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

[loverdrive]

Eh. I know you used "perceived" in this, but I think there are many, many systems where if you try to do that without having a clear idea of how the mechanics fit together you're going to get pretty bad outcomes. While not perhaps as severe as doing computer mods, its not a trivial skill.

Yeah, I can attest to that.

But unlike videogame modding, the difficulty isn't like lion. It's like a shark. It's lurking underwater, out of sight, but still just as scary.

You ain't gonna run into a roadblock while homebrewing a Star Wars D&D or whatnot. Doesn't mean it's easy, though.

Well, that's got more to do with the fact that for many of them, other RPGs effectively don't exist. They don't often even know there are such things.

The snake bites its ass and the uroboros is complete. Other games "don't exist" for a normie because the field is absolutely dominated by a 362.87kg gorilla, or was the 362.87kg gorilla so well-fed because other games don't exist? I have only nine grades of education, so I can't answer that.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Snarf Zagyg

I think you show a fundamentally flawed understanding of the communities and games you are making comparative judgements about. The only meaningful difference on this score is the size of the communities. Are you honestly going to claim that Apocalypse World is a not a flexible, hackable game, mostly guarded by norms? Those norms are different. Sure. The idea that the community surrounding D&D is somehow more experimental and less rigid than the indie RPG community seems fairly rich to me. What are you basing that claim on?

First, I would ask that you not "at" me- unfortunately, there is one person that I have on my permaignore list because (from my point of view) this individual is unable to stop harassing people, including me. I can tell from the way that my numbers are off on the posts that this individual is in the thread- and I know that they enjoy talking about me by replying to posts that "at" me. So ... that's a request, please.

Second, I think in your desire to argue with me, you aren't understanding what I am writing. Given that we already have people making posts that are nothing more than typical edition war BS (really? it's 2021?) I will respectfully decline the invitation ... mostly because, and I will stress this again- this thread was never about this. Just because a certain group of people wants to re-litigate 5e again doesn't mean I have to. If you agree with what I wrote, great. If not, that's cool too. Given how you chose to misunderstand and incorrectly paraphrase what I wrote, I don't think we will have an agreement. It's okay. Happens all the time!

 

[Malmuria]

Wow. The level of irony in that last sentence is staggering, outside of the insult to @Campbell by calling him properly deferential. This is more of the "if you want to tell me something, you have to be nice and validate me before introducing an idea I might disagree with.. On the other hand, if you aren't, then it's your fault when you get treated poorly. After all, you deserve it for your failings."

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).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I can attest to that.

But unlike videogame modding, the difficulty isn't like lion. It's like a shark. It's lurking underwater, out of sight, but still just as scary.

You ain't gonna run into a roadblock while homebrewing a Star Wars D&D or whatnot. Doesn't mean it's easy, though.

Yeah, you're more likely to find out things just don't work as planned in play. And in some cases that there's no easy patch.

The snake bites its ass and the uroboros is complete. Other games "don't exist" for a normie because the field is absolutely dominated by a 362.87kg gorilla, or was the 362.87kg gorilla so well-fed because other games don't exist? I have only nine grades of education, so I can't answer that.

Having been around at the start of the hobby, I think its a bit from each column. D&D got big very, very fast, so even in the early days it heavily dominated, but it at least looked like there were a few early on that at least looked could have been competition. Didn't work out that way, however, and as time went by, that became less and less possible, simply because of D&D's spread (and the fact there were relatively few of the games involved that even had the anything like the longevity; I can probably count on one hand the games that sprung up in the 70's that I can think of that are still around).

But in any case, its long since reached the point where (barring some bizarre event they factor into) if someone hears about an RPG in mainstream media, its overwhelming likely to be D&D.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

Out of curiosity, what makes you think it allows a broader experience than, say, AD&D2 or D&D3e? Your example about the negotiation is one I could have seen showing up in either of those.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't think any further explanation will suffice, so I will reiterate what I just said.

D&D (and 5e) is the sum total of not just the rules, but the playing community and the norms. The expectations. The tensions between RAW and freeform groups. The expectations of those who want giant set-piece battles ever session with minis, and those who prefer a flowing game with very occasional ToTM combat.

And that's why this never gets anywhere (putting aside, for the second, that this thread was never about 5e). When there are those who discuss the flexibility or "big tent" nature of 5e, they aren't discussing a diversity of outcome, necessarily- D&D is very good at D&D- which is to say, a kind of fantasy that never existed with its own norms that can incorporate anything into it from spaceships to anime-inspirations, because it never bothered to be something more specific. On the other hand, it does allow for a multiplicity of process in order to be D&D; you can have a group get together at lunch and play some diceless 'D&D' or have someone play it as nearly a wargame or have another group incorporate 4e elements and skill challenges into 5e (there are plenty of places to find how to do that if you don't want to do it on your own).

That diversity of process is something that is definitely unusual in most games, which lack the history, community, and norms of D&D- most games expect that you will be playing the game as it is designed.

