Quote from: gleichmanFrankly I'm of the opinon that either we talk about Forge theory or we don't talk theory at all.

Eh.

It bothers me a bit that the Forge is regarded by some as the single authoritative source on gaming theory. If we just cave and never talk about gaming theory outside of the context of the forge, then it will remain the definitive source for theory ad infinatum.

I found discussion of your articles on RPGnet interesting and clear and think that many would be RPG authors would benefit from knowing about it. But if nobody ever talks about it, how are those theories going to spread. I think we should have more discussion that is not strictly linked to the forge. Possibly fairly contrasting forge theory with games and theories born outside of the Forge.

Quote from: gleichmanI would tend to agree.

A theory forum would need someone to push it. And frankly there is no non-Forge people of note who do theory online anymore.

Hey, I'm all for renaming it "Practical Tips".  Let's put in the suggestion!

Quote from: Caesar SlaadEh.

It bothers me a bit that the Forge is regarded by some as the single authoritative source on gaming theory. If we just cave and never talk about gaming theory outside of the context of the forge, then it will remain the definitive source for theory ad infinatum.

True, but so what?  If as many of us here think theory is basically useless, then what's the problem?

I mean, it's not like I have a rival theory to put forwards.  Does anyone here have a countervailing theory?  If not, what do we have to discuss save their's?

As for developing a theory of our own, why would we bother?  This site primarily appeals to people who are pretty happy with games as they are now, what do we need a theory for exactly?  The Forge guys need a theory because they're not happy with how games are now, so they need to work out why not and how they can fix that.  That's not an issue we face.

Oh, I get the impression practical tips are supposed to go in the actual play forum, but that is really unintuitive to me.  I'd much rather see a pure actual play forum and a separate Practical Tips forum.

I put in the renaming idea here.  Perhaps it would help facilitate a new direction?

QuoteIt bothers me a bit that the Forge is regarded by some as the single authoritative source on gaming theory. If we just cave and never talk about gaming theory outside of the context of the forge, then it will remain the definitive source for theory ad infinatum.

Indeed.  I wish Ron Edwards would reopen the RPG Theory Forum at the Forge, and people interested in discussing and building on those theories could do so in the logical place.

Instead, any discussion of game/RPG theory on any site I've been able to find has all the baggage of GNS+ dumped on it.  I think they're good theories for a particular type of game -- but not all that helpful for games that fall outside of that narrow spectrum.

If I'm not designing a "Forge style" game, those theories aren't all that helpful to me...

Forge inspired games might be really cool, lots of fun, and worth everyone's consideration... but there are OTHER types of games as well, not to mention new types of games that might not exist yet.  Why not spend some time talking about THOSE games as well?

Quote from: Caesar SlaadEh.

It bothers me a bit that the Forge is regarded by some as the single authoritative source on gaming theory. If we just cave and never talk about gaming theory outside of the context of the forge, then it will remain the definitive source for theory ad infinatum.

Until Edwards either leaves the net or dies I think that will be the case.

I think this is a freakin' crying shame. But then again I think a lot of cults are freakin' crying shames.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI found discussion of your articles on RPGnet interesting and clear and think that many would be RPG authors would benefit from knowing about it. But if nobody ever talks about it, how are those theories going to spread. I think we should have more discussion that is not strictly linked to the forge. Possibly fairly contrasting forge theory with games and theories born outside of the Forge.

I would love to see such a thing. However the question is, who's going to do it?

RPGPundit? The guy's a clueless attack dog and wouldn't know how to break down a game design if given comic book instructions.

Myself? I'm a heavy-ruleset person, that produces near zero-interest in general rpg sites like this one.

Plus the stuff I write, people agree with and go on their way. I understand that the elements articles have actually influenced people in what games they play and even in a few cases design. But with everyone agreeing to them (including Edwards at one point), they cause no buzz and thus can't support a fourm.

It's hell being right.

I'm also just visiting the net.

There used to be a lot of people willing to talk theory. All the ones I remember burned out trying not to get steam-rolled by GNS. The net has simply lost all its other voices.

Quote from: BalbinusTrue, but so what?  If as many of us here think theory is basically useless, then what's the problem?

