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

[Ovinomancer]

Well, I thought I was winning because I used the fewest words, but it turns out I just used smaller words, as @Nagol and I are tied at 72 words a piece. (No, I didn't count them manually, there's internet for that.)

 

[Lanefan]

This is starting to sound like the type of conversation I have at the pub after seven beers.

 

[Fenris-77]

This is starting to sound like the type of conversation I have at the pub after seven beers.

And you, as a DM, earned every one of those seven beers. I got next..

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[prabe]

You call yourselves optimizers? Seven beers?

Wild Turkey 101, intravaneously.

Gobble gobble.

If those seven beers were Spaten Optimators, I'd expect someone to be optimizing the floor ...

 

[Beleriphon]

I have a question, having not read 7 pages of back and forth. RPGs are ultimately games right? They aren't passive entertainment like movies or TV, nor are they non-interactive entertainment like books. D&D and its ilk are much more like videogames than books in so far as the users are active participants in the action.

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.

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.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Aldarc]

I have a question, having not read 7 pages of back and forth. RPGs are ultimately games right? They aren't passive entertainment like movies or TV, nor are they non-interactive entertainment like books. D&D and its ilk are much more like videogames than books in so far as the users are active participants in the action.

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.

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.

Probably because some RPG fans don't like being reminded that Roleplaying Games are games and not some form of high art, particularly those who view them as either a stage for their thespian accolades or GMs who are novel-writing-by-proxy.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

No. I would dispute that. Settlers of Catan is a board game; a slightly complicated one, one that involves strategy and is not "perfect information" nor "deterministic" (very specific terms), but is still very different than the heuristics and critical theory one would apply to an RPG.

I've quoted @Beleriphon above for reference. I find it interesting that you'd disagree that D&D has more in common with Catan than with Lord of the Rings. I agree that a board game and a RPG will have different processes, but so would reading a novel and playing a RPG.

I'm curious if you feel that D&D has more in common with a novel than with another type of game, or if you were just disagreeing with the comparison of D&D and Catan.

Although not a perfect comparison by any means, I'd lean more toward lumping D&D and Catan together than I would D&D and LotR. Even just the description indicates a pretty big alignment.....you play a boardgame, you play a RPG, you read a novel.

Finally, while there are basic approaches to videogames (say, which are much closer matches than boardgames), even these are necessarily restricted within specific areas; comparing the examples of Journey, Candy Crush, Binding of Isaac, Call of Duty: MW, Civ V, Ghost of Tsushima, the Return of Obra Din, God of War, and Tetris Effect should indicate pretty quickly that the qualities that are necessary in one game are not necessary (or sufficient) in another.

What works for a LARP may not work for D&D may not work for BiTD may not work for another RPG.

Would you say that RPGs have a broader range of categories than video games?

I agree that different approaches may work for one type of game over another, but I don't know if that means there is no useful way to compare them. Or that there isn't enough mutual ground to apply some of the same analysis.

 

[Beleriphon]

Game theory (as a term) is specific to a branch of math, not to critical theory about games. There is a burgeoning field of videogame critical theory, however.

While game theory is certain a math derivative, the concepts could apply. Particular quantum game theory. Mind you that's a whole thing that is just getting started.

Remember, that game theory is also about decision making and logic, both things that can apply to an RPG. That said, I don't think its the best existing theory to look at for inspiration.

No. I would dispute that. Settlers of Catan is a board game; a slightly complicated one, one that involves strategy and is not "perfect information" nor "deterministic" (very specific terms), but is still very different than the heuristics and critical theory one would apply to an RPG.

Finally, while there are basic approaches to videogames (say, which are much closer matches than boardgames), even these are necessarily restricted within specific areas; comparing the examples of Journey, Candy Crush, Binding of Isaac, Call of Duty: MW, Civ V, Ghost of Tsushima, the Return of Obra Din, God of War, and Tetris Effect should indicate pretty quickly that the qualities that are necessary in one game are not necessary (or sufficient) in another.

What works for a LARP may not work for D&D may not work for BiTD may not work for another RPG.

Yes Catan is a board game, but it is still a game, played as a group at a table. At its very core is the idea of a group activity governed by rules easy enough to be expressed in a shortish book. Like and RPG, now that isn't to say they are the same, because they aren't, but my point was that two games have more in common than a game and a novel, even if one of those games emulates the genre of novel. I recognize that Catan isn't chess any more than D&D is chess.

I do agree that for the reasons why RPGs are played at all video games have some critical thought on that topic already, and since they're interactive the categories tend to work well. The Angry GM has a pretty good break down of the categories and how they apply to RPGs vis-a-vis video games.

To clear though, you mean deterministic in the way one could in theory play the same game of chess over and over as the are only so may prescribed moves, and using the same ones every time will end in the same result. And perfect information in that the players of chess can see every move and know what their opponent can do and has done at every turn. Compared to Catan where there are hidden cards, and randomness via dice. At their core RPGs are stochastic games with imperfect information. In a lot of ways RPGs are Assymetrical-Super-Poker-on-Steroids. The game is one of stochastic perfect information for a GM (where one exists) and stochastic imperfect information for the players.

In the end my point is ultimately that in the G part of RPG part is the most important part (either the game or grenade, take your pick). In fact, I learned something about terms for categories of games without talking about RPGs directly, since they're still games and fall into broader categories which have specific terms that can apply.