Quote from: Erik BoielleI think we need self defence classes on how to stop a forgite shutting down normal discourse on your boards.

It use to be kind of difficult to to deal with -- the theory was poorly articulated... and it said so little *formally* that trying to be specific about any point it made was difficult.

Now it's easy: Just bring up the Brain Damage.  

Seriously -- Forge Theory is pretty absurd and largely insulting. If someone in your thread is bringing up... and claiming it says something like, "people like different things... what could be hard to understand or insulting about that?" instead of hunting down long posts or convoluted arguments, you can now go straight to the translated version.

It's a huge step forward in Internet discourse.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenActually, I think I will drag my theory over here.  It could use the refinement that can only be gained through serious abuse.

Oh, and:
http://the-tall-man.livejournal.com/

Hah, too late- I googled!

QuoteHmm. I think Amazon's definition of 'Adventure & Story Games' is a lot wider than most roleplayers, wargamers and so on would recognise.

That's part of the problem.  

QuotePlus, to be frank: that information proves nothing like what you say. You might as well argue that Forgista theories are refuted because none of the best-selling computer games were used to design them. Sorry, it just doesn't wash as an argument, and it's certainly not wittily or vitriolically polemical.

I'm not just saying that the Forge theories weren't used to design those games.  I'm saying:

* Forge theory is not useful in explaining the success of ANY of those games.  Instead the claim is all of those gamers playing games not explained by Forge Theory are "Brain Damaged".

* Forge theory would not be helpful in designing new games that are similar to anything that currently appears on any list of widely successful games of any description.

If the theory can't explain why games work, or help people design new games that work... honestly, what use is it?

It's a bit like Flat-Earth theory.  Sure there are people who still believe in it, and yes if you limit the scope of reference or steer the argument into certain directions it can be difficult to refute.  But it doesn't explain what people are encountering in the real world, and it doesn't help predict things in the real world.

I think any modest level of success for a game based on Forge theory would be in spite of following those ideas, not because of them.  Some of the secondary thinking (streamlined rules, fast gameplay) is good -- but the core theory is not.

I'm not really disagreeing with you about Forge theory Stuart. I was just challenging your claim that the Amazon best-seller list proved that Forge theory is wrong. There's only 1 game on that link that is anywhere close to an RPG, plus 2 that might be close to the kind of game the Forgists are developing- the storytelling games. So none of those games are the sort of games the design of which Forge theory is supposed to help. Therefore the fact that Forge theory is useless for designing all of those games on Amazon tells us exactly as much about Forge theory as does its uselessness for designing computer games, or for adding new rules to the game of golf- ie. nothing at all. That's it really.

Quote from: StuartI'm not just saying that the Forge theories weren't used to design those games.  I'm saying:

* Forge theory is not useful in explaining the success of ANY of those games.  Instead the claim is all of those gamers playing games not explained by Forge Theory are "Brain Damaged".

* Forge theory would not be helpful in designing new games that are similar to anything that currently appears on any list of widely successful games of any description.

If the theory can't explain why games work, or help people design new games that work... honestly, what use is it?

It's a bit like Flat-Earth theory.  Sure there are people who still believe in it, and yes if you limit the scope of reference or steer the argument into certain directions it can be difficult to refute.  But it doesn't explain what people are encountering in the real world, and it doesn't help predict things in the real world.

I think any modest level of success for a game based on Forge theory would be in spite of following those ideas, not because of them.  Some of the secondary thinking (streamlined rules, fast gameplay) is good -- but the core theory is not.

Completely agree -- another point: TBM/GNS/"Forge Theory" is so radically incomplete that it actually lacks the elements you'd need to leverage it for design (predictive models, formal frameworks, actionable definitions).

As you said, any actually good games that have come out of designers who use that theory are more likely the result of a creative vision that has very little to do with the theory at all.

Cheers,
-E.

That, and a supportive community of thinkers and playtesters.

Though I'm not sure there are that many playtesters, or especially "blindtesters" (people testing the game using the rules text only, without having it explained to them).

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe numbers tell us what current gamers like.

How, exactly, do they tell us what the rest of people out there would like?

I see market-driven talk as pretty irrelevant either way. But that doesn't vindicate Forge theory in my book--at least not as a social phenomenon, since there are plenty in that camp, as well, who talk about designing for a market.

Quote from: -E.As you said, any actually good games that have come out of designers who use that theory are more likely the result of a creative vision that has very little to do with the theory at all.

