Since I have been at enworld, I have seen numerous discussions about TTRPG (hereafter shortened to RPG for brevity) theory. And while I have found most of the conversations to be interesting, and filled with knowledgeable people (for are we all not knowledgable gamers?), I have also found them almost completely unsatisfying. At best, they provide some interesting observations. But at worse (and they always, always end up to the "at worse" state) conversations about RPG theory devolve ... or perhaps ... degenerate (ahem) into attempts to elevate one playing style or variety of RPG over another. So after seeing this happen yet again, I thought I'd create a thread based explaining why this happens, and why RPG Theory and Criticism can be so very hard and contentious.
As these posts that I've written can tend to the long winded, I thought I'd start with a general thesis statement in bold and italics for those who like the upfront summary!
Conversations about RPG theory are difficult because 1) there is no agreed framework or definitions that are widely used; 2) many of the basic definitions used have argumentative connotations and are themselves subject to argument; 3) RPG theory is, for many people, inextricably linked to other battles; and 4) the conflation of descriptive and normative- the confusion of what "is" what "ought" - means that most RPG theory puts the cart before the horse, by arguing for how games should be without understanding why games are the way they are.
Most of these points are interrelated and feed into each other. However, I'll try to break them out as best as I can.
1. "Wittgenstein, Wittgenstien, what is Wittgenstein?" What is the RPG Jump Cut?
So when any media has a well-developed body of work, and of serious study and criticism, certain terms and definitions become codified so that people can more easily discuss them. Many of these are so well known that you don't have to be especially "in the know" to understand them, or have read back issues of Cahiers du Cinéma or dived into S/Z. If I'm talking about a "montage" or a "jump cut" or "diegetic and non-diegetic sound" when I'm discussing film, you know what I'm talking about. You understand the technique, and from that point, you can immediately begin the conversation about whether the technique was accomplished in a manner that effectuates the overall purpose of the author and is intelligible as such to the audience. It's the same with literature; whether it's as simple as a metaphor or an allusion, or more complicated like low and high mimetic, there are general terms that have been agreed upon.
We ... don't have that for RPGs. At all. In fact, I've seen many threads wherein people can't even agree on what constitutes an RPG. As the boundaries between improv, freeform, LARP, DM-less games (like Fiasco), and various types of TTRPG and CRPGs blur, the question of what even constitutes an RPG can matter.
That said, even when looking at just traditional RPGs (TTRPGs, with a "GM" and "Players" and rules and procedural mechanics to resolve issues), there is no universal agreement on what basic definitions mean, so you end up with interminable debates between people and A saying, "Well, by player agency I mean X" and person B saying, "But by player agency, I mean Y."
When the basic terms can't be agreed upon, it's hard to develop theory and do appropriate criticism. It would be like two people discussing a film, and one saying. "I liked that jump cut." And the other person saying, "Well, I hated it, because I hate montages."
2."The best for of government is a benevolent monarchy." Defining terms for profit and victory!
So there is an old debater's trick of defining your terms in order to load the scales and assure victory. The classic example that I remember is that if you're forced with the task of arguing that monarchy/autocracy is the best form of government (hard), you would just ind a way to insert "benevolent" into there- and suddenly the job gets that much easier. Because one of the primary issues with an autocratic government is accountability to ensure that they are, in fact, benevolent- working to ensure maximum weal to the populace. Once you have defined that problem away, your job becomes that much easier.
So we have the same issue when it comes to most RPG theory and criticism. For many reasons, the basic building blocks that people use when discussing RPGs aren't to describe specific issues of play or mechanics, but instead to describe the goals of RPG design, often with language that is borrowed and pejorative. The basic units of conversation in most RPG theory conversations, therefore, are topics like "player agency," and "DM Force," and "illusionism," and "railroading."
Imagine if similar terms were the basic terms used in other criticism and other theory. Instead of examining the differences between, say, Wes Anderson and Quentin Tarantino on a more granular level, you engaged in endless debated over how they best accomplished "audience fun" and whether or not they were good, or bad, examples of "cinematographer agency."
