Hey everyone,
Lots of sparks are flying 'round here. Ethan, I think, rightly called for the end of the second Hubris thread. Can we take a moment and instead of continuing to be defensive, maybe reflect the information that is being presented to us and perhaps allow us to see if there is anything we might want to do differently?
For example, the hurdle of jargon is a pain in the butt. Thanks for putting up your glossary, John! Having one won't fix all the problems folks may have, but it goes a long way towards making the site more inclusive of newcomers.
The fact that people get barraged with threads about a given topic which they may not realize has been brought up many times before, is being perceived as dismissive, even though that is actually how we incorporate people and their ideas into the discourse here.
And we could be more polite at times.
But there are things we can help, and other things that we cannot. Chad felt rebuffed a bit by his perception of a cold welcome to discussion of his game. Someone offered him the advice to go talk about it in Actual Play, and that seemed to clear up the issue. Ron and Chris Pramas disagree about "the industry" and that's simply between them. However, in the recent thread where they discussed it, it was Chris' perceptions (or so it seemed to me) that he was "unwanted". Actually, he posted those words or something to that effect. That was never the case. Ron in fact posted that, but that is what was communicated to Chris. I think that was a big misunderstanding.
We can't affect everyone's experience of this place but, with no suggestion of molly-coddling, I think the Forge could be a bit more accessible.
Yrs,
Emily Care
You know, looking at fruitbatinshades' thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11152). I don't think there's much wrong here at all.
I've been around a while, but I'm not an active poster. I have been very aware of the use of jargon by the Forge and rgfa since I began reading these forums. Today I did a little web research to find some salient thoughts on the use of jargon.
Quote
(From http://owlet.letu.edu/grammarlinks/diction/diction2d.html)
Jargon is the specialized language of a discipline or profession. Imagine a soccer team at a team meeting, a conversation between computer programmers working on a project, or a group of medical specialists at a conference. Each group uses words and phrases that are meaningful to a specific audience but fail to communicate to the general public. Jargon isn't necessarily bad; instead, it's limited. A computer specialist is expected to use the language of his profession, as is a doctor, an athlete, or any other specialist. However, when jargon is used in text addressed to a general audience, the writer sounds snobby or pretentious.
Note that jargon seems to be a necessary specialization of language to accommodate discussion of complex problems. Also realize that jargon alienates a general audience.
I think where things get sticky on the Forge is when new people join our midst. To the uninitiated, the Forge is quite overwhelming. Imagine a non-scientist plopping herself down at a table at a quantum physics conference. The analogy fails a bit though. The people plopping themselves down at our table are often other game designers who are very knowledgeable about their field.
On one hand, a new Forge poster needs to do his homework. On the other, if we want new blood here, the members of the forum should do whatever they can to make its core of ideas more accessible. John's glossary will go a long way towards this.
Quote
(From http://www.humboldt.edu/~act/language/review.html)
jargon: a questionable use of language that uses language that can only be understood by experts in the field or members of a particular group to hide meaning or intimidate others.
That's from an online tutorial focusing on "the Classical Logical Stucture of Arguments and Informal Argumentative Fallacies" at Humboldt State University in California. Of course, one can argue that the Forge's terms are simply definitional terms and not jargon in that sense.
Do we need jargon? I think yes. We're discussing concepts that haven't been given names before. We need to put labels on them to discuss them. We use terms that other people have never heard and we rebrand old terms to mean new things. Like it or not, that's jargon.
Do we intend to hide meaning or intimidate others? I don't think the group as a whole does, though certain individuals may.
Take a moment to put yourself in the shoes of a visitor. Let's say the visitor is a knowledgeable, experienced, professional game designer who's designed games that people respect. If that visitor hasn't been exposed to more than the barest outline of the Forge's jargon, how much must he or she read before engaging in meaningful conversation here?
To get to the point of this thread: How can we make it easier?
Some suggestions:
We need to cut through the jargon. We cannot avoid creating new terms and using them to discuss ideas, but we can document them and make the glossary accessible.
We need to realize how we create barriers to entry into our group and take steps to make new people feel more welcome.
We need to recognize that -- even with the best intentions -- we may sound "snobby or pretentious" when we use jargon in discussions with people not previously exposed to our language.
In conclusion, jargon is useful to facilitate clearer communication among people who understand its meaning, but it is a significant barrier to communication with those who do not.[/quote]
It is certainly true that the term "jargon" has increasingly had a pejorative connotation. The best alternatives I've seen are "specialized terms" or "terms of art," but both are rather clunky.
Sticking to the term for the moment (I rarely see the point in changing a term just because), I think there are more issues at stake in the use of jargon than Adam points out in that very good post.
