The Forge Archives

General Forge Forums => Site Discussion => Topic started by: Valamir on February 14, 2005, 11:05:04 AM

Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Valamir on February 14, 2005, 11:05:04 AM
This is a semi rant about a trend in this forum that I find rather disturbing.  The theory in here has gotten REALLY thick.

There was a time...or maybe its just this old codger's nostalgic memory...when the theory being discussed on the Forge was rooted in actual play.  Actual play is the empirical evidence upon which any theory (if it is to be useful, practical, and understandable) must be rooted.

Recently there has been too much...FAR FAR too much...esoteric musings and ruminations going on.  Theory for Theory's sake is not what this site's about.  This is not a site for doctoral dissertations on the roleplaying equivelent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  The ONLY answer to questions like that (that this site should be concerned with) is "unless you're basing your notions in the experience of actual play...who cares!"

Its good that there are theories of linguistics and anthropology and psychology that map reasonably well to the key ideas of the Big Model.  That shows us that those ideas are rooted in concepts that are foundational across many disciplines.  Fantastic...couldn't be happier about it.

But that DOESN'T and SHOULDN'T mean that the forum is now wide open to sweeping meanderings about such topics.  That's not to say that those other disciplines don't contain useful knowledge that we could benefit from...but it ABSOLUTELY means that if the theories of other disciplines aren't FIRST filtered through actual play the ONLY result of such discussions is a morass of high brow navel gazing.

I LOVE that there are people on this list with deep reservoirs of knowledge on esoteric subjects that I know little of.  I LOVE that those people are also gamers.  And I LOVE that those people can find common ground between their vocation and their hobby and that their experiences in the one can inform the other.  Heck, I do the same thing with economics and investing.  Good stuff.  

But I DON'T want to spend my time reading through dense post after dense post that only makes sense to people familiar with the jargon of those other disciplines.  We've got enough of our own jargon here, thank you very much.  I'm not interested in being a linguist, or an anthropologist, or a psychologist.  I'm interested in talking about RPGs.  RPG play, and RPG design.

Esoteric theories on roleplaying minutia that do not have a practical application to RPG play or RPG design (or RPG publishing) is a waste of forum space, a waste of my time, and TOTALLY NOT what the Forge is about.

When a veteran of this site looks through the top threads in this forum (and I'm not the only one) and says...I have no idea what most of this stuff is even talking about...nor how any of it gets anyone closer to better play or better design...THAT'S a problem.  Its a problem because if veterans can't make heads or tails of it, neither can newbies.

In the past we've had discussions about people who read splat books as a substitute for actually playing.  I think for some of us, discussion on theory have become a substitute for actually playing.  Its a way to get an RPG fix without having to sit around a table and play.  IMO this this a bad thing.


I don't intend to name names.  I don't want to slap wrists or call anyone out.  I certainly don't want to offend anyone (hey the fact that you're willing to spend valuable time posting to this site IS appreciated).

But here's an exercise.

Go through the list of threads on the first page of this forum (and GNS too for that matter).  Count how many of those threads are broad discussions involving many members and active participants vs. how many are primarily private discussions between 2 or 3 or 4 interested parties...in many cases...the SAME 2 or 3 or 4 interested parties.

If you happen to be one of those parties take a second to count your number of recent posts in the two theory forums and compare that to the count of your recent posts in the Actual Play forum, or posts about play in any of the publisher's forums.

If that ratio is horrendously lop sided...then IMO you need to slow down the volume of your theory posts and start actually playing more...and then post about that actual play...and THEN seek to tie that actual play into your theories.  

That's the formula that's worked best for The Forge...and we need to return to it.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Clinton R. Nixon on February 14, 2005, 11:23:46 AM
Ralph,

I'm moving this to Site Discussion, not because it's not worthy, but because it belongs there.

(removes moderator hat)

I agree whole-heartedly. I've avoided saying this on the Forge so not to step on toes, but: this endless circling, making up terms just to speak differently, drives me away. Ron created this joint, but I came in and did the remodel. So, if I don't want to live here, something is wrong.

I see interesting theory happening still. It's happening because of actual play, though, and it's mainly not happening here. Places like the 20 x 20 Room and Vincent's weblog are where the discussions seem firmly based in play.

That's not to say the original Big Model isn't good - it is. It is rooted so firmly in play, though.

It took me four or more years of solid play to finally articulate my own thoughts on why we role-play. What bothers me is I didn't post them here. It didn't seem like the sort of place that wanted real discussion about play any more.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Matt Snyder on February 14, 2005, 11:31:39 AM
Clinton, you moved it, but from where? I presume the RPG Theory forum, right?
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Valamir on February 14, 2005, 11:40:48 AM
yes.  

All references to "this forum" in the above, is referring to the RPG Theory forum.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Keith Senkowski on February 14, 2005, 11:49:22 AM
Ralph,

Oh man I totally agree.  I avoid the theory crap like a plague cause it, like Clinton says, goes round and round never coming to a conclusion.  Fuck that noise.  I would rather see that energy placed in actually playing the games and discussing shit in context.  Without the context it is just white noise, which we all know from the pre-cable days is annoying as hell...

Keith
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: TonyLB on February 14, 2005, 11:49:35 AM
Ralph:  I'm right there with you on the feeling.  And I wasn't even here for the glory days.  I'm not sure that means the feeling equates to a real thing, though.  It might just be a feeling that we both share, born of some perceptual glitch in common.

Assume that there are people in the world who do not play very often, and/or who do not care to share their Actual Play experience.  Do we, in fact, wish to tell such people that their opinions are less worthy of discussion?

Either a "Yes" or "No" answer has broad-ranging consequences.  We are currently operating on the default, very polite, answer of "No, of course everyone's opinions are equally valid."  I suspect that "Yes, we do differentiate between people who have actual experience and people who don't" may be a substantially more useful position.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Ron Edwards on February 14, 2005, 11:58:02 AM
Hiya,

See, I agree. But there's a problem ...

... I can't dictate what people want to post about. I can only moderate them to stay on-topic per forum, to stay on-topic per thread, and to abide by the rules of courtesy.

If a small crew of people really, really want to discuss stuff which at base is not that interesting to most others, and in the long run it proves not helpful to the overall purposes of the site ... then there's nothing I can do about that.

I'm frankly disgusted with the GNS forum. It's become so aggravating that I couldn't even go through with the retooling that I tried to begin back in September. I consider the purposes of the forum to have been met insofar as usage has permitted, and that they would have been met fully if the discussion had turned to a very practical and play-based review of the Glossary.

But no, we have a bunch of other stuff happening there, of minimal interest to me or to most other people. And as I say, it is not my place to say "It's not going like I want, so poo on you guys, do it my way." That's the price I pay for not conforming to the accusations of running a Cult of Ron.

As for the Theory forum, I think it suffers from a lack of purpose, as in, people don't have a Sticky to review to see whether their topic is working for that purpose. We talked about this a lot at GenCon 2004, and unfortunately, I found myself saying, "You know, we can't specify breadth and depth in the Theory forum." The diversity of topics there is one of its strengths; like Indie Design, it's very much a Pick-Where-You-Participate forum.

What can I do? Don't answer that. Here are the answers.

1. I can keep pounding away at the desired progression of Actual Play, GNS/Theory, Indie Design, and Publishing/Connections, with the possible final step of a Specialty forum. A lot of people have made this progression, most recently Capes.

[Note: it is perfectly OK to arrive at the Forge at any step in this progression; i.e. Luke arrived already having published, whereas Keith Senkowski arrived more-or-less at the boundary of GNS/Theory with Indie Design, and Vincent arrived having published a game, but opted to "start over" at the very beginning.]

But I can't make people utilize the forums and resources of the Forge in this progression.

2. I can keep posting and encouraging, through discourse, the threads which I think are the most productive for the overall constructive purposes of the site. This is difficult in the GNS forum especially, because I'm also in the position of explaining stuff I wrote - requiring tons of backtracking in many cases. But I do it a lot in the other forums, as much as I can.

If you think this is easy or quick, then you try it.

3. I can keep calling for others to contribute constructively. The curse of the GNS forum and to a small extent the Theory forum is not the users who are "deviating," but rather the users who fuckin' cave and decide not to post their own valid and constructive topics there.

You want the Theory forum to be better? Then post better stuff in it, stick with the discussion, help someone understand something better, learn stuff yourself, and back it all up (before, during, after) with actual play.

