Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Lanefan]

I would respond with clarifying questions first. I need to know what you are doing specifically, right here, right now.

Right here I'm discreetly watching the warehouse*. "Right now" is for long enough - probably all day - to determine patterns of guard movements, traffic in and out, etc. if any; while also seeing if I can discenr any other entrances.

* - if you want to know how I'm watching and-or from where, you'll have to tell me more specifics about the surrounding buildings, streets, etc. so I can fine-tune my ideas.

Before I know that we cannot determine if a basic move applies, and the GM certainly cannot make a move. To do it, do it means you actually have to commit to a specific course of action before we can move forward.

I just did - see above.

The example also starts from a pretty weak frame. If there's that little sense of urgency, I'm not doing my job as a GM.

Unless there's something hanging over our heads saying this job has to be done Right Now (in which case why were we so dumb as to sign up for it in the first place; rush jobs never come off well), patience and thoroughness are always a virtue. I mean, didn't Locke Lamora, Ocean's 11-12-13, or Now You See Me teach us anything about the value of over-preparation for a heist?

On another level this is part of an evolving conversation. If you don't like a GM Move I just made, we can talk about it really quick. I'm still going to make some sort of move, but if there's a misunderstanding of what's going on in the fiction, we can like hash it out.

We can, though I think there's more a mismatch in expectation as to the degree of granularity of resolution if-when something happens during my watch.

 

[Lanefan]

But thinking of the goal of an attack is to deal damage is a pure D&Dism. This is my point.

The character is not thinking "I want to take away some of this beastie's hit points", the character wants to eliminate an enemy.

The whole structure of Hit Points and Damage rolls is a system that is similar to a series of partial successes.

It's just more granular than are most other action resolutions. I mean, the end result is that you-as-PC win or lose the fight; only instead of resolving it in one binary win-loss roll it gets spun out into a bunch of sub-rolls.

One could apply the same granularity to other resolutions if one really wanted e.g. instead of making a single roll for success or fail on a long climb, instead roll for each ten feet of vertical distance.

All I'm saying is that partial successes shouldn't be as alien to trad players as we may think because they happen all the time...

On this I agree, in that for many checks I already have it that the general degree the roll succeeds or fails by will be reflected in the narration if I can (and I sometimes get flayed by some D&D rules purists for doing this).

Of course it's possible to kill creatures in one hit. It's less common than not doing so, but depending on level and hit dice, you certainly can expect it at times.

In that way it's kind of like a variant on a save or die effect. Very-low-level combat in TSR-era D&D has a lot of this: a good hit by anyone might very well one-shot the attacker's foe, and many a PC (and many more a monster) has met its end in just this manner.

 

[Hussar]

It's a failure, with associated complication...my point is that neither as player nor character was I given a chance of success in something where success is, while not certain, surely a reasonable possitility.

Am I truly reading you right here, that in a non-trad game the DM is "practically obligated" to railroad?

If no, you might want to rephrase.

If yes, then...well, no wonder I'm put off by the idea.

It’s only that way because you insist on framing it that way. Ultimately success or failure at a task is largely unimportant in this style. And insisting that the game must be played in that framework means yes you will not enjoy it.

 

[Lanefan]

In other words, the monster would never gain a bonus to hit your character because you dealt damage to it. It's not even obligated to target your character.

Hmmm... ...thinking... ...there's some good design space there... ...processing... ...processing... ...yeah, I'll give this idea some real thought. Thanks!

But were I to implement something like this it'll work against the PCs as much as for them; they too might find themselves obligated to target whoever just hit them, which won't make 'em happy...

 

[Lanefan]

It’s only that way because you insist on framing it that way. Ultimately success or failure at a task is largely unimportant in this style. And insisting that the game must be played in that framework means yes you will not enjoy it.

Er...if I don't care whether I succeed or fail in a given action (which usually involves a task of some sort) then why would I bother declaring it in the first place, in any system?

 

[Staffan]

Unless there's something hanging over our heads saying this job has to be done Right Now (in which case why were we so dumb as to sign up for it in the first place; rush jobs never come off well), patience and thoroughness are always a virtue. I mean, didn't Locke Lamora, Ocean's 11-12-13, or Now You See Me teach us anything about the value of over-preparation for a heist?

