Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Grendel_Khan]

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.

For sure, there is some "anything but 5e" sentiment here. But that's an undercurrent throughout the hobby, and I think what's problematic is this notion that everyone should constantly tiptoe around the issue, including by constantly praising 5e's design and never criticizing it.

For example, imagine you're talking about romance in modern film, and specifically the relative lack of sex scenes in them (not just the death of the erotic thriller, but just less on-screen sex in general). Then someone chimes in with the fact that, because basically every MCU movie is PG-13, of course there are fewer sex scenes in movies. And who wants eroticism in movies, anyway, because the MCU is totally good without it, especially anything explicit!

But this isn't a discussion about the MCU, but movies in general, so that tangent is noted and the discussion moves on—it can't be all about PG-13 movies opening theatrically, since streamers are everywhere. What else has changed culturally, and in film specifically?

Now the MCU fans are livid. Why are we talking about some Wong Kar-wai movie no one's heard of instead of talking about Thanos? They like Thanos, and Thanos isn't sexual at all. Also wasn't there a sex scene in Eternals or something? No, not explicit, nothing memorable, but it's there, that covers it. Anyway let's talk about that last scene in Endgame with Thanos. How rad was that? And if you say one more time that the MCU doesn't do something that erotic thrillers do, and doesn't have sex scenes, and has very basic, uncomplicated romantic plotlines, you are telling me it falls short, and that I fall short for liking the MCU.


That, to me, is what dancing around 5e and 5e-only gamers feels like. It's irrational, a waste of time, and a damn slog.

 

[niklinna]

There are many ways of resolving an imaginary combat besides LARPing and wargaming. Many of which might be more convivial to some players.

There are many ways of resolving an imaginary combat within LARPing and wargaming. You got your LARPs with hit points, your LARPs where taking a blow disables you where you got hit or kills you outright, you got your rock/paper/scissors, I think I heard of one where they use powder so there's visual evidence of where you got hit in case of disputes....

 

[Imaro]

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.

I will approach the question through the prism of more traditional play later today. In general, I saw a throughline in the commentary brought forward by @Imaro and @Lanefan that seemed dismissive of other modes of play. Games like Apocalypse World are constantly cross examined and attempts are constantly made to undermine the unique value they provide even while many of us show a willingness to provide more traditional play models with their flowers.

This basic lack of respect for games, designers and especially practitioners of other styles of play has been a constant fixture of these boards pretty much since I started posting here more than 20 years ago when I was still in high school. There has been an absolute failure to acknowledge that there is any value in playing differently. That different styles of play can accomplish different things and that there are very real tradeoffs between different approaches.

No where has this been more apparent than in the treatment of indie games as bespoke or "focused and narrow" games on these boards. The dismissive way many people on this board including people like @Imaro have treated games like Apocalypse World while calling those who run/play them elitists is staggering to me. I just do not get the inability to provide respect and acknowledgement for things we do not personally prefer.

Edit: One thing I will say is that I have always appreciated how @FrogReaver has always been specific that he is only talking about his own preferences and has been transparent about the real reasons he prefers to not have things like binding social mechanics.

I'm not sure how the narrative of not wanting 5e criticized or analyzed popped up here... but at least for me it's the fact that, as espoused by this post, I'm actually not supposed to criticize, challenge or negatively discuss the non 5e games because... reasons??

EDIT: And honestly all the reasoning that... it's the biggest so it should be criticized more and more severly tells me is this isn't about neutral analyzation.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I'm not sure how the narrative of not wanting 5e criticized or analyzed popped up here... but at least for me it's the fact that, as espoused by this post, I'm actually not supposed to criticize, challenge or negatively discuss the non 5e games

There's a difference between dismissing entire play modes—specifically when it's because those modes aren't the dismisser's only personally preferred mode, and is only discussing them to say that they suck—and critically analyzing how and whether different games are successful for those modes.

But there are a couple of important factors here, as well:

-A lot of us who get lumped into some sort of non-trad, storygame-only camp, in fact play trad games—including 5e—on a pretty regular basis. But the way these discussions go often winds up pigeonholing us as troublemaking trad-haters, whether because we're talking about design innovations in the indie gaming space, or because we aren't constantly paying sufficient obeisance to 5e, even when the mechanics at hand have nothing to do with 5e or similar trad games. The truth is, sometimes it's just more interesting to talk about lots of different, smaller games, than to talk about D&D-related mechanics that have been around for close to 50 years, and an edition whose own innovations are necessarily iterative.

