Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Manbearcat]

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.


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.

While I'm confident that this response is not representative of the entire "Success with Consequences Feels Bad" cohort of players, this is a component of it for sure and its likely the big piece for some players in particular (you for instance...given our exchanges in the past, this was how I figured you were oriented to the situation). So I'm curious about the bolded part in particular as it pertains to the below (if you'd care to unpack your thoughts):

In plenty of non TTRPG games (from PvP in CRPGs, some board games and parlor games like Pictionary, to ball sports to martial arts contests), engaging play involves a consequence-space that is both vital, dynamic, and evolving. The games are stochastic rather than deterministic. The prospective consequence-space is certainly neither unknown, unknowable, nor unbounded because its constrained by both (a) current gamestate and all the rules interactions that go with that and (b) the nature of relevant physical and intangible objects in the "play space" including both (i) their present relationships and (ii) their prospective future relationships post-interaction/collision. A huge part of the skill in game/sport is the ability to mentally process quickly and accurately build out a constellation of prospective outcomes and winnow those down to a working subset of most likely and gameplan (which includes adjustment in real time) around that (like the concept of "Fight IQ" or "Football/Basketball IQ" and all of the instantiations of the same concept). The best players are able to do this while under extreme durress...while the players who struggle in this (either the mental processing component or the "under duress" component) will be weeded out.

Clearly seeing the outcome takes on a different shape than what you've depicted above (it takes on the shape of what I've posted above). And while "the outcome spread" correlates to the inputs, I certainly wouldn't say the outcome is consistent in response to the same input each time.

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)? If it doesn't express itself in the rests of your gaming interests, why do you think it is that it specifically expresses itself in TTRPGs (what is "the secret sauce" there)?

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not trying to exclude those whose sole lens is through trad D&D play. But it's not an insult to the individual with only one observational lens to say, "You're missing about 5 lenses from your tool bag that will make observations significantly more clear than continuing to turn the one lens you have around at 15 different angles."

The singular lens of trad/D&D play is valuable when applying analysis to D&D and trad play. It's less useful, however, when talking in generalities about TTRPGs on the whole or about particular TTRPGs outside of that sphere of play.

The flaw in your logic is to assume that "mechanical support" for a particular style is equivalent to "directed play advice, principles, assumed social contract, and overall exercise of the game's play loop."

Construct a D&D 5e Dungeon Master's guide that implements Apocalypse World's advice, play principles, tone, and game structure, and see just how well your "mechanical support" translates to the desired effect.

While your claim is well-intentioned and has the benefit of inclusivity of playstyle, it unfortunately has the downside of not being true.

Even if D&D could do these things, is this what most people play D&D even want out of their D&D games? I suspect not. In fact there has been incredible resistance in other 5e threads to changes that would push the game in such directions. These threads were even where a lot of non-trad games were accused of having "mind control" mechanics.

 

[clearstream]

As then, this argument seems to be more of the "D&D can do anything" speak that tries to turn D&D 5e into the omni-game. But IME the people who argue in such threads that 5e can do these things too have little to no genuine interest in making such modifications to their D&D play. So what is the point of such an argument except to downplay the play from games outside of D&D 5e's prevailing play structures and to reinforce the hegemony of the Dragon Game?

Hmm... I have a genuine interest in doing so; indeed, I have run a campaign applying those ideas for my local group. (We rotate DMs and game systems.)

That noted, I would not conflate interests into one. I have a genuine practical interest, but just as importantly from my point of view, I have a genuine ludological interest.

 

[clearstream]

The flaw in your logic is to assume that "mechanical support" for a particular style is equivalent to "directed play advice, principles, assumed social contract, and overall exercise of the game's play loop."

I would stress that I gave the example solely in order to show where I would apply the suggested etiquette! I have no intention of expanding on or defending the arguments chosen for the sake of example here.

 

[clearstream]

Even if D&D could do these things, is this what most people play D&D even want out of their D&D games? I suspect not. In fact there has been incredible resistance in other 5e threads to changes that would push the game in such directions. These threads were even where a lot of non-trad games were accused of having "mind control" mechanics.

100%. That is what I mean to imply by framing the arguments as setting aside norms. Once we reintroduce norms, as you do here, we can easily evaluate the approach as very likely unappealing to most people who play D&D. It is when viewed outside of that norm, that a different evaluation can be made.

 

[Aldarc]

Hmm... I have a genuine interest in doing so; indeed, I have run a campaign applying those ideas for my local group. (We rotate DMs and game systems.)

That noted, I would not conflate interests into one. I have a genuine practical interest, but just as importantly from my point of view, I have a genuine ludological interest.

I think that a separate thread where you talk about your play experiences with this project, including possible trouble spots, would be insightful.

I don't think that this is impossible per se. @pemerton talked about running Traveller in PbtA style. Likewise John Harper said that he ran Stars Without Number using a PbtA-style resolution system.

