Quote from: BalbinusPossibly, but I doubt somehow it would improve his fun to get into it further in this way.

It's along the lines of separating Tony-theory from GNS-theory.

Yes, GNS says -- and will continue to say -- Brain Damage until someone with the authority to do so changes it.

But Tony's got lots to say that doesn't rely on GNS. Explicitly separating his body of work from GNS is a way to not-inherit the poisonous influence of brain damage and power struggle.

If Tony were coming from a completely *different* direction (like, say, Kuma's theory), it wouldn't be a problem. Kuma's not associated with GNS theory. He doesn't carry that baggage. Levi, also.

But I don't see that significant difference, and in fact, I believe Tony's a charter member of the Big Agenda club or some-such; he's chosen to be associated with GNS and the Forge.

So I'm recommending creating a firewall between the stuff he agrees with and the stuff he doesn't.

I will note that he seems to agree with some of the things Ron has said; if that's true then there's no problem: If I walk into a room with offensive theories, I should expect vigorous and energetic discussion.

Cheers,
-E.

I'm not sure GNS does say brain damage.

I know Ron created GNS and Ron said brain damage, but once authored it ceases to be entirely his.

I don't agree with GNS, I think it's wrong to put it plainly, but I regularly chat with guys into it and I don't think most of them see brain damage as part of the theory.

It may always have been there for Ron, it may be a new thing, but I think it is quite possible for someone to be entirely persuaded by GNS and still think the brain damage thing is nonsense.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenEmphasis mine:



I don't think that Ron has materially damaged my ability to have a productive discussion about RPG theory.  So far as I can see, what's damaged that is people that feel the need to wander into threads that aren't about him or his views, and threadjack them into being about that.  They did it before they had "brain damage" as a convenient byline.  They'll always be doing it.

Perhaps -- but I think very often the door gets opened to topics like the Brain Damage because the theorists bring them in.

Take this thread for example: my first post here doesn't reference brain damage at all. It addresses the assumption that Powerful and Responsible GMs are vanishingly rare.

This does, in fact, appear to be what a good deal of GNS Theory presupposes.

Tony's response (I paraphrase) is that those offensive views are marginal parts of the theory -- not what the (moderate) majority of theorists believe. He hopes people won't draw conclusions about theorists believe based on second hand sources.

I agree with him -- and point out that, as a theorist, here, in the flesh, he could clear up some of the infamous bits of the theory.

If he wasn't concerned about how theorists are preceived this would never have come up.

If he hadn't pointed out that the loonies are really the fringe group, this would never have come up.

It was brought up as a direct result of him leading the conversation in this direction.

This is actually *common* -- when you're talking GNS theory, you have to ignore huge parts of it to stay away from the brain-damage/power-struggle type stuff.

When those parts don't get ignored, someone defending the theory will inevitably say,

"You don't understand it."
or
"It doesn't say that"

Followed by posting with links, footnotes, and references to key theorists saying exactly those things in plain english, and standing by them.

This, in turn, is followed by cries of anquish and reports to the moderators. Apparently the people accused of "not understanding" the theory should have simply gone away rather than reference the ugly parts.

The way to avoid this is simple: don't talk about a theory that says wildly offensive things that until it stops saying that... or embrace those offensive things and proclaim them loudly from the rooftops (and deal with the consequences -- contraversy).

Since many folks aren't willing to wholesale re-do the theory as you have, I'm suggesting that they fire-wall themselves off from the stuff they don't want to talk about.

If Tony *doesn't* believe incoherent games cause on-going powerstruggle, he could say that, simply, and this part of the thread would have been 4 posts. It would also have been a shining example of how not all theorists believe the ugly stuff -- which was Tony's original point.

As it is... it might not work for that so well.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: BalbinusI'm not sure GNS does say brain damage.

I know Ron created GNS and Ron said brain damage, but once authored it ceases to be entirely his.

I don't agree with GNS, I think it's wrong to put it plainly, but I regularly chat with guys into it and I don't think most of them see brain damage as part of the theory.

It may always have been there for Ron, it may be a new thing, but I think it is quite possible for someone to be entirely persuaded by GNS and still think the brain damage thing is nonsense.

I go back to the first GNS essay -- it says that people who play incoherent games most likely get on-going power struggle.

People who play games with a Nar agenda get it even worse.

The essays decline to specify what 'even worse' is (I'm paraphrasing -- but I'm not making this up wholesale).

