Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[chaochou]

Fact-finding. You chose to write "It's ironic that the OP sought to have the 'debate' in an echo chamber by sleazing the way opening posts and the block feature interact." Now that you put that out into the universe, I am asking you because I want to understand better where you got this assertion/inference from.

I probably won't be, but I'm here for now.

You seem very invested in this of all things. And you joined on Tuesday?

My tarot reading says you're into novelty socks.

 

[Emoshin]

You seem very invested in this of all things. And you joined on Tuesday?

I didn't check the calendar, but that sounds right.

My tarot reading says you're into novelty socks.

I am not into novelty socks.

I've answered your questions respectfully. Will you please answer my previous question? To repeat: Fact-finding. You chose to write "It's ironic that the OP sought to have the 'debate' in an echo chamber by sleazing the way opening posts and the block feature interact." Now that you put that out into the universe, I am asking you because I want to understand better where you got this assertion/inference from.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But what I like is when I can see those criticisms are valid (whether I like it or not!) or if I can't say valid for sure, at least well-argued - which means logic and substance and a real POV behind them. Like @Thomas Shey is quite capable of this (sorry to drag you in!) - I often, maybe usually, disagree with his POV, but like, he'll usually present a proper argument for it, which will make me think.

Don't worry about it; I find that a compliment, since it says I'm usually doing what I'm trying to do (which is to show where I'm coming from and run it to where I'm going). People coming from different premises are going to usually come to different conclusions, but at least showing your work can tell people how you got there.

One issue that comes up a lot is that a flaw or multiple flaws doesn't necessarily mean that a product isn't good - pretty much everything has tons of flaws, but you have to consider which matter to you. This is particularly true with TTRPGs! And I like to know about those flaws. Part of this is because I've played TTRPGs so long that I've played a lot of deeply flawed games, it was often only after months or years of play we really saw how a particular issue (often mechanical/statistical, sometimes conceptual) was causing problems down the line.

I'll go even further and say that even a problem you identify can take a long time to show how intractable and problematic it actually is. I ran two campaigns of Mutants and Masterminds and played in three others, and it wasn't until really the last of these five that I realized the problem I had with it was, fundamentally, impossible to ignore or even work around.

What I don't find helpful or interesting is "criticism" that:

1) Shows that the person isn't familiar with the object of criticism and/or doesn't understand the discussion others are having.

I feel like as per your comment, this almost should have a different name to criticism. With TTRPGs that doesn't necessarily mean having played it, let alone extensively, but it does mean understanding basic concepts about it. One thing we do sometimes see here, as I think a couple of people have alluded to, is "criticism" which is basically just repeating some misunderstood claim about a game. That can be disregarded, and I think it's best if it is. For it to really be criticism, there needs to be critical thinking, not just repetition of memes or regurgitation of uninformed cliches or the like. I'm sure I've been guilty of this in the past but I do try to avoid it if there's an actual critical discussion.

When trying to criticize a game, I also think it helps to be aware of your biases, and how they'll color what you're doing. As a personal example, I tend to find a couple things some people find very clear virtues of lighter-weight rules systems (placing more resolution in the hands of the GM for example) very much not, so I'm not going to fairly assess a game that uses them, as I find them actively offputting. I don't always resist making a snarky comment about this when they're presented as an obvious benefit, but I also won't try to actively critique a game that does this, because I'm probably not capable of assessing it fairly, and to the design intention.

3) Has been well-acknowledged in the discussion already.

We've all been guilty of this - there's some critical discussion and someone arrives with their "vital point" that's already been made and discussed to death and moved on from.

Well, sometimes you have the issue that to a poster, that is the point, and everything else dwarfs it in significance. If its been moved on from, that will either seem like everyone is either just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic (i.e. bothering to talk about minor issues when the main problem makes everything else moot), or has disregarded how significant it is. Though it may not be productive, its not entirely surprising in those cases that they're not going to let it go.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I certainly did. Thank you.

No, this is where I depart from Scorsese. I think the Marvel movies are art, but I'm not sure they're the same art or a fork in the medium or what. I'm inclined to say they're different, but they're certainly art. As far as rolling my eyes, only at the fact that I screwed up the title and clearly need to watch both movies again.

I think it's an interesting question.

On the one hand, I can understand where Scorsese is coming from- because of the changing nature of the commercial box office, it increasingly feels that the only space that is left is for large, IP-driven tentpole movies and horror movies (which have great ROI).

I just looked at the top 10 box office movies for the past year, and all 10 were sequels or IP-driven. In fact, 9/10 were outsrigh sequels (and the tenth was, um, The Batman, so make of that what you will).

You'd have to go all the way to #12 domestically, with Baz Luhrmann's Elvis, to find a movie that wasn't either a sequel or an IP brand. That's ... kind of scary, especially if you're a filmmaker that wants your movies in cinemas and not on streaming.

...on the other hand, I would counter this with two separate points-

1. Overall, especially if you include TV series, miniseries, and movies released on streaming platforms, the quality and breadth of films being released is as high as any other period in history, if not higher (IMO).

