Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Aldarc]

To be clear, @clearstream, I am not making a normative statement about what qualifies as a RPG. When I speak of whiffs of GM-authored railroading of player agency, I am primarily speaking of my personal gaming preferences and experiences. I can tell you that the nearly all of the "whiffs I speak of" came at a time when my total breadth of tabletop gaming experiences amounted to D&D (3e & 4e), d20 Modern, True20, Savage Worlds, and Pathfinder. They were not being judged by the standards of different games outside of these modes of play, but, rather, internally and in accordance to my own preferences and tolerances. Nor did I say anything suggesting that it wasn't a RPG.

Likewise, I am also not making a contrast to video games. I am making a comparison of similarity solely in regards to my partner's personal gaming preferences. My partner likes playing video games with stories. They really enjoy BioWare games like KOTOR and SWTOR. They likewise enjoy playing adventures in TTRPGs where there is a story. They liked, for example, playing the Titansgrave adventure path for Fantasy AGE. I am running a short adventure for them now with Numenera. (1) I understand where their gaming preferences come from, and (2) I don't think any less of them for those preferences nor (3) do I impart any value judgment about whether these preferences are lesser or greater by any arbitrary standard of what makes for a TTRPG.

 

[clearstream]

To be clear, @clearstream, I am not making a normative statement about what qualifies as a RPG. When I speak of whiffs of GM-authored railroading of player agency, I am primarily speaking of my personal gaming preferences and experiences. I can tell you that the nearly all of the "whiffs speak of" came at a time when my total breadth of tabletop gaming experiences amounted to D&D (3e & 4e), d20 Modern, True20, Savage Worlds, and Pathfinder. They were not being judged by the standards of different games outside of these modes of play, but, rather, internally and in accordance to my own preferences and tolerances.

One view I have on this, which I don't want to put forward with too much vigour, is that a given RPG played differently by different groups can well amount to different games. It's possible that is what you were encountering if speaking primarily of personal gaming preferences.

Otherwise, for me it is not clear what you might mean in saying that you are judging within the (GM-authored, railroady, low player-agency) paradigm and finding it whiffy. Would you concede the possibility that there were those for whom that was their intended and satisfactory mode of play? I think this has come up before: criticisms that I might call subjective, appearing to be put forward as objective.

Beyond normative statements (which you are not making, right?) I feel like there is no "objective" criticism of any mode of play.

Nor did I say anything suggesting that it wasn't a RPG.

Absolutely. I did not take it that way.

Likewise, I am also not making a contrast to video games. I am making a comparison of similarity solely in regards to my partner's personal gaming preferences. My partner likes playing video games with stories. They really enjoy BioWare games like KOTOR and SWTOR. They likewise enjoy playing adventures in TTRPGs where there is a story. They liked, for example, playing the Titansgrave adventure path for Fantasy AGE. I am running a short adventure for them now with Numenera. (1) I understand where their gaming preferences come from, and (2) I don't think any less of them for those preferences nor (3) do I impart any value judgment about whether these preferences are lesser or greater by any arbitrary standard of what makes for a TTRPG.

I think the similarity provides contrast, in that no RPG is solely pre-authored. Ongoing authorship is at the heart of all RPG. That's more a technical definition than value judgement.

 

[Aldarc]

One view I have on this, which I don't want to put forward with too much vigour, is that a given RPG played differently by different groups can well amount to different games. It's possible that is what you were encountering if speaking primarily of personal gaming preferences.

Clearstream, the problem is that my original post wasn't about what a RPG is. It was disinterested in that question. But I also felt that you made claims about what I was saying in my post that were untrue or misleading or implied that I was making a judgment value that was actually absent. My second post was an attempt to get you to stop making such claims about what I was saying.

If you don't know the details of what personal gaming experiences I am talking about or what/who they involved, then I would highly appreciate it if you didn't haphazardly appropriate them for your analysis. I felt that there were a fair number of judgmental assumptions in what you have been saying in relation to my game experiences, some of which involve my partner and close friends, and I wish that you would stop making them, especially as the basis for your analysis. You are free to ask about my experiences and preferences, but at this point I would kindly and respectfully ask you to back off from using my prior posts in question for further analysis.

Otherwise, for me it is not clear what you might mean in saying that you are judging within the (GM-authored, railroady, low player-agency) paradigm and finding it whiffy. Would you concede the possibility that there were those for whom that was their intended and satisfactory mode of play? I think this has come up before: criticisms that I might call subjective, appearing to be put forward as objective.

(1) I did not say that I "[find] it whiffy." I said a "whiff" as in I smell or catch wind of the GM railroading us as players towards certain predetermined choices or outcomes.

