Quote from: TonyLBThe number of people who talk about what Ron actually said is vanishingly small.  What people are mostly talking about is a large straw-man that has been erected in the vicinity of what he said.  I totally agree that the straw-man in question is spectacularly, magnificently offensive.  Like I said, second-hand reports of what has been said are not really helpful.

Now it turns out that I disagree with what Ron actually said, but my disagreements are of a different tenor than yours, and I suspect you would find them mealy-mouthed and unsatisfying, precisely because they don't savage the argument that you think of as the main target.

Well, this sounds a lot like "he was missunderstood." Actually, he wasn't:

Any claim that gaming (with *any* agenda) can cause lasting physiological damage -- absent evidence -- is *irresponsible* and *intellectually corrupt*

I'd think everyone here would easily agree to this, and be first-in-line to stand up and repudiate it. But if I'm wrong, let's take a step back and look at one of the foundational bits of the theory that says much the same thing.

Anyone reading this is surely going to run out and make their own decision about what theory says and what (most importantly) theorists believe.

They'll probably go to the original GNS essay and on page 5 or so, they'll learn that the most-likely outcome of playing Vampire is "ongoing power struggle."

Now, I'm no huge fan of Vampire. I'm ashamed to confess that during the 90's, while all the cool kids were doing Masquerade LARPS, I was still killing trolls and taking their stuff...

And I'm certain that some people had on-going power struggle in their games.

And I'll even acknowledge that Vampire probably set up some conflicting expectations (see the on-going "story" discussion) with it's "how to roleplay" text (I haven't read the text, but I'll readily believe that it says stuff that could be read as "thou must railroad").

But I'm dead certain anyone who not only failed to resolve any conflicting expectations, but then chose *not to leave* but rather *stayed* in the game and *kept struggling* (i.e. "on-going power struggle") had problems that had nothing to do with the game.

I blame, personally, Goth Metal from bands like Rosetta Stone and Bauhaus. I think its high-frequency sound makes American youth pierce their belly buttons, and the pain of the mutilation can only be expressed as power-struggle in roleplaying games. But this isn't the place for that.

Point is: here's another example of ridiculous theory. Something that I believe any thinking person (who wasn't signing up to be a victim of brain-damage/vampire) who reads that is going to

1) Correctly conclude that GNS is a bit absurd
2) Incorrectly conclude that RPG Theorists agree on that point

I know you can't change GNS -- you're not the author -- but you *can* step up here and say,

"The whole on-going power struggle being caused by Vampire -- in fact, the whole section on what the outcomes of playing Incoherent games are -- is wrong; it's not what I believe, and I reject that as part of the theory I adhere to."

While the brain damage is still floating around, with silence indicating tacit acknowledgement, people doing their own reading are likely to make assumptions you've been eloquently arguing against.

But maybe the essay from years ago is an easier place to start.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: BalbinusThing is, I think that's true but I don't think it's very interesting.  I think once you strip the offensive bits and the pseudoscience from the argument you're left with the slightly dull statement that habits gained from one kind of game may get in the way with another, which is not I think controversial but nor is it IMO a very profound or even useful statement

Once you strip away the pseudo science, you've got a hypothesis with only annecdotal evidence (kids in someone's class, who apparently can't tell a story...)

Most people wouldn't publish on that.

It's *still* marvelously irresponsible and intellectually corrupt. It's amazingly unsophisticated -- and considering that the theory speaks to *theorists* -- presumably people who are in search of truth -- I'd think it would be rejected outright.

But, of course, it wasn't. The appologists are quick to explain away the offensive language.

If I had someone on my team who was expressing themselves offensively in a way that was really hurting the dialog I wanted to have, I'd vote them off the island.

But then, for me, theory isn't about the *people* or *personalities* involved. It's about the theory itself.

Amazingly, when you boil down *most* RPG theory you get limp tautologies that are either obviously true or obviously weird/wrong (ongoing power struggle caused by Goth Metal, or some such).

Cheers,
-E.

Dammit E, you keep making sense like that and we won't have shit left to talk about anymore.

Quote from: BalbinusSure, the thing is I think that is profoundly unscientific nonsense, magical thinking.  To be blunt, I view it as so far from any credible theories of cognitive development or psychology as not to merit my attention.

Okay.  I don't know enough of either topic to make sensible judgments on where the idea stands relative to the mainstream.  In fact, I don't even know for sure that it's what Ron thinks (again ... second-hand information), it's just my theory.

Quote from: BalbinusThing is, I think that's true but I don't think it's very interesting.  I think once you strip the offensive bits and the pseudoscience from the argument you're left with the slightly dull statement that habits gained from one kind of game may get in the way with another, which is not I think controversial but nor is it IMO a very profound or even useful statement.