2. The overall quality in terms of acting, cinematography, effects .... the "craft" of blockbuster movies is higher now than it has been in the past. We all suffer from selection bias- we remember the big amazing movies from the past. But there was a lot of schlock, as well. We are all tired of the persistent act structure problems with certain styles of movies, and the inevitably "sky beam" issues, but overall there is a high amount of quality that you wouldn't find in a movie like Crocodile Dundee II (#5 move in 1988!).


It's just a changing of the business model (artsy or quirky films or even romcoms are less likely to get large theatrical releases) than it is a change in quality.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And to be clear, my position is that when you want common agreement, the answer to your question seems to be clearly "no". We (when using the whole body of people who participate in these discussions) can't, in fact, agree to a common standard. I could enlarge on why I think that is, but that's almost not relevant to the basic question.

Well, we've been making comparisons to literature and film and although I'd agree that universal agreement is beyond us, I'd think it's possible to list some of the seminal works in the RPG medium, just as it's possible to list such for film and literature, or any other medium.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But the fact that 2d20 can be pretty different in each game that uses it makes it hard to really digest it, so I get why it's relatively unfamiliar material.

Yeah, there's a lot more customization from one version of the system to the next than you often see with a house system, so it can sometimes be hard to talk about in a generalized way.

 

[Umbran]

You say this as if we should all agree that Mr. Scorsese is lying to himself, but I'm not sure how Mr. Scorsese is lying to himself nor do I take it as self-evident as you seem to do here.

That's fine. I'm trying to aim for discussion, not argument. I don't feel a need to prove it to you.

I also don't see why potshots against Scorsese

Sorry, I don't find single examples of less-than-perfection to constitute a personal potshot, or mudslinging. I'm comfortable with the idea that the guy has normal human foibles, and that doesn't lessen him as a person or a master of his craft.

If disagreement with how criticism was levelled is to be taken as a personal affront, then we can't really talk about criticism at all.

It feels like unnecessary mudslinging that opens up the conversation about his criticism of Marvel movies.

If we are to talk about criticism, should not a broadly known example of it be valid? If you have very strongly held feelings on the matter, perhaps it doesn't work as discussion for you. I'm okay with not pursuing it.

Moreover, it would probably be rude of me to accuse you of lying to yourself just because we had differing opinions and perspectives about some subject matter.

The phraseology around that wasn't originally mine. I am not married to it.

Would you prefer, "allowed his personal stake in how cinema is viewed to bias his criticism in a way that, as a brilliant practitioner, he should have know to avoid"?

Is this true though? If we are talking about the Forge, then my understanding is that this wave* of RPG theory and criticism initially came out of the reaction to the Storyteller system failing to live up to what it claimed it was for rather than D&D.

Except, the problem with Storyteller is that it was more like D&D than it claimed.

And the initial impetus does not speak strongly to the result - which is a reaction to traditional games for which D&D is the mold.

 

[BrassDragon]

If we want to learn from critical film theory, a more fruitful approach could be to not just hash out terms and frameworks in the public square but actually pick a critical model and start critiquing game publications / actual plays through that lens. The body of criticism that builds up will validate and give prominence to the critical model, as it did (and does) for cinema.

I feel like lot of us well-meaning nerds are trying to put the cart before the horse, wasting energy building consensus about our critical lenses... but these things shouldn't be pointed at other enthusiasts but at the works themselves and only then should everybody have a chance to weigh in and, if needed, counter with alternative critical lenses that illuminate the work better.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in discussing the optimal way of writing up a pudding recipe.

 

[FrogReaver]

If we want to learn from critical film theory, a more fruitful approach could be to not just hash out terms and frameworks in the public square but actually pick a critical model and start critiquing game publications / actual plays through that lens. The body of criticism that builds up will validate and give prominence to the critical model.

I feel like lot of us well-meaning nerds are trying to put the cart before the horse, wasting energy building consensus about our critical lenses... but these things shouldn't be pointed at other enthusiasts but at the works themselves and only then should everybody have a chance to weigh in and, if needed, counter with alternative critical lenses that illuminate the work better.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in discussing the optimal way of writing up a pudding recipe.

I liked your post but I’m left wondering - what critical models/lenses do we have specifically for RPGs?

Perhaps the problem is the lack of multiple accepted lenses with which to view the games?

 

[Old Fezziwig]

You'd have to go all the way to #12 domestically, with Baz Luhrmann's Elvis, to find a movie that wasn't either a sequel or an IP brand. That's ... kind of scary, especially if you're a filmmaker that wants your movies in cinemas and not on streaming.

On top of that, biopics in general and Elvis in particular have a lot more in common with the MCU and other big IPs than not. I do think the increase in rock and roll biopics over the last five-plus years feels like some suits in the studios were looking for something that would get people who didn't like genre fiction into theatres in the same way. And I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest there's little difference between Superman and Elvis in a lot of ways.

It's just a changing of the business model (artsy or quirky films or even romcoms are less likely to get large theatrical releases) than it is a change in quality.

Yep, absolutely. I agree with all your points and just pulled this one out, because I think it's a great summation. It makes me a little sad, as a lot of the movies I loved in the 90s and 00s were smaller and sometimes weirder. IIRC, Eisner at Disney intentionally started out with a singles-and-doubles strategy, and I don't think that could be done today.