Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[payn]

Not true! Seriously, click on the link I posted.

Read some of the journal articles. Go look at some of the books. Check out the larp wikis and their definitions.

It's all there. The hobbyist community is just largely ignorant of it. Heck, just basic stuff like (I know I mention this a lot, but still) The Elusive Shift is really helpful for understanding the history of theory and the early evolution of RPGs, and yet most people who are pontificating about topics using tons of jargon here refuse to read it.

I ... just don't know. I really don't.

Because its game time and not class time for them. Most folks are just not going to be that serious about it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Because its game time and not class time for them. Most folks are just not going to be that serious about it.

You posted this while my edit was going up!

 

[Thomas Shey]

ETA- to be more specific, it's fine for people to just play! It's a hobby, after all. But I don't understand why people are both so demanding that we truly examine games (especially using gatekeeper-y jargon) in hobbyist spaces, as well as refuse to actually engage with the serious academic study of the game. It's weird to me.

Somewhat cynically, my feeling is that a lot of people making those demands are trying to stake out mindspace rather than having a sincere interest in the topic (likely without really thinking about it in those terms) and engaging with the academic study would both be counterproductive to that (because it probably provides another attack at the barricades) and too much work given what they're trying to do.

 

[Emoshin]

If we really want to understand why people are behaving a certain way, I think we have to take one step back to some assumed premise that there's a rational reason for that behavior that can be deconstructed and solved for at that level of analysis.

Keep trying to hit one's head against that wall endlessly is what leads to frustration and cynicism.

But take then another step back to a behavioural psychology lens, where people are, in truth, not rational. And then from that lens, it's easy to look at the behavior and see it as an irrational but entirely normal outcome of a bunch of different Mind Stuff(TM) going on.

So then you have no choice but to say, oh this is normal, ok, and then respond accordingly.

 

[JAMUMU]

Not true! Click on the link I posted.

Read some of the journal articles. Go look at some of the books. Check out the larp wikis and their definitions.

It's all there. The hobbyist community is just largely ignorant of it. Heck, just basic stuff like (I know I mention this a lot, but still) The Elusive Shift is really helpful for understanding the history of theory and the early evolution of RPGs, and yet most people who are pontificating about topics using tons of jargon here refuse to read it.

I ... just don't know. I really don't.

ETA- to be more specific, it's fine for people to just play! It's a hobby, after all. But I don't understand why people are both so demanding that we truly examine games (especially using gatekeeper-y jargon) in hobbyist spaces, as well as refuse to actually engage with the serious academic study of the game. It's weird to me.

Thanks, that site and the journal make for some interesting reading. A few thoughts in general and in specific:

1) The link didn't work until I removed the /thoughts part of the address, just in case anyone else is struggling with that!

2) The continuing legacy of the Forge are the games that formed its praxis and that have inflected/still inflect large parts of the hobby, not necessarily the detail or drama of the positions taken up on its forums.

3) Related to 3), the site you linked is peppered with references to and discussion of the Forge and what happened there, so it's harder to escape than you seem to imply!

4) I'm not sure the discussions that would arise out of many of the articles on this site and in the Journal would pass the no-politics test here, at the other no-politics forum where I like to discuss games, or at a third place, where I doubt full and open academic discussion would be allowed for long.

5) I am chary of the seeming conflation of ttrpgs and Larp. Of course there is some structural overlap (we could call it bleed!), but I remain to be convinced that they can be examined together as if they were merely different modes of the same activity.

6) My immediate take-away is that some of what I'm reading here is academic hot-air being used to elevate hobby discussion to professional levels. Is it a coincidence that the site's owner has a CV listed there? From a journal article on the ways D&D reinforces violence as problem-solving tool: "In sum, I argue that paladins effectively show D&D’s facilitation of violence through the good/evil dichotomy." Well, strike me down with a smite! Really? But more seriously, if that is the standard of 'serious academic study' I can see why people avoid it and stick to re-hashing old Forge fights.

7) Where the journal articles seem most interesting (and most interested in discussing) is where they interrogate RPG structures as a vehicle for education. Fine work, and as a former educator I can say it does work, but I imagine as a topic it's not something non-educator gamers would be invested in discussing or exploring.

 

[Mallus]

After all, to quote the great moral philosopher Brian Flanagan, Everything ends badly, otherwise it wouldn't end.

All good criticism should quote Tom Cruise in Cocktail.

 

[gorice]

Problem with all that is folks don't seem interested in the conceptual context. They just want the names, dates, etc... all lined up and will argue about that instead. Perhaps, RPG theory is just too young to be comparable to something like music or even film. It will likely take a great deal of time before a wealth of knowledge and study is in place to foster this. It doesn't help this hobby is like a drop from the ocean of cultural artistry. It's just not popular enough to garner the level of discourse you want.

TTRPGs have been around as long as videogames, though, and the people who play them are often the kind of people who love to dissect things. I really think it's a cultural problem: like there's a taboo about really discussing play in detail. People start feeling threatened.

I predict that by page 3 of the comments of a "+ No Forge Talk Please" thread, there will be an argument about defining what is and is not Forge talk.

