Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

One of the ones that gets me in discussions is what counts as a story. I finally got into ChatGPT (for the first time) and my big question is what should I really have asked.

Q: Provide an argument that dungeons and dragons only constructs tales and does not technically construct stories.

A: Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) is often considered a classic example of tabletop role-playing games (TTRPGs) and is known for its emphasis on storytelling and world-building. However, it can be argued that the actual storytelling in D&D constructs tales, rather than stories.

A story is typically defined as a narrative that is structured, cohesive, and conveys events and experiences in a meaningful way. A tale, on the other hand, is often thought of as a more informal or folkloric narrative that may lack a clear structure or theme. In the context of TTRPGs, a story is often characterized by its emphasis on character development, plot, and theme, while a tale is more focused on improvisational and player-driven experiences.

D&D is a game that is built around a series of challenges and obstacles, such as combat encounters, puzzle-solving, and exploration. The actual storytelling in D&D is often driven by these mechanical elements, rather than by character development or plot. The players are free to create their own characters and develop their own storylines, but the actual experience of playing D&D is often focused on overcoming obstacles and advancing through the game world. This creates a tale-like experience that is more focused on the events and experiences of the characters, rather than on the underlying themes or motivations that drive the story.

In conclusion, while D&D is certainly a game that emphasizes storytelling, it can be argued that the actual storytelling in the game constructs tales, rather than stories. The focus on mechanical challenges and obstacles, combined with the improvisational and player-driven nature of the game, creates a tale-like experience that is less focused on character development, plot, and theme. This does not diminish the value or appeal of D&D as a TTRPG, but it is important to understand the difference between a tale and a story in the context of the game.

Q: Provide an argument that dungeons and dragons actually constructs stories and not merely tales.

A: Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) is a classic example of a tabletop role-playing game (TTRPG) that has been enjoyed by millions of players for decades. Despite the perception that TTRPGs are only about combat and problem-solving, it can be argued that D&D actually constructs stories, rather than just tales.

A story is a narrative that is structured, cohesive, and conveys events and experiences in a meaningful way, with a clear beginning, middle, and end. A tale, on the other hand, is often thought of as a more informal or folkloric narrative that may lack a clear structure or theme. In the context of TTRPGs, a story is often characterized by its emphasis on character development, plot, and theme.

In D&D, players create characters with unique backgrounds, personalities, and motivations. As they play through the game, their characters grow and change based on their experiences, making choices and facing consequences that drive the story forward. The game master (GM) sets the scene, provides obstacles, and reacts to the players' choices, creating a collaborative story-telling experience. The players' choices and actions in the game world impact the story, adding to its richness and complexity, and creating a sense of ownership and investment in the story.

Furthermore, D&D has a rich lore and history, with a vast array of races, cultures, and organizations that provide depth and context to the world. This provides a backdrop for the story, adding a sense of history, culture, and continuity that supports and informs the characters' experiences. Additionally, the use of magic, mythical creatures, and other fantastical elements in D&D add to the sense of wonder and excitement, creating a rich, immersive story world.

In conclusion, D&D can be considered a form of story-telling because it provides a structured, cohesive, and meaningful narrative, driven by character development, plot, and theme. The collaboration between players and GM, combined with the rich lore and history of the game world, creates a story-telling experience that is unique, engaging, and memorable.

Q: Please clarify your last two points by bringing in insights from Forge Theory, Literary Criticism, and the game Blades in the Dark.

A: In the context of tabletop role-playing games (TTRPGs), the distinction between stories and tales can be further explored through the lens of Forge theory and literary criticism. Forge theory is a perspective on role-playing games that views them as a form of creative storytelling, where the players and game master (GM) work together to construct a story. This theory emphasizes the importance of player choice and agency in shaping the story, and views the GM as a facilitator, rather than an authoritarian figure.

Similarly, literary criticism provides a framework for examining the elements of storytelling and evaluating their effectiveness. This can be applied to TTRPGs to analyze the ways in which they construct stories and the elements that make these stories effective. For example, the use of themes, symbols, and motifs in TTRPGs can be evaluated to understand how they contribute to the overall story and its meaning.

Blades in the Dark is a TTRPG that is specifically designed to facilitate story-telling. The game is set in a dark and dangerous world of thieves, assassins, and other ne'er-do-wells, and players take on the roles of characters who are trying to survive and thrive in this world. The game mechanics are designed to support player choice and agency, and the GM is encouraged to react to the players' choices in a flexible and improvisational way. This creates a collaborative story-telling experience that is driven by player choice, rather than pre-determined events.

By combining Forge theory, literary criticism, and the example of Blades in the Dark, it is possible to see how TTRPGs like D&D can be viewed as a form of story-telling. These games provide a structured, collaborative, and meaningful narrative that is driven by character development, plot, and theme. The player choice and agency in these games allows players to shape the story in unique and meaningful ways, creating a story-telling experience that is truly their own.

Q: Please further refine that based on the idea of story-now, simulationism, and narrativism.

A: The distinction between stories and tales in tabletop role-playing games (TTRPGs) can also be further explored through the lens of the story-now, simulationism, and narrativism perspectives. These perspectives provide a framework for understanding the motivations and goals of TTRPG players and game masters (GMs), and how they relate to the creation of stories.

Story-now is a perspective that views TTRPGs as an opportunity for players to experience a story in real-time. This perspective emphasizes the importance of player choice and agency in shaping the story, and the GM's role as a facilitator of the players' experiences. In a story-now game, the focus is on the immediate experience of the story, rather than its structure or themes.

