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

[Manbearcat]

You can also run into a thing where the usage people are making of "system" ends up at loggerheads.

While I understand your usage, I don't find describing naked GM arbitration as part of "system" very useful, on a couple grounds: 1. It makes talking about whether a game has a system for X fraught since, pretty much by definition, that can be applied to every game including ones not intended for it, often without anyone even thinking about it, and 2. My observation has been that its frequently not very, well, systematic. In the case of other people they presumably don't think of it as part of system because they consider "system" to imply constraints (which kind of just reinforces my second take on it, but this is an area where I admit to some cynicism) which they actively don't want in some particular part of the game.

I understand this sentiment.

However (needless to say), I don’t find it compelling in any area of life, TTRPGs included.

When D&D GMs eschew structure for freeform, resolution mechanics for extrapolation/fiat (principled or seemingly arbitrary), what is actually happening doesn’t become magical pixie dust or something possessed of an ethereal quality that renders it inscrutable (or even exempt from being “a thing” at all).

We can analyze it and classify it and
find its place in a taxonomical structure. The only reason to not put forth this effort (that I can think of) is similar to the inclination to zoom out to the stratospheric view of TTRPG play priorities and say THERE ARE NO PRIORITIES THERE IS ONLY “THE FUN TM”; to render play impervious to a deeper understanding of (a) why we actually play this game instead of that one and (b) what is actually happening at the table to ensure we don’t accidentally stumble into that gameplay instead of this gameplay.

I mean the reality that “GM Decides” (extrapolation based on process simulation, adjudication based around genre logic, Force applied to ensure metaplot stays online) can be binned multiple different ways is a pretty potent line of evidence for this (GM Decides is system whether people want to classify it as that or not).

 

[FrogReaver]

Can someone provide an example of a tabletop roleplaying game that lacks sidebars and optional rules? That does not provide meaningful discussion of how to customize the game to the people playing it? 5e is fairly flexible, just not especially so.

Having sidebars and optional rules is just one line of evidence supporting that conclusion. There’s also the stated big tent approach from devs. There’s also the history of extreme customization. It all coalesces into a picture of a game (and maybe some of it is more tradition than game - but I think by now that tradition and the game are somewhat inseparable) not attempting to force too specific of an experience.

As you note - a lot can be said about the intended play experiences of other games. Other than trying to be D&D to all I’m not sure much can be said about the intended experience of 5e.

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe some of what we are seeing is the difference in games built from a theory first mindset and games built from a play test/practical first mindset.

 

[Aldarc]

Can someone provide an example of a tabletop roleplaying game that lacks sidebars and optional rules? That does not provide meaningful discussion of how to customize the game to the people playing it? 5e is fairly flexible, just not especially so.

I learned this the hard way during the 3e era. That was a time when we witnessed people trying to get D&D or the d20 system to do everything under the sun. I myself was one of those people who was trying to engineer first D&D and then the d20 system in a way that I could play the sort of games or even the sort of fantasy adventure that I wanted, but to little or no avail. It wasn't generally worth the effort. The closest that I got to a d20 toolkit system that I could customize for the sort of campaign settings I wanted was Blue Rose and True 20. Eventually I gave up and had to admit that D&D does D&D style fantasy adventure well, but it will fight you tooth and claw when you try to get it to do something else.

Having sidebars and optional rules is just one line of evidence supporting that conclusion. There’s also the stated big tent approach from devs. There’s also the history of extreme customization. It all coalesces into a picture of a game (and maybe some of it is more tradition than game - but I think by now that tradition and the game are somewhat inseparable) not attempting to force too specific of an experience.

As you note - a lot can be said about the intended play experiences of other games. Other than trying to be D&D to all I’m not sure much can be said about the intended experience of 5e.

What do you think are the breaking points of the system? What can't the game do well? What shouldn't D&D be used for? At what point do you recommend to someone that they may be better off playing another game?

Maybe some of what we are seeing is the difference in games built from a theory first mindset and games built from a play test/practical first mindset.

I'm incredibly skeptical.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

...{I}t picks up one of a few perennial debates: realism versus playability; task resolution; game design and play advice; gender, ethnicity, and sex; and finally, the subject matter of the post, player and system typologies – what people enjoy about playing RPGs, how different people may have different preferences or styles, and how game design may accommodate that. The post responds dismissively to one of the most influential typologies, the Threefold Model, trying to focus the discussion on what “really” matters – player emotion – while also trying to claim a middle ground: “The thing is, different people’s emotional responses to different gaming techniques differ.”

