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

[Umbran]

I have a question, having not read 7 pages of back and forth. RPGs are ultimately games right?

I'm going to give a weird answer: Yes and no.

For one thing a "game" is a "structured form of play" - beyond that... well, wikipedia has no fewer than 10 different definitions of what a game is.

Why aren't we using the terminology of formal games theory and study? I know that game theory is generally about mathematics not design/function of how games actually work, but there are studies about designing games and why people want to play them, how they play them, and what the outcomes are and how judge those outcomes.

A typical RPG can probably be considered to contain several separate sub-games, all in a wrapper that is a game in the same sense that kids running around in the backyard are playing a game of cops and robbers, in which there is a structure, but it is possibly more honored in the violation than in the adherence.

This is a large part why talking about mathematical game theory is not broadly relevant - mathematical game theory is about odds, information, and rational decision making. The Prisoner's Dillemma is a classic example of mathematical game theory at work. You can perhaps apply that to various scenarios within a sub-game, but not to the RPG as a whole.

The same goes for other frameworks for design of games - each of them may apply to a part of an overall RPG, but not the entire aggregate.

For example, Settlers of Catan has more in common with D&D as a game more than Lord of the Rings ever could. I could compare the two games in terms of inputs and outputs and judge how effective they are at achieving the stated outputs versus say the actual outputs.

You could do that, for, say, the tactical combat minigame, and compare it to any other wargame around, sure.

But when some of the commonly desired and expected outputs are "spotlight", and "narrative flow and beats" you may run into issues by leaning to Catan rather than LotR.

 

[Beleriphon]

Yeah, no. I think that this desire to universalize gets people into trouble, Whether its literature, film, videogames, or anything, really. There should be common terms, but not common analysis. Again, to borrow from videogame, what makes Tetris Effect (or even Candy Crush) compelling and/or effective is not necessarily the same things that work for Journey.

I'm not trying to universalize the analysis; certainly each type of game will have elements unique to it that require specific analysis. But there are still going to be common ones that allow such comparison.

For video games the reason that Tetris and Candy Crush work as games is very similar, and can be spun out to more complex games. In fact I think using the MDA paper The Angry GM used is very helpful. Here's a direct link. In MDA Tetris and Candy Crush are mostly challenge and submission, because they present a challenge for the sake of being over come and submission in that they are played as kind of "mindless" fun.

As a quick summary of MDA: M is Mechanics, that is to say the base level of a videogame (ie. the actual programing code and rules) up through how you design a level; D is the Dynamics of a player interacting in the run time (ie. playing the game); A is Aesthetics which determines the emotional response we want the player to have, or the emotional reason that players play specific types of games. For example I find the Civilization series dull as dirt, but other like them a lot

I think the differences between TTRPGs is a lot more nuanced than the difference between types of video games. That's not a knock on video games either, that's just how the market works. Also, people play any one given TTRPG in different ways and for different reasons in, I think, more variety than people who just bough a new shooter, or puzzle game might. TTRPGs are very difficult to categorize IMO. Broad categories of rules systems are doable, but once you take into account how they actually get played I think things start to get a little fuzzy. Not impossible, but requiring significant theory and vocabulary, neither of which we (pretty obviously) agree on with any ease.

I actually do think it is possible to break games into relatively broad categories, and then break individual aspects of play down from there. For example how much player agency does a game provide? Does a particular rule facilitate role play or hinder it? Defining those terms is applicable to most RPGs.

This why I think the MDA theory is helpful because it actually starts from basic principles of design. It starts off with the idea that we're design a video game. As a designer I need to bake in particular aspects from the core code if I want players looking for specific responses to actually get those responses. The most interesting part however is the aesthetics section, specifically why players engage with a game.

From the paper:

1. Sensation Game as sense-pleasure
2. Fantasy Game as make-believe
3. Narrative Game as drama
4. Challenge Game as obstacle course
5. Fellowship Game as social framework
6. Discovery Game as uncharted territory
7. Expression Game as self-discovery
8. Submission Game as pastime

What is important is that a game can be all or some of these to varying degrees at any given time. There is no secret sauce combination that is right, it is simply a very basic taxonomy of how to describe responses and goals.

On @lowkey13 referring to win conditions, RPGs still have them, they just don't end the game, simply the scenario the group is engaging with immediately. When my party all dies in a fight, we've lost the scenario, but the game doesn't end. So, that is a fairly unique mechanic in games.

Any way, I think my prevous assertion about RPGs being primarily games got lost somewhere in that since RPGs are games (it's right in the name!) using existing discussion of games and types of games might be a salient place to start since RPGs have more in common with other games than they do with something like a movie, at least in so far as the way one interacts with the game.

