RPG Theory- The Limits of My Language are the Limits of My World

[ReshiIRE]

I'm not going to say Tarnsman of Gor is a good book, but you probably won't feel the need to take a shower after reading it.

I mean, that's fair, but I just took a shower before reading the first part of the summary on Wikipedia of this 'Gor' series and I think I should probably go take a second shower.

Jesus Christ.

To be more on topic: it makes sense that the way we speak and how we interpret and use language does limit our worlds. What I am curious about and something I now have to worry about is whether conditions such as say dyslexia would have any effect.

Now, my dyslexia mostly affects my spelling (so not a big issue for DMing generally, unless I want to create new names that others might find incomprehensible), but I do also notice that sometimes my sentances or paragraphs are put backwards and I have to manually affect them. I'm not sure if that will come out while speaking... which may make certain characters or speeches poor.

Does anyone have any insight in something like this?

 

[Malmuria]

This as a progression isn't radically unlike just about any progression of movements (so to speak) in any art form, or criticism thereof, that I know of. Just about every movement is in conversation with what has come before, and usually a direct reaction (often but not always in opposition) to an immediate predecessor.

And I think situating a given theory in that history is really important for communicating what's important about it. It helps contextualize why a particular theory or game is trying to do the thing it is trying to do. Absent that, these frameworks become universalizing and mutually exclusive.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I am looking forward to the Criterion Collection print of D&D and Cyborge Commando.

I feel duty-bound to link to this genuinely cool game whenever someone mentions Cyborg Commando

DriveThruRPG.com

Your one-stop online shop for new and vintage RPG products from the top publishers, delivered fresh to your desktop in electronic format.

www.drivethrurpg.com

Seriously cool ideas, though it works well as a bit, too.

 

[gorice]

Without getting too "academic," the Bourdieu reference in the paragraph I quoted seems intended to claim that these discussions are themselves ways to establish authority over "taste." This is not necessarily tendentious, as people can do this without really thinking about it. For example, with regards to ttrpgs, 5e obviously takes up the most air. This means that discussion of other games is always striving to contrast itself with 5e, to show what they do different and better. When it comes to talking about the game itself, this might be valid, but there is also an element of judgement and tastemaking involved. For example, OSR discussions will often assert that a PC is not "special" and should not have "8 pages of backstory." Part of this is a best practice: let character emerge through play. But, of course, there are layers of social judgement in those statements that extend beyond analysis of the game itself.

Oh, completely. I didn't mean to suggest that there aren't critical discourses that establish taste now. What I think has changed is that few people in Bourdieu's day would have responded to a critique with normative implications with something like 'how dare you judge my taste'.

Actually, one of the, uh, frustrating things, to me, about the many pixels spilled over things like GNS and the threefold model is that these were in a sense groundbreaking gestures towards inclusivity. Premising your theory on the idea that different people want different things from RPGs and that's OK ought not to have caused so much consternation... Though normative statements were probably unavoidable, at least implicitly, as you point out.

 

[prabe]

Actually, one of the, uh, frustrating things, to me, about the many pixels spilled over things like GNS and the threefold model is that these were in a sense groundbreaking gestures towards inclusivity. Premising your theory on the idea that different people want different things from RPGs and that's OK ought not to have caused so much consternation... Though normative statements were probably unavoidable, at least implicitly, as you point out.

I think part of the reason the statements might have been taken as normative in spite of being intended as inclusive is that having your play described from outside by someone who doesn't understand it (or its appeal) seems ... likely to come across as patronizing if not insulting.

 

[loverdrive]

Another tangent, but I'm going to talk about it anyway.

Here in the East we (kinda) have a taxonomy of both playstyles and systems. Of course, stupid arguments still happen when people who haven't learned of jargon or people who just want to argue meet in one place, but generally, people stay in their camps and generally productive discussions can take place.

