Quote from: -E.Let's try to find some common ground outside of rpg's -- what sort of design or engineering theory are you familiar with?

I'm a computer programmer by education.  Does that count?

Quote from: RPGPunditMy version isn't "literal" like Ron's distinctly and directly was. I'm not suggesting that playing Forge games actually DAMAGES your brain. Just washes it; and even then only if you allow yourself to be.

Well, I haven't noticed myself with a sudden desire to worship Ron, or to give all my money to his cause.  Maybe I'm brain-washed and maybe I'm not.  It's the kind of accusation I can't really refute, right?

What I can tell you for damn sure is that hanging at the Forge and playing the games that come from its members are both things that have given me insights and techniques that I can (and do) apply to designing games that I get a lot of fun from playing.

So when you say "The Forge won't help you write better games" I read it pretty much the way I expect you'd read it if I said "Tobacco won't bring pleasure to your life."  I know you're wrong, from personal experience, and for me that's pretty much that.

Quote from: -E.What you'll find are principles and models that are defined at a level sufficient to be applicable.

Power 19.

Quote from: TonyLBSo when you say "The Forge won't help you write better games" I read it pretty much the way I expect you'd read it if I said "Tobacco won't bring pleasure to your life."  I know you're wrong, from personal experience, and for me that's pretty much that.

No, its more like saying "reading a lot of books about tobacco won't make you better at being able to identify tobaccos by taste".

Or in other words, you can read 3000megs worth of erotic stories, it won't make you any better at actually getting it on.

Beyond the basics, theory of any kind is just wankery and speculation. That's why its calle THEORY.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBWow ... so ... I'm crippled by having listened to Forge theory?  Obviously not physical (my limbs all work fine) so that'd have to be ... well ... brain-damage, right?

The way I see it, having been exposed to Forge theory must have caused you brain damage, as otherwise you would plainly see how incredibly offensive it is to suggest someone has been brain damaged by being exposed to rpg writing.

Quote from: BalbinusThe way I see it, having been exposed to Forge theory must have caused you brain damage, as otherwise you would plainly see how incredibly offensive it is to suggest someone has been brain damaged by being exposed to rpg writing.

Okay, I think that idea damaged my brain

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, its more like saying "reading a lot of books about tobacco won't make you better at being able to identify tobaccos by taste".

Or in other words, you can read 3000megs worth of erotic stories, it won't make you any better at actually getting it on.

Beyond the basics, theory of any kind is just wankery and speculation. That's why its calle THEORY.

I think that most of the analogies used thus far are pretty crap.

If I know a lot about art theory, does it make me better at painting?

No, it does not.

Does it mean that I might be more able to put together a pleasing palette of colours with which I, or someone else, might paint?

Yes, it does.

Could that same basic skill - colour selection - be obtained simply by actually painting and changing up the palette a little bit each time, trying new things and such?

You bet.

QuoteBeyond the basics, theory of any kind is just wankery and speculation. That's why its calle THEORY.

Anti-intellectualism much???

Every theory=wankery?
Ahem.
You said you were an academic, didn´t you?
You can crap-talk GNS all day long, you might be right.

But dismissing all kinds of theory?
I mean like, real ones?
Quantum theory is wankery?
I daresay it is not, and I´ll just pop in a dvd into my Neumann/Turing Machine and watch em wankerin´electrons fly around...

You really lost me know.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenPower 19.

Help me out here -- aren't Power 19 a list of questions someone should ask about their game?

Things like, "How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about" right?

That's a taxonomy which implies a model -- but I don't think the model actually exists. To explain why I say that, here's my thinking:

The question above (the 11th question, according to google) implies some kind of relationship between a resolution mechanic and a game's 'aboutness' characteristic, yeah?

That, in turn, implies a model that I don't think actually exists in rpg theory.

How could we test this?

Define "aboutness"
Define how resolution mechanics reinforce it

Without that model, I can say, "My game is about pirates, and my mechanic reinforces it because it's roll-under."