I think it might helpful to break down the essential components of an RPG. And I mean super, super basic break down here and include stuff that should be obvious but often gets over looked becasue it is such a basic premise.

Think of a as the most basic check list you need to play and RPG.

For example:

• we need players
• Characters the players use
• rules of some kind

At the absolute most basic (that I can think of) that is an RPG.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Beleriphon]

I am quite familiar with that particular Angry DM rant, and I think you might have missed the most important part of it .... it's at the beginning and repeated several times:

First, you know all those RPGs you own? Dungeons and Dragons? Pathfinder? Savage Worlds? Dungeon World? Numanuma? FATE Accelerated Armored Core Advanced? Star Wars: West Edge of the Saga? OSR and Castles and Sorcery? Guess what. Those aren’t games. And they weren’t designed by game designers. Why? Because YOU (if you are a GM) are the game designer. Every GM is a game designer.

This is kind of important, because this entire approach that you're cribbing from isn't about analyzing RPGs; it's about GMing technique, and Angry GM trying to typify eight different kinds of fun that might appeal to players.

Which is fine, and good, but isn't really the same thing I am discussing.

I didn't miss that part, it's super important. Since if we're going to discussing game philosophy and design, it probably helps to have language that discusses games from a design and intent standpoint. And if we can start as square one of the most basic design of the rules then we can build from there.

For example what is the actual intent of FATE or Munchhausen? What did the people who wrote those rules actually want you as a player to have your game be like? What does your game actually look like in play, does it match the original writer's intent? Why, why not? Does the intent not actually work in context of the rules, if so why not? Are there assumed premises in the rules you as a player aren't following?

Again, I think we have a failure to communicate, which I can point out by noting:

1. A TPK may, or may not, be a failure condition in D&D (think "heroic last stand and sacrifice").
2. D&D is not all RPGs.
3. Because of that, there isn't either a particular winning condition, or losing condition, for almost any RPG; they are designed to be open-ended and driven by the emergent interactions between and among players and the RPG world.

A role-playing game is what is created in the interaction between players or between player(s) and gamemaster(s) within a specified diegetic framework.

-Me, over a hundred posts ago, quoting people smarter than me.

Which is true, but this is why I've suggest delineating the most basic components of an RPG. I mean at the core you need a group of players, and agreed up on set of rules, and some characters to role play.

While I agree the game as a whole doesn't have win/loss conditions in the sense that one side loses and the other wins in some kind of zero sum sense the players can experience wins and losses within the game that don't necessarily end the game.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Beleriphon]

Okay, so someone recently (and I'd give credit, but I can't remember the thread or the person right now) pointed out that a difficulty with these types of forum conversations is that, far too often, it becomes more of a "debate" instead of a useful conversation or collaboration.

(big breath)

So, yes, I see what you're saying. I don't think that the "game" paradigm is a very useful one overall, but I do agree that shared terminology is incredibly helpful, and that for purposes of analyzing the different reasons that people engage with the material, those eight game aspects are not ... well, they aren't terrible. They can provide a useful framework.

I think, if nothing else, it would be an interesting exercise to use it and apply it to various RPGs, both as intended, and as applied, and see how it works.

That was always my point. I think. I don't htink I personally lost it along the way, but anything is possible these days. I'm not a young as I used to be by any means.

On this, I think we will have to agree to disagree. One salient feature of many RPGs is that even within the game, two characters might experience the exact same situation, and one can perceive it as a "good thing" (or win) and another as a "bad thing" (or loss) solely based on factors that are external to the game rules and created by the players.

To make this concrete-
Imagine you have a Warlock whose patron is the positive energy plane (UA Undying Light). His long-term goal, written down by the character, is to join with his patron.
He is adventuring with another character. We will call him Fred.

The Warlock gains an artifact that allows him to rip open a rift to the positive energy plane, which has the effect of making him, um, one with the plane. And the unfortunate side-effect of killing Fred.

Both characters die. From the same thing, at the same time.

Warlock is happy.
Fred? Oh, Fred is really really angry. But that's a story for another time.

See what I mean? The rules don't tell you that- it's emergent play.

I agree with with you for sure. I just think it would be helpful to define winning or losing in context of an RPG. It definitely isn't the same as chess, or Catan, or even WoW (maybe closer to WoW, but not the same). That said, perhaps success and failure are better terms, since neither imply an actual end of the process, merely that it will continue on a different track. Different RPGs tend to define success differently, for example FATE getting knocked out of a fight via compels could be a success, despite the character not beating up the bad guys, while D&D would generally consider your character being fiated out of a fight by the GM a loss (and against the informal rules of the game).

