Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[hawkeyefan]

As in you are criticizing an RPG with a person who has a scientific or neutral position on the topic?


People, human beings, play RPGs? We are addressing the feelings/behavior of the person who is emotionally invested in the RPG you are criticizing?

It's not analogous to a friendship, but I feel like the goal awareness and goal tracking in both cases is critical to a successful outcome.

There's general etiquette and the simple ability to not be a dick to others. I think that's something different than criticism, though criticism can be taken to an extreme where that becomes an issue. But there is a distinction, and many seem unable to make it.

Criticizing a game means I'm criticizing the rules or the techniques it uses. It's not a criticism of those who enjoy the game.

 

[Emoshin]

There's general etiquette and the simple ability to not be a dick to others. I think that's something different than criticism, though criticism can be taken to an extreme where that becomes an issue. But there is a distinction, and many seem unable to make it.

Criticizing a game means I'm criticizing the rules or the techniques it uses. It's not a criticism of those who enjoy the game.

OK noted.

So your goal: is... what? I still don't understand the goal.

Your method: to criticize the rules or techniques of the game (with no intention of criticizing the person directly)

Your audience: is it someone with a scientific or neutral position on the topic, or someone who is emotionally invested in the rpg? You didn't answer that, so I assume the latter.

So for the sake of [your goal?], you are criticizing the rules or techniques of the game with people emotionally invested in the rpg being criticized.

Outcome? Well, it sounds like it's not working? How are you achieving your goal then? What's next?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Outcome? Well, it sounds like it's not working? How are you achieving your goal then? What's next?

When we lose sight of the goal, we shall re-double our efforts!

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I get why tone policing is inevitable in any ENWorld thread about game theory or criticism, but it's always wild when it gets this meta—tone policing during a discussion about how to discuss games.

Why don't we just talk about games until the usual people get defensive enough to make the thread unreadable?

 

[Emoshin]

Why don't we just talk about games until the usual people get defensive enough to make the thread unreadable?

If your goal is to make a thread unreadable, that works!
If your goal is something else, that does not work!
I like how simple this is.

 

[billd91]

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.

It's less a question of neutral criticism - it's more a question of not using terms so heavily laden with connotations that they cast unnecessary aspersions at other games simply by use of the term. Or even, I suppose, throwing out barbs about brain damage while you're laying out your conceptual framework, thus poisoning your own well.

 

[BrokenTwin]

I think my grand takeaway from reading this thread is that Forge is the Freud of TTRPG theory.

 

[Campbell]

It's less a question of neutral criticism - it's more a question of not using terms so heavily laden with connotations that they cast unnecessary aspersions at other games simply by use of the term. Or even, I suppose, throwing out barbs about brain damage while you're laying out your conceptual framework, thus poisoning your own well.

Then how about things like "narrative game" or "story game"?
"Not an RPG"?
"bespoke game design"?
"narrow and focused"?
"Can't do mysteries"?

Accusing people of being elitists for liking a damn game or talking about a given form of play?

Or asking people who want to talk about a form of play to constantly apologize for something one person said 15 years ago? Basically throwing an entire creative movement under the bus for one forum post by a person not on these boards?

 

[hawkeyefan]

OK noted.

So your goal: is... what? I still don't understand the goal.

Your method: to criticize the rules or techniques of the game (with no intention of criticizing the person directly)

Your audience: is it someone with a scientific or neutral position on the topic, or someone who is emotionally invested in the rpg? You didn't answer that, so I assume the latter.

So for the sake of [your goal?], you are criticizing the rules or techniques of the game with people emotionally invested in the rpg being criticized.

Outcome? Well, it sounds like it's not working? How are you achieving your goal then? What's next?

I wasn't talking about a specific example. But if you'd like specifics, then I'd say I often criticize D&D 5e and I do it here on these boards. I don't do it blindly or shallowly... if I have something to say about 5e, then I provide examples and reasons why I feel the way I do.

Regarding the audience, it would be the other posters on ENW. As for their emotional investment in RPGs and with 5e in particular, it will vary. I don't worry about that beyond the basic etiquette of not being a dick to people. I don't think it should warrant any further consideration.

My goal here on ENW has been to talk about games and to improve my GMing and playing, and to maybe share my thoughts so others can do so, too. And I would say it's absolutely had a positive impact on my gaming. Many of the discussions that most influenced me involved topics that this thread seems to view as negative.

Which is why I question its merits.

 

[Manbearcat]

So…

Are we just not going to comment on this being the most creepy dog whistle of an inquisition thread of all time? Which is saying something because this ain’t the first (or 2nd, 3rd, 4th…) of this type!