TheRPGSite

http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=6487309&postcount=40

QuoteHi Levi,

I don't know if I'll succeed, but I have been thinking about this subject a bit lately. Whether my angle on it will be helpful or not, I do not know. But here are some thoughts.

I see a broad distinction between what I consider the Dramatic approach to the story at hand, and the Novelistic approach. (Drama meaning, for this post, the style of storytelling found in a stage play.)

If you look at the works of Shakespeare you find -- dialogue. It's just people talking. No set decorations. No props to speak of (a few crowns, swords, a dagger, a magic potion or two.... that's about it). What props there are of great import to a character in the play (Prospero's books, for example) and serve as engines for the narrative as well.

Look at Moliere, the Greek Tragedies and othe plays written without the influence of the novel as a competing form of storytelling and you'll see the same thing -- characters basically at work on each other. The world matters little. The fact that some production companies gussie up the shows with elaborate sets doesn't change the fact that plays can work just fine (and even maybe better!) with just a few chairs and a black stage.

Now, look at a novel. The characters matter. But they exist in relation to a much larger world just as much to other characters. There is a sense of building up the substance of the environment tha thte characters live in. The text is not just about the interactions of the characters, but the objects they touch, social customs, and so on. Characters do not just have interactions with other specific characters, but are shaped by social engines that they will never know about (in Dickens, off the top of my head, for example).

(Quick clarification: I'm not saying Shakespeare's plays aren't about social forces. I'm saying: Look at the text. There you will find characters, bereft of props and scenery, in direct conflict to make things happen -- whether wooing, or debating, or sorting out a decision in their own head.)

Now, neither one of these is better or worse. They are different forms of narrative, each with unique abilities to reveal things about people, the world, and tell stories in different ways to produce a different kind of feel or experience.

In my view, earlier RPGs grew very much out of a tradition of novels and prose. I don't think it's possible to underestimate the influence of The Lord of the Rings on RPGs, for example, with all it's lush cultural, geographic and crafts-of-Middle-Earth detail. For many poeple, this love of this detail IS what RPGs are about.

A lot of newer games have been focusing on what I consider Dramatic storytelling. In particular, I'd say Ron Edwards, who has been very influential in setting up some new techniques, has drawn a great deal from the tools and techniques of Dramatists: direct conflict between characters; getting the story going out of the gate; a shorter, or at least swifter, shot toward the climax.

Plays are focused in the central concerns. Novels take their time, wandering around a bit more. Plays are about the people of the story interacting directly with other characters, resolving a scene, and moving on to the next. Novels build up details -- not only of the character, but of the world and it's details -- that allow a weight to be invested in objects or details of the world. (In a play, such details might be lost (you can't "flip back" to recall a detail while watching a play!) and might stop the Dramatic momentum if you stopped to lay out all the history/lessons/details....)

I've been watching with interest lately the growing wall between people who want the faster paced, conflict driven story of a lot of the newer games, and those who want the more relaxed, building up the details worlds of other RPGS.

In my view, this has little to do with Ron's Big Model and it's creative agendas (and this is the last time I'll mention them.) Nor is about "new" vs. "old". After all, theater was around before the novel. The fact that these focus on techniques is reversed as RPGs try out new storytelling techniques is simply a historical accident.

What I see is that there are two different traditions from other media people are drawing on to tell stories. Neither one is "right," nor is one more "right" for an RPG. Like any other form of entertainment, RPGs draw on many other media for inspiration and clues about how to engage and have fun. What's happening now, I believe, is that two sources of tradition are bumping into each other in RPGs. And they don't mix that well. There's a reason a play looks like a play upon the page, and a novel looks like a novel upon the page. They are two different forms of narrative, with two different focuses.

I'd even add that how we experience dramatic narrative and how we experience the novel match the two conditions you post above. When we see a play, the story is happening "out there." When we read a novel the story is happening "in here" (taps head).

So...

I'd say there's been a lot of experimentation of late with the tools of the dramatist, and not so much with the tools of the novelist. I think there's work to be done adding in techniques and rules to help people build up the kind of experience you're after in this thread.

That's what I'm offering to add to your understanding.

Christopher

PS A quick notes on movies: Movies look like they're big novels in terms of detail, but they're not. If you read a script, you'll find they are very light on detail. They're purpose is like that of a stage play -- to set characters in motion, in conflict of some kind, with as little verbiage and detail as possible. What props and sets are there are there to define characters and conflicts.

"Star Wars: A New Hope" has light sabers. Why? Cool, yes, but as Lord Liaden pointed out above -- it's a concrete object that Luke can use seek and reveal his desire to grow beyond his childhood life on Tatooine. The art department, the cinematographers and so on, comes in to "grow out" the details of character and conflict as stated lightly in the screenplay. There's always a background in the film, but it should exist to explicate and reveal the character and the conflicts (or ignored and lost in "the background.")

Example: check out the Council of Elrond scene from Tolkien's LotR, and then check out the deft adaptation Jackson and his screenwriters pulled off for the movie. They both "work" -- but in completely different ways, each meeting the needs and exploiting the purpose of each form.

Well, all right, I really just wanted to put in a note that it should be like 'Story Telling' vs. 'Improv Theatre' to prevent moral highground claiming by evil Ronnite Swine, only I can't because the Facists at RPG.net banned me in their quest for non confrontational mediocrety. Because people have been telling stories for a long time you know, and this is just like listening to someone read you a bedtime story, only you get a say in what happens! Obviously a more suitable format with ugly people sitting around a table pretending to be wizards than that nasty forge stuff.

But anyway, the conflict between improve theater style which is all about dialog and acting and story telling style where you can have more narration and digression does sound right to me.

It´s adventure gaming and thematic gaming, I´d say.

Quote from: SettembriniIt´s adventure gaming and thematic gaming, I´d say.

I think more how one goes about it - when someone is reading you a story, you can't really do the sorta Intense Ken and his Ex Sharon Are Locked In A Lift And Sharon Reveals She Had A Miscarriage And Its, Like, Intense, Man (or I suppose you could, but he'd have to do both voices). But in a radio play you can't describe the city and its workings without one character saying 'As you know, Bob...'. Or at least not as easily.

So both could be, like, Deep Man - a character piece about a touching interaction between slaves in a pit as opposed to wondering through a conntryside meeting situations making thinly disguised points.

Anyway, I'm just thinking it could be an avenue for an offensive - 'Forge Games - LARP for those unable to run very far'.

Could you elaborate?
I think you are ironic, but I don`t know with whom.

There certainly is a reduction in focus going on in thematic games.
But stage-plays live and thrive not because of their surprising thematic developments, but through their language, at least in part. And RPGs do a lot of stuff, but never generate high quality language.

Quote from: SettembriniAnd RPGs do a lot of stuff, but never generate high quality language.

