Thanks again for your newsletter. What you write is very valuable and it makes me so happy to read this and know that many people will read you and think about the notion of constructive & positive criticism and the importance of testimonials. Every positive voice has its importance, even in the meanders of internet!
I've given more thought to rock music criticism than RPG criticism. I often have a need for pragmatic benefit from RPG materials that I don't expect to receive from other art forms like music. I think you and @aseigo each provided more insight into RPG criticism than I ever could, and I appreciate the education you both provided. I've had a longstanding love/hate relationship with rock criticism, which is why I chose to structure my Critical Hit Parader RPG zine as both an homage and satire of vintage rock music magazines.
The quote from France makes me think of a section on my own substack I have dedicated to talking about something I like. Not a review, just me using the space to ramble about why exactly I like it. The Czege quote made me think about how reviewing RPGs must be hard with how difficult getting even casual play of them is.
> It’s the refusal to engage in anything other than superficial qualities.
This, not the amount of positive or negative, is the real issue, in my opinion. Social media, online forums, etc. have given everyone a voice, but not everyone is able to peel back the superficial and look beneath it. Which is completely, absolutely, 100% fair.
And that is the role of the critic, a person who *can* do that. It means they are able to step back and examine something with consideration and understanding.
For most people in the hobby, it's an experience they enjoy and spend (perhaps, a lot of) time doing .. but that doesn't always translate into a deeper appreciation for the "why this works, or doesn't".
I don't feel the problem is one of missing positivism, or too much negativity, but simply a dearth of *insight*.
> “relates the adventures of their soul among masterpieces.”
I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion from this (terrific!) quote. France was making the point (and made it more than once) that criticism is autobiographical. Not that it should be a reflection of great adventure, let alone positive adventure (not all adventures go well ...), but that it *is* a reflection of the critic's own self in relation to the work. It isn't the work itself, but their own experience, that is captured in the critic's response.
As for Czege's quote, it highlights something that a lot of RPG content tends to overlook, skip over, and do poorly with: defining their audience. We have various descriptors for types of audience in the hobby as well as types of games; together they may form a large set of taxonomic tuples ("trad storytelling", "OC high fantasy", "rules-light surrealism for classic play"...). How many RPGs come out and *say* where the author is aiming, though? Is it any wonder that someone looking for X who tries not-X is not satisfied? How else can they find their way to something that has a good chance of working for them unless they know what works for them and there is a way to identify RPGs that might fulfill that?
And that is, at least in my view, one of the primary roles of a media critic. To help us understand what we may expect from a given work, to help form (or temper) our expectations, etc.
> You move the default narrative away from all the ways the hobby fails - which saps enthusiasm from
> everyone involved -
It can (and probably does, currently), when the critique is shallow and non-constructive. It can (and probably does) when creators only respond to the encouragement of praise and find no value or opportunity in others noting problems or weak points.
So many of the improvements I've made in my own games have come from listening to the critics of others and leaning into the positives and addressing the concerns expressed. Both are opportunities, and the overcoming of problems (or just being able to explain why they are that way better, which is a form of growth in understanding) is just as rewarding as the pat on the back once all is said and done.
I do feel a lot of creators in the space are creating things they hope are good and are not overly interested in improving it as a craft; the act being more one of expression performance and not creative endeavor.
By way of analogy: Telling someone on the dancefloor at a nightclub how they could improve their dancing would be pretty uncalled for and horrible; we're all just there to have fun and move a bit! But it's valuable, expected, and appropriate for a dancer performing on stage to receive review and critcism ... which, especially during the practices before the show, will often have both the positive as well as thoughts for correction and improvement. It's how they get better.
When offering critique of other people's RPG creations, I try to keep in mind whether they are a nightclub-dancer or attempting to perform on stage, so to speak. For the nighclub-dancer, I pretty well take approach you advocate here. For the performer, I'm more interested in a more exhaustive critic (mine or others).
> and instead mount a deep, generous, passionate defense of the hobby as
> something worth engaging with.
There are lots of truly great works out there that are deserving of this. (I got one in the post just the other day and am so happy with it! :) ) But there's no reason to "deeply defend" a product that is likely to disappoint. That doesn't bring people into the hobby, it lays booby-traps for them to walk into.
It is also what helps prevent people from getting anything but a superficial understanding of why what works.
