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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is especially true in the "lyric game" circles I hang around, on Twitter and itch.io. Jay Dragon's done a good job of trying to lay out the many clashing definitions of "system" in the "System Matters" vs "System Doesn't Really Matter" debate.

Ritual Almanac 1: Beginnings by Possum Creek Games, Jay Dragon

The January 2020 collection of thoughts around lyric RPGs.

possumcreek.itch.io

This essay in Ritual Almanac 1 really helps to defuse the problems that rise when people try to talk about "System Matters" - because the truth is that people are usually using very different definitions of "system" as Jay points out. I really like this analysis because it reminds me that my "system" is not necessarily someone else's definition. Sometimes there is a lot of invisible play culture at the table that gets assumed, and if you count that as part of "system" then of course it matters...

Firstly, the article is behind a download 'pay what you want' wall. That's bordering on commercial, since you didn't lay out the core of the argument.

That said, the core takeaway of the piece is that when people say 'system' they may mean the game as written (text of the game), the ruleset the game uses (engine), or the entire feel of the game. That's valid, but it just replaces an argument that can be confounded by terminology with an codified argument about how another argument can be confounded by terminology. It does a good job looking at the material, but doesn't offer a way through, just a caution that terminology may be being used vaguely.

And, with that, whenever I've said system matters, I'm talking about the engine used -- how the ruleset works to resolve outcomes (I'm an engineer, so this definition of system is apparent to me). While, as the article notes, I might be able to achieve a similar result using different engines, the way an engine works has impact on how the game feels. To illustrate this, there's a current thread where a poster described the engine of a game they created and how that engine failed in play because the players didn't like how it did things. Not that it failed to process the game, but that the feel of the engine was something the players didn't care for. System matters.

 

[prabe]

Without getting into the details of the theories (and thanks for that link! I'll jump links to actual contents, not paywalls), I have to say I love the metaphor of a campaign setting as a cabinet of curiosities.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I always reference the Meilahti approach; for whatever reason, you have not chosen to ask me about it.

This site has a quick rundown of a few of them:

Wikiwand - Role-playing game theory

A role-playing game theory is the ludology of role-playing games ; a study of the topic as a social or artistic phenomenon. RPG theories seek to understand what role-playing games are, how they function, and how the gaming process can be refined in order to improve the experience and produce...

www.wikiwand.com

Do you need to be asked to expound upon your preferred ludology? Very well, I would appreciate it if you would please give a quick overview of the Meilahti approach to game theory.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you had to nutshell it without using fancy jargon, you'd say that it is an approach that concentrates on the social aspects of RPGs, with by examining them in a descriptive way.

If you're curious, you can read it. For purposes of most discussion, although it has been elaborated upon, I think the original pull quote that is helpful in understanding the various roles is this-

"If there is disagreement, on for example what the surroundings are like, or what exactly has happened, it is the gamemaster who negotiates and in the end decides, what is true. The role-playing game can be seen as series of incidents that the participants use as a basis for their individual narrative readings. If and when conflicts in these readings are expressed, the gamemaster defines what is true."

Interesting. How does this handle games where this core statement isn't true, though? Take a game of Blades in the Dark -- if there's a disagreement about what the surroundings are like, or what has happened, that's not always a GM call. If it's a matter of scene framing, it is, mostly, the GM's call, so long as is doesn't violate the player decided inputs. If it's about what happened, that's not the GM's call at all -- it's the mechanics. If the mechanics say the player succeeded in what happened, then the GM is constrained to that truth, no matter what they may want or care to make it.

Is there an extension, or different formulation, of the theory that can account for games where the GM may be constrained by the system to NOT have this final authority over the fiction?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ovinomancer]

That goes to the first part- "If there is disagreement{.}" I think it is helpful to think about the ways in which a game might constrain GM authority, and the ways in which that constraint might be real (or imaginary).

