Just to clarify. In some theories, because of the way how the discourse is framed, participants end up arguing about the semantics of the concept and not really the concept itself. Now Dworkin was talking about law. I just thought (even though it has been said before) it would be interesting to apply his (Dworkin's) methods to rpgs.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RJust to clarify. In some theories, because of the way how the discourse is framed, participants end up arguing about the semantics of the concept and not really the concept itself.

That's the exactly the bee I've had in my bonnet WRT roleplaying theory, and especially Forge theory, for some time.

Good link Elliot. I was going to post something on internal and external skepticism.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: joewolzOne 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?

I can't speak of that sort of stuff - my only knowledge of that kind of work comes from some literary criticism stuff at uni, and that was, bluntly put, useless.

My own thoughts are about gaming at a more basic level than the "stories" told and that sort of thing - it's about how people get a group together, and keep it together. A lot of management theory and psychology has dealt with this. I think that a lot of it is pretty easy to understand and apply. For example, Tuckman's Stages of Group Development. He was talking about work groups brought together by a boss for a particular project with a specific goal, whereas we're talking about hobby groups brought together often with no specific goal, and of course if you don't like your game group, you can just leave, but that's harder with work - so there are differences, but still I think we can get some insight with it. Anyone can look down that list of the stages - forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjournment - and relate it to their experience of game groups. It's in plain English, and it makes sense without more explanation.

It's also about a pretty basic level. I think that rpg theory and craft needs to talk about that basic level. Only Ron Edwards' GNS even mentioned social stuff in passing - by saying that he was taking it for granted, and wouldn't talk about it - AGE, GDS, Manyfold Theory, all of those - just plain don't talk about what Anna thinks of Bob, and what happens when Charlie is late again, or Dave has eaten all the cheetos.

You laugh, but this stuff is the foundation of the hobby. It's a voluntary social activity, so people have to get along with one another before they can roleplay, or rollplay, or game, or storytell, or whatever the fuck you want to call it. Theories of drama or whatever I don't know about. I'm talking about the basic stuff.

That's some stuff I'm working on, to go in Why Game Groups Fuck Up. I'l be charging for it, that way I know people will read it

Quote from: David RJust to clarify. In some theories, because of the way how the discourse is framed, participants end up arguing about the semantics of the concept and not really the concept itself.

Semantics are an excellent way of avoiding the argument entirely. I've talked about this before, it's the first link in my big list of links.

Quote from: meThe thing is that most of the time, people do actually know what the other guy is trying to say. You've obviously got the theory, "before we can discuss X, we must define our terms in talking about X."

The problem is that if a person's got somewhat weak arguments about X, they can avoid having to actually justify what they think by diverting the whole discussion into a semantic argument. Semantics become then not the basis for a discussion, but the avoidance of a discussion.

It's also very difficult to define all your terms at the beginning of the discussion, because during the discussion new terms will come up.

"About X, when considering Y..."
"Oh we never thought about Y. What do you mean by Y?"
"I mean so-and-so."
"Well that is a very poor definition, because..."

And then again we're avoiding the actual intended topic of discussion.

For example, over in Tangency [on rpg.net] lately it was recently blandly asserted that blacks in America could not be racist. The poster just left the statement like that, without explanation. Now, plainly blacks can have negative attitudes about other races, or their own; this is what we usually call "racist." But the poster wasn't using the everyday definition of "racist," they were using the definition that a subset of the sociology field uses - "racism is a system of oppression of a group based on their race." "Racism" becomes like socialism or fascism - not an attitude, but a system of government.

Of course, this definition of "racism" is one which isn't used by people normally, and so the thread got derailed by a long discussion of whether or not blacks could be racist - "no, they cannot be racist, but they can have negative attitudes about other races," and so on.

So in a semantic discussion, you end up defending your definition of the word over others - because you can't move on until you've agreed on the terms, right? And the discussion dies or flames out.

The "racism" definition is far from the only thing that's been quibbled over in these and other rpg forums. Over in sjgames, someone carelessly said "narrativist" and had a Forgeite step in and say, "but that's not Narratavism..." It was small-n versus big N! And of course entirely pointless; the Forger knew exactly what was meant, they were simply trying to impose their minority definition on the majority, and avoid the actual discussion.

