Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5621115" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>Sure. But what I've been driving at is that the conversation is typically starting in a place that has already closed some legitmate avenues of exploration. Rigor is not required to investigate. It isn't even required to get something useful out of the investigation (though it certainly might help in some cases). But rigor is definitely required <strong>somewhere</strong>, by the time you start drawing conclusions. And certainly, you have to be clear on what the limits of that investigation are.</p><p> </p><p>So for your thought experiment, you could go different ways for that rigor. Here a couple of extremes:</p><p> </p><p>1. You define exactly what you mean by "paying attention to the ficton" and how you are measuring it, what the boundaries are, etc. </p><p> </p><p>2. You go for something more like a reasonably decent reporter observing and interviewing people.</p><p> </p><p>Where's the rigor in the second one? It's in what you draw from it. "Hey, we went out and observed a bunch of groups, and here is what we saw. Yep, we saw X happen in 76% of the groups. What does that mean? Well, it might mean that if we looked closer, that A was involved. However, some of the participants suggested B was closer to the truth. Who knows for sure?"</p><p> </p><p>And likewise, the conclusons in the first one, even with the rigor, are only as good as your ability to define "paying attention to the fiction" in a way that maps back to that label. Otherwise, it comes out that your study was really about "paying attention to the fiction in way X". So you betcha, X sure showed up a lot. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5621115, member: 54877"] Sure. But what I've been driving at is that the conversation is typically starting in a place that has already closed some legitmate avenues of exploration. Rigor is not required to investigate. It isn't even required to get something useful out of the investigation (though it certainly might help in some cases). But rigor is definitely required [B]somewhere[/B], by the time you start drawing conclusions. And certainly, you have to be clear on what the limits of that investigation are. So for your thought experiment, you could go different ways for that rigor. Here a couple of extremes: 1. You define exactly what you mean by "paying attention to the ficton" and how you are measuring it, what the boundaries are, etc. 2. You go for something more like a reasonably decent reporter observing and interviewing people. Where's the rigor in the second one? It's in what you draw from it. "Hey, we went out and observed a bunch of groups, and here is what we saw. Yep, we saw X happen in 76% of the groups. What does that mean? Well, it might mean that if we looked closer, that A was involved. However, some of the participants suggested B was closer to the truth. Who knows for sure?" And likewise, the conclusons in the first one, even with the rigor, are only as good as your ability to define "paying attention to the fiction" in a way that maps back to that label. Otherwise, it comes out that your study was really about "paying attention to the fiction in way X". So you betcha, X sure showed up a lot. :lol: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
In Defense of the Theory of Dissociated Mechanics
Top