100%. That is what I mean to imply by framing the arguments as setting aside norms. Once we reintroduce norms, as you do here, we can easily evaluate the approach as very likely unappealing to most people who play D&D. It is when viewed outside of that norm, that a different evaluation can be made.

IMHO, D&D is a game that is fueled by a sense of tradition, norms, and culture that tries to pretend that everyone is a big happy family who all lives under the same big tent. Good luck trying to get people to set those norms aside for the sake of analysis.

 

[clearstream]

While I'm confident that this response is not representative of the entire "Success with Consequences Feels Bad" cohort of players, this is a component of it for sure and its likely the big piece for some players in particular (you for instance...given our exchanges in the past, this was how I figured you were oriented to the situation). So I'm curious about the bolded part in particular as it pertains to the below (if you'd care to unpack your thoughts):

In plenty of non TTRPG games (from PvP in CRPGs, some board games and parlor games like Pictionary, to ball sports to martial arts contests), engaging play involves a consequence-space that is both vital, dynamic, and evolving. The games are stochastic rather than deterministic. The prospective consequence-space is certainly neither unknown, unknowable, nor unbounded because its constrained by both (a) current gamestate and all the rules interactions that go with that and (b) the nature of relevant physical and intangible objects in the "play space" including both (i) their present relationships and (ii) their prospective future relationships post-interaction/collision. A huge part of the skill in game/sport is the ability to mentally process quickly and accurately build out a constellation of prospective outcomes and winnow those down to a working subset of most likely and gameplan (which includes adjustment in real time) around that (like the concept of "Fight IQ" or "Football/Basketball IQ" and all of the instantiations of the same concept). The best players are able to do this while under extreme durress...while the players who struggle in this (either the mental processing component or the "under duress" component) will be weeded out.

Clearly seeing the outcome takes on a different shape than what you've depicted above (it takes on the shape of what I've posted above). And while "the outcome spread" correlates to the inputs, I certainly wouldn't say the outcome is consistent in response to the same input each time.

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)? If it doesn't express itself in the rests of your gaming interests, why do you think it is that it specifically expresses itself in TTRPGs (what is "the secret sauce" there)?

I like the way you've laid this out. In some PbtA game systems (DW is an example), I see that the complications or trouble of some moves is up to DM (e.g. Volley, in which "you have to move to get the shot placing you in danger as described by the GM"). I agree that this is not intended to be unconstrained, yet within that I think there are still essentially infinite possibilities.

When I run the thought experiment of collecting ten DMs and giving them the same situation and result, I feel justified in predicting that what they describe will not all be the same. Perhaps it is that leeway, that speaks to the point @Pedantic is making?

 

[Manbearcat]

I like the way you've laid this out. In some PbtA game systems (DW is an example), I see that the complications or trouble of some moves is up to DM (e.g. Volley, in which "you have to move to get the shot placing you in danger as described by the GM"). I agree that this is not intended to be unconstrained, yet within that I think there are still essentially infinite possibilities.

When I run the thought experiment of collecting ten DMs and giving them the same situation and result, I feel justified in predicting that what they describe will not all be the same. Perhaps it is that leeway, that speaks to the point @Pedantic is making?

I think your position of "essentially infinite possibilities" is one where we disagree on rather significantly (and its surely been one of the lynchpins for our lack of agreement in these particular angles of conversation). Its also why I likely disagree with @Pedantic here. "Infinite possibilities" smuggles in "impossible to be effectively modeled" while also assuming "the consequence-space isn't being discussed in real-time at the table." Neither of those are true.

Take the Stonetop play excerpt I relayed upthread:

* The Blessed (the outer limits of Near Range so maybe 60-70 ft) made a Danu's Grasp move to bind and harm the massive, charging (I'm not going to use its name because the spelling is impossible), corrupted buck. He gets a 6-. Something goes wrong.

My options are constrained by a large array of factors:

1) Portray a rich, mysterious world + Punctuate the PCs’ lives with adventure + Play to find out what happens. So nothing unengaging, nothing that isn't an expression of danger or opportunity, and nothing that is pre-scripted.

2) The Principles. Every move I make must be moored to and bound by these. I have to follow the rules. I have to be honest about the fiction (see 3 below). I have to embrace the fantastic and the mundane alike. I have to respect the NPCs and places of this world by giving expression to them. I'm a "fan of the character"; this doesn't mean I'm helping them...I'm "a fan" by testing them...demanding from them...putting what they care about front-and-center and in the crosshairs. I'm "a fan of them" because I let the players dictate the trajectory of play and make the game an expression about their protagonistic journey.

3) The constituent parts of the imagined space as they have been expressed:

* Binding nature magic of a deity of nature, beauty, nurturing/preservation, and tooth & claw.

* 60-70 feet away on a fast moving, large buck.

* A herd of prismatic bucks in cohorts of two, clashing due to the rut, about 100 ft away at its closest...all of which are keeping their distance from this corrupted buck.

* NPCs (horses and humanoids and Wizent the air spirit) out of danger.

