Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Campbell]

That might be, but it still seems to imply that "in the fiction" is the only relevant point here, rather than accepting that how you arrive at it mattering (or in some cases, judging the fiction produced from it as being different, that I think in at least some cases is legitimate too).

I mean, honestly, when discussing it as a preference, or even as a quality judgement, the proper response to "in the fiction these things aren't different" would seem to me to be "So what?"

It matters because it gives other people the wrong impression about how this stuff actually works and hinders the ability to effectively communicate what is going on in our actual games. You do not have to care about that at all, but to expect others to view your input as valuable after you have just attempted to make a mockery of their play is not exactly going to work out very well for you.

The preferences are not wrong. The material misrepresentation is. This is a classic example of what many of us have been talking about. That much of this thread has basically boiled down to requiring us to justify our place within this hobby as something worthy of respect while even mild statements of preference (I don't like to play in games where there is fudging or I find collaborative world building improves my play experience) get treated as invectives towards other peoples play even when we explicitly personalize it to us only.

@Thomas Shey I find this exchange enormously frustrating because I have spent the last several pages trying to show as much empathy as possible for you and others, but when given the chance you do not seem to have the willingness to show even an iota of empathy for people like me that feel like you are misrepresenting their play experience. If you do not actually care about where we are coming from let me know and I can cease to interact with you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you say the tool is poorly designed and I say I prefer that tool then the implication is that I prefer a poorly designed tool. That’s a derogatory depiction of me. It comes across as, 'if only you were more enlightened you would prefer this better designed tool'.

I still don't think so. You can be familiar enough with, and have a particular set of traits that a given game "fits your hand" and allows you to do good work with it better than an overall better designed tool. It just says that the badly designed game happens to fit your needs particularly well. Its badly designed; you aren't.

I'd suggest one can criticize parts of a game without also impugning the person that likes the game, but criticizing the game itself as a whole always risks impugning the person that likes the game. Specific criticism of parts leave open the concept of tradeoffs, which allows room to explain why what i like isn't 'bad in all ways' or 'poorly designed as a whole' etc.

But at the end of the day, this still requires you to think at least parts of the game are, well, good. That's simply not required to be true. Its only rarely true that a game has no apparent virtues (and of course, what constitutes a "virtue" and a "flaw" is somewhat subjective), but its not impossible; sometimes you'll hit designs that seem to range from "functional but unimpressive" to "why did they do this this way?" with not much else to work with. They're rarely particularly popular, however.

Perhaps one criticism in D&D could be about the authority structure of the game and how that can often cause play to go awry. I can even agree with that criticsm - but I can then point to specific benefits of that authority structure as part of the reason I like the game. 'Tradeoffs'.

Well, the fundamental question of the benefits to costs of the top-down power structure common to trad games reaches well beyond any one system.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not sure a longer period necessarily equates to a more feverish stance or impetus to "prove" ones "correctness". But I am going to step away from this as I think we'll just end up going in circles.

Since I was about to say "I'm afraid I just disagree" I'd say you're clearly correct.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I must say, I've been struggling to follow what is really being discussed here in the last few pages. I mean is it just our personal bias for certain jargon? I'm also lacking much sleep these last 3 days due to a work deadline, so do ignore me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

@Thomas Shey I find this exchange enormously frustrating because I have spent the last several pages trying to show as much empathy as possible for you and others, but when given the chance you do not seem to have the willingness to show even an iota of empathy for people like me that feel like you are misrepresenting their play experience. If you do not actually care about where we are coming from let me know and I can cease to interact with you.

I don't know what to say here, Campbell. I think my history has shown I consider things like Story Now and related elements perfectly valid play style elements that seem to have virtues that I can understand the attraction to, and that I'm actually on-board using in certain selective ways in some contexts. I've spent the majority of my time in past threads fighting back in negative claims about such play-style elements and attempts to gatekeep them out of discussion, even though they're things that are not my own preference because I think they've contributed to the hobby in many ways.

