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

[pemerton]

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

This seems to get A Penny for My Thoughts, but that's not a RPG (contra Wikipedia, which I've just discovered classifies it as one). You might try and knock it out based on "shared fiction", but that's not going to be straightforward I don't think.

So I think your idea of going for core cases and then not fussing too much at the edges makes more sense (it's not like we're administering a RPG taxing statute, so precision isn't essential).

What distinguishes a RPG from a boardgame or boardgame-y wargame? That the fiction matters to resolution.

What distinguishes a RPG from a wargame in which the fiction does matter to resolution? That the non-referee participants engage the fiction, and declare actions, via a particular character who is their mediator/entrance into the shared fiction. Ie those participants, unlike the referee, don't engage the fiction via a "bird's eye view". Or to put it another way, their perspective is not purely authorial.

This also helps distinguish RPGs fro A Penny for My Thoughts. I think the idea that for non-referee participants, their "moves" in a RPG are centrally connected to the characters that they "own" is pretty key. Move away from that and we seem to be heading into "joint story creation" territory rather than "I'm a protagonist in the unfolding story" territory which is characteristic of non-referee participation in RPGing.

 

[pemerton]

Yes. So, you seem to say that as if it is assumed to be a good thing, and that the resulting criticism is relevant to anyone other than those doing the criticizing. I don't know if that's well-established....

Or, am I mistaken in assuming you want the criticism to actually be relevant? If you don't really care if your critical framework to reflect what works for actual players, then sure, you don't need to borrow from science.

Meanwhile... D&D 5e went not to critics, but to statistically relevant numbers of people actually playing games, and came back with what seems to be the most popular game ever.

Marketing is obviously an empirical endeavour (though not exclusively so - as well as being predictive, it also involves shaping market taste, and one could see WotC working on that during their 5e D&D roll out). But the fact that something is popular doesn't prove it's valuable. It may not even be relevant to its value!

I did recently read an article about how editors in commercial publishing houses are increasing their reliance on "big data" to guide their decisions about publication. I guess we could say that that will make publishing more "relevant". We may get less Ulysses or At Swim Two Birds, and more Harry Potter knock-offs.

If you want to run an argument that literature departments should all be replaced by marketing departments, go for it! But I'm pretty much taking it for granted that that's a flawed proposal - almost self-evidently so.

 

[pemerton]

I'm looking back at The Forge, and thinking of how sure, there were a couple good ideas in there, but how most of it was a colossal waste of everyone's time

Seriously?

Here's an excerpt from p 288 of the Apocalypse World rulebook (in the acknowledgements section):

The entire game design follows from "Narrativism: Story Now" by Ron Edwards​

As everyone knows, there's an entire family of games - PbtA - that follows from Apocalypse World. A colossal waste of everyone's time?

Single posts by Ron Edwards an Paul Czege on various Forge threads have been more use for my RPGing than the entirety of everything ever published by WotC in relation to GMing advice and techniques. The best book about GMing I've ever read - Luke Crane's Adventure Burner - would be inconceivable without The Forge (as would his games Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard and Torchbearer).

The idea that these insights, and the games and gaming traditions they have generated, are "a colossal waste of everyone's time" is frankly laughable.

 

[pemerton]

So, the rules for Cthulhu Dark told you what your setting was (the play field)? You did not create a single thing in that setting that was not defined by the rules? Your scenario, whatever it was, was 100% defined by the rules of the game? You could follow what was written down in the rulebook, step by step, minute by minute, and never created a single element in the game that wasn't defined by the rules?

I'd like to see that.

I don't get this. The rules of baseball don't tell you where to hit the ball, or how hard. Nor (I assume - I know cricket but not baseball) where to place all the fielders. Nor where to throw the ball if there are two players running. Those are all creative/tactical decisions made by the players. That's what makes it a game rather than a ritual. (Though even many rituals allow for adaptation or interpretation to some degree at least.)

I can tell you that I read out the rules - 2 A4 sides - while one of the other group members got us some food. Then I said "How about Boston c 1930" and the others said that was fine. Then the players chose their PCs - that's a name, a job and a description. Then I described a starting situation - given that one of the PCs was a law-firm secretary, one a journalist and one a longshoreman I decided that that was the secretary having to deliver some documents to the docks, where we went on collectively to establish that the journalist happened to be investigating issues about a freight company while the longshoreman was arguing with his superior. (Or something like that - it's a while ago now.)

How is that not reading the rules and then playing the game?

EDIT:

Not only is someone designing the campaign or setting before anyone can play, but, they continuously design the campaign and setting IN PLAY. And none of the changes that are made have any rules basis. They are completely in service to that campaign, but, the rules of the game are utterly silent on the issue.

No one designed a campaign/setting before we played Cthulhu Dark. Nor In a Wicked Age - as per the rules of the game, we consulted The Oracles to find out what was happening in our Wicked Age.

When we started our Classic Traveller game I rolled up a starting world after the players rolled up their PCs, and then rolled on the random patron table. The rules aren't silent on these matters - they support both the processes I just described.

When we started our first Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy games, I had written up 5 pregen PCs following the directions in the Marvel Heroic RP rulebook as influenced by the Cortex+ Hacker's Guide. I deliberately wrote them to suit either Vikings or Samurai. The players voted Vikings, and so we started and worked out what was happening in their village such that they got sent on a mission to the north.

