Is the local Theory Forum for bitching and moaning?

[Blackleaf]

JimBob, in the "Do you have fun discussing theory?" thread you said:

"I enjoy dissing theory, which involves discussing theory, so I had to answer yes. I like taking things apart to see how they don't work"

that sounds a bit different from what you're saying here....

[Kyle Aaron]

JimBob, in the "Do you have fun discussing theory?" thread you said:

"I enjoy dissing theory, which involves discussing theory, so I had to answer yes. I like taking things apart to see how they don't work"

that sounds a bit different from what you're saying here....

Yes and no.

You often hear people saying they'd like to act as "Devil's Advocate," by which they mean, "offering a balancing view, supporting something I disagree with just to be reasonable." The original meaning of it is something else. When the Catholc Church decides someone might be worth making a saint, they appoint a little group to investigate the person's life, find miracles and so on. They also appoint someone to be Devil's Advocate - a representative of Satan himself, to say, "this man has sinned, he belongs with me in Hell."

That's why I try to do with a lot of rpg theory. Act as Devil's Advocate, in the original sense of the phrase - tell you why this theory should be condemned to eternity in damnation.

Some people may not like it, but the fact is that without the Devil's Advocate, no-one can be elevated to sainthood. Without critical people like me, no rpg theory or scientific hyothesis can ever be shown to be truly worthwhile.

[TonyLB]

This ...

That's why I try to do with a lot of rpg theory. Act as Devil's Advocate, in the original sense of the phrase - tell you why this theory should be condemned to eternity in damnation.

... is entirely different from this ...

Part of developing new ideas is critically examining old ideas, taking out of them what is good, and discarding what is bad.

Now I genuinely don't care about any value judgments you care to make here.  I'm not saying that taking a devil's advocate position is bad.  I'm not saying it's good.  I just don't care.  In the broad context of the entire board, if you want to purely go after a theory saying "This is wrong, wrong, wrong!" feel free.

I'm trying to suss out which sub-forum such discussion belongs in.  I'm not convinced that it belongs in a sub-forum which is explicitly supposed to be about using the theory rather than chit-chatting about it.  Frankly, the Devil's Advocate thing seems like chit-chat to me.  How does it seem to you?

[Kyle Aaron]

It's not different at all.

"Devil's Advocate" is "critically examining old ideas, taking out of them what is good, and discarding what is bad." It's the adversarial approach, rather than the inquisitorial approach. I tell you why theory X is wrong, you tell me why theory X is right. This is a different thing to just one of us examining theory X to see what's wrong and right about it, since that inquisitorial approach requires a good level of impartiality, a level I've not seen in rpg theory discussions - or in discussions of who should or shouldn't be a saint, for that matter.

Same shit, different shovel.

"Devil's Advocate" is not "This is wrong, wrong, wrong!" but, "This is wrong, because -" I think you'll find that I've usually given reasons for my criticisms.

Absoutely "Devil's Advocate" is "just chit-chat." But so is the whole fuckin' forum, mate. We're talking about this thing where we pretend to be elven princesses. Don't expect it to be rigorously academic. If it were, few of us would last longer than two minutes, we'd be torn to pieces. If you think my approach is rough, you've never seen a Master's or Doctoral board interviewing a candidate on their thesis, or one paper reviewed by some other scientist. Those guys are vicious, and vicious with substance. I'm just a pussy-cat compared to academics. So I don't think you want it to be more than "just chit-chat."

[TonyLB]

"Devil's Advocate" is "critically examining old ideas, taking out of them what is good, and discarding what is bad."

No, it's half of that.  The half that you want to see happen.  You don't care about getting to the good nuggets, because you don't think there are any good nuggets.  You want to rip things to pieces because you think it's fun.

If you think people can't see that then you're a fool.

You're welcome to tear whatever theory you want as many new orifices as you feel it deserves.  I just think that you consistently do so in the wrong sub-forum.

[Consonant Dude]

Part of developing new ideas is critically examining old ideas, taking out of them what is good, and discarding what is bad.

