[payn]

It would be nice if what you wrote here was equally or fairly applied to all the people who spent their time on ENWorld punching down at marginalized gaming preferences rather than those of us who were occasionally having to punch up.

It would be nice if folks didnt feel the need to punch at all. I will say that when it comes to discussing different types of games, particularly comparing games, EN World is one of the most diplomatic places. Maybe that's damning praise, im sorry you had those experiences.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It would be nice if what you wrote here was equally or fairly applied to all the people who spent their time on ENWorld punching down at marginalized gaming preferences rather than those of us who were occasionally having to punch up.

First, I have no dispute with indie games. If anything, as I am sure you remember, I was incredibly disappointed that we were not able to more fully discuss some of the rules-lite games that I think are fascinating. Moreover, to the extent that I can be, I try to support games and gamers in the independent sphere. What you see from your perspective is not what I see.

Second, I do not think that the appropriation of that language ("punching down at marginalized gaming preferences") in the context of this conversation is appropriate or helpful. There is a great deal of amazing work (some of which is available at the links in the OP) regarding issues of representation and marginalization in the TTRPG community- issue related to gender, sexuality, and minority representation among others. We see these issues both in the indie game community and in the larger, more commercial game community. I do not think that using this language to describe conversations about game preferences ("I like BiTD and 4e and PbTA games" as opposed to "I like Cthulhu Dark and 5e and rule-lite games") is helpful, and I think it uses language that evokes very real and systemic issues in our society and our hobby in a manner that is unhelpful when describing differences in gaming preferences.

 

[Aldarc]

First, I have no dispute with indie games. If anything, as I am sure you remember, I was incredibly disappointed that we were not able to more fully discuss some of the rules-lite games that I think are fascinating. Moreover, to the extent that I can be, I try to support games and gamers in the independent sphere. What you see from your perspective is not what I see.

How could you see things from my perspective? I've also seen this unfold on the forum since 2002. That tends to color my perspective a bit.

Second, I do not think that the appropriation of that language ("punching down at marginalized gaming preferences") in the context of this conversation is appropriate or helpful. There is a great deal of amazing work (some of which is available at the links in the OP) regarding issues of representation and marginalization in the TTRPG community- issue related to gender, sexuality, and minority representation among others. We see these issues both in the indie game community and in the larger, more commercial game community. I do not think that using this language to describe conversations about game preferences ("I like BiTD and 4e and PbTA games" as opposed to "I like Cthulhu Dark and 5e and rule-lite games") is helpful, and I think it uses language that evokes very real and systemic issues in our society and our hobby in a manner that is unhelpful when describing differences in gaming preferences.

Perhaps it was not the most suitable language, but as an LBGTQ person myself, it was the familiar language of my grief, aggravation, and frustration. And maybe instead of trying to shame me for using this language, it would be nice if you could sympathize where it was coming from and respond a little more gracious consideration.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

How could you see things from my perspective? I've also seen this unfold on the forum since 2002. That tends to color my perspective a bit.

I am not sure how to respond to this- if I say that what you see is not what I see, then your response doesn't make much sense. I didn't say I saw things from your perspective; I said you didn't see things from my perspective- because we are seeing things differently.

Your coloration and my coloration are not the same.

Perhaps it was not the most suitable language, but as an LBGTQ person myself, it was the familiar language of my grief, aggravation, and frustration. And maybe instead of trying to shame me for using this language, it would be nice if you could sympathize where it was coming from and respond a little more gracious consideration.

I don't feel the need to detail my personal history, nor do I think it's the same issue you do. I simply will re-state what I said previously- I don't find that language appropriate for a conversation about gaming preferences. This isn't about shaming you, or anyone else. I just think that using the language in contexts that are not appropriate devalues it when it is most certainly appropriate. You can choose how and when to use the language you want- I just registered why I believe it is unhelpful in the current context. I am sorry that you feel frustrated that you are not heard- but I don't think the comparison is helpful.