Best,
Ron
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Bankuei on February 14, 2005, 01:07:40 PM
Hi Ralph,

QuoteWhen a veteran of this site looks through the top threads in this forum (and I'm not the only one) and says...I have no idea what most of this stuff is even talking about...nor how any of it gets anyone closer to better play or better design...THAT'S a problem. Its a problem because if veterans can't make heads or tails of it, neither can newbies.

I've echoed similar sentiments to others privately, and am right there with you.

What I think we are witnessing is the result of the Forge's growth, and with it a "splintering" of subgroups of people who might be interested in different topics.  This is combined with the fact that most of us old hands already did a lot of our "WTF is gaming anyway?" threads, and we dug as deep as we want to go for the most part, and now are simply bringing up occassional details, or perhaps focusing on observing actual play before bringing more discussion back to the board.

I've had new folks I have recommended to the Forge come back to me, "I have no idea what's going on/all that (bad) stuff about the Forge is right!!!" and then I go, "Oh, well, read these threads, they're nothing like that thread..."

But- yeah, if folks want to see more threads based on their interests- then its a matter of producing those threads.

Chris
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Harlequin on February 14, 2005, 01:08:33 PM
I have to agree with Ron's last point, wholeheartedly.  If you want to ground the Theory forum in more actual play, then do so with your own work.

I would be interested to see what percentage of the theory now found in the Glossary and articles was originally floated as raw theoretical speculation, ungrounded in specific play to that point.  (All of it is of course grounded in general play experience.)  I don't think Ralph's assertion - that specific-play-first is the overwhelming pattern - would hold up to a crosscheck.

And lastly, it is not incumbent upon the posters to ensure that their work is easy to access.  So long as someone like Chris Lehrich can find people willing to try to learn the appropriate terms from textual analysis, then they speak to ears that are listening.  Nothing wrong with that (other than a decrease in audience size).  It took me until quite recently to get ten words into his Ritual Discourse article, but I found it edifying once I did set aside the time for it.  Heck, some newcomers probably find his text more accessible than a more "normal" post full of Forge jargon.  If Ralph finds a theory post hard to absorb, he's in the same position as that newbie; is it worth the time it would cost?

So some people may find RPG theory more fun than playing the games.  That's neither wrong nor (think about how many intellectuals there are in the world, vs. gamers) particularly surprising.  Straight Aristotelian aesthetics.  And whether it's intentional or not, Ron and Clinton have provided them with literally the world's best place for that to happen.  Go with it, guys, they're happy; if that subcommunity happens to spill some cool insights over into the rest of the discussion, that's a bonus.

- Eric
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: TonyLB on February 14, 2005, 01:40:08 PM
It's neither wrong nor surprising, but it may not be the community focus here.  The Forge is specifically for encouraging the creation of independent roleplaying games.  Saying "They find your forum the best place to discuss X" doesn't really apply.

Folks who value that focus have not (yet) come down hard on blue-sky threads.  That doesn't mean it's not possible.  It's not possible to Ron, because he has a specific role which does not encompass that sort of community engineering.

I am moved by your question about how much now-useful theory started as blue-sky speculation.  It points out how hard it is to judge the worth of an idea at a glance.  But I think that the rest of your statement hares off away from the accepted standards of how to judge the worth of a post:  does it now, or will it eventually, encourage the creation of indie games.

Does that make sense?
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: LordSmerf on February 14, 2005, 01:53:38 PM
I'm not sure exactly where I fall in all this.  I mean, I really like the idea of focusing on Actual Play in principle, but my experience with trying to do so has been rather negative to date.

I just went back and looked back over my Actual Play threads.  About 20%-25% get more than 5 replies, and a significant number of those are from other participants in the game basically doing a debrief.

Now, it is entirely possible, maybe even likely, that this is due to my Actual Play posts sucking or something.  But... if you think Actual Play is so important then discussing Actual Play would be a good place to start.

For example, and at the risk of sounding whiny: I recently kicked up an Actual Play thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14201) on a topic that I thought was really striking.  I thought that it begged for an old hand with Narrativist techniques to step in and add to the discussion.  But that didn't happen...

Looking at the front page of the Actual Play forum, less than half the threads have more than five replies.  Again, it may just be that they are presented wrong for discussion or something, but if you guys really feel that Actual Play is so important where's the discussion of it?

Not trying to be inflammatory,

Thomas
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: clehrich on February 14, 2005, 02:19:05 PM
Well, I'm sure there's not going to be a whole lot of surprise that I don't entirely agree with Ralph.  Admittedly, this all seems like something of a moot point, since apparently the Forge is closing, but here's where I stand.

------------
First of all, let's be practical when it comes to the Forge itself, i.e. readership and accessibility.

You're quite right, Ralph, that there are some threads, articles, and whatnot that are not readily accessible to all potential readers.  Some might even be difficult for you to parse.  But that is not a criticism except insofar as it assumes that everything posted here should be so accessible, which is your claim.

I don't agree.  What I think is needed, and I've said this for some time now, is a re-division of forums.  Based on discussions like this, I'm in favor of a more radical restructuring than I had been previously.  Here's what would seem to me the obvious and straightforward way to do it:
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: LordSmerf on February 14, 2005, 02:25:54 PM
Correction to my previous post.  I said that only about 20%-25% of my posts got more than 5 replies.  What I had intended to type was 20%-25% of my posts got to the double digits.  I really did go back and count, but then I forgot what criteria I was counting up.

It is closer to 50% of my posts which got 5+ replies.

Sorry about any confusion this may have caused.

Thomas
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Clinton R. Nixon on February 14, 2005, 02:27:41 PM
Chris,

I really like most of what you write, and I very much like Shadows in the Fog. It's on the short list of games I'd like to play. I preface with this, because next I'm going to be harsh.

This "the Forge is closing" Chicken Little bit is bullshit, and really, you know better. Don't be petulant. It will have an end, like everything else. Thinking about it two to three years out is good.

Ok.

Otherwise, I disagree with you on just about every other point in your post, but that's the only offensive one. Discussing the rest would end up at the same point we are now: I think most of what gets posted is pointless, and you find it fulfilling. (I am not saying who is right. I'm saying who gets something out of it. That is all.)
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Keith Senkowski on February 14, 2005, 02:43:46 PM
QuoteWhich, let's bear in mind, was the situation that prompted Ron to develop the Big Model in the first place. So we will have achieved essentially nothing, except that some great games will have been developed along the way.

This is just silly.  The whole point is to design good games that people play.  It is the reason this whole place exists, the promotion of the development of DIY games.  That is the achievement.  Not cyclical conversations about what X means.

Keith
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: quozl on February 14, 2005, 03:16:11 PM
Quote from: Clinton R. NixonThis "the Forge is closing" Chicken Little bit is bullshit, and really, you know better. Don't be petulant. It will have an end, like everything else. Thinking about it two to three years out is good.

Actually, I agree with Chris about that too.  Thinking about it is good.  Knowing why is even better and knowing what the long-term effect will be is the best.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: John Burdick on February 14, 2005, 03:28:08 PM
Thomas,

I've posted two actual play threads. One got fairly long, and the other was very short. The long one ended when my issue was clearly laid out. No one had a quick fix to make things be the way I wanted, but I better understood what I actually was dealing with. The second was an example of how discussion had improved play for me. Mike Holmes asked some questions to encourage me to express myself. I did so, and felt content.

I like the new guide sticky for actual play. In it Ron says "You need to raise a point, something upon which someone else can express or arrive at mutual understanding with you. " In both my threads, I feel that mutual understanding was arrived at or expressed. Even though the second thread was just Mike being receptive.

John
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Valamir on February 14, 2005, 04:05:16 PM
Hey Chris, as I said, I do appreciate the time you and others put in to posting.  I want to make that clear.  But what I also want to make clear is that I don't see Actual Play as being optional.  I don't agree with the "practical" vs. "pure theory" dichotomy.  I don't think there is such a thing as "pure theory".  Without a touchstone in Actual Play, purely theoretical discussions are just flailing around in the weeds.  No matter how imposing the language is, or how well thought out the arguement sounds, or how many other theorists wind up nodding in agreement...without a foundation of actual play...its just speculative noise.  I hate to frame it in a way that sounds rude...but bottom line is all of the around-and-around that goes on in many of those threads is much ado about nothing.  Because without a tie to actual play...there's nothing there of substance.

