Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Grendel_Khan]

If I say I am making a sandbox MMO without PvP, no reasonable person would take that as an attack on PvP MMOs unless I also said something about gankboxes. If I say I want to systemically constrain the referee’s decision-making in a tabletop RPG? Someone might take that as an attack on how they run games.

This is such a depressingly accurate point. Even talking to friends who are also GMs about the merits of some game or playstyle often means dealing with some sort of defensivesness, often based on this unexamined notion that there's one way to play and run RPGs. That really hobbles so many discussions.

But to @Snarf Zagyg 's point, common terms could go a long way toward making people realize how much variety there is in the hobby, and why that's a good thing.

 

[Campbell]

I am all for shared language where we can arrive at it, but usually the call for shared language / jargon is a call to use language oriented towards one method of play to describe/depict another form of play that it is wholly inadequate for. The best example here is game world. It presumes an approach and way of looking at the game's setting that is just inappropriate for many of the games I run/play. Trying to apply it to paradigms of play that work differently only causes more confusion and conflict (see all the Schrodinger's X arguments on these boards).

 

[dragoner]

Conversations about RPG theory are difficult because 1) there is no single agreed framework or definitions that are widely used; 2) many of the basic definitions used have argumentative connotations and are themselves subject to argument; 3) RPG theory is, for many people, inextricably linked to other battles; and 4) the conflation of descriptive and normative- the confusion of what "is" what "ought" - means that most RPG theory puts the cart before the horse, by arguing for how games should be without understanding why games are the way they are.

Coming from a peasant background, I have to say, what is the point? Most people just find a reviewer that they kinda sorta agree with and go from there. I mean none of the numbered points give me utility at the table. For example how tight are the rules? If like in mongoose trav I can grapple and then throw the opponent like 9 meters away, I'm saying that is pretty much a fantasy. Then again I'm not the audience to watch a zillion youtube videos criticizing DnD, I just don't care. Though some sort of accuracy I do care about, because I don't want players coming to the table with unrealistic impressions they got from a reviewer.

Though any review has to pass the motorhead test of write it down on a beatles wig and send it off to someone who cares.

 

[Umbran]

This is such a depressingly accurate point. Even talking to friends who are also GMs about the merits of some game or playstyle often means dealing with some sort of defensivesness, often based on this unexamined notion that there's one way to play and run RPGs. That really hobbles so many discussions.

Yes, but there's part of that that cuts the other way, too. Snarf mentions it in the first post - what language we do have is kind of judgmental. And in a lot of discussions we do see, while folks say they want to just talk about merits of some game or playstyle, there is often judgement (or, indeed, direct negative comparison) baked into the discussion.

Now, put that in an open environment - while any given person may mean no ill, a lot of others are not so kind - and a medium which lacks many of the normal social signals humans use to get nuance and tone, and problems develop. If you don't know your audience, know your medium, and watch how you approach a topic, you can look offensive, and wonder why others are defensive.

One of our moderators emeritus used to say, "I double-dog dare you to tell me how awesome your favorite game is WITHOUT comparing it to any other game."

 

[kenada]

But to @Snarf Zagyg 's point, common terms could go a long way toward making people realize how much variety there is in the hobby, and why that's a good thing.

Definitely, and I think @Umbran also makes a good point about using theories as tools to obtain some understanding rather than looking for them to provide “the truth”.

For example, I have found some of Edwards’s ideas useful when working on my homebrew system, but I don’t find his taxonomy of creative agendas very useful at all. I could tell you which one it is, probably; but that doesn’t really tell me what things I should include in my game. I would add Baker, Harper, and even Justin Alexander to the list of people whose ideas I’ve found helpful.

What would be nice is if more tabletop RPG designers talked about the nuts and bolts of the games they are designing and why they made certain design decisions—like you see video game developers do at e.g., GDC. It would go a long way towards normalizing discourse about game theory and help to establish a vocabulary organically that people would use.

 

[Staffan]

The reason that I use films and literature as examples is because they are common and easy-to-understand analogies that are unlikely to draw serious pushback because people are generally familiar with them and the vocabulary (I also use music for this reason). But all sorts of creative endeavors have vocabularies for critique and theory. For example, a person could write a play. You could critique that play based simply on the words on the page. But the way that the play is performed- the choices that are made, the set designs, the acting, the blocking, the omission or addition of additional characters and dialogue, the choice of the period of time (or the choice to make it time agnostic) ... these are also part of live theater- which has a rich history of critique and theory as well.

Thank you for mentioning music, because I think that provides the perfect analogue I was looking for, with two different things that come together to create a third.

A published RPG is like a musical instrument. You can certainly compare different instruments to one another, both across entirely different types (an accordion has a different sound from an electric guitar), and quality-wise within each type.