1. Shorthand
Jargon can be shorthand for concepts or ideas that cannot otherwise be formulated in a very small number of words. So long as everyone can fill in the equation -- Term X = Concept Y -- this simplifies discussion. Although this is the usual sense of the term "jargon," note that it is not exclusive: one can also construct terms that carry their own meanings, related but not identical to their conceptual referents.
2. Obfuscation
Jargon can be used to make one's work appear more complex and less assailable than it actually is.
3. Exclusion
Jargon can be used to exclude those who don't know it.
4. Mystification
Jargon can be used to conceal the fact that a given concept or idea has not been fully validated. By granting the fuzzy concept a Term, you make it appear a proven, known fact.
5. Delusion
Jargon can delude writers into thinking that their ideas are more sophisticated than they are. If you like mathematical analogies, it's as though you have terms which represent complex algebraic expressions, and then you stick a bunch together. This looks great, but you may not notice that you could actually cancel almost the whole equation if you simply wrote it all out.
6. Discursive Expansion
Jargon can be borrowed from other discourses and re-applied. This has the advantage that you don't necessarily need to import the other discourse wholesale, but can simply bring in a small constellation of ideas and keep it discrete by retaining its terminological label.
7. Conservatism
Jargon has a tendency to become set in stone. Those who have put the time in to learn all that terminology are often disinclined to consider changes to the vocabulary.
8. Authority
Jargon often comes with a name attached, usually that of its originator. If the originator is still participating in the discussion, it is common to accord that person authority over what "his" term means.
9. Essentialism/Reification
Jargon has a tendency to make people think of concepts or ideas as objects. That is, as soon as a concept gets a special label, one tends to think of it as a thing. This is particularly common when dealing with structuring categories.
10. Laziness
Jargon has a tendency to replace dynamic thought about a concept. The best way to see this is if you imagine you were suddenly confronted head-on with a demand to define a given piece of jargon that you use often. No glossaries, searches, or back-reading allowed -- you must define the term precisely and accurately, right now. If you cannot do this, you have at the least become lazy about your use of jargon.
There are probably other points worth making, but that's a few off the cuff. You will note that most, but not all, of these points are negative. However, at least some of them can be fixed or improved on our end.
A. I think the authoritative use of jargon is extremely dangerous; around here, this comes up mainly with GNS, and is one of the factors that leads to the perception of a Cult Of Ron. So long as GNS terminology is controlled by Ron, the theory is not a general theory -- it's Ron's personal theory. And that does indeed support some of these criticisms.
B. We must all be extremely wary of our tendencies to slide into laziness, mystification, essentialism, and conservatism. Everyone is guilty of this, I think. Without being constantly and relentlessly self-critical about these tendencies, we will get a decrease in actual content and an increase in pointless obscurantism.
C. I do think, fortunately, that there is relatively little actual obfuscation around here. When it happens, people tend to be very critical of it. Unfortunately, perhaps, true obfuscation (in the sense of inventing and shifting terms in order to seem more interesting and complex than one actually is) seems usually to come from relatively new posters, and the sharp criticism may well be used as evidence of Forge insularity. Oh well, you can't please everyone.
D. I would like to see certain blocks of theory relentlessly challenged. If they're good, they should withstand it and be improved in the process. But if I may be blunt, it does look to me as though an awful lot of the Big Model and GNS have become so reified that they are defended against any question or challenge by a significant group here. If someone suggests an alternative to some established structure in the Model, a common response seems to be, "No, that's not what the Model says." If that is a legitimate response, then there is no criticism possible of the Model: it's a solid block and must be accepted or avoided. I think this is a great pity. GNS is not the only such theoretical construct here, but it is certainly the most obvious.
In general, I do think that the Forge is getting somewhat conservative about its theories. I do not, however, think that this push comes primarily from Ron. At the same time, I do not think there is much value in wailing about how the Forge ain't what it used to be; for one thing, I wasn't here then anyway, and for another, that simply encourages greater conservatism.
Well, that's more than enough for one post!
After the third round of the Beeg Horseshoe I tried a little experiment - I quit using jargon. The GNS forum got interesting again and I quit after a short time, but I considered it a successful experiment. For example, I said 'theme' or 'importance to the character' and other things instead of saying Nar (I also didn't bother talking about Sim, but that's not the point here).
It worked fine, really, and if you can do it on The Forge...
*****
As for recommendations...