I mean, that doesn't make any sense to me, but without a model / framework, it's a completely valid answer to the question, yeah?

You could argue that you disagree with me (I'm assuming that you, like ever other right-thinking person agrees that Pirate games require a roll-over resolution mechanic).

The model should help us sort out -- or at least explorer -- our positions on the issue.

Example: Color theory tells us which colors "go together" and why -- I still might argue that I find a certain combination ugly but the theory is clear and provides a framework for discussion beyond simple opinion ("I like puce") or random connections ("My school colors were black and red, therefore they're never a wrong combination.")

The Power 19 doesn't provide any of that.

Try to use it in practice and see what I mean:

Statement 11 suggests games can be about something -- that this is a characteristic of them. It doesn't tell you how to figure that out. For games like GURPS, the answer would be so huge as to be nearly meaningless. For games like DiTV, there are still an infinite variety of answers, all of them as correct / wrong as the others, and no way to judge except opinion:

I think DiTV is about

1. Mythical western ethos
2. Mormon philosophy / theology
3. The act of judgement and its implications
4. Impressing my friends about how bad-ass I am
5. Power tripping as a high-level party fighting much weaker opponents

Are any of these *wrong*?
Does the Power-19 help figure that out?
I don't think so...

But even if it did, I don't think it takes the next step:

It doesn't help us figure out what the relationship between mechanics and aboutness is.

That doesn't stop me from asserting one ("Pirates. Roll under.") but I don't think it's a design methodology or model if it's founded 100% on my opinion.

I'm not slamming the Power 19 -- I think those are a reasonable set of questions to talk about when desigining a game (I disagree with some of the underlying ideas, but that's to be expected, and doesn't invalidate the whole thing) but it's not a design theory...

Yeah?

Or am I missing something?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm a computer programmer by education.  Does that count?

Good place to start. There are lots of good design theories in softwaer engineering.

A pretty widely used design theory in software systems is component oriented design. It compares and contrasts to functional or object oriented design, and has a set of principles about how software should be grouped, exposed for use, and written to achieve certain (valuable) results.

It won't tell you what makes a "good program" -- in engineering, that's conformance to requirements -- but it will tell you how to apply the theory and what the expected outcome has:

• Reasonably deterministic behavior
• Reusable systems and sub-systems
• Modular systems with independent versioning and deployability
• Etc.

The theory is clear and actionable -- it defines what a component specification must be (input, output, behavior, information managed) and it's testable -- I can apply the theory, build my software, and determine whether or not I'm able to achieve the outcomes suggested by the theory... I can look at a system and determine whether or not it was built using the theory (and whether or not it used it correctly).

But it's not a cookbook, right? It's simply a model of software development that says (basically) "If you design your system following these principles, you'll get reusable, independent components that can be assembled and leveraged beyond their initial application."

We're talking about pretty basic stuff -- "do this, get that result" that I don't see in RPG theory... or rather, where I *do* see it, it's absurd (powerstruggle... brain damage).

That making more sense?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.That making more sense?

Uh ... not more sense.  It makes the same sense I've seen in what you were saying for a while now.  But if you can now accept that I have heard what you are saying then maybe you can hear what I'm saying in response:

   RPG Theory does that for me.

I genuinely understand that you don't see RPG Theory as containing productive models of development, or individual components that have predictable outcomes.  But I do.  I use them.  I get good games as a result.  

As a computer programmer I would say "Okay, so I want a program to parse a string into structures as it comes in.  Let's build a stack to hold current state, a stack to hold provisional output, and shuffle between them as symbols come in," and it would work.  Maybe I'd get artsy and say "Let's do this OOP, so the stacks are objects with their own behaviors, and they call each other back and forth" and like that.

