Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Lanefan]

I think what @Hussar is getting at is not that you don't care about the failure--of course you care; your character has been denied a want.

The point is that in PbtA, any given success or failure is more important in the context of reframing your character's inner narrative/story approach than the externality of the "Did I get what I want?"

That's a good concise way of explaining the difference that a brick like me can grok.

For me, when I play a character the here-and-now of what the character is doing is what matters while adventuring, if for no other reason than those considerations are what helps him or her survive; while the character's personal or inner narrative/story development usually happens during downtime between adventures (which is one reason I'm a big fan of downtime).

As adventuring represents most of the time of play during an aggregate of sessions, the here-and-now tasks and actions tend to take center stage.

What I don't understand is how-why this approach to playing a character isn't - or isn't seen as - completely system-agnostic. In other words, while there may be nudges and encouragements to do one thing over another, in the end is it the place of a game system to tell me how to approach playing my character?

 

[soviet]

in the end is it the place of a game system to tell me how to approach playing my character?

Yes. This is the entire purpose of having different game systems.

 

[Lanefan]

@Lanefan, I probably would have handled the scene differently. I will try breaking it down. I will be using the D&D analogue, Dungeon World.

As the GM I sense that we need to have a conversation. Because what you describe here sounds to me like your PC is trying to Discern Realities, so dice may need to be rolled:

It sounds like your PC is trying to study the situation at the warehouse.

But as @Campbell says, you actually have to do something to provoke a Move. I don't think that you declare that you are being discreet in DW anymore than you can declare that you are stealthed in D&D. Everyone needs to know how you are trying to do this discreetly because that helps provide guidelines and parameters about potential consequences.

So let us say that we decide that you attempting to Discern Realities. You roll an 10. It should be good enough for a full success, but you have a -1 Wis, so the result goes down to a 9. That's a mixed success (7-9). If you had a full success (10+ result), you could have asked the GM three questions from the below list, and they would be required to answer you truthfully. But as you have a result of 9, you can only ask the GM one question, though they must still answer you truthfully.

I'm not sure what one question you would ask here, but you would get a truthful answer. But as you say, the 7-9 result also means that as the GM that I make a soft move.

Here is where I would differ. I personally think that this is jumping the gun, so to speak. As you were trying to be discreet, I would probably first announce that the guard was coming in your direction or hints to that effect: "As you are assessing the situation at the warehouse, you hear the sounds of heavy boots getting louder, possibly closer in your direction. Based on your observation, you recognize the walking pattern or rhythm as a guard. What do you do?" (Soft Move: show signs of an approaching threat.)


Yeah, and if we followed my above version of events, your character could decide to slink away to avoid notice or even to hide. Depending on our conversation of the events, you could be provoking the move Defy Danger with a wide range of options, highlighting some likely applicable ones in bold:

Were it run like this I don't think I'd have issue with anything.

The key point is that at each spot where something could go right or wrong for my character you give a roll to see what happens; and we both have to honour that roll.

As for clarification as to how I'm being discreet, if the GM asked for specifics I'd list off some things e.g. wearing non-descript clothing, not staying in the same place for very long, making my actions look natural for the surroundings (e.g. if there's a coffee shop across the street I'll linger long over a coffee there), and so on.

 

[Lanefan]

In a traditional game, the threat of the clashing bucks and the corrupted one wouldn't have happened as the result of a player roll. It would have happened as the result of a wandering monster check in some systems, or simply at the whim of a GM in many others.

Regardless of the source, I just gotta say that gigantic bucks with prismatic antlers who spit cocoons at people is a hella cool concept!

(quietly makes notes...)

 

[pemerton]

fundamentally, is just saying something is "bad" ever important (as opposed to saying something is bad at X, or I don't like what it's trying to do)?

I think that depends on context. I've been in situations where it is.

But has anyone in this thread said anything is bad?

The only instance I immediately think of is @Lanefan making up some version of a brief hypothetical I presented and then telling me that his projection of my approach onto his example is bad and illegitimate. Are you and @FrogReaver and others outraged by Lanefan telling me that my approach is illegitimate?

I'm a bit frustrated by it, because of the projection that I mentioned and because Lanefan won't talk about how his variant, which is different from mine, might be adjudicated (and this is because of his ignorance of the system in question - eg he can't talk about what sort of action declaration might be Acting Under Fire). I can tell you it doesn't at all challenge my sense of self, or my interest in the system I'm talking about!

