Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Thomas Shey]

On evoking at least I feel the answer is relatively easy: just adopt it. Meaning will come to adhere to the new label once it is in use. That's part of how words work.

Only at the point other people actually start to use it, and if its not doing so at least somewhat from the get-go, it becomes another case of the barrier jargon can apply.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Hence, if someone were to complain about the use of the term "meatgrinder" because it has negative connotations, I would feel justified in responding that the term is both common use, and appropriate to the context; it is impossible to talk about the high and random lethality of early editions without recognizing that it is both high and random, and it is that very combination which is captured by "meatgrinder." To remove the negative connotation (the element of "needless/pointless/unsatisfying") would be to remove a key part of what makes it descriptive in the first place.

I generally liked this post, but I wanted to comment on the problem here: to proponents of that style, it is neither needless, pointless, nor unsatisfying; it evokes the kind of gritty unpredictability they enjoy. Now, I suspect most of them would still be willing to embrace the term (because to them being kind of a meatgrinder is a virtue in most cases) but to someone who didn't, that would be the nature of the problem.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, I suspected there was some implicit tongue-in-cheek there.


Which is fair, though "minority" becomes rather a more complex subject in the context of game analysis. Are ultra-old-school "High Gygaxian" heist-lovers the (a?) minority party because their style has mostly been abandoned by official D&D and tends to only get support in comparatively niche 3PP stuff? Are 4e fans the (a?) minority party because our favorite edition is so often straight-up falsely accused or totally forgotten? Are 3e fans the (a?) minority party because everyone moved on to 5e, leaving behind the few distinctive bits of 3e design? If more than one is a minority party, what happens when one uses a term another finds pejorative, do we listen to the minority struggling to get its voice heard even if that means allowing speech another minority finds mocking, or do we expect them to meet some kind of norm and thus in principle silence their voice?

(I don't think these questions have clear answers. Just noting the heuristic can quickly run into trouble when one minority group's concerns conflict with another's.)


Sure, it's best that we strive for an improvement. And, as you say, addressing what is lost and why, and whether that loss actually matters, is relevant. Sometimes the loss is simply evocativeness, which is a pretty weak standard. Sometimes it is like my example of "meatgrinder" above, where to take away the (relatively soft) implication of arbitrary mass slaughter would literally strip out the key thing being described about early-edition D&D (that it has high body counts, especially with the many inexperienced DMs of the day, and that most of those deaths were unavoidable, random, and empty/unsatisfactory/etc.)

By that same token, though, we can easily run into trouble in other ways. Consider, for example, if we discuss with person A, who finds label Q unacceptable because of its connotations, but supports label P. Then, later, we discuss with person B....who finds label P unacceptable because of its connotations, but supports label Q. We are definitionally stuck: we cannot use Q without angering A, who wants P; but we cannot use P without angering B, who wants Q. What are we to do? We cannot dispute either person, because they are each aggrieved parties and aggrieved parties are always right. Yet it is logically impossible to appease both without inventing new terms--and that just passes the buck. For the sake of being able to communicate without needing constant circumlocution, it would seem that we probably at some point have to consider the practical angle in addition to the need to show respect.

The main issue I've noted around language is that... One side of a discussion, argument, however you want to describe it shouldn't have a monopoly on deciding what language will be used to both characterize themselves as well as everyone else... it creates an automatic imbalance in power dynamics for the entire discussion.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Maybe people could just explain what they mean in plain language rather than try to find jargon to shorten how much they have to type?

Does anything in your experience tell you that this is going to happen with topics having extended and ongoing discussion? Because the evolution of jargon seems to speak heavily against it it. The vast majority of people seem to consider it a bridge too far.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Are you seeing these posts? I don't think brevity is the underlying goal of jargon here.

Well, the goal doesn't seem to be clarity either, or at least that goal doesn't seem to be on its way to being achieved. The explanation of "map and key" seems reasonable to me now, once you remove the (still pejorative to me) phrase "mostly random guesswork", but I still don't understand why people can't just say what they mean without resorting to found or invented terms. You explain that you aren't extending a value judgement by...actually explaining that, in text most everyone can understand. To do otherwise constrains fruitful discussion to those who already approve of your terms and risks the appearance of elitism.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Does anything in your experience tell you that this is going to happen with topics having extended and ongoing discussion? Because the evolution of jargon seems to speak heavily against it it. The vast majority of people seem to consider it a bridge too far.

But it could happen, and IMO it should.

 

[FrogReaver]

@FrogReaver

Established fiction in the context of Blades refers to the things that have been said at the table and only those things said at the table. Anything else is what the game refers to as potential fiction.

Be aware of potential fiction vs. established fiction.

Isn't the setting pre-established at least at a high level?
Aren't the factions present in that setting preestablished-at least at a high level?
Isn't the fiction that you are part of a crew trying to make it big also preestablished?
Aren't the city maps being used preestablished?
Etc.

