Same As It Ever Was: Define the Players of RPGs, then Define the Theory of RPGs

[innerdude]

". . . You may ask yourself, am I right? Am I wrong? . . ."

"And you may say to yourself, 'My God, what have I done?'"

 

[Malmuria]

"And you may say to yourself, 'My God, what have I done?'"

Omg, is life just a railroad??

 

[innerdude]

I specifically call out that you didn't say that these discussions help us DISCOVER what we care about - and you are correct not to say that, because they don't. Theory discussions around here are not about exploration. If they were about exploration, and we kept coming back to the same points, then I'd agree that we'd solidified around what really mattered. But, since we aren't really exploring the possible theory landscape, we aren't going to find anything in the discussions.

I disagree with this. Prior to 2015 or so, I was completely blind to any theory that didn't directly play into my preconceptions about "the way RPGs are supposed to work"---rules had to "process simulate" the game world. Dissociated mechanics were "bad" and "wrong", and not only that, were going to be the ruination of D&D and roleplaying as we know it. Anything that goes against these maxims is no longer even categorically "roleplaying" at all, etc., etc.

I was on the absolute forefront of arguing against fiction first / "Story Now" play. RPGs can't possibly work the way this is being described. This is completely against the way things work, and I can't believe that there's any valid theory that would support this.

But finally, after hearing over and over that no, this stuff really does work, I went out and read some of the Forge theory on GNS. And even though I think a lot of the particulars are lost and muddied in the Forge discussions, the main idea that stuck through all of it was finally recognizing that, yes, all of the fiction of an RPG is constructed by a participant, it's only a question of by who and when.

I couldn't conceive of "Story Now" play before that realization, because I had simply not accounted for the fact that "traditional" RPG play merely prioritizes RPG fiction generated by the GM participant, prior to its public introduction to the rest of the play group.

"Simulationist" play merely prioritizes one form of fiction introduction, by one particular participant, over other forms of fiction introduction.

The "theory" of "Story Now" play suddenly became clear --- it becomes wholly possible by altering the placement along the related spectra of timing of introducing elements to the fiction + participant authority.

So you're correct in that my initial declarations around "RPG theory" were not "explorations." They were declarations of "Story Now play doesn't work, and can't possibly work, and it's bad to even try."

And the responses from many posters who rightfully disagreed were, "No, it works great. Here's why, and here's some related game theorizing that supports the premises."

So is that an exploration of the theory? Not per se. We're not exploring the nuances and ins and outs of the theory. We're not poking holes in it, making new extrapolations, etc. For all of its flaws, that's a lot closer to what the Forge was really trying to get at.

Discussions about theory on EnWorld more gravitate toward elucidation and education than exploration. It seems most participants aren't trying to build upon game theory. But they are trying to provide context and perspective.

And believe me, I will now 1000% go out of my way to elucidate my experience with coming around to what "Story Now" play can do. Having an understanding of what it is and what it does has improved my group's level of play and enjoyment. Because I greatly care about finding new, fun, exciting, and innovative ways to get better at and maximize enjoyment from play.

 

[innerdude]

Omg, is life just a railroad??

David Byrne I'm sure would have a comment on that . . . .

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

David Byrne I'm sure would have a comment on that . . . .

I lost another PC to a crit from an axe
I'm tense and nervous and
I can’t relax
Party tried to sleep but a dragon lit us all on fire
Starting to think that the ref is a liar….
Killer DM
Qu'est-ce que c'est ?

 

[Aldarc]

@seankreynolds used to have an article on "The Breakdown of RPG Players" which was a result of the 1999 WotC market research. Unfortunately, the site that was hosted on has gone away, and I cannot find another copy of it.

However, my memory is that the cluster analysis of their survey data revealed 5 groupings - four of which mapped largely to the groupings you note here (I don't doubt that someone at WotC had read about the Fourfold Way), and a fifth, that was an admixture of the four. If I recall correctly, in fact the majority of players sat in the "mixed" group, rather than adhering strongly to any one aspect of gaming.

Considering some of the surveys that I have seen WotC produce,* I am somewhat skeptical about what the results tell us concretely about the playerbase. This is not to say that the marketing research is wrong, but there are also a lot of unknowns about how they conducted that market research, the sort of questions that were being asked, and the respondents. Moreover, this only really tells us about the market in 1999. Has this shifted (and how) within the last 20 years? The same groupings may exist, though the concentrations of answers may have changed.

* How some of the wording on the WotC questionnaires and surveys for D&D and M:tG sometimes feel:

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And mine isn't an argument that, say, the Fourfold Way doesn't represent the basic real issues of RPGs. It is just that repeated internet argument about one set of things things doesn't itself indicate that those are THE THINGS that matter at our tables.

So, to be clear about the OP- the idea isn't that the four-fold way (or other, more recent classifications) is, or isn't, an accurate way to model players and/or player agendas.

It's more that there's a repeated cycle of-
A. Declaring that there's a problem in TTRPGs.
B. This problem is caused by inconsistent desires/agendas/types of players.
C. Therefore, a new typology of players will be announced (almost always with some types being more equal than others, in the George Orwell sense).
D. Based on that typology, a theory (or theories) of TTRPGs and/or game design will bloom, under the concept that the system itself will enable/encourage/assist in certain types of play.
E. Rinse, repeat. (The epilogue of the book has this re-occurring, with ...IIRC, I don't have it with me at this second ... the creators of Ars Magica writing in to A&E happy to have discovered it ...).

Like any kind of classification system or tool (even like the different modes of critical theory I discussed in a prior thread), I think that these models can be useful- often leading to people to think about their games differently, and, more importantly, allowing designers some space to create different game designs to cater to this elusive (or illusive) playing agenda. But none of them are gospel, or the truth, or reality. Just an abstracted way of looking at things that will eventually be forgotten and supplanted by something else.

But the vast majority of tables will get much more use out of (for example) reading what iserith writes about DC checks or the action economy than they ever will from these discussions.

 

[Blue Orange]

One thing I haven't seen anyone say yet (and maybe they did on another thread) is that the industry behemoth over the course of the hobby has a financial interest in constantly changing the game. If D&D became like chess and had stable rules they couldn't sell as many Players Handbooks and would have to start laying people off (not to mention, much more importantly, that Hasbro wouldn't want to kill their cash cow).

Since every new edition is going to change the balance between these types of players, and even in the absence of that factor some people are going to be unhappy with some of the changes (whether you're a 1er missing their half-orc assassin or a 4er missing their warforged marshal), this is going to be a topic of contention for some time to come.

 

[Umbran]

Considering some of the surveys that I have seen WotC produce,*

Judging a segmentation study from over 20 years ago on today's questionnaires that have a different purpose? I'm not sure that's a great basis for a position.

 

[Umbran]

So is that an exploration of the theory? Not per se.

Exactly.

Any individual can learn theory they did not know, and find some value in it. But, in the process around here no new theoretical ideas come up. All we have is the conflict between now decades-old theoretical frameworks, and only a couple of them, at that, without anything like a verification process beyond collecting anecdotes.

It is like a bunch of fans of cubism are discussing art (okay, really, more like arguing art) with pointillists. Sure, someone can learn a thing or two, but no new way of considering painted artwork comes out of it. So, unless the cubists or pointillists got art completely right on the first go, there's no reason to think that discussion is actually identifying what is important in painting, in general.

Discussions about theory on EnWorld more gravitate toward elucidation and education than exploration.

This is completley in alignment with what I said. So I'm not seeing disagreement here.