This is an article from my upcoming zine issue for March. It is a preview. I have an article on how I do prep when I feel I need to with Classic Traveller Prep as an example along with an article about abductive reasoning and zero prep gaming. Lots more will be in there too.
If you have spent any amount of time in the pen and paper role-playing game hobby, you have heard some semblance of “there is no wrong way to play.” Sometimes, as the person we will discuss in a moment did, people tack on conditions like “as long as everyone is having fun.” For me, as someone who has spent my time since I was a teenager reading philosophy, this statement bugs me. I finally figured out why and why I have come to appreciate playing as close to the rules as possible. This is relativistic nonsense that logically falls apart and expresses nothing of value.
Let’s first construct the argument to show how the claim “There is no wrong way to play” is often an internally inconsistent performative contradiction.
If there is no wrong way to play, then all ways are valid.
If all ways are valid, then the adherent of “no wrong way to play” is incapable of expressing nothing more than preference in regards to debate about the game.
If the “no wrong way” adherent attempts to argue with anyone over how the game should be run, they have contradicted themselves because argument and debate presuppose someone can be right and someone can be wrong, and that people can be swayed one way or another.
Let’s use an example, and then I will use a real conversation with an individual from my comment section to illustrate this further.
Person 1: “There is no wrong way to play D&D.”
Person 2: “Neat, I think the only correct way to play is rules as written.”
Person 1: “Well, see, that might work for a while or for some, but YOU HAVE to have flexibility at the very least in your games. You SHOULD be exercising your discretion as a Game Master to make calls, and those calls might go against the rules as they are written.”
Do you see the problem here? There are an awful lot of “SHOULDS” and “YOU HAVE TOs” in here for someone who believes there is no wrong way.
If there is no wrong way to play, the person who believes this cannot speak like this without contradicting the initial premise. The only consistent response is either no response at all to Person 2, or simply, “That’s cool, man.”
Let’s use a few more examples. Let’s use a common touchy subject: bioessentialism and orcs. If we have two people who believe opposite things about the subject but both hold to the idea of there being no wrong way to play the game, then neither should waste their time debating each other about whether or not it is appropriate to have irredeemable evil orcs in their respective games. If there is no wrong way to play, the “bioessentialist” is just as correct as the person who thinks evil orcs are just a dog whistle for vile racism. The moment one or both call each other out, they have now assumed there is a wrong way to play, and it’s either with or without “bioessentialism.” It becomes a performative contradiction.
A Real Life Example
Ancient philosophers like Plato and others would often demonstrate their philosophical arguments through “dialogues” with either real or fictitious characters who represent an opposing view. I continually have real-life versions of these dialogues play out in my comment section. The following was an exchange on the “Muh Forty Years!” video I did fairly recently. Very quickly, the commenter mentioned the “There is no wrong way to play” ideology, and with minimal pressing, I got him to contradict himself easily.
Commenter: This entire argument is silly. You are analyzing years played like it means something specific, it doesn't. There’s no right or wrong way to game. There’s ways you enjoy and ways other people enjoy. Even two players who have both played for 50 years might not like the same things at all and would hate playing with each other. Find a table you like to play with and roll some dice. The rest of this is just static.
Me: I don't believe that there is no wrong way to play. I think there are right ways to play and wrong ways to play. If there is no wrong way to play, why did I pay $60 for a book? Why do I write RPG books?
Commenter: Well, that's a you thing. If you come to my table and don't like how we play D&D, that's too bad. There's plenty of tables for you out there. Not all tables are good matches for all players. Never has been, never will be.
Right here, I would like to pause and analyze this statement because I didn’t in the back-and-forth with this individual. “Not all tables are good matches for all players.” Why? If there is no wrong way to play, then even our preferences and what we like are meaningless at the end of the day. There is no metric by which to measure any preference. Why discuss my preferences with another? Why seek to convince someone of my preferences if there is nothing potentially objective about them? But let us continue.
Me: That doesn't mean you are playing correctly.
Commenter: The ONLY thing that matters is that you and your friends are rolling dice, having a good time and telling a good story. You can ignore most of the rules, get important rules wrong, or just improvise whenever you want, IT DOES NOT MATTER. After killing the evil overlord no one is going to remember how well the group followed the rules. There is no wrong way to have fun.
(Emphasis is his)
Me: So if I'm not doing this (having fun), I'm playing wrong. This is why I don't believe there is no wrong way to play the game. It ends up being contradictory.
Commenter: No, you aren't playing wrong, you just aren't having fun. Those are two distinct concepts.
Notice these are two distinct concepts, and yet having fun is the only thing that matters as a metric for whether or not the game is successful. Already, we are trying to have our cake and eat it too.
Me: If we are not having fun, we are playing wrong and should course correct so that we have fun. But if there is no wrong way to play, what even is a course correction towards more fun within the parameters you have outlined? I'm not trying to be dick. I'm trying point out the logical problems with this sort of colloquial phrase that I think just isn't honest in the hobby and it doesn't make sense if you stop and think about it for just a minute.
Commenter: Homebrew rules are a good example of a situation where everyone at the table agrees a certain game rule is not fun and decreases fun at the table. In that case, we knowingly violate the rule to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
Notice that fun is being used as a measuring stick for success. Any measurement of “success” implies that failure is possible. Or that there are varying degrees of success or varying degrees of “right” and “less right” if we want to be charitable to this person.
