Nah, I don't think that covers all the meanings of theory. I realize that there's a lot of BS over Forge talk being academic and "rigorous" as if it were a social science or even natural science, but that's neither here nor there. You're fighting against a strong tradition in many fields of using "theory" to refer to generalized, abstract discussion of craft and aesthetics--film theory, color theory, literary theory, music theory. Some is utter twaddle. Some has actually guided creators toward valuable innovation or at least competent creation.

So it's that sort of abstracted thought and speculation, efforts to gain new insights and improve understanding of RPGs "in general" that I'm comfortable calling "theory". Where that leaves off from craft is an interesting question, though--but probably not important in re the OP question--all that matters there is whether that's the stuff that he's asking about or if he just means GNS.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYou're fighting against a strong tradition in many fields of using "theory" to refer to generalized, abstract discussion of craft and aesthetics--film theory, color theory, literary theory, music theory. Some is utter twaddle. Some has actually guided creators toward valuable innovation or at least competent creation.

I don't know about film and art theory, but I took a pretty good stab at literary theory in university, and I think it's fair to say that literary theory never created a single Shakespeare, nor rid us of a single Dan Brown. It's largely useless. Literary craft, on the other hand - grammar and rhetoric - that sure as shit helps.

Quote from: Elliot Wilenall that matters there is whether that's the stuff that he's asking about or if he just means GNS.

Who knows. Usually, "theory" just means "GNS." Which is a tremendous victory for Uncle Ronny, and a sad defeat for anyone who wants to speak rationally, clearly and logically about the more abstract aspect of it all.

That's too bad because it also leads to an ideological muddle. I.e. you get people who react to criticisms of "theory" as if their own (non-GNS-based) thoughts are under attack, and you also get GNS folks who regard criticisms of GNS as anti-intellectualism.

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's not "theory", it's "craft."

Trying to understand how something works is "theory."

Trying to make something work better is "craft."

I should have made this distinction in my original post. One of the things about theory which always bothered me - and please, I like theory okay, I find it confusing sometimes, but there are a few guys that talk theory, which makes sense - were the actual play threads.

I found it pretty unreliable because it came from the perspective of the GM and what he/she thought of the whole experience. The ideas - theory -which were discussed and used in the game were being filtered through the GM. Which is kind of the reason I think that all this theory stuff is aimed more towards GMs than players.

Regards,
David R

If you're talking about Forge AP threads, many are from the GM, but there are also many from players, and some in which both players and GM join.

I think James S has a point about the strand of Forgista design that leads to GM-less games, but it's not the be-all and end-all. On the matter of whether Forge discussions have improved my game, I'd say that I've learned techniques and ways of thinking that strengthened my focus in GMing (and made my task easier), and helped me identify and capture what I like in playing. So, yeah, both.

There's a couple of different things that get conflated when people talk about theory.  GNS is not really a theory for game master or players, it's meant as a theory for game designers.  It gets applied to both and doesn't work very well, leading to endless argument and circlejerking.  My own theories about gaming are really GMing theories, they don't have much to say about designing games and can work well with most systems.

I think one of the biggest weaknesses in gaming discussion is that there's little to no talk of how to make a good player.  There seems to be an attitude that for the player RPGs should be entertainment - if they can bathe, show up on time, and not throw a hissyfit when things don't go their way they're considered good players.  And don't get me wrong, those are all great traits, but there's more to it than that.  Good players are just as vital to a great RPG session as a good GM.  Now how can we as players aid that, and how can we encourage our fellow players?  I don't know, but the existing theories don't seem to question it at all.

I think that most theory talk is aimed at the people who have the power to implement it.  The point is to change actual play, right?

So, in many groups, the only person who can change the rules (and often the only person who can change the social contract, in many ways) is the GM.

In those groups, the GM is going to be the person who finds it easiest to apply the theory.  In a real sense, the theory is aimed at them.

In other groups, any player can have an influence on rules and social contract.

In those groups, everyone will find about the same ease in applying the theory.  In a real sense, the theory is aimed at them too.

Does that make sense?

GM's talk technique. They always have talked about technique since the very earliest days of RPGs.

Theorists talk theory. I nearly said "asshats" but I totally stopped myself!

You'll note that many (perhaps most?) theorists seem to regard the GM as a figure of hatred and suspicion.

Quote from: TonyLBI think that most theory talk is aimed at the people who have the power to implement it.  The point is to change actual play, right?

So, in many groups, the only person who can change the rules (and often the only person who can change the social contract, in many ways) is the GM.

In those groups, the GM is going to be the person who finds it easiest to apply the theory.  In a real sense, the theory is aimed at them.

In other groups, any player can have an influence on rules and social contract.

In those groups, everyone will find about the same ease in applying the theory.  In a real sense, the theory is aimed at them too.

Does that make sense?

What he said, because it does.

Quote from: TonyLBI think that most theory talk is aimed at the people who have the power to implement it.  The point is to change actual play, right?

Agreed, and actually, mixed with Elliot’s characterization of early theory talk, the foundation for my assertion.

Quote from: TonyLBSo, in many groups, the only person who can change the rules (and often the only person who can change the social contract, in many ways) is the GM.

In those groups, the GM is going to be the person who finds it easiest to apply the theory.  In a real sense, the theory is aimed at them.

And this is the way, I think, theory was for quite some time – especially in the old r.g.f.a newsgroup. The assumption was that the GM had the power and was most likely the person concerned with design. And then something changed – this structure was challenged.

Quote from: TonyLBIn other groups, any player can have an influence on rules and social contract.