-As @Ruin Explorer talked about upthread, re: someone potentially criticizing Spire on specific game design points, that sort of analysis is by and large not going to invoke the sort of handwringing and "how dare you?!" blowback from fans of non-trad games, because we generally aren't married to a single game over the course of decades. I'm currently extremely into Scum and Villainy, and specifically as a system that imo handles certain Star Wars tropes better than any licensed SW game to date. But if someone was to note that you can't really do a heroic Jedi story with it, or that it's a bad fit for exploration-heavy sci-fi, or that it would fail spectacularly at a Rogue Squadron dogfight-heavy campaign, I would agree, in part because Scum and Villainy doesn't try to be all things to all people, and I'd wager than no one who likes the game thinks that it, or any other FitD game, is the One True Way to play every kind of campaign or adventure.


To go back (maybe unwisely) to my MCU framing, if I want to talk about really interesting things happening in movies, I'd love to talk about Tar or Ambulance or Creed or basically anything but the MCU, because the MCU, for all of its enjoyable qualities and understandably loyal fans, isn't pushing the form in ways that are new or surprising or complicated enough to really warrant discussion. At least in my opinion—and I'm one of those suckers who's liked every single MCU TV show so far!

 

[Imaro]

There's a difference between dismissing entire play modes—specifically when it's because those modes aren't the dismisser's only personally preferred mode, and is only discussing them to say that they suck—and critically analyzing how and whether different games are successful for those modes.

But there are a couple of important factors here, as well:

-A lot of us who get lumped into some sort of non-trad, storygame-only camp, in fact play trad games—including 5e—on a pretty regular basis. But the way these discussions go often winds up pigeonholing us as troublemaking trad-haters, whether because we're talking about design innovations in the indie gaming space, or because we aren't constantly paying sufficient obeisance to 5e, even when the mechanics at hand have nothing to do with 5e or similar trad games. The truth is, sometimes it's just more interesting to talk about lots of different, smaller games, than to talk about D&D-related mechanics that have been around for close to 50 years, and an edition whose own innovations are necessarily iterative.

-As @Ruin Explorer talked about upthread, re: someone potentially criticizing Spire on specific game design points, that sort of analysis is by and large not going to invoke the sort of handwringing and "how dare you?!" blowback from fans of non-trad games, because we generally aren't married to a single game over the course of decades. I'm currently extremely into Scum and Villainy, and specifically as a system that imo handles certain Star Wars tropes better than any licensed SW game to date. But if someone was to note that you can't really do a heroic Jedi story with it, or that it's a bad fit for exploration-heavy sci-fi, or that it would fail spectacularly at a Rogue Squadron dogfight-heavy campaign, I would agree, in part because Scum and Villainy doesn't try to be all things to all people, and I'd wager than no one who likes the game thinks that it, or any other FitD game, is the One True Way to play every kind of campaign or adventure.


To go back (maybe unwisely) to my MCU framing, if I want to talk about really interesting things happening in movies, I'd love to talk about Tar or Ambulance or Creed or basically anything but the MCU, because the MCU, for all of its enjoyable qualities and understandably loyal fans, isn't pushing the form in ways that are new or surprising or complicated enough to really warrant discussion. At least in my opinion—and I'm one of those suckers who's liked every single MCU TV show so far!

So don't talk about 5e... What I've seen is there's this need to almost always juxtapose the games you (general you) enjoy with 5e but then those who disagree with how you (again general) characterize 5e or label it's traits or just your opinion on 5e aren't supposed to comment either. So if you're really tired of talking about 5e then don't.

EDIT: Also what you are stating here really has no bearings on the ask in the post I quoted along with yours. IMO it's almost outright saying I shouldn't hold a different opinion... I need to "respect" games they like and enjoy as well as the designers... again for... reasons.

 

[Manbearcat]

So we were having the "7-9 in PBtA and 4/5 in FitD (success with consequences) feels bad" conversation upthread. I wrote out a play excerpt from last week's Stonetop game with a 7-9 move by @hawkeyefan .