Alec Hardison: Goin' to Plan B?
Nathan Ford: Technically that would be Plan G.
Alec Hardison: How many plans do we have? Is there, like, a Plan M?
Nathan Ford: Yeah. Hardison dies in Plan M.
Eliot Spencer: I like Plan M.

Or, while not directly heist-related:

Er...if I don't care whether I succeed or fail in a given action (which usually involves a task of some sort) then why would I bother declaring it in the first place, in any system?

Rob Donoghue made a Twitter thread a while back about how one of D&D's strengths is how it (in combat) combines the excitement of swingy d20 rolls with a fair amount of overall predictability by making each individual roll fairly low stakes (the effect is usually "deal some damage", not "win"). The issues with D&D's swinginess are usually places when too much weight is placed on a single roll (save-or-die, skill checks).

In other words, it's often a good thing to resolve tasks not with a single check but with a series of them, where each individual check helps with the eventual outcome but one or two failures does not mean disaster.

 

[innerdude]

Er...if I don't care whether I succeed or fail in a given action (which usually involves a task of some sort) then why would I bother declaring it in the first place, in any system?

I think what @Hussar is getting at is not that you don't care about the failure--of course you care; your character has been denied a want.

The point is that in PbtA, any given success or failure is more important in the context of reframing your character's inner narrative/story approach than the externality of the "Did I get what I want?"

If you want a good example of this, try playing Ironsworn solo for 4 or 5 hours, and actually go through the mechanical process of abandoning an Iron Vow.

If you can grasp what that mechanical sequence represents at a character/narrative level, that's the sort of thing PbtA generally sees as the relevant process behind success or failure of compounding action declarations.

 

[pemerton]

Then I don't think you understand people for whom it will. I've seen people who are absolutely used to doing it as a GM who absolutely don't at the player end because it doesn't feel right.

I talked about cognitive/intellectual grasp. Someone can grasp it even if it doesn't "feel right".

The question you're not asking is "Why should be bother? What's in it for us that doesn't make assumptions right out the gate?"

So if a person is not introduced in thinking about various approaches to RPGing, that deploy different techniques, different structure of authority over the fiction, etc, then why would they care about criticism or theoretical frameworks.

This is back to the person who likes what they like and is not interested in the rest. That person doesn't need criticism.

@FrogReaver @Xamnam This idea that we can't judge cultural or artistic products without judging those who like them or engage with them is just weird. Some food is better than other food. The mushroom pasta I had the other day at a good Italian restaurant is nicer than the mushroom pasta I make at home. Maybe if I tried to make something nicer I could - but I don't, and I get what I make.

I have to mark students' work pretty often. Some just write better than others. Some think better than others, That's what grading is all about.

Some movies are better than others. I watched The Magnificent Ambersons on DVD the other day. It's clearly a better movie than the first Dr Strange movie. That's a view about films. It's not a view about people (beyond the implication that Orson Welles was a brilliant filmmaker).

 

[pemerton]

Fate is not the proper tool for all games.

This post is prompted by @Aldarc's remark.

The claim "chess is the proper tool for all boardgames" seems like nonsense to me. Or else just obviously false: chess isn't the proper tool for backgammon, or for go.

So how could "Fate is the proper tool for all RPGs" possibly be any more plausible? It's likewise either nonsense, or just false.

Contrast: chess is the best boardgame is perfectly coherent. Likewise chess is my favourite boardgame.

And if someone asserts that Fate is the best RPG, I might disagree with them but I can see they're making a coherent claim. And if someone asserts Fate is their favourite RPG that's not only coherent but probably true, unless there's reason to think they're lying or self-deluded.

 

[pemerton]

Nope, I'm not falling for this. Nice try.

The point isn't the resolution method or how any given system does it, it's the legitimacy of a GM arbitrarily putting a PC into a scene in the first place where a) said scene directly one of the PC's goals and b) the player/PC had no opportunity to avoid this violation.

Why do you get to tell me what the goals are of a player I'm imagining making an action declaration I'm imagining?

Also, how do you get to judge the legitimacy of a GM move in a game that you seem not to be familiar with?