I think all the hardcore theory should be lumped into a single forum. GNS is all hardcore theory and RPG theory is only partially so. It'd be nice to see it all in one place with clear expectations - maybe gold foil letters that say "Here there be jargons". Plus, the idea of a GNS forum I think is anachronistic at this point. The official version of the Big Model is out and there are other ideas besides GNS. GNS is mature enough at this point and such a small part of RPG theory as a whole, that I think it should share some space. I also think two theory forums detract from the other fora. I say this as someone who is only really interested in the theory aspect of the Forge - it's my deal, at least on this forum anyway. I think the Forge is very strong on theory, but I think theory it is detracting from other topics. I by no means think it should be removed, I think I'd cry, but it needs a clearer division.
I think there are big problems with the Actual Play forum. I see a lot of dumping jargon into topics that don't need it and hence spooking people who aren't interested in theory. I also see a lot of ignored topics with most of the attention going to the currently hip on The Forge games. Though posters asking for assistance often get a lot of replies, it's often the same scripted, dismissive advice - "Just don't play with them" being the big one.
Instead of reading the Indie Game Design forum here, I skim The Art of Game Design forum on RPGnet instead. Sure, I've seen most of the topics dozens of times, but there is something about the diverse ecology there, high mutation rate I suppose, that spurs creative thought. I think Indie Design here on the Forge has a little too much more of the same in both design approach and advice. Just seems sort of stagnant from my point of view.
I used to read The Riddle of Steel forum, but I've gotten my head bitten off every time I dared post there. Talk about insular. I don't have any advice about this one.
cruci... er... Jason spake:
"Though posters asking for assistance often get a lot of replies, it's often the same scripted, dismissive advice - "Just don't play with them" being the big one."
I vomit forth in reply:
"Yeah, but you gotta admit that it's advice that works."
"Besides, someone asking what to do about a disruptive player is like asking <insert something wry and witty here that denotes how silly and empty "disruptive player threads" are>"
"Dav"
Oh sure, it works for the person asking for the advice. Just like shooting your dog solves the problem of having to get up at 7:00 am to feed it. People know when someone's behavior is a deal breaker for them and when it isn't. It's empty advice.
1) Yes, it does. Quite effectively. (gawd, I hate animals, so I'm biased)
2) I don't think people do know regarding behavioral deal-breakers... or else why would we have a whole field and teeming hordes of people studying psychology (which, honestly, we don't need to delve into, because I'll say it doesn't exist, you'll say I'm insane, and I'll say: "only because you believe in psychology", and nothing will be solved). I think a lot of people stay in a dysfunctional relationship long after they should leave (my husband hit me last night, my wife cheated on me, my dog bit me and piss on my leg, my boyfriend stole my wallet, etc.). Besides, I don't know these people on more than a "I read this blurb" text and left it there. That is social interaction, and I have no connection, stake, or possible elation for outcome tied to that interaction. In effect, the best I can hope for is a humorous anecdote, and that probably ain't going to happen... because the type of person that asks strangers how to deal with their friends has something a bit backwards.
Empty advice for and empty mind. I don't like to runneth their cups over or something pithy and cute.
Dav
Hiya,
I was under the impression that the thread was about civility, but now I'm confused. Jargon? Appropriate answers to a specific question?
Emily, on reading your initial post, I'm still confused. Are you asking for suggestions about being more civil? Or ...? The more I look at it, the more it seems like a personal statement and not really a call for discussion, which is maybe why all the posts since then are essentially free-association.
Best,
Ron
Ron, you may have a point... and dammit.
I think that Emily was kindly saying that the Bitchfest II thread seemed a bit much and people should let the thread cool a few moments before continuing, if at all, and maybe even asked the "what have we learned through this venting?" question that is really the only thing keeping a bitchfest from devolving into "Congress-style" debate, which is infinitely worse and more snipe-y.
BUT, I think most of us took it as a request for less meannessityness (which is not a word), and therefore created this thread: Bitchfest Lite, for the Low-Carb Dieter! Which should probably die fast and quiet... being nice is hard work. Very hard work. It makes my tummy hurt.
Dav
Yup, Dav nailed it. Nice Dav, good Dav.
Now we know that jargon and dismissive answers can be a problem. Does anyone else have a "what I have learned from this mess" post, or can we close this thread?
--Em
This is one vote for a close (not a moderator post) - Em, drop the hammer if you wanna. Or someone else chime in constructively, which is OK too.
Best,
Ron
Re Jargon:
Most of Chris's ten points about jargon appear to apply just as well if one subtitutes "words" for "jargon." In other words, most of the negatives are drawbacks of language in general, so unless we want to go back to grunts and birdcalls (and perhaps even then), we're stuck with them.
The only, and necessary, justification for jargon is right there in #1: shorhand for concepts or ideas that cannot otherwise be formulated in a very small number of words.
