Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[clearstream]

For instance, a RPG ruleset is an abstract object. But it is at least arguable that tools are concrete things. Certainly the most paradigmatic tools and other artefacts (hammers, knives, chairs, computers, etc) are concrete things.

Using the modern workplace as a common example, I think it is very ordinary to use non-physical tools that are constituted by rules. As well as digital tools, sets of ideas can be tools. What influences my thinking here is Aarseth's argument that games are mechanisms. What my approach resolves is how one goes from a set of rules to that mechanism.

It is probably more consistent with the standard approaches to rules and conventions - and also with the Lumpley principle - to say that the rules of a RPG are constituted (in part at least) by the purposes of those whose play is guided by them, and hence that it is not a case of a common tool being wielded differently (which makes sense for concrete things which are literally wielded) but rather of different practices yielding different games.

For sure it is right to draw that through-line. I would go further than you in that I suggest that a common RPG ruleset can be wielded differently by different cohorts. Thereby - on account of different purposes (and practices) - yielding different games. But otherwise, I think we are here in agreement.

I'm not really able to assess your comparison of rigidity: Edwards obviously has many many forum posts, blogs etc actually outlining practical techniques for RPGing, which give me a sense of how flexible his thinking is. I don't think I've ready many of your posts of this sort.

I mean that so far as I understand (from reading, re-reading, and discussing it) RE follows previous theory-makers in proposing three main purposes. He connects to each the technical features that he expects will result in the desired play. To be clear here, I think that this is right in general. We can describe technical features, make predictions about resultant play, and relate that to purposes.

The "flexibility" that I am speaking with is as to the ennumeration of purposes. I think there are not solely three purposes, and further that RE's three purposes actually capture clusters of oftimes related purposes (so I would define purposes more "flexibly".) From previous conversation, I might go much further here than you would want to. I observe that folk can have purposes that are aligned in significant respects, but then in some other respects diverge. In short, I think folk can bring their purposes and practices with them to their wielding of just about any ruleset. (Otherwise, we should never see a criticism that I do sometimes see on these forums, that a game is not played in conformance with purposes it was designed for. Some game was played, so the only way that it can be in non-conformance is if the players were able to wield the ruleset in the non-conforming way*. That possibility is made explicable by my theory.)

Instead of saying "flexibility", I should have just spelt out that I think there are more that three purposes, and that purposes are normally composites (made up of many sub-purposes.) Some of the objections I read that are made in response to RE go something like "I see myself as an X (one of the three purposes), but I don't agree that Y matters in the way you say, because I also care about Z."



*EDIT It might seem like an odd idea, but it is interesting to read the FIFA "Laws of the Game" to see the care taken with wording to ensure that miss-plays that might (from a formalist viewpoint) result in the game not being played, are instead understood as harms to the ongoing game. So that there is a sort of platonic ideal game ongoing, and player fouls, offences or infringements are harms to it, with specified remedies.

 

[clearstream]

Regarding map and key, a thought I had is that a subtle assumption being made is who the players are and where the boundaries of play are drawn. Ad arguendo, suppose that a DM is a player and the boundaries of play extend to include their playful consulting, calculating, and draughting their map and key. That places the process of authoring the map and key within the circle of play... not outside it. RPGs such as "The Ground Itself", "ExNovo", and "Artefact" speak to this idea.

 

[pemerton]

suppose that a DM is a player and the boundaries of play extend to include their playful consulting, calculating, and draughting their map and key. That places the process of authoring the map and key within the circle of play... not outside it.

Sure, one could assert that the GM is playing the game when engaged in their prep.

There's be no shared fiction. There would be no framing of scenes, or declaration of actions. It would be a type of solitaire activity, in which no one has adopted or played any role.

Shuffling and dealing is a concomitant of playing cards, but not normally taken to be part of the play; I would tend to put GM prep in the same category.

 

[clearstream]

Sure, one could assert that the GM is playing the game when engaged in their prep.

There's be no shared fiction. There would be no framing of scenes, or declaration of actions. It would be a type of solitaire activity, in which no one has adopted or played any role.

My thought is that it is done in view of a shared fiction. Picturing the sequence

T0 Some GM play occurs in view of GM and player play
T1 GM and player play occurs
T2 GM play occurs in light of GM and player play
etc

(Mutatis mutandis where and to the extent that authorial power is differently distributed.)

Shuffling and dealing is a concomitant of playing cards, but not normally taken to be part of the play; I would tend to put GM prep in the same category.

Here, I felt that RPGs like "The Ground Itself" are suggestive that the experience is something more than a bare mechanical process like shuffling and dealing. I'm thinking too of testimony I hear from folk, describing arcs of satisfying solo play situated among sessions of group play.

