S/Z: On the Difficulties of RPG Theory & Criticism

[TwoSix]

Quality and importance aren't really correlated.

Plenty of models throughout history have been both the best work possible for the current time period and yet turned out to be wrong, or at least incomplete.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Okay. I'm imagining that. Now, who is saying something analogous to that here? Maybe I missed it in the morass.

You kind of did by saying that the Forge wasn't very important, and that theory is rarely useful since it gets mired in morass.

But it was mostly just messing with you. Because who can imagine a world without the mullet?

 

[Umbran]

You kind of did by saying that the Forge wasn't very important...

Can you quote me on that?

I believe I referred to it as a, "colossal waste of time". I don't recall describing it as unimportant.

 

[prabe]

Can you quote me on that?

I believe I referred to it as a, "colossal waste of time". I don't recall describing it as unimportant.

Can you understand how someone might think "colossal waste of time" and "unimportant" meant the same thing?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Can you quote me on that?

I believe I referred to it as a, "colossal waste of time". I don't recall describing it as unimportant.

I stand corrected!

 

[Umbran]

Can you understand how someone might think "colossal waste of time" and "unimportant" meant the same thing?

Can you understand how, in a thread about why discussing RPG theory is difficult, scrupulously keeping your comments to what someone else actually said should be a thing?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Umbran]

I stand corrected!

And that's fine. It is okay to come away with the idea that I am thoroughly unimpressed with The Forge in some way, because that's accurate. But substituting language is a recipe for trouble in any discussion of opposing thoughts.

The internet is rife with strawmen, some intentional, some not. Not a single one of them makes the discussion better.

 

[prabe]

Can you understand how, in a thread about why discussing RPG theory is difficult, scrupulously keeping your comments to what someone else actually said should be a thing?

That's fair. They might feel equally dismissive, but they need not be literally equivalent.

 

[Hussar]

The issue I'm having here is that people are mistaking minutia with the larger issues.

It doesn't matter that in a game of baseball, this pitch or that play might be different. The point is, following the rules of baseball will give you pretty much the same results every time. One side, then the other will take turns fielding or batting for a set number of times until a winner is declared. Same, I think, as cricket.

At no point can there be any deviation from that.

And, frankly, it's a bit disingenuous to bring in managing. Who actually thinks, "Hey, I'm played baseball last weekend" means "Hey, I managed a baseball team"?

OTOH, my Cthulhu game might start in Boston c1930, run for 10 hours of play time and finish. Or, it might start in the Antarctic in 2020 a la John Carpenter's The Thing, run for 100 hours of play time and finish. Or it might start in the year 2837 on a space station, a la Sarah Monette and run for 10 years of play time. All with the same ruleset.

And those are laughably called the same games?