Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[JAMUMU]

I think I'm getting my terms mixed up, because doesn't "Mother-May-I" refer to the need to have the GM approve of actions the characters can take, because the system in question doesn't codify abilities/moves they way many newer games do? I don't see how that overlaps with Map-and-Key, but I'm aware that this might be a forum-specific thing I'm not picking up on.

As for Map-and-Key and guesswork once inside the labyrinth or hexcrawl, I've always used a Rumours table and rumours with a small-r to disseminate the kind of information that allows for - at least - informed guessing on the part of the players. This is somethig I picked up from modules and stuff from the 80s onward, so I don't think it's a new or groundbreaking strategy!

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's not a bad idea for those that don't want the conversation to become about the jargon itself - like many of these conversations seem to do.

Another optimistic POV.

(More seriously, this always happens everywhere until jargon has become so established that anyone arguing about it becomes an Old Many Yelling At Clouds. Its apparently just part of process.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

On the other hand, expecting people to somehow do more effort in a discussion of RPGs than they do anywhere else is, at some point, not understanding the nature of the beast. Jargon occurs because people are simply not going to unpack a concept every single time they reference it, in contexts where they're going to reference it a lot. Not going to happen. Expecting otherwise is just setting yourself up for disappointment. The best you can do is try to keep the opaqueness of the jargon down to a minimum.

I just mean if you don't intend to be negative, and there is a foreseeable possibility that you will be seen that way, then you should actually say that, in the text.

 

[JAMUMU]

I just mean if you don't intend to be negative, and there is a foreseeable possibility that you will be seen that way, then you should actually say that, in the text.

Yeah, a little qualifying text does go a long way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think I'm getting my terms mixed up, because doesn't "Mother-May-I" refer to the need to have the GM approve of actions the characters can take, because the system in question doesn't codify abilities/moves they way many newer games do? I don't see how that overlaps with Map-and-Key, but I'm aware that this might be a forum-specific thing I'm not picking up on.

More or less. It sometimes is extended as a general principal (if your GM is allowed to change target numbers on a roll to suit himself no matter what the rules say, in practice its MMI with dice anyway, mechanics or no). But the point in referencing it is its a term that's used for Rulings Not Rules style games that people who are fans of that style very much don't appreciate; its very much critical of that style rather than trying to neutrally characterize it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To avoid unrealistic expectations and achieving very little in outcome, I think the best thing you (generic you) can do in an online forum is create a + thread with the premise of use as much jargon as you want, and those who want to participate, can, and those who don't, won't.

Doing that intentionally restricts the discussion to those who already agree with your jargon, at least it does if you intend fruitful discussion, and runs the serious risk of having the whole thing dismissed as elitist.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I just mean if you don't intend to be negative, and there is a foreseeable possibility that you will be seen that way, then you should actually say that, in the text.

I quite agree. Now if only everyone saw all the same terms as negative (see the discussion with FrogReaver about map-and-key. He came by his reaction for understandable reasons, but its not something anyone could have foreseen).

Edit: My point here is not to slap FR around, but to note that "foreseeable" is doing some heavy lifting in this sentence.

 

[billd91]

I think I'm getting my terms mixed up, because doesn't "Mother-May-I" refer to the need to have the GM approve of actions the characters can take, because the system in question doesn't codify abilities/moves they way many newer games do?

Yeah, it does - and in a really infantilizing way, which is why it's considered pejorative.

I don't see how that overlaps with Map-and-Key, but I'm aware that this might be a forum-specific thing I'm not picking up on.

That's a head-scratcher for me too. The the two descriptions are basically orthogonal.

 

[FrogReaver]

And I get how that happens, but at the end of the day, and please don't take this wrong, you have to kind of get beyond it, or you've pretty much signaled you can't fairly participate in any discussion of the topic, because any attempt at any terminology related to it is going to evoke the most negative past ones. And once you view any discussion of a specific topic as an attack, there's no conversation; just a battle.

Sure!

I'd suggest that moving forward that we all recognize certain lenses are at play already. I think the problem may be that none of us are using those lenses as starting points for discussion - we are all using them as end points.

In some ways the authority structure of D&D resembles 'mother may I'.
In some ways all actions require a roll for success structure of Blades in the Dark resembles 'Yahtzee'.
In some ways Story Now games typical method for establishing fiction resembles Schrodinger's/quantum mechanics.
In some ways the players of D&D trying to figure out where they should go resembles 'Pictionary'

I think the problem is really the hyper focus on these similarities to the exclusion of most all else.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I quite agree. Now if only everyone saw all the same terms as negative (see the discussion with FrogReaver about map-and-key. He came by his reaction for understandable reasons, but its not something anyone could have foreseen).

Edit: My point here is not to slap FR around, but to note that "foreseeable" is doing some heavy lifting in this sentence.

Fair enough. I still think people seeing the phrase "mostly random guesswork" as a judgement against their preferred play style was a foreseeable possibility.