I haven't yet read the thread, I just want to explain my reply:

I enjoy talking theory.  I enjoy learning theory.  But mostly I like to talk about gaming with other gamers.  Theory and GM advice are pretty similar things in my experience, although the Forgey stuff is definitely in its own class.  

I also think that RPG theory is close to a breakthrough.  Some of the "how to design a game" stuff that comes out of the Forge (that's ancillary to GNS) is pretty cool.  I'm referring specifically to The Power 19, but there are other examples.

No, I find theory terribly boring. Like damn near everything else in the world, gaming is more fun to do than discuss.

If people enjoy theoretical discussions, I'm glad they've found something to entertain themselves with. But it seems to me that most rpg theory has become the end unto itself, rather than the means to an end. Which doesn't make it something bad, just something that's only tangentially connected to roleplaying.

I have no interest in discussing theory on the web at all. I sometimes talk theory with mates but only in relation to games we might play.

Frankly it's only a fucking hobby and I'd rather talk about fitbae.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut I do just want to note, the Theory section is remarkably active, way more than I ever thought it would be.

Maybe someday I'll check it out. I was sold on not going there from the kickoff by your braindead 'manifesto' followed up by a couple of other threads. It seemed filled to the brim of the worst kind of "theory" talk, the type that doesn't seem to be about playing games at all.

Quote from: JongWKShouldn't this go in the Theory subforum? Just asking...

I consider almost all of the traffic in this forum to be theory related discussions.

Quote from: blakkieMost people that use computers wouldn't know an N-P junction if someone handed it to them. But it sure as hell is important for somebody to know and understand it to make those damn computer-thingies do their magic.

Overwhelmingly -- with very few, if any, exceptions, RPG theory is useless for making things.

The vast majority of RPG theories can't be used to create or design games the way scientific theories can be used to develop the underlying engineering disciplines used to build computers.

Broken analogy.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Overwhelmingly -- with very few, if any, exceptions, RPG theory is useless for making things.

Well, the theoretical questions of "reward mechanics" and "the role of the GM as provider of adversity" were essential elements in my creating Capes.  So ... y'know ... I disagree.  These ideas can lead to end-products.

Quote from: TonyLBWell, the theoretical questions of "reward mechanics" and "the role of the GM as provider of adversity" were essential elements in my creating Capes.  So ... y'know ... I disagree.  These ideas can lead to end-products.

Yeah... we've been over this... but that's no reason not to keep talking.

Psychology and economics both apply theoretical models of how rewards motivate people.

Game theory attempts to address how those principles can be used in games.

If you said, "I used psychology theory to design my game," we wouldn't be having this discussion -- I'd *agree* with you.

But for RPG theory to take credit for the idea that people respond to rewards, it would have to be a unique insight made by RPG theory.

It isn't.

I mean, if I went and said "people respond to rewards in games" could I claim that Capes was based on "-E. Theory?"

I suspect you might disagree with that.

RPG theory can try to take credit for insights from other disciplines, but... it might be better served by doing it's own work.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Yeah... we've been over this... but that's no reason not to keep talking.

Cheers,
-E.

WTF??? That's just a big pile of nothing.  In fact the purpose of "game theory" (you mean the field of applied mathematics/economics, right?) is exactly the reverse, to use people playing games to test and gain insights applicable to other fields.

Particularly this one is a steaming pile of squat:

QuoteRPG theory can try to take credit for insights from other disciplines, but... it might be better served by doing it's own work.

Um, the process of transfering insights from other fields of human knowledge is one kickass way to advance another.

It really sounds like you are getting hung up on this "RPG theory" must equal "bigass, multiple multipage HTML, self-referencing glossary, with extra-essays-on-the-side Theory Of Everything"

Quote from: blakkieWTF??? That's just a big pile of nothing.  In fact the purpose of "game theory" (you mean the field of applied mathematics/economics, right?) is exactly the reverse, to use people playing games to test and gain insights applicable to other fields.

Particularly this one is a steaming pile of squat:

Um, transfering insights from other fields of human knowledge is one kickass way to advance another.

