Creative Process and Critique

[benlehman]

(Context: A friend of mine and a friend of his have recently been going around telling creative communities that they aren't creating right, that they should follow a different method and different process. Not coincidentally one which those two people have used in the past.)

I think that other people have a right to judge my published work. (for a general value of "my").

If I don't want it judged, by not publishing it, I avoid judgement.

Do other people have a right to judge my creative process, though? (again, for a general value of "my").

I don't think so, off the top of my head. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

Comments

[judd-sonofbert.livejournal.com]

Ben,

Could you quote the passage where you saw this because I just read the thread and didn't get that out of it at all.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

It's contextual.

Matt and Paul come into knife fight and say "this isn't a functional game design community!"
Matt comes into Story Games and says "this isn't a functional game design community!" during a conversation which is shooting the shit about game ideas.

Both of these are category errors about the sites and their role. I think that this is just that people who miss the old pre-diaspora Forge want all existing sites to function like the Forge, with the same goals as the Forge. I feel safe in calling this wrong. No need to discuss it further.

Secondarily, Matt was coming into a thread where people were batting back and forth ideas for games. Yeah, sure, is it a status contest? It is. That's noise in terms of creative approach. We used to do stuff like this on the Forge all the time. Good games came out of it (including Polaris and the Mountain Witch, so you'll understand my touchiness).

There's a problem: Games that aren't done are being bound and sold. Matt apparently thinks that the cause of this is shooting the shit in internet threads about design ideas. I don't think that the connection is very clear at all. I think it's much more tied to the toxic elements of Forge culture where, if you don't go the GenCon, you're not afforded "designer" social status.

[(Anonymous)]

Ben, you didn't actually do what Judd just asked.

Because I don't agree with your representation of my actions. I find this entire thread pretty vile for that reason alone.

For example, please point to any comment of mine where I said "you do this process WRONG" instead of where I said "you created this product WRONG."

For another example, please point to any thread on Knife Fight where I cricitized that community for not being a design community. I don't remember doing that at all. You've said in this thread I did. I think Paul did that. I don't get where I've done so.

And, maybe I'm forgetting something. Maybe I'm not. I don't know. This thread is pretty ugly in that it calls out someone you define as a friend, but at no point did you say "Hey, Matt, since I'm calling you a friend, and calling you out, what do you think about this?" I don't think that's how one treats a friend. It's how one treats an enemy. And, I'm really baffled how angry people are for all this -- and it appears so because I used the following phrase, which is the only really mean thing I can fathom "Put up or shut up."

I find the level of distrust and the willingness to see my actions as outwardly hostile and disrespectful pretty awful. I am baffled that any prior history I've had has been tossed out the window by both you and Andy here as MY problem. I figured I'd earned more respect than that from you both.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Let me challenge the challenge to put up or shut up.

If you're going to make a game, make a game. A playable, thorough game. Which means it has to be playtested. And, that the goal of doing is is making a fun game, rather than measuring each others' cocks and nodding in approval.

If you're going to make a joke (or, you know, not make one) then do that. Make it actually funny.

Stop confusing the two. Because our "games" are starting to look like cocks with tick marks. PUNCH THEM.

So, yeah, I confused the two in this thread. That was stupid of me. Mine were jokes. They weren't very funny.


This strikes me as "you are not allowed to fuck around and design little bullshit games while thinking about game design." Which stikes me as a form of "you're doing this wrong."

It's also, secondarily, hostile and disrespectful. The fact that you're hostile and disrespectful to yourself doesn't mean you aren't being hostile and disrespectful to others.

(Hostility and disrespect don't bother me nearly as much as the rigidification of creative process. I think that hostility and disrespect can, as you said elsewhere, be useful if dangerous promotional tools. But, since you asked, there it is.)

The purpose of this thread was not to call you out. It was for me to introspect about what you were saying. I did, I am, and I think a fair amount of useful stuff has come out of that introspection. So, uh, this was successful.

I've realized that you and Paul are operating from a totally different priority set than I am. You seem to me to be saying "hobby-as-a-whole first, personal joy second." I see this as a totally backwards set of priorities. I imagine you must see mine in the same way. I'm much less annoyed about it now, though.