What I have an issue with is that it sometimes seems people who enjoy such elements fundamentally have trouble believing that the people who find them off-putting or simply counter-productive can't come by that view honestly, because some of those people are determined to misrepresent them or badmouth them. That's why things like "There's no difference in the fiction," bothers me; it comes across an attempt to erode any legitimacy to an objection at all, therefor putting people who find it not to their taste generically in position of being irrational or disingenuous. I don't think that's necessary just to respond to people who are aggressively hostile to your style in a way that splashes on everyone who just doesn't find it to their taste, even if some of their reasons are similar.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I must say, I've been struggling to follow what is really being discussed here in the last few pages. I mean is it just our personal bias for certain jargon? I'm also lacking much sleep these last 3 days due to a work deadline, so do ignore me.

I'm getting over a really obnoxiously intense headcold, so I can sympathize, and wonder if my own coherence has been suffering from same.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, that's people being--let's say jerks, but my opinion is stronger. Fate is a system that appears to me to be really well designed to do something I kind of don't want to do while not doing things I do, but to tell people who do get value out of it that they shouldn't or even more the laughable gatekeeping of putting it in the "not an RPG" category is ridiculous.

There is a reason why some of these people have been on my ignore list for years.

That said, the tendency for some Fate fans to really heavily treat it as the proper tool for all situations for all people is real. It was even worse some years ago. There's a reason it was the first place I saw the term "Its apparently a dessert topping and a floor wax."

Those Fate fans have probably been drowned out by all the 5e fans who say the same thing. Or maybe all the Cypher System fans who say the same? Or maybe all the GURPS fans who say the same? Or maybe its the recent wave of Cortex Prime fans?

That said, Fate is not the proper tool for all games. The designers of Fate, including Rob Donoghue, has said as much a number of times on Twitter and elsewhere.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There is a reason why some of these people have been on my ignore list for years.

As you well should.

Those Fate fans have probably been drowned out by all the 5e fans who say the same thing. Or maybe all the Cypher System fans who say the same? Or maybe all the GURPS fans who say the same? Or maybe its the recent wave of Cortex Prime fans?

Oh, I've used the same term for 5e since its become the soup du jour for random new games. But in the places I saw it it was particularly true for Fate fans, even over and above GURPS or some others (though they're obviously not immune to the disease). This was most strongly some years ago when Fate was first really coming into its own. I mean, even most GURPS fans would admit it wasn't exactly the best choice for superheroes...

That said, Fate is not the proper tool for all games. The designers of Fate, including Rob Donoghue, has said as much a number of times on Twitter and elsewhere.

Designers often have a surprisingly clearer-eyed view of the strengths and weaknesses of their games than the fans do, if they aren't mired in a bubble.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Given its often used in response to claiming there's a difference even when the difference is not projected as a judgment, I think you're wrong here. I think its very much an attempt to claim a lack of meaningful difference.

I'm wrong about what I meant? Well, I'm glad I took the time to explain!

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't know what to say here, Campbell. I think my history has shown I consider things like Story Now and related elements perfectly valid play style elements that seem to have virtues that I can understand the attraction to, and that I'm actually on-board using in certain selective ways in some contexts. I've spent the majority of my time in past threads fighting back in negative claims about such play-style elements and attempts to gatekeep them out of discussion, even though they're things that are not my own preference because I think they've contributed to the hobby in many ways.

What I have an issue with is that it sometimes seems people who enjoy such elements fundamentally have trouble believing that the people who find them off-putting or simply counter-productive can't come by that view honestly, because some of those people are determined to misrepresent them or badmouth them. That's why things like "There's no difference in the fiction," bothers me; it comes across an attempt to erode any legitimacy to an objection at all, therefor putting people who find it not to their taste generically in position of being irrational or disingenuous. I don't think that's necessary just to respond to people who are aggressively hostile to your style in a way that splashes on everyone who just doesn't find it to their taste, even if some of their reasons are similar.

Just thought I’d note one other thing I see in general. When people try not to invalidate the story now style by saying things like ‘for me this particular is something I dislike about the story now style’ it’s inevitable that person gets told ‘as an objective fact you are wrong’ or ‘I’m just talking about the systems and not your preference’ or ‘there is no difference between what you say you like and what story now does’.

Often one that doesn’t prefer story now cannot use language that doesn’t invalidate it because others supporting that style simply won’t allow them to.