When folk use an example like B2, they are (perhaps unintentionally) invoking a received work. A map and key prepared by nobody at the table. Time has stopped in its regard, and the artifact will not be responsive to the group's play (although of course their notes might supplement or overwrite it.) Conclusions I might draw from B2's received or static nature - for example about possibly different distributions of authorial power - could be different from those I might draw picturing an ongoing arc of play, in which any solitary moments are seen to be within its boundaries.

I have this in mind because - inspired by "The Ground Itself" - I am mid-design on a ruleset to place map and key moments of invention within guide and player play.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not suggesting you are. But I've absolutely seen people do so (even moreso with Fate in the past) and acting like people don't know their own tastes at all when doing so.

This is a tricky thing. Because it's both ridiculously easy to become patronizing, and yet entirely possible to actually not know your own taste, speaking from firsthand experience. I know I've cited the development of extra chunky spaghetti sauce in the past. That came from literally a third of the American public genuinely preferring extra chunky sauce and never, even once, mentioning it because they simply didn't know; they weren't aware of the possibility, or didn't think they would actually like it. Perspective usually requires diverse experiences, and I don't think I am saying anything especially controversial by saying that D&D players can be very attached to a single system, often the first system they were exposed to as a player.

That said, I don't want to downplay the severity of the first issue. I recognize how serious a problem that is, "oh, you just don't know what you want." That's awful! It's very close to an issue I have with certain approaches to running games (where the person running the game takes the stance of "I know what you will find fun better than you do"), so I understand why this is a huge, huge issue. "Oh, you just don't know any better" is a d!@k move in any debate, and should not be tolerated.

I just think there is still some merit, some of the time, in saying, "It's useful to try things you don't know you'll like, both to help you understand why you do like what you like, and to get a chance to discover something you didn't know you would like." Which is the longer, more nuanced form of this idea--not making blanket statements about others failing to know themselves, but recognizing that what a person knows about their own taste is partly a function of what they've been exposed to, and thus that it is often useful to seek out novel experiences in order to better understand one's own taste.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My thought is that it is done in view of a shared fiction. Picturing the sequence

T0 Some GM play occurs in view of GM and player play
T1 GM and player play occurs
T2 GM play occurs in light of GM and player play
etc

(Mutatis mutandis where and to the extent that authorial power is differently distributed.)

It seems to me that what you call "GM play" at T0 (assuming this is "prep time") is...not really "play" in any sense I would recognize. Indeed, it would seem most TTRPG players feel that way, since GM prep is considered a form of work, a duty the GM must fulfill--hence why so many take the position that the players owe something to the GM for their hard work. It may be joyful work, undertaken out of love or enthusiasm, but it is still work, rather than play proper.

I'm also confused because you seem to be presenting T0 and T2 as, essentially, identical things (since you use identical phrasing other than the word "Some" and changing "view" to "light"), but at least to my mind there are actually three different actions occurring here.

T0: GM does preparation work, which often involves both (if you like) "master map/key" construction and theatrical notes for the performance (NPC details, monster alignments, faction membership, etc.)
T1: GM and player actually interact, which is something we all unequivocally consider play on both sides.
T2: GM does wrap-up/tallying/etc. of the preceding events, ensuring sufficient notes are kept to support the next round of the cycle.

Both T0 and T2 don't strike me as "play" in a meaningful sense. They are a lot more like...well, a sort of "creative bookkeeping" (and not in the "cooking the books" sense, but in the sense of keeping-the-books regarding one's creative work.) If we're extending the concept of "play" to include these things, I'd really want to know why you consider it "play."

Here, I felt that RPGs like "The Ground Itself" are suggestive that the experience is something more than a bare mechanical process like shuffling and dealing. I'm thinking too of testimony I hear from folk, describing arcs of satisfying solo play situated among sessions of group play.

Not knowing much about The Ground Itself, I can't really say much here. It reads like it's still a multiplayer experience. The description says it is a single-session game for 2-5 players, so there is no between-sessions time that could be analogous to GM prep, and, at least according to this, you need more than one person at the table...

 

[cranberry]

Criticism is a two way street.

The person making the critique should only criticize the mechanics of the system, not the people who like the system.

And those who like the system, shouldn't view criticism of the system as a personal attack.

It's doesn't need to get any deeper than that.

 

[Manbearcat]

Not to me but IMO.

1. Mechanically a failed roll caused the consequences (if you had fully succeeded there would have been no consequences).

2. Mechanical failure of an action normally corresponds to a fictional failure of that action, even in a game like BitD, but sometimes in BitD mechanical failure doesn't correspond to a fictional failure of the action. Example: skirmish action -> failed roll -> consequence -> add clock tick -> clock is now full -> demon is summoned by the cultists and arrives on the scene. In this case mechanical consequence is ultimately the Demon arrives on the scene but there that wasn't a fictional consequence for failing your skrimish attempt in the fiction. In fictional terms, it just didn't work and then a demon arrived.

