Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[pemerton]

How different can the fundamental play loops be, though?

I mean, when everything else is stripped away in what RPG doesn't the play loop boil down to:

1. Player(s) say what their PC(s) (are trying to) do next, as an action declaration or similar based on the current state of fiction
2. The game's resolution engine processes that declaration and generates a result
3. Someone (usually, but not necessarily always, a GM or equivalent) translates that result into a narration of what, if any, observable changes have occurred in the state of fiction as a result of that (attempted) action
4. Go to 1.

That different games have and use widely different resolution engines doesn't affect this fundamental play loop; and most of these discussions are really only about variants of resolution engines and-or different philosophies or principles involved in steps 1 and-or 3.

I think @soviet's reply to this post was pretty solid!

But here's mine.

First, as soviet asked and as @chaochou so often emphasises, who established the current state of the fiction? And to add to that, who established what it is that the PC wants? Is the player following a GM-authored hook, or is the player establishing their own goal for their PC?

Second, the game's resolution engine is an abstract object. Who actually "processes the declaration" and generates a result? Suppose that a player has their PC call on a god for aid with whatever they're doing: which participant gets to decide if that prayer is answered? Just as one example, Agon answers this question rather differently from Gygax's AD&D.

Third, the drawing of a distinction between "generating a result from the resolution engine" and "translating that result into narration" is not common to all RPGs. It doesn't obtain in BW when the GM "says 'yes'"; nor if the player rolls the dice and succeeds. It doesn't obtain in AW if a player's action declaration doesn't trigger a player-side move.

Fourth, the idea that narration is of an "observable change in the state of the fiction" appears to rule out a range of possible consequences relating to ideas and emotions.

Fifth, after narration of consequences and before calling for new action declarations there may be the introduction of new fiction eg as the result of a wandering monster check; or because the GM decides to spice things up; or in some other way. How that sort of thing is done is a big part of any RPG experience.

I'm sure there's more that could be said.

 

[clearstream]

I mean, let's look at the structure of two of the most important AW moves: Seduce/Manipulate, and Go Aggro. Here's Vincent Baker unpacking the latter (AW p 284):

For moves that let one PC directly attack or control another PC, it’s important to trade decision-making back and forth between​

the players. It’s especially important to give the victim decisions to make or the power to influence outcomes when the attacker​

wins:​

​

Seduce or manipulate [basic]​

​

When you try to seduce or manipulate someone​

​

Then roll+hot​

​

For an NPC​

​

On a hit they ask you to promise something first [MC’s decision]​

​

And do it if you promise [player’s decision]​

​

On a 7–9 they need some concrete assurance [MC’s decision]​

​

And do it if you provide some [player’s decision]​

​

For a PC​

​

On a 10+ both​

​

On a 7–9 choose 1 [attacker’s decision]​

​

• if they do it, they mark experience [defender’s decision]​

​

• if they refuse, it’s acting under fire [defender’s decision]​

​

On a miss the MC can make as hard and direct a move as she likes [MC’s decision]​

​

Look through the moves, you’ll see this pattern over and over. Pass decision-making to the victim, the defender, the loser. Nobody should get to win and win, nobody should have to lose and get cut out of the action.​

The table I ended up with to enact the DMG 237 and DMG 242 rules looks like this

Ability check	Result​	Decision-making…
Nat. 20​	+ve Critical​	[Player] Change a miss into a hit, or describe an extra or increased benefit
>(DC)​	Success​	[Player] You do it
≥(DC−2)​	Success with hindrance​	[Player] You do it, and [DM] describe a complication or hindrance
≤(DC−5) ​	Failure​	You botch it, and [DM] describe a consequential injury or loss
Nat. 1​	−ve Critical​	[DM] Change a hit into a miss, or describe an extra or increased cost

In use, I "flip" this so that I can employ a mathematically equivalent version that is easier to read at a glance (I've explained how in another thread.) Note that I am emphatically not trying to reproduce AW moves like-for-like in 5e. Following the rules in DMG237 consequences are laid out up front, so that in play it's perfectly possible to land on arrangements like the examples.