This move – third – can be found again and again: “Making different kinds of games to support different kinds of play and different kinds of people shouldn’t de-legitimize the kinds of play that already exist” “People can often enjoy many different types of games. And if someone starts playing these ‘wrong’ games, they probably are getting something they missed elsewhere” Each time, a new piece of theory wishes to end fruitless debate and provide a big ecumenical tent of tolerance, yet by contributing a new piece that disagrees with previous ones, it does the opposite: continue the debate. While Henley’s blog post overtly makes light of the self-seriousness of RPG theory, it also tries to make its own theory stick. We see here at work some motives for RPG theorizing we identified: the joy of intellectual argument (and connecting over it); the desire to help design and play ‘better’ (implying particular normative ideas about what ‘good’ means); and the jockeying for social status and recognition within one’s community.

Finally, fourth, we see the almost-eternal return of debates and points made previously (Henley’s appeals to affect theory are far from new), due to the ephemeral nature and fragmented structure of RPG theorizing. As Bourdieu put it: “To account for the infinite diversity of practices{, one has} to reconstruct the networks of interrelated relationship which are present in each”. In this respect, valiant attempts to capture its history can only scratch the surface. Cultural sociology may prove just as helpful. Future research on RPG theorizing will likely reveal just how rhizomatic our processes and means of thought and communication actually are.

-Evan Torner, Theorizing by Designers and Players. (2018) (internal citations omitted; emphasis supplied).

Same story, different day. It truly baffles me that:
(1) There is little to no acknowledgment, especially in light of recent research, that the majority of these debates over theory have repeatedly re-occurred over the past 50 years (and have their antecedents prior to that). It's like Sisyphus.
(2) There is little to no acknowledgment that people have done and said things since 2006, or at least 2010.
(3) There is little to no acknowledgment that a good portion of these conversations are about "jockeying for social status and recognition within one's community" and the so-called desire to design and play 'better.' (and what that naturally entails).
(4) Finally, given the wealth of material being generated in other countries, the utter absence of credit to, or reference to, the intellectual ferment and discussions held in other countries, both in other languages or in English (the more academic work) is also strange.

 

[FrogReaver]

What do you think are the breaking points of the system?

Due to its very fleshed out combat subsystem I wouldn’t recommend someone play D&d that doesn’t like most of the fundamentals of that’s systems design. (If it’s a specific mechanic or two they dislike but are good with the broader context they should probably by modifying their home game 5e rules)

What can't the game do well?

Campaigns that feature both dungeon delving and overland exploration. The recovery mechanics tend to either trivialize the overland or make dungeon delving extremely difficult (depending on specific home rules around resting+recovery)

What shouldn't D&D be used for? At what point do you recommend to someone that they may be better off playing another game?

I wouldn’t recommend they would be better off with another game because chances are when the whole body of their preferences is taken into account they probably will still prefer 5e. I see to many recommendations of other games based on a single issue with 5e - where the game being suggested is so different that there’s a good chance the player will dislike those differences more than the one aspect it’s fixed for him.

 

[Campbell]

There's just such a fundamental disconnect at what looks like diversity of play from the perspective of people who mostly exist in the D&D space and people who have experience with a wide variety of games with different expectations. In my experience almost all D&D family games are flexible when it comes to games where players play a team of specialists who go to unfamiliar environments, explore them, and get into multiple fights a day. They are flexible on motivations. They are flexible on content. The fundamental structure of managing resources over an adventure day to overcome obstacles and defeat enemies is core to pretty much every play account of a D&D family game I have ever seen. I have not really noticed too much difference on this score between D&D family games.

Outside of @Sepulchrave II 's Tales of the Wyre game I have seldom seen play accounts that even reminded me of very typical World of Darkness or Legend of the Five Rings play with player characters pursuing individual agendas and working together when their agendas align, but not when they do not.

I have significant experience trying to meld D&D family games to such agendas, generally with very poor results. The systems very much get in the way. I applaud @Sepulchrave II for pulling it off.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Though honestly, that's true about a fair number of traditional games; they're intended as general purpose tools, perhaps within a broad genre, but not necessarily aimed at a particular sort of style or experience.

Yeah, that's very true for many games. And I don't think that most games are designed to delivery one specific experience every time.....even something like Lady Blackbird that has a specific set up will result in different things.

But look at modern D&D compared to the earliest editions. Those were pretty tight in scope. Things got much more broad with 2e.