Now I'm not talking about specific Actual Play "experiments" where one proposes an idea and then runs off to the "lab" to test it out around the game table.  I am talking about a demonstratable history of regular, varied, and current play experiences.  One can theorize all one wants about the inner workings of the internal combustion engine...but unless you've actually gotten greasy under the hood with some wrenches in your hand I don't really want you trying to fix my car.

So to touch on Smerf's point above, its less important that you can point to an actual play post and say "here is the exact moment where I can see this theoretical idea at work", and more important that you've established that you have a history of playing games and not just talking about them, or remembering them from some distant nostalgic past.

To some extent, yes, that makes it a credibility issue.  When Ron formulated his model theories it was based on many thousands of hours of actual play.  Ron roleplays more than anyone else I've ever known.  At one point I remember him having 2 regular weekly groups plus his campus club.  And his experience ranges all the way from Dust Devils and the Pool back to the elder days of Champions.  Whether I agree with his conclusions or not, I know they are based on real phenomenon he actually observed in play...not just phenomenon he speculated about might be happening in play...somewhere.

For this same reason I read every single post Vincent makes.  Agree or disagree I know that his notions of credibility and the infamous "Lumpley Principle" are firmly rooted in many hours of actual play.  That much of that play experience is radically different from my own is a good thing.  Its good because now I'm not simply speculating about what such different play might look like...I now know what that kind of play can look like.  He's been playing that way for years, and I can learn from him (and the rest of his group who posts).  And I know that their examples are based on real experience and not speculation.

I know Paul Czege plays, I can read his posts, and posts by Clinton, and Matt Wilson, and other folks.  When they talk about how theory actually works in practice, I know they're talking from experience and not maybes or might have beens.


And the amazing thing is, the theory gets much easier to discuss and present when couched in the language of actual play.  That's been a constant theme of the Forge since day one (followed with greater or lesser degrees of success over time), but Ron has struggled valiantly to bring the high-faluntin' theory-talk back to actual play.

You're free to disagree, of course...but without that grounding in reality, the theory is about as pointless as pins and dancing angels.


So I'm not trying to reprimand you.  I'm certainly not trying to tell you (and others) to stop posting about things you care about.  But what I am asking for is specifically the following:

1)  I'd like to see more actual play posts from you et.al.  In the world of Peer to Peer file downloading many sites have a credit system where you're allowed to download 1 meg of files for every 3 megs you share.  I'd like to see a system like that here, where posts in Theory Threads are "paid for" (so to speak) by posts in Actual Play.  Obviously we don't want some kind of mechanical system, but I think its something we can all do a better job of policing ourselves on.

If your last 50 posts are to RPG Theory / GNS and the last time you even commented to someone elses Actual Play post (let alone started a thread of your own) was several months ago...then IMO you're not participating in the Forge in the manner in which the Forge was designed to be used (and more importantly in a manner that maximizes value to others here).  Actual Play was moved to the top of the forum list for a reason.  

So my request is, take a look at the frequency of your posting.  If you're posting 3-4 times per day, try to make 1 of those at least to Actual Play, or one of the publishers forums, or even Indie Design from time to time...but especially actual play.


2) Be quicker to take threads to PM.  If you've just spent 3 or 4 posts replying back and forth to some other poster in you/them/you/them/you/them fashion...that's a pretty good indicator that the two of you are having a discussion better handled by PM or email or chat room and not with a Forge posting exchange.  Come back and post the executive summary version for the benefit of other potentially interested parties if desired, but there is a line between appropriate forum discourse and personal discussion and too often recently that line has been crossed in the theory forums.


Again, I'm trying to not be overly critical, but I think way to much time is being spent out in the weeds.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: LordSmerf on February 14, 2005, 04:11:44 PM
John,

In the threads I have started in Actual Play that have gotten any significant number of replies from people not involved in the game I tend to feel the same way.  I try to always include a question or appeal to the more experienced with my Actual Play posts.  It doesn't always happen, but it often does little good.

I think it was especially telling for me in the thread I mentioned earlier: I had something I thought was really, really cool.  And I wanted to know: "Hey, is this something that happens a lot or have I found something sort-of new here?"

Now, I don't want to point fingers, but none of the old hands, none of the people who have mentioned their desire to discuss more Actual Play said anything.  It's entirely possible, maybe even likely, that they just didn't notice it or something.  It just comes across (to me) as somewhat hypocritical.

This sounds quite a bit more harsh than I really intended it to.  Ah well.

EDIT: Crossposted with Ralph (Valamir).  Here's a question that arises from his post:

Quote from: ValamirI know Paul Czege plays, I can read his posts, and posts by Clinton, and Matt Wilson, and other folks. When they talk about how theory actually works in practice, I know they're talking from experience and not maybes or might have beens.
Do you find yourself paying more attention to the Actual Play posts of these people?  Since you know them, and you've found their play interesting, or their insights into play interesting, or whatever do you read them at the expense of posters you don't know as well?  I know that I find myself doing that, and skipping Actual Play posts about games I'm not all that interested in...

Thomas
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Matt Snyder on February 14, 2005, 04:24:08 PM
Thomas, are you suggesting that by not posting, people are being hypocritical? Whom? Everyone? What should they be saying? What is sufficent for an actual play poster to hear?

My observation is that people need to stop "feeling rejected" and start realizing that they don't even really know what they want people to say in response to their Actual Play posts. One response? Good for you. No responses? Think no one's really reading it? Think again, and get over your dejection. There's none, and no evidence to say people don't like you or think your game sucks or whatever. That's a needless assumption formed by habitual notions of what Internet talk "should be" like.

On the Forge, where "me too" posts are discouraged, silence is at least as plausibly read as "way to go!" as it is "I didnt' bother acknowledging your existence."
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Valamir on February 14, 2005, 04:24:44 PM
Good question.

I think the answer is probably yes, and that's not a "good thing".

Its the old "you can't get hired because you don't have experience, and you can't get experience unless somebody hires you" paradox."

Too often I think time constraints force us to filter down what we can read and what we can respond to, and often times the filters we set are designed for expediency rather than value-added.

I'm endeavoring to make a point recently (since the new "Actual Play" sticky was added) to try to read all of the actual play and see if the sticky is impacting how those threads go.  

I think it has been of benefit as John notes above.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Bankuei on February 14, 2005, 06:35:15 PM
Hi Chris,

QuoteOf course, what's going to happen is that we will shut down the Forge because not everyone has quite the same perspective and goals, all of a sudden, something that of course wasn't in any way true a couple years back.

I call bullshit.  Or poppycock, or rubbish, or whatever word works for you.  Check out this thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=229

or this entire forum:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewforum.php?f=22

Disagreement has always been here.  

Closing the Forge is nothing about control or censorship.  Ron & Clinton have basically been providing a free service to those who wish to use it.  They don't "owe" the community anything more than you yourself "owe" a charity you've donated to for the last few years.  By letting folks know that things will wind down, and that it might be a good idea to set up infrastructure to continue any community or discussion you're into, at any of the other venues online- that's being responsible.

Chris
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: LordSmerf on February 14, 2005, 07:02:24 PM
Quote from: Matt SnyderThomas, are you suggesting that by not posting, people are being hypocritical? Whom? Everyone? What should they be saying? What is sufficent for an actual play poster to hear?

My observation is that people need to stop "feeling rejected" and start realizing that they don't even really know what they want people to say in response to their Actual Play posts. One response? Good for you. No responses? Think no one's really reading it? Think again, and get over your dejection. There's none, and no evidence to say people don't like you or think your game sucks or whatever. That's a needless assumption formed by habitual notions of what Internet talk "should be" like.

On the Forge, where "me too" posts are discouraged, silence is at least as plausibly read as "way to go!" as it is "I didnt' bother acknowledging your existence."

Matt, I think you're reading a bit much into this.  I'm not "feeling rejected" over this, but I am noticing a lack of attention.  I have this interesting Actual Play exprience I want to share and discuss.  I want to benefit from the accumulated and varied wisdom of the Forge, especially those who have been doing this whole "Narrativism" thing longer than I have.  I kick off a thread, there's some interest in it but it's mostly new blood.  It seems to me that we're all struggling around looking for help, and none is available.

On the other hand, if I begin discussing something in RPG Theory, experience has taught me that I'll get some discussion.  My thinking will be stimulated, I'll be able to move forward with some ideas.

Honestly, I'd love to get some hot discussion going int Actual Play.  So, what I'm saying (I think) is: If you guys are so hot for Actual Play discussion, where is it?  It's not like heavy posting in Theory is holding you back.  Maybe I'm missing something...  But, as I said, I actually get feedback on topics in Theory...