Now for fun imagine a game that only used such mechanical consequences without corresponding fictional consequences. Most people would be very confused with why the mechanical consequence and ficitonal consequences weren't aligning.

the TLDR version - mechanical consequences are typically linked to fictional consequences - even if they aren't always. That's why people tend to expect to be able to view it that way.

For sure.

But what you're describing (and what @Thomas Shey is depicting upthread...and what I've described in the past) is just organizing and associating information in the brain and then growing accustomed to this organization and association (Operant Conditioning). Because we know that neither the inputs to the fiction nor the outputs that generate the fiction are real...can we not just...cast off this mental model?

It takes a confrontation...but shouldn't we just be able to perform the necessaries of the confrontation and liberate ourselves from that mental model (if we so choose)? And maybe there are tools that can help us do that. Tools like the frank, table-facing conversation and game technology of Blades in the Dark:

* Position foregrounds Threat.

* Consequences realize that Threat.

* Resistance actively mitigates the realization of that Threat.

* Stress regulates the capacity for Resistance.

Direct confrontation with what is happening when we play TTRPGs + that loop depicted above should help deal with the troubles inherent to the cognitive arrangement you and Thomas Shey are referring to.

So to put it all together (using your example above), the conversation and resolution at the table might look like this. I'm just going to use the character name in my existing Blades game I'm GMing.


GM: The "Demon Summoned" Clock is at 4/6 Ticks. The Dimmer Sister sorceress is nearly finishing her incantation. Her "Arcane Shields" are also at 4/6. You're not positioned to strike her down because her hired blade is between you and her.

Her man-at-arms is pounding away at your blade and your posture, attempting to drive you back to prevent you from getting to her. His "Guard (0/4 tick clock)" is fully unbroken + he has heavy armor (need Great Effect to bypass). Its abundantly clear in your testing exchanges with him that it will take too long to dispatch him. She'll finish her casting and the demon will be here. You can just suck up the 1 Harm (he's a Risky Consequence), or maybe Resist or spend Loadout to use Armor (either of which would reduce the 1 Harm to nothing) to mitigate that, and then Resist the "Driven Back" Complication (the other part of the Risky Consequence when dealing with him alone).

Alternatively, you can make an Action Roll to try to beat him back with ferocity or bladework or maybe deft footwork to circle around...whatever, in order to get in blade reach of her to make another move to finish off her shields and slay her outright? She has Tier on you so Limited Effect. But your Ghost Fighter gives you Potency vs her "Arcane Shields" (supernatural) so we're back to Standard. You're +Quality in Weapons and your Hand Weapon is Fine so that is +2 Quality. You're at Great + 1 Ticks worth of Effect. If you can get there, you can easily go through those shields and slay her in one stroke with any success....but you've gotta get there.

Or you can do something else? Maybe set someone else up? Can anybody set up Takeo? What is the play here? We're down to the wire. Energy is pouring out of the Ghost Field in the form of the Demon's Element; Frost. Even at distance, the room is chilling and you can see your breath.

<After a brief conversation between the players of options>

Takeo (Player): You know what. No. I'm going to Push and use Not to Be Trifled With. This lets me ignore the impacts on Effect of the Scale of a small gang, perform a feat of superhuman force (like overpowering him and his positional advantage to protect her) and the +1d. If I use that, can I get both of them with my Effect? Can I just batter through his Guard, force him back into her and finish her off? So my Effect applies to both of them? His Guard Clock and her Arcane Shields?

GM: Absolutely! You'll need 2 ticks for the rest of her Arcane Shields clock and 1 left over to slay her. As mentioned above you're at Great +1 Ticks worth of Effect vs her. You'd typically need +1 worth of Effect to negate him driving you back and creating distance between you and she, but that is covered by Not to Be Trifled With. And your Potency from Ghost Fighter doesn't apply to him so you're sitting at Great Effect vs him. So that is all 3 Ticks toward Break Guard (you don't have to spend 1 tick worth of Effect to bypass him driving you back because of NtBTW) on him and 2 Ticks to destroy her Arcane Shields with Ghost Fighter and 1 tick to slay her (with 1 tick of Effect left over). You're going to be at Desperate Position by bringing the two of them into play here along with the freezing elemental impacts of the summoning so you can't trade Position for Effect here.

If you hit a Consequence, you'll get through him, but I'm going to spend 1 Tick worth of that (total of 3 for Desperate Position) to Reduce Effect. He's clearly committed his life to protecting her and is more than capable of the task. That Reduced Effect will only do work against his Break Guard Clock though, because you're already on top of her with Not to Be Trifled With's superhuman force and you'll still have enough Effect (3 vs her) to finish off her Arcane Shields and slay her even with Reduced Effect. The other 2 Ticks worth of Consequence will be your blade freezing and shattering. The Demon's arctic blast will absolutely assail your blade when you get that close, destabilizing its structure and shattering it into a dozen or more shards. You won't have it for the rest of the Score and you'll have to spend a Downtime Activity to reacquire that playbook Loadout.