Me: Ok, but this doesn't deal with the logical contradiction I stated above. If there is no wrong way to play than every way is valid. But if the only thing that matters or measures success is "having fun" then not having fun is a failure and needs to be corrected. If it needs to be corrected, it means something is wrong. But the first premise is that there is no wrong way to play. In fact putting any metric of success on gaming implies a right and wrong way. Which is why "The only thing that matters is if you are all having fun" contradicts the claim, "there is no wrong way to play." The claim "there is no wrong way to play" logically precludes any metric of success like, "the only thing that matters is fun."
Commenter: Then take the opening simple logical statement, "There's no wrong way to play" and turn into a conjunctive statement, "There is no wrong way to play as long as everyone is having fun."
It was at this point I knew this guy wasn’t going to get it or that at least, as we shall see, honest discussion was about to go away. I’ve explained how the premise with the clause are incompatible multiple times now, and he just puts them together in a single sentence without seeing the mistake here!
Me: This statement is a truth claim with a clause that undermines the main premise of the truth claim. The condition of "as long as everyone is having fun" is a condition that presupposes a different premise which contradicts the main premise of "There is no wrong way to play." You haven't solved the logical problem here.
Put another way, you could mean the same thing by saying:
"There is no wrong way to play except for when you are not having fun."
"Phil always tells the truth except for when he lies."
These are essentially worthless sentences that express only confusion.
This is why this phrase needs to be thrown out and we need to have honest discussion about the hobby and not worry about upsetting someone's feelings.
After this, I think he started to get it because he started to try and say I’m the one with the subjective view. He seems to be attempting to get away with the Tu Quoque Fallacy” where he wants to accuse me of doing exactly what he is doing. The whole point of my argument is that I think I am logically correct and that his view is just subjective opinion so who cares?
Commenter: What do you think is going to be gained by "honest discussion?” What even is that? Your subjective opinion about the way they play a game? Your thoughts and feelings are inconsequential to what they do.
Me: I don't believe I have a subjective view. I'm not saying relativistic things like you. You are the subjectivist here. And if my views are worthless, so are yours. Yet you commented. Another performative contradiction.
Commenter: You are the one claiming " we need to have an honest conversation about the hobby." About what? Your feelings on how other people are having fun? Why should ANYONE care about what you have to say about the way they play games?
Notice how absolutely stupid this is getting now. If what he says is true, any of the nonsense he has already said is equally as worthless. This only highlights how most people are solipsistic and not properly trained in logic. His commenting shows he must hold an unjustified view where his opinions matter but mine and others do not. I’m sure he would deny it, but his actions of continual engagement and argument prove otherwise.
Me: I already refuted you and showed how your position self contradicts, now you are trying to change the subject and do a tu quoque fallacy. I'm not going to let you. If there is no wrong way to play, if someone is playing and not having fun, is something somewhere being done wrong? This is basic logic my dude. As for honest discussion, it's logical contradictions and those that adamantly defend them that poison discussion.
Commenter: There's no discussion to be had with you. You spent 16 minutes of a video that could have been shortened to, "just because you've been doing something for 40 years doesn't mean it's the right way to do it." You loosely tied in tabletop games. My point stands, there's no wrong way to play dnd, and if you think there is then you are the exact type of person people should avoid playing with.
“…you are the exact type of person people should avoid playing with.” Why? I thought there was no wrong way to play. Why SHOULD people avoid me? The only reason they should avoid me is if I am doing something wrong. But wait, he believes there is no wrong way to play!
Why Am I Making a Big Deal About This?
The argument sort of fizzles out here as I write this. My point with all of this is to highlight that much of the poisoned discussion about how to play pen-and-paper role-playing games is because almost every single person is arguing from a position where only subjective preferences are possible, and yet, they argue as if these are objective facts. They want their cake and to eat it too. This leads to hurt egos and some of the most moronic arguments I have ever seen. My goal with highlighting this logical fallacy is to potentially get people with stupid presuppositions like “there is no wrong way to play” out of the discussion.
These people clog up all the bandwidth when they have nothing of value, nothing innovative, nothing challenging, to add to the hobby and the discussion around it. They are always the ones to come in, like this fellow here, and get crotchety when they do not get their way or their (wrong) way of playing the game isn’t validated by others. I think validation is much of this too. They see others talking about games and want to be a part of it, but they stubbornly hold to presuppositions that logically exclude them from any form of meaningful discussion about how the hobby is practiced. So make sure to press every “there is no wrong way to play” believer into the logical fallacies they will inevitably fall into. Maybe eventually they all butt right out of the conversation.
The only time I've heard that phrase used is in response to someone outside the play group
criticizing the way the group is enjoying themselves. Maybe the better response is "you don't get to tell us whether we're having fun or not".
RPGs were a fun hobby but they were also, in the early days, a kind of elitist hobby. Like listening to classical music, early computer programming, or building radios. A "nerd" hobby. High-class people played wargames and painted miniatures, from debutantes to generals. Go back to the 50s and tell a wargame enthusiast there's no wrong way to play. Fast forward and say the same thing to an RPG enthusiast of the 70s. "There's no wrong way to play" is just another example of a slow, crawling, dumbing down of a once-elitist hobby, a hobby for smart people who enjoyed literature and history and liked tinkering with math. Once enough people start parroting this, even some people who have been (supposedly) playing the games for decades, you know that we've entered a new era of decline for a once-cherished hobby that enriched minds at the same time that it entertained.