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

[Umbran]

Umbran does not appreciate theory as applied to RPGs at all; among other reasons, he believes that it does not promote good gaming and does promote unnecessary divisiveness (flame wars, editions wars, and so on).

Incorrect, but I can see how you got there.

I don't appreciate theory developed in isolation, based on anecdotal support and personal opinions of a small group of people, especially when they are dominated by one or two strong personalities.

I also recognize that you cannot develop a lexicon of terms without an implicit theory underneath it - a lexicon of terms is created when you've found concepts important enough that you've referred to them several times over, and want a shorthand for them. The discussion of their being relevant to theory has thus already happened before you need to name it.

There are certainly ways to formulate good theory. They have not, historically, been much present in the RPG space. We have less theory, and more "personal visions" of RPGs, imho.

 

[Umbran]

I think we just are hoping we can find a way to talk about RPGs in a way that is generous and helpful and clear.

I want to go back to this, because it is a fine ideal...

But you do not get to "generous and helpful and clear" in the middle of disputes for dominance in the discussion, or fights over being "right". If the basic response to a point being challenged is annoyance... your result won't be generous, helpful, and clear.

 

[prabe]

I want to go back to this, because it is a fine ideal...

But you do not get to "generous and helpful and clear" in the middle of disputes for dominance in the discussion, or fights over being "right". If the basic response to a point being challenged is annoyance... your result won't be generous, helpful, and clear.

While I don't mind being quoted as the ideal, here, I'd like to think I've managed to keep any irritation I've felt out of my posts in this thread, at least mostly.

 

[Umbran]

While I don't mind being quoted as the ideal, here, I'd like to think I've managed to keep any irritation I've felt out of my posts in this thread, at least mostly.

Sure. Though, honestly, the best collaboration comes when there's a level of trust such that you don't end up feeling much irritation at all.

There's an issue that traditionally messageboard conversations are largely based on the competition of ideas, and, because humans are humans, a competition between speakers - the ideas are their proxies. This is not, by its nature, a "generous and helpful" process. It is based on trying to exclude ideas that are wrong, rather than find ways to include.

In a place where we must acknowledge that we don't have the resources for 5e-playtest style empiricism, approach to good theory would better be more "Yes, and..." and less, "No, you are wrong."

 

[prabe]

Sure. Though, honestly, the best collaboration comes when there's a level of trust such that you don't end up feeling much irritation at all.

There's an issue that traditionally messageboard conversations are largely based on the competition of ideas, and, because humans are humans, a competition between speakers - the ideas are their proxies. This is not, by its nature, a "generous and helpful" process. It is based on trying to exclude ideas that are wrong, rather than find ways to include.

In a place where we must acknowledge that we don't have the resources for 5e-playtest style empiricism, approach to good theory would better be more "Yes, and..." and less, "No, you are wrong."

I don't think I've been irritated by or with the conversations in this thread, but I can see how others might have been. I also am aware that irritation is one of my frequent responses to life, and that I might have been irritated at something else and had that bleed into here.

Trust is definitely important. I don't think TRPGs work without it, so I don't think there's any way trying to work out group thoughts about TRPGs can work without it. I don't necessarily think that trusting someone means never being irritated by someone, but see my above comments about irritation and life. It's plausible that messageboards aren't the best place for this sort of thinking group thoughts work; it's plausible this can work; I don't see how saying "This can't work" can help this work.

No, we don't have the resources to generate the sort of statistical power that WotC's playtests did. On the other hand, maybe we can refine our personal understandings. Upthread, you seemed to be dismissive of "personal vision," but I think I might prefer something that was a personal vision (or a small group's vision) to something that was so sanded smooth by empiricism that I couldn't get a handle on it. (Note that I like 5E a lot, so it's also possible I might really like a heavily-playtested game.)

 

[Fenris-77]

The only reason I need to post back and forth about TTRPG design theory is that I enjoy it. I'm not here with a set of preconceived theoretical apparati that I want to sell, or an agenda of any kind. I like hearing other people's points of view and what knobs dials and buttons they think are important. Even people who's opinions I strongly disagree with are helping me shape what I think and decide what I think is important.

Some of the best games are ones shaped by a strong personal or small group vision anyway. I enjoy D&D, and I play it regularly, but if I didn't have 30+ years of love for the game I really don't think I'd pull it off a shelf and start playing it now. The games I've read more recently that have really grabbed me by the balls and shouted PLAY ME! have been different games, stuff like BitD, the Dresden RPG, Burning Wheel and Houses of the Blooded. Those games have a much firmer theoretical underpinning, and I like being able to parse that out and figure out what makes them tick, and which ticks I like enough to file away for my own bag of tricks.

 

[Umbran]

Even people who's opinions I strongly disagree with are helping me shape what I think and decide what I think is important.

