As a result of this podcast project we’ve been doing these last few months, I’ve been thinking a lot about criticism and its role in the hobby.
Something we struggle with a lot on the podcast is this question of “Who the fuck are we to say what is good and what is bad?” None of us have designed a role playing game, much less published one. Very few of us participate in gaming communities outside of The Gauntlet. And Dan and I are almost stridently opposed to gaming at conventions, meaning we have very few opportunities to interact with the gaming community outside of our little tower.
This may strike many of you as odd, but I don’t even consider myself a gamer.
And yet our community plays lots of different games. Is that enough to justify a critical approach to the hobby? Maybe. It would certainly be easier if we were playing trad games, because those are products that have hundreds of paws on them, and are published by huge, faceless companies. But indie games are different. They are often the work of a single person, and therefore a little closer to something like art. Are we being unfair when we level criticism at something that someone labored over for a lot of hours, and that probably doesn’t stand to make the author much money? Should our perspective change when we consider the games of people like Jason Morningstar or Fred Hicks, who have found a lot of success in the indie game scene?
Yesterday, after Black Stars Rise, we were pondering the podcast and its role in the hobby. We kind of landed on “Who the fuck are we?” and that’s a little depressing.
Hi, Listener here.
I can understand that, from listening to the podcast, and hearing what you people say about the hobby, that you honestly are thinking far too much into this than you really need to. Everyone has opinions on various subjects, and I personally tune in to not just hear your opinions, but also to discover a different take on the games I play.
I don’t agree with like 30% of your ideas, and frankly, I’m too trad to be able to work out sweet storytelling ideologies when it comes to gaming, but at the moment, you’re one of the very few podcasts that actually spend a decent amount of time talking about indie stuff. So just don’t stress it, be yourselves, don’t go overboard with the games you don’t like (No one wants a running commentary about how much you hate pathfinder and Fate after the 10th episode) and you’ll be fine.
You don’t have to be anything special. You just have to do it because you’re having fun.
Hi, Listener here.
I can understand that, from listening to the podcast, and hearing what you people say about the hobby, that you honestly are thinking far too much into this than you really need to. Everyone has opinions on various subjects, and I personally tune in to not just hear your opinions, but also to discover a different take on the games I play.
I don’t agree with like 30% of your ideas, and frankly, I’m too trad to be able to work out sweet storytelling ideologies when it comes to gaming, but at the moment, you’re one of the very few podcasts that actually spend a decent amount of time talking about indie stuff. So just don’t stress it, be yourselves, don’t go overboard with the games you don’t like (No one wants a running commentary about how much you hate pathfinder and Fate after the 10th episode) and you’ll be fine.
You don’t have to be anything special. You just have to do it because you’re having fun.
Even art has critics, and how did they come by their credentials? By being good artists themselves? Not usually. By looking at the most popular art? Maybe. Typically what legitimizes them as some formal training and by looking at LOTS and LOTS of art, and applying a critical framework to it.
Now in games, I don’t think there is a lot of formalize training, or critical framework to work with. So who are we to say? Maybe no one. But we ARE looking at lots and lots of games, and trying to establish a critical framework. What more could be asked of us? And by whom?
It is uncharted territory. And it is our love of the hobby that drives us to want to see it better by doing what we do. Maybe we aren’t the most qualified, but if not us then who?
Even art has critics, and how did they come by their credentials? By being good artists themselves? Not usually. By looking at the most popular art? Maybe. Typically what legitimizes them as some formal training and by looking at LOTS and LOTS of art, and applying a critical framework to it.
Now in games, I don’t think there is a lot of formalize training, or critical framework to work with. So who are we to say? Maybe no one. But we ARE looking at lots and lots of games, and trying to establish a critical framework. What more could be asked of us? And by whom?
It is uncharted territory. And it is our love of the hobby that drives us to want to see it better by doing what we do. Maybe we aren’t the most qualified, but if not us then who?
P.S. can we talk about how absolutely fine the bodies of the men in Teen wolf are some more? I don’t think we get enough of that coverage.
P.S. can we talk about how absolutely fine the bodies of the men in Teen wolf are some more? I don’t think we get enough of that coverage.
When you find yourself saying things like, “This game would be better with feature X from Game Y,” that’s when you’ve become a voice of game conservatism. As long as you can look into yourself and still say you’re taking each game as its own thing, you’re doing fine.
When you find yourself saying things like, “This game would be better with feature X from Game Y,” that’s when you’ve become a voice of game conservatism. As long as you can look into yourself and still say you’re taking each game as its own thing, you’re doing fine.
I’m pretty sure if you put the time in with a game, as a consumer, that gives you the right to provide your opinion. Is it the be-all-end-all opinion? Maybe not but whose is? I think the sheer volume of games you guys play provides you a unique perspective into the industry and I for one am glad you share it.
I’m pretty sure if you put the time in with a game, as a consumer, that gives you the right to provide your opinion. Is it the be-all-end-all opinion? Maybe not but whose is? I think the sheer volume of games you guys play provides you a unique perspective into the industry and I for one am glad you share it.
