That's Interesting
So all the Forge theory forums are now closed, forever. And what have we learned, Dorothy?

Warning. This is bad-tempered, probably not very well thought-out, and may quite possibly offend. Tough.

First of all, it turns out that what Ron means by theory is exclusively in the sense of certain arts discourses: theory of harmony, as opposed to writing harmony. Which means that all attempts to utilize theory at the Forge to do analytical or constructive work were always, in Ron's opinion, pointless. Therefore, to put it simply, the analytical value of Ron's Big Model must be placed under a very big question-mark, since apparently even its creator sees no value there.

Second, there is every reason to think that it is, at the least, a limited analytic model, if by that we mean a scientific theory: a cohesive description that matches all the known facts. For example, the Big Model utterly fails to account for things like D&D being successful. Now the Big Model hard-line defenders always deflect this into marketing questions and so on, but the fact is that a lot of people have had a lot of fun playing D&D. The Big Model fails to explain this, because it doesn't actually explain anything except how to write a certain type of game -- of which D&D is not one.

Third, there are certainly any number of people (I name no names) who think that the "hot" Forge-based games are rather dull and limited. I think that's an overstatement, but it is true that the Big Model used as a design base tends to generate a particular type of gaming that isn't for everyone, and doesn't do everything gaming can do. Which makes its value as a design base limited.

Fourth, John Kirk has just taken the whole engineering/design approach to its logical next step in his little book on Design Patterns. If your purpose is simply to design games constructively, I see little or nothing that Kirk hasn't superseded.

So, fifth, the open question at the Forge, for some of us anyway, has been:

Can theoretical modeling be used for other things?

Such as:

Analysis of a hobby
Design of other kinds of RPGs
Improvement of play
etc.

With this latest gesture, Ron has apparently answered to his satisfaction:

NO

Now I have for some time been trying to work my way mentally back into feeling positive about the Big Model. I have tended to think it the best thing we've got -- or rather, I've kept saying that. Frankly, I have been very dubious about the model for some time, but have wanted to contribute positively and helpfully to the vibrant Forge community.

Now that Ron has killed that, it's time to be honest. The Big Model never was much good for anything but designing a particular kind of game that Ron and a number of other folks like. It has never been any good for analyzing play or developing new ideas. It is non-flexible and rigidly hierarchical. It makes ludicrous assumptions about human social relations.

Now I know why: it was never supposed to be any good for anything else.

I guess this has in some sense been said many times on the Forge, but I find it disappointing. In all those fights about Simulationism, for example, there was an implicit agreement that people actually thought working out how Sim does work would develop new things. But since the model is now set in concrete, and since it never successfully described Sim play nor identified a successful Sim game in a way acceptable to both Sim-lovers and Nar-lovers, the basic answer is that the Big Model is great if you don't much care for Sim. If you like Nar games, and by that I really now mean a trade-name rather than a general type (since as we've seen the Big Model doesn't do general types), then the Big Model is for you. I don't know about Gam -- I've never been interested. But if you're interested in anything else, then the Big Model simply has nothing to offer.

I'm disappointed, and feel slightly cheated. All those interesting conversations I've had over the last couple of years, with a lot of cool, smart people, turn out to have been irrelevant to "the real point." Ron actually writes that the forum has done for him as much as it will do. So what? Since when was this a Cult of Ron?

Or rather... uh oh, was this always just a Cult of Ron?

Because standing back and looking at it, what I'm seeing here is that in some sense the anti-Forge types were always largely right. The Forge itself was a large community of people, a certain number of whom (like me) never had a whole lot of worshipful feeling for Ron or the Model. But it turns out that our conversations and comments always just bored Ron. So long as we toe his line and talk only about the games we're in, we're welcome at the Forge. If we want to talk about something else, for example if we want to talk about theory in any but the most limited and parochial sense (i.e. if we want to talk about theory in the sense used by academics in most disciplines), then we're just out of court and have to go play elsewhere.

Why? Was it really so hard simply to say of a forum, "I'm looking for three part-time moderators to take this over so I don't have to." Was that so hard? Then he can do what he wants, and others can do what they want, and cross-fertilization and interesting things will happen. Turns out that's no good for him: it has to be his game or he takes the ball and goes home.

Maybe tomorrow I'll simmer down about it, but frankly I'm disgusted.

I'll repeat it very, very slowly:

"Theory" is:

1. The flip-side of "practice" (applied arts)
2. A description of the known facts according to a cohesive schema (sciences)
3. A mode of analytical thought dependent upon rigor and logic, seeking knowledge through ratiocination (philosophy & humanities)

1 is what Ron means. It's a waste of time if you don't adore the product.
2 is what Ron sometimes claims to mean. The Big Model doesn't work for this, because it fails grossly on some major data.
3 is what I have always meant. The Big Model was always in need of revision on this basis, because of logical inconsistencies.

If you want #1, stick with the Forge.

If you want anything else, it's over and dead.