I'm not sure that matters so much as that it just can be vastly entertaining to have a pretend argument with somone. And forgie games are devices for maximising the number of occasions on which you end up in a mexican standoff shouting 'DON'T YOU POINT THAT GUN AT MY DAD!!!!!', and without all those other bits that get in the way.

QuoteAnd forgie games are devices for maximising the number of occasions on which you end up in a mexican standoff shouting 'DON'T YOU POINT THAT GUN AT MY DAD!!!!!', and without all those other bits that get in the way.

That´s why I´d call them thematic games.
What exactly follows from this, in your eyes?

Quote from: Erik BoielleI'm not sure that matters so much as that it just can be vastly entertaining to have a pretend argument with somone. And forgie games are devices for maximising the number of occasions on which you end up in a mexican standoff shouting 'DON'T YOU POINT THAT GUN AT MY DAD!!!!!', and without all those other bits that get in the way.

Actually, that we already knew.

The significant thing is that this divide opens new options when locked in mortal forum combat with the hated enemy - The Swine think they are dumping the extraneous stuff in order to get to the heart of the matter, while in fact they are dumping the myth-base which allows a storyteller of the oral tradition to improvise on a theme and the narration that allows a good speaker to expoud around his subject in order to illustrate his point in favour of schlock melodramatics on the level of 'Your Not My Mufa' 'Yes I am!!!!!' scene off of Eastenders.

Theres one in your eye Edwards!

After all, being a storyteller used to be a full time job. The lore would be passed from master to apprentice with the  process taking years. - modern equivalents like tour guides must learn extensive materials to do their job.

I just think its a stronger arguing position - no one wants to argue that they are the low brow vs. the elite.

Instead claim that they are just the reality television of roleplaying - of course people like watching Jade be stupid. But its not very... Clever is it.

Quote from: SettembriniIt´s adventure gaming and thematic gaming, I´d say.

I think Christopher Kubasik is talking about a different split, since the novelistic approach can most certainly be thematic.  For example, the World of Darkness games and many of their ilk are certainly novelistic.  

Personally, I think Kubasik's analogy is broken.  I find that the typical Forge games like Dogs in the Vineyard or Polaris are very little like stage drama, because they have a strong emphasis on narrated action rather than in-character dialogue.  Rather than just role-play out an argument as dialogue, you have to roll your dice and do your Raises or But-Only-If's or whatnot.  

It's larps and Amber play which is more drama-like.  And the Forge is frequently anti-immersive and against this sort of play.  

I don't think the simple binary split works.  Larps are different than D&D, which are different than Forge games which are different than Amber.

QuoteI think Christopher Kubasik is talking about a different split, since the novelistic approach can most certainly be thematic.

I can see where you are going, and it makes sense. But the line drawn was along the thematic / adventure fault.
As you go on, a subdivision along the stage/novel fault would have to be drawn differently than done above.

You put it better than me: stageplays are about dialogue, not about themes. In D&D you do battles and fights which are loaded up with thematic dimensions, but fighting is the thing you actually do.
In stageplays,  the characters  talk to each  other,  the dialogue is loaded  up  with themes.  Talking  is what is actually  done.
In Thematic RPs, themes "fight" against each other, with special "combat" mechanics, dialogue is just a byproduct.

Thanks for the insight.
Everything in reality is multi-dimensional, and thusly can be subdivided along  multiple lines. It´s just another one and must come to different categories. Nice.

The flaw I find with most of these theories is most people are most things at one time or another at least to some degree. Yet the theories always seem to talk as if you are permanently in one camp or another. You are GN or S, you are playwright or novelist is style, where as nearly everyone I've met is a mix of both or even if they are full on novelist style one day, later in their life (month) they might be playwright or visa versa.

Yes, people are way more inconsequential than discourse allows!
Like people who want a great social system and low taxes at the same time. Although people really want that, it will not happen.
Therefore decisions have to be made; at the very least compromises have to be made. It definitely helps if you know what you are giving up for something else. Once the relationships of competing interests are known, informed choices can be made.

And this is way more valuable than eternal typecasting. That´s why I like the idea of "axis of exchange": You trade one type of enjoyment for another one. The more you know about it, the better you can match your playstyle to your current needs. Traditionally, that is done by experience through the choice of the game one runs.

I can't take anyone who mistakes "their" for "they're" seriously.

I don´t get what you are trying to say. Care to elaborate?

Thanks for posting that email -- it's very interesting.

I was also thinking about how RPGs could be described as being on a spectrum from War Games (or board games) on one end, which is where they started with Chainmail.  On the other end you have Theatre Sports, like the show "Who's Line is it Anyway?".  Incidentally, one of the "rules" of Theatre Sports is "Never say no / Block another player".

I agree that games can not be fully defined as being "G", "N", "S", "RP", "WG", etc.  but it is useful to think about the ways different RPGs can focus on different aspects and have different goals.

There isn't a "one true way" to design, play, or think about RPGs. :)

Quote from: StuartThere isn't a "one true way" to design, play, or think about RPGs. :)

Pah!

If you go in to battle against a debate club trained Forgite jihadi fresh out of the secret training camps with that kind off attitude you will quickly find yourself out maneuvered and on the defensive!

No! If you find yourself needing to clear an infestation before they denonate their belt shouting 'EDWARDS ACKBAR!" it's far better to go on the offensive and take control of the conversation with an attack centered around the Illusionism inherent to Forge amdram designs, attempting to shortcut the story process and create fake depth and cheap emotional payoffs!

I mean, those mini-games are fun, but essentially shallow.

Quote from: Erik BoiellePah!

If you go in to battle against a debate club trained Forgite jihadi fresh out of the secret training camps with that kind off attitude you will quickly find yourself out maneuvered and on the defensive!

No! If you find yourself needing to clear an infestation before they denonate their belt shouting 'EDWARDS ACKBAR!" it's far better to go on the offensive and take control of the conversation with an attack centered around the Illusionism inherent to Forge amdram designs, attempting to shortcut the story process and create fake depth and cheap emotional payoffs!

I'm aroused, and I don't know why. That, in itself, is disturbing.

Quote from: BagpussThe flaw I find with most of these theories is most people are most things at one time or another at least to some degree.

You mean the taxonomy? It is a gamer trait. It happens often enough outsite of roleplaying as well, but with concepts like character classes, gamers are sort of pre-disposed to developing a taxonomy like that. Worse, these theories tend to develop a nice, neat taxonomy and then shoehorn stuff into them even when they don't really fit.

QuoteIf you go in to battle against a debate club trained Forgite jihadi fresh out of the secret training camps with that kind off attitude you will quickly find yourself out maneuvered and on the defensive!

I will bend like a reed in the wind. ;)

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrYou mean the taxonomy?

Erm..... (opens Google..... "taxonomy", scan the Wiki entry) Yes! I mean the taxonomy.

Well, most thematic games are purposely built as a fast lane to satisfaction, especially as effortless as possible for the DM.