Like I get it's not nearly as much as is preestablished as is done so in a module style D&D game, but compared to many sandbox style D&D games - there's similarities in what information is preestablished and what isn't.

The way I have always seen the game approached (in actual play, actual play series and my reading of the text) the setting elements, particularly the factions are meant to be tailored to your specific game. Take what works, change what doesn't, nothing is binding on play until it is seen in play.

Seems to me that statement could just as easily apply to a faction sandbox style D&D game.

For instance, you are only supposed to pay attention to factions and faction clocks that are directly relevant to play. It's not like wrong to treat the setting in a more traditional way, but my reading of the text is that it should be an input into framing (potential fiction), but not constrain or limit action resolution or framing.

I would caveat that with, you are only supposed to pay attention to factions directly relevant to play at the moment. At any given time another faction could become relevant to play. A typical D&D sandbox would probably track what happens with them in the background and then reveal that when it comes up. In blades this wouldn't be done, but you would still need to create relevant fiction to any details that come up during play. Then consider that in a typical D&D sandbox, only high level events are handled in the background - much of the other more granular details are made up on the spot by the DM, often in conjunction with consulting some dice, etc. That's not particularly different than the way blades handles this - right? Blades offers more structure in places on when the DM should and should not do certain things.

In our own Blades game several of the factions have changed their MOs and their relationship to other factions based on what would make for a more compelling game. The same is true of both the Actual Plays I saw John Harper (the game's author) run.

Agreed. But this kind of stuff also happens in D&D sandbox style play, for much the same reasons. Now there are differences of the two - i'm not saying system doesn't matter, but the resulting differences are more narrow and nuanced and not on this kind of broad conceptual scale.

Most facts in D&D are only written in pencil until they are introduced to the players. Common changes - i'd originally thought having 4 bandits attack here would make sense - but i think i've misjudged the strength of the party so i'm changing this to 6. Or, the players really suspect the lord as the culprit and think he is also secretly a vampire - i hadn't originally planned this but it seems compelling so i'm changing it. Or in terms of a sandbox, players convinced two previous allied factions to become hostile. Just some examples of details that change.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, the goal doesn't seem to be clarity either, or at least that goal doesn't seem to be on its way to being achieved. The explanation of "map and key" seems reasonable to me now, once you remove the (still pejorative to me) phrase "mostly random guesswork", but I still don't understand why people can't just say what they mean without resorting to found or invented terms. You explain that you aren't extending a value judgement by...actually explaining that, in text most everyone can understand. To do otherwise constrains fruitful discussion to those who already approve of your terms and risks the appearance of elitism.

This is much where I'm at.

 

[FrogReaver]

Edit: On reading Ezekial's post above, I think the actual parallel to "Shroedinger's X" is "Mother May I".

The first time I really recall 'map and key' was in a thread where I objected to 'Mother May I' and 'Pictionary' as descriptors of D&D play. Map and Key was proposed as a term to use in place of those. It's certainly a better term than them. It's very likely I've moved all the conceptual baggage of those 2 terms onto the 'map and key' phrase. I think you may be right that it's not the phrase itself - but more that those who would use the phrase still mean 'mother may I' and 'Pictionary' by it.

I think someone earlier referred to this as poisioning the well.

 

[Campbell]

The main issue I've noted around language is that... One side of a discussion, argument, however you want to describe it shouldn't have a monopoly on deciding what language will be used to both characterize themselves as well as everyone else... it creates an automatic imbalance in power dynamics for the entire discussion.

I agree. No one should expect special deference. I don't really care whatever framing anyone wants to use. If I disagree with the content of what is said I will say why. I do not care to control the language is used because when people use language Schrodinger's X or Bespoke Game the issue isn't the language that is being used. It's the implications of that language. It belies either a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what play really looks like and I can engage it on that level. I am willing to have those hard conversations.

Despite what some people here might think I do not consider myself an advocate for any given way to play. I want people to play the games that suit them the best - to seek their personal bliss. I also want people to not feel ashamed of their preferences, to not let others bully them as I was bullied and shamed into believing what I wanted out of play was impossible, selfish even. That I did not deserve to have the game experience I wanted to have. Of course all of that was BS.

I don't care what games or methods of play anyone prefers. What I want, what I have always wanted was clarity and accuracy of play process. My personal motivation for posting on these boards is to instill a climate of respect for things we do not personally desire. No matter your preference you should be able to look at a well designed game that gives people an experience they cannot find elsewhere and respect it. You should be able to respect the skill and creativity of anyone who dedicates years to become excellent at running a given type of game.

We should be able to talk about these things from the basis that any given game provides unique value and that no set of preferences are wrong or threatening. Will things get touchy sometimes? Sure. We're going to see things differently. That's life. But we should at least be able to respect each other.