This is why, to somewhat reiterate things @Campbell and @Aldarc have said, I don't feel that this thread is about respectful engagement at all. Posters can, and are, saying that AW involves illegitimate framing and resolution techniques, that no myth RPGing involves "Schroedinger's X", etc and this is all said to be perfectly fine because they can't help how they feel.

But when I describe, without judging, certain resolution as map-and-key, it's considered an outrage!

The overall tenor of the thread appears to me to be that some posters regard it as rude for other posters to talk about technical elements of D&D (and D&D-adjacent) RPGing.

 

[pemerton]

As adventuring represents most of the time of play during an aggregate of sessions, the here-and-now tasks and actions tend to take center stage.

<snip>

is it the place of a game system to tell me how to approach playing my character?

You seem to play RPGs - or it might be better to say an RPG - that tells you to play an adventurer. So there is an irony in the quoted question!

 

[pemerton]

@Manbearcat @hawkeyefan

As a reader of the Stonetop actual play, it didn't seem like failure to me.

Tracking the giants took the PCs through a place where the weird rutting thing was happening. Most of the NPCs were helped to safety, but the evil buck charged one of the PCs (The Blessed). Another PC (The Judge) hurls himself in front of the threatened PC and takes the brunt of the evil buck's attack.

Have I missed anything? If I haven't, where's the failure? The PCs seem to have succeeded in getting most of their friends to safety, and The Judge seems to have succeeded in defending The Blessed. To me this looks like classic FRPGing.

 

[Xamnam]

I think that depends on context. I've been in situations where it is.

But has anyone in this thread said anything is bad?

I've been following that framing as it's the exchange that prompted this particular conversational thread:

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

I've read people criticising Rifts and other Palladium RPGs as bad (eg unbalanced; too gonzo). I've read many people criticising 4e D&D as bad. I've read people criticising Rolemaster as bad ("Chartmaster").

Are you seriously saying that these are criticisms of people who enjoy Rifts, or 4e D&D, or RM? To me that's a very strange thing to say.

We've both said that comparison of strengths and weaknesses is not what we're talking about here. And like I said in my last post, while I agree with you that it's not necessarily a criticism of the person, it is a fairly regular and/or predictable outcome for it to be received that way when blunt terms are used. And I have seen people offer similarly simple criticisms in other threads.

The only instance I immediately think of is Lanefan making up some version of a brief hypothetical I presented and then telling me that his projection of my approach onto his example is bad and illegitimate. Are you and FrogReaver and others outraged by Lanefan telling me that my approach is illegitimate?

I can only speak for myself. Am I outraged? No. Neither am I outraged when people do just call a system bad. However, I do think that sort of language is actively counterproductive for generating dialogue, and don't particularly care for it, and is the sort I do advocate against.

I also know that it comes from Lanefan playing a very specific game in a very specific way, and has strong and somewhat idiosyncratic definitions when it comes to ttrpgs and their play, which is a filter I now internally pass it through. I've seen more than a few people react strongly and poorly to their sentiments because of how much more aggressive the language can come across if you lack that context. This is exactly why I'm advocating for including context to make your sentiments as clear as possible to the people you're engaging with.

The overall tenor of the thread appears to me to be that some posters regard it as rude for other posters to talk about technical elements of D&D (and D&D-adjacent) RPGing.

I totally understand why you would have that takeaway. However, my reaction to this thread is more that the language we use to talk about technical elements matters, and specificity and clarity goes a long way to minimizing frustration on that front, not that talking about them is fundamentally an inflammatory endeavor. But, perhaps that is the how some people feel. That's a shame, in my eyes.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Posters can, and are, saying that AW involves illegitimate framing and resolution techniques, that no myth RPGing involves "Schroedinger's X", etc and this is all said to be perfectly fine because they can't help how they feel.

But when I describe, without judging, certain resolution as map-and-key, it's considered an outrage!

Part of it is jargon.

"No myth" gaming? How can you have a fantasy game that doesn't evoke myths that are central to the human condition?

Unless, you are using "myth" in a different sense, which I believe you are. Not entirely sure what you mean by that, by the way.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Unless, you are using "myth" in a different sense, which I believe you are. Not entirely sure what you mean by that, by the way.

This is probably a bit reductive, but it just means that facts about the game world and campaign are established in play at the table rather than prior to play or outside the game. At least, this is my understanding.