Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[FrogReaver]

Is there any RPG in which the world does not exist independently of the characters? Maybe Toon and The Primal Order?

This if fair. The lens you are viewing it from leaves no difference there.

Though I'd note that an 'independently existing world' makes a great contrast with module style play where the world can most likely be viewed as waiting around for the heroes. This is a fairly good lens to use for contrasting those styles IMO.

Another lens can serve as a decent contrast with Story Now systems - that lens being that an 'independently existing world' means the world has preauthored facts that change in the background over through the course of play. Whereas story now doesn't have preauthored facts outside of play and because of that it 'does not exist independently' when viewed with this lens. This shouldn't be a particularly startling take, but it's what viewing it through this particular lens means and it's something that despite the terminology, the concept is one which you ultimately should agree given my understanding of your positions.

I take it that you're confining the concept of "trade off" here to your own experience? It doesn't seem like a generalisable characterisation.

I'm concerned here - you are pushing back against the concept of 'trade offs' to doing things different ways... If that's truly your stance then doesn't that imply that you view one way as strictly superior to the other and if so how does one supposed to have a conversation about playstyles with someone that doesn't see any good in their preferred playstyle?

 

[Imaro]

Many of these discussions struggle exactly because of that dominant assumption. That assumption is what leads to push back.

Struggle in what way? Pushback against what exactly. When I pushback against a term like MMI, or being talked to condescendingly, or being told there's a double standard of required knowledge to be taken seriously in the discussion (and of course trad games require less, because reasons)... it has nothing to do with a trad playstyle being my assumption.

And yet, there has been very little (if any) of classifying traditional play in any negative light. No one is defining the terms for both sides in this thread.

Interestingly enough this particular thread was started by someone different than the usual driver of these types of discussion... though there was what I would call a sideshot taken about what they had done in the time we spent discussing discussion... and wasn't started in the typical fashion of those threads either. Maybe it really is about approach.

There have been a couple of examples of how people have done so in the past, which I think were introduced by @FrogReaver but besides those, no one's really tried to categorize trad play in any way, except perhaps the exception of describing one type of trad play as "map and key" play by @pemerton . Which is about as benign and on the nose type of jargon that we're likely to find.

This thread has been pretty evenly represented, I'd say, and is mostly absent actual criticism of any kind of play.

I'm having a hard time following our back and forth in a logical and consistent manner... I was very much talking about previous examples of these types of discussions and thought I made that clear, but if I didn't then I apologize and will clarify here, this thread has been amazingly civil for the most part but previous threads have been anything but.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ah, so the negative connotations for game you don't like are acceptable?

I have no problem with someone leveling this criticism of a game if that's what they feel. People can find flaws however they find them, and can discuss them.

But expecting for the phrase to be adopted as an accurate depiction of play, though? Why would anyone do that? Would you accept "Mother May I" as an accurate depiction of trad play? Of course not. I would expect either of those terms to be met with resistance, at least generally. It's possible that in a specific instance of play one may suit. Something like "Man, I didn't like how the GM decided to rule how that spell worked... it made the game feel like X" might be relevant to a specific complaint.

I think you've misunderstood.

My post said all of those are valid lenses. They all reveal a piece of truth. The problem is when we use them as if they are revealing the whole truth or the most important truth. I don't think any of those terms I use capture the full playstyle. The lenses we use should be starting points - not ending points. None tell the full story.

So yes, in respect to authority over the fiction, D&D is similar to mother may I, but when it comes to the purpose of that authority it's nothing like mother may I - mother may i is solely about exerting authority to tell others what they can or cannot do with no given purpose - D&D is about utilizing that authority toward a specific purpose, specifically running the game (providing setting, obstacles, keeping the fiction grounded, etc for the players).

So is Mother May I accurate - yes and no. -Or perhaps a better response: it depends on whether you mean - is it an accurate depiction of 1 tiny sliver of D&D, or is it an accurate depiction of D&D play as a whole? -Or said another way, it depends on what lens you are using.

 

[FrogReaver]

My current thought -

The lenses a person tends to choose when discussing RPG's actually informs us about what is important to them.

• Someone that chooses lenses that evaluate authority structure in RPG's deeply cares about specific authority structures in RPG's.
• Someone that chooses lenses that evaluate 'how success is determined' deeply cares about the specifics there, likely because they care about being able to skillfully succeed but possibly because they resent random failure or a few other reasons as well.
• Etc.

Perhaps in our current state the lenses we choose to use and the ones we push back on tell us more about each other than they actually do about RPG's themselves.

 

[pemerton]

Whereas story now doesn't have preauthored facts outside of play

Doesn't it? What about my Burning Wheel games that use the Greyhawk Maps, which show how all the different places are geographically located in relation to one another.

