RPG Theory- The Limits of My Language are the Limits of My World

[Yora]

Sometimes the polite way is to simply not reply to things.

 

[Umbran]

It doesn't mean you can't have your own opinion, or that you can't critique something....

So, in here, there's a really interesting question:

What is the purpose of critique?

This can be answered in a broad, general sense, or in a specific sense - if you are here, on this site, giving a critique - what is the purpose of that communication?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Btw, I think I worked this out: you mean four elements in the fiction eg four adventure sites, or four factional plots, or something like that (and obviously there might be mixing and matching different sorts of elements) - and then the three elements the players don't choose to engage with are part of background setting.

RM Campaign Law sort of touches on this, but I don't think that, on its own, it reconciles the tensions. Happy to take up further in the other thread if you like.

That was more or less what I meant.

(And to put this on the table, the only familiarity I have with the RM tables in this regard is what you've said here though I've seen general RPG products that seemed to be approaching the same idea--having background events that were ongoing and how to time and monitor them).

 

[Manbearcat]

So, in here, there's a really interesting question:

What is the purpose of critique?

This can be answered in a broad, general sense, or in a specific sense - if you are here, on this site, giving a critique - what is the purpose of that communication?

Every thread like this almost always turns into (if it didn't lead with it...or at least the thin veneer of it) motive hunting or the implications of bad faith on the part of people trying to have conversations that critique design, critique systems in actual play, critique their own play, critique other's play, general TTRPG practices, specific instantiations of TTRPG practice, or encourages people to post excerpts so we can analyze them/unfurl the techniques used and system-stuff happening within a small loop of play.

I answered this question on the prior page. Others have answered it as well (here in this thread and elsewhere).

But if my answer on the prior page won't do work, I guess we just have to give them what they want...nuke the entire site of the question from orbit. What is best in critique?

 

[Campbell]

For my part, even after 20 years, I guess am still trying to figure all this stuff out. Writing out what my mostly unfiltered perspective is and putting it to public scrutiny helps me to figure out how I feel about things which helps me develop and iterate over my GMing and roleplaying processes. I'm mostly trying to refine my thought processes while having engaging and challenging conversations that at least attempt to get beyond surface level stuff (which is like fun for me).

I'm also a process nerd. Talking about and refining process design is a personal passion of mine in all sorts of contexts. It's a big part of why body building, power lifting, board games, jiujitsu, muay thai, LARPs, theater and computer programming are so damn fun for me. There's so much to the process of each. So much that can be refined and tweaked. So many variables to be manipulated. If we're not here to put our play under the microscope and refine it I'm not sure what we're here for.

This afternoon I had a lengthy and challenging conversation about Exalted Third Edition with my Infinity GM who is going to try his hand at running it. It's a game that I'm very emotionally close to so the critical nature of parts of the conversation took some effort to navigate at times, but I think our play experience will be better for it. We talked failure points, ways we should modify the game to fit the group, how to structure the initial stages of the game, etc. We discussed what we should do if we liked the characters, but the game wasn't working for us. We also discussed which circumstance would call for putting the game back on the shelf. Getting used to having these difficult conversations has made our play experience infinitely better because we have been able to really tailor it to our specific needs and know where our breakpoints are.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So, in here, there's a really interesting question:

What is the purpose of critique?

This can be answered in a broad, general sense, or in a specific sense - if you are here, on this site, giving a critique - what is the purpose of that communication?

So I think it's pretty obvious that I'm done with the thread and the topic of RPG theory - it's like the old saw about why people keep hitting their heads against walls; because it feels so good when you stop!

But since you replied to me, this is what my thoughts are...

As a general rule, critique (and criticism) is incredibly context-dependent in a broad, general sense. Intuitively, most of us understand this. To make this more clear, I would use some examples-
A. A teacher who is grading a paper and providing useful feedback should provide a searching critique- after all, the purpose of the critique is to help the student get better (constructive criticism).

