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

[FrogReaver]

Of course talking about a way to game you don't enjoy or even understand the pleasures of is perilous. Edwards himself said D&D causes brain damage, and there are people who've never forgiven him for it, and how write off anything and everything he says and has said--which is plausibly a mistake, but I think an understandable one.

Even here, so many of the recurring arguments seem to be because people do not just fail to understand the differences in how others play, but the differences in why. Or that, for instance, someone else could try the way I play and reject it--then the way I play is (of course) perfect for me. One can comprehend the mechanics of a game and still fail to understand its players.

That's part of why I also question the value in talking about 'play experiences'. The players involved are the ones that have the 'play experiences' which makes those 'play experiences' a rather personal thing. Another player is likely to have quite a different 'play experience' even in the same game as you just by virtue of being another person than you are.

Perhaps the value in lenses and frameworks in TTRPG analysis is to reveal players that experience things similarly moreso than it is about revealing that a specific game offers a universal play experience to everyone.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yep. What, did you want logical consistency from humans?

Yes I do.

Human neurology at work - we use different areas of our brains to judge actions taken by others, and judging our own actions. We are rather literally of two minds in such matters.

That's interesting. I wasn't aware. Explains alot.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure. Any human cognitive construct is open to the same issue. You can always construct a theory to have any result you want. The resulting theory, however, is apt to be... a tortured mess. This leads us to meta-critical analyis, or meta critical theory, if you will - the theory of what critical theory should look like.

In the end, there is always a reliance on the people to be reasonable. If you are not up for that, the best you can do is become a forest ranger, and have as little contact with your fellow humans as possible.

I can't say that I haven't seriously considered that final option. Humans can be so disappointing.

Yes. One can certainly create incoherent and unreasonable theories. I am suggesting one can create a coherent and reasonable theory that produces the answer you want when it comes to any kind of literary or ttrpg criticism

 

[pemerton]

I am suggesting one can create a coherent and reasonable theory that produces the answer you want when it comes to any kind of literary or ttrpg criticism

As soon as a new instance is presented, it generates new demands on the theory, whether the theory is explanatory or interpretive/critical. At which point there is no guarantee of "producing the answer you want".

 

[Umbran]

In any event, I think it's pretty safe to say that Edwards, Baker, Czege et al were part of an RPGing avant garde.

Ever see the musical RENT? It centers around a group of pauperized artistic bohemians in New York City during the height of the AIDS epidemic, and in part concerns their rejection of a development project.

There's a structural problem with the piece, when you look beyond the surface. You are set up to view the bohemians in a positive light, but if you think about it, the supposed antagonist of the piece is trying to help them. What he offers is a good, well-thought-out plan that would be of benefit to the central characters themselves, and to their community. It is rejected not for its results, but because it does not fit in with bohemian ideals.

Never mind that "bohemian ideals" lead to malnutrition, drug use, living without power and heat, and dying of AIDS.

Basically, the work rests on the idea that "bohemian" is good, no matter what the results (like, death and misery) might be.

Avant garde has a similar issue - being at the forefront doesn't itself mean the results are valuable.

 

[Umbran]

Yes. One can certainly create incoherent and unreasonable theories. I am suggesting one can create a coherent and reasonable theory that produces the answer you want when it comes to any kind of literary or ttrpg criticism

No. I don't accept that posit. You can create theories that sound coherent and reasonable, but to get arbirary results, you end up in "all horses are white and have an infinite number of limbs" territory.

 

[Umbran]

Yes I do.

To get that, you must remove the human limbic system. Since your memory depends on it... that's causes issues. Good luck!

That's interesting. I wasn't aware. Explains alot.

It really, really does. We think we are terribly logical and even handed, when, we a really aren't. This is why peer review is important - no one person is actually without cognitive biases, but if you filter thorugh several folks, they tend to filter each other out, until you get at something approaching a realistic view of the world.

 

[FrogReaver]

As soon as a new instance is presented, it generates new demands on the theory, whether the theory is explanatory or interpretive/critical. At which point there is no guarantee of "producing the answer you want".

I can see that. I think that depends to some degree to how narrow a field of answers you would find acceptable.

 

[pemerton]

Ever see the musical RENT? It centers around a group of pauperized artistic bohemians in New York City during the height of the AIDS epidemic, and in part concerns their rejection of a development project.

There's a structural problem with the piece, when you look beyond the surface. You are set up to view the bohemians in a positive light, but if you think about it, the supposed antagonist of the piece is trying to help them. What he offers is a good, well-thought-out plan that would be of benefit to the central characters themselves, and to their community. It is rejected not for its results, but because it does not fit in with bohemian ideals.

Never mind that "bohemian ideals" lead to malnutrition, drug use, living without power and heat, and dying of AIDS.

Basically, the work rests on the idea that "bohemian" is good, no matter what the results (like, death and misery) might be.

Avant garde has a similar issue - being at the forefront doesn't itself mean the results are valuable.

Are you suggesting that all avant garde creativity is worthless or self-defeating? Impressionism? Dada? Cubism? Surrealism? Wagner?

Are you suggesting that all rationalist proposals for social reform ought to be embraced, by everyone? Even those whose lives are oriented around fundamentally different, non-rationalist frameworks? (There's a separate argument that resistance to rationalisation is futile, but that's not an evaluative claim, it's a descriptive one associated most prominently with Weber.)

I assume you're not - because a musical would be a pretty thin evidence base for such claims.

Are the results of the avant garde I mentioned valuable? Those results include Sorcerer, My Life With Master, Dogs in the Vineyard, and Apocalypse World and its many many offshoots. These games aren't widely played, at least if the measure of "widely played" is D&D in its various versions. I get the impression that many D&D players regard it as pretentious or elitist to prefer these games to D&D. Nevertheless, contemporary RPGing would hardly be what it is but for the influence of these games.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Is that Brad who goes around randomly quoting lines from Wittgenstein, or a different Brad?

You know, snarky isn't your best look, is it?

I'd probably go back and read what I wrote again. I know that you often misapprehend what I say because I tend to sprinkle in jokes, but I'll let you in on a quick annotated version. Here is what I wrote in response to a question about the quote-

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.

Now, let's examine this.

1. The title is a paraphrase from Wittgenstein (it's originally in German, so you'll see various versions). Okay, I know who the dude is.
2. Not our old friend, Ludwig van. Ludwig Josef Johann. That's called a joke (or at least an allusion to Kubrick's Clockwork Orange).
3. 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. That is a paraphrase of one of the important concepts behind the representational theory of language.
4. 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. Pretty boilerplate representational theory of language.
5. Or, "What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence." That's the pull quote (some) people know from Tractatus.
6. Well, it's more complicated, which is why he probably wrote a lot of stuff in German ... This is the whole, yeah, Wittgenstein isn't really likely to lead to a productive conversation on this thread, and I don't normally bother explaining myself due to responses like yours, but someone asked a genuine and earnest question.
7. (and he would tend to disagree with himself over time). That's the reference to Wittgenstein's shift from Tractatus to Philosophical Investigations.
8. But that's okay for a quick summary. And that's what it was. A quick summary explaining the quote.

I didn't follow up on the various responses by Umbran, et al., because I don't normally do so- I'm not really interested, for purposes of this discussion, in the evolution of language, or Chomsky, or current scientific theories regarding same. But you tell me, since you are the expert on this and what I was thinking when I used the quote in the title- why would I possibly be referencing a philosopher who famously adapted positions from what many would think of as a postivist approach to a something more akin to pragmatism when I wrote the OP? I mean, yeah, it's probably just me being all stupid and stuff, like usual. Right?