Quote from: TonyLBNo 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

It sounds like your cool ideas that people respond to re-enforcement really shaped your game -- but it appears you're not quite clear where they came from (since you first encountered them in RPG Theory discussions).

You're probably interested in the origin of those ideas, so let me help you out:

Are you familiar with my theory of radical behaviorism? I laid it out in my 1957 book "Schedules of Reinforcement"

It's all about how humans respond to re-enforcement and conditioning. I was quite a national figure for a time, and like you, others have used my ideas for everything from child-care to prisoner interrogation.

My theory of radical behaviorism is actually where that bit of RPG Theory you use came from -- but do you know how I managd to get it published in a way you could read it?

You you probably learned about on the Internet, which I also invented (although we just called it ARPANET, back then).

But maybe you didn't learn about RPG Theory from the Internet... that was an assumption about it on my part... Did you hear about it from your friends? Although some wags (Chomsky, Pinker) believe humans are born with a ridiculous "language instinct" let me be clear -- I invented talking.

I have a manifesto for that around somewhere...

You're welcome!
-E.

Quote from: -E.Although some wags (Chomsky, Pinker) believe humans are born with a ridiculous "language instinct" let me be clear -- I invented talking.

Well thanks!  I've gotten a lot of use out of that, and I never really did know where to direct my gratitude.

Quote from: -E.The "useful bits" are few and damn far between.

Being interspersed with asshats spouting Very Unuseful Bits like your string of posts this can be the case. So I think you can understand a request for you to do your part to help to lower the noise ratio by instead talking about the origins of other inventions....over at this site here.

Good day and we thank you for your support in this endevour!

Quote from: blakkieBeing interspersed with asshats spouting Very Unuseful Bits like your string of posts this can be the case. So I think you can understand a request for you to do your part to help to lower the noise ratio by instead talking about the origins of other inventions....over at this site here.

Good day and we thank you for your support in this endevour!

I don't think asking RPG theory to actually say something is un-useful.

I *like* theory. I think that by holding it to an incredibly low standard where it doesn't need to say anything useful so long as it advocates a style you like actually *damages* theory.

Someday RPG theory may develop to the point where it supports the design of RPG games... but so long as people keep pretending it's there when it isn't, that day gets further away.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I don't think asking RPG theory to actually say something is un-useful.

It is when you are arguing pointless semantics about how the useful parts of the discusions they Don't Count. Now run along to where you can be so very, very helpful!

Quote from: blakkieIt is when you are arguing pointless semantics about how the useful parts of the discusions they Don't Count. Now run along to where you can be so very, very helpful!

Semantics... you use that word a lot. I'm not sure that it means what you think it means.

Cheers,
-E.

I have no clue what it means. Fortunately I have access to a dictionary so I can figure out what I just said. Ummmm....here we are .

EDIT: Or would it make you feel better if we agreed upon a tighter classification for your drivel as Very Unuseful Taxonomy?  Because I do so relish irony.

I think what -E. is taking issue with is the fact that most accepted RPG theory is created from whole cloth.  Or at least presented as such.

I agree with him if that's what he's saying.  The number one problem with RPG theory is that it does not take into account applicable theory from other fields.  Game theory is a good one, but so is communications, philosophy and drama.

Quote from: joewolzI think what -E. is taking issue with is the fact that most accepted RPG theory is created from whole cloth.  Or at least presented as such.

I agree with him if that's what he's saying.  The number one problem with RPG theory is that it does not take into account applicable theory from other fields.  Game theory is a good one, but so is communications, philosophy and drama.

Pretty much true, but my problem goes even deeper than that -- RPG Theory makes *all kinds* of claims about how/why people

* Have fun
* Get into arguments
* Relate to game mechanics
* Etc.

These are important things to understand -- there is a real value to doing theory...

But the theory doesn't just get it's answers *wrong* -- it actually *doesn't* answer them.

Consider GNS:

GNS tells us that games can facilitate player's enjoyment of a game by providing mechanics that support a player's agenda.

In theory, a game designer could then build a game with those mechanics and provide a better gaming experience.

People even claim they've done this!

But if you look at what the theory actually says about mechanics supporting agendas you find that it's hopelessly vague:

1) Mechanics themselves don't support agendas -- rather "ecosystems" of mechanics do
2) Exactly what an ecoystem is or how one might build one is never defined

A game designer trying to apply the theory is simply left with a general assertion and no way to go further.

Most enterprising designers trying to apply theory wouldn't stop there, though -- they would look at existing games and see if they reflected the theory and could be used as examples of how to apply it.

But when you try that you quickly discover that *no one* can figure out if a game is really Narrativist (or any other ist/ism) or not.

Is The Riddle of Steel narrativist? If so, why?
Is D&D Gamist?
How could you tell?

Everyone's got an opinion, certainly -- but the theory doesn't tell you how to figure this stuff out.

At the end of the day, the theory simply doesn't address any of the questions it claims to answer.

Why?

Most of the theory defenders claim that it's too immature -- but it's more than 5 years old now... you'd think *someone* would have done the work.

Here's what I think is the *real* reason: once you become *specific* you become falsifiable.

The theory is bascially crazy/wrong (games do not cause brain damage. Vampire does not most-likely result in power struggler, etc.)

So long as the theory is extremely vague, it's harder (but not impossible) to see this clearly. But if the theory said, "Here are a list of mechanics that will support Simulationism" then people could check them out and see if they worked or not.