To make this more concrete, I would use an example that see repeated over and over again in debates over RPG theory; the issue of so-called player agency. Now, putting aside the obvious irony of what is almost always GMs debating player agency (heh), you get to two very fundamental issues:
a. "Player Agency" is a loaded term. No one would say that they are ... against ... player agency. Sure, they might joke about it, but I don't think most people would say, "You know what I really hate? Players being allowed to make any sort of meaningful choice. Ever. I love me any games that completely remove any and all meaningful agency and/or choice from players." Well- this is the internet. Someone, somewhere, sometime probably has said. But generally a person doesn't say that. So while two people can look at a film and discuss whether a jump cut was good or bad, or listen to music and discuss if they think the use of a minor scale was appropriate as a counterpoint to the upbeat lyrics, the use of this term immediately causes a fight about the term.
b. "Player Agency" means different things to different people. The very things that are important to one player, are not important to another. The choices that are important to one player, are also not important to another. Heck, entire game systems are built around this premise. Think of something so completely as ... inventory. What an alter ego in a RPG is carrying! For some players, the idea of player agency includes a predictable set of rules, weights, and fiddly bits for inventory; for others, the whole idea of containing play by pre-planning inventory is anathema. Which enhances so-called player agency? I don't know, because I am not all players.
Instead of observing individual games and seeing which decisions enhance particular play styles, people end up in interminable debates over the very meaning of terms.
3. The Never-ending battles.
I'm not going to delve too deeply into this issue, other than to say that when I returned to being an active participant in the wider world of RPGs, I found that there had been this whole thing involving, inter alia, arguments over RPG Theory, and a war about the direction of D&D.
Honestly, I don't care about any of this. For what it's worth, however, many people get caught up in one particular battle, and keep replaying it over and over and over. When I did a deep dive into this, I found that the Meilahti approach to RPGs looked promising and was a correct way forward, but far too many people are trapped into old approaches and old battles. Suffice to say that there are numerous approaches to RPG theory out there, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with (rhymes with Borge).
4. Normative (Ought) v. Descriptive (Is).
This is the most important issue, as far as I am concerned. If you're all into grammar and spelling, you probably instinctively know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive. This is a similar distinction; the notion that there is a distinction between theory describing things that "are" as opposed to using theory to bootstrap ideas into things as you want them to be ("ought"). This can be referred to as the distinction between normative (how you want it to be) and descriptive (how things are).
So a quick digression to show how this should work; there is little that can be as off-putting as seeing people use jargon, or theory, to explain to you that you should like something that you don't. In most areas, we can instinctively understand this. For example, if someone tells you, "Opera is the best form of music. Jargon jargon music theory you should be listening to opera, not that stupid hippy hop music you like," you would probably recoil from that. Because that's using theory to bootstrap opinions about preference into prescriptions about how others should appreciate things.
With RPGs, this issue can be more acute due to the lack of a precise vocabulary and the intense knowledge of many fans of RPGs. But ... RPGs are not a monolith. People play for different reasons. Some play for deep immersion. Some for beer & pretzels. Some for intense and short character arcs. Some for long zero-to-hero grinds. Some love comedy sci-fi one-shot systems, others love intense fantasy over years. Some people love genre-bending, others don't want any science fiction in their fantasy, thank you. And, of course, almost everyone likes different things at different times!
Imagine if you took any other area- music, film, literature, and you tried to apply a one-size fits all approach to it. That a director who made a comedy, or a thriller, or an art-house movie, or a big-budget super hero movie, or a documentary, or a short animated feature, all had to be subject to the exact same normative demands!
"Sorry, your film didn't have a compelling character arc. FAIL. RAILROAD."
"Um ... you know it was a documentary, right?"
The approach in it should be to instead view the work on its merits of what it is trying to accomplish, see how it accomplishes it, and determine if it is effective at doing so. IMO.
So is it all useless?
No, of course not! Many newer "art forms," whether its RPGs, or computer games, struggle to find appropriate words and vocabulary to build up concepts for theory and critical analysis. When you have a form, like RPGs, that are both somewhat difficult to define and also can involve numerous disciplines (from writing to acting to genre conventions to public performance to random elements and so many others) it can be even more difficult- but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
However, caution should always be applied. In the end, theory should always be used to make your own experience better, not to argue that the experience of others is worse.
