thread: 2005-12-03 : I Cop to Hyperbole
On 2005-12-05, TonyLB wrote:
Now, see, I'm too lazy to properly do the statistical analysis that I should do, across dozens and dozens of publishers. So this is pretty scatter-shot, but I ran some numbers.
My question goes something like this: There are people whose posts (excluding any in their own publisher fora) were majority RPG-Theory and GNS. We shall call them Wonks (in the most respectful sense) and the rest non-Wonks.
There are people who have published games, and/or are in the midst of determinedly publishing them. We shall call them Publishers and the rest non-Publishers.
So, for instance: Tony, Publisher-non-Wonk. Contracycle, Wonk-non-Publisher. Judd/Paka, non-Publisher-non-Wonk.
You see where I'm going with this, right?
By these forumulae, I cannot locate any Publisher-Wonks. Ben, you don't qualify. Vincent, you don't quite qualify (but you're real close). Ron, with almost 2000 posts each in RPG Theory and GNS ... doesn't qualify. Ralph Mazza doesn't qualify, Mike Holmes doesn't qualify. Even after you take away Site Discussion, Clinton doesn't come anywhere near qualifying.
I think theory is good, good stuff. I also think, given what I'm seeing in the numbers, that "how much is accomplished in the RPG Theory forum" is an unnecessarily fuzzy basis for congratulating Ron and Clinton on their decision. The numbers speak pretty clearly: People who made those fora their home are not the Forge's intended audience.
Now did Ben start off as a Wonk, and move into non-Wonkhood later (by posting more outside RPG-Theory and GNS)? That's beyond my energy or ability to analyze. Plus, I'm not really all that interested. There are certainly going to be holes in these statistics, and even if they were rock solid, it's easy to interpret them in different ways (GNS posts have a much higher word count ... shouldn't they count for more?)
I'm just sayin'
This makes VG go "True - almost vacuously."
A publisher-wonk would be a publisher who almost never posts in Publishing, almost never posts in Actual play, and almost never posts in his own game forum. I'm not surprised that you can't find any. It would be bizarre if you could.
This makes MW go "No, that's not what he means."
per Tony's definition, wonk="majority RPG-Theory and GNS," game publisher or not.
This makes VG go "Yes, indeed."
So in order to be a wonk, a game publisher cannot make many posts in Publishing / Actual Play / his game forum, or he won't have the majority in RT + GNS. So you's need to find a publisher who doesn't care about his publsihed games, or something like that.
This makes JB go "he specifically excluded their own forum from the data."
This makes VG go "Right."
Shame on me for careless reading. (Still, the point partly stands. A publisher will very probably post in Publishing and Actual Play threads about his own games. The criterion of ratio of posts doesn't seem to be particularly informative in this context.)
This makes JBR go "I am... or was."
At the time of closing, I had 226/460 posts in RPG Design. And I am slowly but surely developing Full Light, Full Steam. My little example, however, does not disprove the trend.
This makes TLB go "Yep, stupid statistics"
FWIW, the -vast- majority of my posts in Actual Play and Indie Game Design are about other people's games.
But, frankly, Ron's description of considered play being the groundwork for considered design has got me regretting that I even mentioned the numbers. Ron's got the right of it. Listen to him (in this instance, at least) not me.