The barrier for new correspondents isn't learning the words, or even learning the definitions; it's learning the concepts. That's inherently hard becaue the concepts are novel, complex, and usually counterintuitive to readers accustomed to standard rpg text. We could "give up the jargon" (e.g. substutute the glossary definition for each glossary word used in each post), and it would do no good at all for understandability unless we also gave up the concepts.
Consider, if you will, the jargon term "megabyte." This was a term of specialized jargon for about a 16-year period, from 1984 (when it began to replace "kilobyte") to about 2000. During that time practically every article about "becoming a savvy computer user" in general-interest publications included a sidebar about "that wacky hard-to-understand lingo that computer-users speak." "Megabyte" was always included on such lists.
Would people trying to learn about computers have been better off if instead of that obscure jargon term "megabyte," articles had referred to "millions of data elements each consisting of eight binary digits?" No. Because that's the definition of megabyte, not the meaning. Even if you know the definition and understand every word in it (such as, knowing the binary number system), you don't really understand what a megabyte is (for instance, what the import is if someone mentions to you that they "have to send 100 megabytes of revised ad images to the home office today"), unless you know a lot of related stuff including the following:
- Each of the million eight-binary-digit units in a megabyte can represent about one character of text, or one third of a pixel in a full-color image.
- Megabytes describe both the size of data files and the storage capacity of data storage devices.
- A writer might take a year to generate a megabyte of data; a digital photographer needs about a megabyte to store one picture.
- A floppy disk holds about a megabyte or two. A CD-ROM holds about 700 megabytes. At present, most new computers come with hard drives that hold about 60,000 megabytes.
- Using a DSL or cable modem connection, downloading a megabyte of data takes from about 10 seconds to about a minute. Using a modem connection over a phone line, it takes 5 to 50 minutes.
"Megabyte" is a common word today for exactly the same reason it was a jargon term twenty years ago: because it refers to a useful concept. The only difference between a jargon term and a regular word or phrase is the fraction of the population it's useful to.
Angsting about jargon doesn't make any sense to me. I own a set of allen wrenches. They serve only one purpose I'm aware of, which is turning allen screws. I could probably think of hundreds of things I shouldn't do with allen wrenches, and enumerate a dramatic and impressive-looking list of them (sticking them in my eye, dropping them off tall buildings, heating them in the microwave...). Which would prove nothing, and certainly not convince me to throw the allen wrenches away.
- Walt
Let's continue, but let us put the question of jargon into context of Walt's excellent point:
Quote from: Walt FreitagThe barrier for new correspondents isn't learning the words, or even learning the definitions; it's learning the concepts. That's inherently hard becaue the concepts are novel, complex, and usually counterintuitive to readers accustomed to standard rpg text. We could "give up the jargon" (e.g. substutute the glossary definition for each glossary word used in each post), and it would do no good at all for understandability unless we also gave up the concepts.
Nicely put. The jargon is an obstacle, but an even greater one is the fact that the concepts are so alien to many folk when they arrive here for the first time. I don't think we should (or even could, perhaps) drop either, but I think we should spend some time and attention on figuring out better ways to communicate them to others.
Lee's (Fruitbatinshade) response (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=118938#118938) to Mike's questions (and my post too) on the thread on RedRaven in Indiegames put this in focus for me. I think this was a completely reasonable and understandable response. Despite his intentions, Mike's questions came off as condescending and non-constructive in part because there was such a gap between Lee's experience and Mike's persective. It has now been resolved, but given the feedback we've gotten, I think this is a perfect illustration of how the perception of elitism here arises.
The very fact that we have a large body of complex theory to impart creates an atmosphere of "learned experts" vs. "ignorant newcomers". Our theory creates a divide. This is not our intent, but it is a structural reality that may be behind a lot of the anti-Forge sentiment noted recently. The theory rocks, but if it cannot be imparted in an understandable way, then it will not reach the very folks who are coming here for help and feedback.
In this (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=118903#118903) post above, Jason suggested leaving gns jargon (as much as possible) in the GNS forum. I'd second that, especially in the Indie-games forum or at least when dealing with relative newcomers. People should not have to become inculcated in the exploration theory in order to benefit from feedback here. It creates that expert/newbie dynamic which turns people off.
Jason also mentioned that there is a less stagnant feel to the Art of Game Design forum on RPG.net, even if he has to skim through a lot more that's not of interest. The theory divide may have a chilling effect here. As an interesting side note, I went and checked that forum out to see what it was like, and in two thread about the development of fairly non-standard games, Jared Sorenson's games were cited as a reference. People are ready willing and interested in playing & designing non-standard fare. But if we are isolated by the theory divide, it won't be our innovations that reach people. Also, it was his games they cited, not his theory--our word put into action may be the best argument that can be made. I'm sure that Great Ork Gods will have that kind of effect.
