Quote from: Lee ShortI 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"

This another reason I think that discussions break down.  A lot of people are taking criticism of a roleplaying game as criticism of them as a gamer.  So people try to discuss theory outside of their own experiences and then the theory loses perspective.

Quote from: -E.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.

I think that Levi's site hasn't taken off for a number of reasons, most of which have to do with networking and marketing.  What you say here is probably a factor, but I think it's a small factor.  

Quoteif 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

I wouldn't say that "the terms force them to argue that way."  I think the terminology is only part of the problem and that in any case they aren't *forced* to use the terms.  There are a whole boatload of assumptions that go hand-in-hand with the terminology, and I think these are far more harmful.  

QuoteFWIW: 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.

I kind of agree.  But only kind of.  

There are a lot of people who have an interest in rpg theory discussion but have been driven away by The Forge.  There are enough Forge assumptions and terminology in use at Story Games that many of those people will not join the discussion there.  So I think that Story Games lives in the shadow of the forge simply because of its user base, and that short of draconian moderation there isn't a whole lot that Andy can do about it.  

So, yeah it's a positive step -- but not enough of a positive step to bring in very many of those who were turned off by the forge.  It has brought in some of them -- and some great people among them.  But I think it will take a cleaner break with the forge to get to the point where a lot of people will be comfortable rejoining the theory discussion.

Quote from: Lee ShortI think that Levi's site hasn't taken off for a number of reasons, most of which have to do with networking and marketing.  What you say here is probably a factor, but I think it's a small factor.  



I wouldn't say that "the terms force them to argue that way."  I think the terminology is only part of the problem and that in any case they aren't *forced* to use the terms.  There are a whole boatload of assumptions that go hand-in-hand with the terminology, and I think these are far more harmful.  



I kind of agree.  But only kind of.  

There are a lot of people who have an interest in rpg theory discussion but have been driven away by The Forge.  There are enough Forge assumptions and terminology in use at Story Games that many of those people will not join the discussion there.  So I think that Story Games lives in the shadow of the forge simply because of its user base, and that short of draconian moderation there isn't a whole lot that Andy can do about it.  

So, yeah it's a positive step -- but not enough of a positive step to bring in very many of those who were turned off by the forge.  It has brought in some of them -- and some great people among them.  But I think it will take a cleaner break with the forge to get to the point where a lot of people will be comfortable rejoining the theory discussion.

We're pretty much in agreement; as for Story-Games -- definitely a positive step, but still not a place for me. And I think your statement about the built-in-assumptions is a very good one.

Cheers,
-E.

Speaking for myself only, I can't accept the way you pose the problem.

I think that the Forge is commonly not understood for what it is. It is a discussion forum. It's been hosting discussions for a long time, during which its composition and size have changed dramatically.

I have found many useful discussions and many highly interesting accounts of actual play on the Forge. The Big Model is just that: a model. It's more or less useful to you as it helps your understanding. It's not life, the universe and everything.

Now, I came to the discussions late (about 2003), after many things had been thrashed out and Ron Edwards had written all three GNS essays. I didn't find anything personally offensive in them, and indeed Ron gave me a new appreciation for what he terms gamism. I could see a lot of what he was talking about in some guys I never played with but who had a lot of fun (outside certain social issues). I thought he'd nailed a lot of our old RQ game in his sim essay, too.

Does Ron say hurtful things about people? Why yes, he does. I just don't think they apply to me, and they probably don't apply to you either. On the other hand, as a long-term GM I've had patches in games where things weren't perfect, and reading stuff at the Forge gave me lots to think about on how to shoot for a goal.

I think there's a lot of ancient history and bad blood in the current state of affairs, but it's not about competing intellectual models.

Droog, are you talking to me?

I think what's gone on is not some sort of battle between competing models of theory, but a complete breakdown of any sort of discourse that could give rise to a consensus. Divergent norms of justification mean that Forge theorists and non-Forge theorists have little they can actually persuade the other side of through appeals to a common or public understanding. Not only that, but it's snapping back, and both sides are losing the ability to say much meaningful about RPGs that isn't just preaching to their respective in-groups.

