Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Lanefan]

Right, I get that. But how do you determine the outcome of the social interaction? What's the tipping point for that NPC to say "you know what, I'll take your silver and let you in"? Do you determine a specific amount of coin? Or if deception is used, how do you decide what's tricky enough?

Absent direction from a module or similar, seat-of-the-pants or gut hunch, mostly; as is often the case when unexpected stuff comes up.

It may or may not be more of a railroad. But if there are set numbers, and we use dice to help determine the outcome, then it's not the GM deciding the outcome.

You've now added more details to your example that make it less likely to be a railroad. But still... how is the outcome determined?

See above. The GM deciding the outcome, however, is only a railroad if the decision is made before the interaction even occurs.

I'm struggling to understand why you brought up the example of the GM not wanting to run the ballroom scene.

The conversation at the time was dealing with unexpected scenes or situations and how a GM wouldn'y normally run what s/he doesn't want to run; I came back with the idea of running whatever the players give me to run whether I like it or not; and that was my off-the-cuff example.

So you leave something like the existence of something you don't want to run up to the roll of the dice? That seems a bit odd.

Honouring the setting. If there's a realistic chance in this town that something like a ball will be taking place soon, then if the players ask about upcoming high-society events I have to honour the setting and allow that chance an opportunity to realize.

Why not make the list consist of things you are interested in?

What, if they ask about balls and high-society events I'm supposed to roll for something else instead? How does that fit in with what the players are trying to do (whatever that may be)?

You've described a situation where the GM is interacting with the player, without (it seemed at the time, but maybe not now?) much concern for mechanics, or the absence of related mechanics. You then decide how things go based on the interaction at the table, what the player said and how they said it, and how you feel about that. And then you added in the DM's feelings about not wanting to run a ballroom scene.

To indicate that as DM I'm bound to run the scenes they want me to run.

Right, but if there is a skill system or something similar to it, then I at least know how good my character is at persuading or bluffing overall. That's something to go on.

And again, if this guard is meant to be meaningful, then I would zoom in on it a little more. I'd emphasize the importance a bit, and then we'd play it out.

That's just it - in something like this there's no such thing as "meant to be meaningful". The players are driving the bus here, and I'm in react mode; and neither they nor I know whether something will be meaningful until after it's been played out. For all I knew in this hypothetical they were about to up stakes and leave town, and now they're suddenly looking for fancy balls instead.

Yeah, that's definitely one way to do things. I don't do it that way. I'm not going to spend as much time on a guard as I will the ballroom scene, where I assume something more interesting is expected to happen. There's not much reason to do that, and every reason to do the opposite.

I've no such assumption: as I'm simply reacting to what the players are doing the ballroom scene (if they get there) will be every bit as much of a DM-side wing-it as the guard interaction!

 

[FrogReaver]

A few thoughts -

5e is the most criticized game ever and is mostly criticized by 5e fans. 5e fans don't have a problem with 5e criticism in general, they have a problem with disrespectful criticism.

As @Campbell recently said -

I am just looking for a basic level of respect. Acknowledgement that Apocalypse World and other games provide a play experience you cannot get elsewhere. Acknowledgement that different styles of play are better or worse at different things.

That's the same thing 5e fans want!

 

[clearstream]

Acknowledgement that Apocalypse World and other games provide a play experience you cannot get elsewhere. Acknowledgement that different styles of play are better or worse at different things. We can quibble over where those lines are, but if you do not respect what I am doing you should just say so and we can proceed from there. Just don't pretend I'm the elitist or that this is about jargon in any demonstrable way.

From previous conversation, you can probably guess that I see those lines as being more flexible than I think other folk do. That's partly due to how I understand meaning to be constructed in games. Both the interpretation of the written rules into the game mechanisms, and the diverse exogenous rules that players bring with them into the circle that will inform their play. As a non-formalist, when I see characterisations of play as "incorrect" I understand that to be normative rather than definitive. No platonic ideal play exists to provide an objectively correct model.

That said, I believe that it is reasonable to focus discussion on the normal so long as we know that's what we are doing, and - for the sake of glimpsing interesting alternatives - remain open to exploring play that from our perspective might be unusual. Additionally, and as already discussed, it seems vital to me to have in mind that evaluations (better or worse) are justified in the context of some given purposes, which means to remain open to different evaluations made in the context of different purposes.

