Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Thomas Shey]

Sure it can be hard to see. For many people those differences won't matter, but the underlying context of what a roll is and what it corresponds to in the fiction is just different. This is another apples/oranges thing.

Sure.

As far as addressing where these complaints usually come from games like Apocalypse World are a very poor fit if you enjoy displaying your character's competence as a fundamental part of the play experience. Not because the characters are incompetent (quite the opposite usually), but because the game highlights their struggles rather than overcoming problems.

I quite agree.

I want to make this clear again in case it gets lost in the noise: in principal, there's nothing wrong with what PbtA games and their kin are doing, and they clearly serve some people's purposes very, very well. I just keep emphasizing the problem area to show that sometimes two different people's needs can be fundamentally incompatible here, or at the very least attempts to make them compatible can, at best, make the experience unsatisfying for one or both. I'm not elevating either experience over the other.

 

[Aldarc]

On the other hand, I should note that it leans pretty heavily into GM fiat, so its not offloading many of the die rolls a GM might have made to complicate a situation on the players. Whether that's an improvement is in the eye of the beholder (I don't think so) but it at least has to be kept in mind.

Sure, but my point is merely that Cypher System offers a potential point of comparison for hawkeyefan as a quasi-d20 system with fairly traditional play, but where the players roll defense.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, but my point is merely that Cypher System offers a potential point of comparison for hawkeyefan as a quasi-d20 system with fairly traditional play, but where the players roll defense.

Well, its hardly the only one where that's true; BRP and Interlock come to mind. Its unusual in having the players-only-roll element, admittedly.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's doing exactly what I intend; hosing down the idea that because people already used to the idea of success-with-complications are not bothered by it no significant percentage of other people will. Otherwise, your response has seemed an offhand dismissal of those people as irrelevant. You don't get to ignore that point just because its inconvenient for you, nor do I feel obliged to let you because you don't like my doing so.

No, I'm not faulting anyone for their preference. I'm not dismissing anyone as irrelevant.

That assessment isn't inconvenient, it's inaccurate. That's why I don't like you doing it. It consists of you telling me what I mean (again) despite my clarifications, while also lecturing me to be respectful of others' views. It's amazingly off base.

I'm talking about trying to engage with one system based on its own merits/processes/expectations rather than those we may have for another game, and how if we just shift our perception a bit, we may be able to do that. That there may be people who don't agree with my idea, or don't get what I'm saying, or that get it and remain unswayed doesn't mean I'm ignoring them, or that there aren't other people who get something from what I've said.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I want to make this clear again in case it gets lost in the noise: in principal, there's nothing wrong with what PbtA games and their kin are doing, and they clearly serve some people's purposes very, very well. I just keep emphasizing the problem area to show that sometimes two different people's needs can be fundamentally incompatible here, or at the very least attempts to make them compatible can, at best, make the experience unsatisfying for one or both. I'm not elevating either experience over the other.

I'm not sure why these threads inevitably get bogged down with these zoomed-out meta-discussions about potential slights and furrowed-brow reminders that such-and-such behavior might lead certain people to feel a bit icky about their preferences, etc. etc. There's a real temptation on ENWorld to get lost in generalities and rules of thumb.

Can we never just talk about specific games and mechanics and such without this constant refereeing and amateur, preemptive modding?

 

[Baron Opal II]

@Baron Opal II asked about differentiating DM from players, and whether that was further down in the taxonomy. If I say that GM is not adopting or playing any role (or that they are at times not doing that) then does that imply that GM is not a player? Thus more like a referee - someone outside the game who ensures its formally adequate conduct? Or might I find ways to say that the GM is adopting or playing roles sufficiently to count among players of the game? Or I might want to relax the requirement: pushing it further down the taxonomy.

Well, there are games that are promoted as "GM-less", as well as those that can be played solo (although I can't think of one off the tiop of my head). I used player for my phrasing of your first axiom. I can't think of a situation where a "participant" is not a "player", ultimately. Moving down the taxonomy, as I frame it, there comes a point where you have games that have GMs and Players; one person administrates the game- determining the setting, scenario, obstacles, &c., and there are others that navigate them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, I'm not faulting anyone for their preference. I'm not dismissing anyone as irrelevant.

That assessment isn't inconvenient, it's inaccurate. That's why I don't like you doing it. It consists of you telling me what I mean (again) despite my clarifications, while also lecturing me to be respectful of others' views. It's amazingly off base.

Its telling you what you come across as. If that's not your intent, its not, but I'd rethink how you're presenting it then.

 

[Aldarc]

Its telling you what you come across as. If that's not your intent, its not, but I'd rethink how you're presenting it then.

I assume this post was said with zero sense of irony?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I assume this post was said with zero sense of irony?

Actually, at this point in my conversation with them I'm quite clear how I'm coming across. At a certain point I somewhat stop caring, and I've reached that.

Edit: That said, that's probably a sign I should be done with this thread, and I believe I'll take the hint of that rather than waiting for a mod to come along and suggest it to me.

 

[Aldarc]

Actually, at this point in my conversation with them I'm quite clear how I'm coming across. At a certain point I somewhat stop caring, and I've reached that.

Edit: That said, that's probably a sign I should be done with this thread, and I believe I'll take the hint of that rather than waiting for a mod to come along and suggest it to me.

There's not really a need for you to leave. But I find that the whole Devil's Advocacy thing isn't always helpful for creating fruitful discussions. Antagonistic ones? Sure. But as many people in this thread also enjoy or play traditional play, it's not as if the appeal or nature of traditional games are some grand secret for many of us.