A very common question/comment I've seen in threads is "how do I talk about gns to my non-gns-oriented friends". There are many suggestions people have, and I'm sure that's a topic that people consider talked to death, but we might want to take it on in a deeper way as a community. Realize that if we want to have dialogue with others, we need to be comprehensible. Looking at Lee's thread as an example, Jack, Zak et al.'s feedback on the mechanics were completely comprehensible and welcome. AFAIK.
So that is my take home lesson from recent affairs. We would benefit greatly from finding ways to speak plain English about what has been developed, and put the theory into practice to spread the ideas.
Yrs,
Emily Care
Quote from: Walt Freitag
The barrier for new correspondents isn't learning the words, or even learning the definitions; it's learning the concepts.
I think it's impossible to separate a word's concept from its definition. Understanding one is understanding another. Words are symbols for ideas.
The barrier for new correspondents IS learning the words and what they mean.
Hi Adam,
Quote from: AdamDrayQuote from: Walt Freitag
The barrier for new correspondents isn't learning the words, or even learning the definitions; it's learning the concepts.
I think it's impossible to separate a word's concept from its definition. Understanding one is understanding another. Words are symbols for ideas.
The barrier for new correspondents IS learning the words and what they mean.
Could we begin a new thread for the semantics of the question if need be? This thread has already spent enough time discussing the issue of jargon, which is not the primary question. Or we can participate in the question of jargon on the thread you began.
Thank you.
Emily
I'm not sure I have much to add to what's been said before, but I got pointed to a link recently in another context that I think is relevant to this thread, and the hubris thread:
http://www.memecentral.com/L3Communication.htm
In essence, this is a communication model for how to politely disagree with someone without getting upset or making other people upset. I think there are some really good tips in there.
Quote from: Emily CareJason suggested leaving gns jargon (as much as possible) in the GNS forum. I'd second that, especially in the Indie-games forum or at least when dealing with relative newcomers. People should not have to become inculcated in the exploration theory in order to benefit from feedback here. It creates that expert/newbie dynamic which turns people off.
While I'm inclined to agree, I find sometimes that newcomers insist on trying to use the jargon, even when asked to set it aside. Not so long ago someone was attempting to expound his theory using narrativist, simulationist, and gamist as terms. Several of us kept explaining to him that the way he was using those words was completely different from the meanings that they had here, and that he would do much better if he attempted to explain his theory without them because the conflict in meaning was only obfuscating what he was attempting to clarify. He would agree that it would be better for him to explain it without those words, and then he would launch into using them (incorrectly) again.
That may be an extreme example; but it is often the case that newcomers will specifically attempt to use the terminology they find here. If they've got it right, it can be very helpful to discusion; if they don't, it's almost necessary to explain why.
Sure, it's a good idea to put threads related to the Creative Agenda theory in the GNS forum and threads not so related outside it; but it's also certainly the case that this theory, being a comprehensive approach to role playing games, is going to appear in relation to a great variety of discussions which are not ostensibly about it, and the theory is going to inform those discussions in valuable ways. It's not always going to happen, but when it does, it's rather difficult to bring that in to the discussion without using the terminology.
--M. J. Young
Quote from: Emily CareOur theory creates a divide. This is not our intent, but it is a structural reality (...)
Speaking as a (relative) newcomer, and one who's been actively trying to get his head around RPG theory as presented here (which is made a bit more difficult by the fact that English is not my first language), I'd say Emily really hits the nail on the head here. I've felt dismissed and even patronized by replies from Forgeites, but realized after re-reading and re-thinking that people are trying to be helpful in pointing me towards existing threads, articles etc. Sometimes you get the feeling - which I don't think is intended by anyone - that newbies should come back when we've gotten our degree in Forge theory. While I'm not saying this is the fault of the Forge community, I do think there are things the community can do to create a different impression, if you want to do so.
The glossary posted by Ron is an immense help. Having all the terminology in one place is so much better than having to read four or five entire threads for each concept I don't immediately understand.
When pointing people towards existing threads etc, try to say something like "Good point! Some people have talked about it here and here", rather than "That's already been discussed here and here". When people misuse a term, saying "That's wrong" sounds more dismissive than "I see what you mean; usually people use the term to mean this and this, however".
I don't know if this is helpful advice - but I think people here might like to hear from "the other side". This is an active and enthusiastic community, and I'm happy that people here are thinking of how to make people feel welcome.
Here's where I stand.