*shrug*  I dunno ... I think the statement that playing a game can impact the way you think about literature, television and movies ... that's pretty interesting.  The fact that story is the common element does make that sort of obvious in hindsight, but if you'd never realized it before I suspect that would be an insight worth picking up.  Not, of course, that you're likely to pick it up amidst all the kerfuffle, but it's there, and it doesn't strike me as boring.  YMMV.

E, the reason I stopped commenting on rpg theory was pretty much that, I view it as so poor by and large as not to merit rebutting.

Not sure how I ended up in this thread actually.

If people find it useful, if it helps them design games or gives them better play then fair enough and I can see why they use it.  That's their business and they're free to do as they wish and all power to them.

For me, like astrology, freudianism or Elliott wave theory I see it as a complex and deep theory that bears little resemblance to anything actually in the world.  The fact a theory is complex, has clever people into it and has had a lot of time spent on it does not sadly give it validity.  If it did, I would be looking at my horoscope before going to work in the morning.

The only reason I sometimes find the theory annoying is that it creeps into discussions which are not theory discussions.  It disrupts communication.  It's like if I went to an astronomy board and people kept bringing up starsigns, I don't care that people believe in astrology but it gets annoying if it keeps getting referenced when we're trying to talk about other stuff.

Tony though clearly marks his theory stuff as that, and I can take it or leave it as I please.  If I find myself getting annoyed at anything then, that's my fault and not his and I have only myself to blame for that situation.  His One Simple Thing threads were very good for that, he labelled what he wanted to talk about and invited you to move on if it wasn't your thing, sometimes it was and I commented, sometimes it wasn't and I moved on as requested.  Tony for me is like Levi that way, if you're in the discussion you're in it knowingly and his use of theory is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Quote from: TonyLB*shrug*  I dunno ... I think the statement that playing a game can impact the way you think about literature, television and movies ... that's pretty interesting.  The fact that story is the common element does make that sort of obvious in hindsight, but if you'd never realized it before I suspect that would be an insight worth picking up.  Not, of course, that you're likely to pick it up amidst all the kerfuffle, but it's there, and it doesn't strike me as boring.  YMMV.

Ah, I hadn't picked that bit up, perhaps proving your point that it gets easily lost.

That isn't boring, but I don't think there's any meaningful evidence for it either, except at the most superficial level of impact.

Edit:  Actually, that I'm happy to chat about though I think it's a new thread, I'm not sure that's quite what Ron was saying but I think it has interest and as such it really is neither here nor there who argued it first or how.

Quote from: -E.If I had someone on my team who was expressing themselves offensively in a way that was really hurting the dialog I wanted to have, I'd vote them off the island.

And you're welcome to do that.  It's not the way I do things, personally.

Quote from: -E.Amazingly, when you boil down *most* RPG theory you get limp tautologies that are either obviously true or obviously weird/wrong (ongoing power struggle caused by Goth Metal, or some such).

I'm actually quite a fan of what I call "Well, duh! Theory" ... things that are obviously true, said in a clear, comprehensible way.  So the idea that when you boil down a theory it turns out to be obvious only strikes me as a problem because you have to do a lot of boiling.  I think it should be obvious.  Do you think it shouldn't?

Quote from: BalbinusE, the reason I stopped commenting on rpg theory was pretty much that, I view it as so poor by and large as not to merit rebutting.

Not sure how I ended up in this thread actually.

If people find it useful, if it helps them design games or gives them better play then fair enough and I can see why they use it.  That's their business and they're free to do as they wish and all power to them.

For me, like astrology, freudianism or Elliott wave theory I see it as a complex and deep theory that bears little resemblance to anything actually in the world.  The fact a theory is complex, has clever people into it and has had a lot of time spent on it does not sadly give it validity.  If it did, I would be looking at my horoscope before going to work in the morning.

The only reason I sometimes find the theory annoying is that it creeps into discussions which are not theory discussions.  It disrupts communication.  It's like if I went to an astronomy board and people kept bringing up starsigns, I don't care that people believe in astrology but it gets annoying if it keeps getting referenced when we're trying to talk about other stuff.

Tony though clearly marks his theory stuff as that, and I can take it or leave it as I please.  If I find myself getting annoyed at anything then, that's my fault and not his and I have only myself to blame for that situation.  His One Simple Thing threads were very good for that, he labelled what he wanted to talk about and invited you to move on if it wasn't your thing, sometimes it was and I commented, sometimes it wasn't and I moved on as requested.  Tony for me is like Levi that way, if you're in the discussion you're in it knowingly and his use of theory is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Most RPG theory is crap because most of it is advocacy or superiority.

It's roleplay v. rollplay for the post White Wolf crowd (the crowd that's *even more elite* that the Wolfers -- if you can imagine such a thing. Like infinity squared, or something).

