I came to an impasse while thinking about RPG communities.
Drinking some coffee a little while ago, I couldn't figure out why there was so much bickering about theory, because as many people have stated, it's heavily based on personal tastes.

But then, you've got theorists going on about whole-cloth, universal RPG theories which I think Big Model or GNS is essentially supposed to be.

Then you've got people either panning that (they don't like GNS games, terminology, ect.) or mentioning that existing traditional model games don't operate well according to GNS principles. D&D, for example, looks broken according to a GNS model, but it's clearly not.

"What the fuck is going on here?" I wondered.
But maybe it's terminology. I think 'theory' is ok as a term, but consider what it does; it's been used as short-hand for 'universal theory', which is to say, people believe that there is a theory that can and should sum up the total of what role-playing games should do.

Which is not a good idea. It is not the way things work.
For example, GNS. Ok. If you want to use GNS to look at some gaming impulses, then you've made some terms you can apply. That's a theory. If you make a judgement about how a game should use those impulses, that's not a theory about good gaming anymore. That's a school of thought. Traditional games don't use those terms, but can be understood from a certain perspective that uses them to 'want' to merge those impulses to a certain degree to give a group of gamers all three. Forge games have typically been about trying to seperate them to create was was (or perhaps still is) called a 'coherent' game where people are only interested in using part of that terminology.

I believe GNS is powerfully flawed by trying to encapsulate all of gaming, by confusing tastes (what people believe a good game should be) and existing emergent dynamics. (what happens in games)

I believe 'indie' games, or at least the Forge represents a school of gaming thought that produces a certain kind of game, but I don't believe in a universal gaming theory.

I do believe, however, that by letting go of the idea of a universal gaming theory, room is opened up for new ways of looking at gaming for universal theorists, and people might be able to finally let old grudges die.

Maybe just a pipe dream, though.

Agreed. I think a lot more is to be gained by looking at different approaches to gaming and trying to understand why they work for their afficionados (and, in some cases, why they don't work for others) than from trying to come up with some kind of grand unified theory.

As soon as you acknowledge that different people game for different reasons (and nobody reasonable would deny that), the idea of a unified theory goes out of the window, because a unified theory would require that everyone games for a particular set of reasons defined by the theory and no others.

The title of this thread had me thinking of the Japanese Sword Schools, mostly of fiction...

Here's how I break down that idea...

See, you want to kill a motherfucker with a sword you gotta know which end is sharp.  Some dude gets pretty good at shankin' a fool and sets up a school to teach how he did it.  Some other dude sets up his school, some students from each school start their own derivative schools.

Now, each school is competeing for students, so they naturally hate eachother, worse: they may even completely disagree with the best way to shank a motherfucker, so they have to fight...


.... what they all forget is that there is no single right way to kill a fool with a sword. You don't even need, really, to use the sharp end if you are determined enough.  So, somewhere far away from Japan, some farm boy picks up a rusty blade from his grandfather's trunk and guts some bastard bandit... not even knowing that there is a 'right way' to do it.  Do you think the bandit is upset that the farmboy didn't use any known technique? Or do you think he's all put out that his intestines are dragging in the dirt?

Right.

Technique is all that matters at that point. :what:

Fights between schools for power are then only natural and belong to the order of all things.

Quote from: SettembriniFights between schools for power are then only natural and belong to the order of all things.

Or a waste of time.

Or a pastime.

Quote from: SpikeTechnique is all that matters at that point. :what:

Yeah, and than one day someone say: swords sucks, guns are better. And start shooting the swordsmen.

Quote from: SettembriniFights between schools for power are then only natural and belong to the order of all things.

Eagle Claw Kung Fu!

One-armed-boxing!

Quote from: SettembriniOr a pastime.

Well, I can't argue with that.

But, seriously, I think the discourse of theory is poisoned in part by some people's attempts to fits a square peg in a round hole. GNS doesn't work with D&D, for example, not because it's totally incorrect, but because it's a subjective system used to measure an object that wasn't built with that in mind.

Now, you can make some observations about games, (and I believe that some theories do that better then others) or you can design games according to a school of thought. When Big Model is used to measure D&D, it fails utterly. It says D&D is broken, and it's not. When it's used to make other games, well, I don't think it's as useful as it could be (because it was made in an attempt to observe games and create a universal theory, which it isn't) but it's more useful. Because the people who like that theory and view their own games that way have a tool to use to focus their ideas.

But I think if theorists changed their perspective a bit, then things would make more sense, and they'd see that other gamers wern't as hostile. Right now, they're trying to argue a universal theory against people who don't want it: it's a 'I'm right, you're wrong' scenerio that's going to breed bad emotions. It's asking for a fight, imo.

Now, people could fight over what school of thinking makes a better game, but it's hard to pretend to be objective, imo.

Quote from: Thanatos02But I think if theorists changed their perspective a bit, then things would make more sense, and they'd see that other gamers wern't as hostile. Right now, they're trying to argue a universal theory against people who don't want it: it's a 'I'm right, you're wrong' scenerio that's going to breed bad emotions. It's asking for a fight, imo.

Well, I think a lot of forgers see it that way. When I was speaking with Vincent Baker, we agreed basically on what you just said. Ron on the other hand is a firm believer in the big model being the best model for all RPGing that exists.

I think that's why, when Vincent Baker says stuff about theory, I'm a lot less likely to cringe. He also seems pretty nice about it, so I don't mind listening to him, either. I think Ron has done himself a big disservice to himself and the people that look up to him by putting himself in this objective "my way or the highway" stance, and he might have poisoned the discourse for a very long time.

So, really, even if he's got valuable things to say, they get lost in the feedback he generates. I don't have a personal stake in Ron's theories, but I do have a stake in the community, and that makes me want to distance myself from him whenever I get a chance.

And I think all that could have been avoided, but I also think some people made a decision not to of.

Quote from: Thanatos02I think that's why, when Vincent Baker says stuff about theory, I'm a lot less likely to cringe. He also seems pretty nice about it, so I don't mind listening to him, either. I think Ron has done himself a big disservice to himself and the people that look up to him by putting himself in this objective "my way or the highway" stance, and he might have poisoned the discourse for a very long time.

Acutally, I see it as exact opposite. Ron Edwards seems to me more plain-spoken in his swinish effort. He does not pretend that we are all equals when he thinks, the others are just a bunch of brain-damaged salivating idiots.

Vincent Baker has a talent of word-play helping him to cover his true demeanour better, despite he is in fact on the very same ship as Ron. Now what is worse actually? And what is more dangerous? I guess the more subtle and manipulating way, the worse.

And I must admit I like some of Baker's writing even one of his games a bit. It is inspiring, but nevertheless swinish. He is not playing honest game and one can occassionaly uncover his true intentions in some of his writings.

We're assuming he's masking his 'true' intentions in some kind of nefarious scheme to dominate the internets.

Which is dumb.

Quote from: Thanatos02Which is dumb.

Dumb maybe. True nevertheless...