Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[niklinna]

I hope we can agree on the following:

1) “Advice” is a very different beast when it comes to a DIY, “make the game your own”, discretized toolkit game like 5e D&D vs something like Torchbearer where the constituent parts of the game are deeply interlocked procedure-wise, theme-wise, advancement-wise, and in terms of both the intricate tactical overhead/upkeep and the longitudinal impacts upon play.

2) Even there, the “levels to this” comes into play. Hand-waving or ignoring the “advice” on genre conceits/tone and tailoring in 5e is a very different beast from ignoring the impacts upon play of varying Rest schedules/dynamics and combat encounter budgeting.

I find this interesting in comparison to Apocalypse World et. al., where you have concentric layers that add to the exprience. You can skip a higher layer, and you're missing out, but that's cool, you can still play (to paraphrase D. Vincent Baker, I think?). Whereas in Torchbearer, there are no layers, it's all interlocking gears and if you remove any of them, the clock stops ticking.

 

[Imaro]

I hope we can agree on the following:

1) “Advice” is a very different beast when it comes to a DIY, “make the game your own”, discretized toolkit game like 5e D&D vs something like Torchbearer where the constituent parts of the game are deeply interlocked procedure-wise, theme-wise, advancement-wise, and in terms of both the intricate tactical overhead/upkeep and the longitudinal impacts upon play.

2) Even there, the “levels to this” comes into play. Hand-waving or ignoring the “advice” on genre conceits/tone and tailoring in 5e is a very different beast from ignoring the impacts upon play of varying Rest schedules/dynamics and combat encounter budgeting.

So I have to have read the games you bring up for discussion because... reasons. But when it comes to D&D its not necessary to have read the corebooks because... reasons.

Look maybe you're not trying to come off as elitist but this statement right here feels that way... 2 different standards for what are supposed to both be rpg's... because you personally don't feel one requires as vigorous knowledge as the other to comment on.

 

[Campbell]

Where do you see the GM principles of AW factoring in here?

I view them as constraining when a dm can use a process established within the basic play loop.

The vast majority of the principles are going to be observed simply by observing the basic play loop.

1. When players look to you to find out what happens next make a GM move that follows. If they have not presented, you with a golden opportunity or rolled 6- on a previous move make a soft move (provide them with an opportunity to pursue something they want or threaten something they value). Otherwise make a hard move (irrevocable change to the fiction).
2. Ask the specific player the move was directed at What do you?
3. If the player's declared action fits a defined move execute those mechanics. Otherwise make a GM Move that follows.

The soft move / hard move dynamics plus be a fan of the player characters covers like 90% of it. That other 10% is going to be an important part of what distinguishes Apocalypse World from say Dungeon World, but most of the time if you internalize the play loop play will function just fine.

 

[Manbearcat]

I find this interesting in comparison to Apocalypse World et. al., where you have concentric layers that add to the exprience. You can skip a higher layer, and you're missing out, but that's cool, you can still play (to paraphrase D. Vincent Baker, I think?). Whereas in Torchbearer, there are no layers, it's all interlocking gears and if you remove any of them, the clock stops ticking.

Although, Luke and Thor didn’t write a concentric design article, they’ve commented on the subject. You would need to look at Mouse Guard as proto-Torchbearer and tease out the concentric design relationship between the two.

You could pull out some stuff of MG and get to layer 1, but the game defaults to layer 2.

You could pull out a whole_bunch_of_stuff in TB and reverse engineer exactly to MG (and that layer 2), but TB defaults to what VB would categorize as layer 4 (all the things).

But, on the whole, TB (layer 4 MG) is just way more complicated and intricate than even layer 4 AW.

As far as your post after this…not doing this. I wrote what I wrote. You can dispute the key parts of my premise all you like. Zoom out, abstract/reduce, and call me a douche? Not doing it.

The only thing I’ll add is it can’t both be feature and bug of the nostalgia edition to not require assimilation of a vast, foreign text of rules to discuss play coherently and run a game! The game’s (5e) design was literally (and overtly…the designers stated it plainly) designed with this as a/the core, undergirding tenet (effectively a rebuke of 4e).

EDIT - lol, that is funny. I totally missed that this post was from @niklinna and the next post was @Imaro .

I thought they were both from imaro! I was thinking “wow, thats a very cordial amd thoughtful post followed up by an immediate YOU’RE A BIG JERK MANBEARCAT post…that’s odd!”

Now it makes more sense!

Ok, rest over. I’m going back to climbing! Enjoy your afternoons all!

 

[innerdude]

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.

...snip...

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.

Aside from anything else, this comment here elucidates my interest in RPG theory.

I agree with pemerton that there's little use in starting down the path of laying bare the procedural workings of RPGs without being willing --- truly willing --- to revise a notion, understanding, or principle you thought worked one way but was actually something else.

My own journey from die-hard D&D/PF only, would-never-look-at-another-system in 2009 to today (where my GM-ing and overall gaming experiences are exponentially better than in 2009) had to begin with being willing to honestly look at my own procedural leanings, conceptions, and assumptions.