I've been a Forge regular for a while now, but boy do I hate new terms. I spent most of my first few months here trying to understand what Ron (and many others) meant when he said X was Y. When somebody decided to coin "Vanilla" and "Pervy," I wanted to shoot myself in the head. More distinctions that I had to understand, distinctions that might not even be useful or interesting to me.
The Forge seems to have a strong deconstructionist streak. Let me explain what I mean by "deconstructionist":
1. Someone posts a new game idea/concept.
2. Forge regulars pick apart said idea/concept.
3. Forge regulars label parts with the terms they've given to them
4. Forge regulars say, "Oh, you're talking about X."
5. Original Poster says, "Really? What's X?"
6. Forge regulars point them to old threads or give long explanation.
So, basically, there's an effort from the very beginning to educate people about Forge jargon and encourage them to use it. When I first came here, I posted my ideas using whatever description I thought appropriate, but I also really wanted to know what people meant when they said "Oh, X is Y." When Mike is posting in a thread to Ralph or Vincent or Ron or even me (at least now), he can use language that is completely unintelligible to the casual reader. So, in order to get the most use out of the Forge, you have to be able to understand the jargon.
Moving on from that point, support for newbie posters ranges from nothing to gentle encouragement to social darwinism, depending on who reaches out to make contact. Lately, it's often been other newbies who respond to first-time posters, because they're on the same page and can talk about whether percentile skills are a good idea without addressing the assumptions at the core of their game (which most regulars would probably encourage them to do).
Honestly, I think Forge regulars get a kick out of trying to rock the world of newbie posters. Somebody says, "So I'm trying to decide between trying to have 4 or 5 different attributes." And then we ask them, first thing, to reconsider everything they know about roleplaying, set it aside, and ask very difficult questions that we ourselves aren't always good at doing. "What are you really trying to do here?" "Why would somebody play this and not Fudge?" These questions sound really innocent, but they tend to stonewall people. It's like saying, "I'm not going to address your question; I'm going to do the Zen master thing and ask you completely different questions that will lead to self-reflection." Some people, I would suggest, may not be ready for that kind of self-reflection. Heck, I'm not sure that I am.
Finally, I'd like to suggest that our existing informal policy of "tough love" for new posters is counter-productive in many cases. People often defend this kind of behavior with "I don't have time to suffer fools" or the like. Look. You obviously had time to write a response to a first time poster. If you're just going to make them feel terribly unprepared to tackle their game concept, I'd honestly prefer it if you just didn't post at all. Let somebody else do it who does have time to actively encourage up-and-coming designers. Hell, I'm an up-and-coming designer (with 0 published works, as of yet).
Just my take.
One more thing, while we're doing the self-criticism thing...
Lately, I've taken a break from the Forge to focus on other things (like graduating and more reading in art theory) and I've GREATLY appreciated the amount of perspective it's allowed to me to gain. Those of us who spend many of our waking hours at the Forge often get lost in it (and I'm speaking of myself primary here) and, to tell the truth, I think our behavior and game designs suffer for it.
Honestly, for all it's qualities, the Forge, like any large body of people can be so frickin' traditional about so many things. There are days when I think, "If I see another fortune-mechanic-with-a-twist I think I'm going to scream." For all the "advances" we've made, there's still a huge focus on dice-based games where we quantify the traits of characters and run around adventuring under the guidance of the GM. Yawn.
Another Forge weakness: drawing from other disciplines. Roleplaying is not this totally unique thing, unrelated to the larger social and cultural context. I would LOVE to see more discussions take an interdisciplinary approach, but not one that would involve pedantically quoting academics to prove your points.
I worry too about the Forge becoming static. I mean, in any environment where you don't constantly have new blood coming in with new ideas and perspectives, things eventually get entrenched and then you can't change them. I can see myself, maybe no more than a year or so down the road, looking back at my time here as a critical learning experience, but not really feeling like I would gain much more by sticking around here any longer. Not a good thought, certainly, but one that does trouble me. I feel like the jargon issue and accessibility issue are VERY critical components of this, as well as the defensiveness that many people have shown. When we're unable to look at ourselves and our own assumptions critically, that's when the Forge's usefullness has outlived itself.
Just a few more thoughts.
Hey there,
Kirt, your link hurt my computer's brain so I wasn't able to access it, but the point is well taken that paying attention to how we say what we say--especially in an all text medium--is important.
Matthjis, thanks for sharing your experience. I think its helpful for folks on both sides of the divide to at least be aware of it, in order to learn better ways to help each other cross.
Jonathan, you're personally doing a lot to both make the Forge itself more accessible, and to make these concepts available to a wider audience. Gracias, mucho. More power to your points: interdisciplinary thought, not feeling like we have to rock newbies worlds', and responding without defensiveness.
yrs,
Emily
Quote from: Jonathan Waltonstill a huge focus on dice-based games where we quantify the traits of characters and run around adventuring under the guidance of the GM. Yawn.