* The Stormborn Heavy (a Thor-ish Fighter), the Raised By Wolves Blessed (a nature mystic with wolf companions), the Chronicling Prophet as Judge (Paladin of Knowledge, Harmony, Rebuker-of-Chaos) all in the crosshairs of this charging, corrupted threat.

* The creature's "stat block" (which includes its prospective moves, tags, damage expressions, and Instinct). The "corrupted" tag (by The Darkness Below) is a big one here.

* The nature of the PCs in question. This includes their accreted fiction to date + their playbook moves.

---

Given all of the above, that 6- forbade a whole host of degenerate, not-observing-the aggregate, interlocking features of all of the above. It winnows my decision-space to something profoundly less than infinite possibilities. As I see it, the possible moves I could have made would be:

* The spell of binding is turned against them. But this couldn't possibly due to "distance from Danu." That would be an outright violation of fiction-to-date. Further, it couldn't be due to "the spirits defy you." This character has the playbook move Voice of the Earth Mother which, by fiat, makes the spirits of the wild defer to you, at least respect you if not outright acquiesce to your requests. An earthen rampart suddenly swallowing Gavin? Complete violation of these things! The limits to "turning his move back on him" (by binding him somehow) would almost surely be degenerate.

So what else?

* Can I have one of the NPCs (like maybe Delly the Playfull tag horse or Cliff the "I want to protect my friends" man-at-arms) run out and endanger themselves? Nope! Total violation of prior success. They just took that off the table in their Struggle As One move by choosing the option of "these guys are all safe and in the tree line." Uprooting that would be a complete violation of the rules.

* Can I have another cohort of charging bucks clash in such a way that their collision sends them careening toward the situation? Well, we've already established that they are avoiding the corrupted buck (which is why its charging this group)...so that would be at least a "soft violation" of that fiction. Further, they're at Far Range. I can't "Follow Through" on the hard move requirements here. There is no way they can close quickly enough to actually put the PCs in peril.

So what is left?

* Make a Monster move. The binding earth and roots pull desperately against the creature, but given its size, power, and corrupted influence, it powers through their grasp, continuing its sprint toward executing a Trample move (which would come a few moves later) and spits the Scarlet Putrefaction line of vomit at Gavin; Near, 1d10+3, Ignores Armor, Grabby, Corruption.

That is clearly "the best line of play" that honors all elements of system, established fiction, the elements of the imagined space, game pieces, etc. There are probably a few other potential lines of play I could have made...but none of them would have been as good.

Cullen ( @hawkeyefan ) was there to protect his friends. So is it a violation for him to Defend or Defy Danger (The Tower Eternal) Gavin from the attack? Nope. He's there. If he wasn't there (maybe somewhere around or just outside of Reach range), I would allow him a Defy Danger move to sprint and intercede in time (and then make his Defend or Defy Danger to actually intercede). But he's there (which was an outgrowth of prior conversation...he wanted to be there for just this contingency' that he needed to protect his friend). So...order of operations:

* Cullen Defy Danger with Tower Eternal (fiction and gamestate changing post-move).

* Execute Scarlet Putrefaction attack contingent upon those results (fiction and gamestate changing post-move).

 

[Campbell]

Which "certain groups" are you thinking of?

My particular concern was that - provided I read it correctly - it is important for @Campbell that there be


In the past, I have argued that in its non-commital to principles, D&D leaves the door open for a group to bring into their play the same principles as are put in writing in PbtA games. I have argued that the consequences-resolution and degrees-of-success rules in the DMG give mechanical support for that possible approach. Such technical arguments do not on surface make the acknowledgements sought. Whether I am right or wrong is of no concern here, the point is that in this case, the standards or considerations that I outline would apply to or be demanded of me.

Sometimes technical arguments / critiques are caveated with words amounting to "this doesn't empty your play of value, but..." which can feel disingenous. Maybe that can be improved on by locating each argument in relation to norms or purposes? In my example, I would call out that normally I would acknowledge AW's distinctness of play, while in exploring these unusual possibilities I am here setting aside norms to see what might be revealed.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Campbell]

Of course, it is somewhat possible to modify the process you are using and use a set of mechanics not designed for that process. I have done as such using many trad games and there are multitude of people who do so with indie games. That says nothing meaningful about the impact of the outlined processes of play though. In the context of speaking to what play looks like in Sorcerer versus Vampire it's a pointless digression unless you actually want to discuss how to apply the techniques/processes from Sorcerer into Vampire in a disciplined way.

Like on the most basic of levels I am not sure how anyone could believe that the processes outlined below are in any way equivalent or capable of producing the same sort of play:

Exploration (Task Resolution)

Immediacy (Conflict Resolution)

Addendum: It should not be implied that one is better than the other, except for specific sets of desires. I personally value and cherish both. Getting to play L5R 5e (although our L5R game does bring some procedures from Nordic LARP) and Blades in the Dark concurrently has really helped me to build a sense of appreciation for both of these play models.