It just seems to me that whenever somebody finds something that they want to complain about, in terms of theory done elsewhere on the internet, it ends up clogging the Theory Forum. Stuff like this (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4336) and this (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3881) for instance.
There really aren't a
lot of such threads, but they go on for so
long, back and forth and back and forth and back and ... sheesh. The upshot is that there always seems to be one of them in the first three or four threads by recent activity, and that's just sorta sad.
I totally get that people want to express their outrage, and be good soldiers in The War(tm). I guess I'm just wondering whether, maybe, the Off-Topic forum isn't where those long screeds belong? Because the mandate on the Game Design and Theory Forum is:
QuoteThe answer to all the Theory Bullshit out there. Here we use Theories based on what we know to work, to make new games, new mechanics, new settings, new whatever. This isn't a place to just chitchat about theory, its where we USE it!
... and I just don't see people
using the theory in these discussions. It's more of a classic cycle of people opining on generalities without reference to much of anything real.
Agreed.
-clash
I agree with this, but why Off Topic ? Would not the general RPG forum be a more suitable venue ?
Regards,
David R
Pretty much, yes.
This site is best in the main play forum IMO, though the off topic forum and Pundit's own forum are often fun. I browse the actual play one too.
For theory I'd personally go to Gamecraft, which I think is better suited to it by its nature.
Two or three weeks ago I wanted to start a thread similar to Tony's, in the help desk section. I still felt I was relatively new and decided against it for this reason.
Visiting the "design and theory" forum was (and still is) the lowpoint of this place. RPGsite has a lot of potential but I do have a problem with the way the different forums are labelled.
To start off, theory threads are spread with little intent or purpose in both "design/theory" and "roleplaying".
I think this website is missing an opportunity by not being an alternative for design of games that aren't based extensively on Forge theories and Forgites feedback. Not that I don't think this place should exist or create good games... but we could use another place with a different, larger point of view.
It seems to me that the intent is to have a general roleplaying section "clean" of any theory talk but by doing things this way, you have a theory/design forum that barely has any constructive design going on.
Well, many of us non-Forge designers don't actually have any theory to talk about. :D
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceWell, many of us non-Forge designers don't actually have any theory to talk about. :D
-clash
We have theories Clash, just have them internalized and most of it is "Well, duh, of course." kind of things....but I might be jaded. ;)
Bill
I think there may be a reason to have a separate forum like the "Theory Forum" here--but as has been suggested in the past, the title of the current forum invites both wankery and bitching about wankery.
Basically, there's already one...two...maybe three forums that discuss RPGs in terms of general theory, at least ostensibly. My feeling (though I haven't been reading Gamecraft lately) is that for whatever reason, they either tend toward endless discussion and comparison of divergent "modes" or "CAs", so they never get beyond that into real craft, or they focus on, essentially, avant-garde design which doesn't just challenge the assumptions of "traditional" design, but throws them away entirely.
Outside of fora devoted to individual games, I haven't found a place better suited than theRPGsite to discussion of design and practice within or near "traditional" or "mainstream" RPG paradigms. But there are two things that keep screwing that up. One is, as Tony said, the fact that people see "Theory" and think it's a place to bring in outside grievances and bitch about the Forge. The second is that other people see "Theory" and think it's a place to continue Forge-type discussion. As I said, this makes discussion of actual craft very difficult because the foundational assumptions of "RPGs in general" are just too diverse. It's wearying to have to preface every post with a disclaimer that defines "what is an RPG for the sake of this discussion".
What I think would be best would be for people to not see theRPGsite in general and the Theory forum in particular as a place to épater les bourgeois or to rally in favor of a counter-revolution. In terms of board administration, I don't think much can be done (other than changing the forum name) without violating the standards of moderation here, however I would encourage people to follow those principles in posting. I don't want to embarrass droog but I think he sets a great example; JimBob in my opinion was not being constructive by dragging up an old post on another forum just to mock it, nor was Melinglor doing any good by allowing himself to be provoked into defending the indefensible.