Theoretically, given that the examples (before being elaborated on in later years) came from LARPing, one could state that there would be an (implicit, unacknowledged) switch in roles at that time, as is explicit in other games.

But IMO, the preferred way to look at it is that there is no disagreement. The negotiated roles (both written and social) in any game allow for certain parts of fiction to be authored by the different participants, and the only issue is what happens when there is a disagreement between participants.

I think an example is in order. Let's take a moment from a Blades game.

The Cutter is facing off against two thugs. The GM has set the scene as a dark alley on the side of the manor where the crew is doing a score. The player had indicated that their character was watching the egress route to make sure that the crew has a clear line of retreat if the score goes badly. The GM, in his scene setting, thinks it would be cool to have the alley be a dead end alley to up the tension in the scene. The player objects, because he established the egress route as a canal, so any alley must abut a canal and can't be a dead end. This is a disagreement, but the GM loses -- the player has the right to establish this fact and hold it to be true.

After acknowledging the change in scene, the GM continues by describing the thugs as approaching, clearly holding clubs against their legs, and saying that this is their alley and the Cutter's has to pay for being there uninvited -- the implication that the payment is a robbery and a beating. The Cutter's player announces that the Cutter leaps into the assault! He's not going to take this kind of intimidation! The GM sets the position of the action (the risk) as desperate with normal effect as the Cutter is skilled with his knives and these aren't hardened fighters, but crossing the distance to the thugs and getting in the blows without a lot of risk isn't going to happen. The player disagrees, and thinks that his Cutter is just that awesome! The GM wins, here, because the GM has the authority to set position and effect for a given action. The player has to accept it, or withdraw their action declaration.

The Cutter goes through with it, and rolls. A 5, partial success! This means the character will advance towards their goal (shut these arrogant thugs up, permanently), but suffers a cost or setback. The GM announces that the Cutter tries to stab a thug, but the thug's friend hits him with his club and breaks the Cutter's hand, sending the knife flying before the Cutter's blow lands! The Cutter's player objects, he's owed a success, and it has to be towards his goal of killing or incapacitating the thugs. The GM must change, here, because the system dictates that his authority to establish outcomes is constrained -- he does not have Rule Zero authority to change things, or be the final arbiter here. He must alter the outcomes. He can have the Cutter's hand broken by thug 2, but thug 1 must be out of the fight due to the Cutter's actions. He accepts this, and says that the Cutter's hand is, indeed, broken by the club of Thug 2, but it was the hand not holding the knife, which is now buried in Thug 1's heart. Play will continue, most likely with the player burning stress to mitigate the broken hand and force a different, lesser cost, which the GM will have to accept because that's the player's authority to force such changes, provided he can pay for it.

So, in this example, we had three disagreements in outcomes between GM and player. The player was able to dictate the outcome of the first disagreement because the player had the authority to do so. The GM won the second because he did have the authority there. The player AND the GM both had to accept the outcomes in the last because the system assigned different authorities and constraints on both.

 

[Hussar]

Part of the issue when we want to get into the critical examination of RPG's is simply size.

We have a shared language to discuss movies (for example) because the discussion of movies has been ongoing for over a century among millions of people. It's easier to reach a consensus meaning for various techniques when you have such a large audience because the edges tend to get blurred off a lot more easily simply by the fact that you have so many people talking about it over such a long period of time.

Realistically, the critical examination of role playing games is only a couple of decades old and has hardly managed to hit such a large audience to reach any sort of consensus meaning.

Even in the example of cut scene or montage, it is possible to quibble (is this a cut scene or a montage - how many cuts does it take to make a montage?) but, realistically, that sort of pedantic garbage doesn't go anywhere as it gets drowned out by the much larger audience discussion.

The problem we have now is that there are so few voices and no agreement on terms. That takes time and repetition.

/edit to add

BTW, @lowkey13, totally thanks for that link. That's some interesting reading. My first foray through a Google search turned up an essay that was a bit... dense for my old brain to wrap around.

 

[Leatherhead]

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.

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