Just so everyone has the right context to understand our meta conversation about the podcast, this week’s episode was supposed to be a structured debate about Carolina Death Crawl, which is a rare instance of a game that Dan and I have very strong, differing opinions on. We decided to ditch the idea, though, because it felt like an unnecessarily critical approach.
Just so everyone has the right context to understand our meta conversation about the podcast, this week’s episode was supposed to be a structured debate about Carolina Death Crawl, which is a rare instance of a game that Dan and I have very strong, differing opinions on. We decided to ditch the idea, though, because it felt like an unnecessarily critical approach.
“Who the fuck are we?” is a good questions to ask ourselves.
I believe the answer is: “The people who actually give these games a fair shot, and criticize them with the intent to provoke a better version.”
One of the biggest issues with any indie creation is getting good feedback, due to the small pool of people willing to try new things. We provide that feedback, not just from a group going “oh this looks like it sucks” based on a back of the tin judgement, but from sitting down, reading and digesting the rules, and attempting to play the game based upon it’s design and merits, and then providing an experience. Quite often, we have actually gone to the game designer and then provided that feedback, and hopefully helped them to create a better game. (Still looking forward to Spirit of ’77, and glad I was part of that playtest.) And not only that, because of our feedback, anyone who has not played it now has an idea hook to determine if they will try it. It is a tried and true fact that the first step is always the hardest, but after that road has been trod, everyone else will follow.
Also, “who the fuck are we?” is The Gauntlet. This podcast honestly is made in mind not to appeal to the masses, but to appeal to the gamers and friends of this group, who share in a mindset, and to offer the experience of that mindset to the greater public. We provide something different, and attempt to bring those who listen to it into our group, maybe as supporters, maybe as educators, or maybe even as opponents. But we engage the community, which is something that is required to keep any group alive. We play games, yes, but we THINK about our games. We use that experience of today’s’ game to enhance tomorrow’s, to become better players, and maybe even better individuals by having these stories in our lives.
“Who the fuck are we?”
People who intelligently care about games, that’s who.
“Who the fuck are we?” is a good questions to ask ourselves.
I believe the answer is: “The people who actually give these games a fair shot, and criticize them with the intent to provoke a better version.”
One of the biggest issues with any indie creation is getting good feedback, due to the small pool of people willing to try new things. We provide that feedback, not just from a group going “oh this looks like it sucks” based on a back of the tin judgement, but from sitting down, reading and digesting the rules, and attempting to play the game based upon it’s design and merits, and then providing an experience. Quite often, we have actually gone to the game designer and then provided that feedback, and hopefully helped them to create a better game. (Still looking forward to Spirit of ’77, and glad I was part of that playtest.) And not only that, because of our feedback, anyone who has not played it now has an idea hook to determine if they will try it. It is a tried and true fact that the first step is always the hardest, but after that road has been trod, everyone else will follow.
Also, “who the fuck are we?” is The Gauntlet. This podcast honestly is made in mind not to appeal to the masses, but to appeal to the gamers and friends of this group, who share in a mindset, and to offer the experience of that mindset to the greater public. We provide something different, and attempt to bring those who listen to it into our group, maybe as supporters, maybe as educators, or maybe even as opponents. But we engage the community, which is something that is required to keep any group alive. We play games, yes, but we THINK about our games. We use that experience of today’s’ game to enhance tomorrow’s, to become better players, and maybe even better individuals by having these stories in our lives.
“Who the fuck are we?”
People who intelligently care about games, that’s who.
A couple of years ago, I asked my academic mentor whether I was justified in taking a small chunk of Foucault (a French philosopher) and applying it to a work of fiction for an analysis I was making in a paper. I had the same sort of question, “Who the fuck am I?”
She answered, quite succinctly, that I was completely qualified to engage in criticism, because every human being who has ever existed was qualified, in the sense that we all have the right to examine the world, make a reasoned and logical conclusions about what we find, and act on judgments based on those conclusions. All criticism is not equally valid, of course, but we all have the right to engage in criticism.
Hundreds of years ago, Immanuel Kant said that Enlightenment was a state of mind where one makes judgements for oneself – and in a large measure, our entire civilization is a child of that idea, for good or ill.
When you and Dan and Ferrell and god help me, even the late Rob, engage in criticism, you are not only trying to figure out what makes for the best role playing experience, you are fundamentally exercising the same intellectual muscles that Kant wrote about so eloquently.
The estimable Paul Czege has made an error, in my judgement. You do not engage in RPG criticism to advance or retard any particular theory, but rather engage in it to serve yourselves. From that point of view, full steam ahead.
A couple of years ago, I asked my academic mentor whether I was justified in taking a small chunk of Foucault (a French philosopher) and applying it to a work of fiction for an analysis I was making in a paper. I had the same sort of question, “Who the fuck am I?”