I don't feel 100% certain of this approach, but theRPGsite is a bit of an experiment in free speech which is IMO worth continuing. One aspect of this is, essentially, everyone is carrying a nuclear bomb. So, can we self-regulate and at the same time engage in honest discussion, making an effort to hear each other's interests and opinions instead of engaging in sophistry and semantic wankery, or do we blow the place up?
Quote from: TonyLB... and I just don't see people using the theory in these discussions. It's more of a classic cycle of people opining on generalities without reference to much of anything real.
Much like other popular theory forums were for years? Seriously. I'm not seeing much of a difference between theRPGsite theory forum and those on RPGnet, The Forge, and Gamign Outpost. That said, I do see at least
one difference. . .
For some reason, here, in the land of the free (i.e., the loosely moderated), I've found myself, on occassion, agreeing with people that I would
never have agreed with at those other sites. You, for example. I think it might be that actual
discussion is taking place here -- even if it does occasionally get bogged down with bitching and moaning.
On the other aforementioned forums, it always seemed that it was about proselytization, rather than actual discussion. People came to the table with pre-conceived notions of How Things Work and, rather than being willing to dicuss other possibilities, it was all about shooting other possibilities down or trying to create a unified theory that painted all other possibilites as the crude byproduct of those pre-conceived notions about How Things Work.
Honestly, I don't miss that
at all. I rather enjoy discussing thing from different perspective and, sometimes, learning enough humility to redefine my own as a result.
The entire site has a percentage of bitch and moan attached to it (much like every single forum on the web I think). Why should the theory section escape?
Quote from: James McMurrayThe entire site has a percentage of bitch and moan attached to it (much like every single forum on the web I think). Why should the theory section escape?
Well, on some forums, threads consisting of bitching and moaning (read "dissenting opinion") are deleted or locked, which does minimize the occurance of such behavior in said environments ;)
Quote from: jdrakehbitching and moaning (read "dissenting opinion")
I really wish you
wouldn't read "bitching and moaning" as "dissenting opinion." That doesn't seem (to my eyes) to be how anyone else in this thread is using the term.
Part of developing new ideas is critically examining old ideas, taking out of them what is good, and discarding what is bad.
Sometimes, doing that will have the tone of "bitching and moaning." It is nonetheless, a useful critique.
Quote from: JimBobOzPart of developing new ideas is critically examining old ideas, taking out of them what is good, and discarding what is bad.
Sometimes, doing that will have the tone of "bitching and moaning." It is nonetheless, a useful critique.
Yeah, but there's also just plain bitching and moaning, with nothing productive coming out the far end. Ain't hard to tell the difference, and we've got a fair percentage of the purely negative.
That's true. But in all sorts of searching-for-truth, we have a lot of clutter - scientific studies to see if breast milk is better for babies than cow milk, that sort of thing.
You just have to take the good with the bad, the useful criticism with the bitching and moaning. That's life.
JimBob, in the "Do you have fun discussing theory?" thread you said:
"I enjoy dissing theory, which involves discussing theory, so I had to answer yes. I like taking things apart to see how they don't work"
that sounds a bit different from what you're saying here....
Quote from: StuartJimBob, in the "Do you have fun discussing theory?" thread you said:
"I enjoy dissing theory, which involves discussing theory, so I had to answer yes. I like taking things apart to see how they don't work"
that sounds a bit different from what you're saying here....
Yes and no.
You often hear people saying they'd like to act as "Devil's Advocate," by which they mean, "offering a balancing view, supporting something I disagree with just to be reasonable." The original meaning of it is something else. When the Catholc Church decides someone might be worth making a saint, they appoint a little group to investigate the person's life, find miracles and so on. They also appoint someone to be
Devil's Advocate - a representative of Satan himself, to say, "this man has sinned, he belongs with me in Hell."
