Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Thomas Shey]

As more of an aside: I don't really think that TTRPGs has a good understanding or usage of the term "metagame."

Well, like most terms, its gone its own evolutionary route in RPGs, and isn't even used the same way by different groups. As noted, when you first saw it it was used in a fashion that was vaguely synonymous with a particular version of "cheating".

However the people I was referring to using it were doing so in regard to things that in a more negative usage might have been called "disassociated" by some, but in their case were just things that were being done for Authorial or gameplay support and thus "above" the IC/in-setting game elements. This is from people who do not consider genre, or gameplay specific elements automatically a bad thing, so it didn't have the more negative connotations.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the first time I heard the term "metagame" used in a manner similar to its use today was back in the mid or late 1980s. It's not new.

As I note, however, that's probably not the usage I'm talking about, but likely the entirely negative/critical usage.

 

[Aldarc]

I think we're tripping on how close is close here. Can you run D&D 5e in a way that feels closer to Apocalypse World than baseline 5e? Absolutely. Is that going to feel anything like playing or running Apocalypse World to someone like me? Not at all. It might get you 25-35% of the way there (in my personal estimation), but generally losing what is so incredible about 5e along the way.

I can get into this later today once I have gotten some time to collect my thoughts.

This is what I was pointing at by mentioning Ship of Theseus syndrome; after you've swapped enough bits, are you even playing the same game any more, and if not, then why bother? I look forward to your elaboration on this!

This. This is the point that I sometimes gets lost in discussions about changing 5e D&D to be more like non-traditional games. This is one reason why I am resistant against trying to make D&D 5e into a one-size-fits-all game system.

All change is a form of loss. When we change things about 5e we also lose potentially incredible things about the system as well. There are costs and trade-offs to any changes that we make to 5e regardless of whether we value what we lose or not. And trying to change 5e D&D into a non-traditional game is not without consequences. Moreover, as I said before, I don't think that most people who talk of changing 5e into a non-traditional game have any genuine desire to run 5e as a non-traditional system or game. Many of these people are staunchly in the traditional in their gaming preferences. So what is gained by trying to make 5e into something that it's not?

 

[pemerton]

Just because I’m feeling pedantic. Canada has not been a Constitional monarchy since 1984. The Governor General does not report to Westminister nor is appointed by the sovereign of England.

Canada's constitutional arrangements are basically identical to Australia's and New Zealand's. There is a personal union of thrones - the same person occupies the thrones of the UK, Australia, NZ and several other realms and territories. There is also a diplomatic agreement between the relevant countries to ensure a common law of succession. This was last changed around 2013, to remove various bars around women and Catholics: that Canadian succession law can be read here: Succession to the Throne Act, 2013

EDIT: Hussar, I think you are confusing the "repatriation" of the constitution that took place in the early 80s with the arrangements made at the Imperial Conference and then via the Statute of Westminster in the late 1920s/early 30s, which established Canada (and the other "Dominions") as independent nations with equal sovereignty to the UK.

The first test of those arrangements was made by the Australian government in the early 1930s, which insisted on the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs as Governor-General against the wishes of the then monarch. The government of the UK advised the monarch that he was obliged to act on the advice of the Australian government.

But this does not mean that Canada is not a constitutional monarchy. The best place to get a handy list of the forms and titles is Wikipedia - List of titles and honours of Charles III - Wikipedia - and that will tell you that in Canada the king is His Majesty Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Here in Australia he is His Majesty Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Australia and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

 

[pemerton]

I don't know that carving out thematically salient domains of fiction has been much explored in conversation thus far. Can you say something more about your thoughts on that?

Is your contention here that unless a game possesses some specific set of basic moves (including seduce and go-aggro?) it cannot be in the neighbourhood of PbtA? What do you list as "basic moves", such that games that have to date been counted PbtA games can be assessed against that?

Here's another way to look at it:

When is a conflict resolved? When the situation in which it arises is changed irrevocably. What do we call an irrevocable change in the situation, in AW? That's a hard move. So what the play procedure of AW is designed to do is to produce rising action - more GM soft moves, introducing more tension and more complication - until the situation changes irrevocably: either the player succeeds on a player-side move and makes an irrevocable change (someone agrees to do what the PC wants, or is removed by threat or force from the PC's way, or the PC gets out of the difficult situation); or the GM is authorised to make a hard move, and declares an irrevocable change in the situation.

The GM has authority over the pacing of this, by choosing what soft moves to make, and the ways in which they step up the pressure in the situation. The player has authority over it, too, by choosing what to say when the GM asks 'What do you do?", which includes choosing whether to declare an action that will enliven a player-side move and thus create the possibility of resolution one way or another.

