Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Emoshin]

It is what is being called for in this thread. That criticism not be so harsh.

But to be critical, we have to be able to examine something and acknowledge its flaws and shortcomings. We have to be able to hear things that maybe we'd prefer not to hear, or draw conclusions we'd prefer not to draw.

That's fundamental to criticism. Calling for that to be removed or lessened is antithetical to criticism.

That's interesting. I think criticism without goal-awareness is deeply problematic.

Like you criticize your best friend because their behavior is bothering you AND your goal is to have a good friendship. Unfortunately, your criticism is so harsh, that your friendship is severely degraded or lost entirely. Now you will never know: did you lose your friendship because you were overly critical and inconsiderate, or did you lose your friendship because you did your best and still they kept up that behavior? You will never know and have to live with that regret.

The only way to really track your goal of having a good friendship is to be able to talk about your friend's behavior without being so harsh.

 

[Campbell]

Significant effort has been put forward by many posters on these boards, chief among them @pemerton , @Manbearcat and myself to provide alternative framings and explain the relevent concepts involved in indie play. Not to mention a whole lot of thinking put out by people like Vincent Baker, Jesse Burneko, John Harper and Brendan Conway (Magpie Games) long after The Forge closed its door. If John Harper's commentary is not plain English enough for you I don't know what to tell you.

The same people who complain about "Forge terminology" and inability to have conversations that move past the Forge have not shown any willingness to engage with any of the post Forge work or the new framing many of us have tried to provide on these boards.

It's fundamentally difficult for me to see the complaints as fundamentally being about terminology rather than an aversion for concepts and games born out of it. Many of the same posters who keep beating the drum on this have also refused to acknowledge the creative contributions of the indie community, have called games like Sorcerer and Apocalypse World irrelevant and have launched personal attacks on posters who take a different approach to the player/GM authority relationship.

Rightfully or wrongfully a lot of this feels like an attempt to erase games and concepts people do not like from the overall hobby. Those people (including the OP) who most strongly advocate against Forge terminology have never said anything that makes me believe anything to the contrary. I welcome such clarifying statements. I would love to be proven wrong.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's interesting. I think criticism without goal-awareness is deeply problematic.

Like you criticize your best friend because their behavior is bothering you AND your goal is to have a good friendship. Unfortunately, your criticism is so harsh, that your friendship is severely degraded or lost entirely. Now you will never know: did you lose your friendship because you were overly critical and inconsiderate, or did you lose your friendship because you did your best and still they kept up that behavior? You will never know and have to live with that regret.

The only way to really track your goal of having a good friendship is to be able to talk about your friend's behavior without being so harsh.

Sure, there are times when care should be paramount… like the situation you describe with regards to a personal friendship.

But we’re not talking about criticism of personal relationships. We’re talking about criticism of RPGs.

In that sense, such considerations, while they may be a factor, should be less important than honesty and forthrightness. Consider a film or book review by an independent reviewer compared to that of someone who has worked with the artist prior. I know whose review I’d think is more likely to be genuine.

For RPGs, if we’re going to work toward better criticism… actual analysis of rules and games and techniques… I think the delicacy you’ve described in your example is misplaced.

 

[Emoshin]

Significant effort has been put forward by many posters on these boards, chief among them @pemerton , @Manbearcat and myself to provide alternative framings and explain the relevent concepts involved in indie play.

For the part emphasized in bold, why? Why has this significant effort been invested, for what purpose, what is the end goal?

Not to mention a whole lot of thinking put out by people like Vincent Baker, Jesse Burneko, John Harper and Brendan Conway (Magpie Games) long after The Forge closed its door. If John Harper's commentary is not plain English enough for you I don't know what to tell you.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I stumble into those kinds of discussions, I'm like:

Those verbose walls of text are incredibly intimidating for me and just not a lot of fun. So I avoid them.

 

[Emoshin]

Sure, there are times when care should be paramount… like the situation you describe with regards to a personal friendship.

But we’re not talking about criticism of personal relationships. We’re talking about criticism of RPGs.

As in you are criticizing an RPG with a person who has a scientific or neutral position on the topic?

In that sense, such considerations, while they may be a factor, should be less important than honesty and forthrightness. Consider a film or book review by an independent reviewer compared to that of someone who has worked with the artist prior. I know whose review I’d think is more likely to be genuine.

For RPGs, if we’re going to work toward better criticism… actual analysis of rules and games and techniques… I think the delicacy you’ve described in your example is misplaced.

People, human beings, play RPGs? We are addressing the feelings/behavior of the person who is emotionally invested in the RPG you are criticizing?

It's not analogous to a friendship, but I feel like the goal awareness and goal tracking in both cases is critical to a successful outcome.

 

[Umbran]

This problem with this is we are not privy to the state of another’s mind, so how much “practical stuff” one needs is unknowable.

Yep. Indeed, you are speaking in an open forum, so you aren't speaking to a single person - you don't know who will choose to read or respond. And the issue has two edges - to someone else, you are likely the person who seems to be responding assuming ill intent.

The point is that in this medium, the only person you can really control is yourself. Your own presentation is the only tool you've got.

It sometimes seems like the consideration is expected to flow one way.

The consideration has to start somewhere. If you aren't going to start with yourself, why should anyone else start for you?

 

[Umbran]

Significant effort has been put forward by many posters on these boards, chief among them @pemerton , @Manbearcat and myself to provide alternative framings and explain the relevent concepts involved in indie play.

Well, that brings up a good question - a lot of effort has been put forward, but is it the right kind of effort?

Is this medium even appropriate for the task? Is the available audience a good one for this effort? Are the rhetorical tools and approaches effective ones?

Having read a whole lot of these discussions, my answers to those are, Maybe Not, Not really, and No, respectively.

 

[kenada]

The consideration has to start somewhere. If you aren't going to start with yourself, why should anyone else start for you?

That’s why I include those assurances. At the end of day, if I want to talk about thing X, it’s in my interest to preemptively diffuse possible attacks. I get that, but it’s not without cost. The apparent need to be so deferential to the most popular game ever can create a sense that what you are doing is subversive when it’s really just wanting to talk about game stuff.

 

[Emoshin]

That’s why I include those assurances. At the end of day, if I want to talk about thing X, it’s in my interest to preemptively diffuse possible attacks. I get that, but it’s not without cost. The apparent need to be so deferential to the most popular game ever can create a sense that what you are doing is subversive when it’s really just talking about game stuff.

Technically or more specifically, I think we are being deferential to the feelings of a subset of people who play the most popular game ever, not being deferential to the game itself. (Also can be true for sports, movies, and other cherished products). That may sound like semantics, but that shift reminds us that we are still dealing with funny human beings.

Also I know what's that like. I can't even criticize the coherency of an adventure module, and while trying my best to use all the right words, and still I get responses from certain people that are very challenging in tone. My solution is basically to give up and find a safer place to discuss it (or not discuss it all).

 

[Umbran]

That’s why I include those assurances. At the end of day, if I want to talk about thing X, it’s in my interest to preemptively diffuse possible attacks. I get that, but it’s not without cost.

No, it isn't without cost. To quote my thermodynamics professor, "There is no such thing as a free lunch."

If you want low-to-zero cost social interaction, that might be found in a quite living room discussion with your closest friends. If you want broad interaction with lots of people most of whom you don't know, there's a cost associated with that to make it work.