Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6402342" data-attributes="member: 177">What I said was that theory means less than balance.&nbsp; I also said that balance is sometimes important.&nbsp; So, I don't see how I am rejecting having theories.I'm rejecting pushing ahead on the basis of theory without due consideration of the result in practice. And I return to the theory leading to calling D&amp;D not an rpg.&nbsp; How, pray tell, is that resulting in practical improvement of anyone's game?&nbsp; You saw, did you not, what happens when people who just play different editions of the game call what the others do &quot;not D&amp;D&quot;, right?&nbsp; Same thing here, but he's doing it to tens or hundreds of thousands of people at once.&nbsp; How to put this...In the physical world, there is theoretical science, and there is Engineering.&nbsp; Physics, chemistry, biology... even computers have the distinction, as a computer scientist does much different things than a software engineer.&nbsp; They're really different skillsets - generating theory is a different activity than applying theory into real-world application in useful form.&nbsp; While one person can do both, it is important to remember the difference, and not mistake the theoretical construct for something that should be put directly to real-world application.Most important is to remember that the theoretical construct is a *theoretical* construct.&nbsp; A model.&nbsp; It is not reality in and of itself.&nbsp; Your model can be incorrect, or have some corr3ect bits, but some notable flaws that don't represent reality.&nbsp; Many theoretical constructs may be beautiful and elegant, and completely fail when the rubber meets the road.&nbsp; This goes especially when you're talking about theory that intersects human psychology and social factors, like out own group leisure activities.A theory that makes the claim that D&amp;D is not an RPG tumbles into such a pitfall - completely failing to realize that it has gotten into an area where psychology and social factors far outweigh whatever useful value there is in the purely theoretical distinction the author wants to try to make.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6402342, member: 177"] What I said was that theory means less than balance. I also said that balance is sometimes important. So, I don't see how I am rejecting having theories. I'm rejecting pushing ahead on the basis of theory without due consideration of the result in practice. And I return to the theory leading to calling D&D not an rpg. How, pray tell, is that resulting in practical improvement of anyone's game? You saw, did you not, what happens when people who just play different editions of the game call what the others do "not D&D", right? Same thing here, but he's doing it to tens or hundreds of thousands of people at once. How to put this... In the physical world, there is theoretical science, and there is Engineering. Physics, chemistry, biology... even computers have the distinction, as a computer scientist does much different things than a software engineer. They're really different skillsets - generating theory is a different activity than applying theory into real-world application in useful form. While one person can do both, it is important to remember the difference, and not mistake the theoretical construct for something that should be put directly to real-world application. Most important is to remember that the theoretical construct is a *theoretical* construct. A model. It is not reality in and of itself. Your model can be incorrect, or have some corr3ect bits, but some notable flaws that don't represent reality. Many theoretical constructs may be beautiful and elegant, and completely fail when the rubber meets the road. This goes especially when you're talking about theory that intersects human psychology and social factors, like out own group leisure activities. A theory that makes the claim that D&D is not an RPG tumbles into such a pitfall - completely failing to realize that it has gotten into an area where psychology and social factors far outweigh whatever useful value there is in the purely theoretical distinction the author wants to try to make. [/QUOTE]

Verification