With that said, I do agree that being negative just to be "a critic", not highlighting the positives with equal (if not more!) verve as one does the flaws, and slapping things down because of at best tangential personal viewpoints ("5e sucks, so I'm going to approach any 5e adventures with less generosity and more venom than I would <insert preferred system/style/genre here.") is not useful or productive at all. In that, I suppose, we probably agree :)
Thank you for sharing this twitter thread and your approach to indie games.
over in the DIE RPG discord, this led to me cheering on the team behind making this gorgeous game:
Me (quoting the thread):
> TTRPGs [...] warrant their own, alternative tradition of critique, one that gives them the energy
> they deserve, rather than detailing them for their disappointments.
ex:
> Tony Dowler on Misery Bubblegum by Tony Lower-Basch:
> [...] "I like this game; here's how to understand its unclarities; and here's my advice on how to
> find and have its fun."
I thanked Kieron & Stephanie, and Grant & all the folx at RRD for the DIE RPG.
The core of this game, DIE Rituals, is a marvel of game design. Trimmed down to a single chapter that gives clear and direct instructions on how to build this particular Social Construct: a game of DIE.
Building a game of DIE hits all of these components:
> combined creativity, and group inspiration, and mechanical engagement, and thematic engagement
all while avoiding the pitfalls and inherent challenges of constructing collaborative social architectures.
I mean, talk about sticking the landing.
The first time I played DIE, it was still in beta, and our game was run by a delightful person who had basically never played an RPG before DIE, let alone run one. It was his first TTRPG full stop.
(our game was the second time he had run DIE)
The fact that a newb so new the shiny hadn't even worn off yet could pick up & run DIE, for players of widely varying experience playing RPGs, and hit a homerun on that first session (the only thing all of us players wanted from that session was "more!") speaks to the clarity of the directions given.
A cool aspect of the DIE RPG:
It's entirely explicit about the GM being another player.
That part built into the fiction in DIE explicitly laying out that the GM gets to make their own character with a Persona & Paragon does a lot of heavy lifting in at least a couple different ways.
Firstly it makes sure everybody at the table (even the GM) knows the GM is a player, too.
Secondly it gives the GM All the character interaction buttons that their character (& the GM) can press, directly.
I feel like it may be doing some other, more subtle things, too.
The DIE RPG does a good job of getting everybody on board and hip deep in the fiction, and really quickly.
Thanks again for your newsletter. What you write is very valuable and it makes me so happy to read this and know that many people will read you and think about the notion of constructive & positive criticism and the importance of testimonials. Every positive voice has its importance, even in the meanders of internet!
I've given more thought to rock music criticism than RPG criticism. I often have a need for pragmatic benefit from RPG materials that I don't expect to receive from other art forms like music. I think you and @aseigo each provided more insight into RPG criticism than I ever could, and I appreciate the education you both provided. I've had a longstanding love/hate relationship with rock criticism, which is why I chose to structure my Critical Hit Parader RPG zine as both an homage and satire of vintage rock music magazines.
The quote from France makes me think of a section on my own substack I have dedicated to talking about something I like. Not a review, just me using the space to ramble about why exactly I like it. The Czege quote made me think about how reviewing RPGs must be hard with how difficult getting even casual play of them is.
> It’s the refusal to engage in anything other than superficial qualities.
This, not the amount of positive or negative, is the real issue, in my opinion. Social media, online forums, etc. have given everyone a voice, but not everyone is able to peel back the superficial and look beneath it. Which is completely, absolutely, 100% fair.
And that is the role of the critic, a person who *can* do that. It means they are able to step back and examine something with consideration and understanding.
For most people in the hobby, it's an experience they enjoy and spend (perhaps, a lot of) time doing .. but that doesn't always translate into a deeper appreciation for the "why this works, or doesn't".
I don't feel the problem is one of missing positivism, or too much negativity, but simply a dearth of *insight*.
> “relates the adventures of their soul among masterpieces.”
I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion from this (terrific!) quote. France was making the point (and made it more than once) that criticism is autobiographical. Not that it should be a reflection of great adventure, let alone positive adventure (not all adventures go well ...), but that it *is* a reflection of the critic's own self in relation to the work. It isn't the work itself, but their own experience, that is captured in the critic's response.
As for Czege's quote, it highlights something that a lot of RPG content tends to overlook, skip over, and do poorly with: defining their audience. We have various descriptors for types of audience in the hobby as well as types of games; together they may form a large set of taxonomic tuples ("trad storytelling", "OC high fantasy", "rules-light surrealism for classic play"...). How many RPGs come out and *say* where the author is aiming, though? Is it any wonder that someone looking for X who tries not-X is not satisfied? How else can they find their way to something that has a good chance of working for them unless they know what works for them and there is a way to identify RPGs that might fulfill that?
