Is the local Theory Forum for bitching and moaning?

[TonyLB]

It just seems to me that whenever somebody finds something that they want to complain about, in terms of theory done elsewhere on the internet, it ends up clogging the Theory Forum.  Stuff like this and this for instance.

There really aren't a lot of such threads, but they go on for so long, back and forth and back and forth and back and ... sheesh.  The upshot is that there always seems to be one of them in the first three or four threads by recent activity, and that's just sorta sad.

I totally get that people want to express their outrage, and be good soldiers in The War(tm).  I guess I'm just wondering whether, maybe, the Off-Topic forum isn't where those long screeds belong?  Because the mandate on the Game Design and Theory Forum is:

The answer to all the Theory Bullshit out there. Here we use Theories based on what we know to work, to make new games, new mechanics, new settings, new whatever. This isn't a place to just chitchat about theory, its where we USE it!

... and I just don't see people using the theory in these discussions.  It's more of a classic cycle of people opining on generalities without reference to much of anything real.

[flyingmice]

Agreed.

-clash

[David R]

I agree with this, but why Off Topic ? Would not the general RPG forum be a more suitable venue ?

Regards,
David R

[Balbinus]

Pretty much, yes.

This site is best in the main play forum IMO, though the off topic forum and Pundit's own forum are often fun.  I browse the actual play one too.

For theory I'd personally go to Gamecraft, which I think is better suited to it by its nature.

[Consonant Dude]

Two or three weeks ago I wanted to start a thread similar to Tony's, in the help desk section. I still felt I was relatively new and decided against it for this reason.

Visiting the "design and theory" forum was (and still is) the lowpoint of this place. RPGsite has a lot of potential but I do have a problem with the way the different forums are labelled.

To start off, theory threads are spread with little intent or purpose in both "design/theory" and "roleplaying".

I think this website is missing an opportunity by not being an alternative for design of games that aren't based extensively on Forge theories and Forgites feedback. Not that I don't think this place should exist or create good games... but we could use another place with a different, larger point of view.

It seems to me that the intent is to have a general roleplaying section "clean" of any theory talk but by doing things this way, you have a theory/design forum that barely has any constructive design going on.

[flyingmice]

Well, many of us non-Forge designers don't actually have any theory to talk about.

-clash

[HinterWelt]

Well, many of us non-Forge designers don't actually have any theory to talk about.

-clash

We have theories Clash, just have them internalized and most of it is "Well, duh, of course." kind of things....but I might be jaded.

Bill

[arminius]

I think there may be a reason to have a separate forum like the "Theory Forum" here--but as has been suggested in the past, the title of the current forum invites both wankery and bitching about wankery.

Basically, there's already one...two...maybe three forums that discuss RPGs in terms of general theory, at least ostensibly. My feeling (though I haven't been reading Gamecraft lately) is that for whatever reason, they either tend toward endless discussion and comparison of divergent "modes" or "CAs", so they never get beyond that into real craft, or they focus on, essentially, avant-garde design which doesn't just challenge the assumptions of "traditional" design, but throws them away entirely.

Outside of fora devoted to individual games, I haven't found a place better suited than theRPGsite to discussion of design and practice within or near "traditional" or "mainstream" RPG paradigms. But there are two things that keep screwing that up. One is, as Tony said, the fact that people see "Theory" and think it's a place to bring in outside grievances and bitch about the Forge. The second is that other people see "Theory" and think it's a place to continue Forge-type discussion. As I said, this makes discussion of actual craft very difficult because the foundational assumptions of "RPGs in general" are just too diverse. It's wearying to have to preface every post with a disclaimer that defines "what is an RPG for the sake of this discussion".

What I think would be best would be for people to not see theRPGsite in general and the Theory forum in particular as a place to épater les bourgeois or to rally in favor of a counter-revolution. In terms of board administration, I don't think much can be done (other than changing the forum name) without violating the standards of moderation here, however I would encourage people to follow those principles in posting. I don't want to embarrass droog but I think he sets a great example; JimBob in my opinion was not being constructive by dragging up an old post on another forum just to mock it, nor was Melinglor doing any good by allowing himself to be provoked into defending the indefensible.

I don't feel 100% certain of this approach, but theRPGsite is a bit of an experiment in free speech which is IMO worth continuing. One aspect of this is, essentially, everyone is carrying a nuclear bomb. So, can we self-regulate and at the same time engage in honest discussion, making an effort to hear each other's interests and opinions instead of engaging in sophistry and semantic wankery, or do we blow the place up?

[jdrakeh]

... and I just don't see people using the theory in these discussions.  It's more of a classic cycle of people opining on generalities without reference to much of anything real.

Much like other popular theory forums were for years? Seriously. I'm not seeing much of a difference between theRPGsite theory forum and those on RPGnet, The Forge, and Gamign Outpost. That said, I do see at least one difference. . .

For some reason, here, in the land of the free (i.e., the loosely moderated), I've found myself, on occassion, agreeing with people that I would never have agreed with at those other sites. You, for example. I think it might be that actual discussion is taking place here -- even if it does occasionally get bogged down with bitching and moaning.

On the other aforementioned forums, it always seemed that it was about proselytization, rather than actual discussion. People came to the table with pre-conceived notions of How Things Work and, rather than being willing to dicuss other possibilities, it was all about shooting other possibilities down or  trying to create a unified theory that painted all other possibilites as the crude byproduct of those pre-conceived notions about How Things Work.

Honestly, I don't miss that at all. I rather enjoy discussing thing from different perspective and, sometimes, learning enough humility to redefine my own as a result.

[James McMurray]

The entire site has a percentage of bitch and moan attached to it (much like every single forum on the web I think). Why should the theory section escape?

[jdrakeh]

The entire site has a percentage of bitch and moan attached to it (much like every single forum on the web I think). Why should the theory section escape?

Well, on some forums, threads consisting of bitching and moaning (read "dissenting opinion") are deleted or locked, which does minimize the occurance of such behavior in said environments

[TonyLB]

bitching and moaning (read "dissenting opinion")

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.

[Kyle Aaron]

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.

[TonyLB]

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.

Yeah, but there's also just plain bitching and moaning, with nothing productive coming out the far end.  Ain't hard to tell the difference, and we've got a fair percentage of the purely negative.

[Kyle Aaron]

That's true. But in all sorts of searching-for-truth, we have a lot of clutter - scientific studies to see if breast milk is better for babies than cow milk, that sort of thing.

You just have to take the good with the bad, the useful criticism with the bitching and moaning. That's life.