RPG Theory- The Limits of My Language are the Limits of My World

[Thomas Shey]

Apologies if this has been discussed in detail in past threads, but something I've wondered about for years is the prominence of fantasy as a genre in the TTRPG hobby.

I've seen arguments that its not just fantasy, but a particular sort of fantasy that D&D supports, and I think its a combination of that fact and the particular time and places when D&D got rolling that largely contribute to it. Its a form of fantasy that easily supports ongoing group play, sets up, generically, a set of easily understood aims that multiple players/character can engage with, and sets all of the players as a default on a relatively easy footing.

Its actually not easy to find an SF set up that's similar; almost all of them fail out on some of these grounds. Different problems arise with superheroes. Some other genres are not as popular in general (Westerns) or bring their own problems to the table (urban fantasy). That doesn't mean there aren't people that like SF or urban fantasy, but it requires more work to get them in the same space on it.

 

[pemerton]

The success of 5e is obviously a lot about branding and market dynamics. But playing it, and seeing others play it and get into rpgs for the first time, I think what it suggests to me is, to put it pithily, ‘system doesn’t matter.’ Or doesn’t matter to the degree and in the ways that some people think it does. There’s an element to a game system that affords a playstyle by simply not getting in the way. So, we don’t actually need mechanics for fantasy shopping. The character and world building prompts in the game do a better job, without rules, to give people the fantasy shopping simulator they desire. Making sure the ‘system has a say’ would make the experience less fun.

I don't know who the some people are to whom you're referring.

But most people who invoke Edwards's notion that "system matters" are using system in the way he does - ie a means by which in-game events are determined to occur. And so would say that you are describing a system for resolving fantasy shopping that you prefer - ie consensual agreement on a shared fiction - and are contrasting it with a different system - eg one which uses mechanical resolution to constrain who is allowed to suggest or agree to what. (As an example, Classic Traveller (1977 version) uses a system like this, mediated via the Streetwise mechanics and the Law Level framework, if the PCs are trying to shop for things that are sketchy or illegal.)

I'm also puzzled by your use of need. Are you meaning to imply that people who play Classic Traveller using the Streetwise system are acting needlessly or irrationally? It just seems to me that, unlike you, for at least some of their fantasy shopping they want an approach other than consensual agreement on the shared fiction. The concept of need doesn't seem to me to have any purchase here.

 

[pemerton]

Even D&D 4e was dramatically more popular in terms of raw numbers than virtually anything else on the market. So even though a presumably significant part of the base recoiled from it, the amount left was still enough to largely dwarf everything else.

That says there are issue going on here well beyond anything to do with system design.

So I think very few people are going to have an issue with the notion that 5e's design has a meaningful impact on its popularity. I think almost all the pushback comes from the idea that a more popular game is necessarily a better game.

I think the comparison to 4e is interesting.

Back when 4e launched, some people would quote sales figures which at least purported to show that the early 4e books sold more copies than 3E books in the same sort of time frame. Is this evidence that 4e was better designed than 3E? (My view: no.) Is it relevant to how PF 1E fans engage with their preferred RPG? (My view: no.)

What happens if, one day, WotC launches 6E and it is even more popular than 5e? Would that prove that 5E was flawed in its design? (My view: no.)

Here's a conjecture that could be true, based on my knowledge of the relevant evidence:

* 4e made it possible to build a certain sort of market presence - eg drop-in organised play; streaming of play - that 3E didn't support so well;

* 4e had design elements that put a relatively hard cap on how much that market presence could grow;

* 5e builds on that established market presence but overcomes some of those hard limits.​

A more general version of the above conjecture: 4e is a necessary component of the development path that made 5e and its popularity possible.

Now I can't prove these conjectures. Maybe there was a possible pathway to 5e - with its fixed damage expressions for spells, its short rest/long rest structure (which I gather of late is being abandoned), its death/dying rules, its monsters and NPC built on a different framework from PCs but still having the same build elements (stats, skills, powers, etc), etc - straight from 3E without going via the 4e versions of those things.

But suppose my conjectures, or something in their neighbourhood, is true. What does that tell us about 4e? And what does that tell us about 5e's eclipsing of 4e? I think it becomes something more complex than simply that 4e failed and 5e succeeded.

All that said, such conjectures and conclusions seem to me to be completely irrelevant from the point of view of someone who wants to play and enjoy 4e D&D. The fact that the game has hard caps on how much its market presence can grow is super-important for a commercial publisher like WotC, but utterly irrelevant to those actually playing the game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

All that said, such conjectures and conclusions seem to me to be completely irrelevant from the point of view of someone who wants to play and enjoy 4e D&D. The fact that the game has hard caps on how much its market presence can grow is super-important for a commercial publisher like WotC, but utterly irrelevant to those actually playing the game.

I'm going to take (mild) disagreement with this.

One of the intrinsic virtues with D&D is that when you're first getting into it, or moving to a new area, finding players is relatively easy. So to some extent, growth of market can be relevant to someone wanting to play the game. Its unlikely to be severe impact, just because the base market is so big, but its not completely irrelevant.

 

[Malmuria]

I don't know who the some people are to whom you're referring.

But most people who invoke Edwards's notion that "system matters" are using system in the way he does - ie a means by which in-game events are determined to occur. And so would say that you are describing a system for resolving fantasy shopping that you prefer - ie consensual agreement on a shared fiction - and are contrasting it with a different system - eg one which uses mechanical resolution to constrain who is allowed to suggest or agree to what. (As an example, Classic Traveller (1977 version) uses a system like this, mediated via the Streetwise mechanics and the Law Level framework, if the PCs are trying to shop for things that are sketchy or illegal.)

