http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/se/abstract.htm

The essay is called "Who Thinks Abstractly" and I've been meaning to pass it along to Kyle since I ran across it a few days ago. It's relatively jargon-free and short. It makes the point that we often think of abstract thinking as something that well-educated people do, but in fact, the opposite as true. The desire to ignore the particularities and irreducibility of things and to subsume them under a single type or label or formula is usually done by those who are not particularly used to deep thinking. This is a nice little explanation for what the Forgers are doing - reducing the diversity of roleplaying situations to easily-labeled "types" of roleplaying that go on.

He's a bit rambling. It's like reading Settembrini.

So how does this rambling article from 1808 advocate Cheetoism?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrinehttp://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/se/abstract.htm

The essay is called "Who Thinks Abstractly" and I've been meaning to pass it along to Kyle since I ran across it a few days ago. It's relatively jargon-free and short. It makes the point that we often think of abstract thinking as something that well-educated people do, but in fact, the opposite as true. The desire to ignore the particularities and irreducibility of things and to subsume them under a single type or label or formula is usually done by those who are not particularly used to deep thinking. This is a nice little explanation for what the Forgers are doing - reducing the diversity of roleplaying situations to easily-labeled "types" of roleplaying that go on.

That phenomenon is far from limited to the Forge.

Quote from: jeff37923So how does this rambling article from 1808 advocate Cheetoism?

The title is somewhat facetious, but there is a connection in that cheetosism is a rejection of the kind of abstraction in RPG theory that Hegel is criticising in intellectual activity in general.

Cheetosism involves the study of concrete social situations and the dynamics therein rather than creating and labelling types of play. Forge RPG theory involves the suppression of the details of actual play experience in order to prioritise abstract categorisation.

To use a real example, the charge that "Vampire is incoherent" doesn't really mean anything unless it is supported by the idea that "Games that are incoherent are not fun". But it's trivial to find examples of people playing Vampire and having fun, so it's unclear why we should care about Vampire's coherency or lack thereof.

Quote from: J ArcaneThat phenomenon is far from limited to the Forge.

Yeap, and it applies equally to those folks as well.

What the fuck??

Cheetoism is about gaming for the fun of it.


- Ed C.

The original Cheetoist post from the Big Purple:

QuoteI've looked and listened and learned and read all around and all about all different kinds of theories and ideas about gaming. GNS, Trifold, Big Model, Small Model, Basic Schizophrenia Model, and all this other stuff, and now... it's time for my theory!

Cheetoism
We game for the snacks.

And also the dice.

But mostly, just to hang out with friends and tell tall stories.

Rpg books are just a bunch of guidelines for how to tell your tall stories, and give you a fair excuse to roll lots of dice and eat cheetos.

To make your games more fun, talk to your group.

In any game, it's part social, part game. For most gamers, it's social first, game second. Game first, social second - that's for people that get paid to do it. Mike Jordan never said to his coach, "but it's just a game, who cares about the rules." he took it seriously, because of money. Well, give me ten million bucks a year to roleplay, and I'll take it seriously, too.

Until then, I am a Cheetoist.

That's it.

Okay, 'fess up. Who else is a Cheetoist?

Jim Bob
   

Jim Bob - who is now known as Kyle Aaron on here.

 A link : http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=5418026&postcount=1


- Ed C.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYeap, and it applies equally to those folks as well.

Even JB and such arbitrary categorization as "Hack vs. Thesp"?

Quote from: J ArcaneEven JB and such arbitrary categorization as "Hack vs. Thesp"?

I think Hack vs. Thesp is off-base, but not pernicious, mostly because Kyle treats it as a shorthand, not a theory. Hack vs. Thesp is not really a part of Cheetosism though.

"Hack/thesp" appear in d4-d4, but most recently here on the player preferences questionnaire.

Quote from: Cheetoist wikiThe following is a questionnaire I like to give to new players. It has a few categories of styles of roleplaying. You could easily write your own, with entirely different things listed. The point is not to say "this is how it's done," but to stimulate thought. If you just ask your players, "what do you like in a game?" they'll stare at you blankly and say, "um... to have fun!" If you ask them more specific questions, then you can get a better idea of what they like, put it all together in one campaign, and everyone's happy (we hope).

So "hack/thesp" and so on are not rigid categories by which we are expected to understand all gaming. They're just arbitrary descriptions, rough sketches, so that a game group has something to start a conversation about their preferred play styles with.

It could as easily be "alpha/beta" play or "black/white." The categories are arbitrary and acknowledged as such, and are not exclusive in any sense. It's a rough sketch to get people talking about what they like, sort of like drawing a few lines on a piece of paper and asking your kid to make a real picture out of them. It's intended to be descriptive, not definitive or prescriptive.

This, I think, is different to other kinds of rpg theory.

Yeah, it's a shorthand rather than a true theory. There's no attempt to claim that hack and thesp constitute an exhaustive description of playing styles. They're tools to force a choice between two alternatives, a common method in economics of determining preferences.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineCheetosism involves the study of concrete social situations and the dynamics therein rather than creating and labelling types of play.

Would you mind telling us the chain of logic you used to arrive at this conclusion? Because I'm failing to see where Cheetoism advocates any kind of "study of concrete social situations and the dynamics therein".

It's pretty simple. Cheetoism holds that if we want to talk about RPGs, we need to talk about the people involved in them, and not just come up with a bunch of abstract creative agendas that define roleplaying. Talking about the (real) people involved in something means talking concretely, not abstractly. I've spoken with Kyle about this repeatedly - it's not some obscure part of it, though I'll admit I'm phrasing it in a more technical way than usual.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIt's pretty simple. Cheetoism holds that if we want to talk about RPGs, we need to talk about the people involved in them, and not just come up with a bunch of abstract creative agendas that define roleplaying. Talking about the (real) people involved in something means talking concretely, not abstractly. I've spoken with Kyle about this repeatedly - it's not some obscure part of it, though I'll admit I'm phrasing it in a more technical way than usual.

You're still losing me on this. I was under the impression that Cheetoism explains why we play and not how we discuss RPGs. It seems like two different things here.