Quoteboth sides are losing the ability to say much meaningful about RPGs that isn't just preaching to their respective in-groups.

Nah, not really.

There isn´t anything being discussed by the forgers since 2006. They are dead, there is no discourse right now. The only one happening is happening here on theRPGsite, for better or worse.

All other debates are shadow-boxing-re-enactments of old arguments, frex on RPG.Net. And the Forge is dead, debate-wise.

Your baseline implodes, as their is no cross-over debates happening anywhere but here. And here we have worked out a modus operandi, at least in some threads. Others have been a "knee-jerk-reaction-to-oft-refuted-forger-bullshit" fest, I concede though.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineDroog, are you talking to me?

Not directly. Just addressing your question.

QuoteI think what's gone on is not some sort of battle between competing models of theory, but a complete breakdown of any sort of discourse that could give rise to a consensus. Divergent norms of justification mean that Forge theorists and non-Forge theorists have little they can actually persuade the other side of through appeals to a common or public understanding. Not only that, but it's snapping back, and both sides are losing the ability to say much meaningful about RPGs that isn't just preaching to their respective in-groups.

Yeah, I'm seeing that. What can you say? I don't feel like I'm on a 'side'. I can identify points that would have consensus if it weren't for old grudges.

Quote from: droogYeah, I'm seeing that. What can you say? I don't feel like I'm on a 'side'. I can identify points that would have consensus if it weren't for old grudges.

Sure, but those grudges, and all that bad blood and so on do exist. We can't seem to overcome the historical aspect, even to critique or subvert it. I'm hoping that this state of affairs is simply a temporary failure of imagination and will, rather than the culmination of all the thought that's been poured out so far.

QuoteSure, but those grudges, and all that bad blood and so on do exist. We can't seem to overcome the historical aspect, even to critique or subvert it.

As long as the historical and dated arguments are used, that´s only natural.
See above post, and new thread.

Quote from: SettembriniAs long as the historical and dated arguments are used, that´s only natural.
See above post, and new thread.

Sort of. I mean, what seems to be going on is a kind of abasement before the history, rather than overcoming it.

I think the discussions here are pretty good, considering. I think therpgsite is a good place to talk about RPGs, in general. Some of the discussions get fucked up, but on the whole, I feel this is one of the most rational discussion forums I've seen.

Are we doing something right?

Yepp. We are.

All the more, beejazz is right:

There´s other disciplines who can give interesting input: game theory, economics and mathematics are high on the list.

Actually, a case can be made, that RPGs are a result of a wargamer (Weseley) being exposed to writings about non-zero-sum-games (game theory/mathematics).

I would absolutely say that math is crucial to games. Too many mechanics are the result of just winging it, assuming the math'll come out ok. I'm talking on a low-level, with just the mechanics, but I think it's important.

And, well, I'm shitty at math, so I have to ask advice. ^_^;

Quote from: Thanatos02I would absolutely say that math is crucial to games. Too many mechanics are the result of just winging it, assuming the math'll come out ok. I'm talking on a low-level, with just the mechanics, but I think it's important.

And, well, I'm shitty at math, so I have to ask advice. ^_^;

I'm obsessive when it comes to dice math.  As in, on previous designs I've spent more time poring over the odds than I have anything else.

Part of what ultimately led me to just go percentile is it puts the odds right on the table.  

Makes a lot of sense that way.

In D&D, I don't make new monsters without doing the math regarding their CR level and their effectiveness against proposed PC abilities. In Storyteller systems, before I'd feel comfortable making monsters or antagonists, or even artifacts, spells, or anything else, I wanted to know the odds as they appeared in a dicepool system.

Those odds determine scale. I like different dice usages because they can do different things, and act in different ways. But there's absolutely something to be said for just condensing it to a percentage. There's no doubt what you're getting!