Simulationism, on the other hand, views TTRPGs as a way to simulate a realistic and believable world. In a simulationist game, the GM focuses on creating a detailed and accurate representation of the game world, and the players' actions are driven by their characters' motivations and the rules of the game world. The goal is to create a believable and immersive experience, rather than a structured or meaningful narrative.

Narrativism is a perspective that views TTRPGs as a form of collaborative storytelling. In a narrativist game, the GM and players work together to create a structured and meaningful narrative, with clear themes, plot, and character development. The players' choices and actions drive the story forward, and the GM reacts to these choices, shaping the story as it unfolds. The focus is on creating a rich and satisfying story experience, rather than a realistic simulation.

By considering these perspectives, it is possible to see how TTRPGs like D&D can be viewed as a form of story-telling. D&D provides a structured and collaborative narrative that is driven by player choice and agency, with clear themes, plot, and character development. The rich lore and history of the game world, combined with the players' experiences, create a story-telling experience that is unique, engaging, and meaningful. The use of story-now, simulationism, and narrativism helps to highlight the various motivations and goals of TTRPG players and GMs, and how they contribute to the creation of stories in these games.

Q: Is Dungeons and Dragons actually story-now? If not, does that mean your last answer needs revision? If so, please revise it.

A: Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) can be seen as incorporating elements of both story-now and narrativism. While it does provide players with the opportunity to experience a story in real-time, it also has a clear focus on creating a structured and meaningful narrative. The players' choices and actions drive the story forward, and the GM reacts to these choices, shaping the story as it unfolds. This collaborative storytelling process is what makes D&D a narrativist game, rather than a purely story-now game.

In light of this, my previous answer can be refined to emphasize the narrativist aspect of D&D, while acknowledging the story-now elements that are also present in the game. By combining the perspectives of narrativism and story-now, it is possible to see how D&D provides a rich and satisfying story-telling experience that is driven by player choice and agency, and shaped by the GM's improvisational responses to the players' actions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I’ll add more later but this stood out.

Through this particular lens that’s exactly what is being said. Through your lens it doesn’t matter whether something was made up on Tuesday or right before. Through others lenses it does.

Criticism involves lenses. Whereas what most people are looking for is actually ‘the truth’.

Yup. For people who see there as being no difference, the objection is going to seem utterly nonsensical. I'm not intrinsically hostile to on-time decisions for at least some things, but I think not understanding why this matters to some people is just something Story Now proponents are going to have to learn to accept if they want to have conversations with them that bare on that.
 

It's a bit of a leap to go from regarding a dice roll as being strictly about your character's competence, to it encompassing the situation as a whole, including elements that are not under your character's direct control. It opens up so much rich possibility, including that of you as a player having some say over those elements outside of your character's direct control—which gets kinda meta and breaks right through some conceptions of what a player should have a say over. But that extra-character bit is optional of course, for those who don't want to play that way.

Such action tests not being binary pass/fail are also integral to the model, of course, and what @kenada said about not having complications counter the core fact of a success is crucial.

None of that will meaningfully impact the sense people have that they're rarely successful without some sort of knock-on effect. That's simply not some people's idea of competence. As with the other post I responded to, acting like that's not true is--not useful.
 

Please refrain from engaging with my posts.

I will do my best.

As a note, the feedback I've gotten on this suggests that it is being interpreted based on something in the past 30+ pages of discussion that I didn't see. My apologies for offense. What I thought was something basic and simple is being seen as... not that.
 

Yup. For people who see there as being no difference, the objection is going to seem utterly nonsensical. I'm not intrinsically hostile to on-time decisions for at least some things, but I think not understanding why this matters to some people is just something Story Now proponents are going to have to learn to accept if they want to have conversations with them that bare on that.

There are definite differences here and reasons why someone would prefer to have more established up front, but accuracy matters here. The scope and nature of the contrivances being made are different, but we are still dealing with contrivances. Using naturalistic language to describe one sort of play and treating the other as artificial does us no good except to raise the blood pressure of the room and treat nonconforming styles of play as lesser.

I would be more than happy to dig into this elsewhere.
 
Last edited:



A guard asking you what your business is isn't being caught.
Yes it is: if your sub-goal is to avoid attracting attention (where your main goal is to scout the warehouse), being approached by a guard is a clear failure on the sub-goal.

Worse, if the scene jumps straight to the guard standing close-ish to me asking what I'm doing, that's subverted any options I-as-player might have had to avoid that conversation e.g. by temporarily dropping surveillance and wandering away on noticing a guard was approaching or even looking twice at me.
Sometimes staking out a warehouse might be Acting Under Fire, and hence trigger a player side move. (For instance, suppose the guards know someone is trying to infiltrate the warehouse and so have really stepped up their efforts at keeping people out, moving trespassers along, etc.)

But there is no player side move "When you stake out a facility that restricts those who can enter . . ."; and so if that is the salient descriptor of the PC's action no move is triggered, and the GM's role is to make a move, typically a soft one. Putting someone in a spot is a reasonable soft move. It's not irrevocable.

And obviously it opens up the possibility of the PC using the guard as a way to get into the warehouse!
That's putting a very positive spin on what for the player/PC has become a very negative situation.
 

Well, the goal doesn't seem to be clarity either, or at least that goal doesn't seem to be on its way to being achieved. The explanation of "map and key" seems reasonable to me now, once you remove the (still pejorative to me) phrase "mostly random guesswork"
I note that you and @FrogReaver - with whom you seem to be in a reasonably high degree of sympathy - are the ones who introduced that phrase. So removing it seems to be well within your grasp!
 


Remove ads

Top