Thomas
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: TonyLB on February 14, 2005, 07:40:15 PM
Quote from: LordSmerfI kick off a thread, there's some interest in it but it's mostly new blood.  It seems to me that we're all struggling around looking for help, and none is available.
I agree with Thomas that ye old ancients of the faith have a huge and disproportionate impact on the excitement level of new folks when they post.  Star-power, celebrity, whatever.  A blessing and a curse.  I don't know whether that imposes a responsibility on them.  Not my place to judge.

That having been said:  getting help from the new blood is not the same as not getting any help.  Y'know how many of the founding folks at the Forge are in the acknowledgements of Capes?  None of 'em.  They're nice folks, all, but Sydney Freedberg, and Doug Ruff, and Thomas himself were the keystones of the community that supported the game.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: LordSmerf on February 14, 2005, 07:47:30 PM
Tony,

Agreed.  My point here, and this is more specifically in relation to the specific thread I'm talking about, is that I specifically want input from people who have had experience with Narrativism.  It's new to me, and really fun.  I also get the sense that it was new to most of the other participants in the thread.  I wanted to measure what I had experienced against the wisdom of those who had come before.

Was this a new thing?  Was this something that got talked about a lot way back when?  Is this something that's obvious to everyone else?

It's entirely possible that I didn't phrase my questions well in that regard, but I was specifically (if poorly) soliciting contribution from people who have been doing this for years.

That said, I don't consider the thread a total loss by any means, but I definitely didn't get what I was hoping to get out of it.

Thomas
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: clehrich on February 14, 2005, 10:44:43 PM
Quote from: Bankuei
QuoteOf course, what's going to happen is that we will shut down the Forge because not everyone has quite the same perspective and goals, all of a sudden, something that of course wasn't in any way true a couple years back.
I call bullshit.  Or poppycock, or rubbish, or whatever word works for you. .... Disagreement has always been here.
Yeah, it's called irony, Chris.  Sorry.  My point was precisely yours: there have been multiple perspectives from the beginning, and I think that some of the cry to get rid of the Forge is because people are now noticing that there are indeed lots of perspectives.  As you note, there is nothing new about this.  That's one of the best things about the Forge.
QuoteClosing the Forge is nothing about control or censorship.  Ron & Clinton have basically been providing a free service to those who wish to use it.  They don't "owe" the community anything more than you yourself "owe" a charity you've donated to for the last few years.  By letting folks know that things will wind down, and that it might be a good idea to set up infrastructure to continue any community or discussion you're into, at any of the other venues online- that's being responsible.
As I've said elsewhere, the only reason I see to close the Forge is because Clinton and/or Ron want to do so, for personal or time or whatever reasons.  The idea that it needs to close because we've moved on or something I think is nonsense.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Jonathan Walton on February 14, 2005, 10:44:58 PM
Quote from: ValamirWithout a touchstone in Actual Play, purely theoretical discussions are just flailing around in the weeds.  [cut] I hate to frame it in a way that sounds rude...but bottom line is all of the around-and-around that goes on in many of those threads is much ado about nothing.  Because without a tie to actual play...there's nothing there of substance.

Ralph, it sounds to me as if you've noticed something that you don't like and have found what you think the problem is.  I agree that many theory discussions are less than helpful, but assuming that "those guys obviously aren't roleplaying enough" is the problem... well, that seems presumptive and unfair, honestly.  How can you really know how much people are playing?  By their posts in Actual Play?  I don't think so.  And how can you say that it's simply the amount of play that's important and not the quality of individual experiences?

I find that people who play constantly without taking time in between to really reflect and think things through write theory that's just as problematic as those who theorize all the time but never play.  They rarely alter their overall approach to roleplaying and so keep reenacting the same kinds of Actual Play experiences, which simply reinforces their own ideas about roleplaying, unaware that the play that they're experiencing is, in fact, just a small subset of what's possible and not the be-all and end-all of roleplaying.  So there's another side of this story that I don't think you're fully acknowledging.

I think it's really important, critical even, that we continue to have these conversations about what we find valuable at the Forge, especially as Clinton looks to transform this site in the next few years, but coming down hard with the opinion that a certain kind of discourse is the source of all our problems is oversimplistic and ignores wider issues.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: clehrich on February 14, 2005, 10:53:02 PM
Quote from: ValamirHey Chris, as I said, I do appreciate the time you and others put in to posting.  I want to make that clear.  But what I also want to make clear is that I don't see Actual Play as being optional.  I don't agree with the "practical" vs. "pure theory" dichotomy.  I don't think there is such a thing as "pure theory".  Without a touchstone in Actual Play, purely theoretical discussions are just flailing around in the weeds.  No matter how imposing the language is, or how well thought out the arguement sounds, or how many other theorists wind up nodding in agreement...without a foundation of actual play...its just speculative noise.  I hate to frame it in a way that sounds rude...but bottom line is all of the around-and-around that goes on in many of those threads is much ado about nothing.  Because without a tie to actual play...there's nothing there of substance.
Ralph, re-read the post. I did not say that Actual Play was optional.  Obviously we disagree about the value of pure theory; that I thought was equally clear.  I would like to see applied theory and pure theory differentiated, precisely so that you and those like you, who I think are in the majority here, can focus on what you consider important.  The little hierarchy I proposed was: Actual Play, Indie Design, Applied Theory, Big Model Q&A (if you care).  Then, if you want to go on in some particular direction, which is totally optional and not in any way to be understood as dominant or superior, read Pure Theory or Big Model Discussion.

I happen to think that you are quite wrong about pure theory and its ultimate value and relevance.  Fine.  So let's put it in its own forum so you don't have to deal with it.  Why is this such a problem?

What bothers me is that you, and many who agree with you, feel that such theory is, because you don't see the value in it, valueless.  I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow.  You don't like it, don't read it.  And I'd like to see the Forge slightly restructured so it's easier not to read it.  But for those of us, and we are not all that rare, who think there is value in pure theory, can we get on with what we're doing and not have to be slapped at by people who state flatly that they have no intention of reading our discussions?

Here's a nice example: Jay's recent thread on a 1/3-baked idea.  It got messy, but it developed something interesting in the end.  It was pure theory, at base; concrete examples were not the point.  Do you care?  Perhaps not.  Was something accomplished there?  Yes.  Even Ron, who is not exactly Mr. Pure Theory, felt that we had achieved something there.  So can we please just set up a forum for stuff like that so you can not read it and not get shirty because you are reading something a little different than what you want?

I cannot see why this is such a big deal.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: clehrich on February 14, 2005, 11:00:52 PM
Quote from: Bob Goat
QuoteWhich, let's bear in mind, was the situation that prompted Ron to develop the Big Model in the first place. So we will have achieved essentially nothing, except that some great games will have been developed along the way.
This is just silly.  The whole point is to design good games that people play.  It is the reason this whole place exists, the promotion of the development of DIY games.  That is the achievement.  Not cyclical conversations about what X means.
Well, Ron likes to call this synecdoche, of course.  "The whole point is" what I consider important.  No, actually, "the whole point is" to have intelligent conversations about RPGs and do anything else about RPGs that seems to fit the current discussion.  For some, that, whatever it is, is then applicable to design.  For others, it is applicable to play.  For others, it is applicable to broader questions of culture.  Why are #1 and #2 okay but #3 is bad and stupid?  Sure, Ron and Clinton started this as about design.  Okay, so go through and eliminate every single post that is not overtly and explicitly about design.  For example, eliminate almost every post in Actual Play.  Doesn't that seem like a bit of a problem?

The point being, Actual Play provides data that people analyze and use to produce theory that is then applied to design.  This apparently is OK with you and Ralph.  But god help us if we analyze that data and use it to produce theory that does something different!  Then we are violating the Forge.

