Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[Lanefan]

So, the interesting observation here then is that resource systems have a big impact on which type of adventures a given system is going to handle well.

Mayyy-be? I wasn't even thinking about resource systems/management when I wrote what you quoted.

 

[chaochou]

I wish I had the certainty to both characterize and dismiss the things I have never read, by people I was unfamiliar with.

It's so nice to see such things never happen on this forum with Forge theory in general, GNS in particular or a whole host of narrativist games - none of which get characterized, criticised and dismissed on the basis of prejudice and speculation by people who have neither read (or in the case of games, played) them.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's so nice to see such things never happen on this forum with Forge theory in general, GNS in particular or a whole host of narrativist games - none of which get characterized, criticised and dismissed on the basis of prejudice and speculation by people who have neither read (or in the case of games, played) them.

This is a good point!

Oh, wait. I included the links to the Forge (including the most recent academic work on it) and yet ….

Out of curiosity, is there a Batsignal of some kind that summons you to make these types of comments, or are you more like Beetlejuice?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is from Torner's chapter, p 198:

The Big Model provides an example for theory as a team effort. The Forge participants formed a model that unified and connected different threads. Its components are hardly unique . . . But the Big Model arguably integrated the function components of an RPG . . . It was a first major synthesis that enabled key future work . . .​

Good thing we've all agreed The Forge is terrible!

The same chapter, p 205, says

A core process of RPG play is task resolution: determining whether a player character succeeds at a task in the game world.​

This is obviously contentious. And what immediately follows it is wrong: it discusses fictional positioning, with reference to Baker's blog, but then goes on to say "Another model is DFK, devised by Tweet" but that is not another model: what has been described in the immediately preceding paragraph is an example of drama resolution. I think Ron Edwards has much more interesting things to say about DFK than Torner does.

Maybe this isn't Torner's best work - I wouldn't know. But I didn't find it terribly profound.

I am confused. So the problem was that (pace earlier) he had an agenda that was anti-Forge?

Okay. You now acknowledge that’s wrong after reading it.

And that you were wrong about the sociology bit?

So now you‘ve read one thing Torner wrote (again, this is a single author, and I was using him for one proposition- which you elided) and you are claiming that he isn’t precise with his terms like … Ron Edwards … is. The Ron Edwards who came up with the most misleading terminology ever?

After being questioned for criticizing someone with bothering to read or have any knowledge about the subject, you wrote two consecutive posts that reiterated you were previously incorrect, and then wrote the posts showing you quickly skimmed some material in an attempt to continue arguing - not learn or engage or even see where it fit in with what the discussion is about.

This is why, as in the other thread, people ask for receipts for your claims.

We’re good.

 

[pemerton]

I am confused. So the problem was that (pace earlier) he had an agenda that was anti-Forge?

I didn't say anything about Torner having an agenda. I did say I don't think this work is all that good.

You now acknowledge that’s wrong after reading it.

And that you were wrong about the sociology bit?

After being questioned for criticizing someone with bothering to read or have any knowledge about the subject, you wrote two consecutive posts that reiterated you were previously incorrect, and then wrote the posts showing you quickly skimmed some material in an attempt to continue arguing - not learn or engage or even see where it fit in with what the discussion is about.

Huh? I wasn't wrong. Reading (which you politely characterise as "skimming") confirmed my prior view - that the work is not that good, and adds nothing to Baker's "para-academic" work, and that as social history it has little to say about RPG design. For example, it's actual technical account of how RPGs work is wrong.

This is why, as in the other thread, people ask for receipts for your claims.

I cited the passages that I disagree with. And explained why. That's how academic argument works.

What do you think is interesting in those three chapters - 4, 10 and 11 - about TTRPGing that tells us new things about gameplay? Why don't you show us some receipts?

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

The partisanship here is pretty obvious, folks. If the animosity doesn't ratchet down several notches, folks are going to get very pouty when they are removed form the discussion.

 

[Garthanos]

Its a virtual necessity to be able to put together traditional superhero characters.

I think its about creating characters with rich interesting backgrounds that have an ongoing impact in their stories... Elric of Melnibone without Yrkoon? I do not think it is genre bound.

 

[chaochou]

This is a good point!

Oh, wait. I included the links to the Forge (including the most recent academic work on it) and yet ….

Well, this will come as something of a shock, but my comment wasn't a singular reference to you or the OP, but a general comment on the D&D playing populace's willingness to comment and criticise the play of games they've neither read nor played. And similarly, the willingness to decide that 'narratavism' must mean whatever they guess it means and then claim that it's the theory at fault rather than their own muddled assumptions.

As to your ad hominem - I await your moderation and threadban with interest.

 

[Umbran]

As to your ad hominem - I await your moderation and threadban with interest.

Mod Note:
I just warned the thread about its level of animosity. And here you are, after that warning, wishing ill on another poster.

You have chosen to not abandon your animosity, so you are done in this discussion.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think its about creating characters with rich interesting backgrounds that have an ongoing impact in their stories... Elric of Melnibone without Yrkoon? I do not think it is genre bound.

It obviously can be beneficial in other genres, but some characters in other genres are, well, kind of disconnected. That's exceedingly rare in the superhero genre because of how they engage with the setting. I can think of significant fictional characters who have no notable connections that aren't what look like fellow PCs, no individual enemies that recur, and a number of other things; its virtually unheard of in superheroes, even ones that only exist as part of team books.