As a game designer, I say "Okay, so I want a game that encourages people to do over-the-top comedy descriptions in pursuit of tactical victory.  Let's build a currency that people can use to expand their tactical options, then link that to a feedback mechanism that lets other players judge the humor of their descriptions.  Backfill that with a second resource loop that encourages people to reward rather than be stingy, and a solid setting and situation to bring everyone onto the same page," and it works.  Maybe I get artsy and say "Let's make this kind of judgment explicit as part of the social contract of the game, and get people flagging the kind of things they find funny as part of the process" and like that.

I know how theory contributes to design in fields outside of RPGs.  It contributes to design in the field of RPGs in the same way.  That's what I've been saying.

Can you accept that, or are we going to hear another lecture from you on how I must not understand what I'm doing?

Quote from: -E.Help me out here -- aren't Power 19 a list of questions someone should ask about their game?

Things like, "How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about" right?

Yup.

Quote from: -E.Without that model, I can say, "My game is about pirates, and my mechanic reinforces it because it's roll-under."

I mean, that doesn't make any sense to me, but without a model / framework, it's a completely valid answer to the question, yeah?

Oh, I'm sure you could answer it that way.  But you wouldn't, because, see, it's an obviously stupid answer.  The thing that keeps people from doing obviously stupid things isn't "having a clear taxonomy" - it's "not being stupid".  And, see, I don't think you're stupid.

Clear taxonomies don't make people less stupid, in my experience.

Quote from: -E.Try to use it in practice and see what I mean:

I have.  It helped.

Quote from: -E.I think DiTV is about

1. Mythical western ethos
2. Mormon philosophy / theology
3. The act of judgement and its implications
4. Impressing my friends about how bad-ass I am
5. Power tripping as a high-level party fighting much weaker opponents

Are any of these *wrong*?

:confused:

They are utterly useless answers, because you aren't designing DitV.

I would ask the question a little differently.

What are the impacts of roll-under on game design, and do any of them impact my goals one way or the other? If I'm looking for a [insert design goal here], how does roll under affect that goal?

Those are the questions I tend not to see answered. It's just not meant to be a slam, it's just not the question(s) being discussed. That's the decision of the person running the forum and pushing the theory.  Instead, something like roll-under would fall under the abstract Fortune definition, "A method of resolution employing unpredictable non-behavioral elements, usually based on physical objects such as dice, cards, or similar." (I particularly like "unpredictable non-behavioral" elements – can you say "random"?)

So how does that help me answer if roll-under in any way affects my design goals? Or is that covered somewhere in the thousands of posts?

Quote from: TonyLBUh ... not more sense.  It makes the same sense I've seen in what you were saying for a while now.  But if you can now accept that I have heard what you are saying then maybe you can hear what I'm saying in response:

   RPG Theory does that for me.

I genuinely understand that you don't see RPG Theory as containing productive models of development, or individual components that have predictable outcomes.  But I do.  I use them.  I get good games as a result.  

As a computer programmer I would say "Okay, so I want a program to parse a string into structures as it comes in.  Let's build a stack to hold current state, a stack to hold provisional output, and shuffle between them as symbols come in," and it would work.  Maybe I'd get artsy and say "Let's do this OOP, so the stacks are objects with their own behaviors, and they call each other back and forth" and like that.

As a game designer, I say "Okay, so I want a game that encourages people to do over-the-top comedy descriptions in pursuit of tactical victory.  Let's build a currency that people can use to expand their tactical options, then link that to a feedback mechanism that lets other players judge the humor of their descriptions.  Backfill that with a second resource loop that encourages people to reward rather than be stingy, and a solid setting and situation to bring everyone onto the same page," and it works.  Maybe I get artsy and say "Let's make this kind of judgment explicit as part of the social contract of the game, and get people flagging the kind of things they find funny as part of the process" and like that.

I know how theory contributes to design in fields outside of RPGs.  It contributes to design in the field of RPGs in the same way.  That's what I've been saying.

Can you accept that, or are we going to hear another lecture from you on how I must not understand what I'm doing?

I hear that you find usable models in the forge rpg theory...