If it helps when I'm talking about RPGs I generally do so from player perspective. I view the character in the same way as a baseball player views a bat: a necessary tool to participate, but the bat doesn't decide how the game is played, only the player can do that. It's the reason I really, really hate rationalizing being arse as "my character would do that." My only response is "No you did that, because you chose to do that you jerk" Nobody would suggest the bat made the player whomp the pitcher would they? I'd like to have seen A-Rod try that though now that I think about it.

Another though, inspired by The Angry GM, and one that both @lowkey13 and I have both referred is the rules aren't the game. However, the rules influence how the game is played. For example, the rules for making a D&D character results in mechanical process that are largely defined by the abilities to kill things in a fight. This encourages the players to use those abilities to kill fictional monsters. I think that kind of feedback loop is important to define, but I'm not really sure how to express it an way that lets us talk about things other than to refer to a feedback loop, since killing things in D&D makes your character better at killing things. I'm sure other rules systems have similar loops.

 

[Umbran]

On @lowkey13 referring to win conditions, RPGs still have them, they just don't end the game, simply the scenario the group is engaging with immediately. When my party all dies in a fight, we've lost the scenario, but the game doesn't end. So, that is a fairly unique mechanic in games.

Sometimes RPG have win conditions within their sub-games. Sometimes, though, it isn't "win/lose" or even "win/lose/tie". It is... "this is how it develops".

 

[hawkeyefan]

Fundamentally, sports and games tend to have some type of "win condition" and feature opposition (of individuals, of teams), not collaboration. I think that is a major, and salient, different between RPGs and other games.

I don't know how meaningful that may be. While sports do have a competitive element absent in most RPGs, I wouldn't say that RPGs lack competition. It's just not usually direct competition. But there are win states, typically, and there is success and failure. They're not as clearly defined as they are in sports, but I do think they're present.

Also, sports are incredibly collaborative. I mean, maybe not golf, so much, but even there the caddy usually offers some advice when needed. But team sports can often require incredibly deep and intense collaboration, among players and also coaches and other participants.

A group of people working together to overcome obstacles and achieve a mutual goal.

Yes, but at this point, computer games are still limited by the programming. Technically, a DM is completely unlimited - you can even hop from one game to another.

Computers lack that ability, at this time. While you can encounter glitches and bugs, you cannot run into something that is both surprising and planned (exceeds the limits of the programming by design). The closest is procedurally generated content, a la No Man's Sky, or Rogue-type games.

Sure, I get the restriction based on what technology can achieve versus what the imagination can achieve...but that wasn't really my point.

Sure. I mean, Lord of the Rings (film) and Parasite and the Forbidden Room and Koyaanisquatsi are all films, and we can use common film terms to describe them, but you run into trouble when you are using comparative terms. IMO.

Comparison may not be perfect because different films may be using different techniques and/or trying to produce a different response from the audience. But they're still created using the same group of methods and the audience still engaged in the same way.

 

[Fenris-77]

'Win State' as a term is pretty specific to the games industry, usually referring to a condition within a game or level of successfully completing a predetermined task or goal. The definition does not carry with it the idea that the game ends, necessarily, when a win-state exists. This reflects both computer games and RPGs nicely, but gets sticky when you bring in sports and the idea of win-state does mean the game ends. One of the very different things about RPGs is the complete lack of 'game over' in most of them, separating them even from computer games. It doesn't end, in most cases except by mutual decision. From a terms and definitions standpoint I'm not sure how important this is, but it does need to be accounted for when we bring in other games, especially if we want to use the term win-state.

Another interesting output from using win-state, is that it also usually refers to predetermined goals, and there are lots of examples of games that are definitely TTRPGs but don't even have predetermined goals except those that arise spontaneously during play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

'Win State' as a term is pretty specific to the games industry, usually referring to a condition within a game or level of successfully completing a predetermined task or goal. The definition does not carry with it the idea that the game ends, necessarily, when a win-state exists. This reflects both computer games and RPGs nicely, but gets sticky when you bring in sports and the idea of win-state does mean the game ends. One of the very different things about RPGs is the complete lack of 'game over' in most of them, separating them even from computer games. It doesn't end, in most cases except by mutual decision. From a terms and definitions standpoint I'm not sure how important this is, but it does need to be accounted for when we bring in other games, especially if we want to use the term win-state.

Another interesting output from using win-state, is that it also usually refers to predetermined goals, and there are lots of examples of games that are definitely TTRPGs but don't even have predetermined goals except those that arise spontaneously during play.

I absolutely agree that what win state can mean for different games can vary significantly, but I still think it helps when talking about the goals of play.

They'll be very different things from game to game and will mean different things for the game.