Just a point to consider -- I find the above quote quite interesting, especially in light of your previous post. They seem somewhat incongruous, and while I can respect the ideas behind both posts seperately, the clash here sort of threw me for a loop.
I mean, "Let's be nice to newbies and not go all Zen on their designs and how they could be improved from the ground-up because it's off-putting...but, really, enough of those designs because they're passe and boring."
Yeah, Raven, I noticed this too, actually.
My point is this: It's stupid to try to rock newbies worlds when the majority of what gets turn out here (including most stuff by the Forge regulars) isn't rocking anybody's world most of the time. I mean, it certainly isn't rocking mine very often. Fortune-in-the-Middle? Um, neat. Can you come up with something new?
So yeah, be nice to newbies if you don't want me to start pointing out how mindnumbingly traditional many of your own games are (the "you" in this sentence is general and not pointed at Raven). Everybody has to start somewhere and everyone has their own comfort zone in which they are exploring new ideas. If the pots start calling the kettles names, then we have issues.
Yeah, I agree. And hey, I personally think my games are more-or-less traditional, really nothing cutting, bleeding, razor-thin edge. But they float my boat.
That said, I'm always open to improvement thereof, though not simply for the sake of dubious "improvement" towards "being more unique." Not everyone and everything can be unique or ground-breaking. Lots of things aren't, but that doesn't devalue them.
Johnathan,
You have far more eloquently and completely stated my own opinions than I could have done myself. And probably more effectively, since I still don't entirely 'grok' the Forge Lexicon.
Thanks for posting all that.
QuoteMy point is this: It's stupid to try to rock newbies worlds when the majority of what gets turn out here (including most stuff by the Forge regulars) isn't rocking anybody's world most of the time. I mean, it certainly isn't rocking mine very often. Fortune-in-the-Middle? Um, neat. Can you come up with something new?
I'm going to have to call you on this Jonathan. Since when does "it certainly isn't rocking my world" translate to "isn't rocking anybody's world"? I'm thinking perhaps your design sensibilities may be a little too far out on the bleeding edge to be useable as a barometer for measuring Avant Garde. That's not a bad thing, but I don't know that its a good standard to judge Forge design by.
Bleeding edge for the sake of bleeding edge is about as pointless as tradition for the sake of tradition.
Quote from: ValamirI'm thinking perhaps your design sensibilities may be a little too far out on the bleeding edge to be useable as a barometer for measuring Avant Garde.
This is quite possible. However, I feel like my design sensibilities are closer in line with people who aren't hardcore roleplayers, and I've intentionally tried callibrate them to be that way (by running games, for the past 2-3 years, almostly exclusively for a mostly-female, non-roleplayer crowd, just to get away from the traditional scene). So I guess "traditional" is relative here. Roleplaying's bleeding edge, I imagine, would look much more accessible to a non-roleplaying audience.
QuoteBleeding edge for the sake of bleeding edge is about as pointless as tradition for the sake of tradition.
What about bleeding edge for the sake of challenging ourselves, both as designers and players? I just see people, more often than not, taking the well-worn or familiar path when other more exciting (and difficult) options are available. I definitely agree that what may be world-rocking for one person isn't necessarily for someone else, but I guess I'm wary of complacency among the old-timers. It's like, once we bite the bullet and get all the jargon down, we just coast, since we have all the tools to solve problems with. Um, no. There's always new and interesting tools out there. Don't keep reaching for Fortune-in-the-Middle when there are new things to play with.
YMMV, of course.
Here's my problem with doing that, specifically...I'd LOVE to create new, cutting edge designs. But I'm clueless. I'm lost. I couldn't tell you what's bleeding edge, innovative design if you threatened to set my shorts on fire, much less make one (at least by anything but accident). Sorry.
Bleeding edge is so transitory. What is bleeding edge today is old hat tomorrow, pathetic the next day, but nostalgically retro-cool the following week. Seriously, only time I worry about bleeding edges is if I cut myself.
Quote from: greyormHere's my problem with doing that, specifically...I'd LOVE to create new, cutting edge designs. But I'm clueless. I'm lost. I couldn't tell you what's bleeding edge, innovative design if you threatened to set my shorts on fire, much less make one (at least by anything but accident). Sorry.
Hmm... really? I mean, I just approach it like this:
1) What do I want the game to be about?
2) How could I do that? (Ask this question about 100 times, rejecting all answers until you come up with one that surprises you and seems impossible.)
3) Figure out how in the world you're going to make that work.