So question out there for folks who feel bad about success with consequences ("feels like failure"). Three different situations in 5e D&D:

1) Something with an Aura where "if you're in x range, take y damage" like the Balor's Fire Aura. A melee character is getting punished for getting into melee (start of Balor's turn they take 10 fire damage) AND getting punished for hitting in melee (10 more fire damage).

2) Something like a Remorhaz with its Heated Bloody or something with Acidic Blood or something. You get in melee range. You attack. You hit. You do damage. Boom > automatic 10 fire damage in return.

3) Something with Legendary Actions whereby, at the end of your turn its thwacking you. Like a Dragon's Breath or Wing Buffet or Tail Swipe or anything that can attack you at the end of your turn because you've triggered such a potential mechanical effect being brought to bear as a result of engaging it in melee (or getting within proximity of its effect or whatever). I'm a Rogue and I'm getting up in melee to deliver my payload. I thwack the dragon. The Str Melee Fighter is going to go meganova9000 on the dragon and is perfectly positioned to do so. 2 Legendary Actions spent on Wing Buffet and the Fighter is now prone and the Dragon has flown 40 ft away. Fighter hosed.


How do we feel about these mechanical effects? "Feels bad...that is success with a consequence that is basically failure?" Does one "feels bad" worse than the other? Why?

 

[Aldarc]

I enjoy a lot of indie and 3rd Party Publishing games. Believe it or not, most of the games that I often play fall within the space of traditional or OSR roleplaying space:

Shadow of the Demon Lord, Blue Rose, Fantasy Age, Numenera, Index Card RPG, Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures, Stars/Worlds Without Number, Black Hack, Vaesen, etc.

I'm in a D&D B/X campaign right now. Sometimes it feels, however, like none of those qualifications are good enough. It's like there is some secret loyalty test to 5e (or even trad gaming) that I have apparently failed to swear a solemn oath upon to never criticize any aspect of the Dragon Game or traditional gaming approaches. Am I even allowed to bring up that other games exist? That other games do things differently? That other games may even do things that better suit the person in question's gaming preferences?

As @Grendel_Khan says, I feel that there are people who will lump me into some imaginary non-trad game faction. I enjoy games of all sorts! I enjoy discussing games of all sorts! I'm not in a faction! I'm not writing hit pieces in this forum on other games or posters who enjoy those games. Part of how I enjoy engaging and understanding other games is with analysis, comparison/contrast, criticism, etc. I like understanding the strengths and weaknesses of games. I like knowing the sort of roleplayers certain games are good for and which ones are not. I like making personalized recommendations that help other people find games that better suit their play preferences. I have made game recommendations for people in these forums who don't share my roleplay preferences; however, understanding how various games and game systems handle things differently was critical in informing my ability to make those recommendations.

 

[Pedantic]

So we were having the "7-9 in PBtA and 4/5 in FitD (success with consequences) feels bad" conversation upthread. I wrote out a play excerpt from last week's Stonetop game with a 7-9 move by @hawkeyefan .

So question out there for folks who feel bad about success with consequences ("feels like failure"). Three different situations in 5e D&D:

1) Something with an Aura where "if you're in x range, take y damage" like the Balor's Fire Aura. A melee character is getting punished for getting into melee (start of Balor's turn they take 10 fire damage) AND getting punished for hitting in melee (10 more fire damage).

2) Something like a Remorhaz with its Heated Bloody or something with Acidic Blood or something. You get in melee range. You attack. You hit. You do damage. Boom > automatic 10 fire damage in return.

3) Something with Legendary Actions whereby, at the end of your turn its thwacking you. Like a Dragon's Breath or Wing Buffet or Tail Swipe or anything that can attack you at the end of your turn because you've triggered such a potential mechanical effect being brought to bear as a result of engaging it in melee (or getting within proximity of its effect or whatever). I'm a Rogue and I'm getting up in melee to deliver my payload. I thwack the dragon. The Str Melee Fighter is going to go meganova9000 on the dragon and is perfectly positioned to do so. 2 Legendary Actions spent on Wing Buffet and the Fighter is now prone and the Dragon has flown 40 ft away. Fighter hosed.

I suspect that's entirely down to cause->effect being clearly mapped. Even if the character has no viable option beyond putting themselves in harms way, they can clearly see the outcome, and the outcome is consistent in response to the same input each time. Except possibly for that legendary action one, which is admittedly some 5e specific nonsense, and not the most elegant solution to the one monster vs. several PC action imbalance problem.