What about 4e play that uses the default cosmology, and (in my case) the setting map on the inside gatefold of the module Night's Dark Terror?

What about Prince Valiant and HeroWars, two pre-eminent "story now" games which use in the first instance Arthurian Britain, and in the second, Glorantha, as their settings?

There are interesting things to be said about no-myth RPGing and degrees of low-myth. There are also interesting things to be said about the similarities between situation-driven and setting-driven Story Now play (Ron Edwards has said a lot of those things). There are also interesting things to be said about the various roles that pre-authored fiction can play in RPGing.

But the blanket claims you're making seems to me just wrong. And obviously wrong.

I find it particularly odd because you tend to make a big deal of the importance of people describing mainstream D&D play in ways that are recognisably accurate to you. But you seem pretty indifferent to describing other people's play in accurate terms at all. And it's not just the inconsistency - if you're not interested in accurate descriptions of (say) how some other poster plays BitD, or Burning Wheel, or whatever other non-D&D, non-D&D-adjacent system, I don't really see what you're trying to get out of the conversation.

I'm concerned here - you are pushing back against the concept of 'trade offs' to doing things different ways... If that's truly your stance then doesn't that imply that you view one way as strictly superior to the other and if so how does one supposed to have a conversation about playstyles with someone that doesn't see any good in their preferred playstyle?

The notion of "trade offs" implies that something is lost and something is gained. As I posted in reply to @clearstream, I take it that he is confining the description to his own experience. Because when I choose to play (say) Burning Wheel rather than (say) Rolemaster I am not trading anything off. RM has nothing to offer me that I don't get from BW.

As far as your question "how does one supposed to have a conversation about playstyles with someone that doesn't see any good in their preferred playstyle?" my answer would be that it's the same as it is in any other field of criticism and inquiry. I have conversations with people all the time about methods of analysis, frameworks of evaluation and the like which I don't agree with. Being able to do that is a core part of my job.

I'll give a concrete example: there is an approach to 2nd ed AD&D play, which was quite widespread in the 90s, in which the GM's job is to present setting, and situation, and narrate consequences (both good and bad, having some regard to what the players roll but certainly not fully constrained by that); and the players' job is to turn up to sessions, portray their PCs, and follow the GM's lead. And if those last two come into conflict, following the GM's lead is meant to take priority.

I have played in these games, back when I had time to do so and I was playing with friends and I was able to take some pleasure in portraying my character. I have not played in a game like that ever since I commenced full time work and hence had my leisure time cut to evenings and weekends. And I don't expect that I ever will in the future. There are other RPGs where I can portray my character and impact the shared fiction in more significant ways. I will play them instead.

The fact that I have no interest in playing that sort of 2nd ed AD&D game doesn't mean I can't analyse it. I mean, I just did!

 

[FrogReaver]

Doesn't it? What about my Burning Wheel games that use the Greyhawk Maps, which show how all the different places are geographically located in relation to one another.

What about 4e play that uses the default cosmology, and (in my case) the setting map on the inside gatefold of the module Night's Dark Terror?

What about Prince Valiant and HeroWars, two pre-eminent "story now" games which use in the first instance Arthurian Britain, and in the second, Glorantha, as their settings?

There are interesting things to be said about no-myth RPGing and degrees of low-myth. There are also interesting things to be said about the similarities between situation-driven and setting-driven Story Now play (Ron Edwards has said a lot of those things). There are also interesting things to be said about the various roles that pre-authored fiction can play in RPGing.

But the blanket claims you're making seems to me just wrong. And obviously wrong.

Or you could assume I'm well aware that such games do have some very minor elements pre authored as not long ago I made that same point about Blades in the Dark in this very thread.

To be clear - I left that out for brevity - not because I thought they don't have ANY but because an overriding feature of story now games is that they have MUCH less pre authored fiction and also rely on it to a much lesser extent.

Instead of understanding me you jump at any opportunity to claim my understanding of such games is faulty. It's not - at least not on this fundamental of a level.

 

[pemerton]

I think there is a degree of onus, on people who spend their leisure time playing games, to own their preferences.

I've often posted that I prefer backgammon to chess. (I compare them because they are two classic/traditional boardgames.) Chess obviously is the more sophisticated and intricate game. This is the very reason why I prefer backgammon - it's quick, it's lighthearted, it doesn't demand intense concentration, and in fact can be played while chatting to someone. And to do it well all you need is a bit of luck and high school-level probability calculations.

For similar reasons I prefer 500 to bridge - the longer trump suit, together with the kitty, means you don't normally have to count every card to play well. And for those same reasons the bidding with a partner can be more straightforward.

