Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[FrogReaver]

There is a long history of you posting things about AW, BitD and other non-D&D, non-D&D-ish RPGs and having people who are familiar with those systems query the accuracy of your posts.

As I've noted many times, I didn't just make crap up. I listened to how someone like you said something in those games worked. Usually ended up that the person I was listening to made an overly broad statement that I took to be an absolute truth and framed a logical argument around their statement only to find out later that there was alot more nuance involved in the actual game.

What are the inaccurate posts I'm making about 5e? The most recent post I made about 5e D&D was in the "bespoke vs generic" thread, and the 5e player whose anecdote I was responding to agree with me.

IMO it doesn't actually matter if they are accurate or inaccurate. For the point I'm trying to discuss that's a total red herring.

EDIT to add: If you think there's some "secret sauce" in 5e D&D that is escaping my comprehension, despite my years of playing RPGs with basically the same authority structure, basically the same resolution framework, and much overlap in mechanical details, by all means tell me about it.

I don't know about escapes your comprehension - but i think you overvalue the impact of system and undervalue the impact of people. A great example of this that I've already mentioned is how my blades in the dark game felt similar to 5e D&D in alot of ways due to how my group pushed back against the system.

 

[pemerton]

IMO it doesn't actually matter if they are accurate or inaccurate. For the point I'm trying to discuss that's a total red herring.

I tend to treat accuracy as one desideratum of sound commentary.

As I've noted many times, I didn't just make crap up. I listened to how someone like you said something in those games worked. Usually ended up that the person I was listening to made an overly broad statement that I took to be an absolute truth and framed a logical argument around their statement only to find out later that there was alot more nuance involved in the actual game.

As I posted upthread,

if I ask someone to explain something to me, and following their explanation something seems silly or inadequate about the explained thing, I tend to assume that that means either (i) I misunderstood some part of the explanation, or (ii) the person explaining left something out, whether for brevity, or for simplicity, or because they assumed I would fill the gaps in their explanation, or for whatever other reason. So in such a case, before I turned around and told the explainer that the thing they've explained seems silly or inadequate, I'd try and confirm whether (i) or (ii) (or perhaps both) is the case.

i think you overvalue the impact of system and undervalue the impact of people. A great example of this that I've already mentioned is how my blades in the dark game felt similar to 5e D&D in alot of ways due to how my group pushed back against the system.

Generally when I post about RPG systems or rulebooks, I'm not trying to predict how any given table might respond to a particular ruleset.

But sometimes I am - I generally try to make it clear. I'll make such a prediction now: most RPGers who are familiar only with D&D and D&D-like games will struggle at the idea of framing situations, and resolving actions, without resort to a map-and-key.

A related thing that I also predict, based on experiences on this board, is that those RPGers will struggle to take Vincent Baker's advice to GMs in the AW rulebook literally.

 

[Aldarc]

It's fairly interesting to me how some of what I have read about Ron Edwards writing about certain strands within the plurality of D&D's gaming cultures, isn't all that different from what OSR and FKR communities have talked about those same strands of D&D, such as how they speak of "Dragonlance" almost as a naughty word. Edwards, for example, emphasizes "folk traditions" in D&D while also resisting what can feel like GM-authored story railroading and D&D metaplots, whether their own or as supplied by an adventure path. If Ron Edwards wants to crap on metaplots in D&D, then he better get in line behind all the D&D fans on this forum who persistently crap on the various metaplots forced onto their favorite settings by TSR or WotC: e.g., Dragonlance, Planescape, Forgotten Realms, etc.

Edit: Also, a lot of Ron Edwards's long form essays ironically read a lot like Snarf's thread editorials on these forums.

As someone who spent many years in that ecosystem, I can tell you that BRP fans can come out with their fists clenched sometimes (and that's not even getting into the internal "How much do we give a damn about Glorantha?" discussions).

As an aside, for all the talk about how "Ron Edwards hates traditional gaming," it's amusing how many videos he has on YouTube where he's gushing about how much he likes Glorantha and RuneQuest.

 

[FrogReaver]

Generally when I post about RPG systems or rulebooks, I'm not trying to predict how any given table might respond to a particular ruleset.

Yea. For me that's the heart of the problem. How people actually play the system matters.

But sometimes I am - I generally try to make it clear. I'll make such a prediction now: most RPGers who are familiar only with D&D and D&D-like games will struggle at the idea of framing situations, and resolving actions, without resort to a map-and-key.

Why do you think that is?

 

[FrogReaver]

Another thought - just curious on others perspectives.

For D&D we all agree there's no one true way to play it. Is the same true for other RPG's? As an example, take Blades in the Dark, is there one true way to play it? I kind of get the vibe that some think there is so I'm curious.

Followup - if an RPG can truly be played more than 1 way then isn't that prima facie evidence that RPG rulesets themselves fall short of fully codifying all the actual process of playing the game - i mean if everything was fully codified then surely there couldn't be more than 1 way to play (not talking houseruling, homebrewing, or precoded modular options either). Which makes me think, maybe RPG's aren't actually systems but more like a system that's 95% built that still requires the table to fill in the remaining 5% to actually become a fully formed system we could do analysis on and talk about.