How do we feel about these mechanical effects? "Feels bad...that is success with a consequence that is basically failure?" Does one "feels bad" worse than the other? Why?

My experience in those games has generally been feeling like I'm waiting for the scenario to resolve enough that I can go play the game, and then realizing I don't have any tools to do that, and any time I try take an action, I'm risking the game unwinding further, and worse, I'm supposed to be okay with that and declare actions anyway. I keep waiting for the scenario to be clear, so I can try and solve it, and then realizing that will never be the case. It's like playing a roguelike that regenerates the level every time I take a step.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Or even on the fly, if (as is often the case) this encounter is something the GM didn't see coming.

Countless are the times I've quickly had to think to myself "What makes this NPC tick?" as the PCs decide on the spur of the moment to interact with someone I've previously not given a second's thought to. And so I come up with a personality for this NPC, and then try my best to stay true to it during the interaction. (and then hope I can remember what that personality was when the PCs come back six months later!)

Which I think starts to lean into a railroad.... the GM is deciding how this obstacle must be dealt with.

How is it any more of a railroad if the GM is deciding on the fly or if it's pre-written into the module?

here's a "key" to this specific "lock" and nothing else will work. This becomes more about guessing at the GM's solution.

Let's for a moment change the parameters and say this guard is written up in the module: "Jannik is loyal to his job and generally dutiful but can be persuaded to turn a blind eye to minor transgressions with a little cash, or brandy; and he is also easily distracted." Railroad? I think not.

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.

You're assuming here that the GM is going to have the guard refuse entry every time. Not necessarily the case.

If the ball isn't something the GM wants to run, why is it even in the game?

Because either the written module or the run of play (i.e. something the players or my dice did) put it there.

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.

Not my style. If they specifically ask about a ball or similar high-society event, that's what I'm going to quickly dream up some odds and roll for (unless I already know the answer e.g. it's written in a module); and if my dice show me there's one coming up then so be it: there's one coming up whether I-as-DM like it or not.

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

A better question. For me, I generally won't introduce things I'm not interested in running unless I'm forced to either by dice or player inquiry/action. An example: as DM I more or less loathe running PCs-as-businesspeople and thus I'm likely never going to have any NPCs suggest the PCs start a business, but f they decide on their own to start one then that what I've got to run.

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

I'm just not seeing the jump in logic here that gets you to "railroad". Explain, perhaps?

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.

Agreed to a limited point: I too want mechanics that support the fiction, and sometimes the best way for them to do so is to not be doing anything. As for wanting there to be a game along with the roleplay, there's lots of game in all the abstractions that take care of things we can't roleplay.

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.

Again, I agree but only to a limited degree. Oftentimes that information just - quite realistically - isn't available until it's too late. You don't know the specifics that make the guard tick, you don't know whether it'll be pouring rain that night and thus the guard might be taking shelter in the pillbox rather than standing at the door, and so forth.

That said, if you've got +8 on Bluff then I-as-DM most certainly have to take that into account when roleplaying my NPCs' reactions to your attempts to hoodwink them.

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.

Thing is, sometimes the most "meaningless" things can turn out to hold great meaning - or not. The guard is an obstacle that can potentially be bypassed in numerous ways (some riskier and more daring than others e.g. a PC could decide to bypass the guard by breaking in through a 2nd-story window!); and depending on how the interaction goes might also become an opportunity (e.g. if a PC uses some sort of mind control on the guard and turns him into an information source). The latter can't happen if the interaction is skipped.

Thus, my default is to play everything out unless it's clear the players don't want to, and to not care how long doing so might take. There's always more sessions for that which doesn't get done in this one.

 

[Campbell]

@Imaro

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. 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.

I have personally at many times talked about how well designed I think 5e is. That it does what it does phenomenally well. That's the highest praise I can give any game. That never seems to be good enough though. 5e has to somehow be elevated above other games. Trad games have to be capable of providing the same sorts of experiences as indie games. If I stick up for the years of experience, I have running games in other styles, I am somehow the malcontent instead of those who have called me selfish or irrelevant. Who have insisted I must have just had bad GMs. Who say the way I run some games can never work.