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.

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.

Clinton, you moved it, but from where? I presume the RPG Theory forum, right?

yes.

All references to "this forum" in the above, is referring to the RPG Theory forum.

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

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.

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

Hi Ralph,

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.

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

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?

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 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

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:

• Big Model Discussion
• Big Model Q&A
• Theory in Practice
• Theory in Abstraction

Rough titles, of course, but there you go. Don't bother dividing up the old fora; just rename "GNS" as "Big Model Discussion" and rename "RPG Theory" as "Theory in Practice" and add the two others. All four would get big highlighted stickies called "Read this before posting!"

Big Model Discussion would presume solid familiarity with the Big Model. Confusions of course are presumed to occur, but the main point of the forum is to move forward the Model, to critique, to apply it in new directions, and so on.

Big Model Q&A is for all the "I don't get Nar" and "Can you explain Exploration?" and all that. It has an absolute rule: questions properly posed to the forum must be treated with respect and must be answered in as non-jargon, non-technical a fashion as possible. Disagreements in explanations (i.e. where A poses a question, and B and C have contradictory answers) should, if they cannot be resolved in about 6 posts total, take it to Big Model Discussion.

Theory in Practice is for all the "let's apply theory to design" or "this idea arose for me from an actual play situation in particular" sorts of posts. You know, the ones you like, Ralph. In this forum, a demand to keep it practical and focused on actual play is a reminder of the contract of the forum, though it should not be used as an attack of course.

Theory in Abstraction (which is badly named) is for pure theory and for theory that does not derive from and may not be directly applicable to RPGs. In this forum, a demand to keep it practical is flamebait and should not be tolerated. I'd be happy to write the sticky for this, and even moderate it if the very concept makes Ron retch. ;-)

With that structure in hand, I would then recommend a FAQ or front-page sort of statement, made rather more obvious than the current equivalent, which explains the expected trajectory: Actual Play and Indie Design (depending) move one toward Theory in Practice, then Big Model Q&A as you read through Ron's essays, then on to whatever you care about from there. This would also make explicit that nothing, absolutely nothing, says that Big Model Discussion or Theory in Abstraction are required, normative, preferred, or superior. In fact, it would make explicit that many of the most prominent posters on the Forge feel exactly the opposite, which was the reason for the division. (Reference then to this thread, right?)

So then if people say, "I tried to read stuff on the Forge but it was all meaningless jargon," you can properly reply, "Why were you reading Big Model Discussion if you weren't familiar with the model, dummy?"

And if you yourself don't want to read abstract theory, you just don't read that forum.

--------------
Second, theory and practice necessarily connect at some point, but it takes a lot of time in most cases. When considering the implications of (for example) linguistic theory for understanding how credibility is distributed in RPGs, it takes time, care, research, and a lot of thought. The way the Forge mostly works, of course, people don't take that time. Further, posts are expected to be short, something I flagrantly ignore because I think it's silly.

If you want to see abstruse theory from linguistics or whatever have a practical impact, you need to wait a bit, or you need to be willing to work through it with the people doing the musings. If you're not willing to do either, then yes, such theory has no practical impact for you. But that is a result of your approach, not of the theory itself.

As somebody said, it's also a question of time and effort. Can you understand such theory? I don't know, but I'm going to assume so. It's just a question of how much time and effort you're willing to invest in it. If you don't want to invest that time and effort, because you do not see the kind of results from it that you particularly want, that's just fine --- but it is not a criticism of theory.

<unfair rant>
Personally, I also think that there is value in theory itself, because it entails a conversation between people who think about RPGs and people who think about other things, but I realize that most people here really don't care about this and are happy to live in a mental cave.
</rant>

-------------------
Third, I think there just has to be a recognition that not everyone gets the same mileage out of the same things. That should be obvious, surely? Here's a nice new piece of jargon to annoy everyone (don't worry, I'll never use it again): everyone has an Analytical Agenda (AA).

Now Ralph's AA is Practical (Prac, we'll call it for short), while my AA is Thr (Theoretical, obviously). When I do thinking and writing about RPGs, and in fact playing, my AA of Thr entails my tendency to address the data a particular way, while Ralph as a committed Prac'ist does so in a very different, in fact nearly antithetical way. Of course, this means that when I do what I do, he thinks I'm wasting time; when he does what he does, I take it as data for more Thr-oriented analysis.

<rant>
Of 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. Then the Big Model hard-core will turn it into a dogma, and everyone else will forget about it. The theorists won't get a broad overview of what practical designers and players are doing, making impossible the generation of new theories such as the Big Model except by the extremely committed, focused, and even slightly maniacal efforts of a lone individual. Meanwhile the designers and players will slip solidly back into their narrow perceptions, choosing blogs and small forums that suit their preconceived notions and never, ever challenge them.

Which, 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.

And all because of the assumption that if one likes a forum's general inclinations and much of its writings, one must like all of them, which is sort of a re-tooling of one of the Geek Fallacies.
</rant>

-----------------
Practically speaking, I think the right answer is simply to divide the forums, and post big warning labels all over the abstract theory so nobody has to feel sullied by exposure.

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

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.)

Which, 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.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: 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.

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

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.

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:

Valamir wrote: 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.

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."

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.

Hi Chris,

Of 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.

Matt Snyder wrote: 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."

LordSmerf wrote: 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.

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

Bankuei wrote:

Of 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.

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.

Valamir wrote: Without 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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

Bob Goat wrote:

Which, 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.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: 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.

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.

clehrich wrote: 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.

Hi Chris,

... 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.

CPXB wrote:

clehrich wrote: 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.

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.

clehrich wrote: 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.

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

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.

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.

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:

Bankuei wrote: 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.

Hit the showers, everyone. Come back to it tomorrow, or a bit later.

Best,
Ron

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.

clehrich wrote: 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.

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

I hit the showers, fixed some LAN networks and don't take this discussion too seriously anyway, so I'm good to go...

clehrich wrote:
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.

Eero Tuovinen wrote:
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.

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

Ralph seems to be suggesting that people like me don't belong here.

Valamir wrote: 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.

Thanks for the numbers, John. Maybe now we can start talking about what this is really about.

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

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.

Paul Czege wrote: 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.

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

Just to provide some closure to this thread, check out this thread

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.

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

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