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

[loverdrive]

A thing can be "high quality," and have "broad appeal," and still be forced to make compromises- in fact, I'd argue that making those compromises is part of what drives the broad appeal.

Because 5e is not, and cannot be, a niche product, it has to make compromises. To use one example that I think most people can agree with is the inclusion of legacy components and lore.

5e includes legacy components. It has to use "parts" (rules, lore) from older editions. If the game designers were designing 5e from scratch, if they were making some "white room" best game ever using only the "best practice" design that has been learned over nearly 50 years, I'm guessing some of that legacy would be ditched. Which ones- the six ability scores? The weird mishmash of classes? The half-orc? Who knows? One person's sacred cow is another person's hamburger. We've already seen alignment marginalized over time- but also the difficulty in removing it completely; I don't think it would have been possible with 5e's release.

The point of this is that part of the broad appeal of the game, part of the "popularity" is that it retains some continuity- that it continues to have those compromises. There is something for everyone, or for most people. There is both some modern design, and some continuity with the past.

You can use this with many aspects of the game. It's an incredibly tough thing to design for broad appeal. It's easy to design something when you're only designing for a small group, and don't have to worry about large sales, or broad popularity.

I'm reminded of the McDonald's example I heard of some time ago- the executive chef had some serious training and chops in terms of haute cuisine- top of class from CIA, and so on. But the reason why developing new products is so difficult isn't because they can't make all sorts of tasty things in their test kitchen; it's because the sheer scale that is required means that basic logistics and sourcing is the primary challenge for new menu items- not to mention that any dish has to be either be made with pre-exiting equipment or requires a serious investment, plus anything has to be easily made by that workforce. In short, it's a look at what types of design choices have to be made in different contexts.

While interesting, I don't think this relates to anything I have said. I'll go on a tangent about sacred cows a bit later, though.

Returning to what @Malmuria said:

There was a thread about social mechanics a while back, and I said I was ambivalent about them (I think I made an offhand reference to FKR and then @Snarf Zagyg kept making new threads and now here we are). And the more I think about it, I think the way that 5e handles it (i.e., by not handling, whether by design or not (probably not)) is actually fine, and is actually a feature, not a bug. It provides a context (fantasy archetypes and strong characterization) and then steps out of the way, and I think people like this. That is, we can look at people describing play experiences that don't utilize the 5e rules and ask if there is a better system for them, and maybe there is! Maybe they just don't know enough about other games. On the other hand, there's maybe something about the 'provide context, then get out of the way' approach of 5e that is actually a preference for groups.

"The context that D&D 5E gives" isn't about sacred cows.

Let's imagine. There's a group of friends, who don't care for tactical combat or resource management or whatnot. They care about social interactions and solving riddles. They also don't like fleshed out social mechanics for whatever reason, maybe it breaks their immersion and forces them to treat the process as a game, or maybe they think that no ruleset can capture the complex nature of social interactions (though, while I wasn't ever in a combat, I was actually trained for combat unlike pretty much all other conscripts, and I don't think there's a ruleset that can capture the combat either, but I digress), or whatever.

Let's imagine. That group of friends really ####ing cares for D&D. They know, and they give more than two tugs of a dead dog's cock, about the difference between a fighter and a barbarian, or a cleric and a paladin, or a wizard and a sorcerer. They already know D&D stuff. Using 5E doesn't really give them any advantage over playing a slovesochka.

Let's imagine. That group of friends doesn't care for D&D. They don't know, and don't give two tugs of a dead dog's cock, about the difference between a fighter and a barbarian, or a kenku or aarakocra. They don't care for D&D stuff. Using 5E doesn't really give them any advantage over playing a slovesochka.

The benefits of using a ruleset doesn't justif the costs of maintaining it. I can behind that. I'm playing in a World of Darkness campaign, where we chose to just throw the rulebook out of the window and play freeform, because it doesn't make any sense to use a thick book that doesn't enhance the experience in any way.

---

On sacred cows. I hate sacred cows.

Not just "I don't like'em very much", but "oh my ugliest fattest cannibal gods, I hate sacred cows with white-hot hatred, whiter than Hank Hill and hotter than George Clooney, unless they are in a form of a burger with a pineapple slice and jalapeños".

Sacred cows are just stupid. The thing either works, or it doesn't. I don't give a single flying ####, whether it worked in the different time and different context.

For an absolutely egregious example, there's Bethesda's Fallout. They have caps, the Brotherhood of Steel, the Enclave, the supermutants, the deathclaws and the radscorpions for no goddamn reason other than "oh, it's a FO game, so of course we have to have these things that will make a Fallout-theme park complete!". None of these make any sense in FO3 or FO4 or FO76 that I haven't played. It's just stupid. Caps, at least, doesn't even make sense in New Vegas, and I'm in love with New Vegas.

OK, Fallout rant out of the way, somewhat serious talk. How serious an alcoholic can really be? Doesn't matter.

