Quote from: Levi KornelsenThey are utterly useless answers, because you aren't designing DitV.

Are they useless answers if he's playing DitV?

'Cause if you still say they're useless, then your reputation as an open and fair minded theorist guy is a bit inflated....

Quote from: -E.By skipping the "design theory" part in your example and going straight to a specific solution, I guess we're back to not meaning the same things when we use the term "theory."

Well ... I don't really have any definition for "design theory," so I don't know where you think that figures in.

As best I can tell, you're saying that you believe in two types of theory:  Design theory and value theory.  You don't think there is any design theory for RPGs.  I'm fine with that.  It's your terminology, you can define it however you want.

So what we've got (in your terminology) is value theory.  I assume that stuff like gaming currency, and feedback loops, and reward mechanics, and social contract and all that jazz would, for you, fall under value theory.  

Have I got that right?

That's the kind of stuff I use to do design.  It helps me design better games.  Are you cool with that?

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... I don't really have any definition for "design theory," so I don't know where you think that figures in.

As best I can tell, you're saying that you believe in two types of theory:  Design theory and value theory.  You don't think there is any design theory for RPGs.  I'm fine with that.  It's your terminology, you can define it however you want.

So what we've got (in your terminology) is value theory.  I assume that stuff like gaming currency, and feedback loops, and reward mechanics, and social contract and all that jazz would, for you, fall under value theory.  

Have I got that right?

That's the kind of stuff I use to do design.  It helps me design better games.  Are you cool with that?

Hmm... well, I can't quite take credit for distinguishing between scientific and literary / critical models.

If you haven't run into this stuff before, here's a quick summary:

Scientific models include a vast body of scientific thought and can be "used" to design things in engineering disciplines. Economic, physical, and applied mathmatics (e.g. computer science) theories are all "scientific" theories in the common sense.

Literary and critical theories include things like aesthetics and value theory (and stuff like "film theory" and so on) and are used to analyze, understand, and judge artistic works.

Again, this isn't -E's view of the world... this is pretty standard stuff. I suspect you ran into it during your computer science training.

Now, I guess it's possible that forge theory is some new body of theory never before seen... but I doubt it, and I don't think that's what you're saying.

To be a scientific theory a theory makes predictions about the natural world and can be falisfied.

Game theory falls into this category. So do many economic theories, as virtually all in-use computer science and engineering theories.

Where would you put RPG theory? Does it make predictions that can be falsified?

I would say, "Yes" -- but these are mostly absurd (Vampire most likely results in on-going power struggle).

In terms of mechanics -- where you use it -- what predictions does it make about reward mechanics? Does rpg theory tell you how to create a voting scheme?

Just acknowledging that those things exist isn't an insight any more than the idea of using cards or dice as randomizers -- would you credit rpg theory with  those ideas?

Probably not.

Ideas about behaviorism and so forth would be held to the same low standard, I think (if an idea is wildely acknowledged across numerous disciplines and popularlized, it's in the common domain, I'd think -- maybe you have a different standard?)

RPG theory *could* have a lot of neat things to say about voting schemes and reward mechanics -- predictions and models that could be used by game designers to develop mechanics that drive behavior in a certain way.

Certainly other disciplines (economics, psychology, game theory) have done that kind of work...

But right now rpg theory doesn't. The work hasn't been done. If rpg theory is going to say anything interesting about voting schemes or game theory it's got a lot of catching up to do...

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.It's a set of questions *derrived* from a theory (one that's not formalized or explicitly stated anywhere). Somewhere, back in the author's mind (the author of the Power 19) is an unstated (unformed?) idea of "aboutness" and what it means and how it relates to resolution mechanics.

That's the theory -- where is it?

Where can I go to find a model of games that defines "aboutness"?

Ah!  Okay, I get you.

See, from theory, what I want is to have my attention directed to places where I haven't been looking.  Sometimes, a rack of questions can do that, like those nineteen.  But usually, it occurs when someone else postulates what they think goes on it some general 'space' - and whether or not I agree with them is unimportant so long as it spurs me to think; in fact, if I vehemently disagree, that's good, because it might just cause me to spit out a fully-formed thought on the issue entirely of my own, which I can then refine.

So, I look at the 'theme and premise' stuff in GNS, and read it, and don't agree, and come out ahead anyway.

Like that.

Quote from: Spike'Cause if you still say they're useless, then your reputation as an open and fair minded theorist guy is a bit inflated....

:confused:

Uh, okay?

Quote from: -E.Scientific models include a vast body of scientific thought and can be "used" to design things in engineering disciplines. Economic, physical, and applied mathmatics (e.g. computer science) theories are all "scientific" theories in the common sense.