(2) When I say internally, I meant in accordance to the range of modes or cultures of play that are typical or common within such games. I also use 'internal' in contrast to 'external' in the sense of judging the game experiences with these aforementioned games based on other games like Blades in the Dark, Apocalypse World, Fate, Cortex, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc. which have different norms or cultures of play.

I think the similarity provides contrast, in that no RPG is solely pre-authored. Ongoing authorship is at the heart of all RPG. That's more a technical definition than value judgement.

Regardless, it still feels pretty tone deaf in regards to my original post.

 

[clearstream]

Clearstream, the problem is that my original post wasn't about what a RPG is. It was disinterested in that question. But I also felt that you made claims about what I was saying in my post that were untrue or misleading or implied that I was making a judgment value that was actually absent. My second post was an attempt to get you to stop making such claims about what I was saying.

If you don't know the details of what personal gaming experiences I am talking about or what/who they involved, then I would highly appreciate it if you didn't haphazardly appropriate them for your analysis. I felt that there were a fair number of judgmental assumptions in what you have been saying in relation to my game experiences, some of which involve my partner and close friends, and I wish that you would stop making them, especially as the basis for your analysis. You are free to ask about my experiences and preferences, but at this point I would kindly and respectfully ask you to back off from using my prior posts in question for further analysis.


(1) I did not say that I "[find] it whiffy." I said a "whiff" as in I smell or catch wind of the GM railroading us as players towards certain predetermined choices or outcomes.

(2) When I say internally, I meant in accordance to the range of modes or cultures of play that are typical or common within such games. I also use 'internal' in contrast to 'external' in the sense of judging the game experiences with these aforementioned games based on other games like Blades in the Dark, Apocalypse World, Fate, Cortex, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc. which have different norms or cultures of play.


Regardless, it still feels pretty tone deaf in regards to my original post.

Apologies, I intended no value judgements. I will of course respect your wishes and leave this off here. Thank you for taking the time to explain your views.

 

[ClusterFluster]

@ClusterFluster

A lot of your post illustrates my point about the struggle with moving beyond map-and-key/notes-based framing and resolution:

Here's what I snipped out:

I have no idea what RPGs this is supposed to describe; but the notion of "doing anything" (which is something that happens in the fiction) illustrates my point upthread about treating the content of the fiction as explanatory. And the idea that there is a pre-given "game world" or "story" that the players adjust also reinforces the centrality to your post of the idea of map-and-key or "GM's notes".

@FrogReaver, given that this post seems to me a good illustration of my prediction upthread, I thought I'd draw your attention to it.

I don't understand your aversion to "map-and-key" resolution: any system with hardcoded class or career rules for character creation utilizes "map-and-key" principles in the abstract to build your adventurer. Edit: Published adventures and campaign settings utilize map-and-key principles as well, though its cleverly disguised through the introductions of these elements in a suggested order. It's clear that you're not opposed to it altogether for the sake of adventures, though you do think it's a lower order concern of the game, if I understand you correctly.

However, so as far as I can tell, I'm not really proving your point. You seem to be misapplying the concept of "role" as a theatrical or literary student would implement the term, given your reliance on "framing" being the most important aspect of character choices. The idea of a character having a perfect--if not significant at least--authourity to "frame" the narrative as a default feature of any resolved choice, would broadly fit with the essence of the narrative style that I've termed as "Rationale." This can be a sliding scale, whereby you could play a game of imagination with a 6 year old who always defeats the giants (this instance of authourity is absolute, but in this case granted for the sake of a child), then to something like what PbtA games implements through the architecture of bonds and hard/soft moves, which all contain necessary flavour to serve the setting (i.e. to "play to the fiction"), and furthermore to something far more bizarre like an "Inception" movie world, where the player is able to outright fold spacetime over itself in a non-Euclidian anti-paradox--at least within a specified area like dreams, but is also broadly compatible with warring gods in non-material planes.

More odd about your priority to character "framing" as the principle of the setting driver, is that this is congruous with the essence of the Great Man Theory of history, whereby the circumstances of this world hinge on the social overtures and judicious use of resources by a movement's most charismatic leader. The main character of a traditional story itself is a "Great Man" by right, albeit only whenever the authour designates one character as the focal point of action for that setting's timeframe. It feels ironic that "map-and-key" resolution is far more egalitarian in principle, as no one player creates their characters to take on the mantle of a "main character" as such, not even to create a team of main characters as you find with the Avengers or the Justice League, due entirely to an absence of a choice resolution having the power to "frame" anything; they simply play their games to see what they can control, out of what they otherwise cannot, in order to meet their ends.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't understand your aversion to "map-and-key" resolution: any system with hardcoded class or career rules for character creation utilizes "map-and-key" principles in the abstract to build your adventurer. Edit: Published adventures and campaign settings utilize map-and-key principles as well, though its cleverly disguised through the introductions of these elements in a suggested order. It's clear that you're not opposed to it altogether for the sake of adventures, though you do think it's a lower order concern of the game, if I understand you correctly.

