Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Emoshin]

Honestly, as the "new guy" I don't know what you think of me, and maybe you think I am utterly disqualified from participating, but this is perplexing.

Sure everyone is delivering value and receiving value, but that doesn't mean that there's no collateral damage. Clearly, there HAS been damage. I can tell without even knowing everything.

You guys are like sharing a house. You need to find a way to get along. "Tone-policing" might be a problem, or it might be a proposed solution.

I mean how many years has this been going on for? Like if we're being rational about this, either change things up or just put up with it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I may be misunderstanding, but is this like a competition for limited resources then?

i.e., Group A wants to do X-talking. Group B wants to do Y-talking.
Enworld is the best place to do both X-talking and Y-talking.
The X-talking has a positive impact for the A people, and the Y-talking has a positive impact for the B people?
The X-talking bothers the B people, and the Y-talking bothers the A people?


Sorry, by that, do you mean there's no merit to the idea that certain conversations help you but bother others, and other conversations bother you but help someone else?

No conversations bother me. In this case, this conversation is specifically about how we're allowed to have other conversations. I'm not for limiting the ability to do so, except in regard to the aforementioned ability to not be a dick.

By all means, question the merits of the discussion. The discussion itself is open to criticism.

But, be ready for folks to question the merit of your questioning when you bring, "Well, I've personally had good results," as a foundation. At best, this sets up anecdote vs anecdote, which goes nowhere fast.

That's perfectly fine, I'm prepared to discuss my stance and those of others. Anecdote is really all there is on the matter.

What I'll also do is not describe anyone who wants to participate as "stomping in with the standard old boots".

And some of that jargon is prejudicial. You want an honest, open, and respectful discussion, avoid prejudicial jargon. That's all that's meant by looking for neutral terminology, or more neutral jargon if you will.

What examples do you have in mind?

And who decides what jargon is neutral and what jargon is prejudicial? I'm sure opinions will vary... how are we to handle that?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Of course.

Neutral criticism would also, however, point out the good aspects and benefits of [whatever is being critiqued] rather than focusing only on the perceived flaws and shortcomings. Harsh criticism, OTOH, rarely has much positive to say.

And in here, we often discuss - or appear to discuss - exclusively flaws and shortcomings mostly because if something's working well for us there's really not much to say other than "it works for us", and that little statement quickly gets buried in the noise.

No, neutral criticism wouldn't do that. That's what criticism does in this context.... it finds the flaws and merits of an artistic work. That's criticism. Not "neutral criticism".

Basically, you have to be willing to hear or see the bad along with the good.

 

[dragoner]

This is absolutely the case. The humanities (what's left of it) and particularly cultural studies (is that even still a thing?) collapses under the weight of its own self-importance if the theoretical terminology cannot be explained in plain english, and the analysis itself cannot be discussed in plain english. It's fine to cite Lacan, Zizek, Derrida, Baudrillard, Marx, Said, whoever, but unless their ideas can be stripped back to something people can understand in context, then it all has the feel of grad students throwing around words and concepts that they don't understand yet.

Can't say about the rest, though I often get messages from home citing Zizek and though the context is low hanging fruit to swing at for him.

 

[chaochou]

What I'll also do is not describe anyone who wants to participate as "stomping in with the standard old boots".

Both 'sides' of the narrative / trad debate are represented on the boards, but only one 'side' by the moderation.

I'll happily step in and help moderate. I guarantee lively discussion with a plurality of views...

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Nothing against you specifically here - you've always been even-handed in your posts, kudos for that! - but for my part some of it is simple pushback against what sometimes (or often?) comes across as indie-game preaching and evangelizing by some in here. I don't like being preached to in any situation, and when I sense that's what's occurring my immediate reaction most certainly doesn't pass muster with Eric's Grandma! Let's just say the effect is the exact opposite of what was intended, and not in a small way.

Further, there's the placing on pedestals of some people - designers and academics, mostly - who, when push comes to shove, may or may not in fact have any greater knowledge or better insight on how to design or run a game than do you, I, any other poster here, or a great many other people who don't post their thoughts for the world to see. What those people do/did have is the ability, time, and willingness to put their thoughts into more or less coherent words, but that doesn't necessarily make those thoughts any more knowledgable or correct than those of Joe and Jane Q Gamemaster running their Sunday night sessions. So why are they on pedestals?

The net effect (and I cynically posit intentionally so) has been to take something - that being the design and play of TTRPGs - that's wasn't ever really intended to be a focus of study or taken all that seriously and made it so; IMO to the detriment of all except the academics themselves, because now we're left overthinking this stuff and bringing up their names rather than just getting on with it.

 

[Lanefan]

Honestly, as the "new guy" I don't know what you think of me, and maybe you think I am utterly disqualified from participating,

Au contraire, mon ami!

Some new perspective and fresh thoughts could do us all some good - jump right in!

 

[Lanefan]

No, neutral criticism wouldn't do that. That's what criticism does in this context.... it finds the flaws and merits of an artistic work. That's criticism. Not "neutral criticism".

Basically, you have to be willing to hear or see the bad along with the good.

I get that.

I'm trying to put the reverse point forward: you have to be willing to hear or see (and then call out!) the good along with the bad.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

What those people do/did have is the ability, time, and willingness to put their thoughts into more or less coherent words, but that doesn't necessarily make those thoughts any more knowledgable or correct than those of Joe and Jane Q Gamemaster running their Sunday night sessions. So why are they on pedestals?

If they're on pedestals, it's because they took the time to put their ideas out there for discussion. I agree with you that there are likely lots of knowledgeable people who have interesting things to say about RPGs, but we're kind of limited to taking about the work of people who are willing to share their ideas. If someone's built a better faucet and keeps the design to themself, what am I going to do with that?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I get that.

I'm trying to put the reverse point forward: you have to be willing to hear or see (and then call out!) the good along with the bad.

Sure, that's perfectly fine!

I mean, I catch flack for criticizing 5e, but I play it weekly and have since it came out. It's not like I'm some kind of outsider with a hot take.