"Come up with something new," Jombob says. OK, here goes (at least this is all off the top of my head. I reserve the right to be influenced by stuff).


OK, what is RPG theory? Well, that's the tricky thing, isn't it? RPG theory is a lot of different things to different people. "It's all about the people, the game is secondary!" "It's all about understanding the Creative Agendas people pursue!" "It's all about Morgenstern and Neumann's Game Theory!" "It's all about dice mechanics and probability curves!"

Well, let me state straight up that I'm not concerned with which of these is properly called "Theory," the distinction between "Theory" and "Craft," or any such thing. The fact is that "RPG Theory," rightly or wrongly, has come to mean "stuff used to analyze and improve on our roleplaying experience," and it's that which interests me, whatever it's called.

And let me also state straight-up that I think all the above, plus a good many more, are fit and useful fields of inquiry for understanding our games. In a perfect world they wouldn't be battle-lines, but complementary subjects that would enrich and aid each other. "Oh, that social problem you observed? Looks like it could be at least partially rooted in this clash of creative agendas." [not necessarily as codified by the Forge] "Hey, that creative agenda [again, not Forge-approved] you're after? Well here's a probability curve that would probably yield the results you're looking for." In a perfect world.

Where I'm coming from in all this: I've roleplayed for a lot of years and rarely felt really satisfied. I went through a lot of those years fuming and grousing about all the badwrong ways that players around me were approaching gaming, and wondering why they didn't (through mental telepathy, presumably) simply know, and respect (IE convert to) my style of gaming. After all, it was the right way, so they should've known.
:combust:

Well, fuck that. The first step is to recognize that their gaming preferences are just as valid as mine, even if I can't stand them. Some of 'em probably wouldn't be able to stand a game run purely on MY preferences, either. It's not prima facie a case of victims vs. dicks (though dickery CAN surely play a role).

The second step is to recognize that the solution, or at least the optimal one, is not to just mash everyone's preferences together and try to accommodate 'em all. But then, neither is it necessarily best to part ways if you're not a perfect match. It's a balance each group has to find. But it's a false dilemma to assume those are your two choices. "Stuff used to analyze and improve on our roleplaying experience," (AKA Theory) is useful for exploring options in between these two extremes, though an individual may of course determine that Extreme 1 or Extreme 2 is the choice for them.

So what's my new thing? I dunno, maybe just a pick-and-choose approach at first, considering all these insights as potentially equally useful. Like, I could look at something from the Forge and go, "well, I think much of it is crap, and this bit is overstated, but there is one truth here that I can use," and then I could take it over to, say, Jimbob's Cheetoist observations about social behavior, and see how the two truths inform each other. It may seem a small thing, but I think such an attitude adjustment is vital to even begin to construct something useful, especially to have dialogue about it in an environment with a wide disparity of viewpoints.

So my proposal--you can call it "Melinglian Syncretism" or something if you like , is to begin, in earnest (schedule permitting) to examine different insights from different disciplines/schools of thought/etc to see how they fit together and how they useful they can be to as many people as possible. I propose to do this without Forge Jargon, expressing concepts in plain English and seeking agreement or understanding of those concepts, not how they're expressed or the identiy politics associated with them. I could reserve the right to say, "over on the Forge they call this Blahblahblah," but I'm not sure that even that is wise or necessary.

Oh yeah, and observations based on actual play would be important too. Dissecting a gaming incident from a multitude of perspectives is probably the most fruitful way to approach this.

So there we go. That's all I have time for right now, and I've got a lot of reading to do (Game Theory, Cheetosism, etc), but when I've ruminated and have more specific, I'll be back.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorThe second step is to recognize that the solution, or at least the optimal one, is not to just mash everyone's preferences together and try to accommodate 'em all. But then, neither is it necessarily best to part ways if you're not a perfect match.

Why is it not the best thing to try to accomodate everyone's preferences in a sort of stew?

In principle, it seems like the result could be a bit crapy and bland, and that we'd just end up with each player impatiently waiting for the other player to finish having their fun, so the next player can have a go. "I put up with you being a combat wombat, and you put up with me being a thespian."