Example: There was a thread last year where I argued that the idea of a "living world" was really just an idealized, romanticized, deeply held conviction of "trad" RPG play that's largely a fallacy. It's a beautifully constructed, wonderfully comforting facade for something that, when analyzed at its root, is very much banal.

And the reason I could make that argument is because at a point in the past I would have been one of the most vociferous arguers IN FAVOR of the idea of a "living world."

It was only after having the idea challenged --- and being willing to really consider what a "living world" actually meant from a procedural standpoint --- that I started to recognize that my idealized, romanticized, deep conviction in a "living world" was merely aspirational.

In reality, in a way that Pemerton hints above, when you strip away the idealization and the romanticism, a "living world" is really just another term for the procedure of, "The GM makes stuff up that goes into his notes about the fiction to later be (or possibly not be) revealed through player exploration."

And truthfully, that's the danger in engaging in ANY kind of criticism/critique. One of the things studying literary criticism taught me was that there is a risk involved --- there is an inherent element of "de-mystification" of the thing you're critiquing. It possibly takes away some of the psychological "warm feelings" or fervor you have for something, the deeply felt part of your own psyche and persona that thing has placed in you.

It's dangerous, because sometimes you have to rethink what that thing means in the context of your broader self . . . and in so rethinking what that thing means in context of your self, you also have to rethink your concept of self at the same time.

Edit: And thinking about it a tiny bit more, you have to be comfortable with that change --- the demystification leading to understanding. You lose the idealization and fervor, but gain greater understanding in its place.

 

[Campbell]

So I have to have read the games you bring up for discussion because... reasons. But when it comes to D&D its not necessary to have read the corebooks because... reasons.

Look maybe you're not trying to come off as elitist but this statement right here feels that way... 2 different standards for what are supposed to both be rpg's... because you personally don't feel one requires as vigorous knowledge as the other to comment on.

When we're talking about play on a structural level do you think it's the case that 5e is structurally the same sort of game that AD&D 2e is? D&D 3.5? Rolemaster? Do you think previous experience with those games would provide a level of understanding that would allow one to speak on how 5e works structurally (if not speak to technical specifics)?

It might be the case that I have personally understood how 5e works on a structural level, but my reading of the text and experience on both sides of the screen did not feel structurally different than say AD&D 2e. Am I missing something?

 

[Malmuria]

As the saying goes, "there are levels to this"

With respect, this will not be the basis of a healthy conversation, at least on a message board like this with largely anonymous participants. It basically deauthorizes the plurality of participants in the conversations. Meaning, if someone plays 8 sessions of BitD, their experiences can be overwritten by someone who has played 80 sessions, deciding from the outside what experience the former did or did not have with a game. This is problematic enough, but then we also have different rules of conversation for 5e, where someone who has played no sessions of 5e can purport to speak authoritatively about it to those who have played 100+ sessions.

Granted, I think both situations (speaking about a game one has not played a lot or speaking to someone who has not played a lot of a game) can be mitigated with a certain amount of conversational grace and open curiosity.

 

[Imaro]

When we're talking about play on a structural level do you think it's the case that 5e is structurally the same sort of game that AD&D 2e is? D&D 3.5? Rolemaster? Do you think previous experience with those games would provide a level of understanding that would allow one to speak on how 5e works structurally (if not speak to technical specifics)?

It might be the case that I have personally understood how 5e works on a structural level, but my reading of the text and experience on both sides of the screen did not feel structurally different than say AD&D 2e. Am I missing something?

Let me pose a different question to you... if all editions provide the same structural play experience (which I don't believe they do) then why are there edition preferences?

I think the highly regimented, procedural play of basic D&D or OSE is a structurally different game/experience than AD&D 2e when the rules, advice and procedures are followed. In turn I think the highly restricted play of 3.x provides a different D&D structure than the rulings first 5e.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "structure" and if so then I apologize and would love for you to clarify... but as I understand the word... no I don't think all editions of D&D are structured the same.

Edit: In other words I think trad is often used to lump in a multitude of (mostly mainstream) games into one big category without serious consideration for what their structural differences are and what effect they have on actual play.

 

[FrogReaver]

Let me pose a different question to you... if all editions provide the same structural play experience (which I don't believe they do) then why are there edition preferences?

I think the highly regimented, procedural play of basic D&D or OSE is a structurally different game/experience than AD&D 2e when the rules, advice and procedures are followed. In turn I think the highly restricted play of 3.x provides a different D&D structure than the rulings first 5e.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "structure" and if so then I apologize and would love for you to clarify... but as I understand the word... no I don't think all editions of D&D are structured the same.

Edit: In other words I think trad is often used to lump in a multitude of (mostly mainstream) games into one big category without serious consideration for what their structural differences are and what effect they have on actual play.

That’s my view as well. Though I’d add the caveat that they share many structural characteristics.

 

[niklinna]

EDIT - lol, that is funny. I totally missed that this post was from @niklinna and the next post was @Imaro .

I thought they were both from imaro! I was thinking “wow, thats a very cordial amd thoughtful post followed up by an immediate YOU’RE A BIG JERK MANBEARCAT post…that’s odd!”

Now it makes more sense!

Ok, rest over. I’m going back to climbing! Enjoy your afternoons all!

You could quote the text you're responding to beginning with "As far as your post after this...", you know.