Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[JAMUMU]

In order to work, it has to be easy to understand and implement? In simple English?

This is absolutely the case. The humanities (what's left of it) and particularly cultural studies (is that even still a thing?) collapses under the weight of its own self-importance if the theoretical terminology cannot be explained in plain english, and the analysis itself cannot be discussed in plain english. It's fine to cite Lacan, Zizek, Derrida, Baudrillard, Marx, Said, whoever, but unless their ideas can be stripped back to something people can understand in context, then it all has the feel of grad students throwing around words and concepts that they don't understand yet.

 

[kenada]

Who speaks first in an exchange isn't relevant, if that's what you mean. I don't know if I'd call it a "duty". This is practical stuff about writing and communicating.

We should not speak of this as if it is a space of rational, considered assumptions. We are talking about our perceptions of psychological safety - this is at core an emotional reaction.

This problem with this is we are not privy to the state of another’s mind, so how much “practical stuff” one needs is unknowable. I can’t be the only one who finds participating in such an environment stressful.

Maybe if I were just talking about the popular game and the popular ways it’s played, but that’s not always the case. If I want to say I am doing thing X, I shouldn’t need disclaimers and reassurances to fans of the popular game that does thing Y (in contrast to X) that their thing is still okay. It sometimes seems like the consideration is expected to flow one way.

 

[gorice]

That page Snarf linked has a huge variety of links. Quality and topics are mixed, but there's some stuff worth getting into. I do feel compelled to point out that the page belongs to an ex-luminary of the Forge -- not because I wish to uphold Forge Thought, but because lots of people involved there have continued to make games and refine their ideas since then, and it's nice to talk about e.g. what Emily, Vincent, Ron, etc. have done since then, instead of rehashing the same old stuff.

I'd thank Snarf for the link, but I've just realised they have me blocked or something? I'm not sure what the etiquette is, so I'll just see myself out.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The idea that neutrality would make for better criticism is mistaken. Neutrality is the death of criticism.

May as well tell people you'd like more neutral praise. It makes no sense.

 

[Emoshin]

The idea that neutrality would make for better criticism is mistaken. Neutrality is the death of criticism.

May as well tell people you'd like more neutral praise. It makes no sense.

Why does it make no sense?
How about criticism vs constructive criticism? Does constructive criticism make no sense?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Why does it make no sense?
How about criticism vs constructive criticism? Does constructive criticism make no sense?

Constructive criticism makes perfect sense.

Neutral criticism makes no sense.

 

[Emoshin]

Constructive criticism makes perfect sense.

Neutral criticism makes no sense.

Oh. Then what is "neutral criticism"? I've never heard of that term before, and I googled it, and nothing much came up.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That page Snarf linked has a huge variety of links. Quality and topics are mixed, but there's some stuff worth getting into. I do feel compelled to point out that the page belongs to an ex-luminary of the Forge -- not because I wish to uphold Forge Thought, but because lots of people involved there have continued to make games and refine their ideas since then, and it's nice to talk about e.g. what Emily, Vincent, Ron, etc. have done since then, instead of rehashing the same old stuff.

A lot of them continue to do good work. I think it is incredibly productive to talk about what is going on now, as opposed to the past.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Oh. Then what is "neutral criticism"? I've never heard of that term before, and I googled it, and nothing much came up.

It is what is being called for in this thread. That criticism not be so harsh.

But to be critical, we have to be able to examine something and acknowledge its flaws and shortcomings. We have to be able to hear things that maybe we'd prefer not to hear, or draw conclusions we'd prefer not to draw.

That's fundamental to criticism. Calling for that to be removed or lessened is antithetical to criticism.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Oh. Then what is "neutral criticism"? I've never heard of that term before, and I googled it, and nothing much came up.

This is just a bizarre misunderstanding of what is in the OP.

It's actually all spelled out. For real. Here, watch!


When any media has a well-developed body of work, and of serious study and criticism, certain terms and definitions become codified so that people can more easily discuss them. Many of these are so well known that you don't have to be especially "in the know" to understand them, or have read back issues of Cahiers du Cinéma or dived into S/Z in order to participate in the conversation. If I'm talking about a "montage" or a "jump cut" or "diegetic and non-diegetic sound" when I'm discussing a movie, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You understand the technique, and from that point, you can immediately begin the conversation about whether the technique was accomplished in a manner that effectuates the overall purpose of the author and is intelligible as such to the audience. It's the same with literature; whether it's as simple as a metaphor or an allusion, or more complicated like low and high mimetic, there are general terms that have been agreed upon.

This agreement on basic terms is key to any type of useful criticism. You have to be able to discuss the basic building blocks - the structure - of a work before you can even begin to understand if it is accomplishing its goals well.


Criticism has a purpose- more often than not, is a work "successful." But before you begin to discuss that, you have to agree on the basic terms you are using.

That's the issue I was discussing- there is a tendency in RPGs to use terms that are already loaded, so instead of getting to discuss (and debate) critiques, you end up arguing over the basic terms, because the terms people have used are already loaded.