QuoteAs I suspected, we mean different things by the same term. When I say "Forge Theory" I'm talking about theory developed and discussed at the Forge. That's a pretty broad moniker. The articles are part of that, but (IMO) a small part. Most of it is in the "volumes of unstructure discussion" that you refer to.

Lots of stuff there, much of which I find intensely useful.

This is what I meant when I said:

QuoteSome of the secondary thinking (streamlined rules, fast gameplay) is good -- but the core theory is not.

Quote from: TonyLBAs I suspected, we mean different things by the same term.  When I say "Forge Theory" I'm talking about theory developed and discussed at the Forge.  That's a pretty broad moniker.  The articles are part of that, but (IMO) a small part.  Most of it is in the "volumes of unstructure discussion" that you refer to.

Lots of stuff there, much of which I find intensely useful.

No doubt -- which brings us back to my originial point:

What do we mean by "theory" and what, exactly, should one to be able to do with a theory?

Theories that can be used for *design* are usually scientific theories which model the natural world and make hypotheses about relationships (e.g. "incoherent games most-likely lead to ongoing power struggle or brain damage").

Clearly, some of Forge Theory reads like a scientific theory but lacks the rigor (or even the elementary completeness) that would allow it to be used that way.

From your posts above I think we agree that rpg theory isn't scientific in any way (not falsifiable, not testable).

If I read you correctly rpg design is more of a literary exercise (which is what I believe), and then rpg theory would be more like literary theory or aesthetics.

These theories are useful for a lot of things including

• Providing a taxonomy or language for discussing the domain (e.g. r.g.f.a. theory does a good job of this)
• Providing criteria for criticism (aesthetic judgement)

But they're not so good at design. Film theory doesn't tell you how to make a good movie. Literary theory doesn't tell you how to write a great novel.

They do allow a critic to make aesthetic judgements about a finished work, but that's not a *design* element.

So maybe I'm missunderstanding you -- you seem to agree that rpg theory is more like literary theory... but then you want to use it for design. FWIW, I think a lot of rpg theorists are in the same boat:

There's a strong desire to mistake methods of criticism for methods of design in all kinds of disciplines (c.f. Valley of the Dolls 2). Coming up with a real design theory for rpgs would be / is daunting work... and it would require engagement with the world that I suspect would slaughter some sacred cows...

But I don't think you can use literary and value theory for design -- and I don't think it's fair to call rpg theory a "scientific" theory... so I'm not sure how you can say forge theory was used to design a game.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.But they're not so good at design. Film theory doesn't tell you how to make a good movie. Literary theory doesn't tell you how to write a great novel.

I disagree with this entirely.  Likewise, I disagree with the idea that RPG Theory doesn't contribute to designing RPG games.

A film-maker who tries to put together a movie without at least understanding (for instance) Eisenstein's work on montage is robbing himself of valuable mental tools.

An RPG designer who tries to put together a game without at least understanding the distinction between task resolution and conflict resolution is robbing himself of valuable mental tools.

A creative endeavour does not spring uninfluenced into the world, like Athena from Zeus's brow.  It is patterned by the way that the artist understands his world and his art.  Gaining a deeper, more systematic and more usable understanding of the art is a very useful step toward becoming a better artist.

I think what Mr. E is saying is that is fine, but he doesn't see it as Theory, in it's scientific incarnation, helping you, but Theory in it's literary criticism incarnation.

In the example you provide, Task versus Conflict Resolution, I refer you to this thread.  I've yet to get an answer how (in the scientific sense) they differ. There's a lot of feeling about how they differ.  And if someone wants to use this distinction as an influence in design, rock on. But trying to say something definitive about the difference seems elusive.

That's how I see the difference between them.

Quote from: James J SkachI think what Mr. E is saying is that is fine, but he doesn't see it as Theory, in it's scientific incarnation, helping you, but Theory in it's literary criticism incarnation.

Maybe.  Doesn't look that way to me, but maybe.  He'll be able to say what he means with more certainty :-)

If he's fine with the idea that the non-scientific theory (like film theory, like literary theory) is a helpful tool in design then I think we've reached a point of common ground.

Quote from: TonyLBI disagree with this entirely.  Likewise, I disagree with the idea that RPG Theory doesn't contribute to designing RPG games.

A film-maker who tries to put together a movie without at least understanding (for instance) Eisenstein's work on montage is robbing himself of valuable mental tools.

An RPG designer who tries to put together a game without at least understanding the distinction between task resolution and conflict resolution is robbing himself of valuable mental tools.

A creative endeavour does not spring uninfluenced into the world, like Athena from Zeus's brow.  It is patterned by the way that the artist understands his world and his art.  Gaining a deeper, more systematic and more usable understanding of the art is a very useful step toward becoming a better artist.

Sure, that's why all the great and/or popular novels of the 20th century were written by literature professors.

Oh, wait...

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSure, that's why all the great and/or popular novels of the 20th century were written by literature professors.

Oh, wait...

RPGPundit

Like Umberto Eco you mean?

But yeah, generally I do take your point.

Quote from: RPGPunditSure, that's why all the great and/or popular novels of the 20th century were written by literature professors.

Well, Stephen King was an English major, and professor.  Tom Clancy majored in English Literature, as did John Updike.  Tolkien was a professor of literature.

But then again, Heinlein graduated from the naval academy, Asimov was a biochemist and J.K. Rowling studied french and classics.

So who the hell knows?  Looks like there are some folks who took a fairly serious interest in the way the language and the literature is put together, and then went on to write some damn fine books.

Such study is clearly not necessary to writing a book, but I don't see a lot of reason to think that it's useless, either.

