Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[pemerton]

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'm not very familiar with film criticism. When it comes to RPGs, I start with the work of Ron Edwards and Vincent Baker because I find it powerful in (at least) two ways: (i) it explains a lot of things to me; (ii) it has been fundamental to the creation of some great RPGs.

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 started a theory thread. It's had a handful of replies.

I don't think most cinema-goers are really into criticism of film. Likewise I don't think most RPGers are really into criticism of RPGing. It's something of a niche interest. I don't see this thread as really being about the importance or utility of criticism. It's about the propriety of criticism, and in particular it's about whether it's socially/culturally permissible to express reasoned dissatisfaction with 3E and 5e D&D.

 

[Emoshin]

If you're posting on here you have the time. It's not rocket science.

Not that it's any of your business, but I've had an illness this week. I am not working this week and thus have extra time.

Fortunately, I am feeling better and expect to go back to my regular offline life, with less time to post (or homebrew).

Seriously, every time I start to second-guess myself about changes in the tone in Enworld, somebody like yourself comes out of the blue with a post like yours.

I really thought by now that some of you folk would cease with these kind of assertions. It's not rocket science to try to be nice to people.

 

[Maxperson]

Not for the rabbits...



"be vewwy vewwy quiet"

Oh, man! Bad example! Bugs had a lot of fun with Elmer.

 

[pemerton]

If i had my druthers and decided to start a blog about Criticism & RPGs my first articles would be:

1) examining ttrpgs as a site where the interpassivity of capitalist realism is both reinforced and resisted, rpg gamer as consumer vs rpg gamer as producer
2) Enter the Murderhobo: the structure of ttrpgs as a critique of post-Fordist economic conditions
3) an interrogation of social class as it appears in ttrpgs, and the implications of this for ttrpgs as a site of class struggle vs the often more conservative social markers found in fantasy fiction
4) How systems/players deal with the GM as Lacanian "Big Other" vs the "little others" provided by settings/rules
5) Towards a Revolutionary Dialectics of Homebrew: House Rules as Radical Literary Movement
6) Movements such as the OSR and "old school play" as nostalgic reaction and progressive critique of neoliberal "austerity"

Now I just emptied my head there and came up with some of that list based on where my interests collide and to give examples. Someone else is going to have an entirely different set of lenses they want to use. But as was said upthread, what lenses are actually important (so most useful) to discussing the ttrpg space won't be discovered until people start applying the tools from other areas of study to RPGs themselves and the experience they provide.

Did you see this thread from a little while ago: RPGing via Billy Bragg?

 

[Aldarc]

Can we use Vampire: The Masquerade first edition? Will anyone get up in arms if people use that game for comparative purposes?

I would think so, but apparently talking about Vampire: The Masquerade is talking about D&D. Who knew?

If you're not familiar with RPGs other than D&D and D&D-likes, how are you going to contribute to any general analysis of RPGing? What evidence base would you draw on? What examples would you have ready to hand?

How any individual poster deals with the fact that they don't know much about RPGs other than D&D is their prerogative. But I don't see how they can insist on being taken seriously if they lack the requisite knowledge and experience.

There are some people out there who play only Monopoly or various editions thereof. I'm glad that they are having fun with Monopoly. I don't think even once that they are a bad person or having BadWrongFun playing only Monopoly. If they are having fun with Monopoly, then I hope they keep playing Monopoly. More power to them. However, I don't think that people who play only Monopoly have much interesting things to say about the wider hobby of board games.

 

[Maxperson]

Not that it's any of your business, but I've had an illness this week. I am not working this week and thus have extra time.

Fortunately, I am feeling better and expect to go back to my regular offline life, with less time to post (or homebrew).

Seriously, every time I start to second-guess myself about changes in the tone in Enworld, somebody like yourself comes out of the blue with a post like yours.

I really thought by now that some of you folk would cease with these kind of assertions. It's not rocket science to try to be nice to people.