B. A reviewer (a food critic, a book critic, a movie critic) is usually providing a mix of a both subjective observations (this is how the reviewer feels about the book, this is what the reviewer thinks the food tastes like) along with attempts to place the critique within a more objective framework (how is this restaurant compared to similar priced eateries; is this movie an 'art house' movie or a 'genre' movie, and what is it being compared to; despite the reviewer's personal preferences, how is the average reader likely to react to the book?). The mix of personal impressions with more objective impressions is tricky, and some people prefer the more personal (The New Yorker style of movie review being the standard example, or the literary takedown book review) and some prefer attempts at more removed, "this is what the average person" will think reviews.

C. An academic discussion of a work will differ from the discussion you have with you friends. If you're writing an academic paper on, for example, the nature of free will and Clockwork Orange (the book), it will be a much more narrowed and focused conversation than if you have just watched the movie and are talking about it afterwards with friends, when you are likely to just be hitting big broad themes that you might have noticed.

D. Finally, and most importantly, critique is incredibly socially-dependent. It's great for some people to say that they have honest and tough conversations with everybody- but most people call those types of people jerks. If you have friends that are looking for feedback (let alone your significant other, partner, etc.), you know that there are times you lean heavily on the constructive and affirming, and not so much on the criticism. Importantly, it's also socially relevant as to when critique is solicited and accepted.

That's from a broad perspective.

So, what about here? What about on enworld? I would say that there are a few primary issues:
1. On the internet, no one knows you are a dog. Not only do you not know the person you are talking to, you don't know their full experience, their full issues, or what type of table(s) they have. Your critique will likely be incorrect since you can't possibly understand all of the issues from a short post.

2. The format of Internet forums lends itself to unresolved argument, not friendly critique. Ideally, there would be some attempt at THESIS::ANTITHESIS::SYNTHESIS, but .... naw. This is the internet, someone is wrong, and you can't tell me what to do!

3. Building on 1 and 2, the social issues related to critique that are present in real life are gone when it comes to the internet in general and to forums like enworld. It's so weird to me- if you were at a gathering at someone's house, and someone said, "Yeah, I hear what you're saying, but I disagree. Let's talk about something else," you'd be able to take the cue. You wouldn't follow them around the party arguing for the next three hours.

4. Finally, these are games. About unicorns and spaceships and giant space hamsters. It's supposed to be fun. Discussions about it are supposed to be fun! Most people come here to have fun discussions about fun things. If it's not fun, if it's only about critique, or correction, or whatever, then maybe you've forgotten that many people here enjoy having fun. This doesn't mean you can't have serious conversation (or even critiques), but maybe don't take them too seriously.

IMO, YMMV, etc.

EDIT- I would add that the best statement regarding it was from the academic work I quoted earlier-
We see here at work some motives for RPG theorizing we identified: the joy of intellectual argument (and connecting over it); the desire to help design and play ‘better’ (implying particular normative ideas about what ‘good’ means); and the jockeying for social status and recognition within one’s community. Finally, fourth, we see the almost-eternal return of debates and points made previously, due to the ephemeral nature and fragmented structure of RPG theorizing.

In other words, we see critique on EnWorld because-
a. People enjoy intellectual argument.
b. People want to help other people design and play "better" (which has its own problems ....).
c. People are jockeying for social status within their own community on enworld (ahem).
d. People are debating the same points made over and over and over again, not just here, but have been made for decades.

 

[dragoner]

Mostly c & d, because it is the same people over and over

 

[payn]

My experience tells me that a & b last about 5-10 pages. Anything after that turns in a c & d pedantic pageantry.

 

[Aldarc]

ENWorld has to be one of the worst places for anyone to go jockeying for social power or clout in the entire internet. I suppose, though, that I should not underestimate either the Narcissism of Small Differences or Sayre's Law: "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake."

 

[Umbran]

a. People enjoy intellectual argument.
b. People want to help other people design and play "better" (which has its own problems ....).
c. People are jockeying for social status within their own community on enworld (ahem).
d. People are debating the same points made over and over and over again, not just here, but have been made for decades.

Fair. I mean, I don't think any of these are wrong - the list may not be complete, or there may be points that bear special calling out, but none of these seem wrong.

The point of the post, though, was to elicit a "don't think about an elephant" moment - or indeed a few of them, in the readers. For posters to honestly think for themselves about why they are writing. Because after asking that question comes the next obvious questions:

1) Is this, for me, a worthwhile reason?
2) If it is a worthwhile reason, does this post really move toward my goal?