It´s one of the reasons I don´t get any kicks out of them, but there are what they claim to be.

Quote from: Erik BoielleBecause people have been telling stories for a long time you know, and this is just like listening to someone read you a bedtime story, only you get a say in what happens! Obviously a more suitable format with ugly people sitting around a table pretending to be wizards than that nasty forge stuff.

But anyway, the conflict between improve theater style which is all about dialog and acting and story telling style where you can have more narration and digression does sound right to me.

I'm still working on my ideas, but there's something to what you're saying.  

There's also something to the narrative approach the Forgefolk use; they have produced enjoyable games (maybe not for you, but for enough people to be worth considering).

Quote from: Levi Kornelsenthey have produced enjoyable games (maybe not for
you, but for enough people to be worth considering).

This is an interesting assertion, for me, as it makes me want to ask - "What's that number?"

This is something I thought when looking at the criteria used by the author of the Design Patterns book (discussed over in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2414)). He defines "successful" with two criteria, only one of which defines a number.  That number is 10 groups who have played a game in the last year – worldwide.

So, purely out of curiosity, what's the number for you –what makes it worth people considering?

Quote from: James J SkachSo, purely out of curiosity, what's the number for you –what makes it worth people considering?

If it includes any people I give half a shit about.

Hey, I'm honest.

Quote from: James J SkachSo, purely out of curiosity, what's the number for you –what makes it worth people considering?

For me the answer is simply enough that I notice.

The whole narrativist thing has plainly worked well for quite a few gamers, a tiny number I think as a proportion of the hobby but still probably several hundred and maybe even a few thousand though I doubt that many.

That's enough to make that bit worthwhile for those guys, and there may be some borrowable concepts for the rest of us.

I think if the narrativism crowd accepted that it's simply another minority interest in rpgs like being into furries or historical gaming - popular with those into it often to the exclusion of other types of gaming but never likely to be widespread, there'd be a lot less angst about theory and a lot more happy gaming.

The furry crowd don't worry that theirs is a niche interest, I'm a historical gamer and it doesn't bother me that not many share that taste, I don't see why the narrativist guys can't relax and accept that they have a minority taste which happily due to the internet is now much easier to indulge than was once the case.

Quote from: BalbinusI don't see why the narrativist guys can't relax and accept that they have a minority taste which happily due to the internet is now much easier to indulge than was once the case.

Well, I for one can and do.  In fact, I'm not sure that I actually know anyone who either (a) thinks that narrativist play is the majority of the hobby or (b) is worked up about the fact that it's not.  We tend to get worked up about other stuff :D

Quote from: TonyLBWell, I for one can and do.  In fact, I'm not sure that I actually know anyone who either (a) thinks that narrativist play is the majority of the hobby or (b) is worked up about the fact that it's not.  We tend to get worked up about other stuff :D

It doesn't tend to be the main guys.  To be honest, most of the annoying stuff tied to theory isn't from the main guys, though Chris Lehrich really did fuck me off by suggesting my issue with the Trollbabe setting was that I was sexist.

That has nothing to do with narrativism though, he was just being a dick which for him is uncharacteristic.

Most annoying postage comes from guys who are into the thing but not central to it if you know what I mean, converts in a sense, fellow travellers.  The Vincent Baker's and Chris Kubasik and Joshua Bishop-Roby's of this world mostly just do their thing and unless you go on their blogs or equivalent there's no particular reason their thing should impact you unless you want it to.  I rarely if ever have an issue with any of those guys, Chris and Joshua I've read lots of and they both frankly seem like good people to me and I wish them well.  Vincent I don't know much about, his blog does nothing for me and he is happy to talk to those who're interested and leave guys like me alone which is cool.

I shouldn't have got into the numbers thing actually, the question is not is game x popular but would I enjoy playing game x.  Whether narrativism is a tiny group of people, a growing movement or the silent majority is neither here nor there as long as those who are into it are getting good gaming.

It's a tangent, but I am a bit saddened by all these threads on rpg.net currently asking to be sold narrativism.  Who gives a shit?  Somebody pitching PTA because it's a ton of fun makes sense to me, somebody pitching it because it fits some arbitrary label not so much.

Quote from: BalbinusI shouldn't have got into the numbers thing actually, the question is not is game x popular but would I enjoy playing game x.

Oh, yeah.  That's a whole different kettle of fish.  A ... uh ... more tangled kettle of fish.  Fish-guts, I suppose.  Yech.

Tony, while you're here, have you worked out what in this thread is supposed to justify the title?  I see lots of stuff here, but nothing proving Forge theory wrong as such.

And you know, if anything here did that given I am hardly a fan of Forge theory I think I would have noticed.

Quote from: BalbinusTony, while you're here, have you worked out what in this thread is supposed to justify the title?

Honestly people, its the same thing that justify the Great Satan saying DnD causes brain damage.

One of the reasons the hated forgers are so good at dominating conversations is that they tend to use cheap debate club tactics more interested in winning arguments than discussing things. This is dirty pool, and anyone indulging in it deserves to get it flung right back at them.

Similarly, bullshit bingo:

http://www.bullshitbingo.net/

(http://www.salman.de/pix/bushi.gif)

Forge buzzwords are things like Trad, Indie, Hippy, Nar, Sim.

Actually, if anyone says Trad with a straght face you can almost always just go straight to yelling bullshit. Its a real tell.

Quote from: Erik BoielleOne of the reasons the hated forgers are so good at dominating conversations is that they tend to use cheap debate club tactics more interested in winning arguments than discussing things. This is dirty pool, and anyone indulging in it deserves to get it flung right back at them.

Being an asshole doesn't make you right or wrong.  It just makes you an asshole.

Ask Pundit, he knows this.

Quote from: Erik BoielleHonestly people, its the same thing that justify the Great Satan saying DnD causes brain damage.

One of the reasons the hated forgers are so good at dominating conversations is that they tend to use cheap debate club tactics more interested in winning arguments than discussing things. This is dirty pool, and anyone indulging in it deserves to get it flung right back at them.

Erik, I have no idea what you are saying here.

And Vampire, he said Vampire causes brain damage.  All he's said on DnD is that he doesn't like the rules that much, which I don't think anyone has taken much offence at.

And while I'm at it, I don't hate the Forgers.  I disagree with many ideas to have come from the Forge.  Not at all the same thing.  Edit:  To be precise, most of them I don't know, most I have come to know I like.  Liking someone does not mean I agree with them on all things.

Posting to say something sucks adds little to life, Space 1889 is a wonderful game and incredible fun.  I want more threads about incredible fun, fewer about how some other guy is evil and must be stopped.

If we celebrate the fun, then to the extent there is any war we will win it.  Happiness is the best revenge.

Quote from: BalbinusIf we celebrate the fun, then to the extent there is any war we will win it.

Not against someone dedicated and who knows what they are doing you won't.