The ideas are all there: the *game* causes some kind of non-transient dysfunction. People with a certain agenda are especially effected by it.

Further terms or metaphors for abuse, co-dependence, and disease are found  scattered throughout the dialog (I can look some of these up -- I did this earlier in another discussion).

Most of the pre-brain-damage GNS discussion didn't come right and and say "brain damage" of course -- but if you leave out the ideas of agendas with no intersection and the need for agenda coherence to produce non-power struggle play, what are you left with?

A bunch of terms from rgfa theory (Social Contract, Stances, etc.) and the three-fold GM decision-making critera.

Even today -- after the shutting down of the theory threads -- it's clear that a lot of people who regularly read theory and participate in theory discussions don't understand GNS terms and how to apply them, requiring Ron to explain again and again.

Until there's another authority -- someone else who can make or clarify definitions -- it's his theory.

Let me put it this way: If I said, "GNS says X" and I *didn't* have a quote from Ron to back him up, would anyone accept that?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Even today -- after the shutting down of the theory threads -- it's clear that a lot of people who regularly read theory and participate in theory discussions don't understand GNS terms and how to apply them, requiring Ron to explain again and again.

I don't think that's an authority issue, I think that's because the theory is fundamentally incoherent and doesn't hang together, but that's a slight tangent.

No pun intended with the use of the word incoherent there.

Quote from: BalbinusI don't think that's an authority issue, I think that's because the theory is fundamentally incoherent and doesn't hang together, but that's a slight tangent.

No pun intended with the use of the word incoherent there.

Well, yeah. But not everyone would agree with you -- to them, it must say something meaningful... but when they try to apply it, it falls apart.

So what do they do? They ask the community and people flail around until Ron steps in.

This, to me, suggests that no one else is able to really, authoritatively, define what GNS is or isn't.

Let's look at the current discussion: I say "brain damage is a formal part of GNS."

You disagree.

How could we possibly decide who was right? Who could tell us whether or not Brain Damage is a formal part of GNS? Anyone on these boards could throw in their 2 cents, but unless it came from Ron, I don't think I'd trust it.

Another example: Ron wrote the Sim essay (the right to dream). Later he writes a post explaining that that essay is deprircated; the definition of Sim changed.

The essay's still there. People still point to it. But the author has moved on.

So what does "GNS" say? Does formal GNS still point to the essay? Or should formal GNS consider Sim to have changed?

It's clear to me that I would reference the latest announcements on the definition of Sim from the author. I wouldn't continue to trust the essay... but you might have a different opinion -- I'd like to hear it.

Cheers,
-E.

Edited to add: I'm sure you meant incoherence in the nicest possible sense -- like ambient light, right?

Quote from: -E.Perhaps -- but I think very often the door gets opened to topics like the Brain Damage because the theorists bring them in.

Take this thread for example: my first post here doesn't reference brain damage at all. It addresses the assumption that Powerful and Responsible GMs are vanishingly rare.

This does, in fact, appear to be what a good deal of GNS Theory presupposes.

Tony's response (I paraphrase) is that those offensive views are marginal parts of the theory -- not what the (moderate) majority of theorists believe. He hopes people won't draw conclusions about theorists believe based on second hand sources.

I agree with him -- and point out that, as a theorist, here, in the flesh, he could clear up some of the infamous bits of the theory.

If he wasn't concerned about how theorists are preceived this would never have come up.

Wow, that's ... that's an interesting chain of reasoning.

Okay, linky time.  Here's the link where you first brought up Brain Damage.

Your claim, if I understand it, is that you didn't open that door ... I opened it, wide and inviting, and you just walked through all innocent-like.  Not your fault at all.  Entirely my fault.

So tell me ... other than being a theorist, what is it that I did that made Brain Damage the necessary topic of the day?

EDIT:  Fixed the link.  Whoops!

You guys are wasting your time. I already shot down GNS back when I wrote a Socratic Dialogue on it. The essence of the shootdown lies in the fact that Uncle Ronny says we're brain-damaged; this invalidates GNS. His observation is that many of us are miserable and don't know it; such delusions require brain damage.

I am saying that his observations are incorrect. Most of us are not miserable, and would know it if we were.

