D&D 5E [+] Explain RPG theory without using jargon

[overgeeked]

I guess spearheading the indie RPG movement, inspiring games like Apocalypse World and pioneering emotional safety techniques like lines and veils counts for nothing? Good to know where you stand.

Because he didn’t do those things. So-called indie games have always existed. That’s literally how the hobby started. Safety tools have always existed. At best Edwards talked about them where people could easily find his writings. I stand with actually investigating the history of the hobby, not blindly following and praising a clearly toxic troll.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because he didn’t do those things. So-called indie games have always existed. That’s literally how the hobby started. Safety tools have always existed. At best Edwards talked about them where people could easily find his writings. I stand with actually investigating the history of the hobby, not blindly following and praising a clearly toxic troll.

Thank you for being completely open that the OP was not an attempt at curiosity.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’d go further. Edwards’ “contributions” are not impressive in the slightest. His only “claim to fame” is incoherently and toxically regurgitating decades and centuries old theory in a place where people could easily find them. People are only impressed with him because he’s likely the first person they happened across who wrote about these topics. In RPG theory, he’s about as impressive as the person who posts “first” in a thread or comment section...despite the conversation already going on for at least 30-40 years by the time he gets around to opening his mouth.

I wouldn’t go as far as that. I don’t know the history of the field enough to know if his work was more aggregation than development of ideas, but enough really great game designers credit the Forge with inspiring their work that I think if nothing else it’s fair to say that its existence was of net benefit to the hobby.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because he didn’t do those things. So-called indie games have always existed. That’s literally how the hobby started. Safety tools have always existed. At best Edwards talked about them where people could easily find his writings. I stand with actually investigating the history of the hobby, not blindly following and praising a clearly toxic troll.

You know, I find your whole “players will always game the system” to be very similar to Edwards’s comments on brain damage and cognitive bias. It’s kind of insulting language applied to a large swath of the hobby. His phrasing was a bit more harsh, sure, but at least he limited it to “most” and not “all”.

Sometimes people say stupid things to try and make a point. Does that mean everything they say is stupid?

 

[overgeeked]

Thank you for being completely open that the OP was not an attempt at curiosity.

It was and still is. I’m curious if people around here can explain RPG theory in plain English, in their own words, without using jargon, and without quoting Edwards. That’s literally the OP.

 

[overgeeked]

I wouldn’t go as far as that. I don’t know the history of the field enough to know if his work was more aggregation than development of ideas

Reading The Elusive Shift by Peterson is really eye opening. I’d recommend it to anyone with even a slight interest in RPG history and/or theory. Or even anyone curious about why we’re seemingly stuck having the same dozen or so conversations ad nauseam. The theory related to the hobby has existed as long as, if not longer than, the hobby.

but enough really great game designers credit the Forge with inspiring their work that I think if nothing else it’s fair to say that its existence was of net benefit to the hobby.

Again, a lot of people’s first blush with RPG theory comes from the Forge. Granted. But conflating that with spearheading or inventing theory is like conflating your weird uncle who introduced you to Pink Floyd with Pink Floyd. Just because the Forge is the first place people came across theory doesn’t mean the Forge invented it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It was and still is. I’m curious if people around here can explain RPG theory in plain English, in their own words, without using jargon, and without quoting Edwards. That’s literally the OP.

You just said that nothing in the theories Edwards proposed was new or useful. In other posts, you've been clear that everything talked about today is pointless rehashing of things that have always been present. I strongly disagree with your claims, but you've said this. In that light, what could you possibly hope to accomplish with this thread -- it appears as if it was just an attempt to get people to use their own words to express things you already reject.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It was and still is. I’m curious if people around here can explain RPG theory in plain English, in their own words, without using jargon, and without quoting Edwards. That’s literally the OP.

To what end?

What can be gained by asking if people can explain the Theory and Special Theory of Relativity without quoting Einstein or using jargon.

The exercise is a test of others' creative writing at that point.

 

[overgeeked]

You just said that nothing in the theories Edwards proposed was new or useful. In other posts, you've been clear that everything talked about today is pointless rehashing of things that have always been present. I strongly disagree with your claims, but you've said this. In that light, what could you possibly hope to accomplish with this thread -- it appears as if it was just an attempt to get people to use their own words to express things you already reject.

Because Edwards isn’t RPG theory. There’s more to the field than him. That you think he and his “work” are the sum total of RPG theory is amazing.

 

[Umbran]

Discussion of the Edwards essay is being used to shut down discussion.

Mod Note:
A handful of posts, phrased in a civil manner, do not constitute an effort to shut down discussion. Even if it did, the discussion in question is a digression from the thread's nominal topic. It withering is not exactly a problem.

If and when you return to trying to explain the jargon in plain language, leaving Edwards out of it, then this continuing might be an issue.