I haven't read the fantasy heartbreakers essays, but I'll give them a go.
I think it's more the uses its been put too than the theory itself, flawed as that theory may be. That is often the case with theory sets. I find the same to be true with a variety of Literary Criticism theories.
I think the "RPGs can only succesfully follow one creative agenda" stuff was both wrong and bad for rpg design.
I'd agree. It seems like a very strange idea to have arrived at. I'm surprised many people gave it much thought.
I'd agree with you both (I generally prefer games that fall into their niche) but that's not what Forge Theory is talking about here.
Yep. I find it--albeit uncomfortably*--best to take the most pared down versions of the categories and use them to help you organize your thinking, or as a starting point only. (cf. Christopher's Voglers The Hero's Journey, which might have been a fine essay, but the book length form just reeks of bloat for publication purposes.). In this case, I've been thinking a lot about it in solo-dungeon/gamebook writing where there's a definite tradeoff between a rich narrative and player/character autonomy.
That seems to be mostly a RPG issue. You don't seem to get the same issue with LARP theory which is about 10 years ahead of tabletop in terms of its development. (As long as people get the difference between "theory" and "manifesto" anywhere. The LARP community tends to offload onetruewayism into the latter).
Video games are usually better designed than ttrpgs too, since they can’t rule zero away oversights or use the sunk cost fallacy to kill competition.
This makes sense as the theories advanced by Edwards and other Forgean theorists always struck me as dogma more than anything you could actually apply in a useful manner.
I think the Forge, taken as a whole, has some moments where I feel it's gesturing in the right direction, but that's about it. For what amounts to amateur theory hour (no particular offense to RE) that's not a bad result IMO. The problem I see with the Forge is that it lacks rigor and practical application. Edwards takes quote here and there, but never really tries to apply his ideas in a complete and rigorous way to an RPG text and then open that analysis up to critical appreciation. There are lots of good ideas and moments to index, but they need to be pulled out of the ruck, polished up, and perhaps put to better use.
Personally, I wouldn't even do that. I think there are some generalities that I might pull, areas I might explore, and specific moments that might expand on while letting others fade away, but I think the notion of using it as a base promulgates some of the same issues that come packaged with the original. Better, I think, to use it as a model of what not to do, at least as that moves you toward pulling some threads about how those things could be done better. So in short, I might reply to the Forge before I used it a launching point.
Yes, "amateur theory hour" totally sums it up, hits the nail on the head, and put the dart in the bullseye. When the Forge was forging away I was a PhD student studying semiotics and psychoanalytic film studies and stuff, so when I i got pointed in the direction of the Forge site I took a look, scoffed and went back to playing my elfgames. But I never bothered to explore exactly what I didn't like and what you just said, that's it.
I'm an English Lit guy who's main interests are Semiotics and Deconstruction, so I share your little podium. I appreciate the effort to try and import some academic ideas and vocabulary into the discussion but I won't go so far as to say that was particularly successful. If I were t take a stab at my specific issues I would say that the ideas in question were insufficiently hermeneutic and served raw rather than cooked to perfection.
Lyotard, Baudrillard and Deleuze were available but they go with "games are stories", "some games are like games" and "games are not reality". That's not to say the Forge didn't produce some good systems, like at least two (PbtA and FitD, Burning Wheel), but there was hardly a massive shift in praxis that rocked the industry.
I'd probably start with Deleuze and work out, but we all have our own theory predilections. I might even get all crazy and do a little Foucalt-ian archeology to look at the changing nature of power and agency in the discourse at the table. I might stop short of Can the Subaltern Speak though. That shit is is impenetrable and I don't think postcolonial is the lens I'd pick to start.
Also, postcolonial theory isn't really suitable for this forum. I would point people towards Class Wargames who are Situationist gamers, but again most of their theory is way too political for here.
That's the problem with 'real' theory. It's inherently political. So what we're left with is the dice-twiddling of so-called RPG theory, which (hyperbolicall)y amounts to "I like d6s" and someone else saying "No, no d12s are better". In fact, as i reminisce, reading the Forge when it was online was like reading a bunch of people talking over which Monopoly rulebook was the best.
That's too far in the other direction I think. Something like Costiykan's one is good theory (in my view) but it doesn't get capital P political. That's only the case with some of the theoretical schools.
I think we can talk theory without stepping on any political landmines.
Yeah, I was being hyperbolic. There is some interesting stuff in the RPG space, and MIT wouldn't have published Costikyan if he didn't have important things to say. F'rex I think the "author/actor/munchkin/self stance" theory is a pretty fecund starting point, especially as it can be applied to every RPG, every GM and every player.
I'd agree, especially as it's about how people play games. (I think one issue with a lot of RPG theory is it doesn't separate game design from players/GMs. They aren't the same thing).
This, a thousand times this. The basic concepts of GNS not bad for organizing ones thinking but then they get used as above.