It really sounds like you are getting hung up on this "RPG theory" must equal "bigass, multiple multipage HTML, self-referencing glossary, with extra-essays-on-the-side Theory Of Everything"

... I'm having a bit of a hard time following your statement here -- game theory is applied economic (or mathematic) theory to look at how people make decisions.

It strongly considers how the outcomes of those decisions (in combination with choices made by other players) might affect the decision making process.

Hence, it's relationship to how things like tactical choices in a RPG combat might affect player decisions...

As for the, uh, charming coloquialism (the steaming pile of squat), I wonder if you're reading me correctly -- I didn't say applying insights from a theory to your life (or your game design) was a bad thing.

I did say that claiming those insights for RPG theory was a bad idea -- just as claiming them for '-E.' theory would be.

I think that it would be possible for RPG theory to take the basic principles laid out in game theory and psychology and think deeply about how they apply to roleplaying games.

The result would be a model of how people behave / make decisions and how reward mechanics affect them.

That model/theory doesn't exist.

So far, RPG theory hasn't contributed to the conversation. I look forward to the day it does.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I did say that claiming those insights for RPG theory was a bad idea -- just as claiming them for '-E.' theory would be.

Oh for fucks sake, you are doing exactly what I've seen Ron Edwards do. Arguing irrelavent semantics and who invented what wheel. While missing totally the point. Much ado about squat. :rolleyes: :pundit:

Quote from: blakkieOh for fucks sake, you are doing exactly what I've seen Ron Edwards do. Arguing irrelavent semantics and who invented what wheel. While missing totally missing the point. Much ado about squat. :rolleyes: :pundit:

... turning down the volume on this end...

I'm just saying that "RPG Theory" doesn't really say anything.

When someone says, "It says that bodies attract each other based on their mass!" I say, "No -- the theory of *gravity* says that."

When I'm told that RPG theory's models of how reward mechanics influence player behavior have been used to design games... I ask to see those models and theories -- they turn out to be basic psychology with no value-add for relevance to RPG theory.

I think it's cool to apply psychology to RPG games.
I think it's cool to apply game theory to RPG games.

If RPG theory added to those theories -- if it showed how different reward mechanics could drive different behaviors, for example, that would be cool.

But it doesn't. When you read RPG theory you get stuff like, "D&D games are about combat because there are combat rules in the book" and the idea that Vampire most-likely results in "on going power struggle."

That, actually, is an "insight" that's unique to RPG theory -- and is a model of human behavior -- but it's too sad to pursue in any seriousness.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I'm just saying that "RPG Theory" doesn't really say anything.

It (the 'useful' bits anyway) includes how to apply game theory and psychology and so on to RPGs.  In the same way that economic theory includes how to apply and incorporate psychology into economic models.  Because psychology doesn't do that by itself.

So really, you are just bitchin' about who invented the wheel.

Quote from: -E.I mean, if I went and said "people respond to rewards in games" could I claim that Capes was based on "-E. Theory?"

No man, because you didn't write it.  I wrote it.  I know where I got the ideas.  You don't.

Could I also have gotten the ideas from somewhere else?  I suppose it's possible.  But I didn't.  I got them from RPG Theory discussions.  I know.  I was there

Quote from: blakkieIt (the 'useful' bits anyway) includes how to apply game theory and psychology and so on to RPGs.  In the same way that economic theory includes how to apply and incorporate psychology into economic models.  Because psychology doesn't do that by itself.

So really, you are just bitchin' about who invented the wheel.

The "useful bits" are few and damn far between.

Try this exercise -- go find those useful bits...

What you'll actually see are

* Questions by people who are trying to use the theory and need actionable content (instructions for applying the high-level principles)
* Insights taken from other disciplines and the *assertion* that they apply to RPGs (this is what TonyLB means when he says he "used the theory"), but without guidance on how to apply those theories to RPGs
* Theory defendes claiming that the theory will one day have "useful bits" but doesn't yet because it's "too new"
* Crazy talk -- actual theory of human behavior, that's brain damage or power-struggle

Here's what I'm saying:

People will tell you that "the theory" tells you how to apply insights from psychology, economics, mathematics, etc. to RPG's.

They're wrong.

It doesn't.

If it did, it *would* be useful, but so far, that hasn't happened.

Cheers,
-E.