I'm also puzzled by your use of need. Are you meaning to imply that people who play Classic Traveller using the Streetwise system are acting needlessly or irrationally? It just seems to me that, unlike you, for at least some of their fantasy shopping they want an approach other than consensual agreement on the shared fiction. The concept of need doesn't seem to me to have any purchase here.

I’m thinking of people on Twitter or Reddit who respond to positive play experiences —-characterized as not needing to roll dice all session because they were just role playing — by saying that the 5e can’t be credited with their successful session, on account of the relatively sparse social and exploration pillars. That 5e is more extensive and robust in combat compared to social and exploration tracks with my perception of the system, and from what I can gather is a common observation, but maybe that could be classed as a specific approach and contrasted with the ‘other approaches’ you reference. However you want to classify it, I’m proposing that 5e’s system/approach is sufficient in this regard for 5e players, and not just because they are unaware, or vaguely aware but uninterested, in other games. That is, I wouldn’t assume they people prefer 5e only because they haven’t tried other games. FWIW, I hope they do try those other games, and my statements above were not meant to indicate that those other games are not worthwhile, much less say anything specific about classic traveller in particular.

You contrast “consensual agreement of shared fiction” with “mechanical resolution,” which is pretty close to what I was trying to say but with slightly more technical terms. Given that, it seems that the main point of your post is to suggest that I am not qualified to reference a phrase like “system matters,” or, more specifically, the way I’ve seen that sentiment expressed in online discussions. Similarity, you can probably infer from our discussions that I don’t know anything about classic traveller, and was certainly not attempting to make any claims about classic traveller, so suggesting that my comment in 5e does not apply to classic traveller it seems to imply that my frame of reference is parochial while yours is expansive.



That is, your response demonstrates the exact dynamic OP described: claiming authority by referencing a putatively deeper understanding of theory, insertion and insistence on particular phrases (with definitions known by you), and driving conversation towards your particular play experiences. As I’ve said many times, I certainly respect the depth of rpg knowledge you and others on this board have, so it’s unfortunate and unnecessary that you still feel the need to claim this authority.

 

[MichaelSomething]

D&D is popular because you can use the branding to find players and then ignore the rules you don't like citing "DM empowerment."

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m thinking of people on Twitter or Reddit who respond to positive play experiences —-characterized as not needing to roll dice all session because they were just role playing — by saying that the 5e can’t be credited with their successful session, on account of the relatively sparse social and exploration pillars. That 5e is more extensive and robust in combat compared to social and exploration tracks with my perception of the system, and from what I can gather is a common observation, but maybe that could be classed as a specific approach and contrasted with the ‘other approaches’ you reference. However you want to classify it, I’m proposing that 5e’s system/approach is sufficient in this regard for 5e players, and not just because they are unaware, or vaguely aware but uninterested, in other games. That is, I wouldn’t assume they people prefer 5e only because they haven’t tried other games. FWIW, I hope they do try those other games, and my statements above were not meant to indicate that those other games are not worthwhile, much less say anything specific about classic traveller in particular.

You contrast “consensual agreement of shared fiction” with “mechanical resolution,” which is pretty close to what I was trying to say but with slightly more technical terms. Given that, it seems that the main point of your post is to suggest that I am not qualified to reference a phrase like “system matters,” or, more specifically, the way I’ve seen that sentiment expressed in online discussions. Similarity, you can probably infer from our discussions that I don’t know anything about classic traveller, and was certainly not attempting to make any claims about classic traveller, so suggesting that my comment in 5e does not apply to classic traveller it seems to imply that my frame of reference is parochial while yours is expansive.

I don't get why what you said was being turned into a slight against classic traveler either. Your point was pretty clear IMO, mechanics aren't always required and in many cases their absence may actually be preferred.

 

[FrogReaver]

All that said, such conjectures and conclusions seem to me to be completely irrelevant from the point of view of someone who wants to play and enjoy 4e D&D. The fact that the game has hard caps on how much its market presence can grow is super-important for a commercial publisher like WotC, but utterly irrelevant to those actually playing the game.

I'm not sure there's any game theory or analysis is actually relevant to those wanting to play and enjoy 4e D&D. They've already chosen their game.

 

[pemerton]

I'm going to take (mild) disagreement with this.

One of the intrinsic virtues with D&D is that when you're first getting into it, or moving to a new area, finding players is relatively easy. So to some extent, growth of market can be relevant to someone wanting to play the game. Its unlikely to be severe impact, just because the base market is so big, but its not completely irrelevant.

OK. Though there's a chicken-and-egg (or something like that) issue - change the game to much to grow market penetration, and may be the prospective player doesn't want to play it anymore!

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure there's any game theory or analysis is actually relevant to those wanting to play and enjoy 4e D&D. They've already chosen their game.

To me, this is a strange view to take. My main reason for engaging in theory and analysis has been to improve my play: my Rolemaster play at first, then my 4e D&D play, then other systems that I've played over the past several years.

This relates back to a point made upthread that I agreed with:

a lot of internet TTRPG theory is made by people who actually do have problems to solve. It is not, in any sense of the word, academic. Players and designers have particular things that they want to achieve. I think industry or technical knowledge would be a better comparison. (obviously, subcultural identity stuff always muddies the waters).

<snip>

TRPG theory makes a lot more sense if you approach it as a heuristic developed to serve particular technical or aesthetic goals.