It would be the functional end of GNS/TBM.

Or -- just maybe -- it would result in the development of the theory to the point where it was more accurate and more usable... but then you couldn't use it to claim brain-damage or cry about being victimized by authoritarian GM's...

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Consider GNS

Well, how about we, instead, consider things like reward mechanics, cycles of currency, positive and negative feedback loops, and point of contact?

Those are things that can tell me very clearly how a game will run, what patterns of behavior it will encourage and what sort of relationships it will support between players at the table.

Does that tell me whether the game will be "fun"?  Nah.  But I'm honestly okay with that.  If I can make a game that will strongly support the feel of (say) a desperate group of strangers trying to hang together in the face of a zombie-apocalypse, then I'm content with that.  I don't need the theory to tell me whether it will or won't be fun.  I'm willing to take my chances.

So, y'know, if RPG Theory doesn't give me the Formula For Fun ... so what?  I'm satisfied with less ambitious goals.  If it shows me how to make a self-balancing, challenging, tactically rich game that links to the themes and patterns I want to see at the table ... that's a lot.

Yeah, but you see, Theory encourages utterly meaningless drivel like your "positive feedback loops". It travels off into insane directions that have nothing to do with how anyone normal ever would intentionally try to play an RPG if he wasn't an idiot, just because some pretentious shithead thought it looked good on paper.

RPGPundit

So ... uh ... that's your argument?  You basically take a post completely out of context, post about it somewhere else to call it idiocy, then link back to your own post to give yourself an air of authority?

Yeah.  Y'know what?  That's weak shit.  I'm inclined to think that you're too cowardly to actually debate an issue with me face to face.

Positive feedback loops are basic math:  If a system can have outcome 1 or outcome 2, and it feeds back into itself in such a way that an initial outcome 1 will make outcome 1 more likely in future, and an initial outcome 2 will make outcome 2 more likely in future then as you run the system over and over you will very, very quickly end up with a setup that can only produce outcome 1 or outcome 2, depending on how the first few outcomes came out.

Like, if your ability to deal damage decreased as your hit-points decreased ... whoever got the first lucky shot in on a combat would have a huge advantage, and that advantage would only increase as the fight went on.  It's called a "death spiral" in some situations (usually ones where people want more ongoing uncertainty, so that the bad connotations of "death" are appropriate).

By contrast a system where outcome 1 makes outcome 2 more likely in future, and outcome 2 makes outcome 1 more likely in future is a negative feedback loop.  It tends away from either extreme, like a pendulum or a spring (in fact, mathematically, exactly like a pendulum or a spring).

Now that's usually used to talk about mechanical feedback, because we can easily track how that changes the system.  If I have a -5 to hit, I can say that's made the chances that I'll succeed at hitting my target much smaller.  Social feedback is much more indirect, so it's harder to see how it forms loops.  If I get encouraged for facing down the evil Baron, does that make me more likely to succeed at social challenges in future?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  That makes it harder to design for.

Any questions?

Quote from: TonyLBWell, how about we, instead, consider things like reward mechanics, cycles of currency, positive and negative feedback loops, and point of contact?

Those are things that can tell me very clearly how a game will run, what patterns of behavior it will encourage and what sort of relationships it will support between players at the table.

Does that tell me whether the game will be "fun"?  Nah.  But I'm honestly okay with that.  If I can make a game that will strongly support the feel of (say) a desperate group of strangers trying to hang together in the face of a zombie-apocalypse, then I'm content with that.  I don't need the theory to tell me whether it will or won't be fun.  I'm willing to take my chances.

So, y'know, if RPG Theory doesn't give me the Formula For Fun ... so what?  I'm satisfied with less ambitious goals.  If it shows me how to make a self-balancing, challenging, tactically rich game that links to the themes and patterns I want to see at the table ... that's a lot.

I tell you what -- if you want to be more specific, let's get more specific.

Link us to where RPG theory talks clearly and specifically about any of those things and let's see if it goes further than a reference to basic insights from other established disciplines.

I'm really not asking for much -- I'm not asking for a wiki or mathematical formulas, or anything else.

When I spoke of a "formula for fun" I was just going on what GNS claims to provide... if some other theory makes different claims, my standards are different.

Let's take a look!

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Link us to where RPG theory talks clearly and specifically about any of those things and let's see if it goes further than a reference to basic insights from other established disciplines.

What a fortuitous cross-post!  I refer you to the post directly above yours, in which I talk about positive and negative feedback loops conceptually.  If you'd like to talk about the ways in which the concept is applied to games, and thereby makes its way fully into RPG Theory, I'd be delighted ... but we probably want to spawn a thread off into the Theory forum.

Quote from: TonyLBYeah.  Y'know what?  That's weak shit.  I'm inclined to think that you're too cowardly to actually debate an issue with me face to face.

Positive feedback loops are basic math:

Any questions?

Well, this goes back to my assertion that "RPG Theory" isn't really it's own discipline.

If I have a dice mechanic and I use probability theory to figure out what the odds of hitting are, do you consider that RPG theory?

I think that's, you know, basic math.

When I write my game in english, using grammar, to communicate my ideas, is that RPG theory? I think that's what we call "writing" over here.

Exactly how low *are* your standards for this stuff?

Cheers,
-E.