Literary and critical theories include things like aesthetics and value theory (and stuff like "film theory" and so on) and are used to analyze, understand, and judge artistic works.

Look, here's how I see things.

   Evidence #1 (from me):  I use RPG Theory to design games.

Claim #1 (from you):  Scientific theory is useful for design, critical theory is not.

Claim #2 (from you):  RPG theory is critical theory, not scientific.

Claim #1 plus claim #2 contradict evidence #1.  Right?

So here we are.  I'm not going to accept any argument that tells me that the things I know have happened can't happen.  How could you expect me to?

So if you want claim #2 then I'll ask you to give up claim #1.  I'm perfectly happy to hear that RPG theory is merely a critical theory, as long as you accept that critical theory can be used to design games.

If you want claim #1 then I'll ask you to give up claim #2.  I'm perfectly happy to hear that critical theory cannot be used to design games, as long as you accept that RPG theory is not a critical theory in that way.

Together, those two claims add up to you telling me that RPG Theory cannot be used in the way I know I've used it.  There is no word-play or semantic juggling that's going to make me okay with that claim.

So, frankly, if you're committed to making both of those arguments, together, I'll tell you right here, right now:  You are wrong.  Your theory about the world doesn't stand up to the facts.  Go back and start over.

The way you use an art theory in creation is to look at what people have done in different ways, which provides inspiration and a deeper understanding of what you're doing. It may also provide specific techniques.

So, I want to do a narrativist hack of HeroQuest. I read the primary sources and understand the author's points. Informed by this reading, I then read carefully many actual play reports, trying to glean out exactly what supports my agenda (and what to discard). I note working techniques as I find them. I participate in further seminars to clear up lurking points of confusion. I test some things I have learned in actual play.

Voila! My HQ game is markedly different to previous games I have run. I have put theory into practice. A very interesting exercise it was, too. Oh, and the game was fun....

QuoteI then read carefully many actual play reports, trying to glean out exactly what supports my agenda (and what to discard).

This concept gets a lot of emphasis from the Forge folk.  However, using these "actual play" reports to help design new games can be challenging.  To be honest, most "actual play reports" aren't nearly as useful as the title suggests.  Consider the difference between an audio recording of an actual gaming session vs. reading a forum post by the GM discussing how they felt the game went.  The actual play contains the good, the bad, and the ugly.  The "actual play reports" are often heavily biased, and miss the little details that really make a difference.

I'd *love* to get more actual examples of play.  If anyone has any links, please share.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAh!  Okay, I get you.

See, from theory, what I want is to have my attention directed to places where I haven't been looking.  Sometimes, a rack of questions can do that, like those nineteen.  But usually, it occurs when someone else postulates what they think goes on it some general 'space' - and whether or not I agree with them is unimportant so long as it spurs me to think; in fact, if I vehemently disagree, that's good, because it might just cause me to spit out a fully-formed thought on the issue entirely of my own, which I can then refine.

So, I look at the 'theme and premise' stuff in GNS, and read it, and don't agree, and come out ahead anyway.

Like that.

Roger that -- and (trying to be clear here), I'm not in any way saying "Forge Theory could no-how, no-way be useful to designers."

I'm not -- clearly it has been (designers say it has).

Anything from inspiration to pointing your attention in a direction it wouldn't have gone before, to asking questions that trigger deeper thought could be of value.

I think that's especially true if you're coming at the subject from a critical perspective (as in critical thinking, rather than "skeptical") and asking reflexive (as in self-referential) questions about the questions themselves.

So I agree with all of that --

But I think there's a difference between "useful" and "used" when we're talking about applied theory.

In most disciplines, the standard for "useful" is *much* lower than the standard for applied theory.

When one applies a theory in design or engineering, that's an implicit test of the theory and it's models (we see this all the time in economics, when economists are hired as consultants to design "games" for things like bandwidth auctions).

By using the same terms in rpg theory, we're holding it to a much lower standard -- or (and I think this is the case for some folks) mistaking the theory for something it's not.

Despite my misgivings about Forge Theory, I like RPG theory; I think it's interesting and potentially useful (I'm going to put my money where my mouth is one of these days and post a set of game rules).

I don't think theorists do it any service by saying they "used the theory" to design a game when that kind of terminology is going to lead people to assume the theory does things it doesn't actually do:

Example: GNS claims that there are coherent and incoherent games and that incoherent games are bad across a spectrum of issues.

It sort of has a model -- it makes predictions, even dire ones (Brain Damage!) -- but it doesn't provide a designer with any way to actually use that idea (that there are coherent and incoherent games).

