RPG Theory- The Limits of My Language are the Limits of My World

[Malmuria]

So, in here, there's a really interesting question:

What is the purpose of critique?

This can be answered in a broad, general sense, or in a specific sense - if you are here, on this site, giving a critique - what is the purpose of that communication?

I’m not sure I’m trying to provide formal critique, personally. That is, I’m not so interested in finding a set of normative principles and categories that I can use to evaluate ttrpgs. On the other hand, I am very interested in understanding the history of ttrpgs and how they’ve been played over time. And I’m particularly keen to see the gaming community take seriously issues of equity and justice, both in games and among game-makers.

Aside from that, I don’t usually approach posts as providing critique or even an argument, given that this is a relatively causal form of communication. Usually it’s more: here’s a thought that I had, here’s are some reflections on an anecdote, here’s a link to a blog post or a tweet that is interesting or provocative or potentially helpful.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m not sure I’m trying to provide formal critique, personally. That is, I’m not so interested in finding a set of normative principles and categories that I can use to evaluate ttrpgs.

When other people are advocating for particular normative principles and categories and using words that have strong negative connotations to categorize playstyles other than theirs, then regardless of their intent it causes a rather defensive reaction from those whose playstyles they advocate for categorizing with terms that carry strong negative connotations. It's no wonder discussions involving such advocation constantly blow up. I personally believe people generally have 'pure' motives. In this case advocating for a framework that has been very useful for them. If there was one point of wisdom I could impart it would be to find a way to categorize without using language that carries with it strong negative connotations.

 

[payn]

When other people are advocating for particular normative principles and categories and using words that have strong negative connotations to categorize playstyles other than theirs, then regardless of their intent it causes a rather defensive reaction from those whose playstyles they advocate for categorizing with terms that carry strong negative connotations. It's no wonder discussions involving such advocation constantly blow up. I personally believe people generally have 'pure' motives. In this case advocating for a framework that has been very useful for them. If there was one point of wisdom I could impart it would be to find a way to categorize without using language that carries with it strong negative connotations.

Yeap, unfortunately it has a poisoning of the well effect too. Even if you try and get away from a term with negative connotations, the new neutral terms are often rejected as just another form of the same shade. (I.E. railroad vs linear) So its very important to be mindful at the outset when discussing theory topics if you want to cut the negativity and get to constructive discussion.

 

[Aldarc]

When other people are advocating for particular normative principles and categories and using words that have strong negative connotations to categorize playstyles other than theirs, then regardless of their intent it causes a rather defensive reaction from those whose playstyles they advocate for categorizing with terms that carry strong negative connotations. It's no wonder discussions involving such advocation constantly blow up. I personally believe people generally have 'pure' motives. In this case advocating for a framework that has been very useful for them. If there was one point of wisdom I could impart it would be to find a way to categorize without using language that carries with it strong negative connotations.

Instead of “Force” we have decided to use the term “Rainbows” instead. Likewise “railroading” will be renamed to “vacationing.”

 

[hawkeyefan]

When other people are advocating for particular normative principles and categories and using words that have strong negative connotations to categorize playstyles other than theirs, then regardless of their intent it causes a rather defensive reaction from those whose playstyles they advocate for categorizing with terms that carry strong negative connotations. It's no wonder discussions involving such advocation constantly blow up. I personally believe people generally have 'pure' motives. In this case advocating for a framework that has been very useful for them. If there was one point of wisdom I could impart it would be to find a way to categorize without using language that carries with it strong negative connotations.

I don't disagree with what you're saying; I generally try not to put down anyone's preferred game or playstyle. But at the same time, being critical about something may require some negativity from time to time. If I see what I think is a flaw about a game or a process, and I explain my thinking, I don't think it should be seen as anything other than a stated preference along the lines of "I don't like lima beans because they don't taste good." There may be others.....bewilderingly.....who actually like the way lima beans taste. My preference is not an attack on theirs.

If I level a criticism at a game that you enjoy that you don't think is accurate, then you should state your case on why you disagree. That's what analysis and critique involve.

So if I were to say something like "I find sandbox play to still be largely GM driven; it's just a railroad where the stops can happen in any order" that's a critique of sandbox play. Is it true? That's up to each person as I think the answer is largely subjective. But I can make statements in support of that critique, or against it.

We tend to be overly touchy regarding our preferences about games (myself included), but we don't really need to be. Honestly, I think everyone not taking such great offense at the use of a word or phrase that may have negative connotations would be a huge help. Ultimately, if we just change the words we're using, we're not really changing what we're trying to say. So I think being clear is important, and people just not getting worked up is the bigger deal. Though I realize that can be difficult on things we're al passionate about, I think it's something we should all be striving for.

 

[Malmuria]

Instead of “Force” we have decided to use the term “Rainbows” instead. Likewise “railroading” will be renamed to “vacationing.”

Hilarious. But I don't think we can pretend that some terms, like "railroading" or "agency" are value neutral. There's the established context of their use within the hobby, in online and in person discussions and in game books. So some terms should be used advisedly if the goal is to have a helpful and mutually productive conversation.

 

[Aldarc]

Hilarious. But I don't think we can pretend that some terms, like "railroading" or "agency" are value neutral. There's the established context of their use within the hobby, in online and in person discussions and in game books. So some terms should be used advisedly if the goal is to have a helpful and mutually productive conversation.

Sadly “Agency” was deemed too positive (and controversial) a term so it will be replaced with “Fun.” That will undoubtedly help clarify matters and keep conversations free of controversy.

 

[Malmuria]

We tend to be overly touchy regarding our preferences about games (myself included), but we don't really need to be. Honestly, I think everyone not taking such great offense at the use of a word or phrase that may have negative connotations would be a huge help. Ultimately, if we just change the words we're using, we're not really changing what we're trying to say. So I think being clear is important, and people just not getting worked up is the bigger deal. Though I realize that can be difficult on things we're al passionate about, I think it's something we should all be striving for.

Normative critique strives to be disinterested, that is, be able to make judgments according to objective standards and avoid self-interested statements (like, saying a work of art is beautiful simply because I happen to enjoy its color palette). However, it's very possible to claim a position of neutrality while (consciously or unconsciously) elevating what one personally enjoys to status of objective good. Or, it can easily be perceived that way. Just something to be mindful of, in general.

 

[prabe]

Sadly “Agency” was deemed too positive (and controversial) a term so it will be replaced with “Fun.” That will undoubtedly help clarify matters and keep conversations free of controversy.

FUN IS MANDATORY EVERYONE WILL HAVE FUN

WANG CHUNG-ING WILL HOWEVER BE OPTIONAL

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeap, unfortunately it has a poisoning of the well effect too. Even if you try and get away from a term with negative connotations, the new neutral terms are often rejected as just another form of the same shade. (I.E. railroad vs linear) So its very important to be mindful at the outset when discussing theory topics if you want to cut the negativity and get to constructive discussion.

Yea. Moving back a little closer to the thread premise, it's kind of like the Hatfields and Mccoys, this fued has been going on so long that no one knows who or what event actually started it. I mean one of this threads premises is that there's history of how none of these arguments and perceptions are actually 'new'. So to some extent, the well has been poisoned for both perspectives. That's a difficult place to move forward from.