 

[Hussar]

I would argue that the ratio is closer to 50:50. After all, unlike virtually any game, you can’t start play in an rpg until you make characters. And then the scenario has to be created.

Now there are a bunch of ways either of those activities can be done but the point is, until you do them you can’t play.

I actually kind of agree with the idea that until we start sitting down and watching play being played over time that criticism in rpgs will always fall very short.

Sure we can talk about some of the mechanics but critiquing a game is more than just mechanics.

 

[clearstream]

Another thought - just curious on others perspectives.

For D&D we all agree there's no one true way to play it. Is the same true for other RPG's? As an example, take Blades in the Dark, is there one true way to play it? I kind of get the vibe that some think there is so I'm curious.

Followup - if an RPG can truly be played more than 1 way then isn't that prima facie evidence that RPG rulesets themselves fall short of fully codifying all the actual process of playing the game - i mean if everything was fully codified then surely there couldn't be more than 1 way to play (not talking houseruling, homebrewing, or precoded modular options either). Which makes me think, maybe RPG's aren't actually systems but more like a system that's 95% built that still requires the table to fill in the remaining 5% to actually become a fully formed system we could do analysis on and talk about.

Questions like these led me to my present skeptical viewpoint. I've read many times on this and other forums repudiations of "onetruewayism" (sometimes also characterised as "badwrongfun".)

As I think you intend to imply, to find those notions appealing requires some level of agreement that RPG rulesets fall short of fully defining the game in play. In another thread, an essential role for fiction in RPG is discussed, which I believe opens up further space for deviation (or one tells a group their fiction is wrong, or perhaps even the way that they have divided authorial power is wrong!)

What I would recommend is reading two papers, one by AJ Kreider and the other by R Royce (in reply), discussing rule-following. I think those papers put in mind the observably high likelihood of diversity in rule-following. If rules are followed in diverse ways, then how can we say the resulting games-as-played are the same? And that is not even to touch divergence in principles surrounding play (social principles, principles of interpretation and application). We can hold conversation based on pronounced similarities, while always at risk of being elliptical or at cross-purposes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Another thought - just curious on others perspectives.

For D&D we all agree there's no one true way to play it. Is the same true for other RPG's? As an example, take Blades in the Dark, is there one true way to play it? I kind of get the vibe that some think there is so I'm curious.

Followup - if an RPG can truly be played more than 1 way then isn't that prima facie evidence that RPG rulesets themselves fall short of fully codifying all the actual process of playing the game - i mean if everything was fully codified then surely there couldn't be more than 1 way to play (not talking houseruling, homebrewing, or precoded modular options either). Which makes me think, maybe RPG's aren't actually systems but more like a system that's 95% built that still requires the table to fill in the remaining 5% to actually become a fully formed system we could do analysis on and talk about.

I would say that Blades in the Dark is far more specific about how it is intended to be played. I’d not go so far as to say there may not be some variance from game to game, but the more variance, the more likely that the game doesn’t work as intended. For example, the advice in the book is to not let the players plan too much; that we should skip to the action once a score is set. Every game I’ve been involved with allows at least some planning for some scores. The book even says this is okay, but it urges you to keep it to a minimum as much as possible.

With D&D, it varies by edition. Some editions do have more specific ways to handle things. Basic and 4e come to mind. 5E is far less so. I’d go so far as to say it takes the opposite approach of Blades; it is at times intentionally vague so as to allow multiple ways to play. It is surprisingly unclear about fundamental elements of the game. As such, it’s designed intentionally to allow multiple approaches to play.

If we watched a group play each game, it’d be far easier to spot any changes they made while playing Blades than it would be for 5e. In fact, in the case of 5e it may not even always be possible to tell because the book lacks a specific method.

 

[soviet]

With D&D, it varies by edition. Some editions do have more specific ways to handle things. Basic and 4e come to mind. 5E is far less so. I’d go so far as to say it takes the opposite approach of Blades; it is at times intentionally vague so as to allow multiple ways to play. It is surprisingly unclear about fundamental elements of the game. As such, it’s designed intentionally to allow multiple approaches to play.

I think this is still within a very narrow band though. Yeah there's flexibility about how to handle certain issues (although I would argue that 'I dunno, figure it out yourselves' is really an abrogation of responsibility rather than a feat of game design) but fundamentally if you want to run something that isn't a flavour of modern D&D you are going to have to do some very heavy drifting.

 

[Imaro]

With D&D, it varies by edition. Some editions do have more specific ways to handle things. Basic and 4e come to mind. 5E is far less so. I’d go so far as to say it takes the opposite approach of Blades; it is at times intentionally vague so as to allow multiple ways to play. It is surprisingly unclear about fundamental elements of the game. As such, it’s designed intentionally to allow multiple approaches to play.

I'd disagree here... I think 5e sets down the fundamentals of gameplay and the fundamentals of its play loop but leaves the details as well as the application up to the individual DM or table.