Conservativism always drives me nuts. I'm all for keeping things worth having, but as soon as they outlive their usefulness, we must get rid of em. It doesn't make any sense to keep both the modifies and the scores, or alignment if it doesn't do anything, or races if there's no use for them.

I'm so happy I'm aint a D&D head designer. Half of the community would want to burn me on a stake and then do unspeakable things to my charred corpse.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The ask is not that anyone be "deferential," but just that they try to be polite and helpful...or else not reply at all, which is always an option. Further, I've said in this thread and other threads that I respect everyone's depth of rpg knowledge (including to you, directly), and that I'm here to learn; that's not, I don't think, treating anyone "poorly." (In one instance I made a facetious post that came off poorly; I deleted it and apologized).

Yes, the thing is this is entirely one sided. You are complaining about people that are bringing ideas from outside D&D to people that know only D&D, and requiring they be polite when doing so. No one is saying that D&D players have to be polite to people that bring in outside ideas. Your request is unidirectional. Further, the overwhelming mode of engaging is politeness. It's only in the face of repeated attacks and demands to respect 5e that things get testy, which is pretty natural given the abuse that gets tossed at people not in the in-group of 5e or who are, but are treated as if they are not because they acknowledge that the out-group is also valid.

No, your claims are mostly smoke that disguise a requirement that some deference be shown while none is returned. It's positional and is effectively claiming that the 5e in-group is in a superior position and needs to be approached as such. It's the setup that allows dismissal unless a petitioner is polite enough. And, for @Campbell, even his politeness isn't enough to keep him from being attacked by Snarf. You're proposing that people that want to challenge the in-group thought process commit to an approach that doesn't at all improve anything other than a few of the in-group's feelings about how valid their group is.

I mean, I have to almost post every single time that I play and love 5e, and I still get repeated statements despite this that I just hate 5e and that's why I'm saying what I say, or, even better, that I just don't get 5e.

Effectively, you are tone policing.

 

[Manbearcat]

Well, I still kind of object to using the term "system" for that (I think I'd prefer "process") but I get your point and don't really disagree with it.

I’m not wedded to the word “system” there. “Process” (to my mind) does the same lifting so I’m fine either way.

Do you like “process” there because you feel like it can be used informally whereas you think “system” connotes formal?

That makes sense based on other things you’ve said (but I’m certainly willing to be corrected).

I use “system” because it connects with all aspects of my life (from education to work to martial arts/sports). So when I say “system”, I’m talking about the component parts and the holistic machine (those principally-integrated component parts) that provides the volitional force to get the thing done (whatever it is).

An easy for instance of this is “there was a system in place governing the generation of the 12 to 6 downward movement of a curveball even before it was consciously unlocked and formalized in the form of grip + arm slot + torque generation.”

You could probably just replace process for system there but my brain reflexively goes to system.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Conservativism always drives me nuts. I'm all for keeping things worth having, but as soon as they outlive their usefulness, we must get rid of em. It doesn't make any sense to keep both the modifies and the scores, or alignment if doesn't do anything, or races if there's no uses for them.

I'm so happy I'm aint a D&D head designer. Half of the community would want to burn me on a stake and the do unspeakable things to my charred corpse.

Which is probably why you'd be a poor choice to be the lead designer for a category-leader like D&D.

Yeah, it's tough having to work with constraints! It's difficult dealing with legacies of any kind. And a lot of times, it would be so much better to jettison things and start fresh.

But that's not usually what works in the real world. Consumers have expectations. They have reliance interests. If you become the brand manager for Coca Cola, you can't suddenly say, "I hate sacred cows. Carbonated sugar water is terrible for you. I am replacing all Coke with a healthy, non-carbonated beverage. We will still call it Coke, but let's get rid of the sacred cows that keep us from making the drink we should be making!"

I mean, you could ... but your posterior will quickly be meeting the street.

(The only thing you are incorrect about is saying it's half the community ... you'd be so lucky!)

 

[Aldarc]

Is there an actual point to this thread any more than people playing a hot potato blame game with each other while talking over each other?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I’m not wedded to the word “system” there. “Process” (to my mind) does the same lifting so I’m fine either way.

Do you like “process” there because you feel like it can be used informally whereas you think “system” connotes formal?

No, as I said, its because "system" implies, well, systematic (that is to say structured) where process just says something happens in a general way. Some ad-hoc GMing decisions are systematic, but some of them are anything but.

That makes sense based on other things you’ve said (but I’m certainly willing to be corrected).

I use “system” because it connects with all aspects of my life (from education to work to martial arts/sports). So when I say “system”, I’m talking about the component parts and the holistic machine (those principally-integrated component parts) that provides the volitional force to get the thing done (whatever it is).

An easy for instance of this is “there was a system in place governing the generation of the 12 to 6 downward movement of a curveball even before it was consciously unlocked and formalized in the form of grip + arm slot + torque generation.”

