Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[clearstream]

They were clear about their choice. I am not questioning that choice or their preference. I understand that they like what they like. However, I also thought that @Campbell was very clear and polite in asking them if they saw any tradeoffs to their choice. There was nothing wrong about that question, and it was done respectfully.

I agree. I did not at all mean that @Campbell was disrespectful. I was interested in whether they had considered - based on their remarks earlier in this thread - the meaning of their question within @Imaro's stated paradigm? @Campbell wrote:

I am all for shared language where we can arrive at it, but usually the call for shared language / jargon is a call to use language oriented towards one method of play to describe/depict another form of play that it is wholly inadequate for. The best example here is game world. It presumes an approach and way of looking at the game's setting that is just inappropriate for many of the games I run/play. Trying to apply it to paradigms of play that work differently only causes more confusion and conflict (see all the Schrodinger's X arguments on these boards).

I'm suggesting that as much as game world could make no sense in some paradigm, positing a tradeoff should be evaluated in a nominated paradigm.

I may prefer some approaches over others. I may be clear about what approach I prefer and can tell you why I prefer them. But I can still recognize that there are potential trade-offs for the approach that I pick, maybe even also within my respective paradigm(s) of play.

Right! I'm definitely not saying that there couldn't be tradeoffs within a paradigm. I'm saying the opposite of that! But that does not equate with saying that there will always be tradeoffs (which might be accidentally implied.)

 

[FrogReaver]

@FrogReaver I believe @pemerton was making a purely technical or logical statement there.

Suppose I have the set P() and this set doesn't contain everything, so there must be a matching set not-P(). I believe @pemerton is simply pointing out that regardless of whether not-P complies or doesn't comply with propriety in some other game, in AW not-P complies.

I’m sorry but what gave you the impression I am disputing this?

That comes across to me as containing no umbrage (as well as being uncontentious!) It fits my own belief that any such evaluations are rightly made within each paradigm (in this case, within PbtA.)

Perhaps it’s the act of being assigned a position I don’t hold that makes it contentious.

 

[pemerton]

I'm sure you are trying to be helpful here, but it does frustrate me that you think there's some need to go over the absolute basics because you presumably think I'm not following when you talked about the game the first time.

I'm only going by the posts I read - yours and others, and the direction they are taking the conversation.

My goal is to bring the discussion back onto an accurate foundation, which recognises the distribution of authority, and the significance of actions declarations triggering player-side moves, or simply obliging the GM to make a (typically soft) move.

This is a fundamental feature of AW as a system. It makes it different from Burning Wheel - where any declared action can trigger a role, regardless of what description it satisfies (so very different from AW), but only if something that relates to a PC's Belief, Relationship or similar character element is at stake. So whereas AW is "if you do it, you do it", BW is "say 'yes' or roll the dice" (a slogan taken from DitV).

Both systems require the GM to respond to evaluation/normativity, but as per my post 707 upthread in AW this is about making moves (announcing badness, putting people in a spot, being very sensitive to salient irrevocability - "hardness" - etc); whereas in BW it's about framing scenes in which Beliefs etc are put into question, and narrating failures primarily by reference to intent rather than task.

Both systems are also different from one in which the GM is permitted to call for a roll, or declare an automatic success, based on a view abut the degree of uncertainty in the player's declared action - which is how I understand at least some people approach 5e D&D.

And the system that @Lanefan is presupposing - where the GM is free to make soft or hard moves as desired, but is expected to work up to these by proceeding through "granular" details of who does what, with some of these action declarations triggering checks or saving throws on a somewhat ad hoc basis - is different again.

This is not primarily an issue of "jargon" - its about acknowledging the actual differences of technique, and carefully describing those differences.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm only going by the posts I read - yours and others, and the direction they are taking the conversation.

My goal is to bring the discussion back onto an accurate foundation, which recognises the distribution of authority, and the significance of actions declarations triggering player-side moves, or simply obliging the GM to make a (typically soft) move.

This is a fundamental feature of AW as a system. It makes it different from Burning Wheel - where any declared action can trigger a role, regardless of what description it satisfies (so very different from AW), but only if something that relates to a PC's Belief, Relationship or similar character element is at stake. So whereas AW is "if you do it, you do it", BW is "say 'yes' or roll the dice" (a slogan taken from DitV).

Both systems require the GM to respond to evaluation/normativity, but as per my post 707 upthread in AW this is about making moves (announcing badness, putting people in a spot, being very sensitive to salient irrevocability - "hardness" - etc); whereas in BW it's about framing scenes in which Beliefs etc are put into question, and narrating failures primarily by reference to intent rather than task.