Quote from: TonyLBI disagree with this entirely.  Likewise, I disagree with the idea that RPG Theory doesn't contribute to designing RPG games.

A film-maker who tries to put together a movie without at least understanding (for instance) Eisenstein's work on montage is robbing himself of valuable mental tools.

An RPG designer who tries to put together a game without at least understanding the distinction between task resolution and conflict resolution is robbing himself of valuable mental tools.

A creative endeavour does not spring uninfluenced into the world, like Athena from Zeus's brow.  It is patterned by the way that the artist understands his world and his art.  Gaining a deeper, more systematic and more usable understanding of the art is a very useful step toward becoming a better artist.

I think a lot of input is valuable in design work -- a designer ought to be widely familiar with blah, blah, blah.

And, again -- if you tell me that rpg theory, or film theory, or Plato's Republic, or the instruction manual to your digital watch was useful to you to design your game, I'm certainly not arguing...

But I disagree that it's proper to say you "used theory" to design your game -- literary theory isn't a design tool. It doesn't provide design principles. At its most-relevant, it provides a set of analytic frameworks are for use on finished products (to be clear: I don't think Forge Theory has analytic frameworks. If it did, they wouldn't be useful for design).

And again: yes, academics often confuse critical theory with design theory... and point to examples (like Eco) where there's a successful author who's also a literary theorist.

I think there are folks out there who believe that rpg theory does provide a coherent set of design principles that could be employed by a designer to build a game -- and that by applying that model, the game would be of higher quality.

I believe this misconception comes from not fully understanding the theory (in my experience, most folks who advocate Forge Theory really don't understand it).

So we're not disagreeing -- your standard of "was valueable to me" or "inspired me" is in no way inconsistent with my position that an absence of defined, applicable models makes it imposible to "use rpg theory" to design game.

In disciplines where theory is *actually* used to design things (engineering, product design, layout, etc.), your use of the term "used" would be pretty irregular. You might want to choose a verb that's more explicit and clear ("inspired" was one that you used before, that I think works for what you're actually doing with rpg theory).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: TonyLBWell, Stephen King was an English major, and professor.  Tom Clancy majored in English Literature, as did John Updike.  Tolkien was a professor of literature.

Oh please, fuck you.
Tolkien was a professor of linguistic studies that was utterly HATED by the cognoscenti of the English department for having the "gall" to dare publish a novel and think he could get anywhere with it.
To this day, English department-types everywhere constantly whine bitch and moan that an "amateur" like Tolkien could be seen as more influential than their pet autheurs.

So please, do not try to make Tolkien one of you. Not after the ivory tower academic fuckheads have spent the last 60 years trying to destroy him and his work.

QuoteSuch study is clearly not necessary to writing a book, but I don't see a lot of reason to think that it's useless, either.

If you want an English Lit degree or a Comparative Lit degree for the sake of being able to speak in sophisticated talk, analyze books profoundly (far beyond the author's original intent, in almost every case) and champion obscure politically correct novelists that no one likes, then its certainly useful.

If you want that kind of degree because you think its going to make you a good novelist, forget it.

I mean it really is just like the Forge: being a part of it will be just GREAT if you want to learn master-level lessons in how to be an arrogant pretentious fuck, but not only will NOT teach you how to make good games, it will cripple you by filling you with intellectualoid bullshit guaranteeing that if you buy into the theory in the very least, you will end up creating games that are hopelessly stupid and unpopular.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean it really is just like the Forge: being a part of it will be just GREAT if you want to learn master-level lessons in how to be an arrogant pretentious fuck, but not only will NOT teach you how to make good games, it will cripple you by filling you with intellectualoid bullshit guaranteeing that if you buy into the theory in the very least, you will end up creating games that are hopelessly stupid and unpopular.

THE PUNDIT HATH SPOKEN!

:pundit:

Quote from: -E.So we're not disagreeing -- your standard of "was valueable to me" or "inspired me" is in no way inconsistent with my position that an absence of defined, applicable models makes it imposible to "use rpg theory" to design game.

Oh.  Are you saying that in order to say one "uses theory" it should be like a cookbook recipe, where you can follow the instructions by rote and reliably get a predicted outcome?

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean it really is just like the Forge: being a part of it will be just GREAT if you want to learn master-level lessons in how to be an arrogant pretentious fuck, but not only will NOT teach you how to make good games, it will cripple you by filling you with intellectualoid bullshit guaranteeing that if you buy into the theory in the very least, you will end up creating games that are hopelessly stupid and unpopular.

Wow ... so ... I'm crippled by having listened to Forge theory?  Obviously not physical (my limbs all work fine) so that'd have to be ... well ... brain-damage, right?

Quote from: TonyLBOh.  Are you saying that in order to say one "uses theory" it should be like a cookbook recipe, where you can follow the instructions by rote and reliably get a predicted outcome?

Uh... that's interesting -- I think we should step back here; there may be a more profound communication gap than I'd thought.

Let's try to find some common ground outside of rpg's -- what sort of design or engineering theory are you familiar with?

I think if you check those out, you'll find that none of them are "cookbooks" or anything like that, no?

What you'll find are principles and models that are defined at a level sufficient to be applicable.

But maybe I'm wrong in assuming you're familiar with theories used in designs... let's start here.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: TonyLBWow ... so ... I'm crippled by having listened to Forge theory?  Obviously not physical (my limbs all work fine) so that'd have to be ... well ... brain-damage, right?

My version isn't "literal" like Ron's distinctly and directly was. I'm not suggesting that playing Forge games actually DAMAGES your brain. Just washes it; and even then only if you allow yourself to be.

RPGPundit