Well, my game is directly influenced by two specific threads of theory discussion.  But, I suppose you can maintain your theory just by saying my game isn't any good.

Still, from my point of view, your claim that theory doesn't result in good games falls down in the face of my perception that theory led to my good game.

Quote from: TonyLBWell, my game is directly influenced by two specific threads of theory discussion.  But, I suppose you can maintain your theory just by saying my game isn't any good.

Still, from my point of view, your claim that theory doesn't result in good games falls down in the face of my perception that theory led to my good game.

Yeah, but your understanding of what influences you in game design is probably wrong...

Seriously dude, Capes owes everything to DnD3e.  I think it's time you admitted that.










Actually, because I'm not into the supers genre I don't really know Capes, supers just isn't a genre I'm into.  Supers is like mecha for me or anime, I get a lot of people love it and I'm glad there are good games out there but they're not genres that rock my boat.  Are you working on other stuff Tony?

Quote from: BalbinusSeriously dude, Capes owes everything to DnD3e.  I think it's time you admitted that.

:rotfl:

Thanks.  I needed that.

Quote from: TonyLBWell, my game is directly influenced by two specific threads of theory discussion.  But, I suppose you can maintain your theory just by saying my game isn't any good.

Still, from my point of view, your claim that theory doesn't result in good games falls down in the face of my perception that theory led to my good game.

Actually, I maintain that we have radically different defintions of how we'd expect Forge Theory to apply to game design.

The way I see it, Forge Theory makes some claims about what people want (the -isms) and how those things relate to each other (the Big Model concentric diagram) but then gets very vague about how to actually go about implementing games that provide people with what they want.

The missing piece of the puzzle would be a usably specific discussion about what makes a (for example) Nar game, and how one could go about building one.

This is because the actual basis of the theory (Nar, Gam, Sim, and the big model stuff) is profoundly un-defined and, in practice, is highly subjective: there's no analytic framework of any kind in place that would make the theory usable for reliably, repeatably

* Determing player preferences
* Determing if a game supports a GNS agenda
* Discussing player preferences

I'm not asking for an objective measure -- I'm asking for any measure at all.

In the absence of this stuff, I don't think it's proper to say that theory was "leveraged" (used) to develop a game.

There are theories which can be applied to rpg design; a simple example would be theories about the value of a single, unified dice mechanic (e.g. True 20) -- this isn't exactly a formal theory, but if I had to state it, I'd say something like,

Quote"In the absence of a compelling reason for a difference, all game systems should use the same dice mechanic."

Note that

• This is something a lot of theory people would agree with
• It's reasonably easy to use as a design principle
• It's reasonably easy to use as an assessment framework (I can more-or-less objectively compare D20 to True20 and determine which one is more aligned with the principle)
• In use, it would be easy to form a discussion between two disagreeing people around key points -- systems that do not use the principle but for which there may, arguably, not be a compelling reason for deviation (e.g. the cover rules in D&D 3.5)

A less trivial example would be an application of Game Theory to RPG design; game theory provides a foundation for understanding alternative strategies how the reward system can provoke certain kinds of behaviors (c.f. various problem-box games) including competative and cooperative strategies.

Comapre this to RPG theory which states blandly that reward systems can affect behavior (this is actually *not* an RPG theory statement -- it comes from a branch of psychology), but doesn't really go any further than that.

From reading what you've written, you'd be willing to credit rpg theory with designing games without any actionable, usable levels of detail.

From what I've read, it looks to me like you credit rpg theory with helping you design your game (Capes?) because it's discussion of the GM role and reward systems inspired game-creating thought on your part.

I don't doubt that this is true -- but I don't think it's quite right to say that the theory was leveraged to design the game.

Again for clarity: I'm not (and have never) disbelieved your statements that you found theory useful and inspirational in designing your game. What I'm arguing is that theory doesn't talk meaningfully about those issues -- it offers basic and profoundly obvious observations from other disciplines, without even really applying them to the rpg space.

The work -- all of it; the heavy lifting -- was stuff you did yourself.

I think that one day there may be a body of theory that can be used to create game (I think such a body exists, defacto, and some of the work like the design pattern stuff is going in that direction), but there's a fundamental problem with the approach a lot of theorists have been using:

An ISO definition of quality (conformance to requirements) requires fairly objective requirements. When your requiremetns are "this game should be fast. It should also be... fun... and should be furious" it's hard to judge if a certain dice mechanic, for example, helps achieve that.