Sometimes, doing that will have the tone of "bitching and moaning." It is nonetheless, a useful critique.

Nope. Not like that. That forum has very little productive discussions going on. Say what you will about a place like the Forge but the one amazing thing I've always admired about them is that they deliver.

They discuss productively about concepts. They design and write games and then they help each others for publication. The design/theory section of RPGsite is at the other hand of the spectrum.

If people want to bitch and moan, I'm not saying they shouldn't. But have a real design section, where we can actually conceptualize things and have a bitchy section for those who want to moan, cry and aren't interested in achieving anything.

We're getting a lot more users lately, things are getting interesting and we could soon have some interesting design discussions going, perhaps even by exxperienced pros. But not under the current conditions because right now, that section is just not appealing for that. It looks like a fucking battlefield and the tone of many of the threads is rather pathetic.

[fonkaygarry]

It looks like a fucking battlefield...

Consider that this may be the intent.  

People can say whatever they please here and until Pundit or jrients decide they have a vested interest in the protection of the theory forum it will stay a battlefield.

[Kyle Aaron]

No, it's half of that.  The half that you want to see happen.  You don't care about getting to the good nuggets, because you don't think there are any good nuggets.  You want to rip things to pieces because you think it's fun.

If you think that, then you ought to present us with a theory which is so well-crafted, so well-based on facts and good reasoning, it can't be torn apart by obnoxious people on the internet. If your theory can't even stand up to the analytical cleaver of J. Random Internet Poster, then it deserves to perish.

In any case, the Devil's Advocate, by pointing out which is the dross, the slag, the waste, lets everyone else see what remains - the gold.

That does not mean there's gold anywhere you dig.

You're welcome to tear whatever theory you want as many new orifices as you feel it deserves.  I just think that you consistently do so in the wrong sub-forum.

Oh, is that all this is? Well, fuck off to the mods and tell them to move the thread, then. Jeez...

[Consonant Dude]

Consider that this may be the intent.  

People can say whatever they please here and until Pundit or jrients decide they have a vested interest in the protection of the theory forum it will stay a battlefield.

Well, I'm not sure I understand you. Or maybe I need to clarify. I don't have a very strong opinion on the theory side. My interest is on the design side of things.

I've read Pundit say many times that he likes new threads and he wants more interesting conversations on this website. What I'm trying to say is that he might accomplish that goal by having a better design section. I don't actually care if it's tied to theory or not but *this* design section sucks ass and makes for very forgettable conversations most of the time.

Hence, I think it is in Pundit's best interest (if he likes interesting new threads) to reconsider how these sections work right now, and how they often overlap needlessly with the general roleplaying section right now.

At least, that's how I see it.

[Kyle Aaron]

The theory section is dead not because of anti-theory people threadcrapping on it, but because there are only a few people contributing to it. The sort of person who comes to a forum with fuck-all moderation run by RPGPundit is just not likely to be interested in rpg theory.

It's like going to a Republican forum to talk about the troubles of single mothers on welfare, or to a German vegetarian forum to talk about Texan beef.

RPG theory has a good chunk of the rpg forums out there... rpg.net and gamecraft, for example... not like there's nowhere to talk about it.

[Blackleaf]

The theory section is dead not because of anti-theory people threadcrapping on it, but because there are only a few people contributing to it. The sort of person who comes to a forum with fuck-all moderation run by RPGPundit is just not likely to be interested in rpg theory.

It's like going to a Republican forum to talk about the troubles of single mothers on welfare, or to a German vegetarian forum to talk about Texan beef.

RPG theory has a good chunk of the rpg forums out there... rpg.net and gamecraft, for example... not like there's nowhere to talk about it.

I signed up for this forum specifically because I thought it would be a place to discuss game design without the conversation being dominated by Forge / GNS stuff.

The Anti-Theory threadcrapping has me looking for other options...