And that's it. That's the fundamental disconnect between what you are saying, and what others are saying. You keep asking for people to explain things to you in a matter of X (D&D is only good at D&D- what you call a conceptual space and I call diversity of outcome), and people respond by saying, "No, it's actually Y that we're talking about." (That D&D, because of the history, norms, 3PP, community, etc., has a great diversity of process and playing styles that are not encapsulated within the rules qua rules).

This disconnect in what people are discussing underlies a great deal of the disagreement, and not just about D&D. If people don't agree with a priori terminology and theoretical models you are using, they are unlikely to be able to explain things to you in a manner that you will find convincing; however, by the same token, you will be unlikely to convince them.

So if you were to abstract things out a little, and (to avoid jargon) simply state that D&D is better at some things, other games are better at other things- I think there would be broad agreement. But the actual disagreement is something I don't think will ever be resolved- because some people prefer systems that are flexible, hackable, and have large communities and norms regarding them, and others prefer systems that provide for any flexibility within the ruleset qua ruleset, and I doubt that this difference in approach is likely to be bridged.

I want to be clear on what my as are in these discussions.

A wise man once told me (he’ll know who he is), “don’t try to change the minds of the people you’re engaging with. Just engage with them. Through that engagement, dozens more minds will engage with your thoughts and there may be deeper interest and/or uptake on what you’re saying by the many, many silent onlookers out there.”

I mean, I used quotes, but that is the Manbearcatian-unabridged version of what he said.

And you know what?

He was bloody well right!

There are only a few handful of active participants whose minds I have either actually changed or made some kind of dent in their mental model on any of this stuff. But there are dozens and dozens of folks who aren’t terribly active in which my considerable efforts on here have made a positive difference to their play.

So that is my general goal here anymore:

Give something for the silent majority out there to reflect upon in their own play and maybe pique their curiosity about play and games they’ve yet to engage with.

And my secondary aim is to do that with as little grief as possible from folks who consider me some kind of indie-game bogeyman (up to and included being called an ivory tower douche typically in the super secret wink wink nudge nudge say no more say no more passive aggressive way…).

It’s a sincere aim that is about reaching individual players. I’m not interested in a culture war. I’m not on any form of social media. I couldn’t give a crap less about who the majority is, what the market share is. Reminding me of this over and over and over and over reminds me (as if I needed another reminder after the role vs roll storytelling takeover of late 80s-90s, the OSR vs Forge, and the 4e Edition War) that it is, in fact, a culture war to a great number of folks out there.

It’s not to me. I’m one dude. Interested in having vigorous, thoughtful exchanges about gaming so maybe one or two or ten disconnected onlookers might say “huh…that’s interesting…let me hear more” or “let me check that out.”

So anyone on here who thinks that you’re having this charged exchange with me where my aim is to change your mind? You’re not having the exchange you think you are.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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).

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.

 

[Umbran]

@Snarf Zagyg

Please talk to me. Not at me. Please address what I am actually saying and not what you imagine to be saying.

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.

I am just saying that like every other game D&D has a conceptual space it works best in. That conceptual space is not fundamentally more broad in my estimation.

Not fundamentally more broad... than what, specifically? Did I miss a post specifying it? If so, my apologies, and ignore the rest of this post.

If not - I am darned sure we can name games that are fundamentally narrower than D&D in intent and design.

I'll start with one - Ashen Stars. it is a GUMSHOE based sci-fi game. The authors tell you up front that it is designed to do mysteries, and sci-fi procedurals. The PCs are specifically assumed to be the crew of a ship of troubleshooters-for-hire, and the character generation procedure is intended to make sure there's a set of In-flight and Groundside roles filled, and adventure design assumes a certain specific set of relevant skills are definitely covered by the person in each role. IIRC, they even specifically advise a minimum of 5 players, as at less than that some people will double-up on roles, and then may not be free to act in one of their roles when needed.

As noted, the adventures are expected to be sci fi mysteries and procedural missions presented to the characters (very Star Trek), with strong advisement to have an A Plot and B Plot running, focusing on different characters. Choosing to not take a mission means... there's no mission, and the PCs do not get paid - sandbox play is not supported. Resolution of the procedure or mystery is expected to include confronting an ethical dilemma or choice the PCs have to face.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So anyone on here who thinks that you’re having this charged exchange with me where my aim is to change your mind? You’re not having the exchange you think you are.

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?

 

[Thomas Shey]

[mers have that adventuring is like fundamental to the roleplaying game experience. For a good deal of us that's just not the case. I think a lot of people just have never really fought against the edges of the game in the same way I have so they don't see those edges nearly as sharply.

Even in games that do, the degree of niche protection games in the D&D sphere typically embrace is pretty foreign to much of the gaming market. There's usually the idea that a character has some sort of purpose within the group that is not completely covered by others, but its to much less a degree.