Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Xamnam]

So it seems to me that perhaps you're expressing a discomfort with stochastic models of play (and TTRPGs where the consequence space is such) and a related preference with/comfort for deterministic models of play? If so, does this express itself in the rest of your gaming interests (outside of TTRPGs...like maybe you don't like PvP in CRPGs or maybe you prefer certain ball sports to others)?

As someone who is generally more stressed by both running and playing PbtA/FitD than I am D&D, though obviously simple experience and practice plays a part, your examples here feel remarkably on the point for me personally. I generally don't care for any multiplayer games, by far preferring things like Platformers and Action/Adventures (Celeste/Sekiro) with static challenges so I can point to exactly what I bested and why, and the only sport I care about to any degree is baseball, which while it has the chaos endemic to any live athletic sport, gets about as close to a turn based regimented set of actions as you can. This is very interesting insight, thank you.

 

[clearstream]

When I speak to playing Apocalypse World or playing D&D 5e I am speaking to taking the text seriously and disciplined commitment to the enumerated play procedures and principles of play as described by the text. Whether the text presents itself as instruction or advice is immaterial to the value that is provided by those processes/principles. It's of course equally possible to not take the text seriously in either case.

Non-formalists will argue that it is not so clear cut what should count as rules-following behaviour. Of course, it always seems clear cut within a normative context, and that is because of shared principles. You can perhaps see that judgements such as "seriously" and "disciplined" are normative, to the extent that they might dismiss intentional differences in behaviour as not-serious / not-disciplined. That said, as I've noted before I roughly follow Bernard Suits' in believing that following game rules is largely done for the sake of the play afforded (i.e. they are constitutive of that play.) The catch coming where purposes diverge, so that the play that is desired to be afforded diverges with the differences in rule-following.

I am more specifically speaking to the experience engendered by a particular set of play loops. That a disciplined commitment to those play loops provides a play experience you cannot get without them. I have no clue how this would not be self-evident on a purely definitional basis. That process matters.

I think what you might be saying here is that it seems implausible to you that, say, play loops from one game couldn't be transposed into another. So that the particular play experience is in some sense locked to the particular game. Is that right?

We have had literally pages and pages of commentary in this thread that are basically lamenting that games that use conflict resolution are not using task resolution, much of which you appeared more than sympathetic to. I do not see how you can now deny the impact of those processes.

As I've noted a few times now, the bridge is the consequences-resolution found in the DMG. Consider for example the Thief move Tricks of the Trade in "Dungeon World". That is an example of task resolution embedded within a PbtA framework. Twierdza Powszechna has more to say about this, drawing examples from FitD too.

Ironically (considering my thoughts above) I believe it is in part because most D&D groups do not take the words in the DMG on resolution seriously that it can seem like such a remote possibility that the game could ever play in such a paradigmatically different way. I see you posted Harper's two diagrams. I should add that I believe there is another more appealing graph that I think of as goal resolution, that to me makes better sense of task resolution. However, I also do not embrace a simple conflict-task binary: rather I think in terms of features of resolution methods that can be assembled in a great variety of different ways.

 

[clearstream]

@Campbell it may help too, for me to call out that I do not deny the impact of those processes, followed in the particular way.

My thoughts are very much "Yes, and..." where the "and" is to wonder how much adopting principles and interpretations can adjust the ludic structure of meaning. In doing so, I adopt a radical stance that in some sense claims (in respect of TTRPGs) that we cannot possibly know what game is being played unless we know something about who is playing it. That, quite seriously, a distinct game is being played by each distinct cohort.

 

[Campbell]

@clearstream

So, from my perspective the play loops are the game. The game is not contained in the text, but the system (procedures, principles, agendas) actually utilized at the table. Changing the play loops changes the game. Games are cultural phenomena, a set of norms reinforced through the overall culture of play. We can set our own unique culture of play at our table, but that is fundamentally an act of design. Basically, I find your focus on the text rather than the norms and structure of play decidedly unhelpful in the actual discussion of games.

The two diagrams I outlined are not the only possible arrangements, but each possible arrangement will result in different sets of tradeoffs. That's how design and engineering works. The disciplines are different and will result in different experiences. There is no best of all possible worlds.

Besides none of this is in anyway helpful to the analysis of play. We have to have some set of standards to start from. I mean your particular commentary fully engages in this except when it seeks to conflate styles of play when the particular strengths of conflict resolution are brought up. You seem more than happy enough to embrace the strong points of task resolution.

I personally view this as a rejection of the set of disciplines I have learned and practiced for more than 15 years. Both when it comes to the play model espoused by Apocalypse World and also my own experiences running games like Vampire, Legend of the Five Rings, et al.

 

[clearstream]

@clearstream

So, from my perspective the play loops are the game. The game is not contained in the text, but the system (procedures, principles, agendas) actually utilized at the table. Changing the play loops changes the game. Games are cultural phenomena, a set of norms reinforced through the overall culture of play. We can set our own unique culture of play at our table, but that is fundamentally an act of design. Basically, I find your focus on the text rather than the norms and structure of play decidedly unhelpful in the actual discussion of games.

Ah, so this might be causing a lot of misunderstanding between us. To play a TTRPG, a group of players must interpret a text, right? They must grasp a meaning from that text, and uphold that at their table. This process is as you aptly say "not contained in the text, but the system (procedures, principles, agendas) actually utilized." It is indeed as you say "fundamentally an act of design" to set our culture of play at our table. The one additional step that I take is to posit that we do that whether we mean to or not, and whether our culture is in any way exceptional or not.