There are:

• The Old school: solving of tactical and strategic problems in a Fair™ fictional world adjudicated by the Referee, with no regard to how dramatic or cinematic the narrative turns out in the end. The rulesets used are, well, old school — Traveler, B/X and all her various offspring like OSE, LoFP and st. Crawford's body of work. FKR movement didn't really take any roots here, because of a long lasting disdain for the slovesochkas, games without rules.
• The Mid school: a limbo between two other schools, where the Storyteller simultaneously tries to create Drama™ and an illusion of a fair, independent world. The systems used are the most diverse, from D&D 3E to V:tM to new Fria Ligan stuff.
• The New school: everything is up to grabs, but the narrative is the queen. It's about embracing whatever the designer intended and running with it.

Given that this taxonomy was coined by a prominent OSR enthusiast Ivan Devyatko and embraced by a prominent OSR and PbtA enthusiast Alice Loverdrive, of course there's some dislike towards mid-school in it, but, hey, it still works. People generally don't barge into OSR discussions with their comments about how the things are done in WoD, so it's kind of a win.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

To be more on topic: it makes sense that the way we speak and how we interpret and use language does limit our worlds. What I am curious about and something I now have to worry about is whether conditions such as say dyslexia would have any effect.

Now, my dyslexia mostly affects my spelling (so not a big issue for DMing generally, unless I want to create new names that others might find incomprehensible), but I do also notice that sometimes my sentances or paragraphs are put backwards and I have to manually affect them. I'm not sure if that will come out while speaking... which may make certain characters or speeches poor.

Does anyone have any insight in something like this?

Moving somewhat far afield of the topic ... but here's my two cents.

The title is a paraphrase from Wittgenstein (it's originally in German, so you'll see various versions). Not our old friend, Ludwig van. Ludwig Josef Johann.

It's kind of a distillation of the idea that you can only know what you have words for- that understanding and language cannot be viewed as severable concepts, but inseparable. If something is, then it must be thought of, and for it to be thought of, it must be within the range of things that we can speak - language determines what we can think about. Or, "What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence." Well, it's more complicated, which is why he probably wrote a lot of stuff in German (and he would tend to disagree with himself over time). But that's okay for a quick summary. I always enjoyed it for the nutshell (only half-joking) I learned a long time ago-

The TLDR of Wittgenstein is- Are you even talking about the same thing?

But no, I don't think you are limited in any way! AFAIK, dyslexia is just a difference in processing written language. I am grateful that we have much better resources today than we did when I was growing up, but I don't think it's my place to really comment other than that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think part of the reason the statements might have been taken as normative in spite of being intended as inclusive is that having your play described from outside by someone who doesn't understand it (or its appeal) seems ... likely to come across as patronizing if not insulting.

This was a bit noticeable with RGFA threefold, where the theory was worked out by simulationists and dramatists, and only included gamists as an afterthought when a few people noted that no, they really were there to a large part focused on the game element, and the world and drama were primarily relevant in supporting that. The net effect was that since there were so few gamists in the discussion (at one point I think it was down to me and Brian Gleichman) the way it was discussed could sometimes be a bit--special.

 

[Umbran]

Without getting too "academic," ... This is not necessarily tendentious...

Um.... folks were making points about accessible language. You are trying to not get too academic, but use a word like "tendentious"?

 

[Umbran]

It's kind of a distillation of the idea that you can only know what you have words for- that understanding and language cannot be viewed as severable concepts, but inseparable. If something is, then it must be thought of, and for it to be thought of, it must be within the range of things that we can speak - language determines what we can think about.

Yeah, I've seen that argument before. It has a chicken-and-egg element to it, as there was a time when no language existed on this planet. By this theory, we could not think of anything before that time, and therefore could not have generated language to begin with. The fact that we have language means we must, on occasion, be able to think outside the box.

I will totally buy that we have difficulty conceiving things outside our language - that with language, we dig ourselves a rut of thought that is hard to get out of, but not impossible.