originally posted at https://canmom.tumblr.com/post/750510...
I watched this three hour video! It is primarily a critique of the story games/Forge mode in TTRPG design, seeing it as the fruit of a condescending behaviourism, which to youtuber Vi Huntsman is painfully reminiscent of the ‘Applied Behaviour Analysis’ abusive treaments that are often applied to autistic children! Oof! Quite a charge…
…though it only gets there after the first hour or so! There’s a segment where they do a stage production of an abridged version of a segment in Sunless Skies!
So… despite ‘three hour video essay titled Art, Agency, Alienation’ being kind of a punchline in itself, despite occasionally the kind of indulgence you tend to only see in got-way-too-big video essay channels, this video is actually pretty legit. I used to be quite the story game partisan and this is perhaps the best critique I’ve seen of it!
I think the thrust of Vi Huntsman’s critique has merit, but it ends up feeling… honestly broader than I think they meant it - many dimensions seem to apply to almost any printed TTRPG. I also found their conclusion, which calls for more adventures and similar to support the ‘folk art’ of RPGs, extremely underwhelming - more a statement of taste than an answer to the blistering criticisms of the previous three hours.
So here’s my own attempt at an answer. Or at least to lay out the premises we’d need to reach an answer, I’m not there yet!
tl;dw
Let me try and break it down into a tl;dw version. (I’ll brush past the lead-in which talks about The Stanley Parable and Severance, used to frame the discussion.)
First up, ABA is an abusive practice inspired by radical behaviourism. In ABA, a behaviour analyst decides how a child should behave, and applies crude reward/punishment structures to get the child to do as they want, without trying to understand the underlying reasons. For example, an analyst may try to stop a child covering their ears when flushing the toilet, even though this is painful for the child. This analogy runs through the video. It is clearly quite personal for Huntsman, who I’m fairly sure is autistic themselves, and apparently worked at some point in attempting to apply the ‘treatments’ cooked up by the behavioural analysts.
Now, there is a perspective in game design that believes that the designer’s responsibility is to create structures of rewards and perhaps punishments to push a player towards a specific intended experience - i.e. ‘incentives’. In this light, game design is envisioned almost as a kind of spooky mind control to create behaviour in players, though the methods imagined to do so are in fact very crude.
The other element Huntsman introduces is the notion of ’Suitsian games’, after the philosopher Bernard Suits, which are self-contained rules structures creating interesting obstacles to reach some kind of arbitrary goal (for example: capture king, place ball in hoop), where the interesting aspect is the new ‘agency’ created by the limitations of the rules. Huntsman argues that TTRPGs are not Suitsian games, and it’s a big mistake to act as if they are.
They present some examples of a disdainful attitude among designers that players are like children whose behaviour is determined only by the game itself, despite all evidence to the contrary. A particularly damning example is a podcast episode in which a game designer who is also an ABA behavioural analyst attempts to explain how games should more deliberately apply direct incentives in their design.
This attitude, Huntsman argues, results in games (here books you can buy instructing you what to do) which attempt to meticulously shape play (the actual thing that happens at the table) to push it towards a very specific intended experience, often by rigidly defining processes for nearly every stage of the game, similar to a board game. This undercuts the open-endedness of TTRPGs, the major strength of the medium.
The roots of the pernicious ideology, in Huntsman’s view, go back to the Forge forums, a cultish forum about game design run by a terribly arrogant man called Ron Edwards, known for Sorcerer and Trollbabe. Many of the major game designers active in the indie scene today come from the Forge, and they tend to somewhat nepotistically promote each other, including writing a very self-back-patting textbook.
In a section termed ‘the can of worms’, Huntsman suggests that elements like the ‘agendas’ and ‘principles’ and ‘GM moves’ amount to designers taking undue credit for player creativity, with designers claiming that fairly boilerplate GM advice framed as rules is what makes the game work, with the corollary if the game doesn’t work you weren’t following the GM rules properly and thus weren’t really playing the game.
Some of these games tell you off for interesting ways you might hack or vary their rules, insisting that they be interpreted strictly and narrowly to get the ‘intended’ experience
This is all about selling a product - the idea that you need this specific book in order to create a certain kind of experience, when in reality the book does very little to actually contribute to the ‘folk art’ of playing an RPG together.
The main example used to illustrate all this is Root: The RPG, a TTRPG adaptation of the extremely popular asymmetric board game about forest animals having a civil war. The TTRPG is printed by a company called Magpie Games which specialises in PbtA designs, probably best known for Masks. They tend to do very well on Kickstarter, but their games - often IP tie-ins - are not especially memorable. Vi Huntsman praises the original board game, but has little positive to say about the TTRPG spinoff.
From what I saw in the video, Root is definitely a strong example of a shallow PbtA game which borrows the surface-level forms of Apocalypse World (moves, agendas, etc.) to create something bland and unengaging. It commits many design sins - far too many uninteresting moves, a dearth of evocative prompts to get you into the idea of the game, locking certain reasonable actions to specific playbooks, repetitive prose, a lack of conceptual clarity, dogmatic insistence that its rules must be followed to the letter… Clearly we can all skip this game.
But…
the role played by a roleplaying book
What’s more interesting to me is the broader critique.
The video does not directly address Root’s obvious parent Apocalypse World in much depth. Huntsman notes that most of Root’s ideas are cribbed from there and that Magpie Games have been less and less likely to acknowledge Vincent and Meguey as time goes on; the pair are also included in the Pepe Silvia wall used to illustrate the reach of the Forge. However, they do not really address whether their criticisms apply to Apocalypse World.
To my eye, Apocalypse World is still a lot better than almost all of its many, many imitators. Part of that is the strength of its prose - and that is actually very important, for reasons I’ll get into. So I think it would be better to look at the best of this tradition, rather than its worst.
But before we can get into that, the real question for me is this. What is the relationship between the paper object in your hands or PDF on your computer, and that mystical thing that happens when you and your friends gather around a table and tell a story together for four or five hours?
Comments