Come on, step back a second.  I realize that a lot of folks here do not like pure theory.  I do not contend that you or anyone else ought to do so.  But is it really such a big problem to section it off as its own thing, blazon it around with stickies and neon lights saying "Warning!  Here be weirdos!" and leave us in peace?  I would genuinely like to know why this is something you all think is such a crime.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: clehrich on February 14, 2005, 11:05:46 PM
Quote from: Clinton R. NixonThis "the Forge is closing" Chicken Little bit is bullshit, and really, you know better. Don't be petulant. It will have an end, like everything else. Thinking about it two to three years out is good.
Bearing in mind that you are picking up a very small piece of the post that was demarcated as a rant, fine, we're on the same page.  But what I have yet to hear, here or anywhere else, is exactly why this forum is closing.  I have said, repeatedly, that if you or Ron or both do not want to run it, that's inarguable.  But what I keep hearing is justifications based on "there isn't anything interesting happening here" or "nobody posts here" or whatever.  I think that's crap.  Can't I be a little petulant and rant-y in a thread started by a rant?
QuoteOtherwise, I disagree with you on just about every other point in your post, but that's the only offensive one. Discussing the rest would end up at the same point we are now: I think most of what gets posted is pointless, and you find it fulfilling.
See, this is the only reason I hear.  What I have not yet heard is why you think this.  Obviously if you feel this way, I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want to keep the thing afloat.  But I hear a lot of chatter about why the Forge is Falling --- Chicken Little bullshit in your terms.  I have not as yet heard a clear statement from you or Ron as to why you want to close it.

Thinking about it two or three years out is good.  Deciding that everyone knows it's dead two or three years out, then defending that position without ever stating why you hold it, is not good.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: CPXB on February 14, 2005, 11:11:17 PM
Quote from: clehrichCome on, step back a second.  I realize that a lot of folks here do not like pure theory.  I do not contend that you or anyone else ought to do so.  But is it really such a big problem to section it off as its own thing, blazon it around with stickies and neon lights saying "Warning!  Here be weirdos!" and leave us in peace?  I would genuinely like to know why this is something you all think is such a crime.
I think that a lot of the "pure theory" conversations are just, really, conversation stoppers.  By putting the bar for the discussion about pure theory you're essentially controlling the conversation because to pass the point that, well, frequently you set is to no longer be talking about gaming even tangentially, but to be discussing philosophy.  When a person relates something in gaming to, y'know, post-modernist deconstruction the discussion about gaming is over because now you're talking about post-modernism.  Or social epistemology.   Or whatever "pure theory" thing has been dragged (often kicking and screaming) into the discussion.

In short, many of the discussions of pure theory are not about gaming theory, but philosophy and other disciplines.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Bankuei on February 14, 2005, 11:13:46 PM
Hi Chris,

Quote... I think that some of the cry to get rid of the Forge is because people are now noticing that there are indeed lots of perspectives.

I haven't seen anyone saying this at all.  What I have seen is the unfounded fear that this is the "hidden agenda" behind closing shop.

On topic, what everyone here is discussing is the line between applicable theory and spinning wheels.  If you, or anyone else feels personally under criticism based on this thread, it would be well to look at it as being one of many possible things("You" means anyone posting at this site, here):

A) Your theory is valid, and worth discussing, but the critics are unwilling to make the necessary basic efforts to understand it.  Oh well, ignor the criticism as it is uninformed.

B) Your theory is valid, but the criticism concerns your communication.  Seek an alternative way to communicate your ideas if you actually care if more people understand what you are talking about and will be able to contribute accordingly.

C) Your theory is not valid, and therefore, criticism demands taking a look at the premises from which it is built.

Whatever the case your individual case might be, that's for you to work out.  But anyone should take note of criticism as a good sign that one of the above is probably occurring.

Chris
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: clehrich on February 14, 2005, 11:15:04 PM
Quote from: CPXB
Quote from: clehrichCome on, step back a second.  I realize that a lot of folks here do not like pure theory.  I do not contend that you or anyone else ought to do so.  But is it really such a big problem to section it off as its own thing, blazon it around with stickies and neon lights saying "Warning!  Here be weirdos!" and leave us in peace?  I would genuinely like to know why this is something you all think is such a crime.
I think that a lot of the "pure theory" conversations are just, really, conversation stoppers.  By putting the bar for the discussion about pure theory you're essentially controlling the conversation because to pass the point that, well, frequently you set is to no longer be talking about gaming even tangentially, but to be discussing philosophy.  When a person relates something in gaming to, y'know, post-modernist deconstruction the discussion about gaming is over because now you're talking about post-modernism.  Or social epistemology.   Or whatever "pure theory" thing has been dragged (often kicking and screaming) into the discussion.

In short, many of the discussions of pure theory are not about gaming theory, but philosophy and other disciplines.
Fine, I'm not going to debate with you, or anyone else, whether this is the case.  I disagree, obviously, but so what?  Why don't we just split off a forum for this sort of thing and leave it at that?
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Keith Senkowski on February 14, 2005, 11:19:45 PM
Quote from: clehrichWell, Ron likes to call this synecdoche, of course.  "The whole point is" what I consider important.  No, actually, "the whole point is" to have intelligent conversations about RPGs and do anything else about RPGs that seems to fit the current discussion.  For some, that, whatever it is, is then applicable to design.  For others, it is applicable to play.  For others, it is applicable to broader questions of culture.  Why are #1 and #2 okay but #3 is bad and stupid?  Sure, Ron and Clinton started this as about design.  Okay, so go through and eliminate every single post that is not overtly and explicitly about design.  For example, eliminate almost every post in Actual Play.  Doesn't that seem like a bit of a problem?

The point being, Actual Play provides data that people analyze and use to produce theory that is then applied to design.  This apparently is OK with you and Ralph.  But god help us if we analyze that data and use it to produce theory that does something different!  Then we are violating the Forge.

Come on, step back a second.  I realize that a lot of folks here do not like pure theory.  I do not contend that you or anyone else ought to do so.  But is it really such a big problem to section it off as its own thing, blazon it around with stickies and neon lights saying "Warning!  Here be weirdos!" and leave us in peace?  I would genuinely like to know why this is something you all think is such a crime.

Now you are jumping all over the place man.  I got to call you on it.  I never said nor implied anything you asserted.  All I pointed out was that you said that we have acheived nothing because if say it all (the Forge) goes away (which isn't true chicken little) all that has come out of the Forge is that some great games were developed along the way.  How isn't that an achievement or even teh acheivment?  How isn't that the whole point?  The phrase on the fucking home page is, The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games.  Hell the very first sentence in the damn about section is This site is dedicated to the promotion, creation, and review of independent role-playing games. The theory is there to facilitate play and design, nothing more.  

The problem I think people are having is the theory being performed in a vacuum.  It isn't useful to teh stated goal of the Forge.  It is like this:

Some monkeys are sitting in a fucking tree talking about the different tools they could possible make to get at the meat of those big ass nuts on the ground.  Sitting in the tree and theorizing doesn't get the meat into their mouths.  So it is useless.  But when they take those theories and jump to the ground and apply them to opening (or not cuase theories often don't work) these theories become useful.

The theory that just goes round and round without applied uses is just monkeys sitting in a fucking tree with no meat in their mouths.

Keith
Excuse my language it is how I talk (and type)
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: LordSmerf on February 14, 2005, 11:54:24 PM
I think everyone needs to calm down.  This seems to have devlolved into name calling (and I'm just as guilty as anyone else).  Chris Lehrich says "Pure theory is valuable and I think there should be a place for it on the Forge even if it's an out of the way corner."  And then he says it over and over, the same thing.

Meanwhile the discussion has devolved from it's intended purpose (I think, Ralph can correct me if I'm wrong): where is the Actual Play discussion?  We've moved from there to a discussion of the merits of pure theory.  Lehrich says, "That's fine, if you don't like it you don't have to talk about it."  I think at this point we need someone with authority (Ron, Clinton?) to step in and say, "Yes, you can discuss pure theory" or "No, pure theory discussion should be taken to some other venue."

Further, I don't feel that my concerns have been addressed.  Possibly because I have been unable to state them clearly.  So, let me try again: If "pure theory", specifically the increase in discussion of it, is a problem then I contend that it is being caused by the dearth of Actual Play posts, not that it is causing them.

From my point of view: very few people are interested in discussing Actual Play, I know you weren't in my most recent thread (which doesn't say much, it is just one thread).  On the other hand, some of my Actual Play experience makes it into my theoretical thinking, so at least I can discuss it tangentially.

I'm looking back and wondering if this post isn't just as inflammatory as all the rest for the past page or so, but I feel this needs to be said.  The "is pure theory valuable?" question is argued in philosophy all the time, and I'm not sure that there's an easy answer.  It basically boils down to personal convictions, so we're going to have to have someone make a decision on this issue.  And even if the theory continues exactly as it has, how is this hurting Actual Play?  Get over there and post if it's so important to you...

Wow, now I know I'm being inflammatory.  Apologies all around.

Thomas
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Clinton R. Nixon on February 15, 2005, 12:01:44 AM
Thomas is correct. This thread is devolving quickly. So, keep it above the belt and try to reach a resolution, people.

