Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[JAMUMU]

Seems like a good reason to keep critique focused on actual play experience. I hinted at this in my previous post, but I think it bears repeating: this hobby badly needs a culture shift, from talking about games as books that we read, to talking about the personal experiences of playing games. I'm tempted to say that we don't really have different play cultures, we have different anti-play cultures.

I think there's room for both examining the games as texts and discussing the experiences play brings about. The two don't seem mutually exclusive. But I totes agree that the most interesting area of study is where the rubber meets the road.

 

[aramis erak]

I can see how that makes sense for a publisher, but for a homebrew game? It’s a lot of work, and it wouldn’t be worth it if it were just duplicating another game.

Funny, but that "duplicating another game" was exactly how the OSR was born... (see also OSRIC, and Dark Dungeons)

This is a fairly good read. I would boil it down to music theory and music artistry. A piano and guitar are different, but do work on the same tuning, notes, and playstyle. You can write sheet music that works for them both. That would be the mechanics side of RPG design and theory discussion. The actual creation, writing, and performance is the aesthetic piece that's more subjective. This would be the adventure design, role play, etc... of RPG theory.

That's not a terribly apt comparison - the differences in mechanics make sheet music playable on both without abstractions (in other words, no cheating by Figured Bass or Chord Symbols, instead writing each note) make the overlap a technical challenge without much room for art. The mechanics of each instrument have wide ranges, but the overlaps make life bloody hard on the composer trying it...
The instrument is really the comparative to the game mechanics - covering what can and cannot be done.
Given that both instruments are tunable, the tuning chosen is comparable to the playstyle.

The Music Theory is not quite, but almost, universal - functional harmony is the same in the Chinese, Japanese, Middle Eastern, and European contexts, and are built upon ratios of frequencies.¹

Interval Name	P1	min3	Maj3	P4	P5	P8
Ideal Ratio	1:1	6:5	5:4	4:3	3:2	2:1

Those key frequency pairings are fundamental to all musical cultures, tho' often specific instruments and/or tunings intentionally deviate in small ways. It can be said that Shönberg and Weburn are non-funtional - they specifically try to avoid the functional interval changes.

ANd that's the point where the analogy presented goes careening off the bridge.

Music Theory has strong mathematical basis for why what sounds good does so. Games have no comparable universal.

Modern Music Theory classes are, at least for the lower division sections, typically, "how to emulate Bach, then Beethoven, then Mozart." It would basically be, "Retrocloning 100-104." (Exams being, quite literally, "apply [Bach/Beethoven/Mozart]'s formulae and fill in the missing notes." It's not interesting until upper division. Even then, a lot of it is still emulating other's styles.




¹Musical Scales and Intervals

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think there's room for both examining the games as texts and discussing the experiences play brings about. The two don't seem mutually exclusive. But I totes agree that the most interesting area of study is where the rubber meets the road.

IME, this in isolation rarely proves insightful.

You often end up with people that prize the role of mechanics (the game's rules or system) and the interplay that it has with the game's experience.

But it's important to look at RPGs from a number of different vantage points. The rules? Yeah, they matter. The play experience? Yeah, it matters. The norms and heuristics used by people when playing that game, or games in general? Yeah, that matters too.

What about looking at games through other prisms? What does queer theory have to say about the games that we play? What about a Marxist approach? If we turn this instead to think of RPGs in terms of the psychological value of play, how are the games enhancing (or detracting) from those values for the participants?

I find that defining playing experience always ends up with typologies, and this is the same repeated loop we've been in for almost 50 years. IME, YMMV, etc.

 

[JAMUMU]

IME, this in isolation rarely proves insightful.

You often end up with people that prize the role of mechanics (the game's rules or system) and the interplay that it has with the game's experience.

But it's important to look at RPGs from a number of different vantage points. The rules? Yeah, they matter. The play experience? Yeah, it matters. The norms and heuristics used by people when playing that game, or games in general? Yeah, that matters too.

What about looking at games through other prisms? What does queer theory have to say about the games that we play? What about a Marxist approach? If we turn this instead to think of RPGs in terms of the psychological value of play, how are the games enhancing (or detracting) from those values for the participants?

I find that defining playing experience always ends up with typologies, and this is the same repeated loop we've been in for almost 50 years. IME, YMMV, etc.

My (former) academic bailiewick/personal preference would be to use psychoanalytic and Marxist approaches, but this here's a No Politics site so I've danced around that.

But rather than defining play experiences, it might be possible to discuss the experiences that arise through the act of playing, which I think is a different thing.

 

[FrogReaver]

Seems like a good reason to keep critique focused on actual play experience. I hinted at this in my previous post, but I think it bears repeating: this hobby badly needs a culture shift, from talking about games as books that we read, to talking about the personal experiences of playing games. I'm tempted to say that we don't really have different play cultures, we have different anti-play cultures.

Play experience is individualized as it necessarily gets filtered through the individuals doing the playing and no 2 will experience anything the same. IMO, There doesn’t seem like a more contentious and pointless place of critique than at the individualized play experience level.

Which is why so many want to replace individual play experience with ‘normative’ play experience. Which really isn’t the right way to go either.

 

[gorice]

Play experience is individualized as it necessarily gets filtered through the individuals doing the playing and no 2 will experience anything the same. IMO, There doesn’t seem like a more contentious and pointless place of critique than at the individualized play experience level.

Which is why so many want to replace individual play experience with ‘normative’ play experience. Which really isn’t the right way to go either.

I mean, if I were to write a videogame review, I'd start with my experience of playing the game, and then address the technical aspects and other conditions that I think led to that experience. Same goes for film, music, etc. That's one way of going from the particular to the general.

I suppose I'd better put my money where my mouth is and write an RPG review at some point.

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean, if I were to write a videogame review, I'd start with my experience of playing the game, and then address the technical aspects and other conditions that I think led to that experience. Same goes for film, music, etc. That's one way of going from the particular to the general.

I suppose I'd better put my money where my mouth is and write an RPG review at some point.

I think that would be the most helpful kind of review. I don’t think reviews and critiques are quite the same though. But maybe we are just quibbling over definitions?

I would also point out that video games tend to be fairly strictly defined. Ttrpg’s are much more favorable to DM and participants creative licenses. So much so that your play experience is probably not representative of nearly as many others in the same way a video game play experience would be.

 

[kenada]

Funny, but that "duplicating another game" was exactly how the OSR was born... (see also OSRIC, and Dark Dungeons)

That’s true. However, maybe I’m not emphasizing the “homebrew” enough.

The target audience for my game is me. While it would be neat if it got to the point where I could release it, the primary goal is to use it to run the kind of game I want to run. That’s why I mention the amount of work to duplicate another game. If another game did what I want (and people have certainly suggested various ones), it would meet my need to use that game instead, and I could use the time saved on other stuff in my backlog and gaming queue.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

Yea, there are a couple other psychological words to use. Though most gamers in general don't care too much if RPGs in general are attacked. After all they can always say "oh that is not my game" or even "I don't game that way".

But when you get to a single game that the person loves beyond love, then anything you say is an attack on them.....

 

[The Shadow]

The best example here is game world. It presumes an approach and way of looking at the game's setting that is just inappropriate for many of the games I run/play.

I would love to hear more about this. I had never even considered a distinction between "game world" and "setting".