Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[kenada]

There's an argument that all criticism/theoretical analysis comes from a place of ill intent. The sorts of analysis we're using as analogous - art, film, literature, music, that is the analysis of cultural production - were all designed to create a professional language barrier of exclusion around the object of study, alongside creating and then defending/attacking a canon of materal "worthy" of this sort of professionalised attention. It's arguable that The Forge was exactly this.

I don't think you can easily separate that out and have the study of the RPG space be some value-neutral, positive-vibes-only force. Rather, it's something that must be explicitly tackled by any criticism. It might be glib, but the development of professional criticism through the 20th century would've been very different if it had all taken place on the internet!

I don’t disagree when it comes to critical analysis, but I’m speaking more broadly than that. I’m not wanting a neutral discourse but something more functional than what we have now. People are too focused on winning a debate over having a conversation about games.

 

[Emoshin]

It would help if there weren’t a presumption of ill-intent. Discourse would be much more functional if people assumed good faith and only reacted once it became clear there was none. We’ll never reach a shared language we can use to discuss games if contrast between them is forbidden (regardless of how respectful it attempts be).

“We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behaviour.” ― Stephen M.R. Covey

I agree it would help if there wasn't a presumption of ill-intent, but being very human, others are mostly likely to respond to (their interpretation of) what we actually said and/or how we said it.

I think it would be most helpful if we got better at judging ourselves based on the impact of what we say and how we say it (to be more in line with how we judge others).

 

[Aldarc]

What would be nice is if more tabletop RPG designers talked about the nuts and bolts of the games they are designing and why they made certain design decisions—like you see video game developers do at e.g., GDC. It would go a long way towards normalizing discourse about game theory and help to establish a vocabulary organically that people would use.

Have you read the blogs of Vincent Baker, John Harper, or Rob Donoghue?

 

[JAMUMU]

I don’t disagree when it comes to critical analysis, but I’m speaking more broadly than that. I’m not wanting a neutral discourse but something more functional than what we have now. People are too focused on winning a debate over having a conversation about games.

Yeah that's exactly the problem, isn't it? Would that it were not so. Even before terms can be defined, there would need to be a strong case made for why criticism is necessary, what the point of it is, and why criticism doesn't hate you and your favourite game. RPGs are just as tribal as anything else and simply saying "I like PbtA games and want to discuss X" can lead to drive-by "But that's not a proper RPG then" or "Haha PbtA is a game for people who need safety-bars" comments that then suck all the oxygen out of the room. So some sort of closed shop ends up being required, and that leads to people sitting around clapping and picking each other's noses at best, or Forge-style discourse at worst.

 

[MGibster]

If one comes to criticism and analysis with the idea that one particular theory is supposed to yield Teh TRVTH, then you end up thinking that they are all BS. If you come to criticism and analysis with the idea that each theory may produce some understanding, then you see the theories as tools to help increase your understanding. And well-constructed tools are not BS.

And I think that's a very healthy attitude. These theories, or lenses, we use to interpret things can be very useful, but we have to take care to remember they're not applicable to every situation. When your only tool is a hammer...

In the hard sciences, we have tons of theories, models, and frameworks for analysis. But much of the point is specifically to seek the points where the theory or model fails to reflect reality, and when that happens we (hopefully, if we are dong our jobs right) change the theory or model.

One of the difficult things about history is I wasn't able to test any of my theories. Even if I could get it past the ethical review board, I just couldn't set up the conditions necessary to replicate the Scottich witch-hunts of the late 16th century.

 

[Umbran]

Like with so many other fictional things, I think another huge problem is the Self Insertion.

I think I see what you are getting at - but rather than speak of it as "self insertion", I think of it as making the game part of your Identity.

I identify as a gamer. I don't identify specifically as a D&D player most of the time, because while I like, and play, D&D, it is by no means the only game I play.

 

[gorice]

I think a large part of why it's hard to describe and critique RPGs is that they are essentially unfinished products. A movie or a book is a finished work that is passively consumed by the viewer/reader, but an RPG is a tool or a framework for creating something more or less unique. This means that the background of the reader/player colors their impression of an RPG much more than a movie or a book.

I think it's possible to overstate this point. Video games, for example, have similar problems, which is why some people used to champion 'New Games Journalism'. Honestly, I think more emphasis on the experiential aspects of play is needed. How many RPG 'reviews' are even based on actual actual play? Can you imagine critics writing that way about any other medium, and getting away with it?

I think these two points do more to show just how lost we are, collectively, in trying to talk about this topic. The assumption is that criticism is, should be, or ever has been neutral. I couldn't disagree more. I think a lot of people have some imagined, platonic ideal of what critics and criticism used to be like, in the good old days, but just like most writing is packed with the writer's preferences and beliefs (or their employer's), criticism is absolutely about laying bare the critic's interests, and championing certain works and attacking others. The best critics are interesting to read (or watch, listen to, etc.) even when you personally disagree with them.

This. Critics have always been bitchy. Being challenged is part of the point.

Thank you for mentioning music, because I think that provides the perfect analogue I was looking for, with two different things that come together to create a third.

A published RPG is like a musical instrument. You can certainly compare different instruments to one another, both across entirely different types (an accordion has a different sound from an electric guitar), and quality-wise within each type.

A published (or at least prepared) adventure is sheet music. It's a set of instructions for how to use an instrument to create a certain experience. You can look at the sheet music and see how it works, and if you know how to read it properly you can imagine the music in your head, but the notes on the sheet are not the actual music.

The game as played is actual music. There's often a basis in sheet music, but there's lots of room for improvisation around what's there, and different players will put their different spin on things. And play the same sheet music on different instruments, and it will sound quite different.

Now, within each category you can certainly compare, review, and discuss the varying qualities of the work. But they should be discussed in different ways. Comparing Stairway to Heaven to Spirit in the Sky might have some relevance, but the vocabulary used would not be good for comparing a piano to a guitar.

An RPG should generally be considered more on qualities of aesthetics (what kinds of things does it do well) and craftsmanship (how well does it actually do them), whereas actual play is more a matter of artistry, for lack of a better word. And the language of critique generally works better for the latter, I think.

Would it shock you to learn that this is exactly the analogy that Ron Edwards uses?

 

[kenada]

“We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behaviour.” ― Stephen M.R. Covey

I agree it would help if there wasn't a presumption of ill-intent, but being very human, others are mostly likely to respond to (their interpretation of) what we actually said and/or how we said it.

I think it would be most helpful if we got better at judging ourselves based on the impact of what we say and how we say it (to be more in line with how we judge others).

It goes both ways. How one responds is a also choice.

 

[Emoshin]

It goes both ways. How one responds is a also choice.

I 100% agree, everybody has a choice to make.

I believe my statement was accurate: Psychologically and pragmatically speaking, the most helpful ideal scenario is when each of us focuses on ourselves and treats others as we wish to be treated in turn.

 

[kenada]

Have you read the blogs of Vincent Baker, John Harper, or Rob Donoghue?

I’ve read some of Baker’s and Harper’s stuff. I’m thinking less theoretical and more applied. For example, Justin Alexander wrote about how he originally wanted a dedicated momentum pool as the default in Infinity RPG to increase off-turn engagement. I’d like to see more commentary like that too.

Edit: Another good one is a response from Kevin Crawford to a question on the CWN Kickstarter (alas, linking to it doesn’t work; the question was on February 3rd) asking about penalties when you don’t have software assistance available. It’s usually interesting when he talks about why things are done certain ways.