Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8933838" data-attributes="member: 177">Sure.&nbsp; However, it also introduces a stake in the ground around which we are going to expect the criticism to be based.&nbsp; If you open with &quot;Apocalypse World is one of the most significant games of the modern era,&quot; or something similar, that will seem to set the tone for the analytical approach, up to possibly introducing bias.A clever critic who is looking to stir things up at the start of the piece might go with, &quot;AW is one of the most significant RPGS of the modern era... but in final analysis it is kind of crap and here's why...&quot;&nbsp; But that's less bout criticism and more about presentation to get eyeballs on the criticism.The Finnegan's Wake thing was just an illustration of a literary work that's been subjected to a lot of what I referred to colorfully as &quot;hifalutin'&quot; literary criticism.&nbsp; It was a reference to style of criticism, not to AW, or any other game.I feel a need to be clear - I am not engaging in criticism of AW.&nbsp; I am trying to engage in criticism of how criticism is done here - AW and its significance just happened to be the example at hand.In a thread about criticism, it was asked whether we could all agree that AW was a significant game.&nbsp; I asked why we needed to agree on that to engage in criticism.&nbsp; The need to agree is the question, not anything about AW.Are they?&nbsp; Remember, most of the language we have for RPG theory and criticism doesn't come from D&amp;D circles.&nbsp; It came out of the reaction to D&amp;D, such that judgement against how D&amp;D does things tends to be baked into the language with negative connotations.&nbsp; If anything, what passes for formal criticism in RPGs seems, from where I sit, is biased for non-mainstream games, not against them.This being separate from folks who look at or try a non-mainstream game, don't personally like it, and express negative thoughts about it for not being like D&amp;D.&nbsp; That's less formal criticism, and more engaging in personal expression - and that may lean toward D&amp;D simply because there's lots of fans of D&amp;D out there, who like what it does.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8933838, member: 177"] Sure. However, it also introduces a stake in the ground around which we are going to expect the criticism to be based. If you open with "Apocalypse World is one of the most significant games of the modern era," or something similar, that will seem to set the tone for the analytical approach, up to possibly introducing bias. A clever critic who is looking to stir things up at the start of the piece might go with, "AW is one of the most significant RPGS of the modern era... but in final analysis it is kind of crap and here's why..." But that's less bout criticism and more about presentation to get eyeballs on the criticism. The Finnegan's Wake thing was just an illustration of a literary work that's been subjected to a lot of what I referred to colorfully as "hifalutin'" literary criticism. It was a reference to style of criticism, not to AW, or any other game. I feel a need to be clear - I am not engaging in criticism of AW. I am trying to engage in criticism [I]of how criticism is done here[/I] - AW and its significance just happened to be the example at hand. In a thread about criticism, it was asked whether we could all agree that AW was a significant game. I asked why we needed to agree on that to engage in criticism. The [I]need to agree[/I] is the question, not anything about AW. Are they? Remember, most of the language we have for RPG theory and criticism doesn't come from D&D circles. It came out of the [I]reaction[/I] to D&D, such that judgement against how D&D does things tends to be baked into the language with negative connotations. If anything, what passes for formal criticism in RPGs seems, from where I sit, is biased [I]for[/I] non-mainstream games, not against them. This being separate from folks who look at or try a non-mainstream game, don't personally like it, and express negative thoughts about it for not being like D&D. That's less formal criticism, and more engaging in personal expression - and that may lean toward D&D simply because there's lots of fans of D&D out there, who like what it does. [/QUOTE]

Verification