When it comes to RPGing, on the other hand, I'm not looking for a backgammon-like, or 500-like, experience. I'm looking for something pretty serious, in terms of intellectual commitment, participant effort, etc. I've sometimes read that a game like (say) Burning Wheel may not be a good fit for "casual" players. I think that's probably true! But I'm not very interested in RPGing with "casual" players! That's not to say I'm obsessed with intricate systems: BW and Torchbearer are intricate, but Prince Valiant isn't. But I want to play with players who will invest in the fiction, who will play their PCs relatively hard, who will use the system when it does have intricacies.

No doubt there are players whose interest in RPGing is better served by the sort of 2nd ed AD&D game I have no interest in, than the sort of game I want to participate in (whether as player or GM). That's fine, and that's entirely their prerogative. But I'm not one of them. And I'm not really interested in, let alone committed, to modes of "analysis" whose main purpose is to show that their preferences are just as "valid" as mine. (Just as no serious analysis of boardgames would render backgammon as indistinguishable from chess.)

I'm interested in technical understanding, not validating people's preferences for how to spend their leisure time.

 

[Campbell]

I'd rather avoid diving into a discussion of that here. It could be an extensive digression and doesn't seem all that important to settle for the conversation at hand.

For me it's the essential piece. Not a mere digression. The conceit that our Blades in the Dark game is somehow less consistent or has less of a sense of a world beyond the characters than the Legends of the Five Rings game I am a player in because more of the setting was defined by the players or developed just in time is inaccurate. It's also a bit insulting.

I am confident you do not mean to come off that way, but the through line that one sort of game is somehow more real or more immersive comes off very smug and condescending to me. This constant rejoinder that other playstyles must be nonsensical, inconsistent or inauthentic by some on this boards is beyond frustrating. It smacks of elitism to me personally.

I am willing to work through the issue, but on this we are a country mile apart.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think there is a degree of onus, on people who spend their leisure time playing games, to own their preferences.

I've often posted that I prefer backgammon to chess. (I compare them because they are two classic/traditional boardgames.) Chess obviously is the more sophisticated and intricate game. This is the very reason why I prefer backgammon - it's quick, it's lighthearted, it doesn't demand intense concentration, and in fact can be played while chatting to someone. And to do it well all you need is a bit of luck and high school-level probability calculations.

For similar reasons I prefer 500 to bridge - the longer trump suit, together with the kitty, means you don't normally have to count every card to play well. And for those same reasons the bidding with a partner can be more straightforward.

When it comes to RPGing, on the other hand, I'm not looking for a backgammon-like, or 500-like, experience. I'm looking for something pretty serious, in terms of intellectual commitment, participant effort, etc. I've sometimes read that a game like (say) Burning Wheel may not be a good fit for "casual" players. I think that's probably true! But I'm not very interested in RPGing with "casual" players! That's not to say I'm obsessed with intricate systems: BW and Torchbearer are intricate, but Prince Valiant isn't. But I want to play with players who will invest in the fiction, who will play their PCs relatively hard, who will use the system when it does have intricacies.

No doubt there are players whose interest in RPGing is better served by the sort of 2nd ed AD&D game I have no interest in, than the sort of game I want to participate in (whether as player or GM). That's fine, and that's entirely their prerogative. But I'm not one of them. And I'm not really interested in, let alone committed, to modes of "analysis" whose main purpose is to show that their preferences are just as "valid" as mine. (Just as no serious analysis of boardgames would render backgammon as indistinguishable from chess.)

I'm interested in technical understanding, not validating people's preferences for how to spend their leisure time.

Have you ever considered that it's precisely this kind of position that causes these theory discussion to go south?

 

[soviet]

Or you could assume I'm well aware that such games do have some very minor elements pre authored as not long ago I made that same point about Blades in the Dark in this very thread.

To be clear - I left that out for brevity - not because I thought they don't have ANY but because an overriding feature of story now games is that they have MUCH less pre authored fiction and also rely on it to a much lesser extent.

Instead of understanding me you jump at any opportunity to claim my understanding of such games is faulty. It's not - at least not on this fundamental of a level.

Or you could assume I'm well aware that such games do have some very minor elements pre authored as not long ago I made that same point about Blades in the Dark in this very thread.

To be clear - I left that out for brevity - not because I thought they don't have ANY but because an overriding feature of story now games is that they have MUCH less pre authored fiction and also rely on it to a much lesser extent.

Instead of understanding me you jump at any opportunity to claim my understanding of such games is faulty. It's not - at least not on this fundamental of a level.

I don't think story now games are limited to just 'very minor' elements being pre-authored though. One can play story now in very detailed worlds like Glorantha, for example. When I run Other Worlds we have a group worldbuilding session but then I go away and add a lot of meat to the bones. During play a lot of additional layers can get added, sure, but it's built on a solid structure of prep as well. The essential freedom in story now is in the resolution of conflicts rather than necessarily the setup of them.