Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Lanefan]

I like this rejection as it provokes thought. My take is not that RPGs are special, but that we need to place them in their proper domain. I see TTRPG systems as categorically closer to the laws of sports, than to say movies or storybooks.

To give some examples of how that plays out

• How would one judge the offside rule in Football in the context of Hockey (which lacks one)?

FYI, hockey has offsides. The offside rules are different from football, however.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perhaps start here ([English] Resolution types in TTRPG) and think about how one might deconstruct resolution methods. As I said, I need to write something on this.

Well... honestly I'm not sure I find this super coherent. 'task' and 'situation' seem to be merely a matter of scale. I can zoom in or out, a 4e SC, for instance, could cover gathering supplies, or the whole trek across the desert, its a question of granularity in play, not of PROCESS. I don't see any specific difference between conflict and situation either. When talking about SCs we are certainly talking about conflicts. I don't think other techniques pretend to specify that a whole conflict is resolved, though it MIGHT be, again depending on granularity. Tension, shrug, that seems to me to be orthogonal to all of this. IMHO a scene/SC/score/etc. is going to bring some question to a new state. It may or may not be entirely resolved, but it means we can all look at the fiction and say "yeah, Takeo escaped from Ironhook" or "Tal Rajan just married two different women at the same time!" or "Beaker just released his Dad" etc.

 

[FrogReaver]

How different can the fundamental play loops be, though?

I mean, when everything else is stripped away in what RPG doesn't the play loop boil down to:

1. Player(s) say what their PC(s) (are trying to) do next, as an action declaration or similar based on the current state of fiction
2. The game's resolution engine processes that declaration and generates a result
3. Someone (usually, but not necessarily always, a GM or equivalent) translates that result into a narration of what, if any, observable changes have occurred in the state of fiction as a result of that (attempted) action
4. Go to 1.

That different games have and use widely different resolution engines doesn't affect this fundamental play loop; and most of these discussions are really only about variants of resolution engines and-or different philosophies or principles involved in steps 1 and-or 3.

I think I agree, I'd just add that the details of how step 2 and 3 are handled is important and can yield some very different experiences.

Then there's also the consideration of granularity.

 

[clearstream]

FYI, hockey has offsides. The offside rules are different from football, however.

Ugh, I haven't played Hockey since high school!

I was searching for an offside rule in the FIH rules of hockey and could not find one. And to some extent this speaks to my point, what would it mean for me to take the field with a different (or no) version of the offside rule in mind? Does it mean that I am not playing Hockey?

 

[FrogReaver]

Ugh, I haven't played Hockey since high school!

I was searching for an off side rule in the FIH rules of hockey and could not find one. And to some extent this is my point, what would it mean for me to take the field with a different (or no) version of the offside rule in mind? Does it mean that I am not playing Hockey?

And also, what if there is a rule but it's simply not enforced - or only the most flagrant violations of it are.

 

[Aldarc]

FYI, hockey has offsides. The offside rules are different from football, however.

Ugh, I haven't played Hockey since high school!

I was searching for an offside rule in the FIH rules of hockey and could not find one. And to some extent this speaks to my point, what would it mean for me to take the field with a different (or no) version of the offside rule in mind? Does it mean that I am not playing Hockey?

I think you two are talking past each other because of what is meant by "hockey." Ice Hockey has an offside rule; Field Hockey does not have an offside rule (since apparently the mid-1990s). @clearstream's comment threw me for a loop as well until I looked it up. I too first thought about ice hockey when I heard "hockey."

 

[clearstream]

Well... honestly I'm not sure I find this super coherent. 'task' and 'situation' seem to be merely a matter of scale. I can zoom in or out, a 4e SC, for instance, could cover gathering supplies, or the whole trek across the desert, its a question of granularity in play, not of PROCESS. I don't see any specific difference between conflict and situation either. When talking about SCs we are certainly talking about conflicts. I don't think other techniques pretend to specify that a whole conflict is resolved, though it MIGHT be, again depending on granularity. Tension, shrug, that seems to me to be orthogonal to all of this. IMHO a scene/SC/score/etc. is going to bring some question to a new state. It may or may not be entirely resolved, but it means we can all look at the fiction and say "yeah, Takeo escaped from Ironhook" or "Tal Rajan just married two different women at the same time!" or "Beaker just released his Dad" etc.

After reading that short piece, I started thinking about how resolution might be deconstructed. After a bit of experimentation I identified some basic elements

• system state
• fictional position
• player decision
• player goals
• gm decision
• roll

The above may be inputs and/or outputs. Nothing surprising, right. I then considered three roughly defined information types

• open
• hidden
• legitimated

(The last italicised because it unpacks in many different ways.) I then started assembling those according to the flows of different mechanics. I looked at Stonetop Persuade, Stonetop Clash, Dangerous Presence, TB2 Hunter, AW Layout a Plan, AW Eye on the Door, AW Loyal: Get to Work, TB2 Criminal, AW Go Aggro, DW Escape Route, 5e Stealth, 5e Athletics, 5e Persuasion, 5e Investigation, DW Tricks of the Trade, and others. (My process was in fact recursive for the obvious reasons.)

