Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Umbran]

I thought this was a thread about criticism, using that word in something like the same way it is used in the phrase "literary criticism".

Yep.

A purported critical theory of RPGs, which didn't have regard to Apocalypse World and the PtbA games that have been (to various degrees) inspired by it, would seem pretty impoverished to me.

I don't think that answers my question at all.

Literary criticism can be applied to any written work, whether or not that work is "significant", right?

So, I am left asking again - in a thread about criticism, why do we need to agree about the significance of a game? Can't the critical framework be applied regardless of whether the game is significant?

 

[Umbran]

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?

I am suggesting that this is a tough venue to do good criticism in.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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?

Well, first of all, take what proponents of a system tells you with a grain of salt. Always. Even done with the best of intentions they're describing it filtered through their own biases, and that can end up providing a version of the game that does not, when the listener encounters it, match reality. At best it tells you the experience they're having with the game system.

One can certainly critique on basic design principals (see my earlier post about first-cause issues). That said, that's going to end up intrinsically being an incomplete critique; most games are the sum of their parts, not just the consequence of part of them. I know of games that have a basic premise I like but the execution does not follow-through.

In regard to the third, if you don't have actual experience, how do you really know they'll not produce the kind of game you want to play? You're either extrapolating from what you do know, or, again taking people's statements as gospel.

None of these make it impossible to critique a game without personal experience, it just means if you want to do it right and not faceplant, it will require considerable care.

 

[pemerton]

Literary criticism can be applied to any written work, whether or not that work is "significant", right?

So, I am left asking again - in a thread about criticism, why do we need to agree about the significance of a game? Can't the critical framework be applied regardless of whether the game is significant?

I think I disagree with both suggestions.

First, it's not clear to me that literary criticism can be applied to any written work. Is there really literary criticism of Run, Spot, Run and the similar genre of child readers? Is there really meaningful criticism of The Hardy Boys? I guess there can be sociological-type criticism of either - what sorts of human relationship, expectation, etc do they foreground (maybe someone once wrote a paper or a thesis on "Virginal eroticism in middle America: the case study of the Hardy Boys") but I don't see that there is anything very meaningful to say about them in terms of composition, technique etc. An example in the fantasy genre, which my kids read when they were young, would be Beast Quest.

To apply this in the RPG context, I reiterate what I said upthread - I know of instances of D&D play about which criticism has nothing to say. The play I see my kid and my kid's friends engage in is not developed to a point where criticism can gain any purchase. As I posted, they are at the stage where someone explaining to them that one of the GM's jobs is to frame the PCs into interesting situations might be revelatory.

Second, my proposition which you disputed was A purported critical theory of RPGs, which didn't have regard to Apocalypse World and the PtbA games that have been (to various degrees) inspired by it, would seem pretty impoverished to me. This is a claim about the adequacy conditions for a critical theory: the critical theory has to have a place for, and an account of, AW if it is not to be impoverished. To put it more generally, any critical theory has to be able to account for the basic "touchpoints" in the field. What those are might be up for grabs, and as I said there can be counter-narratives; but counter-narratives are themselves reactions to received narratives - they're not just abandonments of the idea that there are adequacy criteria for a critical theory.

Once someone has an interesting theory, they can go to town on whatever topics they want! But if it purports to be a theory of RPGs, and yet cannot say meaningful things about Apocalypse World, I will regard it as impoverished. (Perhaps it will be a critical theory of some sub-set of RPGs eg CoC and similarly structured RPGs. Whether such a theory has any potential for generalisation will depend on its details.)

 

[Umbran]

Doesn't real constructiveness take two? In my experience it does.

That depends on what you are trying to construct. I can learn a whole lot by asking a bunch of thoughtful questions. If the other person doesn't ask any back, and just wants to talk, I still learn - that's still a constructive discussion, at least for me.

Thus if other people are willing to at least consider that PtbA might be significant that's very helpful.

I still haven't been given a reason why we care if it is significant or not. We don't need to know that to critically examine the work.

If people are outright denying it rather than displaying a nuanced opinion, the odds are good that the reason is simple ignorance rather than some well-considered thinking, and simple ignorance is often sadly intractable if it's tightly-held.

