Quote from: -E.Succinctly: the theory dialog is volatile because that's the way the theorists want it. Where they don't, they drop the insulting stuff and go pleasantly on their way.

I agree with a lot of what you say, E, but I think you're wrong here.  I think The Forge has conditioned its participants -- conditioned them in a way that they don't even see how their language is insulting to traditional gamers.  Some of them genuinely want an open conversation with thoughtful traditional gamers, and can't figure out why the thoughtful traditional gamers always seem to take offense at their posts.  I  call this behavior "Forge Damage"   .

But, yeah, I think any RPG theory discussion that wants to welcome input from thoughtful traditional gamers pretty much needs to go clean-slate and restart from scratch.  Even Story Games has too much Forge Baggage for me...the times I've popped over there, there's always been 18 threads that are fine and 2 threads with someone insistently saying "but what CA does your game support?" when that's really not useful to the original poster.  

I think what Levi did with his site was the right approach -- saying "this site is not about theory" made it clear that defaulting to forge jargon was unacceptable but at the same time he made it clear that grassroots thought on rpgs was welcome.  But his site just doesn't have critical mass, unfortunately.  Maybe some day it will get there.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIt's not wisdom. It's an ideological position. The idea that tastes are private, innate, ineffable and purely subjective is not by any means an account of the natural state of affairs in the world.

How is it not? Do you like sports? Are you into art? Do you make bottle rockets?

If you answered "no" to any of these questions, then are others wrong for liking them?

It's not necessarily that there are no justifications for taste and interest. It's just that some of the justifications are innate to the individual. Like if you suck at sports, you probably don't spend alot of time on them. Or if you aren't interested in whatever makes bottle rockets interesting, you aren't going to spend your time making or flying them. Or if you don't like bitter foods and drinks, you might take your coffee with sugar or creme to offset that.

You can justify all you want. It'll still be largely objective.

People are not wrong for having different tastes. But they have to give reasons to other people for holding those tastes, even if the reasons involve personal qualities or experiences they have. Those reasons are public - they involve common ways of justifying one's self.

Once those common ways of justifying one's self break down, reasonable discourse stops dead. A related problem is if one simply refuses to give good justifications, and says "Well, that's my taste and that's yours" and pretends that is some sort of reasoning. A third problem is if the other person also refuses to be reasonable and says "There's no reason or argument you could give me that would change my mind."

To get back to RPGs for a second, I think we have all three problems going on in our discussions of RPG theory, and our tastes in RPGs.

Quote from: PseudoephedrinePeople are not wrong for having different tastes.

Oh, thank god.  I was worried.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineBut they have to give reasons to other people for holding those tastes, even if the reasons involve personal qualities or experiences they have.

Why? I mean, if you like black, and I like white, do I have to give you reasons?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThose reasons are public - they involve common ways of justifying one's self.

Well, if they aren't common, you at least have to find a common way of expresing them. I agree that you have to reach some sort of agreed upon method of discourse.  That is if you choose to give reasons.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineOnce those common ways of justifying one's self break down, reasonable discourse stops dead.

True, again. If you can't agree on the langauge of reasons (I'll call it), everything else is superfluous.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineA related problem is if one simply refuses to give good justifications, and says "Well, that's my taste and that's yours" and pretends that is some sort of reasoning.

Again, I don't understand this one.  You seem to be saying it's not OK to agree to disagree.  Let's say I like black and you like white. We have an agreed-upon framework of discussion - a common language of reasons - and we discuss. If neither of us convinces the other, it's not OK to simply ackowledge the other person's tastes and move on?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineA third problem is if the other person also refuses to be reasonable and says "There's no reason or argument you could give me that would change my mind."

Why is that? Are you of the opinion that anyone who believes they know the objective truth should be open to argument?  If I say that know argument you provide will convince me to change my mind that A=A, I'm being unreasonable?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineTo get back to RPGs for a second, I think we have all three problems going on in our discussions of RPG theory, and our tastes in RPGs.

I think you're right about some.  It's certain we don't have a common framework of reasons - that's for sure. I don't think the other problems you mention are at issue - in fact I think a lot of the theory discussion would be helped by a little more non-judgemental use of the "You're tastes, my tastes" resolution.

I think I could be a problem for several of these.

As in:

I really don't feel like I should have to justify my preferences and I really am unwilling to be swayed by anyone else attempting to. But I see that as a two-way street.

Which is to say:

I don't think anyone else should have to justify their preferences either and I am not interested in trying to get them to like my way.

Because, who cares?

Since this topic (gaming) is necessarily talking about a group activity, it then becomes a question of who (how many people) value what (activity). If enough people have the exact same biases and preferences as I do, I have the wonderful luxury of never having to worry about what I like. It just never comes up, because there's so many people who like the same thing, it all defaults to the normal state of being. I like pie. Everyone likes pie. The one guy that hates pie and starts a mold-eating movement might have to examine his beliefs, and he might even benefit from making unsuspecting pie-eaters examine their beliefs so he can sell them on mold.