What I ended up with were diagrams that for each case mapped the inputs and outputs, with typically roll in the middle. I observed consistency (common elements and general structure) and diversity. Furnished with those diagrams, I then considered overarching play loops.

Generally, what I observed is that separating into "task" and "conflict" resolution is an extremely simplistic dichotomy that understates (or really, in my opinion, misstates) a very rich diversity.

 

[clearstream]

I think you two are talking past each other because of what is meant by "hockey." Ice Hockey has an offside rule; Field Hockey does not have an offside rule (since apparently the mid-1990s). @clearstream's comment threw me for a loop as well until I looked it up. I too first thought about ice hockey when I heard "hockey."

I've ninja'd my post to specify Field Hockey, for the benefit of others.

 

[innerdude]

Okay, I have no problem with that notion in general. It's true in a very basic sense. The problem is with how that idea is being used to exclude me or gatekeep me or etc from the conversation. I must essentially 'play more games' or my opinions get to be immediately dismissed. That's never going to be a position that yields a productive conversation between anyone that holds it and me (and most likely anyone else in a similar position as me).

I'm trying to think of a productive, non-confrontational way to address this concern.

It's not that ideas of trad play are dismissed or denigrated out of hand. There is nothing wrong with them! As many folks such as Campbell and others have stated, we're playing trad style games right now --- many actually playing 5e!

I'm personally running an Edge of the Empire campaign right now that's predominantly "trad" in approach. All of the things about world building, encounter design, map and key searching/hunting/discovering are all part and parcel of the way I'm running this game.

Before I started the campaign, I actually posted here asking for advice on how to do effective, principled, trad map and key play.

Is it different than 5e? Of course. Purposefully different, due to the narrative dice mechanics of nothing else. But as a GM it's not a 180 degree pivot from when I ran Pathfinder or Savage Worlds. It might be a 15 degree vector shift.

Ironsworn, on the other hand? That's a completely different GM sensibility on just about every level. Applying my long-ago-assimilated "trad GM DNA" to my Ironsworn play would be a disaster.

If D&D 5e is driving a Tesla sedan on a flat interstate highway, then FFG Star Wars is driving an SUV on a flat interstate while pulling a trailer with a tied down 4 wheeler. A little different, sure, but mostly just a few different constraints.

Ironsworn, on the other hand, is driving a semi truck down a looping 2 lane mountain road at a 6% grade.

At their core all three meet the general description of "piloting a motor vehicle", but one of the three is a significantly different experience.

If you're the driver of the sedan, your observations are welcomed on any of the three (or more) driving modes. But sometimes the truck driver is perfectly at rights to say (assuming you've never driven a big rig), "I appreciate your input as being well intended and genuine, but the thought behind it just doesn't match the experience."

And sometimes, unfortunately, it may mean there isn't a productive discussion to be had.

Why is there a need to set yourself up as an expert? What do you hope to gain by having expert authority in the conversation?

Clarity, mostly. I want others who have similar play experiences to provide feedback and input. I don't want to be misunderstood when I talk about particular experiences that will be unfamiliar to those who lack the same experience.

 

[soviet]

How different can the fundamental play loops be, though?
I mean, when everything else is stripped away in what RPG doesn't the play loop boil down to:

This is true only at a very zoomed out scale that misses some key issues, as I will try to explain:

1. Player(s) say what their PC(s) (are trying to) do next, as an action declaration or similar based on the current state of fiction

What are the limits on what they can ask to do? What narrative authority do they have? Can they declare actions, or goals, or acceptable outcomes? Who frames 'the current state of fiction' in the first place?

2. The game's resolution engine processes that declaration and generates a result

Who decides whether or not to consult the resolution engine? What conflicts can it resolve? What kind of result can it generate? What influence if any does each participant have on the outcome? Can any participants override it altogether?

3. Someone (usually, but not necessarily always, a GM or equivalent) translates that result into a narration of what, if any, observable changes have occurred in the state of fiction as a result of that (attempted) action

Who is that 'someone'? Is it always the same someone? What factors do they have to take into account in their narration? Can they just describe, or can they interpret? What can they ignore or double down on? Can anyone else veto their efforts?

4. Go to 1.

Who gets to frame the transition back to 1? Who gets to decide what 1 is?

That different games have and use widely different resolution engines doesn't affect this fundamental play loop; and most of these discussions are really only about variants of resolution engines and-or different philosophies or principles involved in steps 1 and-or 3.

This really feels like saying all movies are the same, just some noises and movements of images that in the end come to a stop. I mean, yeah, kinda, but a whole lot of relevant factors are being overlooked.