(Like most of my cohost posts, this is unedited and raw)
New games such as Blades in the Dark (above) and PbtA define RPGs as conversations. but is this right?
GURPS, Pathfinder, and other trad RPGs have the conversation as the medium of the game. But it's not what the game is., The game doesn't work like a conversation. The conversation functions to convey the game-state, as does the map. The map is important in many TTRPGs as it efficiently gives information that discussion cannot, allowing more decisions, more roleplay.
That's not true of everything that is labelled an RPG though. In Microscope, Blades in the Dark, and games like those, the game does work like a conversation. Let me explain.
BITD is wrong abut RPGs, but it is telling the truth about itself.
Microscope, and what it is
I was thinking this about how to describe Microscope to a friend who might enjoy it. He's played D&D 5e, Rogue Trader, and Star Wars EOTE systems. Nothing like Microscope.
I was thinking how to describe those differences, how it works, what it does. How you make a history together, but it's not just like sitting down and discussing ideas, except at the start where you discuss the Big Picture & themes of what you want. That discussion at the start is vital, because it is where you align the vision of what you are doing.
I was thinking about how Microscope galvanizes creativity. How if another player creates something you think could be better, or don't , the rules prevent you from just saying that, you can't talk about it.
(If it violates the Big Picture or themes that were discussed at the start, that's when you can object, though Microscope does allow for 'emergency palette discussion' if everyone agrees').
Instead you can to make an event or period that can destroy it, or change it. If they disagree with you, they can try to bring it back as another version, or some other way. But you cannot contradict each other.
For example:
Player A and player B are doing a medieval themed Microscope game. Player A is the focus, and he has chosen this round's focus to be "Kings."
Player A makes the event: "King Chad takes power. A noble and wise king who rules with justice and peace from Gigopolis. He brings prosperity to the land of Gigaplany." Since it's microscope, Player A has fabricated, King Chad, Gigopolis, and Gigaplany on the spot, for that Event.
Player B thinks this is fucking boring. King Chad is just a stupid perfect king. It'd be way more interesting if he had a fla. But he cannot say that. What can he do? Nobody owns anything in microscope, so he simply makes this event:
"King Chad Assassinated 5 years after taking the throne. by the Woko-ath Assassins, who are funded by the Sajak Hordes, enemies of Gigaplany. His reign comes to an abrupt end and Gigaplany is thrown into chaos as factions vie for power."
Player B is now happy. All that chaos is far more interesting than a peaceful kingdom.
Player A however, had some more ideas for King Chad, and he's the Focus so he gets to have a last turn for this round too. but KingChad is now dead. Since Player B defined that it was just 5 years of reign, his longer plans require adjustment, he needs a new King. He makes the following event: "King Chad's son; Prince Gainus reveals himself secretly to two royalist factions. Thus uniting them he proceeds to the capital Gigopolis and takes the crown as true heir. His right to rule is undeniable, thus a stop to the open hostilities in the Kingdom of Gigaplany. He rules in the same manner as his father."
I thought of the above example as illustrative of Microscope's power. instead of just having one idea, one event that's a compromise like you would without Microscope, you now have an entire chain of events or periods. That's when I thought, it's like a conversation. But you're having a conversation through the rules. The game-state is a conversation. The Lens and the Focus set the subject of the conversation to keep it on topic so someone can't just change the conversation completely, whatever they "talk" about has to relate to the Focus somehow.
That's what I realized, and that's when I truly realized how Microscope functions, and why it's so damn powerful at what it does, while simultaneously being so simple. It's rules for having a worldbuilding conversation, but it makes the whole conversation productive. The only time I've seen it fail is when someone didn't get it is due to insufficient discussion at the start; they they misunderstood the big picture, or the palette discussion was not thorough enough.
The similarities to BITD
BITD describes itself as a conversation. it truly means this. This is actually cool and good. I like that honesty. The Game Rhythm video I watched from John harper explains it. It's the rhythm of a conversation.
It has a different focus to Microscope, and of course uses dice for uncertainty, which is exactly what it says it does; the dice are there to inject uncertainty. Not to abstract all the minor factors that go into an action such as in a trad RPG.
The goal-threat-action structure is like that of a conversation. Similar to Microscope, it 'instantiates' things. I was once told how it doesn't even make sense to do game actions outside that structure during the game. I didn't get it, but now I do.
Just like if you just decide to have a normal conversation about the game state of Microscope during play, you've stopped playing it.
Look at the structure of how things work. The goal is first. Microscope's the same; Both in the Big Picture defined at the start, then the Focus of each round, as well as how Periods and Events are defined.
BITD diverges slightly because there's no GM in Microscope, everyone has equal authority; nobody gets to dictate contingent consequences for anyone else, thus dice are not required.
In BITD the game rhythm is Goal → GM threat → player action. The contingency of the threat is resolved with a dice roll.
Microscope players respond to each others' actions rather than responding to GMs threats. The rhythm is similar, like another song from the same genre of music.
Thus the game rhythm is Goal (Focus) → player action → player action in Microscope.
I can actually appreciate a BITD game now.
This is what I realized the other day and I'm really glad I did that, as the title of this section states.
I've spoken to people earlier about the importance of genre names, and labels as "signposts" for different experiences. It's two way. It's not just me wanting to make others actually understand what I like.
It also lets everyone, including myself, actually understand what those experiences can offer, and why we might like them. Otherwise we run off the road, or hit a roadblock, so to speak. After all, especially for myself and other grognards, we find that this thing that incorrectly calls itself a "TTRPG" is using language we're intimately familiar with, to describe something fundamentally different.
That's why that's such an epiphany, I actually get it now. You can say that I wasn't approaching BITD game on its own terms. True. But those terms did not belong to it to begin with. The only problem remaining is BITD defines a conversation, like itself, as what all RPGs are.
I see the similarities between what I consider actual RPGs, and storygames like BITD too. BITD has that text on the conversation, page 6. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs describe how all these games work in general.
I'd say that's is almost all of a definition of what it means to be a pen and paper game or a tabletop game that has a GM or referee.
But it's all about that first sentence, where it defines what a roleplaying game is. That's the difference. It does matter.
Fin.