I harbour hopes that 6e will expand the "success with hindrance" range, and choose thresholds that are easier to read off the die at a glance, but I expect to be disappointed in that regard.

 

[pemerton]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that while some trad-only gamers may never have tried different flavours, almost everyone who plays non-trad would have got their start with D&D or similar (and may well still play them in addition).

That's not to say that sticking to trad is bad. If you find something you like and keep doing it, that's awesome. But it is to say that those talking about the things non-trad can do that trad really can't, are doing so from a position of experience with both sides of the fence.

The first RPG I owned was Classic Traveller, but the first one I played (and the second I owned) was Moldvay Basic. I couldn't work out how to make Traveller "go" once the prep had taken place; whereas Moldvay Basic sets out a clear procedure both for prep and for play.

I've played plenty of RPGs in the style I described - the core of play being the GM working from notes either directly or by extrapolation - and have GMed some of it, although I don't GM it especially well. (I struggle to stick to my notes if play suggests something more interesting.)

I think @Campbell has best described the appeal of this sort of play - there is something for the players to poke at and "explore", to build on for their action declarations. (This does require the GM to stick to their notes, or else the idea of leveraging the "game world" becomes purely illusory.) As per my post just upthread, Torchbearer is about as close as I can imagine coming to this.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

From another perspective this is just another example in a long slew of examples of outright dismissal/disrespect toward 5e fans perspectives.

And from yet another perspective you didn't read my post and cut straight to playing the victim card. And not even for yourself, possibly, but for those unfortunate put-upon gamers that aren't in this discussion anyway.

Stop white-knighting for people who don't need it.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Thank you. Now, in case anyone else is interested, this is precisely why this criticism/'rpg theory' conversation always breaks down.

Another whiff here, unfortunately. I'm repeating myself, but I think it's necessary: If someone has read one book, and refuses to read any others, they're not getting invited to any book clubs, no one's asking their opinions on books or writing, and they can be as performatively outraged as they want (or have others, I guess, be outraged on their behalf), but the facts are that their perspectives are quantifiably not relevant. What you're defending, with all this pearl-clutching, is the notion of someone blundering into a discussion about an Elmore Leonard book as someone who's never read it, but has some real interesting takes based on some sort of vague osmosis—like they read something on Reddit about the movie adaptation of it. That blunderer might be the smartest person in the world. Their input in this case is worth essentially zero.

Call that elitist or exclusionary if you want, but if so, come up with something to support your argument, instead of just trying to work the refs.

 

[kenada]

The table I ended up with to enact the DMG 237 and DMG 242 rules looks like this

Ability check	Result​	Decision-making…
Nat. 20​	+ve Critical​	[Player] Change a miss into a hit, or describe an extra or increased benefit
>(DC)​	Success​	[Player] You do it
≥(DC−2)​	Success with hindrance​	[Player] You do it, and [DM] describe a complication or hindrance
≤(DC−5) ​	Failure​	You botch it, and [DM] describe a consequential injury or loss
Nat. 1​	−ve Critical​	[DM] Change a hit into a miss, or describe an extra or increased cost

In use, I "flip" this so that I can employ a mathematically equivalent version that is easier to read at a glance (I've explained how in another thread.) Note that I am emphatically not trying to reproduce AW moves like-for-like in 5e. Following the rules in DMG237 consequences are laid out up front, so that in play it's perfectly possible to land on arrangements like the examples.

I harbour hopes that 6e will expand the "success with hindrance" range, and choose thresholds that are easier to read off the die at a glance, but I expect to be disappointed in that regard.

What’s the scope of a complication or hindrance? Can it take the game in an unexpected direction?

