anyway.

Sure.  Rather than post a list in one big sum, I'll post some by grouping and see what you think.  I'll start with the original bricolage stuff (though there was also some good stuff later):

Chris Lehrich's "On RPGs and Text [LONG]"

Silmenume/Jay's "Sim is Bricolage and makes myth - comments?"

Chris Lehrich's "Bricolage APPLIED (finally!)"

Next on the explanatory side, some of the efforts at exactly what you said is desperately needed: a good solid explanation of past theory.

Theory Without Jargon - Help for the Desperate - Number 1

Theory Without Jargon - Help for the Desperate - Number 2

Theory Without Jargon - Help for the Desperate - Number 3

Here are a few more on various topics:

Victor Gijsbers' "Shared Imagined Space, Shared Text"

Eetu's "The Process Model of Roleplaying"

and, being arrogant as well, I'll toss in:

John's Standard Rant #1: Freeform Traits

>>In fact, I challenge everyone who thinks we've been accomplishing things to post links here.

Seriously, guys, f*ck that noise (and I read the interesting throughts in the previous VB post, too, good stuff)...

If you talk about accomplishing things in terms of Theory, discussing GNS and the Big Model, then I'm not qualified to answer, cause honestly I haven't given a rats' ass about most of that chat - I gained enough to analyze my own gaming problems, and got the hell out.  It just wasn't interesting to me, and this is coming from someone with a BA in Philosophy. But of course, I never begrudged anyone who dwelled in the theory realm, as long as they were helping in other areas as well.

But if I take Ben's statement above:
Here's a list of RPG Theory threads from the last year where something got done.

And change it to read:
Here's a list of threads *involving RPG Theory* from the last year where something got done.

Then you've got easily 90% of all Actual Play, Indie Game Design and Publishing threads. All of those threads have been loaded with theory even if it didn't bubble to the top in jargon and the like.  The theory in the other forms had been leaking, like radiation or toxins or something into the other forums for years now as pragmatic action, praxis, direction and structure. In the past year, I honestly believe that the pragmatic theory—->other forums/talk knob has really been turned up.

So yeah, maybe you haven't been blowing minds in the Starbucks coffeehouse and turtleneck sweater standup beat poetry environment that Theory and (especially) GNS Discussion theatres, but that shit's been leaking into the other discussions, hardcore, for a while.

I get the vague sense that the above Ben/VB talk was a kind of beating yourself up about not being more productive.  If I'm wrong, then ignore the above.  But if so, I just want to let you know that a huge amount of thick theory stockpiled in those forums leaked over to the others; the ones that really matter, the ones where people are making, publishing, and playing games.

-Andy

Huh.  Well, that wasn't so much supposed to go up in public.

Of those six, I'd like to note the following breakdown:

3 are rehashing (Tony's Standard Rant #2, Meaning at the ____, and Lessons for Designers.)  They are useful and productive rehashing, mind you, but they are rehashing.

1 is a retrospective on one player's (interesting) experience.  It would probably be better filed in Actual Play.

That leaves two actually productive theory threads (Ritual Design and RPG Patterns) that are real, productive theory threads, with serious pick-up and use potential for anything else.

I'm just saying—it's seen better days.

yrs—
—Ben

P.S.  I didn't include the Bricolage threads, even the Applied is okay, simply because I think Bricolage = Sim is wrong-headed, and that entire family of threads is the result of taking a really interesting topic (bricolage) and driving it so deeply into the ground that it may never be retrieved.

Hey, so here's something.

We can debate about whether there've been 5 good threads on RPG Theory, or 10, or whatever.  That's all cool.

How many good, seriously productive conversations have we had on anyway in that time?  On JKim's LJ?  Brand's blog?  My blog?  Deep in the Game?  Dog Blog?  I can't even count the number of awesome topics.

The point is this—the theory has left the building.  No fretting for Ron closing the door after it.  It was getting pretty drafty on the Forge with it hanging open like that.

yrs—
—Ben

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'

Tony—

Yes.  Yes I did.