Meh - its always worth realising how people operate - not realising how forgers operate is one of the reasons they get such a bad rep. People don't realise that they don't believe wholy what they say and just know its a good way to win arguments, and so they get irritated or steamrollered instead of just walking away or defending themselves properly.

Show weakness or try to see the other side and you are lost!

(Like you say though, the worst problems are the second tier wannabes who just parrot the propaganda without realising the spin).

It's just a fact - if you want to get in an discussion with a forger you need to understand that the rules are those of a high school debate.

Quote from: BalbinusTony, while you're here, have you worked out what in this thread is supposed to justify the title?

Gosh, Max, isn't is obvious?  The argument is that all Forge people are assholes, because they use cheap rhetorical tactics like overly broad generalizations and ad hominem arguments.  Therefore their theory cannot possibly have any value.

Seemed perfectly clear to me :D

Quote from: TonyLBGosh, Max, isn't is obvious?  All Forge people are assholes, because they use cheap rhetorical tactics like overly broad generalizations and ad hominem arguments.  Therefore their theory cannot possibly have any value.

Oh, hey, Tony, do I hate Erik?

I can't remember.

No Levi, you have no emotions of any sort, except a grim pride at grinding others to dust.  You will use any rhetorical tactics to that end.  

The theories that you claim to espouse?  You know they're not really true.  But they make good weapons, and that's all that counts, soldier.

Now get out there and make the other guy die for his vision of RPGs!  Go!  Go!  Go!

Sir, yes, sir!

Course, it helps to work in cliques.

QuoteThe argument is that all Forge people are assholes, because they use cheap rhetorical tactics like overly broad generalizations and ad hominem arguments. Therefore their theory cannot possibly have any value.

Actally, I'm saying that using debate club tactics wins a lot of arguments but also a lot of enemies. You can do this with almost any agenda, even ones that are true and that you believe in.

I don't think anyone would seriously argue that The Forges main donation to RPGs are academic debate tactics and good branding.

I don't think the forge should stop doing what it does. I think everyone else should copy their obviously effective tactics.

See how they fucking like it.

Quote from: Erik BoielleI don't think anyone would seriously argue that The Forges main donation to RPGs are academic debate tactics and good branding.

I would.

The main donation of the Forge to RPGs is the constant trickle-down of self-publishing information and kudos; it has spurred plenty of people who have little games into making PDFs, going to POD servivces, and the like.

A revolution, it ain't.  But every single channel of encouragement to small-time guys with their own games to go and print those (and there are several; the Forge isn't the only one by far) strikes me as a good thing.

Diversity creates stability.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI would.

The main donation of the Forge to RPGs is the constant trickle-down of self-publishing information and kudos; it has spurred plenty of people who have little games into making PDFs, going to POD servivces, and the like.

A revolution, it ain't.  But every single channel of encouragement to small-time guys with their own games to go and print those (and there are several; the Forge isn't the only one by far) strikes me as a good thing.

Diversity creates stability.

Er... Levi, I think you misread him. You just argued that the forge WASN"T about good branding and debate tactics. He said no one WOULD argue that that was what they were about...

Quote from: SpikeEr... Levi, I think you misread him. You just argued that the forge WASN"T about good branding and debate tactics. He said no one WOULD argue that that was what they were about...

...Oh.

Shit.

:(

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen...Oh.

Shit.

:(

No no, you read me right - I mistyped.

Good games and enthusiasm are the good things the forge has wrought (I'm actually a kool aid drinker rubbed up the wrong way, but The Sons of Kryos and a copy of Burning Empires are far, far better sales tools for you guys than going on to someones forum and telling people they are doing it wrong).

Don't let debate tactics and obnoxious sales techniques be its legacy.

Quote from: Erik BoielleNot against someone dedicated and who knows what they are doing you won't.

Meh - its always worth realising how people operate - not realising how forgers operate is one of the reasons they get such a bad rep. People don't realise that they don't believe wholy what they say and just know its a good way to win arguments, and so they get irritated or steamrollered instead of just walking away or defending themselves properly.

Show weakness or try to see the other side and you are lost!

(Like you say though, the worst problems are the second tier wannabes who just parrot the propaganda without realising the spin).

It's just a fact - if you want to get in an discussion with a forger you need to understand that the rules are those of a high school debate.

Erik, in all this there is only one way to win that matters, and that's having fun gaming.

If the Forge helps you with that, cool.  If it's a fucking pain, ignore it and have fun gaming anyway.

Victory is not piling the heads of indie game designers before me and hearing the wailing of their online fans, victory is every time I have a fun game.

I mean, I'm not turning down piles of heads and wailing fans, who would?  But the point is not winning arguments, the point is fun gaming.  Once you have that, you can hear all the arguments you want and they really don't matter.

Quote from: TonyLBGosh, Max, isn't is obvious?  The argument is that all Forge people are assholes, because they use cheap rhetorical tactics like overly broad generalizations and ad hominem arguments.  Therefore their theory cannot possibly have any value.

Seemed perfectly clear to me :D

Ah.

Thing is, both could be true you know?  You could all be evil Borg-esque drones in the service of the Ron-mind and the theory could still be correct.

Increasingly though I think the theory is just out of date, and in part is being kept alive by people vigorously opposing it.  If the critics gave that a rest and simply noted that it wasn't useful to them in time better theories would develop, like Levi's manyfold thing for example.

Quote from: BalbinusYou could all be evil Borg-esque drones

Don't you mean... Borgstrom-esqe? The true brains behind the conspiracy is revealed!

Quote from: DevPDon't you mean... Borgstrom-esqe? The true brains behind the conspiracy is revealed!

That's not the strangest RSB conspiracy theory, you know... (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=255761)

When you look at pictures of her, one could start to think she is transgender. So maybe that´s were it comes from.
Don´t understand being secretive about it, though.

QuoteIf the Forge helps you with that, cool. If it's a fucking pain, ignore it and have fun gaming anyway.

That's true for playing games.  Not so true for designing them.

The Forge doesn't help me in the development of my game because the Forge theories are based around a particular type of game, and I'm not interested in doing that.  It's not as simple as just ignoring it -- Forge-philes take it *everywhere* online.  You can't talk about RPG design without the Forge folk evangelizing their favourite theories.  Even when a thread or site says "Thanks very much, but we're not interested in that here" -- it doesn't seem to matter.

QuoteIncreasingly though I think the theory is just out of date, and in part is being kept alive by people vigorously opposing it. If the critics gave that a rest and simply noted that it wasn't useful to them in time better theories would develop, like Levi's manyfold thing for example.

You really think so?  Try starting a thread on just about ANY forum to discuss RPG design patterns *without* having a Forge-phile feel the need to jump into the mix.  Take a look at Story Games -- there's just no way you can say the Forge theory is only being kept alive by people opposing it.