But over here in pie-land, we just don't sweat it. We don't question why pie is delicious. It just is.

Quote from: PseudoephedrinePeople are not wrong for having different tastes. But they have to give reasons to other people for holding those tastes, even if the reasons involve personal qualities or experiences they have.

... or different ways of looking at the world, different ways of interpreting "squishy" input (like the intentions of others), different axioms they're basing their opinions on ("RPGs cannot be art"), etc., etc., etc.

Disagreements that come about because one side is demonstrably, logically, mathematically mistaken seem (to my eyes) very rare.  In those rare cases I could see an argument for "converting" someone ... but it would seem better to use the word "correct."  They're holding a demonstrably wrong opinion (like "2 + 2 = 5", or "Hitting yourself repeatedly in the groin with a ball-peen hammer is good for your health")

But the vast majority of disagreements come about because people take their personal foundation (their axioms, their perceptions) and they correctly and logically deduce from there.  When you dig down to the basics, you may occasionally find some places where people have overlooked possibilities (Fallacy of the Excluded Middle is very big, for instance) but you usually find that the bedrock of the disagreement is that they just flat-out disagree about things that nobody can prove one way or another.

At that point, wouldn't saying "Well, we now understand better why we disagree.  Good discussion!" be the sane thing to do?

Abyssal Maw, it's possible to describe preferences and even speculate on the reasons for them and how different preferences fit together without "justifying" any of them.

That is, an rpg theory can be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Or at least more the first than the second. For example, Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering, or Cheetoism.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat is, an rpg theory can be descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Maybe it can also be interpretative ?

Regards,
David R

If you mean "interpretative" in the "analytical" sense, then certainly. I would say that is what the "stages of group development" part of Cheetoism (for example) is about, interpreting things. "Okay he is quiet so he should be happy, but probably he's just quiet because he's new... and this one and that one are arguing about this spell, but is that the real issue? Maybe it's more to do with one wanting magic in the campaign, and the other doesn't."

Descriptive leads to interpretative. You describe things so you can understand them.

But it doesn't necessarily mean you're going to start saying other people are playing wrong, as Abyssal Maw seems to feel. Granted, that's the result and probably the intention of a lot of rpg theory, but it doesn't have to be so.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIf you mean "interpretative" in the "analytical" sense, then certainly.

Yes.

QuoteBut it doesn't necessarily mean you're going to start saying other people are playing wrong, as Abyssal Maw seems to feel. Granted, that's the result and probably the intention of a lot of rpg theory, but it doesn't have to be so.

It's AM....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Kyle AaronAbyssal Maw, it's possible to describe preferences and even speculate on the reasons for them and how different preferences fit together without "justifying" any of them.

That is, an rpg theory can be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Or at least more the first than the second. For example, Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering, or Cheetoism.

Well, fair enough, and I happen to like Robin's Laws (and Cheetoism to a degree, really). The point of Robins Laws is that advise you how to perform a customer service type job as a GM. So it's not so much a theory, it's more of a technique.

The theories that people talk about when the topic of "Rpg theory" comes up have always existed as marketing, though. The whole point of them was to tell you who to play with (and who not to associate with)
and what game to play. And those answers always pointed to the exact same things no matter who they were applied to.  

It's so deeply ingrained for some of these people to believe that they have "roleplaying needs", like in a psychological sense, and that in order to fulfill "healthy play" they have to be very careful to pick the right game and the right people.

It's similar to people who think that rock music is ok, as long as you listen to Christian Rock or something. (It's kind of the artistic equivalent of Christian rock in other ways as well, but I won't go into too many details).

This is the theory and the damage done.

Robin's Laws is full of advice, yes - what's commonly called "craft". But behind it is a theory - a theory which categorises players by their play style, and by what they get out of a game session. Those categories aren't random or arbitrary, they're based on a theory, common elements which he's chosen to fit together people into categories like "Butt-Kicker" or "Method Actor."

That's a theory.

Here, Abyssal Maw, you're failing to distinguish between Forger theory, and theory in general. It's like confusing Catholicism for religion in general. That Forger theory is absurd nonsense does not mean that a useful rpg theory is impossible, any more than Catholicism being wrong would mean that Judaism or Buddhism or Manideism are rubbish.

This is exactly the sort of thing Pseudoephedrine is talking about when he says we can't talk reasonably about rpg theory. It's because the Forger nonsense - both their bad theory and their negative marketing techniques - has poisoned the debate. Any time someone says "rpg theory" we think of Uncle Ronny studying his bat penises. That's like saying "vegetarian" and thinking of PETA loons yabbering about the Chicken Holocaust; one bunch of vegetarians unfortunately have come to represent all, even though they're loons.

