Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Thomas Shey]

I think there's assumptions and biases all around in these conversations...

Yes, but I think it requires ignoring history to not recognize there's been a lot longer period to reinforce some of the ones on the trad side.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not necessarily. It depends what "bad" means in that context. If it means "poorly designed", its only an issue if its not serving the person's purposes. A tool can be poorly designed for its supposed use, but if someone is used to and comfortable with it, that doesn't say anything bad about them or even the purposes it serves for them.

If you say the tool is poorly designed and I say I prefer that tool then the implication is that I prefer a poorly designed tool. That’s a derogatory depiction of me. It comes across as, 'if only you were more enlightened you would prefer this better designed tool'.

(This is different from criticizing a system on, from lack of a better term, "moral" grounds but that usually only comes from certain particular perspectives and is relatively rarely done; its much more likely to happen with setting material.)

I'd suggest one can criticize parts of a game without also impugning the person that likes the game, but criticizing the game itself as a whole always risks impugning the person that likes the game. Specific criticism of parts leave open the concept of tradeoffs, which allows room to explain why what i like isn't 'bad in all ways' or 'poorly designed as a whole' etc.

Perhaps one criticism in D&D could be about the authority structure of the game and how that can often cause play to go awry. I can even agree with that criticsm - but I can then point to specific benefits of that authority structure as part of the reason I like the game. 'Tradeoffs'.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I certainly recognize that it's difficult (if it were easy I probably would've done it myself.) But I don't agree that developing jargon is an inherently bad thing. Almost all fields of study develop jargon. I consider game design to be a field of study--indeed, I consider it to be a technology. Hence, developing some jargon is inevitable. We just happen to be people who live at a time where most of that jargon is yet to be defined.

I don't know that I entirely disagree--but I'll just note there are a fair number of people who are actively resistant to jargon, and the farther down that road you go, the more resistant they get. So at some point you have to decide which battles you prefer to fight.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One thing I’m thinking of today is what kind of system would work best for a rpg focused on comedy.

For this purpose let’s think in the context of comedy that treats its narrative seriously but has over the top characters and situations that cause humor in the real world.

I’d mentioned earlier that about mechanical consequences typically being tied to fictional consequences - and this might be the perfect illustration of a type of game that would most benefit by departing almost fully from that paradigm.

Thoughts?

I think its generally hard to build an RPG that's specifically aimed at evoking a visceral response. That's the reason a lot of horror RPG arguably emulate rather than produce fear; because there's no reliable way to do so except general storytelling techniques, and people are usually either good at those or learn to be, or they aren't, and a system is only going to help them so far there.

 

[Imaro]

Yes, but I think it requires ignoring history to not recognize there's been a lot longer period to reinforce some of the ones on the trad side.

I'm not sure a longer period necessarily equates to a more feverish stance or impetus to "prove" ones "correctness". But I am going to step away from this as I think we'll just end up going in circles.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's a counter to the assertion that trad play is the default. That making such decisions at the time of play instead of ahead of time is somehow less valid. It's not saying either is nonsensical, just that each is a preference, and both are equally valid.

Given its often used in response to claiming there's a difference even when the difference is not projected as a judgment, I think you're wrong here. I think its very much an attempt to claim a lack of meaningful difference.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I get that if I'm used to having to pull it will take a while to get into the habit of pushing: there's reflexes and habits to be unlearned.

But I don't see that the intellectual grasp of it should create any issues.

Then I don't think you understand people for whom it will. I've seen people who are absolutely used to doing it as a GM who absolutely don't at the player end because it doesn't feel right.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right. A preference for task resolution is fine. When I make a point like in the fiction these things aren't different I am not making a suggestion anyone should change their preference or start playing some other game. I am making a factual claim about how things work because I think understanding these differences makes for better discourse.

That might be, but it still seems to imply that "in the fiction" is the only relevant point here, rather than accepting that how you arrive at it mattering (or in some cases, judging the fiction produced from it as being different, that I think in at least some cases is legitimate too).

I mean, honestly, when discussing it as a preference, or even as a quality judgement, the proper response to "in the fiction these things aren't different" would seem to me to be "So what?"

 

[FrogReaver]

I think its generally hard to build an RPG that's specifically aimed at evoking a visceral response. That's the reason a lot of horror RPG arguably emulate rather than produce fear; because there's no reliable way to do so except general storytelling techniques, and people are usually either good at those or learn to be, or they aren't, and a system is only going to help them so far there.

Sure though I’d suggest producing comedy is more natural than producing horror. So it might actually work a heck of a lot better.

 

[FrogReaver]

I just finished a comedic campaign of a game called The 13th Fleet.

The 13th Fleet RPG

It's based on the Forged in the Dark system. It's a kind of spoof of Star Trek, if all the captains were bastards who were scheming against one another while trying to make their way through enemy occupied space. So they have to cooperate, but they're also stabbling each other in the back whenever possible in order to be named Admiral.

I don't normally run games that are purely comedic; most of my games are pretty serious, though there's plenty of joking around out of character. But this game was a nice change of pace.

I'd argue that the consequences are what made the game fun. Things were spiraling in all kinds of crazy ways that added to the antics. Without that element, it would not have been nearly as fun.

I will check this out