This, more or less, is the scientific method:

• Be bewildered by information.
• Make hypothesis to explain the information.
• Conduct experiments and collect more information to confirm or toss aside hypothesis.
• If hypothesis appears from the information gathered to be broadly correct, develop it further into a full theory.
• Return to (3)

Now, I realise he makes no real claim to being scientific (though he does seem keen to tell us about his biology degree). However, this scientific process is a good and reasonable way of approaching a problem. We don't have to be as rigorous as a doctoral thesis, we can paint in broad strokes, that's okay. But there should be something vaguely resembling this process.

When developing a theory about how people roleplay, the "data gathered" will be watching and asking them how they roleplay.

But he has not watched many groups. So that leaves asking people. And he says that when he asks people, they give him wrong answers. After all, they are brain-damaged.

If my measuring stick doesn't measure properly, I cannot draw useful conclusions from its measurements. Likewise, if roleplayers are unable to report accurately what they enjoy, then I cannot draw useful conclusions about the way they roleplay from their reports.

• If what roleplayers say about their roleplaying is correct, then GNS is wrong, because it doesn't match what they say.
• If what roleplayers say about their roleplaying is not correct, then GNS is wrong because it's based on nothing, on made-up data.
• If GNS is a correct theory despite wrong data from roleplayers, then Ron Edwards has more insight into roleplaying than many roleplayers. One man is right, and many are wrong.
• It is more likely that one man is wrong than many are wrong. It is more likely that one person will have warped perceptions, than that many people will have warped perceptions.

So if GNS is correct, then roleplayers are brain-damaged. But if roleplayers are brain-damaged, then they cannot report their experiences properly, so the reports on which GNS is based are false. Therefore, GNS is false.

There, that's GNS dealt with. Now you need a new theory to discuss. Let's play Theory Wars!

You start the PbP.  I'll be statting up a character.

Quote from: TonyLBWow, that's ... that's an interesting chain of reasoning.

Okay, linky time.  Here's the link where you first brought up Brain Damage.

Your claim, if I understand it, is that you didn't open that door ... I opened it, wide and inviting, and you just walked through all innocent-like.  Not your fault at all.  Entirely my fault.

So tell me ... other than being a theorist, what is it that I did that made Brain Damage the necessary topic of the day?

EDIT:  Fixed the link.  Whoops!

The post you link to is a response to your post, where you state:

Quote...while there are folks who say crazy stuff, it's always struck me as a few voices in the midst of a community that generally just thinks that lots of gamers like non-indie games, and that's fine.

You also expressed concern about people just flat-out believing either of our characterizations, and hoped that people would find first-hand sources.

I'm down with that; I offered what I thought would be a great opportunity:

One of the most visible bits of the Crazy Stuff, of course, is the Brain Damage -- and a first-hand source of a theorist on TheRPGSite disavowing that kind of thing seemed like exactly the sort of reference you (and I -- I'm with you on this) were hoping that people would look to when evaluating the theory community.

This stuff really doesn't come up unless you bring it up; your concern that people base their assessment of "what theory says" from first-hand theorists' opinions points directly to the next post:

I agree. So what *is* your opinion?

Why'd I choose the Brian Damage? Because I honestly thought it would be the easiest thing in the world to reach agreement on... that was supposed to be a 'soft ball.'

Shows what I know

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou guys are wasting your time. I already shot down GNS back when I wrote a Socratic Dialogue on it.

I am at a loss for words. The dialog is funny. Theory Wars is brilliant.

Bravo!
-E.

Quote from: fonkaygarryYou start the PbP.  I'll be statting up a character.

Done. Even made the first post!

Quote from: -E.One of the most visible bits of the Crazy Stuff, of course, is the Brain Damage -- and a first-hand source of a theorist on TheRPGSite disavowing that kind of thing seemed like exactly the sort of reference you (and I -- I'm with you on this) were hoping that people would look to when evaluating the theory community.

That is, by definition, second-hand source.  That's not a theorist talking about theory.  It is a theorist talking about a theorist talking about theory.

Or, to be more accurate, it is a theorist talking about non-theorists talking about a theorist talking about theory.

I cannot even begin to describe to you how different asking about that dreck is from asking me about what my opinions are on actual theory.

Quote from: -E.This stuff really doesn't come up unless you bring it up; your concern that people base their assessment of "what theory says" from first-hand theorists' opinions points directly to the next post:

I agree. So what *is* your opinion?

You have not asked me a theory question.  Here are some questions I have answered, nonetheless:

Do I think that game-play can cause brain-damage:  No, I do not.
Do I think that game-play can make you less able to tell a traditional story:  Yes, I do.

