Quote from: Elliot WilenI think it's interesting that each of the four quadrants has a roughly equal part of the population--about 22%. I'd suspect they'd arbitrarily placed the boundaries in order to divide the population equally, but Dancy says that the five player types were actual "clusters". (This is amplified in the italicized introduction, which may be an exaggeration of Dancey's intent.)

Assuming they really are talking about "clusters" as opposed to an even scattering, the results suggest there are identifiable "types". It's surprising that those types are found in roughly equal numbers, as if the world population's favored ice cream broke down on equal thirds Chocolate-Vanilla-Strawberry.

Exactly. http://www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/dairyedu/icflavours.html

Which is why I wouldn't be surprised if the questions and the follow-up analysis didn't at least partially beget the answers. Very inconvient that the actual questions weren't released (also note that some of the data linked from that page has age catagories that don't all match up with each other, so either the data was partially obscured on purpose or the age catagories were from two separate sources, which could be because I'm pretty sure that data is sourced from multiple surveys).  Even population splits of Myers-Briggs catagories usually don't come out that in the general population muchless in a limited niche of the population.

Quote from: James J SkachI’d give it all a “whatever floats you boat” except for one small problem. The Forge theory, at least to me, seems to say that if you create games that focus on one segment, you will be successful – more sales and players. Dancey’s research seems to fly in the face of that.

Earlier in your post you qualified "better" with perhaps different goals, and I think you should have done the same with "successful" here.

Anyway from what I gather Ron Edwards believes that a game cannot support more than one of the GNS agendas at any single point in time/play. If that was the case it would make some sense to concentrate primarily on one. But it seems to me that conclusion only comes about from the way he defines them. :rolleyes: Cripy, 'S' is by-in-large defined as "whatever isn't 'G' or 'N'".  Note that I don't think that this is universally accepted by people at the Forge. In fact I'm pretty damn sure there is at least one publisher there that thinks that is total bollocks. Come to think of it I believe that Ron Edwards himself gave a single example of a game that the thought might have done it successfully (forget the name off hand though).

Not to say that I don't see many games tending to support one of the three far better than the others. But I've seen solid dual support at the very least (though yes, it is tricky).  And I don't mean just in the "throw it at the wall and see what sticks way either" where you end up with GMs and players having to figure out how to cut out large tracts, rewrite rules, and/or make up new rules to do so (what I think in Forge terms is referred to as "drifting" or some such). But actual well crafted purposeful rules that support multiple agendas, even simultaneously different from player to player, without the players putting a huge amount of effort into translating between how they wanted to play and how the game/table was demanding they play.

So there is something to be said for remaining "coherent", as if combining multiple agendas is not done very skillfully and stutbly you end up with a big bloated mess that you likely have to take a hachette to to bring down to a playable form for any style of play.

QuoteExactly. http://www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/dairyedu/icflavours.html

Which is why I wouldn't be surprised if the questions and the follow-up analysis didn't at least partially beget the answers. Very inconvient that the actual questions weren't released (also note that some of the data linked from that page has age catagories that don't all match up with each other, so either the data was partially obscured on purpose or the age catagories were from two separate sources, which could be because I'm pretty sure that data is sourced from multiple surveys).

That's one of the researchers here at the U of G. If you were really interested, you could probably email him and ask for more info on the study.

I think the importance of the study that John links to is in part that it is hard data, the only hard data we really have, and it essentially falsifies GNS and most related Forge theories.

That's partly why I think debating the Forge theories is a waste of time, they're not based on any meaningful evidence and the only meaningful evidence we do have does not support them.

The fact a group of highly vocal people support a thing does not make it right.

Oh, on the issue of whether the questions were leading or not, we can't know but it is worth remembering that this research was not to prove a point or philosophy.  This is a business carrying out market research on what gamers want in order to better shift product, they have a clear financial incentive in getting it right.

Quote from: blakkieEarlier in your post you qualified "better" with perhaps different goals, and I think you should have done the same with "successful" here.

Yeah, I thought the same thing after I posted. But I've never seen a definition or discussion of "successful" at The Forge, so I can't really comment.  I mean, it's self-evident for a entity like WOTC, increase profits to serve the share-holder blah blah blah.  This translates to sell more games to more people and make them love your brand beyond all hope. but what is it for The Forge?

Quote from: blakkieAnyway from what I gather Ron Edwards believes that a game cannot support more than one of the GNS agendas at any single point in time/play.

Now that's interesting, I've never seen it put that way - specifically with the "single point in time/play." Not being an avid Forge watcher for some time now, I may have just missed it. I was originally going to say that changes things, clears them up.  But after looking back at the definitions of Coherence and such, it's even muddier for me. Ah well, such is Forge Theory; a half step forward, three steps back.

Quote from: blakkieBut actual well crafted purposeful rules that support multiple agendas, even simultaneously different from player to player, without the players putting a huge amount of effort into translating between how they wanted to play and how the game/table was demanding they play.

So there is something to be said for remaining "coherent", as if combining multiple agendas is not done very skillfully and stutbly you end up with a big bloated mess that you likely have to take a hachette to to bring down to a playable form for any style of play.