I like the idea hypothetically, I am just wondering how one would clarify for everyone what language is not part of the + thread

For better or worse, the Forge is the only place that (1) seriously attempted to talk about RPG play, and (2) made an impact on the consciousness of the hobby. Vincent used to write a lot of great stuff post-Forge; Ron is sill plugging away at refining and teaching his pespective (his new site, Adept Play, is way more helpful and inclusive than the Forge was), but people only want to talk about 20-year-old arguments.

OTOH, some ex-OSR people have interesting ideas, but they need (IMHO) to slay a few sacred cows before they get anywhere.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Thanks, that site and the journal make for some interesting reading. A few thoughts in general and in specific:

1) The link didn't work until I removed the /thoughts part of the address, just in case anyone else is struggling with that!

Hopefully, this has been corrected. If not, go to the main page, and then navigate to imaginairum and then to thoughts to find the collection.

2) The continuing legacy of the Forge are the games that formed its praxis and that have inflected/still inflect large parts of the hobby, not necessarily the detail or drama of the positions taken up on its forums.

I agree in part. Yes, there were a number of indie games in the early 2000s that were "from the Forge." As a community where game designers discussed ideas, it was successful, and some of the ideas that were discussed on the community later became prominent with influential designers (Vincent Baker, for example).

However, the Forge as synecdoche for game theory was not influential, and is not used by game designers today- hence my description of the polite smiles when asked about it.

3) Related to 3), the site you linked is peppered with references to and discussion of the Forge and what happened there, so it's harder to escape than you seem to imply!

I mean ... if you go to the first page of this thread, and you look at the thing I linked to, you will see that I reference an academic work on the Forge. Again, if you're talking about music, you talk about the punk rock period!

You just don't have the punk rock period be the be-all, end-all of discussion. IMO.

4) I'm not sure the discussions that would arise out of many of the articles on this site and in the Journal would pass the no-politics test here, at the other no-politics forum where I like to discuss games, or at a third place, where I doubt full and open academic discussion would be allowed for long.

I obviously don't know what you have in mind, but I know that I've covered topics in the past that have dealt with matters of inclusivity. See, eg., this-

[+] Pride Month- A Brief History of Representation in TTRPGs

Please note that this is a "Plus" (+) thread, and is meant to be Positive. (Source) If you don't have something productive to say, please don't say it. In addition, there will be references to games mature subject matter in this post. While it is not explicit, it is present. So June is LGBTQI+...

www.enworld.org

5) I am chary of the seeming conflation of ttrpgs and Larp. Of course there is some structural overlap (we could call it bleed!), but I remain to be convinced that they can be examined together as if they were merely different modes of the same activity.

I agree. That said, I think that LARPs are a useful measuring stick to show the TTRPG community that academic work, and basic definitions, are quite possible in the field- the amount of high-level work done in, inter alia, the Nordic LARP shows that this is quite possible.

6) My immediate take-away is that some of what I'm reading here is academic hot-air being used to elevate hobby discussion to professional levels. Is it a coincidence that the site's owner has a CV listed there? From a journal article on the ways D&D reinforces violence as problem-solving tool: "In sum, I argue that paladins effectively show D&D’s facilitation of violence through the good/evil dichotomy." Well, strike me down with a smite! Really? But more seriously, if that is the standard of 'serious academic study' I can see why people avoid it and stick to re-hashing old Forge fights.

Again, not all academic work is the same. But cherrypicking individual pieces and saying, "Ha! Academic stuff is for losers who don't know what they're talking about ..." is kinda ... not productive. You can take any discipline (film, literary, music study etc.) and pull out random articles that you disagree with. "Can you believe this rube! He is trying to talk about the Marxist structures of Thomas the Tank Engine! What a mo-ran!"

Sometimes, academic papers have to start by pointing out the really obvious stuff and building from there. Because, you know, duh?

7) Where the journal articles seem most interesting (and most interested in discussing) is where they interrogate RPG structures as a vehicle for education. Fine work, and as a former educator I can say it does work, but I imagine as a topic it's not something non-educator gamers would be invested in discussing or exploring.

....things that are interesting to you, are most interesting to you.

I am glad that you found something helpful out there!

 

[clearstream]

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).

That might be solved by defining RPG paradigms, and locating terms like "game world" within the paradigms that they have meaning in. However, I believe the issue you raise extends well beyond paradigms, to include - inter alia - purposes. Posters above have suggested starting points, and each seems bedevilled with these sorts of problems to a greater or lesser degree.

Still, a literature review and perhaps characterisation or classification of each significant contribution could be performed and might well prove a good starting point. I think one would need to decide what is within the field of study? For example, Twierdza Powszechna has some interesting things to say about resolution types, and one might suppose that to be included in the field of study.

My standpoint is one of philosophical skepticism about the possibility of any general theory of RPG. So it appeals to me to consider the possibility of agreement among scholars (would be, as much as accredited) that any theory will be applicable only within boundaries narrower than 'all RPG'.

 

[Emoshin]

If there was some of academic framework to reference, how can we be assured that the average Enworlder is even qualified to understand and use it in practical ways?

Isn't that like a bunch of non-professionals try to professionally psychoanalyze each other based on what they find on the internet?

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