And take a look at Wikipedia sometime -- Forgephiles have been spamming it up with "GNS" blather, even though most of the talented designers from the Forge acknowledge that GNS is outdated, and it's been proven lacking and inadequate for general discussion of RPGs.

If I want to get feedback on the work I'm doing, or throw out some ideas relating to the game I'm working on -- it doesn't seem possible to avoid the Forge theory evangelists. :(

Quote from: StuartThat's true for playing games.  Not so true for designing them.

The Forge doesn't help me in the development of my game because the Forge theories are based around a particular type of game, and I'm not interested in doing that.  It's not as simple as just ignoring it -- Forge-philes take it *everywhere* online.  You can't talk about RPG design without the Forge folk evangelizing their favourite theories.  Even when a thread or site says "Thanks very much, but we're not interested in that here" -- it doesn't seem to matter.



You really think so?  Try starting a thread on just about ANY forum to discuss RPG design patterns *without* having a Forge-phile feel the need to jump into the mix.  Take a look at Story Games -- there's just no way you can say the Forge theory is only being kept alive by people opposing it.

And take a look at Wikipedia sometime -- Forgephiles have been spamming it up with "GNS" blather, even though most of the talented designers from the Forge acknowledge that GNS is outdated, and it's been proven lacking and inadequate for general discussion of RPGs.

If I want to get feedback on the work I'm doing, or throw out some ideas relating to the game I'm working on -- it doesn't seem possible to avoid the Forge theory evangelists. :(

In part, I didn't say it was just people slamming it.  There are Forge spammers, no doubt about it, but I think the non-Forgeites also sometimes make things worse.

Story Games has I think been colonised by the Forge since I started posting there, which is why I post there less now.  It seems less a cool place to discuss story focussed games and more a general Forge chatroom.

Thing is, I think the answer to Forge spammers is just to not respond to their posts beyond a simple statement that you don't find the theory helpful.  If they follow up on that, let their follow up lie unanswered.  Answer those who respond sensibly.  Attacking the Forge or the theory will draw defenders, ignoring it just makes the spammers look like what they are.

Quote from: TonyLBWell, I for one can and do.  In fact, I'm not sure that I actually know anyone who either (a) thinks that narrativist play is the majority of the hobby or (b) is worked up about the fact that it's not.  We tend to get worked up about other stuff :D

I wonder what the "majority" actually is ....  (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=1061&page=1#Item_0)

QuoteI wonder what the "majority" actually is ....

Comics and Games Retailer (http://www.comicsretailer.com/) has monthly statistics on the comics and games industries, based on actual sales by comics and games retailers.

It's relatively easy to find the sales figures from Narrativist games (eg. ask the designer or check for threads on Gen Con sales), then compare that to the sales figures for things like:  Wizards of the Coast, White Wolf, Goodman Games, etc.  

Comics and Games Retailer also includes stats on other types of games being sold, including card games and board games.  It's a really good reference for what items are selling well and what items are not.

This isn't taking into account sales from big bookstores, which carry WOTC, maybe WW, and certainly no indie games I've been able to find.  They tend to carry more boardgames though.

This won't give you an answer to what is the game *you* or your friends would like best, or the game(s) that are the best designed, produced, or most innovative... but it will tell you what the vast majority of people in North America are buying -- and by extension, playing.

You know, if every post I made got pulled up and compared to my later positions, there would be many discrepancies.

My views change, my tastes change, I get new data, I sometimes explore ideas and find they don't work.  I posted once arguing that story games were not rpgs but something new, within ten posts I was convinced that I was wrong, would pulling that up really prove anything now?

Stuart, definitely, the majority is DnD and the other obvious candidates, anyone who thinks otherwise is fantasising, but I also agree that knowing that doesn't help at an individual level with choosing the game that's right for a given group.  Majorities are a distraction, useful to know but not of themselves that useful in making your own choice of game.

Well yes, obviously. :) I was mainly just funning on the fact that that thread with that title was started by the exact same guy in the quote.

QuoteMy views change, my tastes change, I get new data, I sometimes explore ideas and find they don't work.

No problem, I totally agree with you here! :)

QuoteMajorities are a distraction, useful to know but not of themselves that useful in making your own choice of game.

Yes.  I think picking just about anything you like should be more about what YOU like and less about what everyone else is doing.  My musical tastes are certainly not reflected by any "Top 10" chart in North America that I'm aware of. :D

I think the industry #s are useful to keep in mind when developing new games though, or when discussing ways to bring new people into the hobby.  (Both of which are my interest in these discussions)

It's why I'm spending more time thinking about the boardgame end of the spectrum than the very artsy / avante garde (I think the designers like "hippie games") end of the spectrum.  I just don't believe the appeal is a broad...

Quote from: StuartI think the industry #s are useful to keep in mind when developing new games though, or when discussing ways to bring new people into the hobby.  (Both of which are my interest in these discussions)

The numbers tell us what current gamers like.

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

QuoteThe numbers tell us what current gamers like.
How, exactly, do they tell us what the rest of people out there would like?

They give no such information.

Some people take this to mean "Theyre just waiting for the right game to come along!" but I think thats a foolish assumption.

Every once in a while (I actually saw this first on Malcolm Sheppard's blog but I noticed similar efforts in a few other places) some genius decides he's going to spread the joy of roleplaying. So he creates a simple scenario with really simple characters and convinces/coerces/or tricks a friend or someone to 'roleplay a scene' with him, thus spreading the joy of roleplaying. So they roleplay it out and at the end he says "and thats what roleplaying is! See how fun and cool and social that was? Won't you join my hobby?" or whatever..

It's ridiculous. I'm almost embarassed for the hapless victim in these situations. Certainly roleplaying can be fun and educational- we use it in training exercises, learning a new language, etc.. but that won't 'make' you a gamer.

Quote from: Abyssal MawSome people take this to mean "Theyre just waiting for the right game to come along!" but I think thats a foolish assumption.

Fair Enough.

Quote from: Abyssal MawEvery once in a while (I actually saw this first on Malcolm Sheppard's blog but I noticed similar efforts in a few other places) some genius decides he's going to spread the joy of roleplaying. So he creates a simple scenario with really simple characters and convinces/coerces/or tricks a friend or someone to 'roleplay a scene' with him, thus spreading the joy of roleplaying. So they roleplay it out and at the end he says "and thats what roleplaying is! See how fun and cool and social that was? Won't you join my hobby?" or whatever..

I've done this several times, though I didn't bother coercing; I just invited people.  We played, they liked it.  They asked about other games, I showed them a few books.

They were, generally, appalled by the size of game books.  They'd visualised, it seems, something more on the lines of eight to twenty pages per game, play it once.

A handful of them weren't, and turned gamer.  Most of the rest would happily come out to play another game so long as that game was much like the first one I ran for them.

I found that really, really interesting, myself.

Who cares what other people would like? I like this. Are you gonna shut the hell up and let me talk about it?