[(Anonymous)]

Ben, you're upset about that post. Fine. Not my finest post, certainly. It was passionate. I believe what I am after.

You have gone on record here that you don't agree that the social clime of our community at large is becoming a problem. That's totally fine! It's a matter of differing opinions, not a he-said, he-said fight wherein we assume that the other guy has an "attitude" problem. I find this whole mess silly, just like all the ones before.

I certainly don't KNOW that I'm right. I have some good reasons for thinking why I do about half-baked games. But, there's been no means to absolutely verify that as fact. I think that's true of your position on the matter as well. So, we can discuss it if you like. And, we can act, with our without that discussion. Paul and I are acting. Others will do their thing, too. Cool.

See what's happened from my perspective? I've been in at least 2 or 3 "kerfluffles" since last GenCon. I think in all cases I had a point, and I think in many of them I turned out to be holding a pretty respectable position once the smoke cleared. I have no illusions that I didn't get passionate, that my words didn't come off as too strong for many people's comfort levels.

The end result? I am now viewed as having gone off the reservation as an angry guy. Not just by people who already had a beef with me. With my friends in the community.

It's nearly put me out of the hobby entirely. Other friends, wisely, talked me out of it. I can't understand how standing up for mutualism (not doing so as a paragon of virtue, admittedly) and then getting shouted back at or talked about outside of my view has turned into "Gee, Matt USED to be a nice guy, but now he's just a ranting schmuck who doesn't get his way like the good ol' days."

I'm REALLY tired of that. And, when people say that about me, I'm really troubled. Because I know that I'm not that angry jerk. I know that I'm still the nice guy they've had meals with, face to face! But, I can't for the life of me figure out how they let Teh Inarweb overtake that level of trust and so significantly reduce their opinion of me.

I think the differnce I'd like to see is you doing a better job of representing the situation as differing opinions rather than "Those guys are wrong. There's no problem here." Instead, I'd rather see us discuss it as "Those guys have a different idea than me about why we got some half-baked games. I don't see it their way, but it's certainly possible they're right." And, "Let's talk with them about it!"

And, if that preceding paragraph is a fair point, then there's a lot of panties in a twist about nothing. Lots of finger pointing for no good reason. Lots of hurt feelings for what? Nothing from where I'm sitting.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Hey, Matt.

You have gone on record here that you don't agree that the social clime of our community at large is becoming a problem.

I don't agree with that statement at all. I think that the social clime of our community is a huge problem, but I think the problem is not what everyone else seems to think it is.

I've quite loudly said what I think the problem is, and tried to open a conversation about it, and I got shouted down by people unwilling to look at their own privileges and be critical of their own community. I may try again. I may not. Maybe if I had come in blistering and angry and screaming "fuck" every other syllable you all would have listened to me. Maybe not. It's a moot point because that's not my style of communication, especially not on the internet.

In all honesty, I'm probably not going to bother talking about it again. I'm just going to slowly shift into doing things the way I think that they should be done, and people can feel free to join me in that or not.

--

That's that. Now about new passionate Matt.

I think that you're using the word "passion" here as a dodge. When you say "passion" you seem to mean "hostility and disrespect." It's okay with me, in an abstract way, that you decided to amp up the hostility and disrespect in your online communications. I don't find it morally wrong. It might very well be useful promotionally (it is for Luke and Jared). It just also means that I'm not going to take your points, or your emotions, or your anger very seriously. And, probably, that I'll want to communicate less with you, because your sort of passion sends me into funks, for days and weeks, and then I come out and everyone's like "oh, Matt's just being Matt, what are you worried about?" This isn't your fault, it's just how I react to this stuff.

I'm sure you're still a nice guy. I like you! I just can't deal with internet-Matt anymore. Those are my emotions, and you can't argue me out of them. My discomfort and eventual absence is a price you have to pay for your increased passion.

yrs--
--Ben

[(Anonymous)]

Ok. Understood.

This is not meant as a dig, a tit-for-tat. It will INEVITABLY seem as one. (shrug) I don't dig Internet Ben, either. Let's just call it a draw, and get on with our work.