In practice, there's a thing that used to be called "sympathy", not the modern sense of the word, of just feeling their suffering, but the old sense - of feeling all their feelings, that human fellow-feeling. So even if I'm not a combat wombat, when I see Jim woop and cheer when she rolls a critical success on a head shot, or even if I'm not a thespian, when I see Bob smile happily as his character is faced with the choice of which child to give up to the Nazis, even though I don't share their tastes, I share their joy - it makes me happy to see the people in my game group happy.

Compromise doesn't look so bad when you enjoy seeing other people happy. And most of us do.

So I don't see why it's a bad thing to try to accomodate the different tastes of different people in the group. I can see that it's sometimes a hard thing to do - easier if everyone likes the same thing - but I can't see why it's inherently bad.

Otherwise, a good start. Always good to try to come up with new stuff, and bring different ideas together.

Good post! I agree with a good deal of this, and where there I disagree, it's as much a matter of "I wouldn't say it that way" as it is substance.

My experience is that a wide variety of play preferences *can* be balanced so long as everyone's reasonably tolerant and (as JimBob pointed out) enjoys seeing the other folks around the table have a good time.

Which (as JimBob also pointed out) is most of us.

I also think it's good to have a flexible game that can support a variety of preferences -- my HUGE disconnect with theory is that I think calling for more focused, less flexible games completely counterindicated.

Btw: Here's my answer to "What RPG Theory Is:"

I don't think "thinking deeply about games" is RPG Theory (unless everyone on every messageboard who's used their brain is a theorist).

I don't think applying insights from other disciplines to make games is RPG Theory (that would be "Game Design" using other theories).

I think advice -- what generally gets called "Craft" -- and what I see in your post is a good thing, but much of it is only partly what I'd call theory.

I'm basing my definition of Theory on what Wikipedia calls a scientific theory

QuoteIn science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation

Emphasis added. I think many proponents of GNS and other theories would agree that it is a "logical explanation" interaction of natural phenomena (e.g. gamers gaming and having a good time or not) and that it predicts future occurences (e.g. "on-going power struggle" and/or "brain damage").

Scientific theories are useful for analysis (diagnostic or otherwise) and design -- which GNS certainly claims to be.

Scientific theories are falisfiable to one degree or another (you can apply the theory and see if reality matches the theories predictions).

I don't think GNS is coherent (in the 'logical and makes sense' definition) or well articulated enough to be rigorously useful (it works well enough for calling people or games names, or for saying what GDS said), but I think it's considered a scientific theory in the Wikipedia sense by many of its proponents and as such deserves to get held to that standard.

Cheers,
-E.

Sorry I took so long to reply, it kinda fell by the wayside amidst my reading.

Which is fine, this is only an introduction of sorts anyway.

Quote from: JimBobOzWhy is it not the best thing to try to accomodate everyone's preferences in a sort of stew?

You know, I started typing out a real detailed response to you, then realized it could and should probably be its own topic! So now it is!

Anyway, short answer, it's not necessarily bad, I was just trying to say that it might not be best.

Quote from: -E.I'm basing my definition of Theory on what Wikipedia calls a scientific theory

[Snipped because theRPGsite's quoting feature is wierd]

Emphasis added. I think many proponents of GNS and other theories would agree that it is a "logical explanation" interaction of natural phenomena (e.g. gamers gaming and having a good time or not) and that it predicts future occurences (e.g. "on-going power struggle" and/or "brain damage").

That's all fine, E, but as I said I'm not tremendously worried about what definition for Theory we're using, whether it's scientific, etc. This is mainly because across the Web "RPG Theory" is used to loosely mean what I defined it as: "Stuff used to analyze and improve on our roleplaying experience." There are Theory forums on all kinds of sites, including this one, that seem to operate on roughly that assumtion. So I can post something like this in the correct forum and it'll work out fine and be understood for what it is. Which is all I'm looking for.



Y'know, on reflection, I think the coolest thing that could come of this endeavor is the creation of a Roleplaying Theory that would make both Ron Edwards and the Pundit turn in their graves!* :hehe:

Peace,
-Joel

*The Theory's official codification would, of course, instantly kill them. Then with each subsequent reference to said Theory, turning would commence.