That's why I try to do with a lot of rpg theory. Act as Devil's Advocate, in the original sense of the phrase - tell you why this theory should be condemned to eternity in damnation.
Some people may not like it, but the fact is that without the Devil's Advocate, no-one can be elevated to sainthood. Without critical people like me, no rpg theory or scientific hyothesis can ever be shown to be truly worthwhile.
This ...
Quote from: JimBobOzThat's why I try to do with a lot of rpg theory. Act as Devil's Advocate, in the original sense of the phrase - tell you why this theory should be condemned to eternity in damnation.
... is entirely different from this ...
Quote from: JimBobOzPart of developing new ideas is critically examining old ideas, taking out of them what is good, and discarding what is bad.
Now I genuinely don't care about any
value judgments you care to make here. I'm not saying that taking a devil's advocate position is
bad. I'm not saying it's good. I just don't care. In the broad context of the entire board, if you want to purely go after a theory saying "This is wrong, wrong, wrong!" feel free.
I'm trying to suss out which sub-forum such discussion belongs in. I'm not convinced that it belongs in a sub-forum which is explicitly supposed to be about
using the theory rather than chit-chatting about it. Frankly, the Devil's Advocate thing seems like chit-chat to me. How does it seem to you?
It's not different at all.
"Devil's Advocate" is "critically examining old ideas, taking out of them what is good, and discarding what is bad." It's the adversarial approach, rather than the inquisitorial approach. I tell you why theory X is wrong, you tell me why theory X is right. This is a different thing to just one of us examining theory X to see what's wrong and right about it, since that inquisitorial approach requires a good level of impartiality, a level I've not seen in rpg theory discussions - or in discussions of who should or shouldn't be a saint, for that matter.
Same shit, different shovel.
"Devil's Advocate" is not "This is wrong, wrong, wrong!" but, "This is wrong, because -" I think you'll find that I've usually given reasons for my criticisms.
Absoutely "Devil's Advocate" is "just chit-chat." But so is the whole fuckin' forum, mate. We're talking about this thing where we pretend to be elven princesses. Don't expect it to be rigorously academic. If it were, few of us would last longer than two minutes, we'd be torn to pieces. If you think my approach is rough, you've never seen a Master's or Doctoral board interviewing a candidate on their thesis, or one paper reviewed by some other scientist. Those guys are vicious, and vicious with substance. I'm just a pussy-cat compared to academics. So I don't think you want it to be more than "just chit-chat."
Quote from: JimBobOz"Devil's Advocate" is "critically examining old ideas, taking out of them what is good, and discarding what is bad."
No, it's
half of that. The half that you want to see happen. You don't care about getting to the good nuggets, because you don't think there are any good nuggets. You want to rip things to pieces because you think it's fun.
If you think people can't see that then you're a fool.
You're welcome to tear whatever theory you want as many new orifices as you feel it deserves. I just think that you consistently do so in the wrong sub-forum.
Quote from: JimBobOzPart of developing new ideas is critically examining old ideas, taking out of them what is good, and discarding what is bad.
Sometimes, doing that will have the tone of "bitching and moaning." It is nonetheless, a useful critique.
Nope. Not like that. That forum has very little productive discussions going on. Say what you will about a place like the Forge but the one amazing thing I've always admired about them is that they deliver.
They discuss productively about concepts. They design and write games and then they help each others for publication. The design/theory section of RPGsite is at the other hand of the spectrum.
If people want to bitch and moan, I'm not saying they shouldn't. But have a real design section, where we can actually conceptualize things and have a bitchy section for those who want to moan, cry and aren't interested in achieving anything.
We're getting a lot more users lately, things are getting interesting and we could soon have some interesting design discussions going, perhaps even by exxperienced pros. But not under the current conditions because right now, that section is just not appealing for that. It looks like a fucking battlefield and the tone of many of the threads is rather pathetic.
Quote from: Consonant DudeIt looks like a fucking battlefield...
Consider that this may be the intent.