One might say.




I dunno. I think we need self defence classes on how to stop a forgite shutting down normal discourse on your boards.

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

I give you discussion-fu:

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=41461#post41461

QuoteThe numbers tell us what current gamers like.  How, exactly, do they tell us what the rest of people out there would like?

If it was easy to design games for the rest of people out there, it would be easy to make lots of $ and bring lots of new people into the hobby.  Of course it's not really easy... ;)

What the numbers can tell us is of the games currently in circulation, what games are the gamers buying.  It also lets us know what games related to RPGs are selling well.  Looking at those numbers it's absolutely no surprise that WotC is doing more to integrate their collectible minis into the game.  That makes a lot of sense.

Looking at the numbers for other types of games -- Monopoly, Apples to Apples, Carcasonne, Settlers of Catan, Descent, etc. is also very helpful.  

More RPG designers, which are game designers after all, should be checking out places like BoardGameGeek.com (http://www.boardgamegeek.com).  I've learned more from that site about designing games than any of the RPG theory discussions on any board I've visited -- with the possible exception being some of the stuff over at Dragon's Foot.

Here's another way of seeing what people out there *actually want* -- check the Bestsellers list at Amazon.com for the "games" category (http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/toys-and-games/166220011/ref=pd_ts_t_nav/102-0015277-3831349).

5. Apples to Apples Game Party Box
6. Here & Now Edition Monopoly Board Game
14. Settlers of Catan Board Game
17. Heroscape
18. World of Warcraft Wow Trading Card Game Heroes of Azeroth Random Starter Deck
26. Scrabble
30. Player's Handbook: Core Rulebook I (Dungeons & Dragons, Edition 3.5)
54. Spell Compendium (Dungeons & Dragons Supplement)
69. Risk
74. Star Wars Saga Edition Chess Set
75. Cranium
94. D&D Icons: Gargantuan Black Dragon (D&D Miniatures Product)

Just to tie this back to the main topic of this thread, for all of the games on Amazon.com's list of best sellers -- and I mean ALL of them in all the sub categories, including Adventure & Story Games (http://www.amazon.com/gp/amabot/?pf_rd_url=%2Fgp%2Fbestsellers%2Ftoys-and-games%2F166227011%2Fref%3Dpd_ts_t_nav%2F102-0015277-3831349&pf_rd_p=221591101&pf_rd_s=left-1&pf_rd_t=2101&pf_rd_i=166236011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0DNYKYKB0KR0JH6FD9JD) -- none of the theories from the Forge are applicable to the success of these games or are in any way helpful in developing games similar to any on that list.

If that doesn't prove a theory of game design wrong, I'm not sure how much more evidence would be required.

Quote from: StuartJust to tie this back to the main topic of this thread, for all of the games on Amazon.com's list of best sellers -- and I mean ALL of them in all the sub categories, including Adventure & Story Games (http://www.amazon.com/gp/amabot/?pf_rd_url=%2Fgp%2Fbestsellers%2Ftoys-and-games%2F166227011%2Fref%3Dpd_ts_t_nav%2F102-0015277-3831349&pf_rd_p=221591101&pf_rd_s=left-1&pf_rd_t=2101&pf_rd_i=166236011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0DNYKYKB0KR0JH6FD9JD) -- none of the theories from the Forge are applicable to the success of these games or are in any way helpful in developing games similar to any on that list.

If that doesn't prove a theory of game design wrong, I'm not sure how much more evidence would be required.

Hmm. I think Amazon's definition of 'Adventure & Story Games' is a lot wider than most roleplayers, wargamers and so on would recognise. Most of those games are really what I would call 'family games', and I would be surprised if that was a controversial classification. Plus, 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. ;)

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBeing an asshole doesn't make you right or wrong.  It just makes you an asshole.

Ask Pundit, he knows this.

True.
The world is full of assholes who are wrong.
Likewise, its also full of "nice-guys" who are just as dead wrong, no matter how nice they are about it.

And me, I'm an asshole who happens to be RIGHT.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditTrue.
The world is full of assholes who are wrong.
Likewise, its also full of "nice-guys" who are just as dead wrong, no matter how nice they are about it.

And me, I'm an asshole who happens to be RIGHT.

RPGPundit

LOL! Or, you could be an asshole who is dead wrong who just happends to be on the right side by sheer accident? :p (It's the old tent and pissing thing I guess.) ;)

Quote from: JMcL63LOL! Or, you could be an asshole who is dead wrong who just happends to be on the right side by sheer accident? :p (It's the old tent and pissing thing I guess.) ;)

Pundit's philosophy of gaming is internally self-consistent, and produces fun for his group.  As a gamer, he's doing it right.

His politics in the "warring tribes of gamers" debates are dirty, but so are mine.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenPundit's philosophy of gaming is internally self-consistent, and produces fun for his group.  As a gamer, he's doing it right.

His politics in the "warring tribes of gamers" debates are dirty, but so are mine.

I was just taking the piss. :D Mind you, I do have to remind you here of the pundit's Swinist nar-deviation: protagonism in supers rpg's. I'm sure he'll deny it till he's blue in the face, but whether he likes it or not he's calling for a narrative-based mechanic that trumps exactly the sort of crunchy goodness he champions in, say, D&D. Don't you think Levi? ;)

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?

Because they tell us exactly what has caught on, and to what limits.

The current numbers, for example, tell us that there is a great mass of people out there, including in the supposed target demographics (young males) for RPGs, that have NOT caught on to D&D in its current incarnation, or RPGs in general.

They also tell us that there isn't a single RPG out there right now that is capable of doing better than D&D at getting the bulk of these people.
Its sort of like Democracy is the very worst system of government there is, except for all the other ones that have so far been tried.

As much as you'd like to pretend otherwise, there is no secret mass of clove-cigarette-smoking millions who just haven't happened across My Life With Master yet, and would instantly propel that game to 1st place worldwide if it wasn't for the "evil overlords at Wizards"/"Money and the ethnic vote"/"underpants gnomes"/"insert wacky conspiracy theory here".

RPGPundit

Quote from: JMcL63I was just taking the piss. :D Mind you, I do have to remind you here of the pundit's Swinist nar-deviation: protagonism in supers rpg's. I'm sure he'll deny it till he's blue in the face, but whether he likes it or not he's calling for a narrative-based mechanic that trumps exactly the sort of crunchy goodness he champions in, say, D&D. Don't you think Levi? ;)

:p

My actual thoughts on this would require a lot of space.

I could drag my whole body of theory over here and just show you what I think, if you like, but that's pretty much what it would take.

:D

Quote from: RPGPunditBecause they tell us exactly what has caught on, and to what limits.

The current numbers, for example, tell us that there is a great mass of people out there, including in the supposed target demographics (young males) for RPGs, that have NOT caught on to D&D in its current incarnation, or RPGs in general.