Takeo (Player): Ok, I'll deal with that if it comes to it. Man...I can't get the necessary Effect to slay both of them outright. Alright. My feat of supernatural force from Not to be Trifled With gets me by him and I'll spend my Effect (3 vs him as Great) to Break His Guard. I'll finish him off after I deal with her. I'm going right through him with supernatural physical force, bladework, and footwork. Then I'm mincing her Arcane Shields and slaying her.

<we do all the calcs to generate Position and Effect...Desperate : Great +1 Ticks worth Effect vs her and Desperate : Great vs him>

Skirmish is 3 Dots +1d from Pushing = 4d. Here goes!

5! Success with Consequence.

Alright, so I slam through the man-at-arms with superhuman bladework ferocity and nimble circling to close the distance between her thanks to Not to Be Trifled With. The 3 Effect will Break his Guard, but he's so devoted and so capable in a duel that he limits that. I'll just "eat" that Reduced Effect. Not going to risk the Stress Resisting that Complication and I don't need all 4 ticks worth of Effect to slay her. So we're at 2/4 on Break Guard against him instead of 3. Her Arcane Shields are sundered by my supernatural blade and I finish her with a flurry after that (3 Effect after the Reduced Effect).

But the arctic blast from the nearly summoned Frost Demon on my blade...what about this? I make sure I get the worst of it. I carefully shield my blade from the arctic blast. One clean swipe and I reposition so body intercedes to protect my blade. Can I turn that "Shattered Blade" into 2 Harm (Frozen Sword Arm) instead with like a Protect Action?

GM: Absolutely.

Takeo: Alright cool. Then I'm going Resist that. This is about physically imposing myself. Its about footwork, reflexes, grit. So Prowess Resist. The arctic blast as a source is Supernatural right <yes>. Ok so our Crew Advance Annointed (+1d Resist vs Supernatural Threats) would apply here. Ok, 4d6 Resist. Got a 5 so 1 Stress and I've got 1 Harm. Lets call it Numb Blade Hand so I'll have Less Effect fighting (and anything else with that hand...climbing and stuff) until I can resolve that 1 Harm. But she's dead! Demon Summoning averted! And he's got 1 Tick on his Break Guard Clock!

GM: <Formalizes the change of fiction/situation and attendant gamesetate>

---

Why couldn't someone like we're depicting above, "rewire" their cognitive model to onboard that whole deal above? In the actual play, that all feels very connected. It feels organic (to use another word that people like to use to deride this sort of play). Why is it such a stretch to just "let go" of that exclusive mental model (you can pivot back to it in another game if you'd like) and onboard the above? It is certainly thematic, dynamic, and intense and requires a lot of skillful management of both (a) the fiction and (b) several discrete and interlocking pieces of game tech/resources!

@Pedantic , just mentioning you here so you can have a look at the above (because it is unclear to me what was going on under the hood and at the table-facing level of the Blades 1-shot you played...this is what it should look like).

EDIT - Fixed hypothetical example for Not to Be Trifled With rider.

 

[FrogReaver]

Criticism is a two way street.

The person making the critique should only criticize the mechanics of the system, not the people who like the system.

And those who like the system, shouldn't view criticism of the system as a personal attack.

It's doesn't need to get any deeper than that.

IMO - Criticizing a system as ‘bad’ necessarily criticizes the person that likes it as liking ‘bad’ things.

 

[pemerton]

My thought is that it is done in view of a shared fiction. Picturing the sequence

T0 Some GM play occurs in view of GM and player play
T1 GM and player play occurs
T2 GM play occurs in light of GM and player play
etc

(Mutatis mutandis where and to the extent that authorial power is differently distributed.)


Here, I felt that RPGs like "The Ground Itself" are suggestive that the experience is something more than a bare mechanical process like shuffling and dealing. I'm thinking too of testimony I hear from folk, describing arcs of satisfying solo play situated among sessions of group play.

When folk use an example like B2, they are (perhaps unintentionally) invoking a received work. A map and key prepared by nobody at the table. Time has stopped in its regard, and the artifact will not be responsive to the group's play (although of course their notes might supplement or overwrite it.) Conclusions I might draw from B2's received or static nature - for example about possibly different distributions of authorial power - could be different from those I might draw picturing an ongoing arc of play, in which any solitary moments are seen to be within its boundaries.

I have this in mind because - inspired by "The Ground Itself" - I am mid-design on a ruleset to place map and key moments of invention within guide and player play.

All I can say is that is strikes me as rather counterintuitive to characterise a solitary activity in which no one plays a role, and in which the sole participant draws diagrams and writes things down, as playing a roleplaying game.