• There's no way to test a game for coherence
• The examples of coherence and incoherence are ambiguous at best
• The underlying concepts (CA's, force) are so poorly defined that there's no way to 'test' for them

A designer trying to apply GNS to his game is going to inevitably come to one conclusion: the only way to determine if a game is coherent or not is to ask the theory author... "coherence" is pure ideosyncratic opinion.

As a design principle, that's no different than saying, "Make your game good."

This sort of thing is shockingly sloppy from people who seem to want to see the state-of-the-art advanced; it goes in the wrong direction from emperical thought, back to dogma.

The Pundit talks about people being "crippled" by theory -- I wouldn't use that kind language, but I think someone trying earnestly and sincerely to figure out how to apply forge theory the usually sense of "applied theory"  would at best discover they'd wasted their time.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.By using the same terms in rpg theory, we're holding it to a much lower standard

Well now ... are you actually "using" the terms?  Or are you just applying them?  Because I don't think that by your jargon-redefinition of the word "use" you can say that the terms are being "used" here. :rolleyes:

Quote from: TonyLBLook, here's how I see things.

   Evidence #1 (from me):  I use RPG Theory to design games.

Claim #1 (from you):  Scientific theory is useful for design, critical theory is not.

Claim #2 (from you):  RPG theory is critical theory, not scientific.

Claim #1 plus claim #2 contradict evidence #1.  Right?

So here we are.  I'm not going to accept any argument that tells me that the things I know have happened can't happen.  How could you expect me to?

So if you want claim #2 then I'll ask you to give up claim #1.  I'm perfectly happy to hear that RPG theory is merely a critical theory, as long as you accept that critical theory can be used to design games.

If you want claim #1 then I'll ask you to give up claim #2.  I'm perfectly happy to hear that critical theory cannot be used to design games, as long as you accept that RPG theory is not a critical theory in that way.

Together, those two claims add up to you telling me that RPG Theory cannot be used in the way I know I've used it.  There is no word-play or semantic juggling that's going to make me okay with that claim.

So, frankly, if you're committed to making both of those arguments, together, I'll tell you right here, right now:  You are wrong.  Your theory about the world doesn't stand up to the facts.  Go back and start over.

Well, you were the one who told me that you saw RPG theory more like literary theory -- a point of agreement.

You seem to believe that literary theory can be used to write books and that rpg theory can be used to design games.

This isn't uncommon -- a lot of people would like to think literary theory can be used to write books; but that's not what literary theory is for (according to most literary theorists).

It's not hard to understand why the idea of literary theories being useful for design is attractive though: analysis is *much* easier than creation. It's also much less rigorous -- no one can tell you your "post modern, feminist assessment of Hemmingway" is wrong, or that the theory you applied to make your judgement is wrong (no one can "disprove" film theory).

Applied theories, on the other hand, can be tested and often are -- I mean, look right at GNS: it predicts that Vampire should be a horribly failed game (most likely it's no fun to play) -- right there, in the very first essay, is an acknowledgement that Vampire is successful, and some weird stuff about "economic factors."

That's probably the first example of RPG theory failing in application -- it makes predictions that the author admits aren't true (well, actually predictions that are rationalized away without explanation, but this amounts  to the same thing).

In non-rpg terms, I'm talking about nothing more esoteric or hypothetical than the difference between being a movie reviewer and being a director.

And again: this isn't my model of the world -- this a pretty standard one that's part of a generalized liberal arts education. I didn't make up the difference between critical/literary theory and applied/scientific theory... and I'm not the first person to point out that there's a difference between critics and authors.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: TonyLBWell now ... are you actually "using" the terms?  Or are you just applying them?  Because I don't think that by your jargon-redefinition of the word "use" you can say that the terms are being "used" here. :rolleyes:

My position on this isn't an attack on you and isn't an insult.

I think it's reasonable to talk about differing standards and different types of theories and how they might be applied.

When you agreed that RPG theory isn't scientific theory, what did *you* mean by that?

Cheers,
-E.

Pseudo-academics of all kinds just LOVE to have stuff they call "theory", or even "science" (this is a social SCIENCE), but the last thing that they want is that their stuff actually have to be proveable or disprovable.

Just for trying, you're clearly one of the oppressors, an agent of patriarchy, or Imperialism, or reality.. you know, the enemies of pseudoacademia.

RPGPundit

QuotePseudo-academics of all kinds just LOVE to have stuff they call "theory", or even "science" (this is a social SCIENCE), but the last thing that they want is that their stuff actually have to be proveable or disprovable.

Ok. I see.

Quote from: -E.You seem to believe that literary theory can be used to write books and that rpg theory can be used to design games.

Wow, you're right!  I do believe that RPG theory can be used to design games.

I wonder where I could possibly have gotten that idea.