D&D 5E Human (mis) perception and how it affects gaming

[Manbearcat]

That's a very good post and I'm pretty much in agreement of it universally; once humans started to organize in larger social systems, tribalism became as fundamental to the human experience as eating. In one sense, even moreso as being "tribe-deficient" could very well mean no eating!

However, I will say that I'm not sure tribalism carries the flags for things like "skip the guards and get to the fun" (implication being that transition scenes and open world sandboxing isn't fun). Those sorts of designer notes/marketing faux pas seem to be much more a product of incompetence and ignorance. It is considerably easy to write non-incendiary prose which advocates scene-based play composed primarily of conflict-charged vignettes and short interludes. You don't have to dismiss other playstyles outside of that framework (eg open world sandbox or AP) in order to endorse it. Bloggers and folks on forums? Sure. Absolute tribalism. Demagoguery and ritualized ideology/taste vindication. They have nothing at stake other than precisely what you wrote above. Game writers and their editors have everything at stake; job > resume > $ to pay the bills and support the family.

 

[pemerton]

I would love to see the modules and advice text pre-grouped into broader playstyles (e.g. sandbox vs. story-focused), as long as this can be done without each section sniping at the other style. I honestly don't know how hard that would be; I wonder, because some of the game text that has been brought up and praised in the scene-framing threads has struck me as being ill-informed about and unfairly dismissive of sandboxing, e.g. the claim in "Burning THAC0" that most encounters in old school modules are "just filler". It doesn't seem necessary in order to explain and advocate scene-framing to imply that people who prefer sandboxing are masochists or have too much time on their hands, but I dunno.

It's probably not necessary. I think in something like Burning THACO, though, the designers are writing for a particular audience (and in fact I'm pretty sure that PDF is just a collation of message-board posts from the BW forums) and they're trying to frame what they're doing for that audience. And the audience for BW has a certain background experience and orientation, which include disappointment about the tendency in some traditional AD&D adventures to make you slog through the dungeon rooms to get to the dramatic parts - of course, those modules weren't written to be played in that "dramatic" fashion, but ever since it was published people have been using D&D and similar games to do things they weren't designed to do.

Personally I don't mind the snark if the meaning is clear - eg it's obvious on the Forge that most of the posters would find my 4e game a juvenile slog, but because they make their values and meaning clear I can easily extract the key advice and techniques.

In a published game meant to appeal to a broad audience more moderation is probably warranted, but not at the expense of failing to convey what your rules are for. I don't know if you've ever read the BW rules, but they are the best example I know of a game that tells you without any coyness or obscurity how the designer thinks it should be played. I find it hugely refreshing as a way to write RPG rules, and even if WotC doesn't just mimic it I think they could learn from it.

(And one thing people praise about the original DMG is that Gygax's authorial voice is very clear, and he certainly wasn't shy about advocating for his particular "skilled play" approach.)

 

[Libramarian]

That's a very good post and I'm pretty much in agreement of it universally; once humans started to organize in larger social systems, tribalism became as fundamental to the human experience as eating. In one sense, even moreso as being "tribe-deficient" could very well mean no eating!

However, I will say that I'm not sure tribalism carries the flags for things like "skip the guards and get to the fun" (implication being that transition scenes and open world sandboxing isn't fun). Those sorts of designer notes/marketing faux pas seem to be much more a product of incompetence and ignorance. It is considerably easy to write non-incendiary prose which advocates scene-based play composed primarily of conflict-charged vignettes and short interludes. You don't have to dismiss other playstyles outside of that framework (eg open world sandbox or AP) in order to endorse it. Bloggers and folks on forums? Sure. Absolute tribalism. Demagoguery and ritualized ideology/taste vindication. They have nothing at stake other than precisely what you wrote above. Game writers and their editors have everything at stake; job > resume > $ to pay the bills and support the family.

"Demagoguery and ritualized ideology/taste vindication"--Exactly, nice turn of phrase.

I think this stuff can be very attractive from a business perspective if you think that's what turns your audience on. I mean if your audience is actually pretty united then stoking that tribalism is a great strategy. Why not write the game text equivalent of those Apple ads where the PC was that chubby guy from the Daily Show and the Mac was Justin Long.

I think what happened with 4e is they were aware that they were going to tick off some older edition fans, but they thought that those people weren't likely to spend much money on 4e anyway, but what they underestimated is the amount of communication that actually goes on between the various edition/playstyle fans and how much we actually care about others' opinions and are reluctant to sequester ourselves into separate communities -- in a sense they overestimated our 'tribalism'.

It's probably not necessary. I think in something like Burning THACO, though, the designers are writing for a particular audience (and in fact I'm pretty sure that PDF is just a collation of message-board posts from the BW forums) and they're trying to frame what they're doing for that audience. And the audience for BW has a certain background experience and orientation, which include disappointment about the tendency in some traditional AD&D adventures to make you slog through the dungeon rooms to get to the dramatic parts - of course, those modules weren't written to be played in that "dramatic" fashion, but ever since it was published people have been using D&D and similar games to do things they weren't designed to do.

Personally I don't mind the snark if the meaning is clear - eg it's obvious on the Forge that most of the posters would find my 4e game a juvenile slog, but because they make their values and meaning clear I can easily extract the key advice and techniques.

In a published game meant to appeal to a broad audience more moderation is probably warranted, but not at the expense of failing to convey what your rules are for. I don't know if you've ever read the BW rules, but they are the best example I know of a game that tells you without any coyness or obscurity how the designer thinks it should be played. I find it hugely refreshing as a way to write RPG rules, and even if WotC doesn't just mimic it I think they could learn from it.

(And one thing people praise about the original DMG is that Gygax's authorial voice is very clear, and he certainly wasn't shy about advocating for his particular "skilled play" approach.)

I want to hold Forgie games to a higher standard in this regard, since they're directly influenced by this theory that seems to offer a really promising way to talk about different styles and gaming priorities without snark or synechdoche, as Ron Edwards would say.

It seemed to go from neutral theoretical language to accusations of brain damage being thrown around pretty quickly.

I've never read BW, but straight talk from the designer about how they think the rules should be used, I like. What I don't need or want is for the designer to sell me on their game after I've probably already bought it by describing how it's better than D&D or better than "simulationist" ways of playing. I do have a copy of the Riddle of Steel, and the intro is pretty annoying for this reason.