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

[payn]

Folks might be too close to the RPG theory discussions to assume that cinema discussions are not incendiary or segmented. I mean, all summer we got treated to Marty Scorsese popping a squat on Marvel flicks and telling us how they are "ruining cinema." RPG theory discussions are not unique as a topic.

 

[Aldarc]

I briefly touched upon that (or, at a minimum, was thinking about that) when I wrote the following:
Finally, the most frustrating thing about many conversations regarding RPG theory is the extent to which they are forced to continually re-occur. RPGs sprung from a loose hobbyist market, and have both attracted a number of very smart people but also usually lacked the type of money or prestige that would generally attract the attention of traditional academia. Which means that the wheel keeps getting re-invented when it comes to RPG theory.

Vides games in general are similar to movies, in that sense. You have an entertainment that is originally viewed as unserious. Quickly, the sheer amount of money requires that companies (and the people that work for those companies) begin to approach the field in a more systemic manner; what works, what doesn't work. You need standardized language to approach certain problems and to communicate the needs and solutions to other professionals in the field.

The money also means that you have subsidiary and collateral sources spring up- independent (and professional, and money-making) third parties begin reviewing and critiquing video games- and they will use a shared language as well. You have agreed-upon divisions of the market into different segments with different goals, and standards, and comparators, and language for reviewing. And you have academic study which can deepen (embiggen?) the level of analysis.

This is largely lacking in the TTRPG sphere. IMO.

Most definitely. Money and popularity definitely factor into why discussion of theory has progressed far faster in video games than in TTRPGs. It's also why I don't think that it's a coincidence that the flow of theory is not from TTRPGs to Computer Games, but, rather, from Computer Games to TTRPGs. People are bringing video game terms, knowledge, and theoretical frameworks to the TTRPG space, occasionally to the consternation of those tabletop gamers unfamiliar with computer game discourse and frameworks.

Folks might be too close to the RPG theory discussions to assume that cinema discussions are not incendiary or segmented. I mean, all summer we got treated to Marty Scorsese popping a squat on Marvel flicks and telling us how they are "ruining cinema." RPG theory discussions are not unique as a topic.

I know Marvel stans like to jump at the defense of these films, but I also think that it's important to understand where Scorsese is coming from with his criticisms.

 

[payn]

I know Marvel stans like to jump at the defense of these films, but I also think that it's important to understand where Scorsese is coming from with his criticisms.

Sure, I agree with much of what Marty says, but not his part about defining what cinema is and isn't. He is making MCU the bad guy of a situation he doesnt like. A lot like folks like to do about RPGs. Swap Federico Fellini with Gary Gygax and its the same story.

 

[gorice]

Great set of references! To quote from one of the articles in item (1):

Finally, RPG theorizing participates in the politics of culture: To theorize and critically discern RPGs, one must develop both knowledge of and a sense of taste for RPGs. By demonstrating such knowledge and taste in evaluating, appreciating, or rejecting some subject matter, we accrue social and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1984). Every theoretical contribution is thus fundamentally intertwined with one’s social position: to do RPG theory is always also to manage one’s public impression as a theorist within specific (intended) social networks (Goffman 1959). And since RPG theory holds only meager academic and societal status, most RPG theory and criticism is produced by critical amateurs for critical amateurs. “Taste,” as Hennion (2005, 135) puts it, “is a productive activity of critical amateurs”.

I think it really needs to be stressed that denying the validity of critical or aesthetic judgments made by critical amateurs (or anyone else) is also a productive activity of critical amateurs (the main one, if Twitter is anything to go by). Critical subcultures do not like anything they perceive as a threat to or indictment of their tastes and habits. This is something that has shifted noticably within my lifetime: we've gone from hegemonic assumption that artistic taste can or should be normative, to a hegemonic assumption that it is wrong to make normative assumptions about art.

In plain English: in my experience, a lot of people in online 'nerd' subcultures, especially in TTRPGs, are very hostile to the idea that anything can be good or bad for reasons other than moral ones. This really impacts people's ability to think about the culture they consume, and leads to a sort of knee-jerk anti-intellectualism when it comes to understanding what we actually do when we play RPGs.

 

[gorice]

Kind of tangent, but…

I think that the main problem with any kind of TTRPG discussion, theory, and whatnot is the fuzziness of the term itself. If:

• Solving tactical and strategic problems in hostile, “fantasy Vietnam” environment…
• Char-op and hacking and slashing…
• Immersing oneself in an imaginary world, speaking in funny voices and all that…
• Experiencing a linear, GM-authored story with an agreement between the participants to not “break” it…
• Collaborative storytelling in a director stance and all that genre emulation jazz…
• Playing a solo game with journaling and random tables to generate prompts…

…is TTRPGing, then, what isn't? At which point we can say that activity X isn't a TTRPG? Even the “tabletop” part is a questionable criterion — we live in 2E 21 and a lot of games are played online, and even before that, many games don't really have a use for a table.

Of course people butt heads all the ####ing time! Why wouldn't they?

My working definition of TTRPGs is somthing like 'games that are played using both rules and the logic of a shared imaginary space'. I'm sure it's not watertight, but I think it gets at the common thread.

Most "internet" TTRPG theory (as opposed to the occasional academic work) tends to treat TTRPGs as a single things to be "solved." In the OP, that's generally what I think of when I think of as an issue- I think that different TTRPGs serve different audiences (tables)- and what works for some doesn't work for others.

The thing is, 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).

Hint: A lot of RPG theory-talk does forget its limitations, and either stakes out an explicit claim of being TEH TRVTH! or slides into taking a position of general validity that it does not deserve. And then folks are understandably put out that that... arrogance, for lack of a better term.

