For a long time I've been reading all these theory threads and having been going :hmm: and then I slide into :ponder: and come up with this :

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-language/#3.3

It's been years since I read up on my Dworkin (Ronald). But I think he can make a valuable contribution to all this theory talk. Pay particular attention to the Semantic Sting entry. I also think his views on constructive interpretation may be useful in any theory discussions. So maybe comparing RPG theory with Legal theory is dodgy (maybe it's been done before?), but I just thought I would throw this out there.

Also while I'm at it. How about trying to define RPGs in the following method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_L._Fuller

The 8 Desiderata of what constitutes a RPG or a RPG theory.

What do you folks think or should I :forge:

Regards,
David R

I think this avenue warrants further exploration, even if I can't quite wrap my head around some of the text behind the first link.

Exactly, and thank you, David R.

One of the major issues I have with Ron Edwards' community is the fact that people feel that RPG theory must be made from whole cloth.  There is a lot of work on rhetoric, stories, and shared story-telling experience out there.  

Why the hell isn't anyone USING it?

Whenever I read about rpg theory and the ensuing disagreements, I can't help but to smile and fondly remember many of the aspects of legal theory that would seem right at home in any rpg discussion - like this phrase in the first link which nicely summarizes Dworkin's views ( it is  also worth noting that there is a vast body of literature critical  of Dworkin's theory):

QuoteThe semantic sting is the misconception that the language of the law can be meaningful only if lawyers share such criteria. It is fatal to a legal theory because it leads theorist to think that people cannot have any deep (or substantive or genuine) disagreement about the law.

They can only disagree about empirical questions (as to what words were used in a statute), or about how penumbral cases should be resolved, or whether the law should be changed. Disagreeing about the criteria for application of the language of the law would be like using the same words for different meanings. People who disagree in that way are only talking past each other.

[/I]

Regards,
David R

Quote from: joewolzExactly, and thank you, David R.

One of the major issues I have with Ron Edwards' community is the fact that people feel that RPG theory must be made from whole cloth.  There is a lot of work on rhetoric, stories, and shared story-telling experience out there.  

Why the hell isn't anyone USING it?

That's exactly my problem with a lot of it.  The Forgies make a lot of their pseudoacademic approach to story, but their methodologies are sloppy (at best).  There is little engagement with established social theory or critical studies of narrative.

Edwards' notion of story is...unique, to put it charitably.  I think he's very wrong-headed in his approach.  Story is an artifact of experience, a way for us to organize what actually happened and make it somehow meaningful and useful.  Story comes after the fact.  Legislating narrative seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

I still find more of value from the pragmatic advice offered by the AD&D 1st edition DMG and (more recently, for me) Book 0 of Traveller than any 200 posts on the Forge.

As a (crazy po-mo) lit major, I've not read much of Dworkin, but I think you might be on to something here, David.

:reporter:

And David R is looking at theory and he's scratching his head.  He dodges left, into the law library, looking for a lateral pass, folks, yes, he's got one, he's going for it, going for it...

GOOOOOOAAAAAL!!!!!

Just to complete what I think are some interesting points in the first link. I suppose it does not take that great a leap of ...dare I say it? -imagination - to see where I'm fumbling towards. (Emphasis mine)

Quote...But he (Dworkin) claims words like law (and presumbly most legal terms) stand for interpretive concepts. The correct application of an interpretive concept is determined not by a shared test of applicability, but by the theory that gives the best interpretation of the practice in which the concept is used.

Any theory of law, he claims needs to be a constructive interpretation of legal practice . A constructive interpretation is one that simultaneously fits  the facts of the practice (or other object of interpretation) and portrays it as a practice that achieves it's purpose.

On this view a theory that does not present law as an excercise in construtive interpretation cannot even compete as a theory of law, because it suffers from the semantic sting.

This last paragraph may be problematic to some who kind of get where I'm going with this.

Regards,
David R

QuoteOne of the major issues I have with Ron Edwards' community is the fact that people feel that RPG theory must be made from whole cloth. There is a lot of work on rhetoric, stories, and shared story-telling experience out there.

Why the hell isn't anyone USING it?

As you might know, this is my biggest and gravest complaint about the forge. I might re-post somethign said elsewhere:

QuoteHumanities is the field needed.
Especially for the actual play analysis. While talking about who does what and how the fictious environment reacts to that, all participants are creating text. Don´t get me wrong this is not highbrow stuff.
This text is then received by all at the table, and reacted upon. So the stuff you dig, and the reasons for you digging the stuff that happens in a game, are totally and readily interpretable with tried and true methods of the liberal arts.
No need for new words, or Models.

Then there is the social dimension, which again, can be handled neatly with tried and true methods of psychology and group dynamics sociology.

And most of those methods are in the toolbox of any educated newspaper reader, albeit in a non-formalized, trivialized way. You can talk about movies? You can talk about group dynamics aka socialize?
You can talk about RPGs.

