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

[aco175]

So, in a nutshell... House rules are the root of the problem. I change things to what I think ought to be and your ought to be are now at odds and we end up saying bad things on how each of us play the game. I guess the same thing is for optional rules like flanking, and new rules/options like the orc/drow threads of last year that still continue.

There is also the text and people reading it differently, the RAW/RAI problem. Half of this site is about problems with something that some of us say, "no, of course not. That is just silly.", and the other half are on the opposing point. That is likely part of the reason many of us look at the site.

Who is right, not sure. It would be easy to be quippy and just say if everyone agreed with me, things would be great.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

To me, the use of RPG theory jargon isn't all that problematic--if someone is joining a discussion about RPG theory, they should be able to handle either asking for looking up the definitions and context of a handful of terms. If not, there will always be tons of other threads to jump into that aren't about RPG theory.

The pattern that I keep seeing, that I think can be unhelpful, is people essentially showing up to shut down theory-related discussion in the context of "Well in my game we do it this way and that's always worked for us so why are we talking about any other approach or system or concept?" The battle lines in those cases seem to be drawn over the notion of even talking about theory, as though by even trying to define different elements and styles of play, and maybe figure out ways to improve as players and GMs or bring in more types of gamers, we risk ruining the effortless chemistry of the campaign someone's been running for the past 20 years.

If people don't want to discuss this stuff in detail, at the level of theory...they just shouldn't. No one's forcing any of us to post.

 

[Umbran]

If people don't want to discuss this stuff in detail, at the level of theory...they just shouldn't. No one's forcing any of us to post.

If someone comes in as you noted, my observation isn't that they "don't want to discuss it". It is that they have seen those discussions before, and those discussions, to them, seem to discredit, dismiss, or exclude their personal playstyle - they are engaging in that way because what they see seems to put their own play into the "Out Group".

Then, on the other side, those who have steeped themselves in theory have a tendency of facing such folks with a wall of academic discussion.

And in the end, nobody bridges the gap. This is connected to how people often listen/read to be able to respond, rather than to learn and understand. There's a difference, and they lead to different kinds of discussion.

 

[overgeeked]

If someone comes in as you noted, my observation isn't that they "don't want to discuss it". It is that they have seen those discussions before, and those discussions, to them, seem to discredit, dismiss, or exclude their personal playstyle - they are engaging in that way because what they see seems to put their own play into the "Out Group".

Then, on the other side, those who have steeped themselves in theory have a tendency of facing such folks with a wall of academic discussion.

And in the end, nobody bridges the gap. This is connected to how people often listen/read to be able to respond, rather than to learn and understand. There's a difference, and they lead to different kinds of discussion.

It's further complicated by the fact that we can't even seem to define what all this even is (RPGs) without someone feeling excluded and/or attacked. There's no workable definition that won't exclude some people, games, and playstyles and any definition broad enough to intentionally include everyone, every game, and every playstyle will by necessity be too broad to be useful or meaningful.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

If someone comes in as you noted, my observation isn't that they "don't want to discuss it". It is that they have seen those discussions before, and those discussions, to them, seem to discredit, dismiss, or exclude their personal playstyle - they are engaging in that way because what they see seems to put their own play into the "Out Group".

Then, on the other side, those who have steeped themselves in theory have a tendency of facing such folks with a wall of academic discussion.

And in the end, nobody bridges the gap. This is connected to how people often listen/read to be able to respond, rather than to learn and understand. There's a difference, and they lead to different kinds of discussion.

I mostly agree with this, except that when people join a discussion already feeling defensive and cornered, it just never really works out well--and that's really on them for making it personal. To me that's the equivalent of barging into an academic discussion to proclaim that you didn't need fancy schooling to tell you about X, and turning what might have been a productive back-and-forth into a bitter and probably pointless slugfest.

In other words, if the only reason someone is dropping into a thread is to secure validation for their playstyle, that's just asking for trouble, and also a bit depressing.

 

[Marc_C]

RPG theory is interesting to read on a blog or in a book. I stopped discussing rpg theory on forums because it is very time consuming and talking past each other is often the end result.

I prefer using my time to work on my campaigns.

 

[MGibster]

RPG theory is interesting to read on a blog or in a book. I stopped discussing rpg theory on forums because it is very time consuming and talking past each other is often the end result.

I went to graduate school and took courses that covered and made extensive use of various theories. I have to admit that sometimes when I read an RPG theory thread my eyes glaze over and I have no idea what the hell is being talked about. I get lost.

 

[Aldarc]

It's further complicated by the fact that we can't even seem to define what all this even is (RPGs) without someone feeling excluded and/or attacked. There's no workable definition that won't exclude some people, games, and playstyles and any definition broad enough to intentionally include everyone, every game, and every playstyle will by necessity be too broad to be useful or meaningful.

The issue, IMHO, is when people try to pass off their prescriptive understandings of TTRPGs as descriptive.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Snarf Zagyg, IMHO, the more interesting contrast in terms of theory is not necesarily between TTRPGs and literary theory, but, rather, between tabletop roleplay gaming and other forms of gaming, namely board games or video/computer gaming. The latter of which has developed far more articulate theoretical frameworks, terminology/jargon, and the like from both scholars, game designers, and gamers.

I briefly touched upon that (or, at a minimum, was thinking about that) when I wrote the following:
Finally, the most frustrating thing about many conversations regarding RPG theory is the extent to which they are forced to continually re-occur. RPGs sprung from a loose hobbyist market, and have both attracted a number of very smart people but also usually lacked the type of money or prestige that would generally attract the attention of traditional academia. Which means that the wheel keeps getting re-invented when it comes to RPG theory.

Vides games in general are similar to movies, in that sense. You have an entertainment that is originally viewed as unserious. Quickly, the sheer amount of money requires that companies (and the people that work for those companies) begin to approach the field in a more systemic manner; what works, what doesn't work. You need standardized language to approach certain problems and to communicate the needs and solutions to other professionals in the field.

The money also means that you have subsidiary and collateral sources spring up- independent (and professional, and money-making) third parties begin reviewing and critiquing video games- and they will use a shared language as well. You have agreed-upon divisions of the market into different segments with different goals, and standards, and comparators, and language for reviewing. And you have academic study which can deepen (embiggen?) the level of analysis.

This is largely lacking in the TTRPG sphere. IMO.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, I've done a ton of theory as well, and it just doesn't seem to come off the same way in conversation about RPGs as it does in a Lit Grad lecture. Well, except about Derrida, but that's Derrida for you. I think I'd agree that a limiting factor is probably that the base theory sets are not as well constructed/appreciated/deployed/insert theory word here as is the case with Lit theory (or whatever theory). Not that people don't argue about Lit, obviously they do, but the nature of the arguments seem a little different to me. Tough to really put my finger on the exact differences though. Something to think about.