People can say whatever they please here and until Pundit or jrients decide they have a vested interest in the protection of the theory forum it will
stay a battlefield.
Quote from: TonyLBNo, it's half of that. The half that you want to see happen. You don't care about getting to the good nuggets, because you don't think there are any good nuggets. You want to rip things to pieces because you think it's fun.
If you think that, then you ought to present us with a theory which is so well-crafted, so well-based on facts and good reasoning, it can't be torn apart by obnoxious people on the internet. If your theory can't even stand up to the analytical cleaver of J. Random Internet Poster, then it
deserves to perish.
In any case, the Devil's Advocate, by pointing out which is the dross, the slag, the waste, lets everyone else see what remains - the gold.
That does not mean there's gold anywhere you dig.
Quote from: TonyLBYou're welcome to tear whatever theory you want as many new orifices as you feel it deserves. I just think that you consistently do so in the wrong sub-forum.
Oh, is that all this is? Well, fuck off to the mods and tell them to move the thread, then. Jeez...
Quote from: fonkaygarryConsider that this may be the intent.
People can say whatever they please here and until Pundit or jrients decide they have a vested interest in the protection of the theory forum it will stay a battlefield.
Well, I'm not sure I understand you. Or maybe I need to clarify. I don't have a very strong opinion on the theory side. My interest is on the design side of things.
I've read Pundit say many times that he likes new threads and he wants more interesting conversations on this website. What I'm trying to say is that he might accomplish that goal by having a better design section. I don't actually care if it's tied to theory or not but *this* design section sucks ass and makes for very forgettable conversations most of the time.
Hence, I think it is in Pundit's best interest (if he likes interesting new threads) to reconsider how these sections work right now, and how they often overlap needlessly with the general roleplaying section right now.
At least, that's how I see it.
The theory section is dead not because of anti-theory people threadcrapping on it, but because there are only a few people contributing to it. The sort of person who comes to a forum with fuck-all moderation run by RPGPundit is just not likely to be interested in rpg theory.
It's like going to a Republican forum to talk about the troubles of single mothers on welfare, or to a German vegetarian forum to talk about Texan beef.
RPG theory has a good chunk of the rpg forums out there... rpg.net and gamecraft, for example... not like there's nowhere to talk about it.
Quote from: JimBobOzThe theory section is dead not because of anti-theory people threadcrapping on it, but because there are only a few people contributing to it. The sort of person who comes to a forum with fuck-all moderation run by RPGPundit is just not likely to be interested in rpg theory.
It's like going to a Republican forum to talk about the troubles of single mothers on welfare, or to a German vegetarian forum to talk about Texan beef.
RPG theory has a good chunk of the rpg forums out there... rpg.net and gamecraft, for example... not like there's nowhere to talk about it.
I signed up for this forum specifically because I thought it would be a place to discuss game design without the conversation being dominated by Forge / GNS stuff.
The Anti-Theory threadcrapping has me looking for other options...
Quote from: JimBobOzIf you think that, then you ought to present us with a theory which is so well-crafted, so well-based on facts and good reasoning, it can't be torn apart by obnoxious people on the internet. If your theory can't even stand up to the analytical cleaver of J. Random Internet Poster, then it deserves to perish.
In any case, the Devil's Advocate, by pointing out which is the dross, the slag, the waste, lets everyone else see what remains - the gold.
That does not mean there's gold anywhere you dig.
That's gold, right up there.
Quote from: JimBobOzIf you think that, then you ought to present us with a theory which is so well-crafted, so well-based on facts and good reasoning, it can't be torn apart by obnoxious people on the internet. If your theory can't even stand up to the analytical cleaver of J. Random Internet Poster, then it deserves to perish.
That may well be true but the Theory forum is not, I think, meant to be the gladiatorial arena in which theories are flung to the lions to make sure only the strong survive. I'm not saying that's not a worthy purpose ... just that it is explicitly
not the purpose of the Theory forum as stated.
