Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[EzekielRaiden]

One thought I had about these battles over labels recently was - why do we allow them to stymie productive conversation so? Like, if a label really is neutral for one party, and pejorative for another, why not go with a different label that is neutral for both parties?

In part because, oftentimes, there is a desire to never have any label at all, or to only use labels which are purely favorable to the person raising the objection, which is of course necessarily unfavorable to other positions.

You may note that I, personally, have attempted to offer "neutral" labels for discussions of this kind in the past (e.g. proposing "Red Light, Green Light" as an alternative to "Mother May I.") People didn't even deign to respond to the proposal. I was soundly ignored, even by the people complaining about MMI being pejorative.

 

[Imaro]

In part because, oftentimes, there is a desire to never have any label at all, or to only use labels which are purely favorable to the person raising the objection, which is of course necessarily unfavorable to other positions.

You may note that I, personally, have attempted to offer "neutral" labels for discussions of this kind in the past (e.g. proposing "Red Light, Green Light" as an alternative to "Mother May I.") People didn't even deign to respond to the proposal. I was soundly ignored, even by the people complaining about MMI being pejorative.

Just a guess... but using the names of simplistic pre-schoolers games as a descriptor may just be a bad take overall. I don't think which pre-school game you choose to use is really the sticking point.

 

[clearstream]

And yet, as I said, we have what clearly appear to be knowledge claims regarding the effectiveness of game design decisions. We have (for instance) the widespread recognition that GP=XP achieves the "fantasy heist" intent of early D&D in a particularly deft way, or the less widespread but still common appreciation for how elegant and effective 13A's Escalation Die is for addressing the known issue of "nova" strategies being excessively dominant. How do we reconcile these (seemingly) blatant knowledge claims with the idea that it is impossible to achieve even the smallest amount of knowledge regarding game design? If it is truly impossible to learn anything at all about game design, why is it so like things we can make knowledge claims about?

I believe we can have knowledge about the technical features of different games. What I resist is a detailed general theory of RPG, which I think relies on the "RPG essentialism" that Vincent Baker calls out as a red flag.

In this thread, it should be clear that I am comfortable with a high-level ontological statement about RPG. There is no theory in that statement: no problem solved. This is part of why I was so concerned to bring the precise term "fictional position" into the conversation.

It is the going on from there to construct any general theories, that I am skeptical about.

 

[niklinna]

If we could find those, I would love to use them. I am just not sure if any terminology which artifice would be acceptable to those who take an issue with the current set, we have been using. If there is please point me to it.

Someone does always seem to take offense no matter the term.

 

[FrogReaver]

If we could find those, I would love to use them. I am just not sure if any terminology which artifice would be acceptable to those who take an issue with the current set, we have been using. If there is please point me to it.

This does seem to be the crux of the problem.

 

[FrogReaver]

What does hexcrawl include that map and key does not? What does it leave out that map and key does not?

Why do you assume map and key is a pejorative? Orthat those who used it don’t like that style of play? I quite like it. Currently I’m playing through the Temple of Elemental Evil. It’s pure map and key gaming.



What details does it leave out? What is it omitting.

You’re not being very specific.

Let's take a step back - Do you agree there is an implicit expression of 'guessing game' present in the 'map and key' term?

If so it shouldn't be that hard to understand my objection - D&D is much more than a game about guessing, so using a term that expresses the fundamental nature of the playstyle is that of a guessing game is an at best misleading description of D&D.

As an analogy that might help explain - it would be the equivalent to me calling story now games, 'Yahtzee RPG's' or 'Casino RPG's' because you only ever achieve success by rolling a dice - with the odds of complete success generally stacked against you.

 

[FrogReaver]

In part because, oftentimes, there is a desire to never have any label at all, or to only use labels which are purely favorable to the person raising the objection, which is of course necessarily unfavorable to other positions.

You may note that I, personally, have attempted to offer "neutral" labels for discussions of this kind in the past (e.g. proposing "Red Light, Green Light" as an alternative to "Mother May I.") People didn't even deign to respond to the proposal. I was soundly ignored, even by the people complaining about MMI being pejorative.

In the great label debate - of all the pejorative terms, map and key is probably the least offensive IMO.

 

[Aldarc]

How does it strip anything away?

Does hexcrawl strip anything away? They’re similarly simple.

What effect does this term have? What does “map and key” take away?

And I love D&D. LOVE IT. I play it weekly with my best friends who I made at a very young age and who I bonded with over… D&D.

So no, I don’t dislike D&D. I’m just able to examine play and honestly say what’s happening.

