Real Life: A Conceptual Game

[Rich Forest]

Hi Kyle,

I can explain Jonathon's comment that the thread should have ended a while back--it's the topic drift (which I contributed to, I'll admit). It's standard practice on the Forge to close a thread when it's no longer answering the original question or serving the original purpose. On top of that, whoever started the thread to begin with has a bit of extra leeway/power in interpreting whether the thread is still on topic. So I think Jonathon was basically putting in his voice that the thread should be closed. You're right that topics drift in conversation, but the standard Forge answer to drift is to close a thread and start a new one that is about one of the new topics of interest. So Jonathon isn't saying, "You can't talk about this." He's just saying, "please start a new thread if you think it's worth worth making a thread about, but it's off-topic here."

I don't know if that is in the stickies explaining Forge etiquette or not--it might be, or it might just be something people have to remind each other about, in which case there's no way you could be expected to have known about it. I should add that it's also important not to fire off responses in the heat of the moment. I think your re-wording of Jonathon in the last post is a bit unfair. He didn't say you were stupid. He said you seem to think everyone else is ;-)

Actually, I think he's saying that you've clearly made up your mind, so there's no point in arguing. Now he may be saying that in a bit of a defensive way, but to be fair, you were categorically dismissive about some things he's interested in. Now that he's gotten defensive, and you've gotten defensive in return, well, the chances of you guys having a conversation rather than an argument are pretty slim, so maybe it really is time to close the thread.

I will add that in your recent posts, I've found a lot of things that I agree with; I've also found plenty of things I disagree with. I'm not going to get into those because I don't want to get into an argument with you. For one, it'd give the impression that I disagree with you on everything, which isn't true. For another, you're already on the defense. That makes any kind of discussion more difficult. And regardless, it would be way off-topic for the thread (as interesting as it's been). Anyway, I'm glad you've found something worth engaging with here -- I hope you find other things at the Forge of interest as well.

Rich

[M. J. Young]

Guys, this thread should have been closed a while ago.  

Why? Because someone disagrees with its premise? Because it drifts on to topics outside the original theme? Both of those are normal parts of conversation, and any message board is just another kind of conversation.

These things may be part of ordinary conversation; and no one said it was because you disagreed with the premise--but it is one of the rules of discussion here at The Forge that posters attempt to stay on the subject presented in the original post. Further, since Jonathan was the original poster, the definition of what this thread is about remains in his control. If he says that some part of it is off topic, then that is within his authority here.

Forge discussion is not ordinary conversation. We don't talk about our kids unless they're relevant to the subject at hand. Quite a few participants have advanced degrees, but these are generally only mentioned when it becomes relevant to the subject. There are many things that are typically discussed on other role playing sites that are specifically not discussed here--no "what's your preference" threads, for example. The site is specifically focused on game design and theory which supports game design.

As to published games that have benefited from the theory here, although Multiverser was in print before System Does Matter reached the public, its Second Book of Worlds was influenced for the better by these theoretical discussions. We didn't say so in the credits, and looking back that's probably to our shame. Yet it also shows that your argument is one from silence, and that's a very shakey argument. We know that many game designers have participated here; we know that others are aware of discussions here who do not contribute. To conclude that because none of them ever mention anything about the influence of The Forge on their game designs that it therefore had none is not a terribly telling argument. We know that the theories did significantly impact the design of Sorcerer and its supplements, and that its designer, Ron Edwards, was recognized with the Diana Jones Award for his efforts in expanding understanding of role playing. Oh, but they're his theories, aren't they? Well, yes--but theorizing was of great benefit to his design, and to others, some of which are already out there and more on the way.

--M. J. Young

[ChefKyle]

As to published games that have benefited from the theory here, although Multiverser was in print before System Does Matter reached the public, its Second Book of Worlds was influenced for the better by these theoretical discussions. We didn't say so in the credits, and looking back that's probably to our shame.

I'm interested to hear that, and I hope you shall start a new thread (since apparently that's the etiquette), and tells us about it. I am always interested to hear what nourished the seed that grew into the fine tree we see today.

Yet it also shows that your argument is one from silence, and that's a very shakey argument... To conclude that because none of them ever mention anything about the influence of The Forge on their game designs that it therefore had none is not a terribly telling argument.

No, it's not a terribly telling argument. But you can understand that I would make that argument. If no-one credits their sources, and someone says, "aha! I think this was their source," I think I'm entitled to respond, "then why didn't they name it as their source?"

The source not being named doesn't prove it wasn't the source, but you seem to think I ought to assume it was the source. In essence, I am meant to assume what I'm not told. On that basis, I could assume that your work on hyperdimensional topology is one of the sources of your work. After all, you didn't say it wasn't, did you? In fact, hyperdimensional topology could be the inspiration behind any number of works.

To conclude that because none of them ever mention anything about the influence of hyperdimensional topology on their game designs that it therefore had none is not a terribly telling argument.

In my game system for my play by email game, I list all the people and sources, the people who contributed by ideas and discussions. I also state the philosophy behind it. So, no-one has to speculate on my sources - it's there for them.

No-one can be faulted for not knowing what you've not told them.

Again, I'm interested to hear what systems came from what theorising, how we got from the theory to the practice. My basic impression is that no game has been produced by literary theory. If, perhaps, some have, and the writers didn't credit it, well, how am I supposed to know that?

And again, someone is reading into what I've written more than I've written. I never said that discussions at The Forge were useless. I'm here, discussing, aren't I? And have contributed to other threads. I simply said, I couldn't see how discussions of literary theory, semiotics and heuristics et al would contribute to game design. I wasn't implying that The Forge fora are useless. I don't imply things; if I did imply things, then I wouldn't be accused of bluntness etc.

[Rich Forest]

Kyle,

Sigh.

Your last paragraph is confusing to me. I suspect you must be referring to me... because I don't think M. J. said anything you might have interpreted that way. But you're way off.

And this is exactly the reason for avoiding the back and forth, I attack, you defend, now you attack, I defend pattern of posting.  

Look, I say what I mean as well. When I said I was glad you found something to engage with, I meant it. I meant it was obvious you were interested in talking about this stuff in this thread. When I said I hope you find other interesting things, I meant it. "Other" in the sense of "in addition to" rather than "instead of." It was a "welcome, have a look around, I hope you stay" post. Now if you're on the defense, I can see why you would read it as something else. But it wasn't. It was an attempt to be cordial.

Rich