I don't have the patience to read long-winded explanations from the Forge, but I would like to digest what the basic premise is. Could someone explain it to me, limiting it to 3 paragraphs at most. Levi, I'm looking at you.

Mind if I go first? Here's 3.5 things I've taken away from forgestuff:

• Minor jargon bit: "Shared Imaginative Space". This is a wordy way of saying the fictional stuff that we agree has happened in the game. I prefer the term "the fiction" because that's just clearer.
• Agenda? Why do the players sit down to play? (Aside from fun and sociality.) What is the stuff they accomplish in the fiction if they've had a fun evening? It seems to help if everybody is on the same page here. (Jargonwise, they say this is "Creative Agenda"; it can be broken up into three categories, but I don't find that as helpful.)
  
• "System"? Look at a game, where "system" isn't just the mechanics and rules, but: EVERYTHING that governs how things get entered into the fiction. How are things suggested / vetted / approved? Is the GM the arbiter of everything new in the system, or are some things the players can say that the GM won't counter? Looking at all that, that's the "system", and it's worth hacking around on it. (This term unfortunately is mixed up with we usually think of "system", i.e. mechanics. So we should use a phrase like supahsystem instead.)
  
• Focus? Focus is good, particularly w.r.t. designing a game for an agenda. (Though this is more a piece of "craft" rather than raw theory. Lot's of people have bought into the notion of focus rather than anything about theory. And myself, I don't think Focus is a necessary or sufficient condition for a good game; it simply resulted in many I've liked.)
  

Quote from: pigames.netI don't have the patience to read long-winded explanations from the Forge, but I would like to digest what the basic premise is. Could someone explain it to me, limiting it to 3 paragraphs at most. Levi, I'm looking at you.

Well, I'll squash in as much as I can.  I'm picking three central features of Forge Theory as seen by most folks, and simplifying the living hell out of them, mind.

Firstly, and most historically visible, is GNS, which stands for "gamist / narrativist / simulationist"; each of these is a creative agenda.  It's generlly opined by a large body of that theory that groups tend toward these three overall playstyles over time, that conflicts over which to tend towards are serious problems, and that a game that clearly facilitates and supports a specific playstyle based on one of these will focus a group better, leading to more enjoyable play.  Each of these three has an essay, an attached body of thought and a catchphrase - gamism gets "step on up", narrativism gets "story now!", and simulationism has gone from "the right to dream" to "celebrating the source material", but remains somewhat confused.

*Deep breath*

Secondly, the Big Model, an attempt at abstracting "what happens at the table".  In many ways, it's an attempt at creating a specific shorthand to allow people to discuss this part or that part of play and how those parts interact and stagger - a group with this agenda may find these techniques (repeated patterns of action) and ephemera (single moments of action) useful, or those, but this techinque blocks use of those ephemera; stuff like that.  When explained and discussed in company, it suffers horribly from difficulty with the actual words chosen as shorthand.  As a thinking tool used by individuals, it has helped them sort their own thoughts and build new games and new campaigns.  By the purposes of the Forge, and within it's bounds, that makes it successful.  Elsewhere, less so.  It makes a pretty neat diagram, though.

*Drinks some coffee*

Third paragraph: As a body of general discussion on little practicalities of design, some of which is framed by GNS and Big Model.  Again, there's the big and aggravating-as-hell problem of terms, but there's also a frikkin' goldmine under there.  Reward cycles, currency, stakes, flags, the "power 19", and a ridiculous number of other (often weirdly-named) ways to organize, modify, and look at a game have sprung from this discussion; many of these 'little ideas' are really cool to think about, if only because in rejecting them, you get a step closer to clarity on what it is you really want in your game, and why.

That's a hefty chunk, probably badly condensed, but there you go.

I think I'll stick to my own theories. Nevertheless, thanks for breaking it down for me, Dev and Levi.

Quote from: pigames.netI don't have the patience to read long-winded explanations from the Forge, but I would like to digest what the basic premise is. Could someone explain it to me, limiting it to 3 paragraphs at most. Levi, I'm looking at you.

Basically? Note that this summary is going to lack the caveats and super-specific language necessary to make it fully accurate.

Forge Theory is based on theory developed in a Usenet group (r.g.f.a.) a lot of terms and concepts come from there. GNS is unique to the Forge, and is a major part of the theory:

Starting with the GNS part of the theory:

• Enjoyment from rpgs comes from fulfilling a player's Creative Agenda
• There are 3 Creative Agendas (Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist)
• Gamist: player wants to win social accolades by impressing his friends with his skill; sometimes by "winning" competative contests in the game
• Simulationist: Not currently well defined. Historically, it sort of meant the player was interested in exploring some aspect of the game world such as 'being an elf" -- not to be confused with a desire for realisim
• Narrativist: Player wants to answer meaningful moral questions during play and not be interferred with by other players (e.g. the GM)
• How agendas are / aren't exclusive to each other is complex.
• Not-fun gaming can arise from agenda clashes -- a Gamist player sitting at the table with Narrativist players, for example
• Games can facilitate fun play by strictly supporting one agenda (this would be a "coherent" game. Games that don't support one agenda (or have marketing text that incorrectly identifies the agenda they support) are "incoherent"

The Big Model describes how the GNS stuff fits together by drawing concentric "layers" of the game.