I'm not sure where you're finding them -- in the examples you've provided I don't see usable models; just insights from other disciplines and a desire to apply them to rpg's... but without guidance or design principles.

I don't doubt that you (and other designers) are applying insights from economics, psychology, and game theory to the rpg's you're designing -- but I don't see the body of theory work that explains how these things apply.

Still -- what I *mainly* don't see is a body of theory work that would support The Big Model / GNS stuff; and since you haven't used that part of the theory perhaps it's simply not an area we can have a productive conversation about.

For what it's worth, I think the example you provided here is a good example of game design using some terms from the rpg theory taxonomy ("currency") and some common concepts from other disciplines (the idea that rewards reenforce behavior).

I don't think it's an expression of a theory: there are potentially many ways to drive the behavior you want to drive. By selecting a tactical currency and a voting mechanism, you've chosen a specific solution.

Maybe a good one.

But a design theory would explain what underlies those choices, why you'd choose them over other ones, and what sort of characteristics you'd get from choosing them.

By skipping the "design theory" part in your example and going straight to a specific solution, I guess we're back to not meaning the same things when we use the term "theory."

A few posts ago I thought we were closer: we agreed that rpg theory is more like lit theory than scientific theory.

My (inexpert) understanding of either, and of theory in general, is that the primary difference is that scientific theory contains models about the natural world and those models can be applied to candidate designs -- for example, differnent approaches to driving player behavior.

Literary theory, or value theory, on the other hand provides a critical or analytical framework for looking at finished works. This is what lit professors and film critics do. It's not something that's generally used in creation.

That's my understanding of the difference.

What's yours?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOh, I'm sure you could answer it that way.  But you wouldn't, because, see, it's an obviously stupid answer.  The thing that keeps people from doing obviously stupid things isn't "having a clear taxonomy" - it's "not being stupid".  And, see, I don't think you're stupid.

Clear taxonomies don't make people less stupid, in my experience.

Taxonomies aren't -- by themselves -- design theories. They can be valuable and even necessary in design... and many taxonomies incorporate inexplicit models (e.g. the idea that games are about something), but in the rpg space we have lots of taxonomies and damn little else.

If the "theory" doesn't distinguish between an answer you think is stupid and one that isn't, it's a good indication that the theory isn't helping with the design -- the guy going, 'that's stupid' is... and he's doing it without the theory's help.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI have.  It helped.

I'm not -- and haven't been (here or elsewhere) arguing that volumes of discourse about RPGs or web sites posing insightful questions don't help game designers.

I am arguing that it's not "design theory" in the generally understood sense, and that you can't really say you "used forge theory" to design your game the way you could say you "used color theory" to design the pallet for the cover.

Color theory is specific and contains models about how humans react to color combinations.

Forge theory is not specific and doesn't contain those models.

It could certainly be inspirational. The Power 19 might have helped focus and clarify your own intentions -- that doesn't make it a design theory.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen:confused:

They are utterly useless answers, because you aren't designing DitV.

I'm not -- but let's say I'm not sure what "aboutness" for a game is.

Actually, let's not make it a hypothetical. I'm not clear on that at all -- when the Power 19 asks, "What is my game about?" I have no idea. And when I look around at games that already exist, I just get more confused:

I my way of thinking about the question most games could be "about" very different things from campaign to campaign or even scenario to scenario. Even very focused games (DiTV, James Bond) can be about hugely different things in the hands of different players or different GM's.

I find the question very difficult to answer and vague... it seems to make undocumented assumptions about games and their nature that I don't share or understand.

There's nowhere to go with this because Power 19 isn't a theory.

It's a set of questions *derrived* from a theory (one that's not formalized or explicitly stated anywhere). Somewhere, back in the author's mind (the author of the Power 19) is an unstated (unformed?) idea of "aboutness" and what it means and how it relates to resolution mechanics.

That's the theory -- where is it?

Where can I go to find a model of games that defines "aboutness"?

Cheers,
-E.