Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Ruin Explorer]

Because you don't get to screen them out of the discussion.

I doubt very many people with views that utterly shallow will really be involved in this discussion. Where they do they tend to rapidly out themselves by making it clear they're totally unfamiliar with the non-D&D games. Which is a lot like the guy sneering some '50s French director who turns out to have never watched a movie made before 1980.

What's more useful - getting someone to accept your argument, or to discuss with them why they don't? Is it more constructive to push your assertion, or to understand the others around you?

Doesn't real constructiveness take two? In my experience it does. Thus if other people are willing to at least consider that PtbA might be significant that's very helpful. If people are outright denying it rather than displaying a nuanced opinion, the odds are good that the reason is simple ignorance rather than some well-considered thinking, and simple ignorance is often sadly intractable if it's tightly-held.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Just noting - you didn't tell me how it makes you feel.

I can't speak for @hawkeyefan but I kind of love it when people criticise stuff I like in an intelligent way (books, movies, TV, TTRPGs, etc.). Sometimes it's totally amazing, especially if it's really thoughtful and nuanced and brings up stuff I hadn't considered. Virtually everything has flaws and best to know them so you can deal with them, rather than to hide from them. I'm happy to admit the flaws in a system where they're inarguably flaws or limitations (again all systems have them).

 

[hawkeyefan]

So, the bigger question is - why would we?

Really, what does it matter if it is "significant"? What purpose does acknowledging that serve? Do we care who wins the significance contest, or something?

Do we care if it is "significant", or do we care about what it accomplishes, and how, and why we might want to accomplish what it does?

What's more useful - getting someone to accept your argument, or to discuss with them why they don't? Is it more constructive to push your assertion, or to understand the others around you?

I’d much rather discuss. The topic is RPG theory and criticism, correct? And I was responding to a comment about the lack of standards of technical excellence.

I’d be very interested in hearing why someone would think that Apocalypse World is not a significant work in the RPG hobby that didn’t amount to just them not being aware of it.

 

[pemerton]

To say that Apocalypse World is a significant design doesn't mean I want to play it.

It seems to me unlikely that I will ever again, in my remaining decades of life, play RuneQuest. Or Pendragon. RuneQuest doesn't offer me anything I can't get from Burning Wheel; Pendragon doesn't offer me anything I can't get from Prince Valiant (which I personally, and perhaps controversially, consider the better of Greg Stafford's two Arthurian masterpieces). That doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that they are significant in the overall field of RPGing.

I doubt I will ever play Blades in the Dark. But to deny its significance would seem just as silly as to deny the importance of RQ, Pendragon or AW.

Really, what does it matter if it is "significant"? What purpose does acknowledging that serve? Do we care who wins the significance contest, or something?

I thought this was a thread about criticism, using that word in something like the same way it is used in the phrase "literary criticism".

Not all criticism has to proceed from, or produce, a "canon". But I think most criticism begins from some sense of what the works are with which it is obliged to engage. There can be (and are) counter-narratives about which works count in this respect. I'm not sure there can be a counter-narrative, though, without a received narrative to counter.

A purported critical theory of RPGs, which didn't have regard to Apocalypse World and the PtbA games that have been (to various degrees) inspired by it, would seem pretty impoverished to me.

 

[Malmuria]

RPG criticism and theory is almost never neutral, but is instead used to advance particular gaming systems; because it is almost always tied to advocacy, it often fails in its explanatory power.

However it certainly had a lot to say about the type of play born from its movement.

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

I take neutrality in criticism not as a matter of being not-negative but rather taking a position of disinterest. While that's possible to a certain extent, I think the idea of the completely neutral, disinterested critic is not a realistic or even desirable goal, as people are always speaking and acting from a particular postion.

That said, I would ask whether the point of any particular RPG theory or criticism is
1) To describe and analyze a ttrpg as an artform and/or mode of social interaction; or
2) To help make and play better, more enjoyable and fun games

To @Campbell 's comment above, Forge theory makes a certain amount of sense for me in context: a group of would-be game designers, wanting to make and play better games, responding to the particulars of the 90s ttrpg scene. Where they lose me is when it is pretended that this particular, very-interested position is an abstract theory that can describe games and play outside of this context, and is doing so using totally disinterested terms.

