Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[darkbard]

Part of it is jargon.

"No myth" gaming? How can you have a fantasy game that doesn't evoke myths that are central to the human condition?

Unless, you are using "myth" in a different sense, which I believe you are. Not entirely sure what you mean by that, by the way.

No Myth is pretty simple and does not imply some impossible voiding of accreted human experience and psychological/mythological tropes. It means that all that is established with regard to "setting" (world-building inputs) is what is collectively established at the table, by consensus. Do orcs exist in this world? Not until we establish that through play, directly or indirectly. Each participant in the game may have some sense of things in the abstract, but until it is established as part of the shared fiction through play it does not exist in the game.

 

[Baron Opal II]

No Myth is pretty simple and does not imply some impossible voiding of accreted human experience and psychological/mythological tropes.

Heh, I figured not.

Thanks to you and Citizen Mane for the explanation!

 

[Micah Sweet]

No Myth is pretty simple and does not imply some impossible voiding of accreted human experience and psychological/mythological tropes. It means that all that is established with regard to "setting" (world-building inputs) is what is collectively established at the table, by consensus. Do orcs exist in this world? Not until we establish that through play, directly or indirectly. Each participant in the game may have some sense of things in the abstract, but until it is established as part of the shared fiction through play it does not exist in the game.

Is there a more descriptive term for that? I find it extremely difficult to not take the term "no-myth" literally, and that is outside my personal feelings about the concept, which I do not care for, at all.

 

[FrogReaver]

We've both said that comparison of strengths and weaknesses is not what we're talking about here.

Exactly. Criticism of 1 particular aspect of a thing is not generally a problem. Or even criticism of 2, 3, 5, etc aspects.

And like I said in my last post, while I agree with you that it's not necessarily a criticism of the person, it is a fairly regular and/or predictable outcome for it to be received that way when blunt terms are used. And I have seen people offer similarly simple criticisms in other threads.

I'd also note that this is something people from all sides experience when this kind of criticism is applied toward them. It's why we see all sides referencing the same types of feelings around others dismissing their playstyles and games.

I can only speak for myself. Am I outraged? No. Neither am I outraged when people do just call a system bad. However, I do think that sort of language is actively counterproductive for generating dialogue, and don't particularly care for it, and is the sort I do advocate against.

My takeaway is that all sides have to do better in this conversation. One person on any side doing this - even unwittingly - tends to prompt others to do it back. It's a bit of a vicious circle.

I also know that it comes from Lanefan playing a very specific game in a very specific way, and has strong and somewhat idiosyncratic definitions when it comes to ttrpgs and their play, which is a filter I now internally pass it through. I've seen more than a few people react strongly and poorly to their sentiments because of how much more aggressive the language can come across if you lack that context. This is exactly why I'm advocating for including context to make your sentiments as clear as possible to the people you're engaging with.

IMO - One reason people get more aggressive is if they feel like you've set them up in a trap that was unfairly executed - like taking hypothetical play example and then asserting something they consider failure within it while insisting it's success. You can see this from @Lanefan's posts recently on that conversational thread.

I totally understand why you would have that takeaway. However, my reaction to this thread is more that the language we use to talk about technical elements matters, and specificity and clarity goes a long way to minimizing frustration on that front, not that talking about them is fundamentally an inflammatory endeavor. But, perhaps that is the how some people feel. That's a shame, in my eyes.

I do too, but my point isn't to not criticize, it's just to be more aware of what comes across as subjective, what comes across as dismissive, what comes across as personal criticism, etc. My point isn't to stop others from talking or sharing ideas, it's to better communicate those ideas so they will actually be discussed.

 

[FrogReaver]

You seem to play RPGs - or it might be better to say an RPG - that tells you to play an adventurer. So there is an irony in the quoted question!

Agreed and I even liked this post, but there's still nuanced differences. He plays an RPG where the game is about playing an adventurer, but despite that restriction, after he has made an adventurer he can play his adventurer almost however he likes (at least within the limitations of having extremely limited authorial power outsides his adventurer). That's a level of control over thoughts and attempted actions that isn't necessarily present in story now games.