And, honestly? I think that's a good thing. Slicing the hell out of things you disagree with is
easy. It may well be very important, but it's undeniably the lazy man's way to do theory. Taking something that strikes you, at first glance, as unworkable and dedicating yourself to finding the good in it ... that's hard and necessary. People can benefit from a place where that is what they are
supposed to be doing. Sticking to the rules will act as a reminder when the going gets rough, and they'd rather give up the effort and just go full-bore negative ... a reminder of what they intended to do in the first place.
Quote from: JimBobOzOh, is that all this is? Well, fuck off to the mods and tell them to move the thread, then. Jeez...
I don't really think we need to solve all our problems by running to the mods. I think the better solution is for people to take a few moments to be responsible and post comments in the right place.
I didn't post
this thread in (for instance) the Roleplaying Forum. Why? Because it's got fuck-all to do with the explicitly stated purpose of that forum.
Likewise, I think a little consciousness on the part of the community of what the Theory forum is for and what it isn't for would go a long way toward making it more useful for its explicitly stated purpose.
Quote from: TonyLBI really wish you wouldn't read "bitching and moaning" as "dissenting opinion." That doesn't seem (to my eyes) to be how anyone else in this thread is using the term.
Well, given that the second a gullible mod is convinced that he should ban "bitching and moaning", the Forge types will use that to silence any criticism of their theories, I think he's right on the money.
The fact is that there's a lot of productive stuff coming out of the Theory forum. The Historical Cast stuff, for example.
What the theory forum is not a "Productive" place for, however, is for people to come in and talk about pretentious bullshit (be it Forge-theory or Forge-esque-theory) and get away with it. That's what Tony would like; most of us are too busy making actual gaming stuff.
That said, I have tried to suggest that people put less of their effort into attacking the Forge on that forum, and more into working on productive ideas for RPGs. I'd personally prefer it that way, but I'm certainly not going to force people to.
And no, I'm not going to take the word "theory" out of the Theory forum; because to do so would be to invite all the Forge plants on here to flood the main forum with theory-related posts. The only reason they haven't tried that tactic yet is because they know I would just move their GNS threads to the Theory forum if they tried.
So yes, the Theory forum here is one-half workshop, and one-half safety vent, which prevents that sort of shit (be it the "bitching" about Forge theory or the crap Forge theory itself) from being pushed in the main RPG forum.
RPGPundit
Quote from: StuartI signed up for this forum specifically because I thought it would be a place to discuss game design without the conversation being dominated by Forge / GNS stuff.
The Anti-Theory threadcrapping has me looking for other options...
But see, you CAN do that here. There's nothing stopping you. Just start a fucking thread.
Or join in the Historical cast one, or the ones Silverlion made, or countless others. If you don't like Jimbob ragging on theorists, just ignore those threads.
If you want to make a game mechanic, game, game setting, whatever, and you're sincerely interested in that, and not the mental masturbation and using big words in the style of the Forge, you will see others interested and getting on board.
Tony is just upset that he can't silence people who are criticizing his precious GNS on here, like he can on other sites.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditBut see, you CAN do that here. There's nothing stopping you. Just start a fucking thread.
Like these? ;)
Reward Mechanics (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4416)Medieval Combat (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4118)
Game Session Length (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3720)
Traditional GM / Player structure (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3690)
RPGs: Just for Geeks? (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3422)
Tracy Hickman: Ethics in Fantasy (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3318)
"A Game for Making Stories" (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3310)
Competitive Play (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3229)
Game Design Glossary (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3149)
What kind of game is an RPG? (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3044)
Combat System -- Knife, Sword, Spear (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2798)
Combat System -- Touch Attacks (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2790)
Mental Statistics (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737)
Collaborative Storytelling vs Virtual Experience (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2744)
Armour in Games (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2694)
Fantasy Heartbreaker? (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2725)
RPGs: War Games and Theatre Sports (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2535)
Book Excerpt: A Theory of Fun for Game Design (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2652)
Games and Roleplaying Games Theory (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2611)
What would you improve? (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2580)
When is it a Roleplaying Game, and when is it just Roleplaying? (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1700)
All of these threads were started because of something I was thinking about for the game I'm working on. They're all game design related.