So, here's the official word as I understand it - and Ron can correct me if I'm wrong.

- We're not going to tell you what to talk about.
- That said, as people, not moderators, we sure appreciate theory grounded in play.
- Actual Play is thriving. I posted there today.
- We really invite those who are branching into areas the Forge wasn't intended for to make their own focus sites for those areas if it's warranted.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Eero Tuovinen on February 15, 2005, 12:03:58 AM
For some reason I'm seeing this as a weird challenge... "Hey you, I disagree with the way you discuss roleplaying! Prove yourself in design and actual play, or I won't stay in the same sandbox with you!"

Uh, ok...

I don't know, probably it'd be nice if Ralph and everyone else understood everybody else's theory. And it's definitely good to throw down the gauntlet from time to time, to see if there's anything but vapor in there. But all this talk about closing Forge or restructuring forums or prohibiting certain kind of theory seems a little besides the point to me. Understanding is 5/6 parts interest, and if Ralph hasn't been interested enough to familiarize himself with social sciences or art theory, it's no wonder if he doesn't understand such discussions. Frankly, it's like complaining about the Big Model discussions because you don't understand them.

But that's not indeed the point, as I see it. That kind of complaint can't be erased in any way but by proving it false in the root. And that happens by applying the theory. So we have a conundrum: who gets up from the armchair and designs a game to knock off these complaints? That's how the Forge and the Big Model have made their mark, you know: nobody'd take this place seriously if three of four significant games during the late years hadn't originated here. The reason Ralph can make these kinds of complaints is that there's not enough concrete proof for the value of clehrichian theory.

For the record, I don't participate in most theory discussion, Big Model or clehrichian. Mostly because my theorizing is so closely tied to game design that there's hardly any room for airing my opinions just for the sake of it.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: clehrich on February 15, 2005, 12:17:01 AM
Okay, I'm clearly getting cranky and out of hand, so I'm going to cool it and be rational.

Bob/Keith,

Sorry, I genuinely misread your post.  If you think about it hard, you might see why I misread it in this way.  I can't imagine why you would bother, though.  Oops.

--------
Now back to the question of theory:

Quote from: BankueiA) Your theory is valid, and worth discussing, but the critics are unwilling to make the necessary basic efforts to understand it.  Oh well, ignor the criticism as it is uninformed.
Sure, that may well be the case.  But my claim is that if people are not willing to do that sort of work, assuming that's for decent reasons (we don't care about such debates, for example), they should not be subjected to it, nor told that such theoretical work is something they ought to read.  So section it off in a special forum and leave it be.  I do, of course, object to precisely what you formulate: given that they have not made an effort to understand, they then level criticism.  That is indeed uninformed criticism.  But I do not claim that most criticism of pure theory falls into that category.
QuoteB) Your theory is valid, but the criticism concerns your communication.  Seek an alternative way to communicate your ideas if you actually care if more people understand what you are talking about and will be able to contribute accordingly.
Sure, that's legit.  But of course it demands that I, and others like me who do communicate in this way and at this level (not higher or lower, but different) must make a special extra effort to communicate with those who have made clear they are not especially interested in the formulating and constitutive debates.  Why should we?  We communicate fine, and you don't want to hear it, so why don't we go do it in a special forum and you don't have to hear it.  When we have come up with something clever and concrete and applicable, we'll come tell you about it in terms reasonable to you, and you can tell us it doesn't work or whatever.  So what's the difficulty?
QuoteC) Your theory is not valid, and therefore, criticism demands taking a look at the premises from which it is built.
This may well be true, but it has nothing to do with Ralph's criticism.  Unless I really have grossly misunderstood, his claim is not that such theory is invalid, but that it is inapplicable or at least not applied, and thus impractical.

------------------
Okay, so let's slow down a second.

Here's five lab scientists, in different fields, doing different things at their lab benches.  They're doing concrete, practical work.  What they are doing produces results.  Here and there they come across problems they can't solve, but leave it for later because it's not apparently a huge barrier and besides it's not directly part of the particular experiments.

Here's the theorist.  She reads all of these people's results, and thinks about them.  She doesn't have a lab; she only has her mind.  As a result of her thinking, she says that the problem lab scientist A had is analogous to the result that lab scientist B got, which fits in with what lab scientist C is projecing, and so on.  Ultimately, she proposes a single solution that everyone can go and test.  Scientists A, B, C, and D say, "Hey, how clever.  Thanks!"  Scientist E says, "Um, doesn't work over here, sorry."  So now the theorist has something new to think about.

Now the trouble is that the theorist is a little stuck on problem E.  So she talks about it with other theorists, in a theory journal.  They debate the problem for a while, turning it over, tossing it across fields, and so on.  Eventually, they may come up with an answer.  This may well happen when her colleague from yet another completely different theoretical area says, "Hey, wait!  That's exactly analogous to the problem over here in F, and maybe that's because they're homologous, so that would mean that the solution to E would be like this."

What's happening here, I'm sorry to say, is that the lab scientists are picking up the theorists' journal and saying, "Huh, I don't get this, it's not practical."

Now you may well be about to say, "Well, if you want to do that, get your own journal."  Why?  This is the premier forum for theory as it is.  Where else would we debate these things?  Besides, we need data, and you guys are cranking that stuff out at a good clip.  Furthermore, we don't just need raw data, because frankly you lab guys are better at that; what we need is your analyses of the data, as well as the data, and a lot of such discussions.  Then what we do is pinpoint the higher-order problems and think about them, and propose solutions.  We hope this will be done conversationally, of course, to keep us grounded, but that's not ultimately necessary.  All of which make it a very good thing for theorists to hang around the Forge.

So getting back to my proposal quite a while back, which nobody seems to want to take seriously, I suggest that the "journal of pure theory" be set into its own carefully sectioned-off bit at the back of the bus where only the freaks and weirdos go.  Then we can get on with what we do well, and you can get on with what you do well, and when we come up with something really clever we'll tell you all about it, and when you come up with a major problem with what we thought was so clever I'm sure you'll tell us about it.

What the hell is so hard about this?
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Ron Edwards on February 15, 2005, 12:19:16 AM
Hit the showers, everyone. Come back to it tomorrow, or a bit later.

Best,
Ron
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: clehrich on February 15, 2005, 12:26:25 AM
Incidentally, my last post was x-posted with everyone since Keith, so I missed the very intelligent and right-thinking calls for us all to cool it.

Eero,

What you jokingly call "clehrichian theory" has a practical application.  It's called Shadows in the Fog.  There is actual play being posted by Lee Short.  As yet, not enough has arisen to test my particular and peculiar theories of bricolage and whatnot, but I'm hopeful.  I will relatively soon be running a hard playtest, and we'll see how that goes.  Fortunately, Lee says that "this game rocks," which is a hopeful sign.

Which is one reason why I decry claims that the sorts of theoretical weirdness I and those like me get up to are impractical.  You want to demonstrate that they are so, go play Shadows in the Fog and tell me how and why it doesn't work.  Clinton says he wants to run it; good, I want to hear about it.  This stuff does have practical implications, but they take quite a while to percolate.

Some here, including Mike Holmes for example, participated in a lengthy and tough critique of an early draft a year or so ago, and then another since; without them, and Mike in particular, that game would not look like it does now.  That's what I mean about the pure theorists needing feedback and criticism from the guys sitting at the bench, and also what I mean about it taking time.  But I do maintain that it goes both ways.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: CPXB on February 15, 2005, 12:35:06 AM
Quote from: clehrichHere's five lab scientists, in different fields, doing different things at their lab benches.  They're doing concrete, practical work.  What they are doing produces results.  Here and there they come across problems they can't solve, but leave it for later because it's not apparently a huge barrier and besides it's not directly part of the particular experiments.

Here's the theorist.  She reads all of these people's results, and thinks about them.  She doesn't have a lab; she only has her mind.  As a result of her thinking, she says that the problem lab scientist A had is analogous to the result that lab scientist B got, which fits in with what lab scientist C is projecing, and so on.  Ultimately, she proposes a single solution that everyone can go and test.  Scientists A, B, C, and D say, "Hey, how clever.  Thanks!"  Scientist E says, "Um, doesn't work over here, sorry."  So now the theorist has something new to think about.

Now the trouble is that the theorist is a little stuck on problem E.  So she talks about it with other theorists, in a theory journal.  They debate the problem for a while, turning it over, tossing it across fields, and so on.  Eventually, they may come up with an answer.  This may well happen when her colleague from yet another completely different theoretical area says, "Hey, wait!  That's exactly analogous to the problem over here in F, and maybe that's because they're homologous, so that would mean that the solution to E would be like this."