She answered, quite succinctly, that I was completely qualified to engage in criticism, because every human being who has ever existed was qualified, in the sense that we all have the right to examine the world, make a reasoned and logical conclusions about what we find, and act on judgments based on those conclusions. All criticism is not equally valid, of course, but we all have the right to engage in criticism.
Hundreds of years ago, Immanuel Kant said that Enlightenment was a state of mind where one makes judgements for oneself – and in a large measure, our entire civilization is a child of that idea, for good or ill.
When you and Dan and Ferrell and god help me, even the late Rob, engage in criticism, you are not only trying to figure out what makes for the best role playing experience, you are fundamentally exercising the same intellectual muscles that Kant wrote about so eloquently.
The estimable Paul Czege has made an error, in my judgement. You do not engage in RPG criticism to advance or retard any particular theory, but rather engage in it to serve yourselves. From that point of view, full steam ahead.
I’m now adding “Gaming Philosopher” to my resume.
I’m now adding “Gaming Philosopher” to my resume.
Concerning Carolina Death Crawl I think it is just a boon that you have opposing views. It could make a very interesting show simply because you will discuss what worked for whim and why (or why not). I don’t think a reviewer or critic can say that you should or should not like something, but hearing the thought process that goes into making a recommendation gives a lot of insight.
I also don’t think that you should treat independent creators any differently. I’m sure they are well aware that they cannot make a game to suit everyone. By commenting (be it in a constructive, positive way) you open up dialogue and allow creators to learn and perhaps improve.
Just keep doing what you’re doing and keep it positive.
Concerning Carolina Death Crawl I think it is just a boon that you have opposing views. It could make a very interesting show simply because you will discuss what worked for whim and why (or why not). I don’t think a reviewer or critic can say that you should or should not like something, but hearing the thought process that goes into making a recommendation gives a lot of insight.
I also don’t think that you should treat independent creators any differently. I’m sure they are well aware that they cannot make a game to suit everyone. By commenting (be it in a constructive, positive way) you open up dialogue and allow creators to learn and perhaps improve.
Just keep doing what you’re doing and keep it positive.
I’m glad that this question is being asked, and I agree with other people who commented that you shouldn’t worry about it much. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
My take on this topic is that it’s fine to be critical of games, just don’t be judgmental.
For example, it is fine to point out areas of a game that are missing something or that don’t work under some conditions.
However, I’d suggest avoiding saying things that indicate that some games should not be played by anyone; it could lead to alienating people who have different opinions.
Asking questions like this and looking at games with a critical eye makes the gaming hobby more healthy.
I’m glad that this question is being asked, and I agree with other people who commented that you shouldn’t worry about it much. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
My take on this topic is that it’s fine to be critical of games, just don’t be judgmental.
For example, it is fine to point out areas of a game that are missing something or that don’t work under some conditions.
However, I’d suggest avoiding saying things that indicate that some games should not be played by anyone; it could lead to alienating people who have different opinions.
Asking questions like this and looking at games with a critical eye makes the gaming hobby more healthy.
So don’t talk about good and bad – talk about what you liked and what didn’t work for you. Talk about your local scene. You don’t have to be experts on all of gamerdom, just our window into your tower.
[Note: I’ve really enjoyed your podcast thus far and it’s one of my favorite among the recent startups.]
So don’t talk about good and bad – talk about what you liked and what didn’t work for you. Talk about your local scene. You don’t have to be experts on all of gamerdom, just our window into your tower.
[Note: I’ve really enjoyed your podcast thus far and it’s one of my favorite among the recent startups.]
Darn, several people posted my rant while I was busy.
I’ll just say this: You (the podcast or the Gauntlet in general) are just a couple guys talking about a hobby. there are probably millions of other guys expressing other opinions. Its up to the listeners to assign value to your thoughts before making up their own minds. no one should be making life or death decisions based solely on what you say. they should enjoy the show and decide whether or not to give you any more of their time.
Go ahead and say what is good and what is bad, it should be understood that these are your opinions. The fact that yall sometimes disagree only proves that you are willing to have a discussion and justify those opinions. I know for a fact that we have very different views on certain board games. I still like what I like but I value other thoughts. Offering another perspective can only increase the pool of information and help people make informed choices.
Darn, several people posted my rant while I was busy.
I’ll just say this: You (the podcast or the Gauntlet in general) are just a couple guys talking about a hobby. there are probably millions of other guys expressing other opinions. Its up to the listeners to assign value to your thoughts before making up their own minds. no one should be making life or death decisions based solely on what you say. they should enjoy the show and decide whether or not to give you any more of their time.
Go ahead and say what is good and what is bad, it should be understood that these are your opinions. The fact that yall sometimes disagree only proves that you are willing to have a discussion and justify those opinions. I know for a fact that we have very different views on certain board games. I still like what I like but I value other thoughts. Offering another perspective can only increase the pool of information and help people make informed choices.
Who are you?
Doesn’t that vary with every game you play?
isn’t that the point?
Who are you?
Doesn’t that vary with every game you play?
isn’t that the point?