Quote from: RPGPunditThat said, I have tried to suggest that people put less of their effort into attacking the Forge on that forum, and more into working on productive ideas for RPGs. I'd personally prefer it that way, but I'm certainly not going to force people to.
Yep. We're on the same page. You tried to suggest that people work more on producing useful stuff and less on criticizing for the sake of criticizing. Now I'm suggesting the same. Maybe if enough people hear enough different statements of support, the idea will make better headway.
Quote from: StuartLike these? ;)
SNIP
All of these threads were started because of something I was thinking about for the game I'm working on. They're all game design related.
Right, and its awesome that you did. But that's my point: a lot of those were successful threads. Right now we have, relatively active:
A thread about RPGs simulating drug use
A thread talking about the overlap between gaming genres and pop media
A thread on reward mechanics
A thread of some wierdass thing Grim's going on about
A thread where Clash talks about the design of his newest game
A thread by Jimbob where he complains about Chris Chin
And of course the stickied thread about the Historical Cast project
So of 7 active threads on the Theory forum, there's precisely ONE that's only about complaining about Forge stuff; there's two that have to do with actual products that have been/are being designed; there's 2 that are about actual design of mechanics, one about issues in gaming today; and one that's um.. about Grim.
That's not a bad track record at all.
RPGPundit
Well, let's see now ... let's check out what's happened since you posted that.
Looks like a troll have completely derailed GRIM's attempt to get some DIY game-design going by arguing that game design isn't creative, and turning the thread into an argument about that rather than a chance to actually design games.
Stuart's thread appears to be holding up somewhat better: There is some pulling from people who would like to talk about the way they feel D&D has been misrepresented in the community, but in between people getting sucked into that tangent, a few people are still trickling in opinions about what reward mechanics they enjoy.
Awfully high infant mortality rate among these threads. In your place I would not be crowing about that track record. If this is the cost of fighting The War then it's a pretty steep price-tag.
Has anyone created spawn threads to deflect the derailment?
Haven't noticed any, nope!
Well, perhaps people worried about thread derailment should work to stop it instead of just complaining about it. :)
Yeah, I could, but I'm not going to. I'm sorry if that sounds snippy, but I'm genuinely not interested in becoming some sort of unofficial police-man for the site.
If people want to come together as a community to apply some standards, to themselves primarily, then I think that'd be a great thing. But trying to create those standards from outside is a lost cause. The best that can be done (and I'm trying to do it) is to make people aware of the issue, and make people who were already aware of the issue aware that other people are aware of the issue.
LOL. Okely dokely then. Just don't expect much sympathy from me. I'm not a fan of cleaning up messes people won't clean up for themselves. :)
And yet you advocate that I should be?
You're the one with the problem, or at least the one bothered enough to start a thread. To say "here's a problem, but no, I'm not going to do anything to fix it" is just useless complaining.
Here, I'll offer a theory of my own:
"Theory threads work best when they're about actual design problems, either for modifying a specific game or designing a new game. They fall down to a greater or lesser degree when they try to do the following:
• Present generalized definitions and taxonomies for use outside the current thread.
• Discuss general theories about RPGs as a whole.
• Engage in comparative discussion of the workings of widely-varying games."
Stewart's thread on rewards for example could profit from a little context about the other parts of the game that he's thinking about. That'd make it easier to figure out what types of reward mechanism (and I assume he's talking about mechanical rewards) would work for that game.
Quote from: Elliot WilenStewart Stuart's thread on rewards for example could profit from a little context about the other parts of the game that he's thinking about. That'd make it easier to figure out what types of reward mechanism (and I assume he's talking about mechanical rewards) would work for that game.
