Implementation of the Theory

[Samuel]

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank those involved in creating The Big Model. It is very impressive work and I am sad that I did not find The Forge before it was closed and thus could not take part in any discussions.

The front page told me to visit the forum for questions or comments so I do hope that this post is appropriate.

My question really is if it is possible in The Big Model Wiki to include implementation of theory and not just the theory itself. Understanding the dynamics of role-playing is good, but if it can also lead to increased play experience it is even better. You could argue, I suppose, that it is up to every reader, every person and group, to use their increased understanding to improve their play in the ways they see fit. It is a valid argument and I can offer none against it other than not every person is good at that. In the same line, I find much of the wiki devoted to explaining bad play and problems that arise but very little explaining how good play would look. Rather than only focusing on the negative, as in what happens when there is no clear Creative Agenda, would it be possible to include example of how it would be if everything worked smoothly? For some people, that have only experienced  various degrees of dysfunction it might be more helpful to read how it is supposed to be rather than how it isn't.

For example, would it be possible to include an example (yes I know I using the same word so early in the sentence makes me look stupid) of how people do to reach a functional Social Contract? What things are important to discuss? Perhaps it will not work the same for my group but hearing how it works for your group could help. Similarly with Creative Agenda; how do I know which one I really want? Perhaps I have not seen all of them in functional play or am stuck in a X-by-habit deal and looking outside my experience or comfort zone can be hard. Is there a checklist with questions you could ask yourself or some other way to understand what it is you want and what it is the others in your group want? The same can be said about Techniques and other parts of The Big Model.

Again, I hope this post did not violate the purpose of this forum.
Thanks again for the work,
Samuel Eriksson

[Eero Tuovinen]

This question has always been the big one, hasn't it? Game texts are written specifically with this pedagogical concern in mind: given that I have here a game that works when properly applied, how can I write a game text that actually causes my target audience to enact the game correctly? Historically this task has often been approached disingeniously and the task of writing the real game has been replaced with the task of copying a pre-existing game text's conventions and presuppositions. Commercial reasons have also encouraged vagueness in an attempt to make the game text if not useful, at least non-offensive to as many people as possible. But still, the game text is technically the place where this type of information should be looked for.

Perhaps the reason for why there's not much theory on this is that it's a completely different field: we could talk about the pedagogy of game-teaching and how different types of games are best taught, but for the most part this doesn't seem to be the most pressing issue on the minds of the roleplayers. I can understand how this is so, as it's not a creative issue for anybody who does already know how to play. It's much more interesting to think up new games or new ways to play old games than to try to figure out how to best teach a game to other people.

That being said, I usually suggest that people who want to learn about functional roleplaying should read good roleplaying game texts. What's "good" here depends on where you're coming from, of course. Personally I've found e.g. Ron to be inspiring about Creative Agenda and how to formulate it in in practical play, say, while Vincent Baker is pretty much unmatched when it comes to depicting the proper relaxed attitudes involved in moment-to-moment play. I couldn't be any more exact than that, though, as the usefulness of texts depends so much on what you're attempting to learn and who it is doing the learning.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Samuel,

Thank you for the kind words.

However, I think you have the entire picture backwards. The essence of the Forge was not that it provided some overwhelming, abstract, huge body of theory. It was that at any moment, at least a few good-willed and intellectually-honest people were trying to play well, to design well, and to make sense together. The ideas emerged from those activities.

What that means is that "applied theory" is present in literally thousands of posts at the Forge. Almost all the Actual Play threads are nothing but an account of play which was intended to be relevant to an existing question or concept, or prompted the appearance of a new question or concept. Actual Play posting is not merely bragging about having a good time, or a covert means of promoting one's game. It is the only means of discussing ideas about role-playing without becoming insanely abstract or self-indulgent.

There is, I maintain, absolutely no "just theory itself" at the Forge. I explicitly moderated against the appearance of any such thing, much to the annoyance of many people, for example in 2005 when I closed the RPG Theory forum and told everyone to take their concerns to the Actual Play forum or shut up. The idea that the Forge is some kind of abstract theory-hive was an invented insult - i.e., a lie - propagated by people who could not honestly participate there.

My goal with the current wiki is to provide as many links to the relevant and above all concrete threads at the Forge within the topics, in order to demonstrate the grounding of the Big Model ideas in reality, to show that this is not a matter of theory being implemented - it is a matter of reflecting on implementations in order to build theory.

If you're interested in explicit game designs or play discussions which were directly inspired by the ideas at the Forge, I can name a hundred games or link to a thousand posts, but I don't think that would be a productive response, nor do I have the time. It would be far, far more effective for you to post in the Your Stuff or My Stuff forums here at this site, telling about some instance of Actual Play, and seeking to discover how the Big Model ideas are relevant to them, especially if you named a couple of the topics which most interested you. In that context, providing links to older threads will be much more helpful and demonstrate my point that "implementation" has been the core of the Forge all along, not some hopeful future option. It will also help with the wiki because it shows me what threads are best suited to be included there.

I hope you'll do that. It's really the only way the wiki will ever become useful.

Best, Ron

[Samuel]

Thank you both for your replies.

It is perhaps difficult to understand something you were yourself not part of. I am glad to hear that this was the purpose all along. I will keep reading through the various material, including (some of) the thousands of posts and these roleplaying texts of which you speak. Hopefully this won't be the last time you hear from me and I will be able to contribute in at least a small manner.

However, now I am going back to reading the Trollbabe comix. Be well.

Samuel E

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Samuel,

My hope is that you won't go wading and wallowing in the older posts, but rather start one of your own at this website, about something you've played. Re-reading my previous post, I find that I wasn't exactly clear that I and others would do the Forge-mining for you, given a thread like that to work with.

Trollbabe comix? Yes! Please feel free to post any thoughts about them in the "My Stuff" forum.

Best, Ron