Roleplaying Theory In Person

[Clinton R. Nixon]

This thread is careening off-topic like a Lincoln Town Car on a Catskills road with a drunk Broadway ingenue at the wheel.

If you don't have something to say about either the content of Vincent's talk, or constructive insight into the idea that "the Forge requires more humility of its participants than it used to," then you are off-topic. Tim had a good idea when he mentioned starting your own thread in Site Discussion.

[Christopher Weeks]

Vincent, will you be doing the seminar thing at GenCon?  That might be a great opportunity for some of us.

[Storn]

What I mean to point out is that I am in agreement with others in that the theory is not often presented in a dumbed down version for beginners.

My MAIN problem with the Forge comes in three issues.

1) Short, clear defined definitions of even something as basic to the whole building block model like GNS, is NOT dumbed down.  It is elegance.  Right now, there is NOT a good definition of anything of the Forge.  Several pages does not make a good definition.  Asking for a short definition doesn't make me stupid.  I'm not asking for dumbed down.  I'm asking for brevity and elegance.  Tough job to be sure... but eminently doable.

That "not presented in dumbed down" is precisely an example of the "lack of humilty" mentioned.  When one simplifies in art, such as logo design... it is not to "make simple" it is TO REFINE.  Good logo design takes lots of reiteration and refinement to get a good, clean, inconographic, DEFINING, image.  It takes lots of work.  It only looks simple to the outsider.  RPGs are an art form.  Not a science.  And no one who does advertising suggests that Logos are "dumbed down" pictures for folks who "can't get pictures".

2)  I agree with Shawn, the discussions shift like sand all the time.  But instead of going with the flow and accepting that discussions SHOULD shift all around, there is this intense desire to control it.  Threads get cut off or spinned (spin) off all the time... and I don't really see a rhyme or reason to it.  Lots of referencing other threads... as if the answers are there and relevent to the current thread.  They are not.  Because when I read 3 pages of another thread.  Then come back to the current thread.  My interpertation can be totally different than what the person wanting me to get to when s/he referred me to that thread.

No.  Instead of referring to other threads, the person should state briefly what he took from that thread, and WHY he thinks it is RELEVANT to this thread.  So the readers have an understanding of what his baseline is.  

3)  Teaching.  Is this forum really about teaching how to Role Play better?  Or is it about teaching RPG theory?  Or is it about teaching at all?  Because it certainly doesn't do the act of teaching well (see 1).  Whether you teach Sciences or Arts... it has always been about the basics first and expand, explore etc. etc.  But instead, we have countless salvos of "you are wrong in your definitions"  

I think RPGing is an art form.  And with any art form, there is no ONE way to do anything.  So trying to pin down precise gaming behaviors in order to teach us better RPGing is a waste of time.  Trying to come up with a common vocabulary, a reference of discussive terms...NOW!  That is quite useful.

Because it is the messy, imprecise nature of art that leads to happy accidents and exciting, fun discoveries are made.    RPGing is a group activity, this Forum is a group activity...  it NEEDS to be messy.

So here is my bottom line.

All the Ron Edwards theories and the discoveries that he has made with y'all should be put under

RULES OF THUMB.

It is art.  There are no hard and fast rules.  Stop trying to shoehorn this hobby I love into some kinda behavioral science model.  Once ya know the Rules of Thumb to be a better gamer, then you can break them.  Then it isn't about disagreeing with a definition, but how we all bend those definitions to suit our games.  And it gets messier... as it should be.

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

If you don't have something to say about either the content of Vincent's talk, or constructive insight into the idea that "the Forge requires more humility of its participants than it used to," then you are off-topic.

This is precisely the point I was indirectly refering to: the site requires not only humility from new participants, but also a submission to rigorious code of conduct and GNS-based patterns of though supported by the earlier generations. The Forge hasn't for a long time been an open, generic forum. It's a field for discussing a single paradigm.

But we respond to them with "yeah, old news, here's a thousand pages to read beyond your hard-won insight"

So go beyond that: The actual response is "old news, we've decided what the universal truth is. Here's a thousand pages on it."

[pete_darby]

Storn:

The problem I have with your point 3 is that I don't think the Forge ever set out to teach, or preach, but to explore and discuss. The practice of referring to old threads reflects this, for example.

I was under the impression that the presntation of old threads was "Okay, we've had a dsicussion about this before. Rather than;
a) every interested party re-iterate themselves in this thread or
b) old hands ignore this debate for fear of a),

(both of which are common responses in other message boards to new members rasing points that have been rasied before), we generally link to an old thread. Implicit when I do this is; "Here's what I think was the most productive / relevant discussion on this. Please take it from here."

I can see how it can be used or interpreted to shut down discussion, but that's not the intent. The intent is precisely to encourage participation beyond dogmatic entrenchment of positions through repeated reformulation, or a collective roll of the eyes whenever, say, a new member joins who says "GNS is crap because I get story from my Sim game!"

Sure, I can ceratinly agree that when a thread is introduced as a material benefit to the current topic, it should come with a little interpretation of the thread referenced, or at least be couched in a context that displays such.

And as goes saying the threads consitute some unified body of canonical theory... blech. You're reading something other than I am when you read them threads then. I see a lot of disagreement, compromise and accomodation, not induction into a unified canon.

We have various members who are interested and engaged in "teaching" the big model, or theoretical terms commonly used here, or whatever, and I for one am very grateful for that. But the business of the Forge has always been very tightly aimed at focussed, productive discussion, and that's what thread referencing and splitting is meant to achieve.

Do I think anything shoudl be done to make it more "newbie friendly"? I honestly don't know. Could anything be done? Maybe a new front page deisgn with pointers to the stickies in the Site Discussion and GNS fora, maybe.

But trying to set ourselves up as a teaching board for a fixed theory would, I think, be very counterproductive.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This thread is closed. No more posting here, please.

Please take all discussion of Vincent's talk to a new thread.

Please take all discussion of goals & procedures at the Forge to new threads in Site Discussion.

Best,
Ron