It's difficult to talk reasonably about rpg theory, because either a Forger loon will come in blathering their nonsense, or else a Swine Warrior will come in babbling about Forgers... when they're not even there.

Quote from: Lee ShortI agree with a lot of what you say, E, but I think you're wrong here.  I think The Forge has conditioned its participants -- conditioned them in a way that they don't even see how their language is insulting to traditional gamers.  Some of them genuinely want an open conversation with thoughtful traditional gamers, and can't figure out why the thoughtful traditional gamers always seem to take offense at their posts.  I  call this behavior "Forge Damage"   .

But, yeah, I think any RPG theory discussion that wants to welcome input from thoughtful traditional gamers pretty much needs to go clean-slate and restart from scratch.  Even Story Games has too much Forge Baggage for me...the times I've popped over there, there's always been 18 threads that are fine and 2 threads with someone insistently saying "but what CA does your game support?" when that's really not useful to the original poster.  

I think what Levi did with his site was the right approach -- saying "this site is not about theory" made it clear that defaulting to forge jargon was unacceptable but at the same time he made it clear that grassroots thought on rpgs was welcome.  But his site just doesn't have critical mass, unfortunately.  Maybe some day it will get there.

I take the absence of support for Levi's site as direct evidence that a lot of people aren't interested in contributing to a theory that doesn't tell them they're superior.

Levi's theory is good for everything that Forge theory is good for, except claiming you're doing it better. As a manifold theory, it lacks the simplistic 3-dimensions of GNS, but GNS descriptions are so vague as to be unusable (check out Knife-Fight; the GNS-Cop makes up and enforces his own definitions of theory terms that have virtually no connection to how the terms are used on The Forge... it's amazing how unsuited to rigor GNS is).

I also question the self-awareness (and, in some cases, the honesty) of theory folks who claim they want open conversation with traditional gamers. I think there may be cases of "Forge Damage" -- certainly people used to arguing on The Forge appear to be unable to make a case absent strong moderator support -- but if you watch what they're actually saying it's usually very patronizing (even if they won't admit it).

If you're arguing that they don't recognize their perspective as patronizing, I agree with you (in some cases). If you're arguing that their perspective *isn't* patronizing, but the terms force them argue that way, I'm not sure I do: I can think of several of those guys who have all kinds of crazy ideas about victimization and damage who appear to be astonished that those sorts of claims could be controversial.

FWIW: I think Story Games is a huge step in the right direction; I've blasted Andy K before but I have to give the man his due -- I don't think he's one of the 'bad guys' here. I doubt I'd be welcome on Story Games (and it's just as well, probably), but I think it's a very positive move away from the uni-voice and black-helicopter-weirdness of the Forge.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: PseudoephedrinePeople are not wrong for having different tastes. But they have to give reasons to other people for holding those tastes, even if the reasons involve personal qualities or experiences they have. Those reasons are public - they involve common ways of justifying one's self.

Once those common ways of justifying one's self break down, reasonable discourse stops dead. A related problem is if one simply refuses to give good justifications, and says "Well, that's my taste and that's yours" and pretends that is some sort of reasoning. A third problem is if the other person also refuses to be reasonable and says "There's no reason or argument you could give me that would change my mind."

To get back to RPGs for a second, I think we have all three problems going on in our discussions of RPG theory, and our tastes in RPGs.

I kind of agree with this if you take a step back from "people have to give reasons for their tastes" to something like, "if you want a dialog with people who may have different tastes it can be useful to articulate your reasons for your preferences."

I don't really owe anyone an explanation for my tastes and in some cases there may be no meaningful explanation (try explaining to someone why your favorite color is whatever it is... you might be able to give some reasons but they're likely poor approximations).

Also, while we're on taste, I don't think anyone could argue me out of my favorite color (ultraviolet, thanks for asking) even if I wanted them to.

All that said, it's useful to be able to talk about these things and to have an open mind.

It's also key to view preferences as just that.

Several theorists believe that their preferences aren't just matters of taste: they believe that they have identified elements of game design that actually create power-struggle or even brain damage.

If this kind of thing is true it would change the nature of the dialog: we don't generally consider the health hazards of smoking to be a matter of taste.

I think walking into a dialog with a bunch of weird and (in many cases) offensive-to-traditional-gamers (I'm thinking here about the belief that GMing authority "corrupts" in a Lord Acton sense) makes an open mind less likely.

Cheers,
-E.

@Kyle: If RoLoGG was built upon a theory of preferences it would be bullshit.
Because players are people as you might know way better than me. And people are inconsequntial in their day to day desires.
Wholesomeness is the key to understanding.

RoloGGs player types are personified carricatures of desires and fun sources, which in reality shift in their distribution, prevalence and power in a given group of players.