I mean, it's not like I have a rival theory to put forwards.  Does anyone here have a countervailing theory?  If not, what do we have to discuss save their's?

As for developing a theory of our own, why would we bother?  This site primarily appeals to people who are pretty happy with games as they are now, what do we need a theory for exactly?  The Forge guys need a theory because they're not happy with how games are now, so they need to work out why not and how they can fix that.  That's not an issue we face.

I don't think theory is useless. If you do, then you need not post here.

I regard Brian's Elements of Gaming useful. I regard RGFA's Threefold model as useful. I regard Robin Laws' Types of Players as useful. I regard Brian's bit on expectations of morality in the game as useful. I regard Bankuei's tips on flag framing as useful.

I don't think there has to be a grand unified theory. Analysis and attention to what's going on and how to make the game better is useful discussion to me. If that's not what you are calling theory, then I wouldn't call it useful either. But that's the angle I come at theory from.

QuoteAs for developing a theory of our own, why would we bother? This site primarily appeals to people who are pretty happy with games as they are now, what do we need a theory for exactly? The Forge guys need a theory because they're not happy with how games are now, so they need to work out why not and how they can fix that. That's not an issue we face.

I want to see RPGs that are:

* Little to no prep work
* Can be played quickly, perhaps in as little as 2 hours
* Don't require extensive rulebooks to be memorized
* The goal(s) of the game is clear and understood by all players
* Players can play competitively and not pull their punches
* Players can focus on roleplaying their characters rather than creating the overall game narrative
* The game is more appealing to the "average person"
* The game is not seen as the exclusive domain of introverted and/or socially awkward people (aka Lawncrappers)

These are the games I want to talk about.  Not just collaborative story-telling games (aka Forge games), or house rules for existing games (aka d20/D&D).

I don't mind people drawing on other games / theory when relevant, but trying to force all discussion into the context of existing theory (usually Forge theory) is not helpful if you don't want to create that style of game.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadIt bothers me a bit that the Forge is regarded by some as the single authoritative source on gaming theory. If we just cave and never talk about gaming theory outside of the context of the forge, then it will remain the definitive source for theory ad infinatum.

The problem is that every non-Forge discussion of theory starts to get talked about in Forge terms.  Way back in the heyday of rec.games.frp.advocacy, I could never understand why there were so many people who were so angry about the GDS terminology but I think I can now understand their frustration at being unable to discuss a theory without it being shoehorned into another theory, whether it fits correctly or not.

And while it may just be bias, the Forge theories are even worse than the rec.games.frp.advocacy theories in that regard because even though we tended to dump on Gamism the way the GNS dumps on Simulationism , we at least listened to Brian's attempts to reform the definition of Gamism, even though the terminology was sometimes as confusing as the Forge stuff, John Kim was able to summarize the GDS Threefold, the stances, and a handful of other rec.games.frp.advocacy theories that were circulating at the time in a fairly brief FAQ rather than telling people to read dozens of long essays.  We also didn't (and couldn't if we wanted to) ban anyone or close down any debates and when people did raise criticisms, a lot of us honestly tried to understand what their problem was rather than telling them to sit down, shut up, and read dozens of essays.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI found discussion of your articles on RPGnet interesting and clear and think that many would be RPG authors would benefit from knowing about it. But if nobody ever talks about it, how are those theories going to spread. I think we should have more discussion that is not strictly linked to the forge. Possibly fairly contrasting forge theory with games and theories born outside of the Forge.

There are years of theory discussion on rec.games.frp.advocacy that's been ignored.  All the current interest in "immersion"?  That was gone over ad nauseum on rec.games.frp.advocacy, including tons of wonderful detailed actual play examples from Mary Kuhner.  It was a part of the rec.games.frp.advocacy stances model that Ron borrowed from.  He changed all the stances and just rolled Immersion into, I think, his "Auhor".  In fact, his removal of that distinction along with the transformation of Simulation into a dumping ground for games Ron and his fans didn't like seem to all be part of the same problem to me, which is that some people who try to speak authoritatively on all styles of role-playing actually don't understand a few major styles of play at all.