Once we had agreed the PCs were heading north, I describe some stuff, including a giant wooden steading. There were Scene Distinctions specified. That's what the rules tell the GM to do. It's part of playing the game. It's not some weird thing where we do some precursor to play while playing.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

I can tell you that I read out the rules - 2 A4 sides - while one of the other group members got us some food. Then I said "How about Boston c 1930" and the others said that was fine. Then the players chose their PCs - that's a name, a job and a description. Then I described a starting situation - given that one of the PCs was a law-firm secretary, one a journalist and one a longshoreman I decided that that was the secretary having to deliver some documents to the docks, where we went on collectively to establish that the journalist happened to be investigating issues about a freight company while the longshoreman was arguing with his superior. (Or something like that - it's a while ago now.)[

How is that not reading the rules and then playing the game?

Really? The rules defined Boston c 1930? The rules had any say in that choice? Your players never added any concepts? You followed EXACTLY the steps on those two A4 pages and EVERYTHING in your game was present?

I don't bloody think so.

EDIT:
No one designed a campaign/setting before we played Cthulhu Dark. Nor In a Wicked Age - as per the rules of the game, we consulted The Oracles to find out what was happening in our Wicked Age.

Please stop being obtuse. I did state, repeatedly, that campaign creation can be done during play.

When we started our Classic Traveller game I rolled up a starting world after the players rolled up their PCs, and then rolled on the random patron table. The rules aren't silent on these matters - they support both the processes I just described.

When we started our first Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy games, I had written up 5 pregen PCs following the directions in the Marvel Heroic RP rulebook as influenced by the Cortex+ Hacker's Guide. I deliberately wrote them to suit either Vikings or Samurai. The players voted Vikings, and so we started and worked out what was happening in their village such that they got sent on a mission to the north.

Once we had agreed the PCs were heading north, I describe some stuff, including a giant wooden steading. There were Scene Distinctions specified. That's what the rules tell the GM to do. It's part of playing the game. It's not some weird thing where we do some precursor to play while playing.

Sent on a mission? Who created that mission? What rules did you use to inject that mission into the game? You are seriously going to tell me that EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT in those games, all those games you played, were EXPLICITLY listed in the game systems you were using?

Because if they weren't, that means that YOU (or you+your group) created that stuff and that's what you played.

Or, put it another way. Could I read those same 2 A4 pieces of paper and play your Boston c1930 game?

Why not? After all, EVERYTHING in the game was included in those two A4 pieces of paper. So, I should be able to easily recreate your game at my table using the same 2 A4 pieces of paper. What's the problem? Why can't I recreate your game using the rules you were using?

 

[Numidius]

Could you read the rules for baseball and recreate a historical match of the Past?

 

[Numidius]

I am actually running the Adventure Present in the Core book of Trail of cthulhu so Yes I believe I Can Play an RPG Simply as Written on the manual

Edit: of course there are instructions on how to create your own adventures.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This seems to get A Penny for My Thoughts, but that's not a RPG (contra Wikipedia, which I've just discovered classifies it as one). You might try and knock it out based on "shared fiction", but that's not going to be straightforward I don't think.

So I think your idea of going for core cases and then not fussing too much at the edges makes more sense (it's not like we're administering a RPG taxing statute, so precision isn't essential).

What distinguishes a RPG from a boardgame or boardgame-y wargame? That the fiction matters to resolution.

What distinguishes a RPG from a wargame in which the fiction does matter to resolution? That the non-referee participants engage the fiction, and declare actions, via a particular character who is their mediator/entrance into the shared fiction. Ie those participants, unlike the referee, don't engage the fiction via a "bird's eye view". Or to put it another way, their perspective is not purely authorial.

This also helps distinguish RPGs fro A Penny for My Thoughts. I think the idea that for non-referee participants, their "moves" in a RPG are centrally connected to the characters that they "own" is pretty key. Move away from that and we seem to be heading into "joint story creation" territory rather than "I'm a protagonist in the unfolding story" territory which is characteristic of non-referee participation in RPGing.

I think this misses Fiasco. I'd like a definition that includes games like Fiasco that are clearly roleplaying and clearly games.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Hussar]

Could you read the rules for baseball and recreate a historical match of the Past?

Sigh. I must not be explaining my point well enough.

ANYONE can pick up the rules for baseball, follow the steps listed in the rules, and play baseball. For that version of baseball, every single step will be identical in every single game. One side will pitch until there are three outs, then the other side will pitch. This will alternate nine times (again, I'm presuming a certain form of baseball, there are variations) and, barring a tied outcome, the game will end.

Every time. Without fail. Everything you need to play that game of baseball is specifically elucidated in those rules. You will not need to create a single thing. At no point will the batting team take to the field and run interference. At no point will the catcher decide to leave the field in the middle of play. Nothing that any player is allowed to do during that game is not covered by the rules of that game. No player may change any rule during play. The umpire cannot suddenly decide that the game should end in the 5th inning because, well, he's tired and it's a good place to stop.

EVERY game of baseball (again, with allowances for variants) will be played IDENTICALLY.

This is not true of any RPG. Following the rules of that RPG will NOT create a campaign. The players at the table create that. The players at the table PLAY THAT campaign, the one the players at that table created and which cannot be created using the rules of the RPG at another table.

The second you decide on your setting - Boston c 1930 - you are going beyond the rules. The rules don't tell you to choose that setting. The rules tell you what you should do when things are in doubt. But, beyond that, the rules of an RPG don't tell you much at all.

It is the confluence of the rules of the RPG PLUS the players at that table that create the game that is played. And that game is always idiosyncratic to that table. Two tables could be using the exact same RPG rules and yet the two games share virtually nothing in common. Heck they might not even share genre - that's what the d20 ruleset is all about after all.