What's happening here, I'm sorry to say, is that the lab scientists are picking up the theorists' journal and saying, "Huh, I don't get this, it's not practical."

Now you may well be about to say, "Well, if you want to do that, get your own journal."  Why?  This is the premier forum for theory as it is.  Where else would we debate these things?  Besides, we need data, and you guys are cranking that stuff out at a good clip.  Furthermore, we don't just need raw data, because frankly you lab guys are better at that; what we need is your analyses of the data, as well as the data, and a lot of such discussions.  Then what we do is pinpoint the higher-order problems and think about them, and propose solutions.  We hope this will be done conversationally, of course, to keep us grounded, but that's not ultimately necessary.  All of which make it a very good thing for theorists to hang around the Forge.

This is a straw man.  You're leaving a few things out of your example.  Theoretical scientists exist because of the huge number of things that can only be observed indirectly, or not at all, but modern humans.  So one has a theoretical physicist opining, without reference to any direct observation, about cosmology because it is impossible for us to see the original shape of the universe, for instance, or to do tests on how many dimensions above four there are.  This isn't really true of gaming.  We can observe gamers actually doing games, on all levels.

All gaming theory can be tested for accuracy in the real world, and no doubt experimentally, too, tho' none of us have the resources to do that I'm guessing.  There is no need to do thought experiments about gaming.

Indeed, I will go so far as to say that people who do these sorts of "pure theory" exericses are not engaged in discussion of gaming at all, but the discussion of some other discipline through the tangential intermediary of gaming.  I have found myself, several times, not responding to a post made about "pure theory" because to do so would be talking about philosophy or linguistics, not gaming.  (Which is why I also said that theorizing acts as a conversation stopper; it has literally stopped my conversation, hehe.)
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: M. J. Young on February 15, 2005, 01:52:28 AM
This thread went three pages in a day, and I'm starting to respond before I've finished reading it because I can't keep three pages of posts in my head.

I have been a theory person probably since I was five years old. I think and talk about everything in theoretical terms. It drives my wife crazy. A lot of people have no idea what I'm saying half the time. That's me.

I play six days a week if nothing goes wrong, seven if things go particularly right. I have never written a single Actual Play post; I can't say with certainty, but I don't believe I've ever read one, either. Similarly, I spend no time in Publishing or Game Design. There are some different reasons for those choices, but one central reason: my time doesn't allow for it. I am often up until after four in the morning trying to finish on line, and up at six to get kids off to school. I'm sure it was months and might have been years between the time The Forge displaced Gaming Outpost as the place for theory discussions and the time I decided to get involved over here. I'm here for theory. It takes me a couple hours every night to get through what I do read here, and adding a lot of raw data from Actual Play would be too much. That's not to say that actual play doesn't influence my theory discussions; it very much does. It's just that I don't try to absorb everyone else's actual play. I try to get it in summary form as it is referenced in the Theory section. (Besides, if anyone particularly cares about my actual play experience, the majority of it is already posted live, raw data, complete, on the Multiverser forum at Gaming Outpost, where the bulk of my games are run. Posting here would either be duplication or summary, neither of which is terribly useful.)

I genuinely sympathize with Ralph. There are posters here who cause my eyes to glaze over, whose screen names induce a wave of despair, who encourage me to skim quickly lest I fall asleep trying to read. (My tolerance varies with how tired I am when I get here, as this is near the end of my day.) There are concepts bandied about that I have yet to really assimilate. However, I am a theory person, and the theory helps me immensely in my understanding of game design and play. I go from theory to practice much more easily than the other direction. I stick with these threads in part because I can never be certain which ones are actually going to open new ideas and directions in my thought, and in part because I often wonder how many people have the same reaction to my posts that I have to some of these others.

Ralph seems to be suggesting that people like me don't belong here. Let be be clear: I'm here because the Critical Hit, Game Design, and Sorcerer discussions at Gaming Outpost came here. I was part of those discussions there, and have been part of those discussions here. I am as invested here as I was there, and perhaps a bit moreso; but there is only so much time in a day, and only so much I can read in that time, and I'm not planning to commit to more at this time. I find theory discussion valuable; I'd like to think that I contribute something to it that's worth the time of others. That's where my strengths lie, and that's what I'll continue to do--at least as long as no one expects me to pay for the priviledge of helping develop and explicate the theory by taking on responsibilities in other areas.

Fortunately, that's not going to happen; and fortunately, if it does, those who are interested in theory can still find space in the Critical Hit and Game Design forums back at Gaming Outpost, if necessary.

--M. J. Young
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Eero Tuovinen on February 15, 2005, 01:53:52 AM
I hit the showers, fixed some LAN networks and don't take this discussion too seriously anyway, so I'm good to go...

Quote from: clehrich
What you jokingly call "clehrichian theory" has a practical application.  It's called Shadows in the Fog.  There is actual play being posted by Lee Short.  As yet, not enough has arisen to test my particular and peculiar theories of bricolage and whatnot, but I'm hopeful.  I will relatively soon be running a hard playtest, and we'll see how that goes.  Fortunately, Lee says that "this game rocks," which is a hopeful sign.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum. You didn't really have to spell it out, but man, all this is so baseless that I don't know what these people are thinking. Apparently it isn't enough for a solid fraction of people here to consider clehrichian (it has a nice sound, doesn't it? Sounds like a mystic discipline) theory seriously for it to be tolerated. I've said it before, and say it again: I find the ritual article inspiring and useful for my design and actual play both, and the same holds true for the glimpses of understanding I see in the various discussions. Roleplaying as bricolage is a great idea, regardless of how true it proves. What am I, chopped liver or something, that this opinion isn't taken seriously? I personally couldn't imagine the Forge without Chris and his strongly academic knowledge base.

I've discussed this with Chris before, and we disagree: he thinks that there is such a thing as pure rpg theory, and that it has value. I think that there is nothing such, that all art theory informs art if the artist has the capability of understanding it. (Although if there were such a self-conflicting thing as understanding without application, I'd think it swell, too.) All these arguments about this or that theory being so much navelgazing are exactly the same claims that are made against Forge on other forums. They are not based on the content of the theory, by the by: you've all not said anything about Chris' theories that isn't said constantly about the Big Model on other forums. "It's too abstract, with no application." Waah waah.

If the theory is true, it certainly has application, for it increases our understanding as gamers and designers. If it is false, there is certainly no profit in keeping the falsehood under wraps where it can fester and remain unchallenged. I'm personally seeing strong indications that clehrichian theory is proving itself, and that's enough for me. But even if I understood nothing of it, I wouldn't judge others who found it useful. I might as well start kicking the newbies next, because they want to discuss for the Nth time the narrativist properties of Feng Shui.

Bah, why am I even posting this? This thread is pure navelgazing. Ron called it correctly: go out there and start the kind of theory thread you find interesting.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Clinton R. Nixon on February 15, 2005, 07:46:28 AM
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen
Bah, why am I even posting this? This thread is pure navelgazing. Ron called it correctly: go out there and start the kind of theory thread you find interesting.

Best post on this thread yet. Thanks, Eero!

Is this really a thread saying there's too much of something on the Forge? Like too many people talking about role-playing?

Bah. I thank everyone and anyone - especially Chris, whose thoughts on role-playing and ritual match up well with my own thoughts on RPGs - who participates in any discussion here.

The big difference between the Forge's early days and now is that the Forge is too now big to read every discussion. (Unless you are superhuman, like Ron.) I totally understand this being a bit disconcerting to people used to reading everything here daily, but it only means more good discussion is taking place. Complaining that there's too much of that goes directly against the Forge's ethos, which is:

Go forth and play more games and write more games and talk about more games in an intelligent fashion.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Ron Edwards on February 15, 2005, 09:15:10 AM
There is one thing that I think can be gained very nicely from this thread.

Look for the new Sticky at the top of the Theory forum, very soon.

Best,
Ron
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Valamir on February 15, 2005, 11:23:41 AM
QuoteRalph seems to be suggesting that people like me don't belong here.

Now hold the phone here MJ.  That's an entirely unfair and baseless statement for you to make.  I went out of my way to flat out state that I wasn't reprimanding anyone and that I appreciated the time taken by folks to post here.  Do I think you've contributed a hell of alot...absolutely.  Do I think you're contributions would be even greater if you spent an hour less time in the theory forum and an hour more time talking about actual play experiences.  Yeah...I do.