Because of this, it's *necessary* that the theory *really* (when you strip away the offensive bits and the pseudo science) be empty. After all, it has to be *defensible* -- and therefore GNS theory is worse than inaccurate. It's *dull*

This, by the way, also explains *why* the GNS threads generate so much attention, while other theory threads drop into oblivion: there's an emotional component to GNS (largely superiority). You can't use AGE to talk about what neanderthals White Wolf players are. You can't use it prove your games are *better* than the others.

Thus, little interest.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

There's a lot of interesting places theory can go. So long as the loudest voices are primarily interested in advocacy and superiority, it's not likely to go there. It's largely up to the folks talking theory to manage this. Until we're past crap like the Brain Damage, getting any real dialog is going to be difficult.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Most RPG theory is crap because most of it is advocacy or superiority.

Y'know, I hear a lot of people saying that, but it's not what I find looking at the theory.  Again, we may be seeing different things because we look at the same evidence from a different context:  what we expect to see flavors what we emphasize and what we gloss over, in perceiving things.

To my mind, most theory is useful little snippets like "Hey, y'know, there's a difference between saying things for your character, like "I raise my arm..." and saying things for the world, like "... and grasp the stein of beer that the bartender hands me," and people make up different unspoken rules in their groups about how far players can go in different categories."

To your mind, I gather, most theory is ivory tower self-aggrandizement without reference to any actual craft or play.

As with many things, I hope that people look at the actual evidence and make up their own minds, rather than taking the second-hand recaps provided by either of us.

Quote from: BalbinusEdit:  Actually, that I'm happy to chat about though I think it's a new thread, I'm not sure that's quite what Ron was saying but I think it has interest and as such it really is neither here nor there who argued it first or how.

Sounds good.  I'll work up a thread starter when I have my thoughts pulled together a bit more.

Quote from: TonyLBAnd you're welcome to do that.  It's not the way I do things, personally.

I hope it's reasonably clear where I stand. I assume that if you were unhappy with the kind of dialog the theory generates, you'd do something to change it.

You could, for example, repudiate the whole Vampire/power struggle thing, like I invited you to without voting *anyone* off the island.

You could go on-record as saying that making diagnosis of harm, absent evidence, is irresponsible and intellectually bankrupt.

I assume you believe both of these things. All I'm asking you to do is stand up and say it plainly, without caveats or back doors.

You might not change the dialog all by yourself, but it would be a start, and I'd welcome it.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm actually quite a fan of what I call "Well, duh! Theory" ... things that are obviously true, said in a clear, comprehensible way.  So the idea that when you boil down a theory it turns out to be obvious only strikes me as a problem because you have to do a lot of boiling.  I think it should be obvious.  Do you think it shouldn't?

I don't have any problem with simple theory; my criticism of GNS theory is that it says so little that it's devoid of insight.

Or, where it says something, it's weird/wrong.

My problem with GNS isnt' that it's simple -- it's that it's not useful.

You can't use it to diagnose play
You can't use it do design a game
You can't use it to communicate your gaming preferences
You can't use it to assess a game

It provides a set of lables (Incoherence, Force, Narrativist, etc.) but with definitions so poor that it's impossible to use them in practice -- so people who do use them are inevitably applying them based on their completely subjective preferences.

They're no more meaningful than lables like "Good" or "Bad"

GNS's theories about what people like in games are even worse -- the agendas themselves are not defined (Sim, especially, but as Sim collapses, it takes down Nar as well), and the idea that they're so different there's no intersection is bizzarro... the stuff about the Impossible Thing and Incoherence are even worse.

Theory can be simple -- simple theory can be good... but GNS is the worst of both worlds: it's apparent complexity hides an empty center.

As far as I can tell, it's only practical application is to piss off Jeff Dee

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: ImperatorWhat is the point of talking to you, then? :confused: As I'm only interested in talking about games, gaming and such, and I am not interested in helping anyone to feel like a hero in some imaginary war...

Now I'm confused as that seems the be a large majority of the subject matter of games and gaming.

Bagpuss:
You are spot on.

Quote from: BagpussNow I'm confused as that seems the be a large majority of the subject matter of games and gaming.

Good point

Quote from: -E.I hope it's reasonably clear where I stand. I assume that if you were unhappy with the kind of dialog the theory generates, you'd do something to change it.

Well, c'mon ... that's not all you assume.     You also assume that if I did something to change it, that thing that I did would be one of the things you've listed, or a close cousin.

Phrasing it in that way, "If you really cared you'd do what I want you to, so since you're not doing what I want you to you must not really care," is a trifle leading.  I don't really expect that you're doing that consciously, so I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing it out for you to think about.

It is, after all, possible that I am trying to change the dialogue on these topics in ways that aren't immediately apparent to you.