Semantic discussion can tell us a lot, because it can help us understand one another; my understanding of what some word means will help you understand how I think, and thus help you either view me as a reasonable person instead of a lunatic (since people often think you must be mad to disagree with them), or help you think of better ways to persuade me to your point of view, by using my own reasoning against me. So semantics can often be useful.

But more often, they're just a dodge.

It's better if we just use words in their common, everyday meaning; where words have no common everyday meaning because they're not well-known, susbstitute for well-known ones. This assumes, of course, that you actually want to communicate with someone. If not, you can just argue semantics

Arguments about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of lit crit aside, I think what you're exploring is of far more practical benefit than figuring out creative agendas and whatnot.  Your thread on Why Game Groups Fuck Up on RPGNet was great before it was derailed by people who misunderstood the thrust of your arguments.

I also like the fact that you've adopted a descriptive approach to your subject.  It seems that many (note I do not say "all") who claim to be RPG theorists adopt a prescriptive approach which leads to accusations of "one-true-wayism" and the like.

Jimbob I was wondering when you were going to weigh in. At it's core Cheetoism (although I don't really dig the term ), is probably closest to what Dworkin is refering to.

Briefly his idea is that the law should not be discussed in abstract terms but rather what lawyers and judges actualy do. I was just thinking that this could relate to rpgs...what exactly do gamers do and the way how groups function in this social activity.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: KenHRArguments about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of lit crit aside, I think what you're exploring is of far more practical benefit than figuring out creative agendas and whatnot.

I'm glad you're finding it interesting. I don't know yet if it's of practical benefit; of course I hope it will be. Nor do I know if it's more or less useful than "creative agendas" or whatever. What I do know is that in a voluntary social group activity, the way humans relate to each-other is the foundation of it all. So it may or may not be more useful than other stuff; but it should certainly come before the other stuff.

It's just not that common for game groups to split, or people to have game sessions they hate, because of things about the rules or game play styles. It's much more common that people simply don't get along. For example, one guy came to our session, and nobody wanted him to come back. His sins?

• He smoked a lot (none of the rest of us did), though he went outside for it, it was still easy to smell when he came back
• he brought along a six-pack of beer but didn't offer it around, while at the same time happily hoeing into everyone else's munchies
• He didn't bring dice, and then boasted that he didn't even own dice, "why bother? Whatever group I go to, someone else always has some spare dice."
• His roleplaying didn't go beyond staring blankly at the GM and then bellowing, "I SHOOT HIM!!!"

Of all those things, his poor roleplaying was the least important in making everyone else decide they didn't want to see him again. We'd much prefer a good player who's a bad roleplayer, than a bad player who's a good roleplayer. That's because our gaming is social, not competitive or professional.

I honestly think that most of the game groups which break up, or have members come and go, or which have good games but not very regular and things fizzle out - it's the social stuff which does it, how you get along with others, whether you have your shit together enough to show up regularly, etc.

If all that works out, the other stuff is just fine-tuning. So even supposing that GNS, GDS, AGE, Manyfold theory, etc, were all true and good - it's like telling a new driver how to get the best fuel economy or deal with a spin when they don't even know which is the brake, and which the accelerator. Start with the basics, I say.

Quote from: KenHRI also like the fact that you've adopted a descriptive approach to your subject.  It seems that many (note I do not say "all") who claim to be RPG theorists adopt a prescriptive approach which leads to accusations of "one-true-wayism" and the like.

Thanks. I think it's nice to think of the way I'd like the world to be, but the best way to get it there is to start by thinking of how the world actually is.

"We'd much prefer a good player who's a bad roleplayer, than a bad player who's a good roleplayer. That's because our gaming is social, not competitive or professional."

Here, here!  A player who is a fully functional human being is a greater asset to my game than a very talented jerk.

Quote from: KenHREdwards' 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've always been fascinated with how Will Wright looks at story in video games.

A lot of vidgamers and game designers think of story in vid games as a lot of cutscenes and plot points and such, basically shoehorning the player through a long series of scenes and dialogue trees.

Wright's perspective is different.  He sees the story as "what the player does and what happens to him".  He's very big on very open, free-form games.  He sees it as a way to let the player make their own story, a story that simply comes from what actions the player takes.  

He talks about his character in GTA, how he never really bothered much with the pre-scripted events and missions and things.  He just got on his bike and rode around, creating mayhem, finding fun things to do, and making his own story for his character in the game.