They also tell us that there isn't a single RPG out there right now that is capable of doing better than D&D at getting the bulk of these people.
Its sort of like Democracy is the very worst system of government there is, except for all the other ones that have so far been tried.

Yep.

Quote from: RPGPunditAs much as you'd like to pretend otherwise, there is no secret mass of clove-cigarette-smoking millions who just haven't happened across My Life With Master yet, and would instantly propel that game to 1st place worldwide if it wasn't for the "evil overlords at Wizards"/"Money and the ethnic vote"/"underpants gnomes"/"insert wacky conspiracy theory here".

I prefer honey-roasted cigars to clove cigarettes, thanks.

And, nah, fuck that.  I don't think "My Life With Master" has Shown Us The Way, though I do think it's a nifty little game (much like Katamari Damacy, which wasn't a super-hit by any stretch, but I do love rolling that sticky little ball around).

If anything, I think that the boxed murder mystery games are closer to having Shown Us The Way.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHis politics in the "warring tribes of gamers" debates are dirty, but so are mine.

I literally giggled when I read this.

I'm sorry, Levi, you're awesome and all that, but just one word of advice: Its really really hard to pull off a "tough guy" act when you have a little cartoon turtle as your avatar.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI literally giggled when I read this.

I'm sorry, Levi, you're awesome and all that, but just one word of advice: Its really really hard to pull off a "tough guy" act when you have a little cartoon turtle as your avatar.

But I'm muy macho!

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI prefer honey-roasted cigars to clove cigarettes, thanks.

Both are an utter crime against Tobacco.

If you want honey-roasted, buy a bag of peanuts.

Good tobacco tastes like tobacco.

And if anyone reading this thinks that means it would taste "gross", its because you have never, in your whole life, gotten to smoke high-quality leaf, be it humble american virginia, macedonian basma, or smoked latakia.

The powdered shit they roll up and call cigarettes, as well as most cheap cigars (that are flavoured in order to hide the bad quality) have about as much in common with good tobacco as McDonald's orange-drink has to do with freshly squeezed orange juice.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen:p

My actual thoughts on this would require a lot of space.

I could drag my whole body of theory over here and just show you what I think, if you like, but that's pretty much what it would take.

:D

Yes, well... but you could indicate a general trend of agreement or disagreement with my assessment of pundit's thoughts about what's wrong with all existing supers rpgs, I suppose? :p Oh, and I've lost the link to your blog. Could you oblige please? ;)

Quote from: RPGPunditThe powdered shit they roll up and call cigarettes, as well as most cheap cigars (that are flavoured in order to hide the bad quality) have about as much in common with good tobacco as McDonald's orange-drink has to do with freshly squeezed orange juice.

As ways to hide bad tobacco go, honey is my favorite.

However, what you say here is true.  Good tobacco is a joy unto itself.

Quote from: JMcL63Yes, well... but you could indicate a general trend of agreement or disagreement with my assessment of pundit's thoughts about what's wrong with all existing supers rpgs, I suppose? :p Oh, and I've lost the link to your blog. Could you oblige please? ;)

Actually, 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/

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.  :D

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/ (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.

QuoteAs 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.

This is what I meant when I said:

QuoteSome of the secondary thinking (streamlined rules, fast gameplay) is good -- but the core theory is not.

Quote from: TonyLBAs 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.

No doubt -- which brings us back to my originial point:

What do we mean by "theory" and what, exactly, should one to be able to do with a theory?

Theories that can be used for *design* are usually scientific theories which model the natural world and make hypotheses about relationships (e.g. "incoherent games most-likely lead to ongoing power struggle or brain damage").

Clearly, some of Forge Theory reads like a scientific theory but lacks the rigor (or even the elementary completeness) that would allow it to be used that way.

From your posts above I think we agree that rpg theory isn't scientific in any way (not falsifiable, not testable).

If I read you correctly rpg design is more of a literary exercise (which is what I believe), and then rpg theory would be more like literary theory or aesthetics.

These theories are useful for a lot of things including

• Providing a taxonomy or language for discussing the domain (e.g. r.g.f.a. theory does a good job of this)
• Providing criteria for criticism (aesthetic judgement)

But they're not so good at design. Film theory doesn't tell you how to make a good movie. Literary theory doesn't tell you how to write a great novel.

They do allow a critic to make aesthetic judgements about a finished work, but that's not a *design* element.

So maybe I'm missunderstanding you -- you seem to agree that rpg theory is more like literary theory... but then you want to use it for design. FWIW, I think a lot of rpg theorists are in the same boat:

There's a strong desire to mistake methods of criticism for methods of design in all kinds of disciplines (c.f. Valley of the Dolls 2). Coming up with a real design theory for rpgs would be / is daunting work... and it would require engagement with the world that I suspect would slaughter some sacred cows...

But I don't think you can use literary and value theory for design -- and I don't think it's fair to call rpg theory a "scientific" theory... so I'm not sure how you can say forge theory was used to design a game.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.But they're not so good at design. Film theory doesn't tell you how to make a good movie. Literary theory doesn't tell you how to write a great novel.

I disagree with this entirely.  Likewise, I disagree with the idea that RPG Theory doesn't contribute to designing RPG games.

A film-maker who tries to put together a movie without at least understanding (for instance) Eisenstein's work on montage is robbing himself of valuable mental tools.

An RPG designer who tries to put together a game without at least understanding the distinction between task resolution and conflict resolution is robbing himself of valuable mental tools.

A creative endeavour does not spring uninfluenced into the world, like Athena from Zeus's brow.  It is patterned by the way that the artist understands his world and his art.  Gaining a deeper, more systematic and more usable understanding of the art is a very useful step toward becoming a better artist.

I think what Mr. E is saying is that is fine, but he doesn't see it as Theory, in it's scientific incarnation, helping you, but Theory in it's literary criticism incarnation.

In the example you provide, Task versus Conflict Resolution, I refer you to this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1503).  I've yet to get an answer how (in the scientific sense) they differ. There's a lot of feeling about how they differ.  And if someone wants to use this distinction as an influence in design, rock on. But trying to say something definitive about the difference seems elusive.

That's how I see the difference between them.

Quote from: James J SkachI think what Mr. E is saying is that is fine, but he doesn't see it as Theory, in it's scientific incarnation, helping you, but Theory in it's literary criticism incarnation.

Maybe.  Doesn't look that way to me, but maybe.  He'll be able to say what he means with more certainty :-)

If he's fine with the idea that the non-scientific theory (like film theory, like literary theory) is a helpful tool in design then I think we've reached a point of common ground.

Quote from: TonyLBI disagree with this entirely.  Likewise, I disagree with the idea that RPG Theory doesn't contribute to designing RPG games.

A film-maker who tries to put together a movie without at least understanding (for instance) Eisenstein's work on montage is robbing himself of valuable mental tools.