I don't believe the above is disrespectful, but I do suspect it could feel at times undermining. Perhaps the fix is to make sure that it is clear when conversation is turning to the unusual or shifting between purposes.

 

[Aldarc]

From previous conversation, you can probably guess that I see those lines as being more flexible than I think other folk do. That's partly due to how I understand meaning to be constructed in games. Both the interpretation of the written rules into the game mechanisms, and the diverse exogenous rules that players bring with them into the circle that will inform their play. As a non-formalist, when I see characterisations of play as "incorrect" I understand that to be normative rather than definitive. No platonic ideal play exists to provide an objectively correct model.

That said, I believe that it is reasonable to focus discussion on the normal so long as we know that's what we are doing, and - for the sake of glimpsing interesting alternatives - remain open to exploring play that from our perspective might be unusual. Additionally, and as already discussed, it seems vital to me to have in mind that evaluations (better or worse) are justified in the context of some given purposes, which means to remain open to different evaluations made in the context of different purposes.

I don't believe the above is disrespectful, but I do suspect it could feel at times undermining. Perhaps the fix is to make sure that it is clear when conversation is turning to the unusual or shifting between purposes.

I suspect that in praxis these standards or considerations would only be applied to or demanded of certain groups of people in these discussions but not to others and that little would actually change as an outcome. So whose interests are being served by such standards?

 

[FrogReaver]

From previous conversation, you can probably guess that I see those lines as being more flexible than I think other folk do. That's partly due to how I understand meaning to be constructed in games. Both the interpretation of the written rules into the game mechanisms, and the diverse exogenous rules that players bring with them into the circle that will inform their play. As a non-formalist, when I see characterisations of play as "incorrect" I understand that to be normative rather than definitive. No platonic ideal play exists to provide an objectively correct model.

That said, I believe that it is reasonable to focus discussion on the normal so long as we know that's what we are doing, and - for the sake of glimpsing interesting alternatives - remain open to exploring play that from our perspective might be unusual. Additionally, and as already discussed, it seems vital to me to have in mind that evaluations (better or worse) are justified in the context of some given purposes, which means to remain open to different evaluations made in the context of different purposes.

I don't believe the above is disrespectful, but I do suspect it could feel at times undermining. Perhaps the fix is to make sure that it is clear when conversation is turning to the unusual or shifting between purposes.

I ageee with this. I would also add that the insistence that certain lenses (like distribution of authority) are the way to analyze RPGs at the exclusion of lenses chosen by D&D fans or others is a large part of what comes across as disrespectful.

Just so I’m clear the examination of RPG play under that lens isn’t the problem I have (it’s a powerful lens IMO), the problem I have is the treating of that lens as privileged. Now if that’s not intended then I’ve misunderstood.

But if someone does believe that lens is privileged then I can understand how pushback against that idea can seem undermining. And if that’s the case then that’s why these conversations go off the rails. They can’t share their thoughts without being disrespectful toward us and we can’t share ours without undermining theirs. That’s a rock and a hard place.

 

[clearstream]

I suspect that in praxis these standards or considerations would only be applied to or demanded of certain groups of people in these discussions but not to others and that little would actually change as an outcome. So whose interests are being served by such standards?

Which "certain groups" are you thinking of?

My particular concern was that - provided I read it correctly - it is important for @Campbell that there be

Acknowledgement that Apocalypse World and other games provide a play experience you cannot get elsewhere. Acknowledgement that different styles of play are better or worse at different things.

In the past, I have argued that in its non-commital to principles, D&D leaves the door open for a group to bring into their play the same principles as are put in writing in PbtA games. I have argued that the consequences-resolution and degrees-of-success rules in the DMG give mechanical support for that possible approach. Such technical arguments do not on surface make the acknowledgements sought. Whether I am right or wrong is of no concern here, the point is that in this case, the standards or considerations that I outline would apply to or be demanded of me.

Sometimes technical arguments / critiques are caveated with words amounting to "this doesn't empty your play of value, but..." which can feel disingenous. Maybe that can be improved on by locating each argument in relation to norms or purposes? In my example, I would call out that normally I would acknowledge AW's distinctness of play, while in exploring these unusual possibilities I am here setting aside norms to see what might be revealed.

 

[FrogReaver]

Which "certain groups" are you thinking of?

