In the Bogdanov case, they completely flew under the radar by publishing in non-prestigious journals that hardly anybody in their field of interest read. (That is with the exception of one journal, which was semi-prestigious in their field of interest).
Subjectivity, Objectivity, and One True Wayism in RPGs
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
In the Bogdanov case, they completely flew under the radar by publishing in non-prestigious journals that hardly anybody in their field of interest read. (That is with the exception of one journal, which was semi-prestigious in their field of interest).
So you say. But just like you I make my own reality. I refuse to accept that 2 + 2 = 4. It just does not exist because I do not want it to. Just like you and gravity. 2 + 2 = 4 is just a series of failed theories, one after the other, for as long as humanity has been counting.
We all make our own reality and what doesn['t fit in will just ber dismissed out of hand. Regardless of what's there.
But can you really do that? Can you truly make up your own reality that contradicts the physical world?
Ignoring what they are called and the math nomenclature used, if you have 2 apples, and I give you 2 more, you now have 4 apples. That's the scientific fact that 2 +2 = 4 models. You don't have five apples, even if you swap the names around, you can't give 1 apple each to 5 friends because you only have enough for 4 friends.
Storminator
First Post
I've been thinking about the concept of divergent RPGs since you started posting about them. Some posters have their Robin Laws style gamer type in their sigs. What does it mean to be an explorer type in a divergent game? Do divergent games even support the type? Does the explorer part of you check out when you get to own the story rights? Or does the storyteller part?
Would the types of gamers change in a diverent paradigm?
As you can see, all I've come up with so far are questions.
PS
Sure you can. Those who control the language controls the world.
It's all in the language and how one defines things. The number 4 can exist. But 2 + 2 = 4 just do not. So those can still be just 4 apples without the 2 + 2.
There is just no evidence to support the 2 plus 2. Simply because I do not want it be so.
And it only matters what I say. Everything else is moot.
Your two reasons are invalid for two more reasons.
The first is that the subtlety of a hoax is a matter of perspective. I and a few others found Reveille's hoax to be equally unsubtle--and yet almost all of ENWorld fell for it. Do you know why? Good will. That's what the editors of Social Text were guilty of. That and being a small, irrelevant journal that didn't referee submissions.
The second is that the damning part was indeed getting the paper published, as Sokal's whole point was a) the lack of rigorous evaluation humanities papers undergo, and b) the anti-intellectualism this fosters by allowing two-bit humanities folk (of which I know firsthand there are many) to publish uninformed screeds critical of the sciences.
So, to reiterate, the comparisons are valid, since the issue for Sokal was the lack of rigorous evaluation, and scientific journals have routinely showcased a comparable lack of rigorous evaluation. Schön, who received several prizes for his fabricated work, is an even more damning example of this.
When you say things like this you make it very hard for me to take you seriously. One editor suspected that Sokal had been serious but lost his nerve. One. Suspected. There was not then and never has been any unified "post-modernist camp." On the contrary, the very definition of postmodernism is "incredulity towards metanarratives." Of course, every discipline has its own crop of wahoos. This is as true of the sciences as it is of the humanities, as Sokal himself admits.
And yet they were still, unlike Social Text, refereed journals. There's a reason Sokal chose a small, unrefereed political journal for his hoax. He was never going to get that paper published in boundary 2, let alone PMLA.
Peer review standards can vary significantly from journal to journal.
Generally it's a lot easier to publish crap in the less prestigious journals. For the really low quality low prestige journals, the quality of peer review is completely abysmal to almost non-existent.
These days researchers in the Bogdanov's purported chosen field don't even read new stuff in journals anymore. They just go to a preprint server and download the preprint to read. Publishing in journals is largely a formality, just to show a track record. A lot of preprints in their field get "peer reviewed" within the first few days they are posted. If it turns out to be crap, the author and/or the administrators of the preprint server removes it.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
Check out The Big Model Theory. It signifies exploration as the primary act engaged in when roleplaying. In collaborative effort, it is self-focused. The participants are each agreeing to a predefined situation in order to explore how they would act within it. In a convergent design, it is other focused. The participants are exploring someone else's desires and changing their behavior in game to accommodate (this latter resembles almost all games, like simulation games. Why this is more formally RPS). However, this distinction is not an either/or as neither form is static like a storybook or film. Each allows for the questions "What will happen next?" as well as "what do I want to have happen next?" The differences lie in the focus of play, the game form, authorship identity, and the ability to foretell.I've been thinking about the concept of divergent RPGs since you started posting about them. Some posters have their Robin Laws style gamer type in their sigs. What does it mean to be an explorer type in a divergent game? Do divergent games even support the type? Does the explorer part of you check out when you get to own the story rights? Or does the storyteller part?
Would the types of gamers change in a divergent paradigm?
As you can see, all I've come up with so far are questions.
PS
I've called this difference exterior versus interior before as well as extrospective versus introspective. In the same way a person does not stop dealing with their exterior world just because they are being introspective a player does not stop exploring their inner or outer world. It is more about the degree each format offers.
I think that answers most of your questions. For the last, with all the people I've met in gaming over the years I'd rather not try and break them down by type. I think all sorts of people can split over a single difference without it being too determinate of the rest of identity. I see people more as having behavioral tendencies than strict categories.
LostSoul
Adventurer
That's very interesting. I've found, in playing a number of different games, that I strongly prefer convergent games.
There is a mechanic in Burning Wheel that - under a certain style of play - allows players to declare facts about the game world. I find this unpalatable; if you are truly trying to see how far you are willing to go to get what you want, or if you can, this kind of mechanic can disrupt things.
"The orcs are chasing you into the woods."
"Ah, the woods. Well, everyone knows that the woods are guarded by powerful Ents - Ents who hate orcs. That's a Forest-wise check; since everyone knows it, I should make the roll, no problem."
If I am the advocate of my PC, I am going to do whatever I can to achieve my PC's goals. If I can take that kind of action, life just got a whole lot easier on my PC, meaning that I don't have to face difficult choices - unless I don't advocate for my PC, which means I don't have any stake in what happens to my PC as a player.
No. Instead, I prefer something like this:
"The orcs are chasing you into the woods."
"Are there any creatures in the woods who may hate orcs? I have Forest-wise, I might know of some."
Similar Threads