This is why I advocated for starting with what playstyle or goals of play you intend to discuss.

This last bit seems like good advice to me. I'd like to reiterate what I said above in reply to Snarf Zagyg: TTRPG theory makes a lot more sense if you approach it as a heuristic developed to serve particular technical or aesthetic goals.

 

[MGibster]

I am looking forward to the Criterion Collection print of D&D and Cyborge Commando.

 

[Campbell]

The main frameworks we use to discuss roleplaying games all came from designers trying to solve particular design problems

GM as Storyteller or Traditional : The folks at White Wolf Magazine, Mark Rein-Hagen, and John Wick were all trying to solve how do we use these war games to like tell stories man? Much of the theoretical foundations a lot of our community relies on came mostly from this crew. They also presented their case pretty damn provocatively. Playing Dirty, Whitewolf Magazine, and Vampire weren't always the most gentle to the gamist inclinations of many D&D gamers. We often forget exactly how much Whitewolf magazine was basically throwing bombs at what was mainstream play then.

The Forge : We like what Vampire is trying to be, but we feel it fails at it. How do we make games that tell stories and are about things? Also pretentious, but like doggedly focused on laying out the ground work for Story Now play.

The OSR : We like lost something man. Let's rediscover what was lost. Get back to playing games with referees. Also pretty damn pretentious. Sandboxes uber alles.

Nordic LARP : We like lost the plot man by focusing too much on plot. Let's focus on characters and experience. Also let's throw away progression and the idea that LARPs are games. We want to feel like our characters, immerse in them.

Basically all these frameworks are provocative, and have communities that sometimes fail prey to pretentiousness. Because we're dealing more with artistic movements. It's not a body of criticism. It's not scientific theory, even if sometimes taxonomies are made. It's people trying to make frameworks to guide creative decision making. Game designers, GMs, and players alike.

 

[Malmuria]

Honestly even discussing a lot of the games I like or the experience I am after often gets taken as theorizing when it's a whole lot less theoretical than most of the stuff Justin Alexander talks about on the Alexandrian. Sometimes calling discussion of play outside the norm as "RPG theory" feels like a way to basically dismiss it and people that like it as ivory tower elitists. That sucks.

Again, it probably depends on the context. As @Snarf Zagyg said, If you can be confident that your audience will follow the use of special terminology, then employing it is a great way to streamline discussion. But if discussion participants lack access to that language, the conversation will becoming more insular. This is probably to the detriment of the theory in question, as it tends to become self referential.

 

[prabe]

The main frameworks we use to discuss roleplaying games all came from designers trying to solve particular design problems

GM as Storyteller or Traditional : The folks at White Wolf Magazine, Mark Rein-Hagen, and John Wick were all trying to solve how do we use these war games to like tell stories man? Much of the theoretical foundations a lot of our community relies on came mostly from this crew. They also presented their case pretty damn proactively. Playing Dirty, Whitewolf Magazine, and Vampire weren't always the most gentle to the gamist inclinations of many D&D gamers.

The Forge : We like what Vampire is trying to be, but we feel it fails at it. How do we make games that tell stories and are about things? Also pretentious, but like doggedly focused on laying out the ground work for Story Now play.

The OSR : We like lost something man. Let's rediscover what was lost. Get back to playing games with referees. Also pretty damn pretentious. Sandboxes uber alles.

Nordic LARP : We like lost the plot man by focusing too much on plot. Let's focus on characters and experience. Also let's throw away progression and the idea that LARPs are games. We want to feel like our characters, immerse in them.

Basically all these frameworks are provocative, and have communities that sometimes fail prey to pretentiousness. Because we're dealing more with artistic movements. It's not a body of criticism. It's not scientific theory, even if sometimes taxonomies are made. It's people trying to make frameworks to guide creative decision making. Game designers, GMs, and players alike.

This as a progression isn't radically unlike just about any progression of movements (so to speak) in any art form, or criticism thereof, that I know of. Just about every movement is in conversation with what has come before, and usually a direct reaction (often but not always in opposition) to an immediate predecessor.

 

[Malmuria]

I think it really needs to be stressed that denying the validity of critical or aesthetic judgments made by critical amateurs (or anyone else) is also a productive activity of critical amateurs (the main one, if Twitter is anything to go by). Critical subcultures do not like anything they perceive as a threat to or indictment of their tastes and habits. This is something that has shifted noticably within my lifetime: we've gone from hegemonic assumption that artistic taste can or should be normative, to a hegemonic assumption that it is wrong to make normative assumptions about art.

In plain English: in my experience, a lot of people in online 'nerd' subcultures, especially in TTRPGs, are very hostile to the idea that anything can be good or bad for reasons other than moral ones. This really impacts people's ability to think about the culture they consume, and leads to a sort of knee-jerk anti-intellectualism when it comes to understanding what we actually do when we play RPGs.

Without getting too "academic," the Bourdieu reference in the paragraph I quoted seems intended to claim that these discussions are themselves ways to establish authority over "taste." This is not necessarily tendentious, as people can do this without really thinking about it. For example, with regards to ttrpgs, 5e obviously takes up the most air. This means that discussion of other games is always striving to contrast itself with 5e, to show what they do different and better. When it comes to talking about the game itself, this might be valid, but there is also an element of judgement and tastemaking involved. For example, OSR discussions will often assert that a PC is not "special" and should not have "8 pages of backstory." Part of this is a best practice: let character emerge through play. But, of course, there are layers of social judgement in those statements that extend beyond analysis of the game itself.