[JongWK]

If you think that, then you ought to present us with a theory which is so well-crafted, so well-based on facts and good reasoning, it can't be torn apart by obnoxious people on the internet. If your theory can't even stand up to the analytical cleaver of J. Random Internet Poster, then it deserves to perish.

In any case, the Devil's Advocate, by pointing out which is the dross, the slag, the waste, lets everyone else see what remains - the gold.

That does not mean there's gold anywhere you dig.

That's gold, right up there.

[TonyLB]

If you think that, then you ought to present us with a theory which is so well-crafted, so well-based on facts and good reasoning, it can't be torn apart by obnoxious people on the internet. If your theory can't even stand up to the analytical cleaver of J. Random Internet Poster, then it deserves to perish.

That may well be true but the Theory forum is not, I think, meant to be the gladiatorial arena in which theories are flung to the lions to make sure only the strong survive.  I'm not saying that's not a worthy purpose ... just that it is explicitly not the purpose of the Theory forum as stated.

And, honestly?  I think that's a good thing.  Slicing the hell out of things you disagree with is easy.  It may well be very important, but it's undeniably the lazy man's way to do theory.  Taking something that strikes you, at first glance, as unworkable and dedicating yourself to finding the good in it ... that's hard and necessary.  People can benefit from a place where that is what they are supposed to be doing.  Sticking to the rules will act as a reminder when the going gets rough, and they'd rather give up the effort and just go full-bore negative ... a reminder of what they intended to do in the first place.

Oh, is that all this is? Well, fuck off to the mods and tell them to move the thread, then. Jeez...

I don't really think we need to solve all our problems by running to the mods.  I think the better solution is for people to take a few moments to be responsible and post comments in the right place.

I didn't post this thread in (for instance) the Roleplaying Forum.  Why?  Because it's got fuck-all to do with the explicitly stated purpose of that forum.

Likewise, I think a little consciousness on the part of the community of what the Theory forum is for and what it isn't for would go a long way toward making it more useful for its explicitly stated purpose.

[RPGPundit]

I really wish you wouldn't read "bitching and moaning" as "dissenting opinion."  That doesn't seem (to my eyes) to be how anyone else in this thread is using the term.

Well, given that the second a gullible mod is convinced that he should ban "bitching and moaning", the Forge types will use that to silence any criticism of their theories, I think he's right on the money.

The fact is that there's a lot of productive stuff coming out of the Theory forum. The Historical Cast stuff, for example.

What the theory forum is not a "Productive" place for, however, is for people to come in and talk about pretentious bullshit (be it Forge-theory or Forge-esque-theory) and get away with it.  That's what Tony would like; most of us are too busy making actual gaming stuff.

That said, I have tried to suggest that people put less of their effort into attacking the Forge on that forum, and more into working on productive ideas for RPGs. I'd personally prefer it that way, but I'm certainly not going to force people to.

And no, I'm not going to take the word "theory" out of the Theory forum; because to do so would be to invite all the Forge plants on here to flood the main forum with theory-related posts.  The only reason they haven't tried that tactic yet is because they know I would just move their GNS threads to the Theory forum if they tried.

So yes, the Theory forum here is one-half workshop, and one-half safety vent, which prevents that sort of shit (be it the "bitching" about Forge theory or the crap Forge theory itself) from being pushed in the main RPG forum.

RPGPundit

[RPGPundit]

I signed up for this forum specifically because I thought it would be a place to discuss game design without the conversation being dominated by Forge / GNS stuff.

The Anti-Theory threadcrapping has me looking for other options...

But see, you CAN do that here. There's nothing stopping you. Just start a fucking thread.

Or join in the Historical cast one, or the ones Silverlion made, or countless others. If you don't like Jimbob ragging on theorists, just ignore those threads.

If you want to make a game mechanic, game, game setting, whatever, and you're sincerely interested in that, and not the mental masturbation and using big words in the style of the Forge, you will see others interested and getting on board.

Tony is just upset that he can't silence people who are criticizing his precious GNS on here, like he can on other sites.

RPGPundit