Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Ruin Explorer]

For all to see that I didn’t make that crap up.

You certainly made up the idea that it needs to possess all those characteristics, as I was obviously casually naming some positives, not providing the definitive list of requirements. It seems like you're personally offended by the idea that anyone could find criticism to be a net positive under any circumstances, honestly. Also calling it "crap" suggests you have quite a slanted opinion here lol!

 

[FrogReaver]

Anyone holding this position best have the courtesy to have no objection when any game they are running is 'critiqued' in the same way.

It would be hypocritical to object when it's described as railroaded cosplay, irrespective of any experience with the game in question or any instance of it being run.

If you are going to quote me at least attach my name.

 

[FrogReaver]

You certainly made up the idea that it needs to possess all those characteristics, as I was obviously casually naming some positives, not providing the definitive list of requirements. It seems like you're personally offended by the idea that anyone could find criticism to be a net positive under any circumstances, honestly. Also calling it "crap" suggests you have quite a slanted opinion here lol!

Not really. I’m flabergasted by the idea that all criticism is positive and even you aren’t saying that (although you seem to be avoiding agreement). For you it appears it’s more criticism that you view positively is good. Thus why i tried asking about all the criticism you don’t view in a positive light. I expect that there is criticism you don’t view positively (maybe you even call such non-positive criticism something else).

*side note - I understand the miscommunication that led to your accusation - you applied an ‘and’ to my list and believed I meant for it to be exhaustive, whereas I intended an ‘or’ and took no position on its exhaustiveness. I could have written more clearly.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

They aren't invalid. They may not be perspectives most of us agree with, but they aren't invalid. The criticisms generated may not be deep, but they do carry meaning. Knowing a film is a comedy with a boring premise that has bad reviews is meaningful information.

Just like knowing Blades in the Dark works fairly differently than D&D is also meaningful to anyone that wants to play something similar to D&D or that wants to avoid playing something similar to D&D. It's not earth shattering revelations - but it is still meaningful info.

The idea of appreciating someone's take on Blades in the Dark, or any other game, when they haven't even skimmed it is throwing me into an existential panic. Is all information equally valid? There's no such thing as signal, just endless amounts of noise?

Here's what I think: If you're spending time writing posts about games you have no direct knowledge of, you are wasting everyone's time, including your own. Post less, read more.

 

[FrogReaver]

The idea of appreciating someone's take on Blades in the Dark, or any other game, when they haven't even skimmed it is throwing me into an existential panic. Is all information equally valid? There's no such thing as signal, just endless amounts of noise?

Who said that? Really? One should judge positions on their merits - not on the amount of direct exposure the writer has to what he is writing about.

What you seem to be attempting is to assert that we should only listen to established authorities on a topic and everyone else should just shut up - I fundamentally disagree there.

Here's what I think: If you're spending time writing posts about games you have no direct knowledge of, you are wasting everyone's time, including your own. Post less, read more.

Interesting how that works - I generally don’t go out of my way to talk about such games. I never go to A Gurps or Apocalypse World discussion for example.

But what happens here is different. A discussion is started about RPG theory in general, eventually some examples from non-D&D games are provided. Am I supposed to be shut off from the whole RPG theory discussion because someone cited a game I’m not very familiar with? Should I just shut up and listen? If so that screams gate keeping to me. It’s became - cite X game example and expect others to leave the discussion - especially those most likely to disagree.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Who said that? Really? One should judge positions on their merits - not on the amount of direct exposure the writer has to what he is writing about.

What you seem to be attempting is to assert that we should only listen to established authorities on a topic and everyone else should just shut up - I fundamentally disagree there.

Nope, didn't say anything about only listening to authorities. I said if you aren't even skimming the game, who cares about your take on it? How did you hop from there to some sort of gate-keeping argument?

Interesting how that works - I generally don’t go out of my way to talk about such games. I never go to A Gurps or Apocalypse World discussion for example.

But what happens here is different. A discussion is started about RPG theory in general, eventually some examples from non-D&D games are provided. Am I supposed to be shut off from the whole RPG theory discussion because someone cited a game I’m not very familiar with? Should I just shut up and listen? If so that screams gate keeping to me. It’s became - cite X game example and expect others to leave the discussion - especially those most likely to disagree.

No one's forcing you to discuss games you know essentially nothing about, even if they come up in a thread. If a discussion veers into references to RuneQuest, I don't feel the urge to express the merits and flaws of a game I've never looked at beyond the cover, even if I suspect I might have something general to say about BRP or Stafford. I don't have context. I got nothing. I shut up. It's not hard, and no one's slamming any gates in my face.

