Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[pemerton]

But then again, that still gets back to a question of what other RPGs one has to be familiar with.

I mean, I don't disagree with your general point, but let's look at a working case. Let's say you have someone like me, but who stopped investigating in new games in, say, 1990. I'm not limited to D&D (in fact, at that point I hadn't played D&D for 15 years), but all the games I had contact with at all were trad games; barring some oddity, I wouldn't even have had the chance to hit much that wasn't.

Is that "sufficient" to participate in discussion? Its still going to bias my expectations, since I'd have had no contact with FATE (even Fudge was about two years off from my cutoff), PbtA, Cortex or any of the evolutionary works of the last three decades. But I'm not limited to only D&D; I have had contact with RuneQuest, Hero, GURPS and Traveler to use four commonly known cases, none of which are particularly D&D like except in the broadest sense.

As I posted and you quoted, "How any individual poster deals with the fact that they don't know much about RPGs other than D&D is their prerogative." I think it's fairly obvious that, and how, that point generalises.

But if you want to tell me - for instance - that a RPG can't work without a GM-pre-authored map and key; or that any GM improvisation/invention that goes beyond a map and key will almost inevitably result in railroading; then I am going to want to know whether you've played much Burning Wheel.

Or if you want to tell me that Apocalypse World can't handle mystery scenarios, I'm going to query what play experience you're basing that on, given that the book makes it obvious how in principle such scenarios could easily be handled.

As I said, it's each poster's prerogative as to what they post, but if they're going to make claims on a thin or inadequate evidence base I don't see why anyone else should be obliged to take those claims seriously.

 

[Imaro]

If you're not familiar with RPGs other than D&D and D&D-likes, how are you going to contribute to any general analysis of RPGing? What evidence base would you draw on? What examples would you have ready to hand?

How any individual poster deals with the fact that they don't know much about RPGs other than D&D is their prerogative. But I don't see how they can insist on being taken seriously if they lack the requisite knowledge and experience.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you regularly comment on D&D 5e without having actually read the 3 corebooks...should those of us who have, automatically disregard your comments and not take you seriously?

Edit: Which is to say I don't automatically but instead at least try to judge what you are stating on its own merit... not sure I'm always successful and I probably come off more antagonistic with you and @Manbearcat than I want or mean to most of the time.

 

[niklinna]

Are there people actively doing this? I haven’t seen very much.

I always found it very interesting that when we got a peek into WotC’s market research (grabbing random people from the street and watching them play DnD) they got very different results than what we often talk about.

Well, here is where the rubber meets the road. Just because a thing may be possible, doesn't mean a lot of people are interested in doing it! But some have, the author of Shared Fantasy among them. There's a fair bit of faffing around though; I've read some studies that conclude with things along the lines of "People play games for a variety of reasons." So helpful and insightful. The most motivated people tend to be game designers, of course, and some of them even document their thought processes, ideas, and firsthand experiences of running & playing. Several of them have already been mentioned. I've even read some of them from time to time.

 

[Hussar]

Heh so not so much like linguistics or anthropology where we do have tons of high quality (and even more tons of low) peer reviewed research to base things on.

 

[pemerton]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you regularly comment on D&D 5e without having actually read the 3 corebooks...should those of us who have, automatically disregard your comments and not take you seriously?

That's your prerogative. I typically cite the page of the Basic Rules pdf that I am referring to. I also point to examples of play that I have heard or read about.

 

[pemerton]

Heh so not so much like linguistics or anthropology where we do have tons of high quality (and even more tons of low) peer reviewed research to base things on.

There are methodological differences in the social sciences just as there are in many other fields of inquiry. But one thing I think is important is to try and distinguish between what people do and what someone's idealised conception of, or aspiration for, what they're doing might be.

One experience I've repeatedly encountered, in trying to talk to others about RPGing, is a real hesitancy to talk about what actually happens at the table in the course of play.

For instance, the starting point for an anthropological discussion of how a certain ritual is performed would be to talk about what the ritual participants do an say. This might include observing how they impute magical powers to various items or procedures that figure in the ritual. But the anthropologist would not normally include any of those imputed magical powers as part of their own explanation.

But it's quite common to read accounts of RPGing where imaginary things are imputed with causal powers, and the actual human agency that was involved in making decisions about, and reaching agreement on, the content of the shared fiction is mostly or entirely elided.

Perhaps this is a manifestation of the "shyness" that @JAMUMU mentioned upthread?

 

[Imaro]

That's your prerogative. I typically cite the page of the Basic Rules pdf that I am referring to. I also point to examples of play that I have heard or read about.

The point is you're basing your comments and contributions on an incomplete version of what constitutes the core rules for 5e.

Edit: I just think its slightly hypocritical to claim the comments of people who haven't read the actual rules of a game shouldn't be taken seriously when you've done it numerous times.

 

[pemerton]

The point is you're basing your comments and contributions on an incomplete version of what constitutes the core rules for 5e.

Edit: I just think its slightly hypocritical to claim the comments of people who haven't read the actual rules of a game shouldn't be taken seriously when you've done it numerous times.

If you think that there are things that I'm saying about 5e D&D that are false, on account of the thinness of the evidence base, by all means point them out.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you think that there are things that I'm saying about 5e D&D that are false, on account of the thinness of the evidence base, by all means point them out.

I made that same point earlier in this very thread regarding myself and non-D&D games and got challenged on it. I believe you were one of the ones coming out against my comment. Does that sound accurate?

 

[pemerton]

I made that same point earlier in this very thread regarding myself and non-D&D games and got challenged on it. I believe you were one of the ones coming out against my comment. Does that sound accurate?

What's the point you think you've made?

There is a long history of you posting things about AW, BitD and other non-D&D, non-D&D-ish RPGs and having people who are familiar with those systems query the accuracy of your posts.

What are the inaccurate posts I'm making about 5e? The most recent post I made about 5e D&D was in the "bespoke vs generic" thread, and the 5e player whose anecdote I was responding to agree with me.

EDIT to add: If you think there's some "secret sauce" in 5e D&D that is escaping my comprehension, despite my years of playing RPGs with basically the same authority structure, basically the same resolution framework, and much overlap in mechanical details, by all means tell me about it.