The bottom line for me is not Theory vs. anti-theory.  I like theorizing as much as the next guy.  I've done a hell of alot of it myself.

My point is however, that theories of roleplaying from people who don't actually play (or who's range of play experience is exceedingly narrow) are about as valuable ultimately as legal advice on copy right law from folks who aren't practicing attorneys in the field.

In other words, there may be some really interesting points that get you thinking...but ultimately its just speculation and conjecture and thus largely unreliable.

Quite simply, if you aren't actually playing, then your theories are...frankly put...less valuable than if you were.  And if you are actually playing, then your theories become more valuable by sharing those actual play experiences that were formative to the development of your ideas.

I didn't ask for an end to theorizing.  I simply asked that those people most vocal in the theory forums spend a little more time in discussion of actual play.  Unlike Athena, roleplaying theories (good ones any way)don't spring forth fully formed from the mind of Zeus...no matter how bright and academically credentialled Zeus might be.  Good theories on roleplaying are the result of actual experiences at the table with other people...PLAYING.

If you're not playing you should be, and if you are, then you should be talking about that play as well as the theory behind it.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: John Kim on February 15, 2005, 03:00:32 PM
Quote from: ValamirGo through the list of threads on the first page of this forum (and GNS too for that matter). Count how many of those threads are broad discussions involving many members and active participants vs. how many are primarily private discussions between 2 or 3 or 4 interested parties...in many cases...the SAME 2 or 3 or 4 interested parties.

If you happen to be one of those parties take a second to count your number of recent posts in the two theory forums and compare that to the count of your recent posts in the Actual Play forum, or posts about play in any of the publisher's forums.

If that ratio is horrendously lop sided...then IMO you need to slow down the volume of your theory posts and start actually playing more...and then post about that actual play...and THEN seek to tie that actual play into your theories.
OK, following Ralph/Valamir's advice, I've looked at this a little.

During 2004, I played in two bi-weekly campaigns, with maybe 3 cons and one-shots (?).  With missed sessions, I played or GMed maybe 50-something sessions total during the year.  During the same time, I have 611 Forge posts to the two forums (Theory+GNS), compared to 99 in Actual Play.  However, it's even more lopsided than that, because many of my posts to Actual Play have been comments on other people's play -- not reporting my own.  So, for example, I started only 8 threads in Actual Play about my own games during 2004 -- several of which were only one post.  

On the other hand, let's compare here a moment.  Ralph/Valamir, I only see one thread about your own Actual Play in the past year (your Motocaust report).  Your ratio of posts during 2004 is about 442 Theory+GNS to about 136 Actual Play -- so less lopsided than mine, but still lopsided, and like me, most of your Actual Play posts aren't about your own play.  

Chris Lehrich is in a similar boat.  During 2004, 81 posts to Actual Play vs 508 to Theory+GNS.  So he has about the same lopsided ratio of posts as me.  He also had only a single thread about his own play (his Age of Paranoia report).  

I have a few conclusions:

1) Number of posts in the Actual Play forum doesn't reflect amount of actual play.  I don't dump my session summaries into there -- it isn't useful.  Similarly, I presume that you, Ralph, have played a lot more than just Motocaust during 2004.  

2) Given the lack of our own play reports, I think suggesting that other people lack sufficient play experience for Theory is wrong.  Truthfully, I don't think anyone seriously involved in RPG Theory is lacking experience of real RPG play.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: quozl on February 15, 2005, 04:35:43 PM
Thanks for the numbers, John.  Maybe now we can start talking about what this is really about.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Paul Czege on February 15, 2005, 04:50:57 PM
Hey Jonathan,

Maybe now we can start talking about what this is really about.

Personally, I'm mystified by the extent to which folks across the Internet try to accrete social validation via theorizing. The Internet is half full of theory driven by someone defending their personal self-esteem, or working to establish a reputation. And the other half are people deterred (and silenced) by the endless theory war when they're looking for something they can really use. Theory without the goal of improving play (through technique and through design) is The Forge's biggest barrier to entry. There'd be fewer calls for glossaries and intro articles if the conversation was as real as it was three years ago (and as real as Vincent's weblog is today). With so many online venues for pure theory, I see no reason the Forge needs to be one of them. Especially when it's so contrary to what we were once so excellent at: helping folks figure out how to have fun again with RPGs.

Paul
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: quozl on February 15, 2005, 05:33:09 PM
Paul,

I agree with you except for your asumption that pure theory is "contrary to what we were once so excellent at: helping folks figure out how to have fun again with RPGs."   How can that be true when there are so many people in the RPG Theory forum figuring out how to have fun after their endless theory posts?  Frankly, I don't read most of them because they bore me.  However, from the few I do read I always see pople getting something out of it who can't wait to apply it to their RPG playing.  I find it hard to believe that other people can't see this.  In fact, it makes me wonder what this is really all about.

I hope that was clear and helpful and free of all the nonsense that people like to spout on internet forums.
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: M. J. Young on February 15, 2005, 06:18:11 PM
Quote from: Paul CzegeWith so many online venues for pure theory, I see no reason the Forge needs to be one of them. Especially when it's so contrary to what we were once so excellent at: helping folks figure out how to have fun again with RPGs.
I wasn't here when the exodus from Gaming Outpost happened. It seemed to me, though, that there was a lot of valuable discussion about theory and design that were very integrated over there, and part of what eventually persuaded me to come here was that that discussion had moved here and I was missing it.

I don't know how "pure" theory can ever be, and I don't know how "pure" design can ever be. You can't effectively do either without some relation to the other, I think. It's more a matter of degree.

It took me a while to get through Chris' article on ritual. Even when I read it, I wasn't sure it had any real value to me. However, just tonight I was writing a post about how many of my games begin with someone reading an in-character synopsis of the events of the last session--and that in doing so, the beginning of the session is created in much the same way as an invocation or call to worship will open a church service. I have a better understanding of some of what happens in my games because of the "pure theory" that happens here, and from that I get a better idea of how to facilitate better game play when I'm running games and when I'm designing them.

Like Eero, I can't imagine theory that has no practical value. Even if the theory proves wrong, it has the value of calling our attention to those aspects of play that don't fit it.

Ralph--thanks for the clarification. I doubt there's anyone here who has no RPG experience at all, and I think that I have been through times over the past seven years when I was doing a lot more discussion of theory than I was actually playing. However, I still had my past on which to draw, and I think that's valid. Sure, it's better if you're playing, because then you can see how the things being discussed relate to what's happening in your current games; but I don't think that anyone in a situation in which they are not currently able to play is automatically disqualified from being able to contribute to theory.

--M. J. Young
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: John Burdick on February 16, 2005, 09:30:55 AM
I'm wondering how the recent agreement in a theory thread relates to conflict with either the text or other players. I started to make a new thread, but stopped because all I came up with to start was "Everyone tell me how this element connects to System Does Matter in play dysfunction." That doesn't seem right. I don't know how to approach the question more usefully.

John
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Valamir on February 16, 2005, 10:47:22 AM
Just to provide some closure to this thread, check out this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14351&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)

THIS is what I'm talking about.  Sure, its in RPG Theory, but its chock full of actual play.  I'm not talking about gol'darn session reports.

Note where Tony snips a chunk of PBeM game to illustrate a point.  Or Kat's excellent illustration of Violet and her football player crush (not a hypothetical scenario, its from actual play).  Or Vincent's responding to John with examples of GMing struggles within his own group.

THAT'S theory backed by actual play people.  THAT's the sort of thing we need more of.  Lets all do more of that.

[edit to add]
Contrast how quickly and easily people came to mutual understanding in that thread with this  Doug the Dice Guy Thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14266&start=0).

Doug the Dice Guy is swirling into its 4th page with no resolution in sight.  Why?  IMO it has alot to do with the fact that Doug the Dice Guy, Will the Writer, and Amy the Artist aren't real people doing real things in real games.  Its all based on conjecture regarding hypothetical situations.  
That to me is the difference between theory backed by actual play, and theory which is not.l
Title: The Problem With This Forum: Too much damn theory
Post by: Ron Edwards on February 16, 2005, 12:12:36 PM
Thread's all done, folks. Everyone's had a say.

Make your own choices and post accordingly. I'll freely admit that I'm only closing this thread because it makes me physically tired, which is obviously a form of emotional defense on my part. But what the hell, for once I'll cop to abusing moderator privilege.

Best,
Ron