Have you got any questions about theory that I haven't already fielded in excruciating detail?  Or are you only asking me to talk about my second-hand interpretation of what other people have said?

I totally brought up the question of what I think of RPG Theory.  I'm happy to answer any question in that territory.

But I was actively speaking out against the very sort of second-hand discussion that you're continuing to hammer away at some forty posts later.  There is no sensible way for you to construe "I don't think there's much point to me talking about other people's opinions, you should listen to them talk about their own opinions" as meaning "I insist that we all talk about other people's opinions, in the interest of productive dialogue!"

I didn't bring it up.  Why on earth would I?  You brought it up, and you excused it by arguing (basically) that the topic is always fair game when talking to any theorist, on any subject.

Quote from: TonyLBThat is, by definition, second-hand source.  That's not a theorist talking about theory.  It is a theorist talking about a theorist talking about theory.

Or, to be more accurate, it is a theorist talking about non-theorists talking about a theorist talking about theory.

I cannot even begin to describe to you how different asking about that dreck is from asking me about what my opinions are on actual theory.

You have not asked me a theory question.  Here are some questions I have answered, nonetheless:

Do I think that game-play can cause brain-damage:  No, I do not.
Do I think that game-play can make you less able to tell a traditional story:  Yes, I do.

Have you got any questions about theory that I haven't already fielded in excruciating detail?  Or are you only asking me to talk about my second-hand interpretation of what other people have said?

I totally brought up the question of what I think of RPG Theory.  I'm happy to answer any question in that territory.

But I was actively speaking out against the very sort of second-hand discussion that you're continuing to hammer away at some forty posts later.  There is no sensible way for you to construe "I don't think there's much point to me talking about other people's opinions, you should listen to them talk about their own opinions" as meaning "I insist that we all talk about other people's opinions, in the interest of productive dialogue!"

I didn't bring it up.  Why on earth would I?  You brought it up, and you excused it by arguing (basically) that the topic is always fair game when talking to any theorist, on any subject.

Hmm... I still think you're missreading me. I didn't argue that the topic is always fair game under any circumstances.

I brought it in specifically because you brought up "crazy stuff" theorists say.

If I read your response to me (your first one) correctly, you're saying you hope that people ignore both your and my articulation of what theorists believe, perhaps because we're biased, and make their own decisions based on the primary-source words of those theorists.

And I agree with that.

See what you're brinigng to the conversation?

1) Crazy stuff some theorists say
2) Your belief that those voices are marginal; that is, most theorists don't believe that "crazy stuff"
2) The suggestion that observers turn to primary sources (i.e. actual theorists) when evaluating whether RPG theory as a whole believes "the crazy stuff"

That focus, those words, that context doesn't appear anywhere in my post.

It's not what I came here to talk about. It's a discussion of general theory and how one might make a decision about "what theory says."

I would have been happy to talk about exactly *why* I think GNS RPG theory believes that powerful and responsible GMs are rare, but that wasn't the discussion you wanted to have -- in fact, it was the one you suggested we *couldn't* have:

Your post suggests that both of us are so biased that observers should discount what we're saying.

But you're a theorist -- aren't you? Discounting's not necessary; I can point to some crazy stuff (perhaps the craziest) and say, "Hey -- do you, speaking as a theorist, believe that?"

We can, in fact, have the dicussion you've established as *necessary* right here, right now. No linking and searching involved.

And I expected a, "No. I do not. Here, on the screen, is Exibit A for my contention that most theorists don't believe the crazy stuff."

If you didn't want to have a discussion about "what theorists believe" and "crazy stuff" why bring it in?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.But you're a theorist -- aren't you? Discounting's not necessary; I can point to some crazy stuff (perhaps the craziest) and say, "Hey -- do you, speaking as a theorist, believe that?"

Right.  And as I point out, I've answered that question.  That wasn't the end of it though, was it?  No ... then you kept asking "Well, do you repudiate statements X, Y and Z that you disagree with?  Do you feel that they are fundamentally irresponsible?  What do you feel about what other people have said, and how do you justify feeling that way?"

As I said, I am perfectly willing to talk about whether I, personally, believe that roleplaying causes brain damage.  I don't believe that, for all the reasons I've outlined.

We do not have to have any second-hand conversation about Ron Edwards, or what either of us think of him or his works, in order to have that first-hand conversation about what we, ourselves, believe.

Do you disagree with that assertion?  Do you think that it is impossible to have that first-hand conversation without the second-hand questions you've pulled in?