But here's the thing—if I'm constantly in discussions where something like Apocalypse World comes up, and I'm really interested in these discussions (more than just to defend my one beloved game), you know what I'd do instead of spending time writing undercooked guesses about PbtA? I'd just read Apocalypse World. It's not long. I mean, must be a reason the darned thing keeps coming up, right?

Imagine someone who refuses to spend a couple hours watching Goodfellas but keeps spending time, over the course of years, posting about how it's just another mafia movie, no big deal, etc. I absolutely do not want to hear that person's take on Goodfellas—and possibly on any other movie, tbh, if they're just conjuring up uninformed opinions out of thin air.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nope, didn't say anything about only listening to authorities. I said if you aren't even skimming the game, who cares about your take on it? How did you hop from there to some sort of gate-keeping argument?



No one's forcing you to discuss games you know essentially nothing about, even if they come up in a thread. If a discussion veers into references to RuneQuest, I don't feel the urge to express the merits and flaws of a game I've never looked at beyond the cover, even if I suspect I might have something general to say about BRP or Stafford. I don't have context. I got nothing. I shut up. It's not hard, and no one's slamming any gates in my face.

But here's the thing—if I'm constantly in discussions where something like Apocalypse World comes up, and I'm really interested in these discussions (more than just to defend my one beloved game), you know what I'd do instead of spending time writing undercooked guesses about PbtA? I'd just read Apocalypse World. It's not long. I mean, must be a reason the darned thing keeps coming up, right?

Imagine someone who refuses to spend a couple hours watching Goodfellas but keeps spending time, over the course of years, posting about how it's just another mafia movie, no big deal, etc. I absolutely do not want to hear that person's take on Goodfellas—and possibly on any other movie, tbh, if they're just conjuring up uninformed opinions out of thin air.

It’s funny, I did finally play blades in the dark. Those that didn’t value my opinions and criticisms on it before still don’t. There’s a pattern here. It goes from

‘You’ve not read the game’ to ‘you’ve not played the game’ to you’re not played the game enough’ to ‘you’re playing it wrong’.

 

[Emoshin]

I am suggesting that this is a tough venue to do good criticism in.

I 100% agree with that and propose that:

Majority of participants here know this is a tough venue to do successful* good criticism
AND
it is being done poorly anyway

There does not seem to be a lack of awareness around the suboptimal outcomes here (as far as I can tell)

The majority of the folks participating in these conflicts are quite OK with the ways things are now (as far as I can tell)

That's why I think the suggestion falls flat. There is insufficient motivation to act upon it. That's why I asked "so what's next?"

* where "successful" is an evidence-based evaluation of the actual net outcome, say on this thread for example, and not by some individual subjective measure based on hope, intention, etc.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

It’s funny, I did finally play blades in the dark. Those that didn’t value my opinions on it before still don’t. There’s a pattern here. It goes from

‘You’ve not read the game’ to ‘you’ve not played the game’ to you’re not played the game enough’ to ‘you’re playing it wrong’.

Sorry to hear you're being dismissed like that, but you're moving the goalposts here—from claiming there's value in criticism without any firsthand experience, to personal clashes.

But I can say that after my first game of Scum and Villainy (not Blades, but Forged in the Dark), when I discussed how I had run it with people here, I got incredibly useful feedback about how I was, in fact, "playing it wrong," in the context of how the system is written. @hawkeyefan @Manbearcat and Ovinomancer were super generous with their time, and I used what they shared to wrap my head around storygames. It helped me run my first PbtA campaign, and now my current Scum and Villainy, and generally to become a better GM.

That sort of thing is why I come back to this place, despite, you know, lots of other stuff (including rampant accusations of gate-keeping).

 

[JAMUMU]

It’s funny, I did finally play blades in the dark. Those that didn’t value my opinions and criticisms on it before still don’t. There’s a pattern here. It goes from

‘You’ve not read the game’ to ‘you’ve not played the game’ to you’re not played the game enough’ to ‘you’re playing it wrong’.

Personally I would love to read someone's cogent criticism of Blades In The Dark, discussing how they came to it and why it didn't work for them/why they didn't enjoy it. Reading an analysis of why it did not spark joy would be valuable to me as a BitD/FitD fan and general ruminator on the RPG hobby.