Quote1) What do I want the game to be about?
2) How could I do that? (Ask this question about 100 times, rejecting all answers until you come up with one that surprises you and seems impossible.)
3) Figure out how in the world you're going to make that work.
See, I don't buy that at all really. Seems to me #2 should be about figuring out the
best way, regardless of how surprising or impossible it is.
If the best way is to use Fortune-in-the-middle then the right answer is to use fortune-in-the-middle no matter how many times its been used before.
Being willing to break the mold is important. But the act of breaking it can not and should not be the primary purpose of the design, IMO.
Hi Ralph,
I say Jonathan has a good point - Lots of good points, actually. But let's just deal with this one.
It's hard not to notice, but Jonathan is hellbent on treating roleplaying as art. Near as I can tell, he applies that desire to all aspects of roleplaying - Play, design, conceptualization, all of it. Now, design - design in the broad sense - is an integral part of art. His step two is not part of an rpg design process. It's part of a broader art-making process where in you generate as many possibilities as you can, starting with the very obvious and eventually coming to the not-so-obvious. Hopefully, toward the end of the process, you come up with something that really hasn't quite been done before, something fresh and original. It's deliberately not the obvious solution, but it's surprising, and it works. So, from a certain point of view, you could rephrase step three. It's probably fairly obvious how to make the solution work; but you'll still have to spend some time tweaking and refining.
If considering the rpg design as a work of art, I'd say, "fortune-in-the-middle" is a safe, obvious solution worthy of a yawn. Tell the truth: Greg Stafford broke the mold when he did it, but everybody else is a copycat. Even then, fortune-in-the-middle is still fortune, inevitably a tired and unoriginal means of resolution. So, you can use it. No one will blame you for using it, but you'll never break the mold by going that route.
So, let me ask this: Why should we ever feel comfortable assuming that f-i-m, or any fortune for that matter, is necessarily the best or only way of solving a given design problem? Jonathan's approach shows his intent. He wants to break the mold. If that's his primary purpose in design, I say more power to him. And I ask you, who says breaking the mold can't or shouldn't be the primary purpose of design? Do we really need more tired, unoriginal game designs? I think not.
Of course, as Jack points out,
QuoteBleeding edge is so transitory. What is bleeding edge today is old hat tomorrow, pathetic the next day, but nostalgically retro-cool the following week.
He's right, but that really doesn't diminish the value of the effort.
It seems as though we're straying from the point of this thread right now -- dealing with the bleeding edge. I think that is a great topic and will open up a new topic in RPG Theory regarding it.
To get back to the point of this thread though, perception is part of the battle we have from the Forge.
In order for the Forge to work as a haven for independent rpg designers, we should try to make sure that our audience -- those designers (and potentials) do not become over-awed by our jargon, perceived attitudes and intellectualism.
The community (esp. Ron) is making strides towards reducing the difficulty of "newbies" to come to terms with jargon (no pun intended) through the use of the glossary.
But as has been mentioned and carried to other another thread, some need exists for more Forge pedagogy. Perhaps the civility and perceptions of the Forge can be moderated by a persistent and gentle appeal to newbies to read the tools available while making the tools available more accessible and compact.
It shouldn't take days to read through the thousands of posts and pages of articles in order to get[/] a handle on "Forge" theory. But we do not have anything in place yet to take care of our newbie need.
Of course, the grognards may rightfully state, "We didn't have anyone holding our hands, giving us Forge-pablam." True, but we want better for those that come after us, don't we?
To become more user-friendly -- most especially to our non-participating and newbie audience -- we should try to retain a level of dignity that befits our presumed status. Therefore, if we are trying to change the industry through promoting innovative and well-designed new rpgs, then we must be innovative and disciplined in our attempts to explain our concepts to the unintiated.
Due to the nature of The Forge (it's a web site available to anyone with internet access -- alas not to some with mean firewall police), it is open for public perusal where anyone can look at our site with the desire to learn about us -- regardless of their RPG experiences. Part of the external perception would be that if we're selling something (Forge theory), then we should make attempts to make it accessible/understandable to those who would find us.
When we seemingly chide newbies and present the uninitiated with our jargon, we tend to alienate them. It's like a Pentecostal going to a Catholic Mass. The words are gonna be familiar. The concepts presented will be generally comprehendable, but without some explanation of what's going on, the Pentecostal will most likely be lost (bowing, kneeling, standing, etc) and may never return, simply because the service was inaccessible and the onus was on him/her to learn why those "boring" people were acting so "stiff" and "arrogant" expecting him/her to understand and do everything right, or else why would they bother coming to the service!
I hope that made sense. It's late, and I've got a wedding tomorrow.
Night.