There do tend to be a lot of argumentative people here(including myself). A lot of us, though, tend to get argumentative with other argumentative people, and respond in a thoughtful manner to those who post thoughtfully. That's what I try to do as I'd rather have an enjoyable conversation with someone than argue. If you find yourself encountering someone who just won't stop arguing, you can always use the block feature so that you don't have to interact with that person any longer.

As I said in my other post, I have really enjoyed reading your posts. Even the ones I disagree with. I'd rather not see a thoughtful person leave the forum when there might be other avenues. Whatever you decide, I wish you all the best.

 

[JAMUMU]

Did you see this thread from a little while ago: RPGing via Billy Bragg?

No, but i am now!

 

[Malmuria]

Just saw this. Not looking to pick a fight, but definitely want to clarify (as I certainly feel included in this commentary even if its not intended).

It is Totally Cool TM to play Blades in the Dark however one likes. But subsequently extrapolating from your hacked/heavily drifted Home Game positions like "Blades in the Dark is x/y/z" when you didn't actually engage or test x/y/z? That is an issue for me so I tend to engage with that. Its an issue for me when people do that in sports, natural sciences, martial arts, and any other number of things (it just so happens that we're on a TTRPG forum!).

No worries...for the record I have some of your blades post saved and will go back to them if I ever run the game again. But the point I was responding suggested that dissatisfaction with particular terminology ("drift" etc) or a way of thinking about games represented a desire to erase those games from the hobby. I don't think that's the case, it's just this way of talking about games can be alienating, and if you (general you) is going to be an advocate for these games you have to be somewhat aware of that dynamic.

Totally different context, but similar dynamic: a few years ago I was getting into a lot of indie rpgs and I started following a lot of people on twitter. And for the most part that was a huge mistake! My timeline became full of misanthropy and drama, certainly against dnd and its players but also against any moderately successful ttrpg. Followed by tweets like "I'm literally BEGGING to try a non dnd game." Granted, it's twitter, and twitter loves petty drama. But it was such a bad look overall and not a good way to get exposed to new games.

 

[Hussar]

.


Then maybe critique the game creation engine itself, particularly how that seen half affects play in the unseen half.

Fair enough. But again that becomes difficult because your only seeing half the whole picture. Which is often why we get such radically different opinions about things.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Not that it's any of your business, but I've had an illness this week. I am not working this week and thus have extra time.

Fortunately, I am feeling better and expect to go back to my regular offline life, with less time to post (or homebrew).

Seriously, every time I start to second-guess myself about changes in the tone in Enworld, somebody like yourself comes out of the blue with a post like yours.

I really thought by now that some of you folk would cease with these kind of assertions. It's not rocket science to try to be nice to people.

Apologies, I honestly didn't mean it to be snarky. If anything I think it's relevant to the overall topic. Anyone can write a game or tweak game mechanics, and homebrewing to some degree is basically inevitable once you GM for long enough. And as has come up in this thread, discussions of game theory and criticism almost always run into issues of personal preference, anecdotal experiences with a game, not actually playing the game as described, etc. One of the things that makes RPGs hard to compare to other forms and mediums is that they're so interactive and malleable.

But I will confess to two things:

1) The tone on ENWorld is often bracing and combative. It freaked me the hell out when I first started posting. Any post can turn into a brawl at any moment—including moderators somewhat confusingly taking off their mod hat and wading in—and especially when they're about this topic. Hell, this entire thread is basically a thread about past threads. It's very possible I've adapted to that rough style of discourse without realizing it.

2) I'm a little thrown by how many questions you're asking about the basic nature of this topic, and the forum overall. To be clear, I'm absolutely not calling you a sock puppet, or even a sea lion—that doesn't make sense to me. But ENWorld is what it is, for better or worse, and it's not like there's some great mystery to be unravelled or peace to be made. People do stuff on the internet for all sorts of reasons, some rational, some not.