Sounds like using an opinion about "significance" as a litmus test for entry. If you are looking for members of your critical theory kaffeeklatch, that's understandable, but if you don't want to talk to the ignorant riffraff, an open forum is not a great choice of venue.

And, honestly, anything tightly held is intractable - including investment in the game's standing in a hierarchy of significance. If being taken as correct on a given point is a real issue, things are starting with a lean towards argument.

 

[Lanefan]

Vincent Baker invented In A Wicked Age, Dogs in the Vineyard and Apocalypse World. The idea that he doesn't know anything more than me about RPG design, and has nothing more useful to say about it than I do, is just silly.

Does anyone make the parallel assertion about other fields of technical endeavour?

Some of us simply don't really see this as a "technical endeavour" to begin with. It's in theory supposed to be a for-fun hobby where we're all more or less equally good-bad-whatever at what we're doing with it; and thinking of it as anything more technical than that just leads to overanalysis followed by hot-air discussions chasing rabbits down holes.

 

[Campbell]

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?

Sure, you can provide whatever sort of critique you wish to. I am not here to tell anyone what they can and cannot say. Neither am I here to tell them what terminology or framing they are allowed to use or what preferences people have the right to express. Most of the games we're fundamentally talking about would not serve your play preferences. I am not going to argue preferences, only the accuracy of claims that are made about how games work on a structural level.

I mean it's probably not a good idea to rely on information provided under cross examination (from an accuracy standpoint). It's likely to present a rather incomplete picture and it will be colored through a lens of both play preferences and individual neurological functioning. People have very particular ways of thinking about the world that may not match your cognitive models. But no one is required to have a particularly informed opinion.

None of this fundamentally matters. Feel free to provide whatever critiques you wish. I think having the hard conversations is better than a false sense of decorum. If people do not respect a given mode of play I would rather they be authentic so we can get to the bottom of why. On a personal level I think if someone does not respect or like say GM storytelling or fudging it's better if they are up front with that as long as they respect the actual people.

What I would personally ask is for people to leave room for games and more importantly players/GMs with different play preferences to feel welcome in the hobby. A game can be well designed without serving your personal needs or preferences. I would also ask for people to strive for accuracy and specificity in their takes as much as possible.

 

[Lanefan]

Very much appreciate that!

However, I'm 95% sure right now that I am just passing through and probably won't last a week here.

That's what I thought, 18 years and a whole slew of posts ago...

To use the previous metaphor, I see this house, full of interesting people passionate about a hobby that I also love very much

But in the common room of this house, the general vibe leans pretty heavy to the argumentative side.

People are stubborn, as I've been recently trying to point out in another thread that got into the topic of at-table arguments. I just take this as a fact of life, and stubbornly proceed.

Maybe it's a kind of survivorship bias here? Those still standing in this common area after x years are the ones who were able and willing to thrive in this kind of dynamic. Everybody else just lurks or eventually scared away, lacking the necessary motivation or traits.

That's unfortunate because perhaps if the environment was more mindful and inclusive of progressive discussions, there might have been a more rich and diverse ecosystem of old and new ideas mixing together, which in turn deliver more value for everybody. Instead, is it possible that it feels a bit stagnant or cyclical here - in terms of the kind of arguing going on?

There's some combinations of people who, should they appear in the same thread, are liable to get after it. Again, though, it's kind of a fact of life; and sometimes it's possible to be at it hammer and tongs with someone in one thread and in complete agreement with that same person in another.

This can, however, be a very time-consuming site; be warned of that.

 

[Lanefan]

They aren't invalid. They may not be perspectives most of us agree with, but they aren't invalid. The criticisms generated may not be deep, but they do carry meaning. Knowing a film is a comedy with a boring premise that has bad reviews is meaningful information.

Isn't it quicker to just type "features Adam Sandler" instead of all the bolded words?

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Some of us simply don't really see this as a "technical endeavour" to begin with. It's in theory supposed to be a for-fun hobby where we're all more or less equally good-bad-whatever at what we're doing with it; and thinking of it as anything more technical than that just leads to overanalysis followed by hot-air discussions chasing rabbits down holes.

But chasing rabbits down holes is fun.