For example, the Redbrand Ruffians are a problem in Phandalin in Lost Mines of Phandelver. A small group of them confronts the PCs shortly after they arrive. If the PCs kill some of the Ruffians, it’s indicated that Townmaster Wester isn’t happy about it because he fears retaliation. If he confronts the PCs, and they try to assuage his concerns, what does success with hindrance and also failure look like? Could one potential complication be whether he declares them outlaws?

In he does, “success with hindrance” might mean that the PCs win him over, but they have to operate discretely until the problem is resolved. This would make it difficult to access services in town but not impossible (e.g., Townmaster Wester provides some token that identifies the PCs’ special status). However, failure means the town is closed off to them. The PCs can’t operate there, and even if they take out the Ruffians, that’s just confirming that they are also lawless hooligans.

Is that kind of outcome okay? Can an adventure be zagged when it was expected to zig?

 

[clearstream]

What’s the scope of a complication or hindrance? Can it take the game in an unexpected direction?

For example, the Redbrand Ruffians are a problem in Phandalin in Lost Mines of Phandelver. A small group of them confronts the PCs shortly after they arrive. If the PCs kill some of the Ruffians, it’s indicated that Townmaster Wester isn’t happy about it because he fears retaliation. If he confronts the PCs, and they try to assuage his concerns, what does success with hindrance and also failure look like? Could one potential complication be whether he declares them outlaws?

In he does, “success with hindrance” might mean that the PCs win him over, but they have to operate discretely until the problem is resolved. This would make it difficult to access services in town but not impossible (e.g., Townmaster Wester provides some token that identifies the PCs’ special status). However, failure means the town is closed off to them. The PCs can’t operate there, and even if they take out the Ruffians, that’s just confirming that they are also lawless hooligans.

Is that kind of outcome okay? Can an adventure be zagged when it was expected to zig?

I'd advise following constraints such as have been outlined by other posters up-thread. What does your fiction say? What does the game state say (and accompanying rules)? What's going on (has momentum)? What is your agenda (having adopted principles such as making PC's lives interesting)?

An example given in the DMG is the Queen throwing the PCs in the dungeon for their impudence, so your example (that I bolded) is in scope. A complication could very well be being declared outlaws... but not if that doesn't flow from where you are and what has gone before.

In short, the adventure should not be zagged when your principles / constraints call for a zig... but that doesn't mean you can't make that zig a hard consequence.

 

[Aldarc]

Another whiff here, unfortunately. I'm repeating myself, but I think it's necessary: If someone has read one book, and refuses to read any others, they're not getting invited to any book clubs, no one's asking their opinions on books or writing, and they can be as performatively outraged as they want (or have others, I guess, be outraged on their behalf), but the facts are that their perspectives are quantifiably not relevant. What you're defending, with all this pearl-clutching, is the notion of someone blundering into a discussion about an Elmore Leonard book as someone who's never read it, but has some real interesting takes based on some sort of vague osmosis—like they read something on Reddit about the movie adaptation of it. That blunderer might be the smartest person in the world. Their input in this case is worth essentially zero.

Call that elitist or exclusionary if you want, but if so, come up with something to support your argument, instead of just trying to work the refs.

These discussions have been going on for years. Many past discussions often involved the same basic appeals with the some of the same people: "please read, experience, and discover playing these other games yourself." At the very least, these people would be working with primary sources and talking with actual play experience.

Do I need actual play experience to talk about other games? Not always. However, I would knowingly be operating from a position of ignorance. It's likely that my discussion would involve asking people with actual knowledge and experience about these games. I would definitely think myself at a disadvantage when it comes to arguing with people who have actual play experience about how the game plays, which would probably get more pronounced with that experience gap.

And yet here we are years later, and some of these same people who show up in these discussions but nothing has changed. They have not even bothered reading these other games. They have not bothered trying to play these other games. And yet they still think that their opinions about these other games that they mostly know through hearsay is just as valuable and insightful, if not moreso, as opinions formed by people with actual play experience of these games?