I hope you can see then that I am not focused on the text, but on the structures of play relative to commonly norms, but also local and possibly exceptional choices. Your approach is very pragmatic - really useful for getting at the play that might normally be predicted to emerge. My approach is far more theoretical - ludological, specifically. I am interested in the possibilities of play, so for me, working from received norms is not a constraint (and can be an obstacle.)

Interest in the possible play does not to any extent deny the normal play. It absolutely rests in the procedures, principles, agendas actually utilized. It is just rather more flexible as to what those can be. If you recall my note about tools, I claim that Aarseth is right - games are mechanisms - but that the way that rules instantiate those mechanisms is when they are wielded as tools (in the various ways I describe) by players. We can easily agree I think that the rules are inert without players!

The two diagrams I outlined are not the only possible arrangements, but each possible arrangement will result in different sets of tradeoffs. That's how design and engineering works. The disciplines are different and will result in different experiences. There is no best of all possible worlds.

Agreed. My personal view is that Harper's top diagram is fragmentary and suggests greater incoherence than I observe in play, but I think his bottom diagram is just right.

Besides none of this is in anyway helpful to the analysis of play. We have to have some set of standards to start from. I mean your particular commentary fully engages in this except when it seeks to conflate styles of play when the particular strengths of conflict resolution are brought up. You seem more than happy enough to embrace the strong points of task resolution.

I should probably write something about resolution methods at some point. I have quite copious notes I made on vacation in Sardinia. My sense is that what I have said so far miscommunicates my actual views.

I personally view this as a rejection of the set of disciplines I have learned and practiced for more than 15 years. Both when it comes to the play model espoused by Apocalypse World and also my own experiences running games like Vampire, Legend of the Five Rings, et al.

I can readily empathise with how that would feel bad. It isn't my intention and I don't know the remedy. Maybe it lies in suggesting that you have purposefully - and with discipline - worked to grasp and uphold the rules according to an authoritative (and thus normative) position on principles (inter alia, that of the game designers.) That is a very justified approach to take. Perhaps also historically the knowledge of how to take the approach you do was understood by even fewer folk than today. I feel like those principles are more and more influencing game designers.

 

[Bohandas]

There's a point in every grad student's life, at least in the liberal arts schools, where he or she looks at all those theories and asks themselves a vital question: Does this really mean anything or is it all bull$%#^?

Based on wikipedia's definition of liberal arts ("The modern sense of the term usually covers all the natural sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities.") I'd say that 75% of it is bull$#!+, assuming that social sciences, arts, and humanities account for 25% each

 

[Lanefan]

Even if D&D could do these things, is this what most people play D&D even want out of their D&D games?

Probably not. Which is why...

I suspect not. In fact there has been incredible resistance in other 5e threads to changes that would push the game in such directions.

... such resistance makes sense, particularly if the posts suggesting such changes come across as (or are outright written along the lines of) "the whole game should change in this direction" rather than "here's an idea for your table that's worked at mine".

D&D (at least in its 1e-2e-5e versions) is IMO at its core flexible enough and robust enough to handle both a) a huge variety of different playstyles and preferences and b) any minor rules tweaking that might be needed to achieve these ends; and that most of its players/DMs aren't necessarily interested in exploring those different playstyles doesn't negate that flexibility's existence.

 

[Aldarc]

D&D (at least in its 1e-2e-5e versions) is IMO at its core flexible enough and robust enough to handle both a) a huge variety of different playstyles and preferences and b) any minor rules tweaking that might be needed to achieve these ends; and that most of its players/DMs aren't necessarily interested in exploring those different playstyles doesn't negate that flexibility's existence.

Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[soviet]

Probably not. Which is why...

... such resistance makes sense, particularly if the posts suggesting such changes come across as (or are outright written along the lines of) "the whole game should change in this direction" rather than "here's an idea for your table that's worked at mine".

Other people explaining how they play are not necessarily trying to evangelise you onto their side.

D&D (at least in its 1e-2e-5e versions) is IMO at its core flexible enough and robust enough to handle both a) a huge variety of different playstyles and preferences and b) any minor rules tweaking that might be needed to achieve these ends; and that most of its players/DMs aren't necessarily interested in exploring those different playstyles doesn't negate that flexibility's existence.

This is flatly not true. The fact that you think it shows how little you understand of other playstyles.

 

[Campbell]

@clearstream

I guess my contention there is that I do not view play in which the agenda, structure and principles vary from moment to moment as especially flexible overall. Basically, you are choosing from moment to moment which sets of tradeoffs you are willing to accept. This is often put forward as the best of all possible worlds, but it has its own attendant set of tradeoffs beyond the moment to moment ones. One particular one is if players are not given the right sort of cues as to what agenda is in play, they might not have a clear view of how to enable and support each other's play or how their moves will be interpreted to affect the game state. This makes approaching play from specific sorts of agendas damn near impossible. Specifically play centered on dramatic conflicts and skilled play priorities tend to not function well in such an environment.

A recent example where the meta channel broke down in our Vampire game was where I wanted to have a personal scene with my character's Regent at a party all the PCs were in attendance in order to engage in a bit of character exploration. This was read wrong by some of the other players and GM as a fact-finding mission. This sort of breakdown in communication happens on a somewhat frequent basis in less structured play in my experience. This is with a play group who I have been playing with for a number of years and generally have a fairly strong grasp of the set of play priorities I usually tend to favor.

This sort of breakdown can be alleviated by either explicit use of the meta channel or structural cues like we see in D&D combat, Marvel Heroic transition scenes or Blades in the Dark play phases.