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

[Ovinomancer]

It's contentious because it's a form of gentrification (not the urban kind, the other kind).

I'm not sure I see either how theory makes gaming more refined or polite or how, if it does, that process is contentious. Could you elaborate?

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

There's a major other issue here. Not all people play RPGs either with remotely the same motivation or as part of the same tradition. Indeed I see old school sandbox, the GM written adventure path, and the modern "play to see what happens" as three entirely different categories - and freeform plus may be different again. There's not even an agreed framework for why we play or what success is.

And then the community is exceptionally scattered with small groups all doing their own things and almost never coming together to see what each other are doing. While about the most common book containing design philosophy is the DMG, and each DMG doesn't cover a wide area.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think you need to maintain some separation between the game itself and what is done with the game. The fact that a particular GM, or a particular table might do x,y, or z in a game isn't really the point. The rules for 5E D&D no more constrain a GM from running an adventure path than does FATE, or any other game, same with the sandbox - those are example of table play and reflect decisions and norms present at the table, but they do not describe the game itself in any meaningful way. That is not to say that discussing the played game isn't important, only to highlight that the played game is separate from the game set out in an RPG rulebook. A lot of people fail to make that distinction and confusion generally ensues.

I think the issue of shared vocabulary is a key idea here, not just because having a shared critical vocabulary would facilitate a less contentious discussion in many cases, but also because it would highlight those instances where a contributor to a discussion isn't using the same set of vocabulary of even indeed talking about the same thing at all. One place where definitional stability could be useful is in determining instances of 'is' from instances of 'ought'. Many people who participate in the sorts of discussion we are talking about here regularly conflate 'is' from 'ought' and pounce upon the latter idea as the prime mover. What is generally lacking is any kind of nuanced discussion of the vast array of 'ought' and the difference between personal preference within that realm versus a more complete or descriptive discussion of 'ought' in a general sense.

I feel like posts in this thread should come with references. What I'm talking about here maps pretty well to this article by Markus Montola.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think you need to maintain some separation between the game itself and what is done with the game. The fact that a particular GM, or a particular table might do x,y, or z in a game isn't really the point. The rules for 5E D&D no more constrain a GM from running an adventure path than does FATE, or any other game, same with the sandbox - those are example of table play and reflect decisions and norms present at the table, but they do not describe the game itself in any meaningful way.

This is why I consider the current wave of "success with consequences is the likely outcome" starting mostly with Cortex Plus games such as Leverage and continuing through Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark to be almost worth breaking out on their own. Games where the complexities come from messy pile-ups of consequences (an age old system for story writing) do not do well with adventure paths because adventure paths are too organised and the stories are going to end up very twisted and knotty with call-backs. Meanwhile you are definitely roleplaying with them.

Also there are the original meaning of "Story Games" such as My Life With Master and Montsegur 1244 where there is precisely one story arc being told and the whole thing is finite. I defy anyone to run either Dragonlance, Rise of the Runelords, or The Rise of Tiamat using the rules for Fiasco!

 

[Leatherhead]

I'm not sure I see either how theory makes gaming more refined

That is the purported purpose of all criticism: To make the thing (or thing's field, or person, or persons after that person) "better" by providing feedback.

or how, if it does, that process is contentious. Could you elaborate?

Quite frankly, I can't.

I couldn't begin to tell you all the reasons behind why people pushback against attempts to control or modify "their things or spaces." There are just too many and it would require speculation beyond what anyone is qualified to say.

Edited.

 

[pemerton]

This aspiration for "shared vocabulary" seems to me to some extent to be misguided. I think most literary critics would regard JRRT's LotR as (overly) sentimental in many places. On these boards I would expect there to be many posters who would push back against that. That's not a dispute about terminology.

Criticism can strip away comfortable and comforting understandings of things.

 

[prabe]

Criticism can strip away comfortable and comforting understandings of things.

Well, yes. I think the desire here for a (mostly) shared vocabulary is so if that happens, it be both intentional and correctly understood.

 

[Fenris-77]

On the other hand, a shared vocabulary can make it easier for people who disagree to disagree in a meaningful way without dancing around issues of terminology. If we can agree first about what is at stake, we can more profitably disagree in way that makes sense to both sides.

Also, I'm not sure how you meant it @pemerton , but I would suggest that the stripping away of the comfortable and comforting can be a very good thing, at least when those comforting and comfortable things are barriers to mutual understanding and dialogue.

 

[Hussar]

I lofted this idea a while ago and it didn't seem to gain much traction, but, let's try again.

To me, most RPG's are not games in and of themselves. They are game creation engines. You never actually play an RPG - you play the campaign (whether it's predetermined or created as you go) using the rules for that RPG. Which means that every single campaign is a largely self contained game that is not repeatable at another table. The game consists of the campaign+rules+players. And, because of those three variables, you can never reproduce a given game at another table.

Which makes any sort of shared language discussion EXTREMELY difficult as each group develops its own game and then, once that game (campaign) is finished, they create another game - possibly similar but not the same - for the next campaign.

I mean, it's laughable to think that my Primeval Thule game with no core casters and almost 100% home brew created is the same game as my Dragon Heist game where I ran the pre-made module. And neither are the same game as my Ghosts of Saltmarsh campaign, despite all three using 5e rules.

When no two instances of any RPG ever have the same starting, middle or end points, how can they be considered to be the same game? And, since my game, your game and Bob's game over there, despite maybe using the same RPG system, share virtually no commonalities (I'm using Ravnica, you're using a home-brew world and Bob's set in Ravenloft) how can we really have a common language for discussion?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I lofted this idea a while ago and it didn't seem to gain much traction, but, let's try again.

To me, most RPG's are not games in and of themselves. They are game creation engines. You never actually play an RPG - you play the campaign (whether it's predetermined or created as you go) using the rules for that RPG.

All that to me says is that you're looking at something more akin to linguistics rather than Chess Opening Theory. Just because it's a broad category doesn't make theory impossible.