Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Campbell]

When it comes to jargon I think some people have the wrong idea of why it comes up. It's not have thought -> translate to jargon. I have been running variants of Apocalypse World off and on since 2010 when it come out. GM moves, fronts and the like are like part of my normal lexicon for talking about this stuff. Most of my posts here are basically stream of consciousness. When needed I will take the time to translate my thoughts back into language that is likely to be understood here, but it can be a lot of work.

 

[FrogReaver]

When it comes to jargon I think some people have the wrong idea of why it comes up. It's not have thought -> translate to jargon. I have been running variants of Apocalypse World off and on since 2010 when it come out. GM moves, fronts and the like are like part of my normal lexicon for talking about this stuff. Most of my posts here are basically stream of consciousness. When needed I will take the time to translate my thoughts back into language that is likely to be understood here, but it can be a lot of work.

For the record I have no issue with jargon in general.

 

[clearstream]

Yeah, a little qualifying text does go a long way.

In the context of oft-heated debate, qualifying text can feel constructive or disingenous. That is, it can seem to serve the purposes of one side's arguments and not be sincerely intended to avoid offending or denigrating. You see a lot of - "I don't make any value judgement in applying this 'infantilising or otherwise loaded' label'".

Cases of conversation-derailing labels are relatively rare - probably just a handful of labels out of all the many terms we use.

 

[Pedantic]

I think I'm getting my terms mixed up, because doesn't "Mother-May-I" refer to the need to have the GM approve of actions the characters can take, because the system in question doesn't codify abilities/moves they way many newer games do? I don't see how that overlaps with Map-and-Key, but I'm aware that this might be a forum-specific thing I'm not picking up on.

As for Map-and-Key and guesswork once inside the labyrinth or hexcrawl, I've always used a Rumours table and rumours with a small-r to disseminate the kind of information that allows for - at least - informed guessing on the part of the players. This is somethig I picked up from modules and stuff from the 80s onward, so I don't think it's a new or groundbreaking strategy!

I am also finding the connection a little weird? I would, generally, say that map and key is the best summation of how I build/play games, but I would hiss at any positive or negative suggestion that MMI is structurally appropriate a descriptor of how players declare actions. In fact, that exact conflation (suggesting that the GM's role in building a setting necessarily requires them to arbitrarily determine the results of action declaration, because deciding "what is there" supersedes any mechanical process that outputs a specific outcome from any given action declaration) is the thing that most aggressively raises my hackles.

I think it's just being done here to make a point about jargon and terminology, but I do think it's important to stress that the rulings-over-rules position and the map/key model we've been discussing are not the same thing.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I'm curious if your challenge in coming to it connected at all to the absence of reliance on map-and-key ("notes") at key moments, which is a hallmark of both framing and resolution in much D&D but is foreign to AW and (I suspect) to BitD.

Lack of map-and-key was one part of it, but I think I was most freaked out by success-with-consequence as the most common roll result, even when doing something I thought my character was good at. It felt out of control to me, or like the math was wrong. I hadn't heard of PbtA or storygames of any kind at that point, so the notion that I couldn't optimize every interaction, and that chaos and blowback was basically a given, was horrifying.

Embarrassing, really, given that FitD is now my favorite system!

 

[Emoshin]

That's essentially trying to herd blink puppies. Jargon inevitably spills out into any discussion where it seems relevant.

To clarify my intentions, the idea of the + thread is to create a space to discuss rpg theory with as much jargon as you want or whatever methodology you want and anybody coming in and infringing on your methods would be out of the scope for the thread.

The other way around seems much more difficult. It it seems very tricky to create a + thread for NO jargon and I wouldn't suggest that. Perhaps it could be a thread for discussing RPG theory using a specific framework and that might work.

Or you might be in the camp of + threads just don't work, period. That's fine too.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair enough. I still think people seeing the phrase "mostly random guesswork" as a judgement against their preferred play style was a foreseeable possibility.

I kind of agree with you about that one. Mind you, for some parts of that, I don't think its an illegitimate characterization, but its painting with a pretty broad brush at the least.

 

[Thomas Shey]

When it comes to jargon I think some people have the wrong idea of why it comes up. It's not have thought -> translate to jargon. I have been running variants of Apocalypse World off and on since 2010 when it come out. GM moves, fronts and the like are like part of my normal lexicon for talking about this stuff. Most of my posts here are basically stream of consciousness. When needed I will take the time to translate my thoughts back into language that is likely to be understood here, but it can be a lot of work.

I think that's a different issue; game terminology, while jargon, is inevitable when discussing a specific game or system. But its not necessarily that helpful when talking about related topics in general. I think the discussion of jargon has been more on the map-and-tool/just-in-time kinds of issues.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think it's just being done here to make a point about jargon and terminology, but I do think it's important to stress that the rulings-over-rules position and the map/key model we've been discussing are not the same thing.

The connection is probably my fault, and to make it clear, i was simply using MMI as an example of a pretty clearly non-neutral term for a style function (which is why I paralleled it to "Shroedinger's X"). I think those kinds of terms can still be useful when framed as an individual's reaction to a particular style element, but they need to be very careful to frame it as a thing they feel, not an an attempt to project it outward. it can be somewhat useful to explain to people why others really don't like a given style, but its very hard for people dedicated to it not to try and argue against it being a problem, when the truth is, they don't get to tell other people its not a problem for the other people.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Lack of map-and-key was one part of it, but I think I was most freaked out by success-with-consequence as the most common roll result, even when doing something I thought my character was good at. It felt out of control to me, or like the math was wrong. I hadn't heard of PbtA or storygames of any kind at that point, so the notion that I couldn't optimize every interaction, and that chaos and blowback was basically a given, was horrifying.

Embarrassing, really, given that FitD is now my favorite system!

People change. But of course, sometimes they don't, too, and there's always the risk of the evangelical parts of a fandom dropping into what I refer to as the "You'll like this fish!" problem. I'm pretty sure my wife would find the fail-with-consequence part of PbtA intolerably annoying, and no positive feature of the experience would outweigh it.