Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Lanefan]

But chasing rabbits down holes is fun.

Not for the rabbits...



"be vewwy vewwy quiet"

 

[pemerton]

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.

This prompted the following thought:

In most fields, those who are interested in the margins have also had some exposure to the maintream, whereas the opposite is often not the case. This is an almost inevitable consequence - a tautological one, even - of there being a mainstream and margins at all.

One common reason for exploring the margins is dissatisfaction with - or, at least, less than satiation from - the mainstream. Which means that reports from the margins back to those in the mainstream will often (i) involve expressions of dissatisfaction with, or at least of a desire to go beyond, what is happening in the mainstream, and (ii) will do so by reference to preferences, and to things that satisfy those preferences, which the mainstream is not very familiar with.

This is likely to upset some of those who are comfortable in the mainstream. Of course, it can provoke the curiosity of others of them.

 

[Umbran]

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?

Oh, my, yes there is. And that is an example of how critical frameworks are tools. And that means two things - 1) not every tool is good for every job, and 2) You will generally be familiar with tools of your own work, but be unfamiliar with the tools of other specialties.

Criticism of See Spot Run with Dick and Jane or The Hardy Boys, or Encyclopedia Brown are not to be found in highfalutin' literature circles. They are found in the grade school education and child development and social justice circles, for example.

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.

So, actually, I have to back up a moment. With what you've written here, I realize I was wrong above - this thread, as given in the OP, is most certainly NOT only about literary criticism, if by that you are restricting us to composition and technique of works written at, say, a 10th-grade reading level and up. The OP very specifically didn't limit criticism to that.

Indeed, the OP speaks to criticism and theory as a route to, "view the work on its merits of what it is trying to accomplish, see how it accomplishes it, and determine if it is effective at doing so."

And by that, we most certainly can put Dick and Jane books up for criticism - but what they are trying to do is much different than what Finnegan's Wake is.

 

[pemerton]

@Umbran

Apocalypse World expresses a view about human being and human society. As far as the text is concerned, I think it is most clearly expressed in the "blurbs" that introduce each playbook, and in the "special" (ie sex) moves for each playbook. It's also there in the many play examples, but maybe a bit diluted by the fact that these are also teaching tools.

That stuff is interesting, but is not what I have in mind when I talk about the significance of AW as a RPG. And I'm pretty sure it's not what @hawkeyefan had in mind either. I (and I'm pretty comfortable saying we) are talking about its significance as a technical work of RPG design.

Those two dimensions of analysis can bleed or mingle at the edges - eg if we talk about the use of "basic moves" to foreground the core thematic material of play, we might have to start talking about what that material is. But they can be kept sufficiently apart that we can talk about the extent to which (say) Dungeon World successfully emulates/implements the AW techniques without needing to worry too much about the fact that its thematic content is pretty different.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Indeed, the OP speaks to criticism and theory as a route to, "view the work on its merits of what it is trying to accomplish, see how it accomplishes it, and determine if it is effective at doing so."

I'm going to suggest that this is unnecessary limiting and perhaps dangerous critically (ooh, danger!), as it can lead to misreadings. The author may attempt to accomplish something. And may tell us what they're trying to do and how. And good for them. But people lie to themselves and others, so who cares? The text is doing something regardless.

 

[chaochou]

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?

Anyone holding this position best have the courtesy to have no objection when any game they are running is 'critiqued' in the same way.

It would be hypocritical to object when it's described as railroaded cosplay, irrespective of any experience with the game in question or any instance of it being run.

 

[pemerton]

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.

This seems a non-sequitur.

I play board games for fun. But clearly good board game designers have technical skills, and designs can be better or worse.

RPG design is likewise a field in which technical skill is possible. And Vincent Baker clearly demonstrates that skill.

 

[pemerton]

On the issue of critique of something one is not very familiar with - what's the point? As in, why do it? If you're not familiar with it, what is the point of you forming a critical orientation towards it? And who is the audience for the criticism written in such a fashion?

Relatedly - if I ask someone to explain something to me, and following their explanation something seems silly or inadequate about the explained thing, I tend to assume that that means either (i) I misunderstood some part of the explanation, or (ii) the person explaining left something out, whether for brevity, or for simplicity, or because they assumed I would fill the gaps in their explanation, or for whatever other reason. So in such a case, before I turned around and told the explainer that the thing they've explained seems silly or inadequate, I'd try and confirm whether (i) or (ii) (or perhaps both) is the case.

 

[pemerton]

A further thought on the above: most people who engage in criticism, and who take the critical enterprise seriously, are interested in a diverse range of examples of the artform/genre/whatever it is we're talking about. Often they are trying to further develop their appreciation of the field - perhaps "cultivating their palette", or perhaps trying to further deepen or extend an existing understanding.

I don't recall ever encountering the idea that an important function of a critical theory should be to provide comfort or assurance to people who have no real interest in exploring new things. For the person who knows what they like, and knows that they like it criticism seems basically unnecessary.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Caveated that I rejoined this morning and haven't read the last several pages of ongoing discusion, I feel you are right that there ought to be some critical theory of RPG that has regard to AW / PbtA. I would also feel that VB's analysis and commentary in itself, could offer both subjects for and elements of such theory. I additionally agree that there are what one might characterise as significant works, and others that are let's say trivial or adequately covered by whatever one might say about the significant works. Although it is not always obvious which is which, so theorists will need to be open to arguments reappraising the significance of any given work.

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.)

Referring back to earlier discussion on the meaning (or lack thereof) of terms within paradigms, I currently don't know that there can be "a theory" of RPGs. That might be put as: any theory of RPG will be subject to examination and possible rejection as a theory applying to any specific RPG as grasped and upheld by some culture of play. I predict that will become fraught, as RPGs can be (and are) grasped in many different ways: a theory might apply to a given RPG grasped one way, but not in another. I believe we have seen some evidence of that in foregoing conversation on these boards.

Possibly the latter - if right - could imply that there must be both theories and meta-theories of RPG. The former alone being predicted to lack explanatory power from all perspectives.