That's as it should be. Rare, however, is the public admission of that - "I don't agree fully, but I will shift my thoughts in this way," is almost never seen, as opposed to, 'No, you are wrong, and I will die on this hill."

Some of the best games are ones shaped by a strong personal or small group vision anyway.

A game is not the same beast as a theory of games. Do not confuse them. I am talking about theory development, not dame design.

 

[Fenris-77]

That's as it should be. Rare, however, is the public admission of that - "I don't agree fully, but I will shift my thoughts in this way," is almost never seen, as opposed to, 'No, you are wrong, and I will die on this hill."

In this case I'm fine with it. I'm probably too sarcastic to make it a habit though.

A game is not the same beast as a theory of games. Do not confuse them. I am talking about theory development, not game design.

You can do both at once, PbtA is a good example, but yes dad, I know the difference between a game a game design theory. Even theory more broadly needs to start somewhere though, which is why they tend to be named after people or schools. Whether or not they survive the fiery cauldron of public scrutiny is something else of course. Either way, I'm more concerned with my theory, rather than developing a theory that I think other people should adhere to or that needs to be generally descriptive. That first part is something I can quite comfortably manage, at least in part, doing what I'm doing in this thread.

 

[practicalm]

I haven't been able to make comments on this thread until now, but I see the point here is the same that video game designers have been trying to make, a language to discuss games. This was very big after game designers looked at Christopher Alexanders "A Pattern Language" (1977) and there were some big attempts to build a language where video games would get the same treatment as architecture.

One project is A Pattern Language for Game Design

The idea that Tabletop roleplaying would have a similar pattern language is valid. There are enough similarities in RPGs that would allow for a pattern language to be created. The key is the abstraction level.
Just as "A Pattern Language" discusses architecture from planning a building to planning a city, any pattern language for RPGs would also have multiple levels of abstraction and games would be similar at the high level but bifurcate as more detail or lower abstraction was discussed.

A campaign has a trajectory of behavior from campaign creation, to player creation, to player group formation, to first adventure, through to the nth adventure. Some campaigns end and have a narrative path and others keep going with multiple narrative paths.

A game session has trajectory of behavior as well, players arriving, recap, continuation of the adventure, back and forth between players and/or GM, to end of session. Players and GM make things happen, players and GM respond, record keeping happens, and characters live or die depending on the what the players and GM do.

There is a pattern language for RPGs and each game will only use some part of that language. Creating it would be a good book.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That said, I realize that you have difficulties understanding different perspectives than yours, and as such I unreservedly retract my comment that apparently mischaracterized your opinions as follows:
1. RPG theory helped you;
2. RPG theory is essential to good game design; and
3. You believe in the theories promulgated on the Forge.

I'm going to advance a related position to the one you claim @pemerton holds

1: RPG theory has helped a lot of people including me.
2: RPG theory is essential to good game design; designing something without a plan is always going to end up with a mess
3: There is no one true RPG design theory any more than there is one true car design theory. A Tesla roadster, a Volvo estate, a flatbed pickup, and a Formula 1 or Indy 500 car have very different designs and the theory as to what makes a good car (as opposed to the laws of physics they work with) is extremely different. And none of them would be good replacements to for the others.

In the case of the Forge you can more or less split Forge theory into three categories:
1: RPG theory that is right about RPGs as a whole
2: RPG that is wrong about RPGs as a whole
3: RPG theory that is talking about the types of games that most of the people at The Forge wanted to play and not always generally applicable.

To me the success of the Forge (and unlike @Umbran I see it as an overwhelming success) is down to part 3. The Forge coalesced around people who were looking for a couple of specific game styles and were not well served by existing RPGs. Most of them had come from a 90s White Wolf background, having rejected D&D out of hand for not promising to be what they wanted and been completely disappointed by White Wolf games for promising and not delivering (a big part of the thrust of the Gamism part of GNS theory is "Hey guys, what those D&D players are doing is actually pretty cool even if it isn't what we want to do")

And the successes of the Forge have been in two categories, both promised by Vampire and not delivered. Games for narrative change (the sort @innerdude says he doesn't think happen, but Fate does to an extent and Apocalypse World is good at; My Life With Master was the first to do this) and games pushing directly for emotional investment by clean rules prioritising your relationships (Fate does this of course, but so does anything Powered by the Apocalypse, and many of the more famous and infamous games like Bliss Stage).

Essentially The Forge worked because it was looking for chunky pasta sauce in a world with just smooth and spicy - and they knew they were looking for something like chunky pasta sauce. But part of the point of chunky pasta sauce is that it's not what everyone wants; some want smooth and some want spicy.

If we want a new Forge the question is "What do people want from RPGs that is not being delivered well"?