S/Z: On the Difficulties of RPG Theory & Criticism

[prabe]

That's a generic enough definition that it should get most RPGs. It also captures a lot of wargames, boardgames, and other things, though. Take Gloomhaven -- RPG or boardgame? Or Warhammer 40k, wargame or RPG with armies?

I'm not knocking the intent -- it's just a really hard thing to define RPGs. I've proposed definitions before that have fallen flat in the face of this or that example. I think that the best path forward is to offer a definition that works for the majority of RPGs but doesn't grab other games too much. IE, one that has grey areas of "shrug, maybe?" but doesn't get Monopoly involved. And, that's not easy, either.

What makes it tricky (or trickier) is that some games that really don't seem like RPGs (TO ME) are still at least toying with narrative/story telling. Gloomhaven comes to mind; my experience of it is a pure tactics game with lots of flavor, but apparently there are some people who think of it as an RPG, or at least there's discussion about whether it is one. FFG's various Lovecraftian cooperative games have gotten more and more story-ish, but they don't feel like RPGs (TO ME), and in fact the more story-ish they get the less I like them (because to the extent they feel like an RPG, they feel like an RPG with a bad GM). Anything that tries to get at narratives that emerge from play is going to leave out what has been termed a "choreographed novel" elsewhere, which might not be my preferred style of play but which I wouldn't say isn't an RPG.

 

[Fenris-77]

** So, it occurs to me that maybe your definition of RPGs is also necessary but not sufficient. It would appear that the general "you have players and a shared fiction which is developed through interaction of the players" is good stuff and covers those RPGs I can think of, but it also gets other things, so it's not a sufficient definition -- it's not limiting enough. But, it is necessary to RPGs to meet this definition? I think so.

That quote is right out of the Meilahti School, and you probably need to grant the surrounding theory once you're aware of the source rather than sticking to the narrow quote. It's a lot more nuanced and descriptive than you're giving credit for. Meilahti School

 

[Fenris-77]

General question - are we all using the same definition of force? It seems like the definition here is roughly the GNS one, The Technique of control over characters' thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player. If that's not the case for anyone in particular I'd love to know, mostly for curiosity's sake.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That quote is right out of the Meilahti School, and you probably need to grant the surrounding theory once you're aware of the source rather than sticking to the narrow quote. It's a lot more nuanced and descriptive than you're giving credit for. Meilahti School

I know, I've seen it. There's a bit of slight of hand in the definition if it's being attributed to the Meilahti school, because they require a GM to be an RPG. The definition, presented outside of the Meilahti school, is better as it doesn't require a GM. The key weakness to the Meilahti school, as I've read of it, is the focus on the GM as the lynchpin of an RPG. The GM has final authority, the GM must exist (you have have more than one, but at least one), etc. They allow for rotation of the GM duties, but that still doesn't capture games like Fiasco, which don't have any point where the Meilahti defined GM responsibilities all congregate in a single player. It also has issues with player constraint of GM ability to narrate, which other games have, preventing the GM from having the sole authority to dictate what's in a scene and what's possible within a scene. Take games that allow players to introduce content, for instance. These immedately thwart the GM's authority to define what's in a scene or what's actions are allowed in a scene as the players have the authority to introduce content and change the scene after framing.

It's an interesting theory, and there's definitely some useful bits, but it's too focused around the GM authority to account for many of the current games that have such features -- FATE, PbtA, Burning Wheel, Mouseguard, etc. Further, I think that if you modify the theory to include those games, it becomes muddy outside of the most generalizable statements.

 

[prabe]

General question - are we all using the same definition of force? It seems like the definition here is roughly the GNS one, The Technique of control over characters' thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player. If that's not the case for anyone in particular I'd love to know, mostly for curiosity's sake.

I think we've been focusing more on GM Force, as opposed to Player Force (especially PvP, which seems more strongly implied), but this doesn't seem far off.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Ovinomancer - My main point was more that a broader reading takes care of some of your examples like 40K.

I'd agree that Meilahti's insistence on a GM makes things a bit sticky. I don't think the theory addresses the extent to which the system can constrain things like the limits of power passed on to the players, which Meilahti has as the sole provenance of the GM, but games like FATE and the rest you mention have baked into the system. It is interesting though, for sure, especially set next to GNS, which I'm not a huge fan of in general, although that too has some very useful bits.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer - My main point was more that a broader reading takes care of some of your examples like 40K.

Sure, but I was taking on the definition without reference to the Meilahti school because it wasn't referenced as such. I think that, cleaved from the school, it's valid on it's own as a necessary but insufficient definition of RPGs.

Amusingly, it occurred to me tgat while a friendly session of 40K may not qualify, a tournament would, as there are table judges and even, usually, a loose storyline in a 40k game day tourney. Fun to ponder.

I'd agree that Meilahti's insistence on a GM makes things a bit sticky. I don't think the theory addresses the extent to which the system can constrain things like the limits of power passed on to the players, which Meilahti has as the sole provenance of the GM, but games like FATE and the rest you mention have baked into the system. It is interesting though, for sure, especially set next to GNS, which I'm not a huge fan of in general, although that too has some very useful bits.

Absulotely nothing to add to this! Agreed.

 

[Manbearcat]

Speaking of which, one more before I have to run (also to Manbearcat-

Imagine the following system:

On success, DM must: "Yes, and."
On failure, DM must: "Yes, but."

Game provides E&E for both "yes and" and "yes but."
Player may continue after a "yes but" with "escalating consequences;" after third "escalating consequence" Player gets a "this goes on your permanent record." With E&E for that as well.

Now, is this an example of a system that allows for player agency, and constrains the DM?
Do E&E for the "and" and the "but" provide sufficient constraints?
Or does the fact that the DM can still choose to narrate any effect they want mean that it has insufficient constraints?

...I was thinking about this type of super-simplified system after MBC wrote that he appreciated having tools to help keep him from being a bad DM (I am paraphrasing). The more I think about it, though, the more I think that DMs that are incredibly concerned about these issues will necessarily ... be concerned about these issues, and seek to ensure that they are constrained, whereas DMs that are not concerned will not.

Is E&E "Explanation and Examples?"

That seems intuitive so I'm going to work off of that.

On the whole, the system you're describing sounds like 4e's Skill Challenges:

1) "Yes, and <new danger/obstacle interposes itself between you and goal>" for successes with E&E

2) "Yes, but <complication/escalation of present obstacle/adversity>" (fail forward) for failures with E&E

3) The gamestate/situation needs to change dynamically after each micro-outcome

4) Win Con (this # of successes for "a story win that is cemented in the fiction") or Loss Con (3 successes for a "story loss or setback that is cemented in the fiction")

AW/Blades and Strike (!) basic resolution + Clocks/Conflict has similar machinery. Dogs and Cortex+ are each subtly different, but they have DNA overlap.

E&E is extremely helpful, but (a) it all being player-facing and (b) the central ethos of play (not just for the conflict resolution machinery) is also extremely helpful imo.

 

[Umbran]

Name any game and these things exist.

Calvinball.

But, more seriously, we cannot have a cogent discussion in which we admit that constraints exist, but also we arbitrarily push back on restriction on player agency as BadWrongFun. And that latter happens. A lot.

 

[Fenris-77]

Calvinball.

But, more seriously, we cannot have a cogent discussion in which we admit that constraints exist, but also we arbitrarily push back on restriction on player agency as BadWrongFun. And that latter happens. A lot.

RPGs by their very nature contain some some elements that restrict player agency. People who refuse to admit that fact are hard to have cogent discussions with.