Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[FrogReaver]

Perhaps it can go like this

1. We can have a high-level ontological description, so all know something fundamental about the subject of discussion

Maybe. I'd suggest though that given how often participants in these discussions tend to overload specific terms to suite their discussion needs that such an endeavor would be difficult at the best. Given an onologoical description - i can see terms in the definition being similarly overloaded.

1. There can then be description and analysis of technical features

100% agree.

1. Predictions can be made about gameplay likely to result from such features

IMO, likely gameplay involves analyzing not just system but human psychology.

1. Using purposes as lenses and qualifiers, technical features can be critically evaluated

I think I agree here.

Using the example of pasta

1. food typically made from an unleavened dough of wheat flour mixed with water or eggs, and formed into sheets or other shapes, then cooked
2. pasta can take the form of mushroom ravioli
3. depending on the chosen fungi, it will have an earthy, fungusy taste, and like all ravioli be a neat mouthful to fork and bite
4. as a lover of mushroom dishes in particular, who also enjoys cooking pasta at home, the ravioli at my local restaurant is qualitatively superior because they use fresh pasta, patted in semolina for handling, and filled with porcini, which typically has a stronger, richer mushroomy taste

Something like that. Essentially technical feature > predicted play > purpose-based evaluation. Notice also that rather than use words like X is poorer and Y is better, it seems important to spell out the way in which X is poorer and Y is better. I have been pulled up on that in this thread and I believe that is absolutely right to do. From an objective viewpoint - outside of purposes - X and Y can only be said to be different. From a subjective viewpoint - qualified by purpose(s) - X can be said to be poorer than Y in the ways spelled out.

Agreed - though I'd add, comparing D&D to Blades in the Dark isn't like comparing homecooked Pasta to High End Restaurant Pasta. It's more like comparing 2 very different dishes both made at a high end restaurant (professional game developers).

So while I think concluding the high end restaurant pasta is better than most peoples homecooked pasta (there might be some exceptions), I don't think it's as straightforward of a conclusion between RPG's because at their core they aren't fundamentally trying to be the same thing. I also think it would be very difficult to say if 1 particular dish at a high end restaurant is objectively better than another.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, I get that. It is hard.

What makes it harder is when someone who has managed to do that themselves tries to offer some insight on how to do so, and then other people just constantly point out how hard it is and do everything they can to shut the very idea down.

Your constant pessimism does nothing for the conversation.

I said earlier most people had points with a grain of truth in them. I believe yours does here. I think your trying to expand that grain of truth beyond where it remains true, but I 100% agree that in some context we can view success as almost whatever we want. You've latched onto a particular interpretation and are arguing a point from there, which I think is a poor use of that grain of truth and is ultimately not very persuasive. To me the better point there is that success depends on the player's expectations. This point does have some explanatory power for why players of D&D have difficulty understanding other systems success paradigms - because the only expectations they have for what success and failure mean is from D&D - something very similar to what your side tends to say in this respect.

 

[FrogReaver]

OK, I'm not familiar with those games. But is that any different from failing a saving throw vs fear, charm, etc?

Probably depends on who you ask. I would say yes because those effects aren't magical in those games. I'm fairly certain @Campbell and @pemerton would say no because the fictional explanation of the effect isn't relevant to what it does (though my attempt at explaining for them likely doesn't do their explanation justice, so use it as a starting point as oppossed to something more definitive).

I play a level 15 fighter in 5e and recently spent a couple rounds frightened of a dragon that I was actually kicking the ass of, so I'm not generally a big fan of these effects.

Agreed. Luckily in 5e I can treat most all of them as magical effects. For me it's acceptable for magic to force me to do things I wouldn't normally do as that's the essence of much fantasy magic.

 

[Lanefan]

OK, I'm not familiar with those games. But is that any different from failing a saving throw vs fear, charm, etc?

I would think yes it is, in that failing such a save in D&D is likely to only temporarily give the DM (or the mechanics, or even another player) some control of my character; after which the effect will wear off, I'll get it back, and can continue playing it as before. Contrast this with something in the game hard- or soft-forcing me to make a significant change in how I play the character for all time (a D&D-ism that would map better to this permanent-change piece might be a forced alignment change e.g. from donning a Helm of Opposite Alignment).

 

[AnotherGuy]

I play a level 15 fighter in 5e and recently spent a couple rounds frightened of a dragon that I was actually kicking the ass of, so I'm not generally a big fan of these effects.

Usually the dragon fear kicks in early in the combat i.e. when you first encounter the dragon as in before you start kicking any arses. It doesnt make sense for me (in the fiction) to use the dragon fear in the middle of the combat.
Was this a spell or did the DM mistakenly use its dragon fear later in the combat?

 

[Fenris-77]

Stuff like dragon fear always feels awkward in D&D (now, anyway) because the basic idea isn't a part of the game, generally speaking. So when it's introduced in bespoke moments it seems wacky. D&D has spent many editions removing any real trace of anything that loses you control of your PC. It's broad enough that I have to assume it's a conscious design decision. That's fine, but it does make some things a little rocky around the edges.