RPGs don´t need a model or theory of their own.

Just to be clear Sett. Outside of the Forge , Storygames etc most theory talk is reduced to the question of validity and personal attacks. The former I think is a mixture of honest questioning and ideological perspective and the latter :shrug: ....

For my part I don't really have a problem with theory per se. I'm just uncomfortable with the way how the discourse is being framed. I don't really know if my post on this subject is helpful.

It was more of a case of coming across some tools left behind for some other work and thinking it may be of some use to our hobby.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: KenHRStory comes after the fact.  Legislating narrative seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

When I blogged on this topic back in October Andy Kitowski seemed to think that I was reading the Forge people wrong.  He basically said that they weren't trying to put the cart before the horse.  While I don't doubt Andy's honesty in the least, I felt that by choosing to speak for the entire Forge community he may have made a claim that wasn't universally true.   Still, his comment might be worth a read.

QuoteI still find more of value from the pragmatic advice offered by the AD&D 1st edition DMG and (more recently, for me) Book 0 of Traveller than any 200 posts on the Forge.

Hell, yeah!

Quote from: jrientsWhen I blogged on this topic back in October Andy Kitowski seemed to think that I was reading the Forge people wrong.  He basically said that they weren't trying to put the cart before the horse.  While I don't doubt Andy's honesty in the least, I felt that by choosing to speak for the entire Forge community he may have made a claim that wasn't universally true.   Still, his comment might be worth a read.

First off, your blog is now officially part of daily morning surf.  I've read some of your blog posts here and there, and they've been universally excellent.  This just solidifies that impression.

Andy K's response to your post is very interesting.  Like you say, I'm not sure that's true in all cases, and I'm not sure that RPGs have ever not been about building up those situations wherein characters do memorable things (we did it all the time when I was a kid, and we had no specific rules for it..."Mike, remember when your M-U was first level and he killed that gnoll with the hot bacon grease?"), but it's an intriguing perspective and one I'll take into consideration down the road.  Thanks!

Quote from: KenHR"Mike, remember when your M-U was first level and he killed that gnoll with the hot bacon grease?"

The only thing that brings me more joy than another fan of my blog is another fan of my blog who can drop an awesome line like this.

Quote from: jrientsThe only thing that brings me more joy than another fan of my blog is another fan of my blog who can drop an awesome line like this.

You gotta get creative when the cleric and thief are dead, your two fighters have less than 5hp between them, you've blown your only spell and have naught but a potion of levitation.  They led a big gnoll guard (their only obstacle to getting out of the dungeon and back home) on a chase toward a kitchen area, where the M-U was hovering just above the door, pan at the ready....

Doesn't this belong in theory?

I've got to say...that Dworkin stuff is incredibly dense reading, but if I understand it, I think I said something similar over here. Which in turn is related to some of Jonathan Walton's talk of "communities of practice" as a way to understand how people approach RP, as well as Malcolm Sheppard's attacks on "totalizing theory" and what Brand Robbins has been saying lately about genre and GNS.

's funny: I usually can't stand postmodern theory but in the face of Forge doctrine I find myself taking a fairly po-mo tack.

Edit: even funnier is that I associate the idea of the Semantic Sting with pomo theory, given this essay by Dworkin. So maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, at all. Still I think the Semantic Sting boils down to the idea that people may appear to be using the same language yet mean quite different things based on their subjective experiences...which I consider a pretty pomo-ish approach.

Quote from: Elliot WilenDoesn't this belong in theory?

It probably does. Hopefully they'll move it soon

QuoteI've got to say...that Dworkin stuff is incredibly dense reading, but if I understand it, I think I said something similar over here.

You should read some other jurist...on second thought, don't

QuoteWhich in turn is related to some of Jonathan Walton's talk of "communities of practice" as a way to understand how people approach RP, as well as Malcolm Sheppard's attacks on "totalizing theory" and what Brand Robbins has been saying lately about genre and GNS.

's funny: I usually can't stand postmodern theory but in the face of Forge doctrine I find myself taking a fairly po-mo tack.

Yeah, some of what you have said resonates within this context. Malcolm's stuff in particular is definitely in the same vein of Dworkin's unease (to put it mildly) with positivist legal thought.

The way how I think the concept of the semantic sting relates to mainstream (?) rpg theory is - much like Dworkin's, views of some legal theories- I don't think the accepted (by some...most.. theorist?) jargon is helpful or reflective of what actually happens around the gaming table.Furthermore, the jargon itself is ridldled with so many inconsistencies and cannot withstand any analytical scrutiny as to make it more or less worthless.

The whole focus of theory should be centered on what exactly gamers do, and not what they could/should be doing. A constructive interpretation is reflective of the actual practice...

Nothing really new here, but I thought it would be interesting for both theorist and gamers alike, in a hey, it's happening there too kind of way...

Regards,
David R