I dunno. I understand that opinions will vary, but "Map and Key" seems far more neutral of a term to me than "Hexcrawl." The whole "crawling" aspect of the latter term sounds laborious and monotonous rather than fun.

Maybe the core problem with the term "map and key" is that @pemerton used it so there is naturally suspicion of nefarious intent.

Someone does always seem to take offense no matter the term.

Doubly so if pemerton used the term.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Let's take a step back - Do you agree there is an implicit expression of 'guessing game' present in the 'map and key' term?

I guess? To an extent?

I described it above. Whether we call it "map and key" or "hexcrawl" or whatever else, it rests on the fundamental principle that the GM has secret knowledge which the players desire to learn so that they can make well-informed decisions. Are we agreed on that?

If so, then from there the question becomes: how do the players gain that knowledge? They must ask questions and remember (or record) answers. This is a serious potential point of failure because, if the GM has done poorly, yes, it really can degenerate into a mere guessing game, "can you read the GM's mind to find out what you need to know?" To my ear, "hexcrawl" obfuscates this issue, making it sound as though there is not ever an issue of how the players learn what they need to know. "Map and key" recognizes that this can be an issue, without having it ALWAYS be an issue. After all, maps exist, people make and use them IRL; we are often required to examine our environment and figure out the right questions to ask to learn what we need to know.

Hence, your objection seems to me to be centered on a distaste for recognizing that this playstyle, whatever we choose to call it, is rooted in secret GM knowledge that the players must extract from the GM through the process of play. The players start out ignorant, while the GM is omniscient. The players must perform actions which induce the GM to reveal what they know. These actions cannot be trivial or the game is boring, but they cannot be nonsensical or the game is infuriating. "Guessing game" is the latter failure state. Refusing to recognize that it can be a failire state is a problem. Likewise, pretending that this failure state is the only possible state is also a problem. I don't believe "map and key" commits the latter error. I believe "hexcrawl" commits the former.

There is a fact of the matter about the world. It is, intentionally, obfuscated from direct player observation. The players must find valid actions (there need not be only one "right" action) which remove this obfuscation, so they may directly access the fact of the matter. The GM must make the obfuscation significant enough to be an actual obstacle worth overcoming, and yet not so much of an obstacle that it can't be overcome at all. Whatever term we use, we must recognize that these failure states are real risks.

 

[FrogReaver]

I guess? To an extent?

I described it above. Whether we call it "map and key" or "hexcrawl" or whatever else, it rests on the fundamental principle that the GM has secret knowledge which the players desire to learn so that they can make well-informed decisions. Are we agreed on that?

If so, then from there the question becomes: how do the players gain that knowledge? They must ask questions and remember (or record) answers. This is a serious potential point of failure because, if the GM has done poorly, yes, it really can degenerate into a mere guessing game, "can you read the GM's mind to find out what you need to know?" To my ear, "hexcrawl" obfuscates this issue, making it sound as though there is not ever an issue of how the players learn what they need to know. "Map and key" recognizes that this can be an issue, without having it ALWAYS be an issue. After all, maps exist, people make and use them IRL; we are often required to examine our environment and figure out the right questions to ask to learn what we need to know.

Hence, your objection seems to me to be centered on a distaste for recognizing that this playstyle, whatever we choose to call it, is rooted in secret GM knowledge that the players must extract from the GM through the process of play. The players start out ignorant, while the GM is omniscient. The players must perform actions which induce the GM to reveal what they know. These actions cannot be trivial or the game is boring, but they cannot be nonsensical or the game is infuriating. "Guessing game" is the latter failure state. Refusing to recognize that it can be a failire state is a problem. Likewise, pretending that this failure state is the only possible state is also a problem. I don't believe "map and key" commits the latter error. I believe "hexcrawl" commits the former.

There is a fact of the matter about the world. It is, intentionally, obfuscated from direct player observation. The players must find valid actions (there need not be only one "right" action) which remove this obfuscation, so they may directly access the fact of the matter. The GM must make the obfuscation significant enough to be an actual obstacle worth overcoming, and yet not so much of an obstacle that it can't be overcome at all. Whatever term we use, we must recognize that these failure states are real risks.

You said this well and I may come back and comment on more parts of it - but my first thought went to: Who are these unicorns that believe D&D cannot end in failure states? A good chunk of D&D discussions on this site and others are helping others navigate past failure states. We are all well aware they exist! The whole idea that D&D doesn't have fail states is nonsensical to everyone and alot of digital ink is spilled on how to avoid them. So why do you believe anyone would care if someone points out D&D has fail states? Or maybe a better question - what do you suppose is actually being objected to if it isn't that?