You could probably just replace process for system there but my brain reflexively goes to system.

Everyone has their things about that. Its why semantics is difficult.

 

[Manbearcat]

Is there some reason in particular you replied to me for this? I honestly don't know.

I assume you read my OP? Does your comment have to do with that? Is this related to the Elusive Shift? Or the several resources I posted for people interested in RPG theory?

Was this a long explanation of your "kiss the ring" comment? I have no idea ... did you not mean to reply to me?

Your post was about disconnects and disagreements about language and concepts and culture and about how we keep playing out this “Time is a Flat Circle” loop (or at least I thought it was). That seems to be a common lament you have.

I just figured I’d use your post to clarify that my engagements on here aren’t about culture or disconnects with the people I’m speaking with or about imposing language or any of that.

For me it’s about ferreting out my own thoughts, clarifying them + resolving them or reorienting them with those who disagree with me, and (overwhelmingly, though I have had purchase with active commentators here and there) reaching disconnected, curious individuals out there who are intrigued by the conversation.

 

[Malmuria]

Yes, the thing is this is entirely one sided. You are complaining about people that are bringing ideas from outside D&D to people that know only D&D, and requiring they be polite when doing so. No one is saying that D&D players have to be polite to people that bring in outside ideas. Your request is unidirectional. Further, the overwhelming mode of engaging is politeness. It's only in the face of repeated attacks and demands to respect 5e that things get testy, which is pretty natural given the abuse that gets tossed at people not in the in-group of 5e or who are, but are treated as if they are not because they acknowledge that the out-group is also valid.

No, your claims are mostly smoke that disguise a requirement that some deference be shown while none is returned. It's positional and is effectively claiming that the 5e in-group is in a superior position and needs to be approached as such. It's the setup that allows dismissal unless a petitioner is polite enough. And, for @Campbell, even his politeness isn't enough to keep him from being attacked by Snarf. You're proposing that people that want to challenge the in-group thought process commit to an approach that doesn't at all improve anything other than a few of the in-group's feelings about how valid their group is.

I mean, I have to almost post every single time that I play and love 5e, and I still get repeated statements despite this that I just hate 5e and that's why I'm saying what I say, or, even better, that I just don't get 5e.

Effectively, you are tone policing.

The context of the discussion is important in understanding others' frame of reference and situating one's own comment appropriately

The trouble with jargon, however, is that while it can help in-groups communicate more effectively, it is also incredibly off-putting to other people; in fact, it is can be considered both a feature and a bug. If you've ever spoken to a professional (a doctor, a lawyer, a banker) who can't be bothered to explain things and "dumb it down" for a "mere layman" or dealt with a close group of friends that talks entirely in "in-jokes" and doesn't explain them, you understand what this means. When you have invented terms, people will use them as a weapon to exclude others- "Oh, you don't understand what I mean by XXXXXX? Well, obviously you just don't get it."

The context of the discussion is certainly important. The problem comes in if someone posts about the 'World's Greatest,' for example. Imo, that's a clear signal that the discussion is meant to be accessible to a wide group of people who might not have access or interest in a specific vocabulary.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, here's a thing that has come up a lot lately.

What do you want to get out of this discussion? Are you interested in debate, or arguing with Snarf until one of you "wins"? Are you interested in Making Your Point? Are you interested in Learning about Snarf's point of view? Or something else?

You and Snarf each have reasons you are engaging in this discussion. They may not match up. The things you think are important he may not give a whit about, and he won't respond to things he doesn't care about. You don't get to structure his interests, any more than he gets to structure yours.

Discussion is, in many, many ways, like RPGs. Stated or not, there's some things you are looking for in engaging in the activity. It pays ot make sure that everyone's goals, while not necessarily similar, are at least somewhat aligned and compatible, or things won't work out well.

Ah, here's a good example. @Campbell makes a reasonable request for another poster to engage with what they are saying rather than what the other poster is creating as a strawman. Then another member of the in-group, @Umbran, views this exchange where one poster is politely requesting another to stop engaging in bad faith, but sorts it by in and out groups. Snarf is a member of the in-group, so @Umbran starts by asking out-group member @Campbell to be clear about what they want from the conversation, because the blame must lie in @Campbell not having the same objective as @Snarf Zagyg. Please note how @Snarf Zagyg was not similarly engaged -- his objectives are not questioned, despite being the aggressor in this exchange, but instead prioritized. The power of the in-group!

 

[Ovinomancer]

The context of the discussion is important in understanding others' frame of reference and situating one's own comment appropriately

Yes, and I assume the context of discussion is always that 5e needs deference if it's flaws or issues are to be discussed or if another game is to be discussed. Because I've clearly seen this pushback in threads that are in general and clearly not specific about 5e. Like, say, this thread where the topic is about how games are discussed in relation to each other. It's very clear that the deference to the 5e in-group is still a strong expectation in this context.

As for frame of reference, what privileges yours over mine?