What is "The Forge?"

Henry · Dec 14, 2005

Dr. Awkward said:
That's not true. Jargon exists to facilitate discussion of difficult concepts.

That I can get behind. However, when someone points me to a 5-page discussion paper on the definition of "Gamist", or "Narrativist", or "Simulationist," and this discussion paper itself points to other multi-page papers to understand for an explanation, I call "too confusing to be useful" on that jargon.

By its nature, jargon SHOULD be able to be defined back to relatively simple concepts so that a lay person can get into it quickly. Object oriented programming, for example, can be easily defined in a couple or three sentences. RAM, ASCII, ActiveX, Memory Space, Macros, all these things can be defined (some more easily, some harder, but all within a few sentences). Id, Ego, and Superego can be defined in a few sentences or less. If Jargon is not understandable with little effort, it is not useful.

Jargon should not be a screen; it should be, as said, a facilitator.

Flexor the Mighty! · Dec 14, 2005

There is such a thing as a RPG "Think Tank" you say? Man o man...

Wil · Dec 14, 2005

Henry said:
That I can get behind. However, when someone points me to a 5-page discussion paper on the definition of "Gamist", or "Narrativist", or "Simulationist," and this discussion paper itself points to other multi-page papers to understand for an explanation, I call "too confusing to be useful" on that jargon.

By its nature, jargon SHOULD be able to be defined back to relatively simple concepts so that a lay person can get into it quickly. Object oriented programming, for example, can be easily defined in a couple or three sentences. RAM, ASCII, ActiveX, Memory Space, Macros, all these things can be defined (some more easily, some harder, but all within a few sentences). Id, Ego, and Superego can be defined in a few sentences or less. If Jargon is not understandable with little effort, it is not useful.

Jargon should not be a screen; it should be, as said, a facilitator.

This was why it was so frustrating with the Forgeites participating in the OOP discussion I was trying to have - they couldn't define, easily, why their example games would fit into a clean OOP model. While it's obvious that in applying those principles there's going to be a lot of wiggle room (and as was pointed out, a lot of rpgs already have semi-OOP principles in place), saying that the game "is a perfect example of that", and then either backpedalling with "It just is" or "you don't understand" when pressed illustrates how tenuous a lot of the jargon is.

LostSoul · Dec 14, 2005

edit: whoops.

Okay, something interesting then. Here's a short bit on GNS theory that seems pretty easy to understand: http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html#3

LostSoul · Dec 14, 2005

Wil said:
While it's obvious that in applying those principles there's going to be a lot of wiggle room (and as was pointed out, a lot of rpgs already have semi-OOP principles in place), saying that the game "is a perfect example of that", and then either backpedalling with "It just is" or "you don't understand" when pressed illustrates how tenuous a lot of the jargon is.

I remember reading that thread and I got the feeling that some people didn't understand what OOP was.

Kanegrundar · Dec 14, 2005

Wil said:
This was why it was so frustrating with the Forgeites participating in the OOP discussion I was trying to have - they couldn't define, easily, why their example games would fit into a clean OOP model. While it's obvious that in applying those principles there's going to be a lot of wiggle room (and as was pointed out, a lot of rpgs already have semi-OOP principles in place), saying that the game "is a perfect example of that", and then either backpedalling with "It just is" or "you don't understand" when pressed illustrates how tenuous a lot of the jargon is.

Anytime I hear the handwave of "you just don't understand" my BS detector goes off big time. I don't consider myself to be a dumb or even thick-headed person, so when a person can't properly discuss the finer points of a "theory" or can't explain what A or B doesn't fit into the grand scheme, it's just time for me to walk away since that person(s) don't even have a good grasp of what he is espousing.

Wil · Dec 14, 2005

LostSoul said:
I remember reading that thread and I got the feeling that some people didn't understand what OOP was.

That was a lot of the issue..."But The Burning Wheel is object-oriented! There's objects, and you can say what direction they're pointing...narratively!" Obviously I'm using a lot of hyperbole, but that was the gist of things.

LostSoul · Dec 14, 2005

Hang on, though, dude - it can't all be BS, or people like me wouldn't get any use out of it.

I'm willing to say that it is of limited use, and that some people who espouse that terminology or frequent the Forge may be BSers, but I believe that there is some use to the theory.

Bastoche · Dec 14, 2005

1) I think most of the jargon on the forge is hard to understand because it came out from discussions on the board. It lacks proper editting and the articles are in serious need of update.

2) Ron's writing skills sucks. Plain and simple. IMO of course. His texts lacks introduction and conclusion. It seems like the texts were thought of as he wrote along, similar to a post on a forum rather than written with a purpose "I'm coming from there and going there".

3) What he wants to dicuss of is a subject that borders on psychology/sociology. These notions are by nature subjective and often ill defined and/or personnally defined (subjective). Everything is difficult to define but one has to start somewhere.

4) Often does Ron say "This is not the be all and all solution. It's MY be all and all and I'm sharing it. That being said, it will serve as the "default" be all and all until we have something better to offer".

5) nobody who ever had gaming problems will think that the forge is overblown hype.

LostSoul · Dec 14, 2005

Wil said:
That was a lot of the issue..."But The Burning Wheel is object-oriented! There's objects, and you can say what direction they're pointing...narratively!" Obviously I'm using a lot of hyperbole, but that was the gist of things.

That's what I remember, and I was thinking, "Dude, that's doesn't mean it's object-oriented." I didn't read too much of the thread though.

But this seems interesting to me - I would have said, "You don't understand what OOP is" to Luke there. Which is what a lot of the Forgers are criticised for doing (as I see it).

What is "The Forge?"

Henry

Autoexreginated

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!

Wil

First Post

LostSoul

Adventurer

LostSoul

Adventurer

Kanegrundar

Explorer

Wil

First Post

LostSoul

Adventurer

Bastoche

First Post

LostSoul

Adventurer

Similar Threads