I think a student in any academic field should be able to apply different theoretical paradigms to the same material, and do so convincingly. This doesn't mean that student is a disinterested critic, but rather someone who acknowledges that there are a multiplicity of perspectives, and can get "inside" the logic of those perspectives even if they don't personally agree. (for me, the Forge's attempts to do this are deeply unserious...it's how they come with concepts like "participationism." "The game you are playing provides no player agency and has an incoherent set of rules and is poorly designed...I guess that's just what you are into!")

Rightfully or wrongfully a lot of this feels like an attempt to erase games and concepts people do not like from the overall hobby.

I don't know...I've seen people on the blades in the dark reddit make posts about how they actually prep for their game, including doing things like drawing maps, because it helps them. Woe to the new poster who says something similar here; they will be told, flat out, that they are playing incorrectly, and this conversation will go on for about 100 pages. Now, if people want to theorize among themselves fine, but if you (general you) want to acknowledge that you are an interested advocate for a certain game or type of game, you'll need to consider how you talk about those games, especially to new players.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I doubt very many people with views that utterly shallow will really be involved in this discussion.

Then you're using "shallow" far more narrowly than I am. This site is full of people whoconsider the entire rest of the hobby something that rides in D&D's wake. As such, their premise about how "important" everything else is is going to be foreshortened, even to the degree they know about other elements of it.

As such their perception of the "importance" of Apocalype World or RuneQuest is going to be seen through the lens of D&D--which means it usually is going to be seen as "not much" even though both have lead to pretty sizable ecosystems of games that have spun off of their systemic (and sometimes stylistic) approaches. Because they're not very visible to people who primarily and overwhelmingly just do D&D.

Where they do they tend to rapidly out themselves by making it clear they're totally unfamiliar with the non-D&D games. Which is a lot like the guy sneering some '50s French director who turns out to have never watched a movie made before 1980.

I'd be willing to make a side bet that there are people who participate in discussion around here regularly who are primarily familiar with some games that are relatively well-known outside the D&D-sphere primarily by hearsay on this board. Though you don't see it as much here (because of the built-in biases of ENWorld) you also see it with other limited ecosystems to a lesser degree (I've met BRP fans who only have the vaguest idea what a FATE based game is), and they aren't necessarily people who wont want to talk about game design; they just talk about it from a pretty narrow perspective.

(Note: My own perspective is not extremely wide, but more in that a rather large number of games are doing things and presenting virtues I actively don't want. But I'm at least capable of understanding that's a personal view and not a law of nature).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I’d be very interested in hearing why someone would think that Apocalypse World is not a significant work in the RPG hobby that didn’t amount to just them not being aware of it.

What about people who are aware of it but consider it an essentially irrelevant specialized sideshow? I'd bet that's at least some people's view of it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Just noting - you didn't tell me how it makes you feel.

Ah my apologies.

Usually it makes me interested. Or confused if it doesn’t make sense to me. Or amused, if I think it’s silly or hyperbolic.

It doesn’t make me fee bad or sad or feel like the other person needs to stop saying what they’re saying.

 

[pemerton]

I know some teenaged kids, including one of my own, who play D&D. We could try and develop a sociology of their play - how it reflects and feeds into teenage status groups, expresses (sub-)cultural affiliations, serves as both cause of and outlet for interpersonal dynamics of power, emotion, etc.

But I don't have any idea what it would mean to engage in criticism of their play. There's barely anything there to criticise. They're at a point where the most simple suggestions - read and apply the rules; know what's on your PC sheet; GM, do a bit of prep or at least have a couple of interesting ideas ready to go - would be really helpful.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What about people who are aware of it but consider it an essentially irrelevant specialized sideshow? I'd bet that's at least some people's view of it.

Such a take would render me bedridden for days whilst I weep.