Let It Ride Blows, and Other Updates

I know I owe a fellow who emailed me an entry in response, but it’s not coming yet. Instead, three bits that are on my mind:

1) I’m not going to review The Burning Wheel after all. I came to this conclusion after realizing that the problems with the game map to the problems with indie games so exactly that it would be hard to write anything constructively critical about it. What I mean is that the good bits would have been obviously good before current pseudo-theory, and the bad things are bad because of the revisions awkward mating with pseudo-theory. The game is amazing in places, and the obvious victim of buying into garbage ideology in other places.

The one bit emblematic of this is the misguided “Let it Ride” rule. This rule is basically everything wrong with indie gaming in a few short pages:

• The rule (no re-rolls required unless conditions radically change) is based on an assumption that the players are basically damaged gamers. It is touted as a form of “protection” from the GM. Ultimately, it’s based on distrust of the player. GMs actually tend to ask for re-rolls to give players another chance, not to screw them.
• The rule is badly designed. Increased randomness actually favours the player with the worse edge. That means that in many situations, re-rolls are good for players, not bad. This is why re-rolls are actually a poor punitive tool by GMs who are control freaks. Bad GMs normally use them to create a result they think “should” have happened, but they’ve already loaded the contest and have the edge. Thus, they do not reap significant rewards unless the result was really unlikely to begin with and are just exercising the gambler’s fallacy. But if a player with a poor chance of success gets another shot, this can become a significant advantage because of the same principles that dice pools operate under.
• The rule is vague. The example of the rule in action is actually a situation where the GM screws the player and the example actually calls the application of the rule into question, since the GM forbids a new roll where the rule implies one ought to be allowed (“legitimately and drastically change”).

In short it assumes that you, the player, are a rather stupid and difficult person and don’t deserve a break. It’s everything wrong with the game in a nutshell.

Everything *right* with the game is summed up in Instincts, which is an elegant solution for a genuine issue in play, with consequences built firmly into its structure.

2) After D&D last night I found myself able to articulate something that kind of sucks about the rules. D&D is designed to strictly assign responsibilities and outcomes for dungeon crawling. This breaks down into a number of standard tasks that players constantly undertake. D&D mandates rolls in short intervals in tasks like Search. D&D also assumes that players declare the task each time.

The unspoken balancing mechanism here is that as players have to declare that they’re doing exactly the same thing over and over again, somebody will slip up and miss the trap/monster/door. Basically, D&D relies on player boredom to create tension and conflict.

Many groups simply use a written set of standard dungeoneering practices, but this is really a crutch for broken play. Then again, people should be able to slip up or rush past standard tasks from time to time for the sake of tension and DM deviousness. And multiple rolls do build a sense of uncertainty that simply running a “party macro” won’t do. This is why the smartass suggestion to use the rule I just lambasted won’t work either.

3) Oh for God’s sake! John Kim’s theory glossary had two . . . mistakes. John Kim is a smart guy but his role as a compiler of information seems to leave itself vulnerable to absorbing dumbass statements by others without critical comment. To wit:

Metaplot A widely-used term for an overarching plot which appears in published RPG books, such that over many published books (including several game series from White Wolf) you can read about the adventures of these characters. How this is supposed to apply to ongoing games is a matter of considerable debate.

This is literally incorrect. Few (I’d say none, but I’m not up on Heavy Gear’s fat books and such) published metaplots do anything of the sort. White Wolf’s metaplots did not actually follow a single set of characters consistently. It’s common for people to complain that metaplot was about such a group of characters, but those people are fucking idiots. If you try to follow the history of any signature character you will find significant gaps as well as dozens and dozens of throwaway exemplar characters. That’s why the wrongness of this description is a matter of objective fact, not opinion.

Aside from this, the last sentence is a hoot. There isn’t a “debate.” There is a continued desire on the part of theory types to remain willfully ignorant despite multiple essays, emails and communiques about metaplot’s purpose. The idea that the purpose of metaplot is a mystery even though any schmoe can email people who design metaplots and get straight answers is, quite simply, an idea that results from a failure to honestly engage the material. In other words, since actually talking to anybody who’s written metaplot about metaplot would probably disqualify the kneejerk bitching that some people use as part of the basis of their association, such people have avoided talking to said people as much as possible.

What’s even funnier is seeing the process of willful ignorance come full circle with this:

Underbelly A term coined by Ron Edwards on The Forge for a technique of preparation and play using a canonical setting and storyline, known to all participants, in which the events of play create a “hidden” storyline to enrich and reinforce the primary one, which is treated as a creative constraint. Also called “inverse metaplot.”

In yet another charming example of the Forge process, Edwards apparently decided to “fix” metaplot through a complex, involved exercise that ended up with him just using metaplot according to one of its intended functions — a function that was (naturally), described by anyone who ever wrote much metaplot to anyone who asked. Or explained by every LARPer ever. Instead of “inverse metaplot,” it’s metaplot as used by people who aren’t determined to make asses of themselves.

(This gets back to the whole indie thing about designing games that assume the players are basically unpleasant or untrustworthy. I realize I’m losing money from the valuable Asshole Demographic by not designing games assholes would be able to play at length, but I can live with that.)

This trend of patting oneself on the back for inventing aspects of a game you hate seems to run deep. Not long ago, they were proudly “inventing” the relationship maps used in 1st edition Vampire. Two years ago a theorist proudly released a diagram with the basic structure of stories in it, as if this was a revelation. Don’t get me wrong: This stuff is still a goldmine. Kickers were cool when they were first widely implemented in 1991.

Again, I don’t think this is John Kim’s fault. It’s everybody else’s fault. What the fuck is wrong with you people? If you don’t know what something is for, why don’t you just ask? It reminds me of Trekkie fanon. Instead of admitting that you don’t like Enterprise or metaplot, you have to invent some dumb explanation where metaplot is a staggered novel or Enterprise took place in the Mirror Universe (a theory Trekkies bandied about) instead of accepting that you’re responsible for your own taste. I sympathize: the early seasons of Enterprise were lousy and Mage’s Horizon: Stronghold of Hope is crappy.

Tags: fantasy RPGs, RPG design, RPG Playcraft