• At the highest layer is the "social contract" where decisions about how people will get along and interact socially are made.
• Under that are the individual creative agendas players bring to the table (G, N, or S)
• Under agendas are parts of the actual game, itself (the mechanics, the setting, techniques players use, stances, etc.)
• TBM sort of describes how a game's mechanics might support a creative agenda -- but this part is very undefined

Weird Stuff:

• The theory suggests that fun games will be very narrowly focused while broadly focused games will tend to be incoherent.
• The theory states that extreme social problems (on-going, traumatic power struggle) are the result of incoherent game rules (rather than, say, the maturity of the players)
• The theory has a lot to say (much of it not well defined) about the role of GM power and "Force" -- but these concepts are so poorly defined as to be unusable in practice (in practice, a lot of Forge games reduce the role of the GM or do away with it)
• Stuff about on-going power struggle, brain damage, and a view of gamers as being miserable, immature, and sullen (a lot of theorists have said pretty negative things about traditional games and gamers; whether this is part of the theory, itself or not is subject to interpretation).

How you'd use the theory:

• The theory claims to be useful for diagnosing not-fun gaming and for designing fun games.

I think the r.g.f.a. stuff is solid and valuable. The GNS stuff is so poorly defined as to be unsuable. If you read Forge Theory as advocacy of a narrow way of playing and a manifesto ("Our New Revolution Rules! Those Other Guys Drool!") it makes a lot more sense than if you expect it to behave like a formal or rigorous design theory.

Cheers,
-E.

-E, that breakdown actually made more sense. Thanks. One thing that really bothers me is all the new terminology that is generally used. It totally throws me off. I think I can relate to some of it more after reading that, despite my own opinions.

Quote from: pigames.netOne thing that really bothers me is all the new terminology that is generally used. It totally throws me off.

Yup.

The 'problem of terms' that I was trying to present fairly neutrally is that many Forge-chosen terms are downright insulting or just plain screwy.  "Incoherent" is the worst of a bad lot.

To me, the big stuff needs chopping down and refocusing with the RGFA stuff (hence the "manyfold"); the little stuff is where I see straight goodies.

Are there any other theories on the web? Ones that are actually coherent themselves?

Quote from: pigames.netAre there any other theories on the web? Ones that are actually coherent themselves?

GDS can be looked up at John Kim's site - I think it's "Darkshire" or similar.  Pretty "how it started" stuff.

AGE can be found roundabout wherever Kuma went.  It's a little too esoteric for my tastes; to me it feels like modeling for the sake of having a model.

What is it with us theorists and trinities, anway?  Bloody silly.

There are more, but not many 'complete' ones.  Hell, Manyfold just got put all in one place for the first time over the last few days, and will need a lot more shitkicking before it's anything like "done".

For Blogs, Vincent Baker anyway is generally pretty theory-heavy.  As is Pundit, when he gets on a "how games should work, dammit" rant.

Quote from: pigames.net-E, that breakdown actually made more sense. Thanks. One thing that really bothers me is all the new terminology that is generally used. It totally throws me off. I think I can relate to some of it more after reading that, despite my own opinions.

A lot of the terminology is unnecessarily complex. Some of it is insulting (intentionally or not, judge for yourself. Check out the brain damage).

Bear in mind that virtually anyone you see using forge terms doesn't understand them or isn't using them correctly -- this includes most forge diehards.

In most cases people who generally agree with the theory are allowed to use the terms as shorthand for "good" / "bad" (coherence / incohernce) or "deep and meaningful" (Nar) vs. "shallow and infantile" (Sim).

If you read the terms this way, the dialog makes a lot of sense despite the odd terms. It's also why internal discussions don't implode -- someone can say, "Game X is Nar because it uses Spiritual Attributes!" and everyone will read this correctly as, "I like Game X -- Game X is deep and good."

People who don't agree with the theory (or think Forge games are inherently deeper than traditional games) are held to a much higher standard of course, and expected to use the terms rigorously.

An important note: since *no one* understands these terms (most of them aren't defined), any discussion of actual play or real game design will quickly abandon them -- so if you want to get involved with theorists, just ignore the theory terms and wait for them to start using English.

Cheers,
-E.

I really want NO part of theory, but the current line of research I am on (as an extension to my past works) is coming into contact with the periphery of this stuff.

Quote from: pigames.netI really want NO part of theory, but the current line of research I am on (as an extension to my past works) is coming into contact with the periphery of this stuff.

What, specifically, are you looking for?

-E and I can likely show you through this jungle, Bwana.

Quote from: pigames.netOne thing that really bothers me is all the new terminology that is generally used. It totally throws me off.

IMHO, it suffers the same problems that computer slang has.

It's related just enough that I can smell it on the Forge, but not enough that I want to touch it. It's more research than theory, so I'd rather test it myself than just copy the answers

Thanks for everyone's time.

Quote from: JongWKIMHO, it suffers the same problems that computer slang has.

But I thought computer slang was supposed to throw people off, and really served no purpose beyond showboating.

NUB, P#33R M'/ 1337 5k!11z!!!1!!!!1!1!!1!!11eleventyone!







[same might be said of theory jargon, for that matter... not that I'd know... or care]