The state of play, or refute-o-matic

[clehrich]

Yipes!

First, a little air-clearing...

I was wondering whether some hardy soul at the Forge would like, partially by way of response, to give an overview of the current state of play of RPG theory. A couple of thousand words should do, covering early ideas (advocacy newsgroup, A&E) and more recent developments (here and Scandinavia).

I'm sorry.  I think you mean well, and actually I thought this article on munchkins does have a few flakes of gold dust worth panning for.  But what you're proposing isn't going to work.

Er, Chris?  What do you mean "isn't going to work"?

I mean that setting up two articles head-to-head like this will produce exactly nothing of value.  What is proposed here is Balbinus vs. Forge.  I do not think that Steve intends that, which is what I meant about thinking he means well.  I do think it will be read that way.  I would advise strongly against setting up this particular situation, in Places... or elsewhere, as it never produces anything useful.

As to an article explaining Forge theory... what's wrong with the several we've already got?  I don't get that.  Sit down and read Ron's several essays, and maybe the glossary.  That's maybe 50 pages printed out, probably less.  What's the problem?

Er, hello?  Right, so all reviews and overviews are pointless because if anyone is interested they can just read the whole thing themselves.

Er, no.  I have never understood, and will never understand, why the rather small amount of light prose Ron cranked out is such a stumbling-block.  My apologies, MJ, but I'd be fascinated if you could explain that.  What one could hypothetically get in a short summary is precisely what I got from a fast skim once.

Let me put this directly.  Suppose I sat down to write a fast sketch survey of Theory Today.  Couple thousand words -- that's about 6 pages double-spaced, which is essentially a student short essay as I assign them on a regular basis.  Cool, I know how much can get done there.  Not much, but a bit.

Okay, so what can I do?  I can

Summarize a wide range of theory in no depth
Summarize a small range of theory in a little depth
Explain one theory in some depth
Make an argument[/list:u]I can do exactly one of these things, and that not very well.  If my audience is presumed to know little or nothing about such theories, really not very well.  If my audience is unlikely to stand for extreme academic-style compressed prose, really amazingly not well.

So what's my choice?

Balbinus made the correct one.  Make an argument and leave well enough alone.  Anything else is going to accomplish little.  For goodness' sake, over in the GNS forum people have arguments for months, hundreds of pages total, about exactly what Stance is.  You're going to explain that in a short paragraph?  That's what you'll have if you have 6 pages, double-spaced.  In fact, what you'll have space for is this:
Fast intro (1 para)
Background (1-2 paras)
History (1-2 paras)
RGFA (1 para)
GNS (1 para)
Other Forge (1 para)
Responses to such models (1 para)
Conclusion[/list:u]Do you really think this is going to improve discourse?  I don't.  I do not buy that this will achieve anything except to convince people of whatever it is they already think.  I was nasty about

RPG.net readers and their ilk, so let me turn it around: what will Forgers say of such responses, even honest confusions?  "See, they're just trying not to understand."  Of course that's not everyone, but let's be honest for a minute and recognize where the state of RPG discourse lies – a sewer.  If it's done nothing else, the Forge has achieved the construction of a space for discussion in which such things are not permitted; I see no reason to violate that somewhere else and give Steve's People... a shot of venom it doesn't need.

Maybe that's not what you intended to mean, but that is what you said.  Steve made a call for a new theory overview article, and your response was "There shouldn't be such a thing -- everyone should just read Ron's essays".  I find that offensive and backwards.

Sorry to offend, John, but let's bear in mind that Steve asked for a new 2,000-word theory overview article that would be a "refute-o-matic".  

Is there value in a new theory overview?  Yes.

How long should it be?  Depends how much you intend to cover.  Plan on a good twenty pages, minimum, so you'll have room for examples.

Can it really be accurate?  No.  It will be your take, no matter what you do, and you ought to make it so.  If I write a 25-page essay surveying The Big Model, for example, you can be damn sure it will be different by the time I get done with it.  I would hope others would intend the same.

Is there value in a new theory overview that is really just an overview with no argument?  No.

-----------

I've read Ron's theory articles; I've even written one of the theory articles in the library here related to that work. It took me weeks to get through them all, printing them out, finding a few minutes here and there to tackle them, taking my time to be as sure as i could be that I understood what he was saying. Maybe I'm a slow reader; I'm not thick.

Well, the highlighted portion was one problem.  I just sat down and read the things in an hour or so.

I do see the value of producing theory overview pieces.

So do I, but not in refutation of another article, and not at extreme brevity.

You might as easily say that freshman courses in subjects are a waste of university resources, because someone who really wants to know the field can major in it. Not everyone has the time or knows whether the effort is worthwhile.

Freshman courses take 10-15 weeks, depending.  This is a false analogy.  I teach freshmen, and I teach them theory – you have too.  If you wanted to write out what such a "course" might do, considering how basically small the theoretical corpus really is, what you'd do is essentially write through a discussion of the theoretical material, adding examples, clarifying, focusing on the highlights.  This would take some space.

Places to Go, People to Be is a respected venue.

Which is why I'd hate to see it tainted by the pointless and tedious bickering that happens between RPG.net and the Forge.

----------

I personally think it would be helpful to have some new essays written that cover some of the more recent discussion.

So do I.

All of this is what I understood Clinton and Pete to be saying.  I'm just adding my vote and some reasons why I think they're right.

-----------
Steve, what I do think would genuinely be of value would be a careful presentation of what Forge theory right now seems to be producing and how it seems to work.  I do not think this should go head-to-head with an "RPG.net furball," as Clinton put it.

But, are you seriously asking, "Hey, I'm taking a big snag of a thread, intentionally written to be burred and pointy, and probably anathema to a lot of you, and was wondering if any of you'd like to respond?" 'Cause if so, why would anyone?

Seriously, I am. It's a point of engagement. It seems to me that roleplaying theory either sits too far in the background or when visible is misunderstood - something which I'm quite capable of doing. I thought it might be a good chance for theorists to answer the general criticisms of elitism and distance from 'normal' roleplayers and to show the real benefits that it can bring.

See, I just don't think this is going to produce valuable engagement.  I agree with your concerns about elitism, theory in the background, and so on.  But setting it up like this constructs and affirms the "two different teams" approach which is exactly where the current problem lies.  One side says the other is elitist, the other side says the first is pointless or stupid or whatever.  Articles from each side aren't going to help – especially if they're very short and sketchy, and especially when the RPG.net one is markedly hostile.

In passing, I thought the article was funny, and as I say, had its moments of truth.  But I see no way to reply constructively from the Forge "side" without prompting justified guffaws.

Is this getting any clearer?

[GB Steve]

I think this argument has gone further than I intended. Perhaps I shouldn't have called it refute-o-matic in my off-hand kind of way.

I still believe there is worth in an overview of theory, and those that have said they are interested, thanks for the support. "Summarize a wide range of theory in no depth" would do for me as a starter, although I think you might be allowed some depth.

As for the review of theory inspired games, I'm going to make a list of all such games that I own and contact the authors myself to ask them about the influence of theory on their work. Hopefully something interesting will come of it.

Cheers,
Steve