Now as a tradeoff for giving up some control over thoughts and attempted actions a story now game is able to provide other benefits. (I think you've used monster hearts before to highlight this).

But that's the nuance that blanket dismissals tend to leave out (and to be fair, it's done far to much by both sides).

 

[Baron Opal II]

Is there a more descriptive term for that?

"Tabula rasa" would be a good one, I believe. The only thing brought to the table is genre, and then everything else is discussed.

(Now that I had some context, I could filter out from my search political statements and Indian metal bands.)

 

[soviet]

Agreed and I even liked this post, but there's still nuanced differences. He plays an RPG where the game is about playing an adventurer, but despite that restriction, after he has made an adventurer he can play his adventurer almost however he likes (at least within the limitations of having extremely limited authorial power outsides his adventurer). That's a level of control over thoughts and attempted actions that isn't necessarily present in story now games.

Now as a tradeoff for giving up some control over thoughts and attempted actions a story now game is able to provide other benefits. (I think you've used monster hearts before to highlight this).

But that's the nuance that blanket dismissals tend to leave out (and to be fair, it's done far to much by both sides).

What control over a character's thoughts and attempted actions is present in D&D but not story now games?

 

[FrogReaver]

I think that depends on context. I've been in situations where it is.

But has anyone in this thread said anything is bad?

I think so. Though I'm not about to scour 1000 posts in this thread to find anything more specific.

The only instance I immediately think of is @Lanefan making up some version of a brief hypothetical I presented and then telling me that his projection of my approach onto his example is bad and illegitimate. Are you and @FrogReaver and others outraged by Lanefan telling me that my approach is illegitimate?

You mean your approach to criticism in that interaction? If so then No. I think the particular approach you choose to try and criticize there ultimately diminished any potential criticism you were trying to make. When @Lanefan immediately pushed back against your framing the scene in a way he viewed as failing at his goal, that was time to have a conversation like you would in the actual game to clarify IMO. Instead, you doubled down on what to me seems like an unimportant detail for the criticism you were trying to deliver. Others that tend to agree with your positions even followed up with a hypothetical example that @Lanefan seemed to have no problem with.

This is a great example where this discussion got derailed not because of content, ideas, or criticisms, but solely based on the delivery of that content, ideas and criticisms.

But when I describe, without judging, certain resolution as map-and-key, it's considered an outrage!

For me there's a baggage that comes from our previous discussions. I think that gets in the way at times.

The overall tenor of the thread appears to me to be that some posters regard it as rude for other posters to talk about technical elements of D&D (and D&D-adjacent) RPGing.

I don't know how to say this, but I have no problem with the general concept of talking technical elements of D&D. I have no problem in general with criticism of D&D. I do have problems with certain deliveries. I also think there's certain criticisms that aren't productive, a hypothetical example might be: D&D is a bad game for X, Y and Z reasons. If that was presented as a personal value judgement, ex: for me d&d is a bad game because X, Y and Z, then no issue there.

I'll even add that while I tend to direct my comments toward your 'side', my side is often just as guilty of these same things. We all need to do better.

 

[FrogReaver]

What control over a character's thoughts and attempted actions is present in D&D but not story now games?

I don't know that's it's every story now game. I'm struggling to think of a specific example in BitD. But, @pemerton and @Campbell have provided some examples before. Possibly from Prince Valiant or Monster Heart (games I'm not familiar with other than what they have shared) - where a given move may obligate your character to be attracted to someone, or change some fundamental fact about your character.

 

[soviet]

I don't know that's it's every story now game. I'm struggling to think of a specific example in BitD. But, @pemerton and @Campbell have provided some examples before. Possibly from Prince Valiant or Monster Heart (games I'm not familiar with other than what they have shared) - where a given move may obligate your character to be attracted to someone, or change some fundamental fact about your character.

OK, I'm not familiar with those games. But is that any different from failing a saving throw vs fear, charm, etc?

I play a level 15 fighter in 5e and recently spent a couple rounds frightened of a dragon that I was actually kicking the ass of, so I'm not generally a big fan of these effects.