Both systems are also different from one in which the GM is permitted to call for a roll, or declare an automatic success, based on a view abut the degree of uncertainty in the player's declared action - which is how I understand at least some people approach 5e D&D.

And the system that @Lanefan is presupposing - where the GM is free to make soft or hard moves as desired, but is expected to work up to these by proceeding through "granular" details of who does what, with some of these action declarations triggering checks or saving throws on a somewhat ad hoc basis - is different again.

This is not primarily an issue of "jargon" - its about acknowledging the actual differences of technique, and carefully describing those differences.

Okay, I acknowledge those differences. I never intended to dispute those differences. If you read me as having done so then it’s due to a misunderstanding between us. What does that say about the direction of the discussion?

 

[clearstream]

I'm only going by the posts I read - yours and others, and the direction they are taking the conversation.

My goal is to bring the discussion back onto an accurate foundation, which recognises the distribution of authority, and the significance of actions declarations triggering player-side moves, or simply obliging the GM to make a (typically soft) move.

This is a fundamental feature of AW as a system. It makes it different from Burning Wheel - where any declared action can trigger a role, regardless of what description it satisfies (so very different from AW), but only if something that relates to a PC's Belief, Relationship or similar character element is at stake. So whereas AW is "if you do it, you do it", BW is "say 'yes' or roll the dice" (a slogan taken from DitV).

Both systems require the GM to respond to evaluation/normativity, but as per my post 707 upthread in AW this is about making moves (announcing badness, putting people in a spot, being very sensitive to salient irrevocability - "hardness" - etc); whereas in BW it's about framing scenes in which Beliefs etc are put into question, and narrating failures primarily by reference to intent rather than task.

Both systems are also different from one in which the GM is permitted to call for a roll, or declare an automatic success, based on a view abut the degree of uncertainty in the player's declared action - which is how I understand at least some people approach 5e D&D.

And the system that @Lanefan is presupposing - where the GM is free to make soft or hard moves as desired, but is expected to work up to these by proceeding through "granular" details of who does what, with some of these action declarations triggering checks or saving throws on a somewhat ad hoc basis - is different again.

This is not primarily an issue of "jargon" - its about acknowledging the actual differences of technique, and carefully describing those differences.

This (and your posts relating to it earlier in the thread) really helps to tease apart these differences! Thanks!

 

[Imaro]

Interestingly, I don't think I've ever heard of a D&D game where a player who isn't very confident at wargame-y stuff has their combat actions resolved using a different method from the system of attack and damage rolls and hit point ablation, while the other players who are into that stuff use the standard rules.

I can only speak from my experience and I've only encountered this player rarely... but they tend to leverage the skill system/magic system in build and inplay so that they (and oftentimes the group) can bypass combat or they can take a minimal role in it. The Feywarden Ranger I play often does this (not because I am uncomfortable with wargamey combat but because of his personality being more of a trickster and deal maker... but the result is the same.). He tends to make use of spells like pass without trace, aid, etc. Along with skills like stealth, deception, etc to avoid combats and when he does end up in combat he stays at the fringes using a ranged weapon. There is also a cleric in our party who isn't to keen on combat and she tends to play the role of medic and support from the sidelines when combat breaks out.

So while no I don't think I use 2 different resolution systems, for those who do and don't enjoy wargamey combat, I do help to minimize their interaction with the system at session zero (where I am assuming they express this) through guiding their build choices as well as my encounter design.

Edit: To clarify more after thinking along these lines... I may actually allow different resolution systems for combat as I run my 5e games where an action such as causing a landslide can wipe out an opposing force... or sealing a room after lighting it on fire can win a battle and so on... perhaps this is the equivalent of the non-mechanical resolution but if so I'd say its been done in D&D since forever and is a big part of the OSR paradigm... winning a battle without engaging the system mechanically.

 

[Imaro]

What would you see are the tradeoffs in taking such an approach?

I may have to think more on this but right away 2 things jump out at me...

I think that it requires a DM to either get honest feedback before the game starts on what his players do or don't like and/or be able to figure that out for himself... I play with 2 long running groups so I this may be easier for me than say a DM running with strangers for the first time (though I'd probably just ask them what style they preferred in that situation)

Another tradeoff is that I'm judging one more impartially than the other so there is a chance of my biases (for good or ill) affecting the judgement based resolution more. To try and minimize this I try to base this around traits, motivations and goals of the NPC or monster vs whether I personally think it was "good!" Roleplaying... but there is always the chance of bias slipping in.

Edit: I'd actually be interested in what you think some tradeoffs in the approach I outlined are as I've never really analyzed it... just found it worked for me.