So what I mean is if you took a sample of examples of play from Moldvay Basic and then from 5e, you'd see more similarity among the Moldvay basic. They'd all likely involve some kind of dungeon or other physical adventure site, a keyed map, and the PCs exploring that site and managing their resources as best as possible to navigate the obstacles there. There'd be variation of details, and even some variation of the overall structure, but that foundational experience would be recognizable as a common theme, I expect.

With 5e, you'd find more diversity among the play experiences, even if everyone was playing by the book, so to speak, without house rules and the like. You might see an example of play that would fit in with the Moldvay examples, then you'd see one that was a sandbox, then one that was linear, then one that's almost entirely handled through character portrayal and mechanics are barely ever brought to bear....and so on.

If anything, I've argued that D&D traditionally paints itself as more broad in usage than it really is at base (though as with a lot of games you can do the using-a-wrench-as-a-hammer thing of making it work beyond its strengths, which is often done by people when they have a game system they're used to and they don't really want to learn a new one).

I think 5e allows for the broadest experience of play....among editions of D&D.

How broad does it really get? That's one of those fuzzy areas that I'm talking about. I mean, a 5e session could consist of literally no dice rolls, with the players simply declaring what their characters do, and the GM responding according to what he thinks the NPCs would do.....so something like a negotiation between the PCs and an NPC lord, or something. The duchy is in danger, and we have to convince the duke. That could be an entire session for the right play group.

Now, add to that the concept of house rules or people using older editions to shape how they play 5E....sometimes without even realizing they're doing it (I've done this)....and it can make the game hard to discuss in specific ways.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's just such a fundamental disconnect at what looks like diversity of play from the perspective of people who mostly exist in the D&D space and people who have experience with a wide variety of games with different expectations. In my experience almost all D&D family games are flexible when it comes to games where players play a team of specialists who go to unfamiliar environments, explore them, and get into multiple fights a day. They are flexible on motivations. They are flexible on content. The fundamental structure of managing resources over an adventure day to overcome obstacles and defeat enemies is core to pretty much every play account of a D&D family game I have ever seen. I have not really noticed too much difference on this score between D&D family games.

Outside of @Sepulchrave II 's Tales of the Wyre game I have seldom seen play accounts that even reminded me of very typical World of Darkness or Legend of the Five Rings play with player characters pursuing individual agendas and working together when their agendas align, but not when they do not.

I have significant experience trying to meld D&D family games to such agendas, generally with very poor results. The systems very much get in the way. I applaud @Sepulchrave II for pulling off such a feat with Third Edition of all games.

To me D&D gets out of the way of agenda driven play.

It does have the requirement that you play an adventurer, but your adventuring agenda can be picked by you, the dm, a random die roll or whatever and the system doesn’t care because it got out of the way.

it also has a quasi-requirement you work in a group as pvp is handled poorly in d&d. So the group does tend to need to be able to agree on what to do next (though framing from the dm can help align player objectives so that they want to do the same things).

Im with you that it doesn’t allow for multiple competing player agendas simulataneously.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That works... if a game is designed to deliver one specific sort of experience. And some games are.

I'd say it's perhaps more about the experience being clear. There's almost always some wiggle room to change things up a bit. Having more than one possible play experience shouldn't be a barrier if we can meaningfully distinguish experience A from B. 5e kind of does this....for example see discussion on play styles on page 34 of the DMG; the comparison between Hack & Slash and Immersive Roleplaying. It's not the most significant comparison, and seems to ultimately suggest that somewhere between those two options is what most games will fall into.

Indeed, I would venture so far as to say that it is not actually intentionally designed for one specific experience - the presence of so many sidebars and optional rules, and a long history of houserules rather indicate a design to enable (or at least minimize interference with) a significant breadth of experiences.

The intention of the design wasn't really what I was commenting on, but yes, I would agree that 5e certainly seems designed to please different parts of the fanbase, and we can take that to mean it was designed to deliver a breadth of experiences. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say the breadth was significant, but I imagine that's just a matter of opinion.

The important thing is that this lack of specificity combined with house rules and the many people who've been playing D&D for decades who just install their own take on how things should function.....whether based on house rules or being ported from prior editions and so on....very often act as if they are playing vanilla, by the book 5e. And they often approach discussion with that mindset, which can lead to confusion.

Again, if you look at the Hack and Slash and Immersive Roleplaying descriptions on page 34.....I think one of these is supported far more than the other by the rules as written. I think that's pretty clear and I imagine many folks would agree with me.

Shouldn't we be able to compare these two approaches? Why do I think the rules support one more than the other? Why I think there may be other games that would suit the other style better?