I just see it differently - I'd rather theory that tried to figure out how to build a system that allows people to play in whatever agenda suits them.  That's the Holy Grail, IMHO.

Quote from: BalbinusI think the importance of the study that John links to is in part that it is hard data, the only hard data we really have, and it essentially falsifies GNS and most related Forge theories.

Flawed 'hard' data can be worse than no data at all.

QuoteThat's partly why I think debating the Forge theories is a waste of time, they're not based on any meaningful evidence and the only meaningful evidence we do have does not support them.

I think you are overly discounting actual play as evidence. Which exists. Sure one or two bits at a time it is anditotal, and somewhat selfselected. But frankly when you accumulate a large body of well documented play I'd tend to as much weight in it as that data. Especially since that data doesn't say a whole hell of a lot by itself.  Other than you have different approaches to playing games at large. It doesn't even really talk about whether people try to mix them.

Plus if you happen to have you data falling down on the pigeonholes you made prior really raises a warning flag for me.

QuoteNow that's interesting, I've never seen it put that way - specifically with the "single point in time/play." Not being an avid Forge watcher for some time now, I may have just missed it. I was originally going to say that changes things, clears them up. But after looking back at the definitions of Coherence and such, it's even muddier for me. Ah well, such is Forge Theory; a half step forward, three steps back.

The at one time is way back in one of the essays, and it's important in defining "coherence". Coherence is really just another way of saying consistancy between all the single points that happen during playing the game. That you don't have one part of the game fighting against the other or creating a pathological conflict within the rules.

Quote from: blakkieFlawed 'hard' data can be worse than no data at all.

I think you are overly discounting actual play as evidence. Which exists. Sure one or two bits at a time it is anditotal, and somewhat selfselected. But frankly when you accumulate a large body of well documented play I'd tend to as much weight in it as that data. Especially since that data doesn't say a whole hell of a lot by itself.  Other than you have different approaches to playing games at large. It doesn't even really talk about whether people try to mix them.

Eh, I think the Forge guys massively discount any actual play data that doesn't support the theories.  Time and again I've seen someone try to explain that their actual play wasn't properly captured and I've never seen it get a friendly reception.

Flawed data can be worse than none, but here I think we are comparing different sets of flawed data and I put my money on the guys who were depending on their data being correct to make money over the guys who were depending on their data being correct to justify themselves on an internet board.

Accepting of course that in putting my money down that way, I may lose my shirt.

Quote from: BalbinusEh, I think the Forge guys massively discount any actual play data that doesn't support the theories. Time and again I've seen someone try to explain that their actual play wasn't properly captured and I've never seen it get a friendly reception.

The calls for examples of "Actual Play" seem to be as much part of the Forge theory / process as GNS.  Of course, like Balbinus says, these reports aren't very objective and aren't all that useful outside of reinforcing the ideals of the Forge theories themselves.

Compare that to these recordings of REAL Actual Play: http://www.rpgmp3.com/

Listen to some of those and make note of when:
* The game slows down
* People express confusion about the rules
* There is debate about the rules
* The game moves along well
* The roleplaying is good
* The roleplaying is awkward
* etc

That, for me, is the most useful information, and that info is rarely if ever present in any "Actual Play Reports" that I've seen.

Quote from: blakkieFlawed 'hard' data can be worse than no data at all.

It also can be better than no data at all.

Quote from: blakkieI think you are overly discounting actual play as evidence. Which exists. Sure one or two bits at a time it is anditotal, and somewhat selfselected. But frankly when you accumulate a large body of well documented play I'd tend to as much weight in it as that data.

The "large body of well documented play" consists of (A) what percentage of the total number of role-players and (B) what percentage of people who play and enjoy D&D, the bestselling role-playing game in the market by at least a 10:1 margin?  A sample has to be either large or characteristic of the broader community.  The body of actual play accounts is neither, from what I've seen.  

Quote from: blakkieEspecially since that data doesn't say a whole hell of a lot by itself.  Other than you have different approaches to playing games at large. It doesn't even really talk about whether people try to mix them.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

"All of the people who indicated a strong interest in RPGs identified eight 'core values' that they look for in the RPG experience. These 8 core values are more important than the segments; that is, if these 8 things aren't present in the play experience it won't matter if the game generally supports a given segment's interests - the players will find the experience dissatisfying."

Maybe he's lying.  Maybe he's misinterpreting the data.  I don't know for certain.  But they seemed willing to bet the success of D&D on those ideas and their gamble seems to have paid off.

Quote from: blakkiePlus if you happen to have you data falling down on the pigeonholes you made prior really raises a warning flag for me.

Yes, but the fact that this was survey data that they paid for and released to their R&D people before the public counters that opinion.  This wasn't data they created to rationalize their choices to the public.  This was data they paid for to use internally to make their products appeal to the broadest audience.  I know that sort of business thinking is alien to a lot of the hobbyists producing games for the love of gaming, but I'm willing to bet that WotC was more interested in selling a lot of copies of D&D than convincing gamers that styles are evenly distributed into four clear buckets.  What's the purpose or benefit of twisting the data for WotC, Dancey, or Reynolds?