 

[Aldarc]

OK, I'm not familiar with those games. But is that any different from failing a saving throw vs fear, charm, etc?

I play a level 15 fighter in 5e and recently spent a couple rounds frightened of a dragon that I was actually kicking the ass of, so I'm not generally a big fan of these effects.

In Monster Hearts, you still control your character. There's no actual mind control involved despite what detractors say, because this has been clarified numerous times before in the past.

Turn Someone On
When you turn someone on, roll with Hot. On a 10 up, gain a String on them and they choose a reaction from below. • On a 7-9, they can either give you a String or choose one of the reactions.

• I give myself to you,
• I promise something I think you want, or
• I get embarrassed and act awkward.

All kinds of things can Turn Someone On, especially if that person is a teenager. Maybe this is a flirtatious glance, a whispered promise for later, or a goofy smile at the right moment. Maybe it’s just something they notice about you as you walk past them in the hall. When you use this move, feel free to take the opportunity to step outside your character, to speak like an author would: describing your character’s pouty lips or moonlit silhouette. Unlike the other basic moves, Turning Someone On can be triggered even if there’s no specific action being taken; your character doesn’t have to intend to Turn Someone On – sometimes, it just happens.

This move is at the heart of how Monsterhearts understands sexuality, especially teen sexuality. We don’t get to decide what turns us on, or who. Part of your agenda is keeping the story feral, and that means letting your character’s sexuality emerge in all of its confusing and unexpected glory.

When someone turns your character on, the emotional dynamic between them shifts. If a String is gained, the power dynamic shifts a little bit as well. How you react to that is up to you. What honesty demands is that you acknowledge the shift, imagine what your character might be feeling, and play from there. If Julia turns Monique on, it doesn’t mean Monique has to throw herself at her. Just play out how Monique would naturally respond. Maybe Monique blushes and turns to leave, or maybe she suddenly gets nervous and starts stammering.

This isn't really mind control at all. The character may not have any control whether they are "turned on" by someone but they have control over what they do with that fact. There is far greater loss of player agency IMHO when a player gets mind-controlled by magic in D&D. Notice that the character who gets turned-on, whether PC or NPC, still has a lot of choices that they get to make about what happens. But the idea behind this move gets explained in the section on sexuality.

Sexuality
While characters might be presumed straight at the beginning of the game, it is only a presumption. The rules for Turning Someone On leave desire and arousal as contested terrain during play. Teenagers don’t get to decide what turns them on, and part of adolescence is contending with the confusion that arises when your body behaves in ways you never anticipated. Your Agenda includes keeping the story feral and saying what the rules demand, which means accepting that your character’s sexuality is still emerging.

With all of that said, it’s important to draw a line: you aren’t in control of what turns your character on, but you are in control of what they do with that information. If you’re playing Jackson, and Jackson just got a hard-on for another guy, you’re still in control of what he does with that feeling. Maybe Jackson is relatively chill about it, and it doesn’t throw his straight identity off the rails. Maybe he’s confused about it, and starts acting weird around this other guy for a couple weeks. Maybe he gets aggressive. Maybe he cheats on his girlfriend. Maybe he has a big gay awakening.

You need to say what honesty demands, which is that Jackson gets this hard-on and thinks something of it. But you get to decide what happens next. Every main character has a sex move, located at the bottom of the inside right page. Most of them are triggered in the exact same way, by having sex with someone. A few work under different terms, like the Fae and the Vampire. For something to count as sex, there needs to be consent.

 

[Fenris-77]

Bluntly put, some games have specific moments or mechanics where a PC escapes the control of the player, for one reason or another. This idea is anathema to a lot of D&D players, but it's actually pretty common, and quite interesting when you see how it gets handled in other design spaces.

 

[clearstream]

Bluntly put, some games have specific moments or mechanics where a PC escapes the control of the player, for one reason or another. This idea is anathema to a lot of D&D players, but it's actually pretty common, and quite interesting when you see how it gets handled in other design spaces.

I think that is partially right. I've been in a few debates about mind control in D&D, and a large majority of players agree that magic can take away player control their character. The community is divided as to whether non-magical effects can do so. A minority say "yes", and here the majority say "no", often citing PHB6 and PHB185. However, the more important reason when you dig into it is that magical effects are normally tightly defined in D&D, with constraints like durations. Non-magical effects are often less-well defined if not outright open-ended.

So I believe that mechanics taking control of their character out of their hands is not anathema to D&D players, but rather there are strict expectations about the terms under which that can occur. For most players, the mechanic must involve magic and that will make it tightly constrained.

Seeing as a designer can call anything magic if they want to, the effective requirement that I believe most D&D players have for mind control is the tight constraints. For example, an NPC with a Turn Someone On magical ability would be accepted by a majority of D&D players (although including sex moves in a game would probably itself be subject to some sort of lines and veils discussion.

 

[Fenris-77]

That all sounds right. I was more trying to index that in some other games the idea that you might, at times, lose control of your PC is just part of the game, and in many cases a very cool part of the game. D&D and D&D players seem to struggle with it. That's not a criticism, just an observation.