My particular concern was that - provided I read it correctly - it is important for @Campbell that there be


In the past, I have argued that in its non-commital to principles, D&D leaves the door open for a group to bring into their play the same principles as are put in writing in PbtA games. I have argued that the consequences-resolution and degrees-of-success rules in the DMG give mechanical support for that possible approach. Such technical arguments do not on surface make the acknowledgements sought. Whether I am right or wrong is of no concern here, the point is that in this case, the standards or considerations that I outline would apply to or be demanded of me.

Sometimes technical arguments / critiques are caveated with words amounting to "this doesn't empty your play of value, but..." which can feel disingenous. Maybe that can be improved on by locating each argument in relation to norms or purposes? In my example, I would call out that normally I would acknowledge AW's distinctness of play, while in exploring these unusual possibilities I am here setting aside norms to see what might be revealed.

I would suggest that even if those mechanics and principles were adopted that play would still be different in AW. Though perhaps that ‘version’ of D&D would be more like AW than ‘normal’ D&D.

I think your thoughts were thought provoking, but they certainly are disrespectful/undermining toward AW.

 

[Aldarc]

In the past, I have argued that in its non-commital to principles, D&D leaves the door open for a group to bring into their play the same principles as are put in writing in PbtA games. I have argued that the consequences-resolution and degrees-of-success rules in the DMG give mechanical support for that possible approach. Such technical arguments do not on surface make the acknowledgements sought. Whether I am right or wrong is of no concern here, the point is that in this case, the standards or considerations that I outline would apply to or be demanded of me.

As then, this argument seems to be more of the "D&D can do anything" speak that tries to turn D&D 5e into the omni-game. But IME the people who argue in such threads that 5e can do these things too have little to no genuine interest in making such modifications to their D&D play. So what is the point of such an argument except to downplay the play from games outside of D&D 5e's prevailing play structures and to reinforce the hegemony of the Dragon Game?

 

[innerdude]

I ageee with this. I would also add that the insistence that certain lenses (like distribution of authority) are the way to analyze RPGs at the exclusion of lenses chosen by D&D fans or others is a large part of what comes across as disrespectful.

Just so I’m clear the examination of RPG play under that lens isn’t the problem I have (it’s a powerful lens IMO), the problem I have is the treating of that lens as privileged. Now if that’s not intended then I’ve misunderstood.

But if someone does believe that lens is privileged then I can understand how pushback against that idea can seem undermining. And if that’s the case then that’s why these conversations go off the rails. They can’t share their thoughts without being disrespectful toward us and we can’t share ours without undermining theirs. That’s a rock and a hard place.

It's not that the lens of D&D, or "trad" principles, or narrative style games, or "simulationism", or "story now", or whatever else is privileged, it's a function of perspective.

I played D&D 3+3.5 from 2001 through 2008, Star Wars Saga Edition from 2009-2010, and Pathfinder 1e from 2010 through 2011. If you want to say that 5e is so radically different from the 3.x product line as to have a completely different set of play styles and play loops, I mean . . . I guess, sure, if you say so.

If I have 7 different lenses through which to make observations, and someone else has exactly one (the trad D&D 5e lens), how much should I trust that the single-lens observer has a full view of the contours of the landscape?

I'm not trying to exclude those whose sole lens is through trad D&D play. But it's not an insult to the individual with only one observational lens to say, "You're missing about 5 lenses from your tool bag that will make observations significantly more clear than continuing to turn the one lens you have around at 15 different angles."

 

[innerdude]

In the past, I have argued that in its non-commital to principles, D&D leaves the door open for a group to bring into their play the same principles as are put in writing in PbtA games. I have argued that the consequences-resolution and degrees-of-success rules in the DMG give mechanical support for that possible approach. Such technical arguments do not on surface make the acknowledgements sought. Whether I am right or wrong is of no concern here, the point is that in this case, the standards or considerations that I outline would apply to or be demanded of me.

The flaw in your logic is to assume that "mechanical support" for a particular style is equivalent to "directed play advice, principles, assumed social contract, and overall exercise of the game's play loop."

Construct a D&D 5e Dungeon Master's guide that implements Apocalypse World's advice, play principles, tone, and game structure, and see just how well your "mechanical support" translates to the desired effect.

While your claim is well-intentioned and has the benefit of inclusivity of playstyle, it unfortunately has the downside of not being true.