However, so as far as I can tell, I'm not really proving your point. You seem to be misapplying the concept of "role" as a theatrical or literary student would implement the term, given your reliance on "framing" being the most important aspect of character choices. The idea of a character having a perfect--if not significant at least--authourity to "frame" the narrative as a default feature of any resolved choice, would broadly fit with the essence of the narrative style that I've termed as "Rationale." This can be a sliding scale, whereby you could play a game of imagination with a 6 year old who always defeats the giants (this instance of authourity is absolute, but in this case granted for the sake of a child), then to something like what PbtA games implements through the architecture of bonds and hard/soft moves, which all contain necessary flavour to serve the setting (i.e. to "play to the fiction"), and furthermore to something far more bizarre like an "Inception" movie world, where the player is able to outright fold spacetime over itself in a non-Euclidian anti-paradox--at least within a specified area like dreams, but is also broadly compatible with warring gods in non-material planes.

More odd about your priority to character "framing" as the principle of the setting driver, is that this is congruous with the essence of the Great Man Theory of history, whereby the circumstances of this world hinge on the social overtures and judicious use of resources by a movement's most charismatic leader. The main character of a traditional story itself is a "Great Man" by right, albeit only whenever the authour designates one character as the focal point of action for that setting's timeframe. It feels ironic that "map-and-key" resolution is far more egalitarian in principle, as no one player creates their characters to take on the mantle of a "main character" as such, not even to create a team of main characters as you find with the Avengers or the Justice League, due entirely to an absence of a choice resolution having the power to "frame" anything; they simply play their games to see what they can control, out of what they otherwise cannot, in order to meet their ends.

I think this echoes part of what you are saying here -

One thing I noticed with my play of Blades in the Dark was that despite it's mechanics pushing away from traditional map and key play - there were still many places where map and key showed up - often a bit hidden but still there. For example, when in Blades when I as GM need to determine the consequences of a failed roll (full failure or partial success), I am looking at the 'map' of all the established fiction and picking a result that makes sense to me within the framework of that established fiction. That's not really different than what a D&D DM does when determining the consequences of a players actions, albeit in D&D not all established ficiton is player facing. This same consideration happened when players were considering actions as well. They would pick one that made sense or followed from the established fiction. Outside of consequences - the setting of position and effect also tended to require a map and key as well.

-by the way, i really hate the name 'map and key'

 

[FrogReaver]

More odd about your priority to character "framing" as the principle of the setting driver, is that this is congruous with the essence of the Great Man Theory of history, whereby the circumstances of this world hinge on the social overtures and judicious use of resources by a movement's most charismatic leader. The main character of a traditional story itself is a "Great Man" by right, albeit only whenever the authour designates one character as the focal point of action for that setting's timeframe. It feels ironic that "map-and-key" resolution is far more egalitarian in principle, as no one player creates their characters to take on the mantle of a "main character" as such, not even to create a team of main characters as you find with the Avengers or the Justice League, due entirely to an absence of a choice resolution having the power to "frame" anything; they simply play their games to see what they can control, out of what they otherwise cannot, in order to meet their ends.

I don't agree with this last paragraph. Mainstream play works by having a reason for all characters to work together. The style @pemerton references doesn't require the PC's to necessarily act in concert. In such games the DM can easily pit your characters goals against mine. A big part of those games is seeing what happens in such situations.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think this echoes part of what you are saying here -

One thing I noticed with my play of Blades in the Dark was that despite it's mechanics pushing away from traditional map and key play - there were still many places where map and key showed up - often a bit hidden but still there. For example, when in Blades when I as GM need to determine the consequences of a failed roll (full failure or partial success), I am looking at the 'map' of all the established fiction and picking a result that makes sense to me within the framework of that established fiction. That's not really different than what a D&D DM does when determining the consequences of a players actions, albeit in D&D not all established ficiton is player facing. This same consideration happened when players were considering actions as well. They would pick one that made sense or followed from the established fiction. Outside of consequences - the setting of position and effect also tended to require a map and key as well.

-by the way, i really hate the name 'map and key'

I'm not completely sure what it means, actually. It looks like another one of those jargon phrases that someone starts using and everyone goes along with it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not completely sure what it means, actually. It looks like another one of those jargon phrases that someone starts using and everyone goes along with it.

It literally means “map and key”. Of the sort that you find in adventure modules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It literally means “map and key”. Of the sort that you find in adventure modules.

Sure, but it's apparently being applied to all gaming of a certain style, module or not.