Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Umbran]

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.

Mod Note:
Can you bring up the level of your rhetoric, please? Because, at the moment, you're kind of creating an example that might justify the approach you describe.

 

[soviet]

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

As was touched on earlier in the thread, this is sort of the issue. So much of playing an RPG is subjective and ephemeral that when we pick up a new book we're really picking up a vague recipe book or an incomplete map rather than a finished and predictable game experience. But because we are blind to our own biases, and the books themselves are thick and shiny and beautifully written (well, mine are) we end up treating them like definite products. 'PbtA in a can, just rip it open and play like Vincent plays' is just not how it works. So critique of the book-as-product and the game-as-experienced become conflated.

 

[BrassDragon]

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?

If RPGs are, indeed art, they are probably too hard to capture in a single universally accepted model. Cinema never managed to square this cricle - very simplified example, it's valid to use a technical / aesthetic critical lens to view a movie like The Birth of a Nation and give meaningful insight why the film has artistic merit but it's equally valid to use a social / historical lens to view the same movie and find abhorrent sticking points. It's not that one criticims is 'better' than the other, both critiques can be equally valuable to future artists and critics. Nobody will ever make that exact piece of art again but, after digesting the analyses, they will incorporate the lessons and avoid the pitfalls what went before. That's the true value of criticism.

I'd even argue that this is already happening - if you watch Sly Flourish blog about his campaign prep for a D&D module and then listen to Justin Alexander deconstruct and rebuild the same module, you'll come away more inspired and understanding than if you just examined one of them even if they draw entirely different conclusions about the same text.

 

[JAMUMU]

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?

I don't think there's a model specifically for RPGs, but there could/should/would be a range of approaches. The lenses I like to look through might not be the ones you like to look through, but that doesn't mean our criticism cannot appeal to each other, and more importantly, it doesn't mean that any two approaches are mutually exclusive. Or probably most importantly, cross the streams and create a new, third lens.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think there's a model specifically for RPGs, but there could/should/would be a range of approaches. The lenses I like to look through might not be the ones you like to look through, but that doesn't mean our criticism cannot appeal to each other, and more importantly, it doesn't mean that any two approaches are mutually exclusive. Or probably most importantly, cross the streams and create a new, third lens.

Agreed. I’m trying to point out that we don’t even have an initial set of important lenses that are beneficial to view rpgs through.

Other areas of criticism seem to revolve around a few main lenses (not that others are invalid) just that certain lenses are agreed upon as extremely important. We are no where near that with rpg criticism.

 

[Emoshin]

If RPGs are, indeed art, they are probably too hard to capture in a single universally accepted model. Cinema never managed to square this cricle - very simplified example, it's valid to use a technical / aesthetic critical lens to view a movie like The Birth of a Nation and give meaningful insight why the film has artistic merit but it's equally valid to use a social / historical lens to view the same movie and find abhorrent sticking points. It's not that one criticims is 'better' than the other, both critiques can be equally valuable to future artists and critics. Nobody will ever make that exact piece of art again but, after digesting the analyses, they will incorporate the lessons and avoid the pitfalls what went before. That's the true value of criticism.

Does that end goal in bold apply largely to filmmakers and students rather than film consumers?

I think you might see what I'm aiming at. If the true value of criticism is for industry professionals, then the primarily value of criticism is lost when transposed here, is it not?

 

[FrogReaver]

Does that end goal in bold apply largely to filmmakers and students rather than film consumers?

I think you might see what I'm aiming at. If the true value of criticism is for industry professionals, then the primarily value of criticism is lost when transposed here, is it not?

I don’t think so

Most of us here are amateur game designers and tinkerers - all of us have home brewed before. So such lessons should help us here as well.

 

[Emoshin]

I don’t think so

Most of us here are amateur game designers and tinkerers. So such lessons should help us here as well.

Oh I didn't know that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh I didn't know that.

I mean - Who here hasn’t home brewed something

 

[Emoshin]

I mean - Who here hasn’t home brewed something

Well sure I have, but within the confines of the system (in my case D&D), not to change or refine the system itself. Generally speaking, I don't have time for that, even if I wanted to or had the right expertise.