Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[FrogReaver]

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.

No goal posts. Conversations evolve. At this point in this one i think it’s pertinent to point out how no matter how familiar I become with a game it’s never actually enough.

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.

Awesome.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So, just to be clear, you did also just say:

And I also said the following, which you conveniently snipped.

Edited to add: This is when I disagree with the criticism. Sometimes, I actually may agree with it. It is possible to be critical of things we love.

And one comes to ask: are you interesting in hearing why, so that you can counter, or are you interested in LEARNING why, to get a different perspective on the topic?

That's kind of the difference between argument and discussion.

I am interested in hearing to learn others' opinions. That they won't match mine exactly is expected. Whether I would offer a counter or not would depend on whether I agreed with them or not.

If I agree, I may offer my own insights. If I disagree, I may do that as well.

So, I am left asking again - in a thread about criticism, why do we need to agree about the significance of a game? Can't the critical framework be applied regardless of whether the game is significant?

I already answered this, but I'll expand. The idea was put forth by @Lanefan that RPG designers may not have any more to offer on RPG design than the rest of us. Then @pemerton countered that Vincent Baker created In A Wicked Age, Dogs in the Vineyard, and Apocalypse World and that likely gives him some specific insight beyond those who have not designed such games, and asked if we would ignore the input of a person with such expertise in other fields. To which @Thomas Shey said yes, we would do so when there is "no standard of what counts as technical excellence".

So then I asked if we can't collectively acknowledge that Apocalypse World would count as an example of technical excellence.

My point was not about "winning the significance argument". I feel like that take ignores the trajectory of the conversation that led to that point.

It's more about the attempt to find some common ground in the form of an example of technical excellence. It could have been Sandy Petersen or Greg Stafford or Ken Hite or any number of other people and their games. They could have been mentioned as perhaps having more (or at least significant) insight than most of us about RPGs, as well.

And yes, a critical framework can be applied regardless of whether a game is significant or not.

 

[Emoshin]

This can, however, be a very time-consuming site; be warned of that.

That's what worries me! I do enjoy this at several levels, but ultimately, as a results-oriented person, I wouldn't last very long in a venue that is prone to intractable arguments, and definitely not those that lasts for years.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

We came to it from D&D. We’re getting a bit burnt out in 5e and wanted something different. I was interested in the less prep time and more directed focus.

My players approached it mostly as 5e. We had an enjoyable experience but it seems the most enjoyment came from free form roleplay in downtime (time between scores). Instead of wanting to run scores they would organically push the limits of what to do in downtime. They wanted to pre plan for the scores which is diametrically opposed to the blades philosophy. They wanted to cause mayham which led to great hooks for scores, but then they never seemed to want to jump into any score. There was so much they wanted to do that didn’t nearly fit in with the score and downtime systems.

So it was fun, but it played alot like D&D 5e for us because the players really pushed their play from that perspective. In some ways it was very hard to run it as what I would imagine as the idealized blades game for them (and likely other groups of d&d players would face similar issues if they went to it straight from d&d).

 

[MGibster]

Unlike a book or movie or pretty much anything else where all we are in the end is passive consumers, in the RPG realm we as GMs actually have the ability to tweak or kitbash the system; thus a critic pointing out possible flaws or issues with something we otherwise like is still useful, in that if we agree with the critic re those flaws and issues we can then go in and try to fix them ourselves.

When Seth Skorkowsky reviews an adventure for Traveller, Call of Cthulhu, or Cyberpunk, he'll typically point out what he sees as a problem and offer one or more solutions on how to fix it. These problems might be in how the adventure is written (does it make sense for this NPC to behave this way?) or it might be technical (the map that came with the adventure is missing important details). That's one of the things I like most about his reviews.

 

[BrokenTwin]

We came to it from D&D. We’re getting a bit burnt out in 5e and wanted something different. I was interested in the less prep time and more directed focus.

My players approached it mostly as 5e. We had an enjoyable experience but it seems the most enjoyment came from free form roleplay in downtime (time between scores). Instead of wanting to run scores they would organically push the limits of what to do in downtime. They wanted to pre plan for the scores which is diametrically opposed to the blades philosophy. They wanted to cause mayham which led to great hooks for scores, but then they never seemed to want to jump into any score. There was so much they wanted to do that didn’t nearly fit in with the score and downtime systems.

So it was fun, but it played alot like D&D 5e for us because the players really pushed their play from that perspective. In some ways it was very hard to run it as what I would imagine as the idealized blades game for them (and likely other groups of d&d players would face similar issues if they went to it straight from d&d).

Yeah, approaching a game with a radically different play paradigm from what you're used to can be really hard. My FLGS group is similar, but they're really pushing to try Blades, and I'm worried we're going to fall into similar issues. Especially with combat, since my group is very tactical grid-focused.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

I certainly think that it's possible and people have done. One criticism that I've heard of BitD is that some players like the process of planning and preparing for heists, but BitD sometimes cuts to the chase and skips over things, particularly with flashback mechanics. So some players find this feature to be a bug. I enjoy this aspect of the game, but I understand that some wish it was there.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Some of us simply don't really see this as a "technical endeavour" to begin with. It's in theory supposed to be a for-fun hobby where we're all more or less equally good-bad-whatever at what we're doing with it; and thinking of it as anything more technical than that just leads to overanalysis followed by hot-air discussions chasing rabbits down holes.

Or looking at it like that, helps lead to conclusions like this:

Unlike a book or movie or pretty much anything else where all we are in the end is passive consumers, in the RPG realm we as GMs actually have the ability to tweak or kitbash the system; thus a critic pointing out possible flaws or issues with something we otherwise like is still useful, in that if we agree with the critic re those flaws and issues we can then go in and try to fix them ourselves.

If you weren't critical of the work, you wouldn't be able to figure out what doesn't work for you, and how to improve it so that it does.

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.

You know what happens when conversations turn to Savage Worlds? Or GURPS? Or Fate? I stop talking and I listen. Or I preface anything I may say about those games with "I don't have any experience with game X, but..." and then I often differ to those who do have actual experience with them. And if I want to understand the games more, I ask questions.

Is that so crazy? Am I a victim of gatekeeping?

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, approaching a game with a radically different play paradigm from what you're used to can be really hard. My FLGS group is similar, but they're really pushing to try Blades, and I'm worried we're going to fall into similar issues. Especially with combat, since my group is very tactical grid-focused.

Yea. We mostly were theatre of the mind for combat so that transition wasn’t bad. I felt like once they got used to all their options with flashbacks, pushing themselves and helping Allie’s and I got better at setting the position, effect and consequences that combat was very enjoyable for them. Maybe even more tactical. But we were less tactical and more charge headlong in 5e. So it may have just been that.

 

[Emoshin]

Unlike a book or movie or pretty much anything else where all we are in the end is passive consumers, in the RPG realm we as GMs actually have the ability to tweak or kitbash the system; thus a critic pointing out possible flaws or issues with something we otherwise like is still useful, in that if we agree with the critic re those flaws and issues we can then go in and try to fix them ourselves.

I like this point, so may I cherry-pick it out of context from the discussion with pemerton (which TBH I didn't understand well)?

On this isolated point, this seems 100% to true to me in theory.

In actual practice, how often do we think this forum is conducive to or facilitates the critic pointing out possible flaws or issues with something, which others in turn find helpful and useful?

For example, if there's a dearth of positive feedback, how often does the critic even realize who found what useful? Is there a positive feedback loop that encourages this?

To what extent is this forum conducive to that? For example, is it best suited to thick-skinned individuals who can power their way through all the negative feedback or counter-arguments, whereas everybody else just slinking off?