Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Ruin Explorer]

Particularly when some of the great commercial game design that produced 5e is woefully under-acknowledged.

What are you referring to here? I'm interested to see what you'd regard as "commercial" game design as opposed to presumably "non-commercial".

5E is an interesting game - probably the second most-interesting version of D&D, design-wise - but it's also quite a messy game, particularly on the DM-side design aspects, so if you see criticism as "denigration", I don't think you're really going to be able to engage in a thread about game design. I think that's part of why some people bow out - they don't like to see D&D criticised, which is fine, but also means they'll never able to really be part of a critical discussion of D&D. You see the same with all kinds of games and media - some people have this unfortunate situation where they like the idea of critical discussion, but where the reality of seeing things they like criticised is too much for them. I'm sure everyone has some subjects they feel this way on - if you wanted to critically discuss my wife, say, I'd probably want to punch you in the face - and some people feel that strongly about media or games or the like - and not a few people either - a lot. I'm not saying you do, I don't know your reasons, but there's a lot of it about.

Earlier indeed it was suggested by one individual that they felt any criticism of a game was inherently a criticism of its players. I don't deny that person honestly feels that way, but obviously such an attitude is wholly incompatible with genuine critical discussions. It's like going to a BDSM dungeon and standing around telling everyone how mean they're being to each other and how you don't like it lol.

To me, denigration would be "D&D sucks, it's boring and dumb and for babies".

Whereas criticism would be "I don't think think 5E has fulfilled its conceptual promise re: three pillar design" or "5E would benefit from X because Y" and so on. I don't see that as denigration, even if I don't necessarily agree.

As an example with Spire, for example, a game I personally really like, if you came to me and said "The Firebrand class is woefully under designed and mechanically unsatisfying compared to other Spire classes", for example, I'd be forced to reluctantly concur, despite the great concept. Or even if you said that the basic approach to advancement that Spire takes, which is primarily based on how much change the PCs achieve, is both vague and potentially creates issues with play (which you could detail), whilst I might not like hearing that, because I like that system, I would still acknowledge that was valid criticism, not mere "denigration". And that's the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Whereas denigration would be "Spire is about drow and drow are a dumb idea" or the like.

 

[pemerton]

the structural comparisons we're making would lump it neatly in with the games I do like

Why do you say that?

 

[chaochou]

Well, this certainly does make it easier to see who's worth trying to engage with.

An account created in 2012 which suddenly started posting prolifically in August last year.

That makes it easier to see who's worth trying to engage with.

 

[pemerton]

I get that it can be a bummer to see your favorite game slammed over and over. But a lot of what's happening in this thread, and in previous ones like it, isn't actual denigration of 5e

This thread seems to have had barely any discussion of 5e D&D. A little bit on the past few pages of social resolution. What else?

 

[Umbran]

Yeah. Sorry for having a range of RPG experiences, and the theoretical language and mental frameworks to discuss them. That must be irritating for one-true-wayists and large swathes of the D&D population who want their illusionist play to remain unexamined.

Mod Note:
It is not clear what positive outcomes you expect to come out of this abrasive, insulting style of interaction.

It is a problem. We need you to back off from it, not just in this thread, but on the boards in general.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, there has to be an assumed degree of trust that the DM will play the NPC in good faith just as you would your PC; which ideally means you're trying to convince the NPC rather than the DM. Put another way, if the DM plays true to the NPC then said NPC might end up acting in ways the DM-as-DM maybe doesn't want.

Trust in what sense? Again, stats... in the form of attributes, skills, tags, whatever... help the GM decide how to play the guard. They determine how effective the guard may be at something. Perhaps the guard can spot a bluff a mile away, but is susceptible to a pretty face, or a handful of coins.

There are several ways we can do this. We can use stats to tell us how good the guard may be at resisting any given approach, but then leave the results up to the dice.

Or the GM can just decide these things ahead of time. Which I think starts to lean into a railroad.... the GM is deciding how this obstacle must be dealt with. There's a "key" to this specific "lock" and nothing else will work. This becomes more about guessing at the GM's solution. Combined with the idea that the GM doesn't want to run a ball scene... this just seems like GM forcing the game to go the way he wants.

Or it can be left up to freeform roleplay, as you mention. And if this is the method and everyone is on board, then of course it's fine. My concern with it is that, from a game point of view, it really is removed from the characters. It's similar to the problem with the GM deciding the one solution ahead of time, except in this case, he's deciding in the moment of play, and it's based on my performance versus my play.