If the player - as in my warehouse example, and my peaches example - chooses not to make a player-side move, that is not "improper" or degenerate in any fashion. It is, among other things, a choice to prolong the rising action. When the GM responds with (say) "A guard comes up to you to ask you your business" that's not "illegitimate" either (contra @Lanefan). That is the GM doing their job, of stepping up the pressure in the situation.

The mark of a good PbtA game - and AW is a good PbtA game - is that the elements of the playbooks, the way the first session works, the outlines for fronts and threats, and the design of the player-side moves, all combine to mean that sooner or later a player will make a player-side move and hence will initiate the process of resolving the conflict. This is why, when Vincent Baker says "there are no status quos in Apocalypse World" (pp 112, 114, 125, 228) he is not giving an instruction to the GM (or the players) - rather, he is observing what will happen if the game is played as the rulebook actually sets it out.

 

[Lanefan]

This doesn't seem correct. In the sort of RPGing you prefer, the GM is quite often introducing new content - eg wandering monsters, or deciding that a NPC turns up, or whatever. You also make random weather rolls. And I'm sure many other similar things.

Even those generally tend to follow from where things were before. Wandering monsters and NPCs will be things that suit the area or dungeon (and if nothing suits, there won't be any wandering monsters), and if not there'll be a reason for it. An example might be that if a "wandering" Frost Giant is encountered in the tropics it's probably not there by its own choice, and there might be something worth investigating further should the party choose to do so. "Wandering" undead anywhere are usually a sign something's wrong.

Weather rolls are influenced by the previous day's weather; and weather is one area where I'm confident enough in my knowledge to be able to pretty much wing it, assuming a vaguely Earth-like atmosphere.

 

[Campbell]

I don't know that carving out thematically salient domains of fiction has been much explored in conversation thus far. Can you say something more about your thoughts on that?

Is your contention here that unless a game possesses some specific set of basic moves (including seduce and go-aggro?) it cannot be in the neighbourhood of PbtA? What do you list as "basic moves", such that games that have to date been counted PbtA games can be assessed against that?

A key component of what makes Apocalypse World work is that as a GM I have no ability to call for rolls or set the stakes involved. Those come from the basic moves themselves. This means I'm not putting my hands on the scale in anyway. Just focusing on making GM Moves to keep the flow of the game going.

Those moves themselves are also central. At heart Apocalypse World is game about broken, sexy, dangerous people who struggle against their own natures. The central question is if these people can become a found family or if they will ultimately turn on one another. The basic moves embed the mentality of the characters directly into the game. Go Aggro is not a test of competence, but rather your willingness to commit violence. You're the Gunlugger so there's no doubt you could do the things you are threatening from a competence standpoint. It enables the sort of play where you can shoot someone without meaning to when they won't give in because damn it. they just would not listen.

That introduction of unwelcome emotions, not always being in full control of yourself is a key element of how Apocalypse World, Monsterhearts and Masks work as games. Sure, we can play this sort of situation out in a more traditional game, but then we're authoring rather than experiencing those moments. That's a fundamentally different sort of play (one I also happen to really enjoy).

There are a lot of PbtA games that don't have that same sort of embedding of who the characters are as people. Games like Monster of Week and The Sprawl are much closer to more traditional play than Apocalypse World and Monsterhearts. It's part of the reason I don't really like talking about Powered by the Apocalypse as a system. It's much more of a design language. There are some pretty significant structural differences between some of the games.

 

[Lanefan]

A rough definition I use for metagame is - activities connected with the game that span across sessions.

So if I will play two games of chess, one on Monday and one on Wednesday, and on Tuesday I discuss strategy with a friend, that latter activity is in the metagame.

More analagous to how I see metagaming might be if you started that game of chess on Monday but didn't finish it; talked with your friend on Tuesday and got some advice (be it general or specific to that particular game), then returned to finish the game on Wednesday armed with this new advice.

Or, similarly, if I will play my character in six sessions of TB2, then when players strategize between sessions three and four, that strategizing is part of our metagame.

If while strategizing the players are only using knowledge their characters would have, all they're doing is some out-of-session roleplaying. IMO it doesn't enter the metagame until non-character knowledge gets involved.

 

[Lanefan]

As I note, however, that's probably not the usage I'm talking about, but likely the entirely negative/critical usage.

The usage was invariably negative/critical back then too, at least IME.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

4e actually had a pretty good explanation for martial encounter exploits: once you've done it, they're on to your tricks. But in 4e, each exploit was a distinct thing, not sharing a resource the way superiority dice work.

Yeah I have heard that one. It's not bad, and you could use it for Battlemaster too, though you are right it's a bit different. All of these are what I would term 'weak' meta, they're tied to fiction by one degree. OTOH say Inspiration is more indirect as it could represent a player rolling different dice or simply changing the narrative slightly without a direct connection to the character.