And that is, at least in my view, one of the primary roles of a media critic. To help us understand what we may expect from a given work, to help form (or temper) our expectations, etc.
> You move the default narrative away from all the ways the hobby fails - which saps enthusiasm from
> everyone involved -
It can (and probably does, currently), when the critique is shallow and non-constructive. It can (and probably does) when creators only respond to the encouragement of praise and find no value or opportunity in others noting problems or weak points.
So many of the improvements I've made in my own games have come from listening to the critics of others and leaning into the positives and addressing the concerns expressed. Both are opportunities, and the overcoming of problems (or just being able to explain why they are that way better, which is a form of growth in understanding) is just as rewarding as the pat on the back once all is said and done.
I do feel a lot of creators in the space are creating things they hope are good and are not overly interested in improving it as a craft; the act being more one of expression performance and not creative endeavor.
By way of analogy: Telling someone on the dancefloor at a nightclub how they could improve their dancing would be pretty uncalled for and horrible; we're all just there to have fun and move a bit! But it's valuable, expected, and appropriate for a dancer performing on stage to receive review and critcism ... which, especially during the practices before the show, will often have both the positive as well as thoughts for correction and improvement. It's how they get better.
When offering critique of other people's RPG creations, I try to keep in mind whether they are a nightclub-dancer or attempting to perform on stage, so to speak. For the nighclub-dancer, I pretty well take approach you advocate here. For the performer, I'm more interested in a more exhaustive critic (mine or others).
> and instead mount a deep, generous, passionate defense of the hobby as
> something worth engaging with.
There are lots of truly great works out there that are deserving of this. (I got one in the post just the other day and am so happy with it! :) ) But there's no reason to "deeply defend" a product that is likely to disappoint. That doesn't bring people into the hobby, it lays booby-traps for them to walk into.
It is also what helps prevent people from getting anything but a superficial understanding of why what works.
With that said, I do agree that being negative just to be "a critic", not highlighting the positives with equal (if not more!) verve as one does the flaws, and slapping things down because of at best tangential personal viewpoints ("5e sucks, so I'm going to approach any 5e adventures with less generosity and more venom than I would <insert preferred system/style/genre here.") is not useful or productive at all. In that, I suppose, we probably agree :)
Thanks for the plug as well! Hilariously, the new follows have actually pushed me up over the pricing tier for my provider, it's costing me money :)
Thank you for sharing this twitter thread and your approach to indie games.
over in the DIE RPG discord, this led to me cheering on the team behind making this gorgeous game:
Me (quoting the thread):
> TTRPGs [...] warrant their own, alternative tradition of critique, one that gives them the energy
> they deserve, rather than detailing them for their disappointments.
ex:
> Tony Dowler on Misery Bubblegum by Tony Lower-Basch:
> [...] "I like this game; here's how to understand its unclarities; and here's my advice on how to
> find and have its fun."
I thanked Kieron & Stephanie, and Grant & all the folx at RRD for the DIE RPG.
The core of this game, DIE Rituals, is a marvel of game design. Trimmed down to a single chapter that gives clear and direct instructions on how to build this particular Social Construct: a game of DIE.
Building a game of DIE hits all of these components:
> combined creativity, and group inspiration, and mechanical engagement, and thematic engagement
all while avoiding the pitfalls and inherent challenges of constructing collaborative social architectures.
I mean, talk about sticking the landing.
The first time I played DIE, it was still in beta, and our game was run by a delightful person who had basically never played an RPG before DIE, let alone run one. It was his first TTRPG full stop.
(our game was the second time he had run DIE)
The fact that a newb so new the shiny hadn't even worn off yet could pick up & run DIE, for players of widely varying experience playing RPGs, and hit a homerun on that first session (the only thing all of us players wanted from that session was "more!") speaks to the clarity of the directions given.
A cool aspect of the DIE RPG:
It's entirely explicit about the GM being another player.
That part built into the fiction in DIE explicitly laying out that the GM gets to make their own character with a Persona & Paragon does a lot of heavy lifting in at least a couple different ways.
Firstly it makes sure everybody at the table (even the GM) knows the GM is a player, too.
Secondly it gives the GM All the character interaction buttons that their character (& the GM) can press, directly.
I feel like it may be doing some other, more subtle things, too.
The DIE RPG does a good job of getting everybody on board and hip deep in the fiction, and really quickly.