We may all very well be wrong with our various assertions, analyses, and opinions. They could be right. I'm open to that possibility. I am super happy that these people enjoy playing whatever version of the Dragon Game that they love most. There is nothing wrong with choosing to play only one game. The number of tabletop games we play does not determine our worth, virtue, or integrity as human beings or tabletop gamers. But this is not what the discussion is really about. This is a red herring. This particular judgment of virtue is not being made against them on this basis.

The fundamental issue is the absence of firsthand knowledge/experience about these games for the purposes of talking substantially about these games. It's difficult to take any argumentative claims about other games seriously when those claims persistently operate with half-baked knowledge of these games that is mostly informed by hearsay and a sense of insecurity that the Dragon Game is being slighted and/or threatened through the existence of non-traditional games or that the Dragon Game may have play limitations.

There have been a fair number of us who were "on the other side of the fence," so to speak. We only had experience with trad games. We thought that there was little to no difference between these other games in terms of what they invovled. Or maybe we never even thought about it. Games are games, so how different could they be? Then we played things on the boundaries or outside of traditional gaming's "big tent," and it was pretty eye-opening, at least for me. I know that I am not unique in my journey. I recall Ovinomancer and @innerdude recounting similar experiences as well.

Is it gatekeeping to ask for people to try playing these games so they can form their own informed opinions about these games for themselves? Possibly, but I also trust the insight of someone who read the complete works of Tolkien and watched the Hobbit & LotR movies as opposed to someone who only read a review or heard what other people were saying about the LotR movies. I may have differing readings and opinions with the former person, but I at least know that they are working with experiential working knowledge of the primary sources. But I am utterly uninterested in the opinions of the latter person when it comes to discussing the written works of Tolkien.

Or whose opinions into Karl Marx's philosophy should I find more engaging and insightful when we are talking about Marxism? The person who actually read the major works of Karl Marx for themselves or the person whose knowledge and opinions were entirely formed around some variation of the syllogism "Communism is bad; Karl Marx is a Communist; ergo, Karl Marx is bad"?

 

[Thomas Shey]

You're not wrong, but at the same time, both Bennies and hit points do serve one similar function --- they act as markers to both the GM and other players that a unilateral fictional state declaration of "Your character is dead" is a degenerate one.

But you are correct that there's a substantive difference in how a player can declare to "use a Benny" vs. sacrifice hit points.

As both being counters in that direction, you're absolutely right. However that's not usually the problem people who don't like metacurrancy have with it, so its sort of aiming at an empty target.

(I've in fact argued that one of the functions metacurrancy in a lot of neotrad games serve is to provide pace-of-resolution control in a game that otherwise is set up to produce an at least quasi-naturalist sudden-death result.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

I can see your point; OTOH I cannot count the number of times in 5e (or other editions either) play where I sat there thinking "is it time to expend X in order to end this encounter quickly and avoid taking some more damage?" X could be a spell, superiority dice, etc. In this sense, I think hit points CAN be seen as very akin to a meta-currency, they don't represent any specific thing in the fiction, and you often shape your play around their expenditure or saving. I mean, I agree, its not quite like superiority dice, or hit dice, or spell slots, where you literally decide whether or not to expend them at first hand, but its not far off!

Well, I'll note you're mixing things that are very much supposed to be in-world resources with metagame resources in this sentence (spell slots usually actually represent things spellcasting characters can talk about in-world in some fashion). A lot of people are objecting to the very fact the latter exist (though I suspect to some of them it gets muddy when you start getting things that are supposed to be abstractions of in-world things (which I'm guessing is what "superiority dice" are since I'm not familiar with them).

So I think it can swing both ways here. I think there can be a consistent position for people who want to avoid the sort of metagame decision-making as much as possible (and yes, I'm aware some people say they don't feel any distinction, but for some there very much is such a distinction), and probably would prefer that any decision had a pretty direct map to an in-character decision-making, and for them a metacurrancy is anathema (and parallel things that sort of are sort of aren't aren't probably that much better).

(Note: this doesn't mean there aren't some inconsistencies to be found with this position sometimes, but I think its a valid position to have).