Why talking about RPGs (and other things) can suck
Over on Bluesky, there was some conversation about one of the long-running cyclical conversation that happens in RPG spaces. This time, it was about the category of statement that goes something like “I hacked D&D to run Cyberpunk 2077, just as god intended” to quote the original poster. To put it another way, it’s about this idea that design doesn’t really matter.
In the case of when this is used to defend specific games like D&D 5e, this is just fandom. People want to like what they like and will say anything. It’s best not to take it too seriously. But beyond that, I think there’s a specific structural reason that this conversation keeps happening.
Let’s talk about the two ways that people judge something. The first is by outcome (or effect or output) and the second is by input (time, effort, ingredients, values).
Have you ever gone “this is really tasty”? That’s outcome. It’s good because the effect was pleasurable.
Have you ever gone “someone put a lot of thought or skill into this”? That’s input. It’s good because of craft and care.
You’re probably doing both a lot in your life. Everyone uses both methods probably every day.
“But isn’t it more rational to judge everything by outcome?”, you might be thinking. It’s an interesting thought. In science and policy, measuring outcomes is essential to ensure you’re not just making stuff up. But in many situations you can’t measure outcome in any real way. Like for example, art. (There’s lots of other examples including almost everything you do because “it’s the right thing to do”. But getting into this is literally a philosophy class so we must hurry along.)
Coming back to RPGs, the truth is that you can have a great experience roleplaying with good design, bad design, no design, whatever. At the same time, the craft and values going into a design are also a real thing that can be observed and discussed.
People talking about the former (outcomes, experience, their fun) and people talking about the latter (inputs, design, values) are going to talk in circles if they don’t acknowledge the difference in approach. This conversation will never resolve because it’s not about the same thing.
When I talk about games in terms of outcomes, I’m really talking about myself. I had fun. I laughed. I grew closer to my friends. Those are real things — important things. When I talk about the games in terms of inputs, I’m talking about rules, setting, illustrations, etc. Those are also real things — but obviously different things.
Saying “this game is good because I had fun” and saying “this game is good because it is designed well” feels like they’re doing the same thing because of the way language works. But go deeper and they’re simply not.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s not some impassable bridge. These two starting points can be connected. Two people can begin at different places and still have a conversation… if they’re willing to talk about interaction, i.e., the space between inputs and outputs and what happens there.
But here’s the things: talking about interaction is annoying and hard. Very often, whether you’re talking about inputs or outputs, it’s easier to just ignore it. When we’re talking about design, it’s easy to say that, oh, this rule does this or this adventure does that. But for who? In whose hands? What inputs do they need to bring that isn’t in the text? A can-do attitude? How common is that input really?
When we talk about outcomes, it’s the same thing but in reverse. Oh, you had fun? Amazing. How did you get there? What led to the fun? Was it the text? Was it something outside the text? What percentage would you allocate to both categories?
Stop booing me! I’m just asking questions! I’m normal! I’M NORMAL.
I. Dear Reader, Arcimboldo gets it Over on Bluesky, there was some conversation about one of the long-running cyclical conversation that hap