A lot of theory gets around this by pretending that there are some objective measures of what people want (the Creative Agendas) but the theory's failure (after several years) to really define these should be a tip-off that this approach doesn't really work.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.This is because the actual basis of the theory (Nar, Gam, Sim, and the big model stuff) is profoundly un-defined and, in practice, is highly subjective

Well, I didn't use any of that GNS stuff anyway.  I used some of the many, many other pieces of theory developed at the Forge.

Quote from: -E.An ISO definition of quality (conformance to requirements) requires fairly objective requirements.

Well, I don't expect to have a purely objective definition, so the theory doesn't disappoint me there.  I think of it less like physics and more like art theory.  Giving me a structure that lets me turn my inspiration into creative thought is what it's for.

Quote from: TonyLBWell, I didn't use any of that GNS stuff anyway.  I used some of the many, many other pieces of theory developed at the Forge.

Well, I don't expect to have a purely objective definition, so the theory doesn't disappoint me there.  I think of it less like physics and more like art theory.  Giving me a structure that lets me turn my inspiration into creative thought is what it's for.

Then we're not really in disagreement; Forge Theory (GNS Stuff) is about the worst offender in terms of actually being a usable theory. Other bodies of work are better (some much better).

To be clear: I wouldn't ever expect theory to be objective; I don't think most of the theorists would (explicitly) say they do -- but when they use language and concepts taken from engineering disciplines (e.g. the ISO definition of quality) without realizing that the discipline they're using them in is "soft" they end up with broken, unworkable theoretical structures.

I think RPG theory is *inherently* more like art than any kind of science -- and I'd say game game design is or can be a form of artistic expression, or at least have some characteristics generally associated with art (similar to how mathematical proofs can be considered "elegant" by mathmeticians).

In that regard, we're 100% aligned.

Cheers,
Eric

Quote from: -E.Then we're not really in disagreement; Forge Theory (GNS Stuff) is about the worst offender in terms of actually being a usable theory.

I'm thinking that what you mean when you say "Forge Theory" may be a very different set of ideas from what I mean when I say "Forge Theory."

Quote from: TonyLBI'm thinking that what you mean when you say "Forge Theory" may be a very different set of ideas from what I mean when I say "Forge Theory."

That may be -- there's not really a coherent body of theory to point to -- and varying degrees of agreement about basic principles.

That said, I find 2 schools of theory:

1) r.g.f.a. theory which gives us the following concepts

• Stance
• Social Contract
• GDS decision making criteria & preferences
• Etc.

I think r.g.f.a. theory underlies much of the discussion on The Forge and gives it some of its best elements (stances, the concept of a social contract, the idea that different players may prioritize different outcomes).

2) GNS which is laid out in the main GNS essay and a variety of other documents (the other GNS essays), but is generally superceded by forum discussion and The Big Model, which sort of shows how the GNS stuff relates to other elements and attempts to draw some connections between agendas and actual game elements ("mechanic ecosystems")

These are the most-formal parts of the Forge Theory, certainly the best known, and probably the worst in terms of being useful for game design or making sense.

To the extent those bodies of work make any kinds of predictions at all, they provide a very vague taxonomy of what people like (the undefined agendas) and some ridiculous assertions about how game rules affect social interactions (e.g. ongoing power struggle) or people's neuro-chemistry (you know what I'm talking about).

Since you didn't use the "GNS Stuff" maybe you're talking about the floating set of terms, techniques and concepts that more-directly related to games, but aren't really tied to the GNS stuff (I'm thinking about stuff like kickers and flags, which are sort of asserted to be Nar)

If not that stuff, perhaps you're refering to the threads and their volumes of unstructured discussion. There are probably some good ideas in there -- given the amount of talk, there would almost have to be -- but they haven't seemed to make it into a coherent theory...

So where's the forge theory you're refering to? Am I missing something?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.If not that stuff, perhaps you're refering to the threads and their volumes of unstructured discussion. There are probably some good ideas in there -- given the amount of talk, there would almost have to be -- but they haven't seemed to make it into a coherent theory...

As I suspected, we mean different things by the same term.  When I say "Forge Theory" I'm talking about theory developed and discussed at the Forge.  That's a pretty broad moniker.  The articles are part of that, but (IMO) a small part.  Most of it is in the "volumes of unstructure discussion" that you refer to.

Lots of stuff there, much of which I find intensely useful.