And in the end, players tend to find much more meaning and enjoyment in Wright's kind of story, than being spoon-fed some wannabe film director's idea of one.  Which is why GTA and The Sims are the most popular games on the planet.

It's also interesting to me too, that vidgamers and critics are so ingrained to certain approaches to game development, that over the years, several have actually tried to invent new terms for Will Wright's games.  "It's not a game, it's a 'software toy'."  

And it occurs to me that said whole discussion is pretty interesting as a parallel to RPG discussion.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's also interesting to me too, that vidgamers and critics are so ingrained to certain approaches to game development, that over the years, several have actually tried to invent new terms for Will Wright's games. "It's not a game, it's a 'software toy'."

And it occurs to me that said whole discussion is pretty interesting as a parallel to RPG discussion.

I think so too

Quote from: jrients"We'd much prefer a good player who's a bad roleplayer, than a bad player who's a good roleplayer. That's because our gaming is social, not competitive or professional."

Here, here!  A player who is a fully functional human being is a greater asset to my game than a very talented jerk.

Also, its much easier to turn a bad roleplayer into a good roleplayer if the person in question is good at being a human being. And its much easier to make someone good at roleplaying than it is to make someone good at being human.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JimBobOzIf all that works out, the other stuff is just fine-tuning. So even supposing that GNS, GDS, AGE, Manyfold theory, etc, were all true and good - it's like telling a new driver how to get the best fuel economy or deal with a spin when they don't even know which is the brake, and which the accelerator. Start with the basics, I say.

Is bad social dynamics really that big of a problem?  I've never had any of the nightmares that most people around here have described, but I also don't game with strangers.  I'll convince friends to play before I go looking for people.  On the rare occasion that I do have to find new people, I meet them in a public place, usually over food (I'll buy if this is the case) and talk to them about gaming.  If they're cool, I'll call them back.  If they're not, I won't.  I make this explicit.

Seems to weed out the people I don't want to hang with.

Quote from: StuartI think so too

Now, see, I don't know jack shit about computer games, I don't play them.

But NOW that thread becomes much clearer. It would seem Crawford's definitions were an effort to denigrate Wright's work just like the Forge's definitions are attempts to denigrate RPGs that are more popular than their's.

"Oh, the fact that GTA and the Sims are the most popular Computer Games in the world doesn't really count... you see, uh, they're just toys. Yeah, that's it! They're not real games with sophisticated STORIES like the ones I've designed".

And of course that's bullshit, for the reasons Arcane points out: You can actually make better adventures with an open free-form computer game where you're allowed to use your own imagination and go in whatever direction you personally choose, than with a very narrow structured game where the fun is whatever the game designer tells you it is.

Sound familiar? This is the same reason why D&D is more popular than Dogs In the Vinyard; or WFRP more popular than My Life With Master.  The former are actually much BETTER at making the kind of "story" (adventure, really) that gamers want to play, BECAUSE they're big and not focused; players of these games aren't forced to have to play out the specific type of story that the game designer happens to think is "best" for them.

In my ignorance, I didn't realize that much the same conflict appears to be happening in the computer game world, though it really shouldn't surprise me that they too would have their Swine.

RPGPundit

QuoteBut NOW that thread becomes much clearer. It would seem Crawford's definitions were an effort to denigrate Wright's work just like the Forge's definitions are attempts to denigrate RPGs that are more popular than their's.

Crawford's a wierd fucker anyway.  The man hasn't developed a damn thing in years.  At least the Forge folks manage to produce a game now and then.  Crawford seems to have gone off the navel-gazing deep-end.

Crawford made some fantastic games in the early personal computer era.  I think he did the original East Front game, which set the template for a lot of computer wargames for several years (simultaneous resolution of orders each turn).

He actually went off the deep end years ago, before the Sims was a growing concern.  I remember he published an opinion piece where he bid farewell to the gaming world to strike off on his own and explore a new type of game.  I stumbled on that article again online years ago...after re-reading, I was left thinking, "huh.  He wants to make games that exclude just about everything that makes them...games..."

I don't think he's been extremely successful pushing his vision, either.

Oh, and IIRC, Wil Wright is the one who first called SimCity an "electronic toy" rather than a game.  I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this was quoted in every review of SC2000 when it came out.

So I don't think the conflict you're looking for was really there.

[EDIT: J Arcane beat me to it, with links, to boot!]