The numbers speak pretty clearly: People who made those fora their home are not the Forge's intended audience.

I think you have an odd reading of the statistics here.  Of the designers, RPG Theory is often an extremely popular forum.  So, for example, Ron's most frequently posted forum after Adept Press is RPG Theory.  The same is true for Vincent, Ralph, Emily, Ben, and Alexander.  In fact, Actual Play seems less popular with designers than RPG Theory is—let alone smaller forums like Connections and so forth.

If we don't want people without commercial designs posting on the Forge, then I think it should simply be an openly stated policy rather than trying to indirectly discourage them by shuffling around the boards.

Speaking as a wonk, I happen to think that there actually isn't a major lack of number of RPGs published in the world.  There are hundreds of both commercial and free systems out there, and dozens of new ones appear every year.  Thus, I've never made it a big priority to put out my own commercial work.  Where the Forge has made a difference isn't in the number of systems published, but rather in the critical thought that has gone into them.  We wonks play, question, and I think improve the games which are written by our feedback and support.  The ideas which appear in RPG Theory and GNS also drive designs—like how fellow wonk Chris Lehrich's ritual essay gave inspiration to Ben Lehman's Polaris.

If we don't want people without commercial designs posting on the Forge, then I think it should simply be an openly stated policy rather than trying to indirectly discourage them by shuffling around the boards.

Would that I could, John.

To be nicer and more clear, in my opinion - and Ron's may vary - the Forge is there to help people working on their own independently-published game, commercial or not. If others find use from it, awesome! But really, it's like having an industrial/commercial kitchen supply store. It's for chefs. If someone who doesn't cook finds some nice knives there, good for them! But they aren't our real customers.

How much traffic a forum sees, proportional or otherwise, is a terrible way to judge its value.

This thread is for linking to good, productive threads in RPG Theory and GNS. The conversation about whether closing the forums was a good thing belongs here instead: Closing GNS and RPG Theory is Good.

Thanks!

Hey all:

But really, it's like having an industrial/commercial kitchen supply store. It's for chefs. If someone who doesn't cook finds some nice knives there, good for them! But they aren't our real customers.

I absolutely agree... or agreed, until about a year ago.  The formation of Actual Play was, what, half to make demonstrative examples and claims about the play in play sessions of games in progress, and the other half to help people out with their group problems (or show The Coolness which happened in their game, to perhaps influence other people).

Lately, the latter half is definitely bigger than the former half.  I used to tell the folks arguing on RPGNet about the Forge's theory usefulness, "Look, are you writing a game? No? Then The Forge was not meant for you. Period. So lay off."

Thing is, recently, with that one single forum (and that single forum only), it planted itself firmly in the land of Helping Average Roleplayers Improve Their Game.

What would be a good analogy for that... a kitchen, with Clinton's aforementioned hustle and bustle, but with like a lobby or break room or something where average joes can come in and chat about the ups and downs of their home cooking?

-Andy

I think this whole dichotomy of designers/not-designers is fucked from the start. I've never supported such an outlook at the Forge, and bluntly, a lot of people have misrepresented the site by saying that.

Look at the primary goal of the site: to support AND PROMOTE independent role-playing games. Working design is a function of working play.

We generate a community of working, thinking, high-enjoyment play. Working design then becomes an outcome of that.

The more people involved in that first-layer, foundational community, the better. Not all of them have to be designers; in fact, I'd consider it grossly unhealthy if the majority were designers.

I can't believe I have to explain this. Andy, for fuck's sake, you absolutely embody this principle in action. Sometimes I think your actions should somehow be made visible on-line, so people wouldn't be distracted from what you're actually doing and accomplishing because of some verbal mis-phrase that cropped up.

That's a damn fine point, Ron.  Much better than my statistics.  Working play as a foundation of working design.  That's worth drilling into my head.

I'm tempted to go through last year's archive of Actual Play posts, and link to ones that really provided a lot of new insight into gaming, the same way Vincent's doing with the RPG Theory and GNS fora here.  If I didn't have a hacking chest cold I'd probably be able to summon more energy.