A published (or at least prepared) adventure is sheet music. It's a set of instructions for how to use an instrument to create a certain experience. You can look at the sheet music and see how it works, and if you know how to read it properly you can imagine the music in your head, but the notes on the sheet are not the actual music.

The game as played is actual music. There's often a basis in sheet music, but there's lots of room for improvisation around what's there, and different players will put their different spin on things. And play the same sheet music on different instruments, and it will sound quite different.

Now, within each category you can certainly compare, review, and discuss the varying qualities of the work. But they should be discussed in different ways. Comparing Stairway to Heaven to Spirit in the Sky might have some relevance, but the vocabulary used would not be good for comparing a piano to a guitar.

An RPG should generally be considered more on qualities of aesthetics (what kinds of things does it do well) and craftsmanship (how well does it actually do them), whereas actual play is more a matter of artistry, for lack of a better word. And the language of critique generally works better for the latter, I think.

 

[payn]

Thank you for mentioning music, because I think that provides the perfect analogue I was looking for, with two different things that come together to create a third.

A published RPG is like a musical instrument. You can certainly compare different instruments to one another, both across entirely different types (an accordion has a different sound from an electric guitar), and quality-wise within each type.

A published (or at least prepared) adventure is sheet music. It's a set of instructions for how to use an instrument to create a certain experience. You can look at the sheet music and see how it works, and if you know how to read it properly you can imagine the music in your head, but the notes on the sheet are not the actual music.

The game as played is actual music. There's often a basis in sheet music, but there's lots of room for improvisation around what's there, and different players will put their different spin on things. And play the same sheet music on different instruments, and it will sound quite different.

Now, within each category you can certainly compare, review, and discuss the varying qualities of the work. But they should be discussed in different ways. Comparing Stairway to Heaven to Spirit in the Sky might have some relevance, but the vocabulary used would not be good for comparing a piano to a guitar.

An RPG should generally be considered more on qualities of aesthetics (what kinds of things does it do well) and craftsmanship (how well does it actually do them), whereas actual play is more a matter of artistry, for lack of a better word. And the language of critique generally works better for the latter, I think.

This is a fairly good read. I would boil it down to music theory and music artistry. A piano and guitar are different, but do work on the same tuning, notes, and playstyle. You can write sheet music that works for them both. That would be the mechanics side of RPG design and theory discussion. The actual creation, writing, and performance is the aesthetic piece that's more subjective. This would be the adventure design, role play, etc... of RPG theory.

 

[kenada]

Yes, but there's part of that that cuts the other way, too. Snarf mentions it in the first post - what language we do have is kind of judgmental. And in a lot of discussions we do see, while folks say they want to just talk about merits of some game or playstyle, there is often judgement (or, indeed, direct negative comparison) baked into the discussion.

Now, put that in an open environment - while any given person may mean no ill, a lot of others are not so kind - and a medium which lacks many of the normal social signals humans use to get nuance and tone, and problems develop. If you don't know your audience, know your medium, and watch how you approach a topic, you can look offensive, and wonder why others are defensive.

One of our moderators emeritus used to say, "I double-dog dare you to tell me how awesome your favorite game is WITHOUT comparing it to any other game."

It would help if there weren’t a presumption of ill-intent. Discourse would be much more functional if people assumed good faith and only reacted once it became clear there was none. We’ll never reach a shared language we can use to discuss games if contrast between them is forbidden (regardless of how respectful it attempts be).

 

[JAMUMU]

It would help if there weren’t a presumption of ill-intent. Discourse would be much more functional if people assumed good faith and only reacted once it became clear there was none. We’ll never reach a shared language we can use to discuss games if contrast between them is forbidden (regardless of how respectful it attempts be).

There's an argument that all criticism/theoretical analysis comes from a place of ill intent. The sorts of analysis we're using as analogous - art, film, literature, music, that is the analysis of cultural production - were all designed to create a professional language barrier of exclusion around the object of study, alongside creating and then defending/attacking a canon of materal "worthy" of this sort of professionalised attention. It's arguable that The Forge was exactly this.

I don't think you can easily separate that out and have the study of the RPG space be some value-neutral, positive-vibes-only force. Rather, it's something that must be explicitly tackled by any criticism. It might be glib, but the development of professional criticism through the 20th century would've been very different if it had all taken place on the internet!

 

[bloodtide]

One of our moderators emeritus used to say, "I double-dog dare you to tell me how awesome your favorite game is WITHOUT comparing it to any other game."

This is so odd. That there are so many people that can't do this?


Like with so many other fictional things, I think another huge problem is the Self Insertion. When someone likes a game, they self insert themselves into the game: in their mind what they like IS them. So they take any thing said personally.