Example to follow on from the door guard: the DM-as-person might not want to have to DM a ballroom scene and is really hoping that either your character decides not to go or that you can't talk your way in. But you go, and as the NPC door guard happens to be fairly persuadable with even the tiniest of bribes, in you get; and now the DM has to run the ballroom scene anyway.

I've been in a similar position many a time, to the point where I just internally shrug and roll with it now when it happens.

If the ball isn't something the GM wants to run, why is it even in the game? If it was a player idea along the lines of "maybe there's a formal ball going on where we can mingle with some of the upper crust to try and get some info" and that's not something the GM wants or is prepared to run, then he should simply say "no, there's no such ball... but maybe..." and prompt the players towards something he is prepared to run.

If the ball was something the GM introduced, why would he do so if he didn't want to deal with it?

Again, this feels more and more like a railroad to me.

Perhaps, though my position is this is an area where mechanics can largely get out of the way.

While I accept that's your preference, mine is that there shouldn't ever really be a need for the mechanics to get out of the way. That doesn't mean I want them to be in the way, mind you, but rather that I want them to support the fiction. I want to engage with the mechanics in a way that helps the fiction move along. I want there to be roleplay, yes, but also a game.

You're making a decision to try to talk your way into the ball....

... and unless you've done some ahead-of-time research on the door guard's weaknesses, of course you don't know your odds. Just like in reality, if I decide to crash some high-society private function I've no idea what my odds are of talking my way in until and unless I try it.

I don’t think that’s entirely true. Depending on the circumstances and what’s already been established, we may have a good idea about chances. I at least may know that my +8 to Bluff is a pretty strong indicator that I’ve got a good shot in all but the most extreme cases. At the very least.

It’s related to the whole idea of players making informed decisions. The more player facing the rules and mechanics, the more informed the players are. For a game, I think that’s important.

They're two aspects, to be sure. Decisions come out of the character's thought processes (mirrored by your own); dialogue usually comes out of interacting with the scene either pro- or re-actively.

Sure, but there are also times where the roleplay needs to get out of the way. Like, is this scene with the guard meant tobe meaningful? Okay, cue that to the players and we can zoom in on it a bit. If not, then let’s just bang it out with an action and a die roll and get to the good stuff.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

This thread seems to have had barely any discussion of 5e D&D. A little bit on the past few pages of social resolution. What else?

Good question. And that’s part of the issue—folks seeing any critical discussion of trad play as a veiled attack on the hobby’s biggest game.

 

[clearstream]

Good question. And that’s part of the issue—folks seeing any critical discussion of trad play as a veiled attack on the hobby’s biggest game.

That isn't the case - at least for my part - and surely the plan can't be to argue away the experiences that folk report having?

 

[Grendel_Khan]

That isn't the case - at least for my part - and surely the plan can't be to argue away the experiences that folk report having?

Not trying to minimize your experiences, honestly. But @pemerton 's right that 5e hasn't really come up in specific ways all that often in this thread, but then you obviously had a reason for bringing up people denigrating it. Assaults on 5e, real or imagined, are one of ENWorld's most enduring topics, even though—as you put it yourself—that's about as clear a definition of punching up as it gets.

 

[clearstream]

That's a bit of a broad brush. 5e fails to deliver on basically all of the design points I care about (it fails to provide a robust game with specific, pre-defined player actions, and fails to provide meaningful progression/increases in agency as the game continues), but the structural comparisons we're making would lump it neatly in with the games I do like. Which is more than a bit frustrating. I don't particularly want to carry the rulings not rules people around with me, just because we both start with task based resolution.

I suspect that partly, 5e's non-commital on principles for play leaves the door open to that lumping-together. I see that non-commital as one example of design choices that suit commercial i.e. earnings-focused (or widest-audience satisfying, to put it a more positive way) purposes.

Not trying to minimize your experiences, honestly. But @pemerton 's right that 5e hasn't really come up in specific ways all that often in this thread, but then you obviously had a reason for bringing up people denigrating it. Assaults on 5e, real or imagined, are one of ENWorld's most enduring topics, even though—as you put it yourself—that's about as clear a definition of punching up as it gets.

For sure I am not here to defend 5e. I'm reporting my experience because what others said resonated. If it's an enduring topic, perhaps that's for a reason. I for sure sometimes get a strong feeling of "any RPG, but not 5e" in some posts. On the other hand, where 5e contains an example of something one wants to criticize, it is the most obvious choice for citation.

And fundamentally, it would be worse for me if / wherever it were to punch in the other direction!