Wither theory?

[lev_lafayette]

Now that the RPG Theory and GNS Model discussion boards have been closed I'm at a bit of loss on where theoretical perspectives on roleplaying ought to be published. Or do game theory posts have to go "elsewhere"?

[Ricky Donato]

Hi, Lev,

The best thing to do is post in the Actual Play forum, but make sure to accompany it with a description of actual play to ground the discussion in. For example, if your topic of discussion is "What is Vanilla Narrativism?", you should post a description of an instance of play and ask, "Is that Vanilla Narrativism? I think so because of X."

[lev_lafayette]

What if it doesn't actually refer to actual play? For example, a lecture on role playing theory?

[Ron Edwards]

No theory about role-playing fails to refer to actual play, at least potentially. That is impossible.

If you have, for example, developed a lecture about role-playing, then I suggest you include some examples. If you cannot even conceive of any examples that would fit, then clearly the lecture is meaningless.

If, however, you can conceive of some examples, then you are all set for posting here at the Forge. Your thread in the Actual Play forum would present your lecture, or part of it that you want to discuss in some way, and the example of actual play that pertains to that part.

All counter-argument to this point is invalid. What I am saying is inherent to the topic.

Best, Ron

[Ricky Donato]

If you have, for example, developed a lecture about role-playing, then I suggest you include some examples. If you cannot even conceive of any examples that would fit, then clearly the lecture is meaningless.

Hi, Ron,

Just to clarify, would these be examples of actual play that the poster has witnessed, or actual play that the poster could conceive of happening?

[Valamir]

actual means actual.

[Ron Edwards]

Ralph's right.

Now, all the logicians out there are going to leap up and down right about now, because they will spot the gap as follows.

If, above, I say that any theory ought to be supported/related to actual play, and if I say that actual means actual ...

... then ipso facto, every single person must be walking around with the full potential of actual play already in their personal histories! Right? Right?

To all the feverish t'inkers out there, I am tempted to say "blow me," but that would be rude. I will restrain myself and explain the correct concepts instead.

1. For purposes of theory as a communal, developed entity over the course of years, theory = play = theory = play. They are wholly dependent concepts.

2. For purposes of an individual posting about ideas here at the Forge, what I'm saying is this: your competence regarding ideas of role-playing is constrained by your play-experience. If you want to develop and examine ideas, the first step is to do so in the context of your play-experience. For anyone to communicate with you about it (which is what the forums are for), then he or she needs that context as well.

Long experience here has shown me that deduction about role-playing, by itself, becomes a ridiculous tangle for a given person as soon as they are out of their experience-zone of play. It has also shown me that a given person's experience of play is much more diverse and full of potential insight for them and others than they realize. There's a lot to get out of this approach. They need to learn to look at what they know, before spouting off about it and anything they don't know.

Since altering the forums, and since before then, actually, when I've managed to get one of the little t'inkers to post about play, the benefit of this approach is so dramatic, so functional, and so worthwhile, that any of this protestation, especially the cry that "I just want to talk about the ideas!" is clearly bullshit. The Actual Play forum is the forum for ideas, and it's the best one available anywhere, for this topic. Its requirements are what make it that way.

Best, Ron