S/Z: On the Difficulties of RPG Theory & Criticism

[aramis erak]

In Re AW and the Forge...

Having tried several "Forge Games" and read many more....

It's a reaction to the forge overall... but it also walks away from the Forge's overall evolution.

The Forge wasn't bad early on. The examination provided by the GSN model in the early days is, in point of fact, brilliant. Three different approaches, all of which

Narrativism: Story Now is also an excellent diatribe on how to get that particular type of play laser focused.

The problem with the Forge wasn't the attempt to create a theory...
Nor was it that it didn't get good results for a subset of games...

It was ignoring that the theory wasn't a good fit for many outsider the Forge's community. It was an ever-tightening spiral of self-selection of yes-men rejecting evidence that didn't support their current theory.

Any theorizing that rejects evidence to the contrary is bad theorizing. And, I can say from personal experience, Ron refused to accept points of view that didn't fit his big theory. To the point of telling me I didn't know what I liked, when a game designer had invited me to participate in a playtest which was hosted at the Forge. I knew very well what I did and didn't like about the game in playtest, but Ron felt obliged to accuse me of deceit and ignorance of my own mind. And of falsifying data from my players.

I've never been back to the Forge Forums since that day. I sent my later reports direct, via email, to the designer.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Narrativism: Story Now is also an excellent diatribe on how to get that particular type of play laser focused.

The problem with the Forge wasn't the attempt to create a theory...
Nor was it that it didn't get good results for a subset of games...

It was ignoring that the theory wasn't a good fit for many outsider the Forge's community. It was an ever-tightening spiral of self-selection of yes-men rejecting evidence that didn't support their current theory.

Any theorizing that rejects evidence to the contrary is bad theorizing.

On the other hand it is literally mathematically proven that any theory big enough to contain arithmetic has propositions we can't know whether are true or false. And human nature or even the subset used in roleplaying is far messier and more complex as well as less rigidly grounded than that.

The first thing that GNS theory does very right is in saying "there are multiple different reasons to do things. What the gamists over there are doing is pretty cool even if it's not what we want to do." And if you're trying to create something less bland than apple sauce you should always be aware that not everyone is the target audience. Any theorizing that claims to cover absolutely everyone or all circumstances is either incredible theorizing or more normally very bad theorizing.

That said any theorizing that claims to cover absolutely everyone or all circumstances is normally bad theorizing. Giving feedback of the sort you received is both impolite and pretty clearly putting the cart before the horse in terms of theory.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Neonchameleon]

Dude. You can't apply Gödel's incompleteness theorems to RPG theory. That's .... yeah, that doesn't work.

Any stoned undergraduate can read Gödel, Escher, Bach; but it takes a sober postgraduate to understand that the application is limited to formal axiomatic systems.

Dude. You can if you know what you are doing. Or more accurately you can show that even if certain approaches were tried and every single other reason for not trying them was ignored they'd still end up not doing what people want them to. It's a good "Dead end" marker in a whole lot of places.

Any half-stoned first year undergraduate can say "not the right field" - but there will always be people who think they can make a formal axiomatic system where one just isn't meant to go. The use of Godel is that it deals with such approaches by accepting the premise and then showing that that still won't take things where people want to go. Meanwhile just arguing about the premise gets in an argument about the premise, and that seldom produces more than an argument.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Aldarc]

I kinda think of GNS Theory much as I would the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. It’s fun to think about but no one should treat it seriously, especially as an actual theory for games. And like MBTI, people have a tendency to weaponize it against others and as a shield for their preferences. “Oh, that is such a INFJ thing to say.” or “ESTPs are the worst!” There are other psychological models that are worth pursuing, much as there are likely better TTRPG models worth pursuing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No. You can’t.

This is complete gobbledygook. RPG theory is not a formal axiomatic system. It’s these types of category errors, boldly (and baldly) asserted that I strongly disagree with, and why I specifically avoided the issue of this particular theory in the OP.

.... not that it did any good.

RPG theory is not a formal axiomatic system - but a good way of nailing certain arguments completely closed is to say "Even if it was everything you want it to be and more it still wouldn't do what you want"

 

[Ovinomancer]

RPG theory is not a formal axiomatic system - but a good way of nailing certain arguments completely closed is to say "Even if it was everything you want it to be and more it still wouldn't do what you want"

That's... not it. Incompleteness theory essentially says that it's impossible for a formal, logical system to justify itself. Not that it can't be justified, but that it cannot be justified from within the construct. If you could apply it to RPG theory, what it would say is that you cannot prove RPG theory from within RPG theory using RPG theory. RPG theory would be incomplete in that it could not justify itself.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Nagol]

RPG theory is not a formal axiomatic system - but a good way of nailing certain arguments completely closed is to say "Even if it was everything you want it to be and more it still wouldn't do what you want"

The incompleteness theorem doesn't do that though. It states, roughly, a system will have truths that the system itself cannot prove to be true and one of those truths is whether the system is actually mathematically consistent. It gives no indication what other truths will be outside the realm of the premises and the model can still be proved consistent so long as one can use external tools to do so.