And before those rec.games.frp.advocacy, there are years of other theories and discussions about them captured in magazines like Different Worlds (e.g., the Blacow model), the theory magazine Interactive Fantasy, and in APAs like Lee Gold's Alarums and Excursions and Paul Mason's Imazine.   Perhaps the best recent theory treatment can be found in Robin Laws' Robin's Laws.  Good practical advice about how to combine different play styles rather than catering only to a single style at the expense of all others.  Why don't these other spread?   To a large degree because the average game could care less about thick and theoretical discussions about game theory.  But it's also because most of them aren't elitist and don't claim to have all the answers.  That means that they don't have rabid fanboys (and fangirls) willing to push them as the end-all-be-all of game theory at every turn.

[Edit: Added word for clarity]

Quote from: StuartI want to see RPGs that are:

* Little to no prep work
* Can be played quickly, perhaps in as little as 2 hours
* Don't require extensive rulebooks to be memorized
* The goal(s) of the game is clear and understood by all players
* Players can play competitively and not pull their punches
* Players can focus on roleplaying their characters rather than creating the overall game narrative
* The game is more appealing to the "average person"
* The game is not seen as the exclusive domain of introverted and/or socially awkward people (aka Lawncrappers)

What games do you find that fit these criteria?  I ask because these are things I can identify with as important to me, as well.  I'm currently playtesting a new set of rules that worked very well for me and my group.  Since there are similarities in our thinking, perhaps you might enjoy playtesting the same rules/settings.  

I'm very curious what games you find that you enjoy, and why.  

Quote from: John MorrowThere are years of theory discussion on rec.games.frp.advocacy that's been ignored.

To me, this was the Golden Age of Internet rpg theory. I came in on the perhaps the last half of it and wasn't every a true member of the group in my mind, but if I could pull any group of people together to talk about rpgs today it would be these.

Most now are basically gone from the internet like myself. Rare visits if any.

Quote from: StuartI want to see RPGs that are:

* Little to no prep work
* Can be played quickly, perhaps in as little as 2 hours
* Don't require extensive rulebooks to be memorized
* The goal(s) of the game is clear and understood by all players
* Players can play competitively and not pull their punches
* Players can focus on roleplaying their characters rather than creating the overall game narrative
* The game is more appealing to the "average person"
* The game is not seen as the exclusive domain of introverted and/or socially awkward people (aka Lawncrappers)

Frankly, that sounds more like you are describing a board game than a role-playing game to me.  It would destroy every reason I have for preferring a role-playing game over a board game as a recreational activity to play with friends.  Reducing a role-playing session to two hours or even a whole campaign to four hours would be like reducing the Lord of the Rings trilogy to a one hour movie to me or the trilogy of books into a pamphlet.  All that "boring" character development, build up, and context matters if you want the players to develop an investment in what's happening in the game.  Anything less, to me, is just pushing pawns around a board because that's about  all they mean to me.

I didn't participate in RGFA so much as "watched with keen interest".

My "golden age" of theory discussion was my time as an active poster to the rpg-create newsgroup.

Quote from: Stuart* Little to no prep work
* Can be played quickly, perhaps in as little as 2 hours
* Don't require extensive rulebooks to be memorized
* The goal(s) of the game is clear and understood by all players
* Players can play competitively and not pull their punches
* Players can focus on roleplaying their characters rather than creating the overall game narrative
* The game is more appealing to the "average person"
* The game is not seen as the exclusive domain of introverted and/or socially awkward people (aka Lawncrappers)

You might want to look at AGON. It's about ancient Greek heroes, so I'm not 100% sure that it would count as "* The game is more appealing to the "average person"", but it could be. Everybody loves Clash of the Titans, don't they?

Here is a capsule review:

Quote...a crunchy game focused on Greek heroes fighting monsters. The book is gorgeous - look for the big helmet! - and no bigger than it needs to be. Even better is the character sheet, which literally puts absolutely every option a player will ever need to consider right there in front of you, in an incredibly elegant and learnable structure. No tedious poring over the rule catalogs! Death to roleplaying as shopping, just cut to the chase! Piles of awesome. And even if your character dies there's still character advancement.

Full disclosure; I've not played it, but I've heard a lot of good things about it. Mike Mearls said this on his Live Journal:

"Both Agon and Burning Empires were held up at work today as examples of the cool RPG stuff at GenCon."

So the WotC D&D Development Team think it's cool at least