Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Emoshin]

You aren't wrong. But I expect, and have found, that to be true of internet discussion in general.

Oh for sure. Enworld is still the best D&D forum hands-down. I avoid participating in Reddit like the plague.

I think this brings me back to a point I made earlier in the thread, that I should perhaps expound upon. Criticism, discussion, and argument are different things, with different uses. To wit...

Criticism is an attempt to increase understanding through analysis. Good criticism requires that analysis to be cogent, which requires significant consistency of viewpoint. Thus, good criticism is generally perpetrated by individuals, or small groups of like-minded people. Unfortunately, messageboards are large groups of disparate-minded people.

Discussion is an attempt to increase understanding by discovery. In good discussion al parties listen and absorb information as much as they speak. Good discussion requires people of at least somewhat disparate viewpoints, but also requires one to relax one's stake in the game. As soon as your stake becomes a major player in the discussion, it becomes the third form...

Argument is an attempt to persuade. If it increases understanding, that is secondary to getting some other person (another debater or audience) to accept the correctness of your position.

On the boards we also have simple self-expression, in which one desires to put their thoughts out in the universe, and doesn't actually care about understanding or persuading.

EN World, as an environment and medium, is not very good for developing criticism - the audience and participants are too broad, and strongly tends to argumentation, as the critic positions to defend their critical framework, rather than use it.

Discussion can happen here, but the open mindset of taking your stake out of the results is sometimes difficult to maintain, to avoid falling into argumentation.

So like?
Discussion: I hear you playing OK Computer all day. Tell me more about that.
Harsh criticism: Why won't you turn off the damn music? It's making my ears bleed
Constructive criticism: Radiohead is a great band, but when you play OK Computer all day long, it annoys me and I don't want hang out in the same room anymore
Argument: I told you how I felt, so why won't you turn it off? OK Computer was never designed to be heard all day long, it's just wrong. What? No, I'm not going to go my room, I have a right to be here, why don't you go to your room and wear earphones?

If that's on the right track (ha pun not originally intended) and given this is a public forum, and people are coming and going playing all their songs all over the place, then what are you suggesting?

There are no enforceable rules for engagement (other than politics, etc.) and wouldn't be feasible
The + thread idea is great but does not happen a lot (wonder why)
Unlike real-life relationships where there is at least intrinsic motivation (if not success) to aim for discussion over argument, no such motivation is systemic in an online forum

 

[Emoshin]

I can't speak for @hawkeyefan but I kind of love it when people criticise stuff I like in an intelligent way (books, movies, TV, TTRPGs, etc.). Sometimes it's totally amazing, especially if it's really thoughtful and nuanced and brings up stuff I hadn't considered. Virtually everything has flaws and best to know them so you can deal with them, rather than to hide from them. I'm happy to admit the flaws in a system where they're inarguably flaws or limitations (again all systems have them).

Have you heard of the 5 to 1 ratio by any chance? For every negative interaction during conflict, a stable and happy marriage has five (or more) positive interactions.

If that ratio was even just 1:1 on Enworld, then for every criticism made, one would show appreciate (say a like or love emoji) for every point or criticism one appreciated.

 

[FrogReaver]

In my personal experience, I have rarely met a primary D&D 5e fan that has had the actual experience with other systems of play to meaningfully critic them. The ones that do, usually have interesting points. There are things that PbtA systems genuinely don't do well, and I don't think you'll find many PbtA fans that will disagree with that.

Why do you believe it takes actual experience to meaningfully critique them?
---
Can one not critique them based on the things one is told about them from their proponents?
Can one not critique them based on their basic design principles?
Can one not critique them for not producing the kind of game I want to play?
---
Are these somehow not 'meaningful' criticisms?

 

[soviet]

Why do you believe it takes actual experience to meaningfully critique them?
---
Can one not critique them based on the things one is told about them from their proponents?
Can one not critique them based on their basic design principles?
Can one not critique them for not producing the kind of game I want to play?
---
Are these somehow not 'meaningful' criticisms?

Correct.

 

[soviet]

Why do you believe it takes actual experience to meaningfully critique them?
---
Can one not critique them based on the things one is told about them from their proponents?
Can one not critique them based on their basic design principles?
Can one not critique them for not producing the kind of game I want to play?
---
Are these somehow not 'meaningful' criticisms?

'I have not seen this film, but it's rubbish because other reviewers didn't like it'.
'I have not seen this film, but it's rubbish because the premise sounds boring.'
'I have not seen this film, but it's rubbish because I don't like comedies.'

 

[BrokenTwin]

Why do you believe it takes actual experience to meaningfully critique them?
---
Can one not critique them based on the things one is told about them from their proponents?
Can one not critique them based on their basic design principles?
Can one not critique them for not producing the kind of game I want to play?
---
Are these somehow not 'meaningful' criticisms?

If you haven't even read the systems you're proporting to critique, it's rather unlikely you have anything meaningful to contribute. You don't even need to leave the D&D ecosystem to see that in action. The amount of people that critiqued D&D 4E for offering unlimited healing via its healing surge mechanic despite the mechanic having literally the exact opposite effect...
If someone wants to tell me their critiques of early french film techniques, but they've never actually seen or read about them themselves, why would I believe their opinions have any valid merit?

 

[FrogReaver]

I can't speak for @hawkeyefan but I kind of love it when people criticise stuff I like in an intelligent way (books, movies, TV, TTRPGs, etc.). Sometimes it's totally amazing, especially if it's really thoughtful and nuanced and brings up stuff I hadn't considered. Virtually everything has flaws and best to know them so you can deal with them, rather than to hide from them. I'm happy to admit the flaws in a system where they're inarguably flaws or limitations (again all systems have them).

I think what you mean is that if someone criticizes things you like in what you view as an intelligent way that you view as thoughtful and nuanced and that you haven't considered before (alot of caveats there) that you like such criticism.

So what about the 99% of criticism that isn't like that?

 

[FrogReaver]

If you haven't even read the systems you're proporting to critique, it's rather unlikely you have anything meaningful to contribute.

Why?

The amount of people that critiqued D&D 4E for offering unlimited healing via its healing surge mechanic despite the mechanic having literally the exact opposite effect...

Or perhaps you are eliminating the nuance of that particular argument - it's not one i recall from the era, but it's easy to get to a not-completely-dumb point even from your characterization - that healing surges can be viewed as providing far more healing during an adventuring day than an adventurer typically needed and that anything past that point might as well be infinite.

If someone wants to tell me their critiques of early french film techniques, but they've never actually seen or read about them themselves, why would I believe their opinions have any valid merit?

Presumably they have read what you said about them. Can they not criticize them based on what you say of them? Why would that be anything other than valid merit?

 

[Emoshin]

Start a thread, label it [+System] players only.
Done.
If you don't have that [+] then anyone is allowed to critique, regardless of how you judge their merit.
Is that good?

 

[FrogReaver]

'I have not seen this film, but it's rubbish because other reviewers didn't like it'.
'I have not seen this film, but it's rubbish because the premise sounds boring.'
'I have not seen this film, but it's rubbish because I don't like comedies.'

Some of those feel almost intentionally set up to not align with the point - but the basic premise holds, one doesn't have to be intimately familiar with something to offer valid critiques.