In those groups, everyone will find about the same ease in applying the theory.  In a real sense, the theory is aimed at them too.

IMHO this was a very small minority until recently (I agree that it’s still a minority, but it is certainly reaching more and more people). And it’s where things, I think, began to change.

To a large extent, theory is now inextricably and inexplicably entwined with Forge and Forge-related theory. I know there’s more out there – lot’s more. But take it from a guy who came to the party late. You start hunting the web and you are quickly shunted in that direction. It takes effort to find other theory; it takes no effort to be shown the Forge.

So to whom is Forge theory geared? I think it’s actually the player. Or at least away from the GM. This results from the need to break away from the older, GM driven theory that dominated until the end of r.g.f.a and related news groups

Why? Let's assume that you are a player unable to derive pleasure from your current gaming. You want to game, but you’re not happy with your choices. You have theories as to why this is the case, many of which call into question the current “power center” of games and theory, The GM. Traditional games are GM driven.  Current Theory is GM driven.  What are your options? Particularly if you are of the opinion that GM’s are part of your problem and highly unlikely to give up that power. You have no choice; you have to appeal to players.

So much of Theory, which is usually revolves around Forge and Forge-critique (for better or for worse), is now geared towards players. But not in the way the old theory used to be geared towards GMs.  Now it seems to be how to even have games that don’t have the traditional GM power center and how to absorb that fundamental change. That is why, I think, Maddman ends up sensing that there’s not enough about how to play well. The theory culture is still struggling with how to play at all in this configuration. IMHO it's why the theory discussion were stopped and focus was on play.  They are really testing the theories to see if they can even work the way they originally thought.

This is my Theory.

Quote from: James J SkachSo to whom is Forge theory geared? I think it's actually the player. Or at least away from the GM.

Nice points!  I hope you don't mind a quick request for clarification:  Are you saying that the GM is less able to implement theory than other players?  Or are you saying that historically he was far more able, and now he is reduced to "one of the guys," and that's a shift away from targetting the theory to the GM and toward targetting it to everyone?

Quote from: TonyLBNice points!  I hope you don't mind a quick request for clarification:  Are you saying that the GM is less able to implement theory than other players?  Or are you saying that historically he was far more able, and now he is reduced to "one of the guys," and that's a shift away from targetting the theory to the GM and toward targetting it to everyone?

I'm not saying the GM is more or less able to implement theory. I wouldn't even use the term reduced. I do believe that there is a shift away from focusing theory on the GM. I don't ascribe the high-minded goal of gearing it to everyone.  In fact, I think it was a purposeful shift away from GM-centric to Player-centric.  By definition, this would move it from one group to another, and therefore not toward everyone.

Before I get accusations of some kind of bias, I don't think it's good or bad. I was a player first, GM second. Now that I'm back into gaming, it's as a player, currently. But I think there was a belief that in order to find a method of play that was more enjoyable to the people asserting these theories, the traditional GM-centric view of game rules/design had to be broken.

Now we are all dealing with the results of that breaking - for better or worse according to your preferences.

EDIT: After reading your request again, and my response, I realized I might have muddled things even more.

Anyone should be able to implement theory in their own group – according to the social interactions and bonds of that group.  In some, this might be players, in other GMs.  I think that traditionally it was the GM; now, not as much, but still probably the largest proportion.

I do hold to the idea that current theory is not necessarily aimed at everyone.  I think it’s aimed at those who are of the opinion that in order to increase enjoyment, the GM-centric model is not longer assumed. It might exist, but it’s not the assumed foundation for play. So current theory (again, remember this is specific to Forge and Forge-related theory which dominates discussion) is not geared for everyone, but for those who hold this opinion.

So I’d change your text as follows: Historically the GM was far more likely to implement theory. The likelihood and ability of the GM to implement theory now depends completely on the style(s) of game to which the specific gaming group adheres. This does not shift theory away from GMs to everyone. It does broaden the field of target for theory. However, those theories tend to fall into two camps, one for traditional GM-centric and one for all other structures, and end up targeting one group or the other.

Does that help?

I fear that you're reading way more into my question than I intended.  You were saying that the focus has shifted away from GM-Centric and toward Player-Centric.  I'm down with that, using my definition of the terms.  But I don't want to assume that my definitions are your definitions.  That'd be arrogant.

So I'm trying to find out whether you mean "player-centric" to be "all of the players, including the GM" or to be "all of the players, which doesn't include the GM."  I see theory shifting to focus on the former, but I'm not convinced that it has shifted to focus on the latter.

Quote from: TonyLBI fear that you're reading way more into my question than I intended.  You were saying that the focus has shifted away from GM-Centric and toward Player-Centric.  I'm down with that, using my definition of the terms.  But I don't want to assume that my definitions are your definitions.  That'd be arrogant.

So I'm trying to find out whether you mean "player-centric" to be "all of the players, including the GM" or to be "all of the players, which doesn't include the GM."  I see theory shifting to focus on the former, but I'm not convinced that it has shifted to focus on the latter.

I guess I'm saying that part of the shift was to redefine the traditional roles such that there is far less (in some case no) distinction between player and GM. So I would assert that it has shifted toward all players including the GM according to the new definitions of GM, which excludes the traditional GM.

How's that for complicating the discussion?

No, that makes sense.

Say we set aside the abstract traditional role of the GM (which may, in some sense, be excluded from such theory-talk).  What we're left with is Bob, the guy who is the GM.  Bob is a target for either type of theory ... the old because he's the GM, and the new because he's a player.

Okay.  I get what you're saying, and I agree.  Thanks for clarifying!