I wanted the thread to be a discussion of people's favourite reward systems, rather than "What reward system do you think would work for my game?" I've got a reward system in place now, but the discussion is helpful in seeing if there's another Point of View I didn't consider. That's what happened with the Armour as AC vs Damage Reduction discussions we had a few months ago -- I went back and reworked the combat system based on seeing all the positive comments about DR.
Quote from: TonyLBYeah, I could [start a thread defecting the attack], but I'm not going to. I'm sorry if that sounds snippy, but I'm genuinely not interested in becoming some sort of unofficial police-man for the site.
So you can start a thread complaining about a thread, but can't stand a thread which deflects the other thread? And a thread complaining is being a "police-man", but a thread deflecting is not?
*scratches his head*
Sorry about misspelling your name, Stuart.
Your thread is going okay last I checked. But "reward systems" (even restricted to mechanical rewards) is a lot broader than discussions of armor--I mean the latter presumes that combat will be handled in at least a moderate level of detail, so there's implied context.
QuoteOutside of fora devoted to individual games, I haven't found a place better suited than theRPGsite to discussion of design and practice within or near "traditional" or "mainstream" RPG paradigms. But there are two things that keep screwing that up. One is, as Tony said, the fact that people see "Theory" and think it's a place to bring in outside grievances and bitch about the Forge. The second is that other people see "Theory" and think it's a place to continue Forge-type discussion. As I said, this makes discussion of actual craft very difficult because the foundational assumptions of "RPGs in general" are just too diverse. It's wearying to have to preface every post with a disclaimer that defines "what is an RPG for the sake of this discussion".
And this is partly why both the "design-by-post" thread ideas I've been kicking around starting have remained quarely in the "idea in my head that occasionally pops up" category The other of course is the usual procrastination.
I want a game design forum WITHOUT the theory. Like Art of Game Design used to be back on RPGnet long ago, but with more actual traffic and people posting to it.
So basically, the threads I've been considering have been held back because I didn't feel there was presently an appropriate place to put them.
I don't give two flaming shits about theory. I think the entire concept of "RPG theory" itself is the most idiotic nonsense I've ever heard. And I don't care to have to step around a bunch of pretentious bullshit just to talk about whether the probability curve of my die mechanic is going to be alright, or whether this particular skill seems to powerful, or whatever.
For me it's really a crap shoot. Sometimes a theory issue can have a mechanical underpinning or effect. My first thread here was about trying to pin down the mechanical impacts/issues/goals of "conflict resolution" and how it really truly differed from "task resolution." I still love that thread.
And I had a great time talking about Stances, if for no other reason than to get a glimpse into how other people approach the table.
But what I really enjoy the most are the mechanical discussions like rewards or skill/attributes or hot points or damage reduction.
At times I think theory is good for understanding how different people play. It hasn't been very good at translating that into design theory, IMHO (as E. often points out). It's why I was interested in the Design Patterns book that we discussed here a while ago. If something like that can be written without bias for or against a certain approach to playing, it could be a bridge to understand how certain designs facilitate or work against certain styles of play - strictly as a guideline sort of thing (as there always seem to be exceptions).
Quote from: J ArcaneAnd this is partly why both the "design-by-post" thread ideas I've been kicking around starting have remained quarely in the "idea in my head that occasionally pops up" category The other of course is the usual procrastination.
I want a game design forum WITHOUT the theory. Like Art of Game Design used to be back on RPGnet long ago, but with more actual traffic and people posting to it.
So basically, the threads I've been considering have been held back because I didn't feel there was presently an appropriate place to put them.
I don't give two flaming shits about theory. I think the entire concept of "RPG theory" itself is the most idiotic nonsense I've ever heard. And I don't care to have to step around a bunch of pretentious bullshit just to talk about whether the probability curve of my die mechanic is going to be alright, or whether this particular skill seems to powerful, or whatever.
You know, it is the "game design" and "theory" forum. They don't need to be linked. You could just put a big preface at the start of your thread saying "NO THEORY, just help with mechanics".
RPGPundit