 

[pemerton]

Okay, I acknowledge those differences. I never intended to dispute those differences. If you read me as having done so then it’s due to a misunderstanding between us. What does that say about the direction of the discussion?

One thing it seems to say is that the discussion about terminology/"jargon" can be set aside. If everyone is agree that these are different allocations of authority, different approaches to how situations are established, different roles of (what I've called) evaluation/normativity, etc then that's the starting point for analysing different RPGs.

With the discussion around map-and-key, and @Campbell's remarks about "game world" that @clearstream reposted just above, we can also see that the differences I've described are connected to different ways that setting/backstory is established and then used in play.

Thus, if setting is established via map-and-key prep, then a significant amount of framing will be done by reference to that "game world", and that material will also provide the constraints for action resolution when players have their PCs move, search, etc. (As per some of my posts above.)

On the other hand, when setting/backstory is established using other techniques, such as by players as part of their PC build (see eg BW relationships) or as an outcome of the first session (see eg AW fronts and threats), then it functions differently in the procedures of play. It is conditioned by evaluation/normativity, and it is drawn upon with that evaluation/normativity in mind when used in framing and resolution. And when used in framing and resolution it does not constrain in the way map-and-key does. It provides content and possibilities that the GM draws on within constraints that come from elsewhere (like "say 'yes' or roll the dice" or the AW agenda and principles).

I think with these distinctions in mind, significant features of a lot of different approaches to play can be described: classic D&D/OSR-ish play; PbtA; scene-framing in the style of Burning Wheel, In A Wicked Age, 4e D&D or Marvel Heroic/Cortex+ Heroic; the style of map-and-key discussed with @Hussar upthread, where the map functions mostly to parcel out the interesting encounters during the course of play.

I think these distinctions also provide a sound foundation for discussing particular techniques of action resolution, for discussing player resource recovery (eg how is this related to particular elements of framing and action resolution - such as the passage of ingame time - and who has authority over those matters) and other features of RPG systems.

 

[Campbell]

When I asked a similar question up thread, it seemed right to question what lense that is to be evaluated through? What did you have in mind here? What would you see as possible tradeoffs (of @Imaro's two approaches), for a mode of play or game you prefer?

For example, I feel it would be better to be more even-handed in Torchbearer due inter alia to the relationship between making tests and advancing the grind.

I will approach the question through the prism of more traditional play later today. In general, I saw a throughline in the commentary brought forward by @Imaro and @Lanefan that seemed dismissive of other modes of play. Games like Apocalypse World are constantly cross examined and attempts are constantly made to undermine the unique value they provide even while many of us show a willingness to provide more traditional play models with their flowers.

This basic lack of respect for games, designers and especially practitioners of other styles of play has been a constant fixture of these boards pretty much since I started posting here more than 20 years ago when I was still in high school. There has been an absolute failure to acknowledge that there is any value in playing differently. That different styles of play can accomplish different things and that there are very real tradeoffs between different approaches.

No where has this been more apparent than in the treatment of indie games as bespoke or "focused and narrow" games on these boards. The dismissive way many people on this board including people like @Imaro have treated games like Apocalypse World while calling those who run/play them elitists is staggering to me. I just do not get the inability to provide respect and acknowledgement for things we do not personally prefer.

Edit: One thing I will say is that I have always appreciated how @FrogReaver has always been specific that he is only talking about his own preferences and has been transparent about the real reasons he prefers to not have things like binding social mechanics.

 

[Imaro]

I will approach the question through the prism of more traditional play later today. In general, I saw a throughline in the commentary brought forward by @Imaro and @Lanefan that seemed dismissive of other modes of play. Games like Apocalypse World are constantly cross examined and attempts are constantly made to undermine the unique value they provide even while many of us show a willingness to provide more traditional play models with their flowers.

This basic lack of respect for games, designers and especially practitioners of other styles of play has been a constant fixture of these boards pretty much since I started posting here more than 20 years ago when I was still in high school. There has been an absolute failure to acknowledge that there is any value in playing differently. That different styles of play can accomplish different things and that there are very real tradeoffs between different approaches.

No where has this been more apparent than in the treatment of indie games as bespoke or "focused and narrow" games on these boards. The dismissive way many people on this board including people like @Imaro have treated games like Apocalypse World while calling those who run/play them elitists is staggering to me. I just do not get the inability to provide respect and acknowledgement for things we do not personally prefer.

There's a disconnect because I feel nearly the same way about the other side of this discussion and honestly that just means it's probably never going to be resolved or moved on from. No worries. I can step out of the discussion.

EDIT: I do find it interesting that slowly but surely those firmly in the trad camp have chosen to participate less and less in discussions like this.