Quote from: blakkieThe at one time is way back in one of the essays, and it's important in defining "coherence". Coherence is really just another way of saying consistancy between all the single points that happen during playing the game. That you don't have one part of the game fighting against the other or creating a pathological conflict within the rules.

And that only make sense if you assume that everyone at the table wants only one thing, to the exclusion of all else, out of their role-playing games.  For many people, that's not true.

Quote from: StuartThe calls for examples of "Actual Play" seem to be as much part of the Forge theory / process as GNS.

I've been told to look at some "Actual Play" threads at the Forge to help me undestand why certain games seem so magical to their advocates.  Ever time, I walked away thinking, "That looks like a pretty normal role-playing session to me, with a lot of abstract mechanics getting in the way."  What I'd really like to see are some actual play threads of the games that these people played before they found Forge games.  I'm really curious what they are comparing against because they seem to think the differences are self-evident and I'm just not seeing them.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd that only make sense if you assume that everyone at the table wants only one thing, to the exclusion of all else, out of their role-playing games.  For many people, that's not true.

Snipping away the rest of your excellent post, which as so often put my points more clearly than I had managed, I think this bit is important to single out as well because the Dancey research specifically speaks to and refutes this assertion I believe.

Otherwise, I agree and as you say, the Dancey research has been borne out in actual sales figures.  This research was to produce information that could be used in maximising sales, and has done just that.  That makes it powerful and it makes it worthy of our attention.

For all the theory at the Forge, the actual sales remain very low, lower than many trad games brought out without any real backing of theory to them.  That doesn't make them bad games, but it does cast doubt on the underlying theories as good explanations of what gamers want.

Well, I got in hot water for saying it on rpg.net, we'll see how it floats here...

In many ways, Forge strikes me as like religion -- when members convert, it is an amazing experience and eye-opening. And then when they try to explain how wonderful everything is to a non-believer, you get tension.

They just don't see how everything MAKES SENSE, and how your game was saved...

All the same things that make your religious beliefs hard to understand in others, all the same frustration with dealing with these non-believers, all the same comfort in chatting in a group of your comrades who Understand.

Note that I in no way intend to slam religious folks, or Forge folks, by those comments. But the energy and language used just seems rather analogous.

You could say the class structure mimics the quadrants a bit.
Warrior-types are into short-term combat. (Called tactics in the article, I think... just look at the AoO rules, etc.)
Mages are into long-term combat. (Called strategy in the article, and backed up by the vancian system.)
Rogue-types are short-term roleplayers. (Can't remember what they called that, but look at that skill list and tell me it isn't oriented towards various short-term non-combat situations.)
Cleric-types are long-term roleplayers. (Can't remember the term, but look at their arbitrary association with in-game institutions like churches, gods, alignment, etc... to the point of having class features tied to the extent of their allegiances)

I don't know how much of this was in previous editions, but... The resemblance is uncanny.

Quote from: WillWell, I got in hot water for saying it on rpg.net, we'll see how it floats here...

In many ways, Forge strikes me as like religion -- when members convert, it is an amazing experience and eye-opening. And then when they try to explain how wonderful everything is to a non-believer, you get tension.

They just don't see how everything MAKES SENSE, and how your game was saved...

Note that I in no way intend to slam religious folks, or Forge folks, by those comments. But the energy and language used just seems rather analogous.

No offence Will, but I think it's very obvious it works that way.  Most of the hardcore Forge posters I meet (and incidentally neither Levi nor Tony fall into this, neither actually uses much if any Forge-speak if you pay attention) clearly hold their beliefs as a matter of faith regardless of evidence to the contrary.

This is another example, there is no real evidence for the Forge theories, they remain consistently incapable of explanation if there is more than one Forge theorist on a thread as they routinely correct each other and I don't actually see the theories being meaningfully used any more even by the main indie designers.

Despite all these theories, sales remain stubbornly low and despite a vocal internet following most people keep playing much the same games they ever did.  I think they did identify a real niche that wasn't being adequately catered to, I think they then were so delighted to find it finally catered to they tried to export it without realising it was as much a niche as a fondness for furry games or historical games.

The key difference between me as a historical gamer and most narrativists is I realise mine is a minority interest and I'm fine with that.  I don't believe that if I explain it sufficiently people will convert.

Quote from: beejazzYou could say the class structure mimics the quadrants a bit.
Warrior-types are into short-term combat. (Called tactics in the article, I think... just look at the AoO rules, etc.)
Mages are into long-term combat. (Called strategy in the article, and backed up by the vancian system.)
Rogue-types are short-term roleplayers. (Can't remember what they called that, but look at that skill list and tell me it isn't oriented towards various short-term non-combat situations.)
Cleric-types are long-term roleplayers. (Can't remember the term, but look at their arbitrary association with in-game institutions like churches, gods, alignment, etc... to the point of having class features tied to the extent of their allegiances)

I don't know how much of this was in previous editions, but... The resemblance is uncanny.

That is a very interesting insight, it would be coincidence I would have thought but it could still be a real correlation.