An RPG designer who tries to put together a game without at least understanding the distinction between task resolution and conflict resolution is robbing himself of valuable mental tools.

A creative endeavour does not spring uninfluenced into the world, like Athena from Zeus's brow.  It is patterned by the way that the artist understands his world and his art.  Gaining a deeper, more systematic and more usable understanding of the art is a very useful step toward becoming a better artist.

Sure, that's why all the great and/or popular novels of the 20th century were written by literature professors.

Oh, wait...

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSure, that's why all the great and/or popular novels of the 20th century were written by literature professors.

Oh, wait...

RPGPundit

Like Umberto Eco you mean?

But yeah, generally I do take your point.

Quote from: RPGPunditSure, that's why all the great and/or popular novels of the 20th century were written by literature professors.

Well, Stephen King was an English major, and professor.  Tom Clancy majored in English Literature, as did John Updike.  Tolkien was a professor of literature.

But then again, Heinlein graduated from the naval academy, Asimov was a biochemist and J.K. Rowling studied french and classics.

So who the hell knows?  Looks like there are some folks who took a fairly serious interest in the way the language and the literature is put together, and then went on to write some damn fine books.

Such study is clearly not necessary to writing a book, but I don't see a lot of reason to think that it's useless, either.

Quote from: TonyLBI disagree with this entirely.  Likewise, I disagree with the idea that RPG Theory doesn't contribute to designing RPG games.

A film-maker who tries to put together a movie without at least understanding (for instance) Eisenstein's work on montage is robbing himself of valuable mental tools.

An RPG designer who tries to put together a game without at least understanding the distinction between task resolution and conflict resolution is robbing himself of valuable mental tools.

A creative endeavour does not spring uninfluenced into the world, like Athena from Zeus's brow.  It is patterned by the way that the artist understands his world and his art.  Gaining a deeper, more systematic and more usable understanding of the art is a very useful step toward becoming a better artist.

I think a lot of input is valuable in design work -- a designer ought to be widely familiar with blah, blah, blah.

And, again -- if you tell me that rpg theory, or film theory, or Plato's Republic, or the instruction manual to your digital watch was useful to you to design your game, I'm certainly not arguing...

But I disagree that it's proper to say you "used theory" to design your game -- literary theory isn't a design tool. It doesn't provide design principles. At its most-relevant, it provides a set of analytic frameworks are for use on finished products (to be clear: I don't think Forge Theory has analytic frameworks. If it did, they wouldn't be useful for design).

And again: yes, academics often confuse critical theory with design theory... and point to examples (like Eco) where there's a successful author who's also a literary theorist.

I think there are folks out there who believe that rpg theory does provide a coherent set of design principles that could be employed by a designer to build a game -- and that by applying that model, the game would be of higher quality.

I believe this misconception comes from not fully understanding the theory (in my experience, most folks who advocate Forge Theory really don't understand it).

So we're not disagreeing -- your standard of "was valueable to me" or "inspired me" is in no way inconsistent with my position that an absence of defined, applicable models makes it imposible to "use rpg theory" to design game.

In disciplines where theory is *actually* used to design things (engineering, product design, layout, etc.), your use of the term "used" would be pretty irregular. You might want to choose a verb that's more explicit and clear ("inspired" was one that you used before, that I think works for what you're actually doing with rpg theory).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: TonyLBWell, Stephen King was an English major, and professor.  Tom Clancy majored in English Literature, as did John Updike.  Tolkien was a professor of literature.

Oh please, fuck you.
Tolkien was a professor of linguistic studies that was utterly HATED by the cognoscenti of the English department for having the "gall" to dare publish a novel and think he could get anywhere with it.
To this day, English department-types everywhere constantly whine bitch and moan that an "amateur" like Tolkien could be seen as more influential than their pet autheurs.

So please, do not try to make Tolkien one of you. Not after the ivory tower academic fuckheads have spent the last 60 years trying to destroy him and his work.

QuoteSuch study is clearly not necessary to writing a book, but I don't see a lot of reason to think that it's useless, either.

If you want an English Lit degree or a Comparative Lit degree for the sake of being able to speak in sophisticated talk, analyze books profoundly (far beyond the author's original intent, in almost every case) and champion obscure politically correct novelists that no one likes, then its certainly useful.

If you want that kind of degree because you think its going to make you a good novelist, forget it.

I mean it really is just like the Forge: being a part of it will be just GREAT if you want to learn master-level lessons in how to be an arrogant pretentious fuck, but not only will NOT teach you how to make good games, it will cripple you by filling you with intellectualoid bullshit guaranteeing that if you buy into the theory in the very least, you will end up creating games that are hopelessly stupid and unpopular.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean it really is just like the Forge: being a part of it will be just GREAT if you want to learn master-level lessons in how to be an arrogant pretentious fuck, but not only will NOT teach you how to make good games, it will cripple you by filling you with intellectualoid bullshit guaranteeing that if you buy into the theory in the very least, you will end up creating games that are hopelessly stupid and unpopular.

THE PUNDIT HATH SPOKEN!

:pundit:

Quote from: -E.So we're not disagreeing -- your standard of "was valueable to me" or "inspired me" is in no way inconsistent with my position that an absence of defined, applicable models makes it imposible to "use rpg theory" to design game.

Oh.  Are you saying that in order to say one "uses theory" it should be like a cookbook recipe, where you can follow the instructions by rote and reliably get a predicted outcome?

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean it really is just like the Forge: being a part of it will be just GREAT if you want to learn master-level lessons in how to be an arrogant pretentious fuck, but not only will NOT teach you how to make good games, it will cripple you by filling you with intellectualoid bullshit guaranteeing that if you buy into the theory in the very least, you will end up creating games that are hopelessly stupid and unpopular.

Wow ... 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?

Quote from: TonyLBOh.  Are you saying that in order to say one "uses theory" it should be like a cookbook recipe, where you can follow the instructions by rote and reliably get a predicted outcome?

Uh... that's interesting -- I think we should step back here; there may be a more profound communication gap than I'd thought.

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

I think if you check those out, you'll find that none of them are "cookbooks" or anything like that, no?

What you'll find are principles and models that are defined at a level sufficient to be applicable.

But maybe I'm wrong in assuming you're familiar with theories used in designs... let's start here.

Cheers,
-E.

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?

My 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.

RPGPundit

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.





:D

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 :D

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.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThey are utterly useless answers, because you aren't designing DitV.

Are they useless answers if he's playing DitV?

'Cause if you still say they're useless, then your reputation as an open and fair minded theorist guy is a bit inflated....

Quote from: -E.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."

Well ... I don't really have any definition for "design theory," so I don't know where you think that figures in.

As best I can tell, you're saying that you believe in two types of theory:  Design theory and value theory.  You don't think there is any design theory for RPGs.  I'm fine with that.  It's your terminology, you can define it however you want.

So what we've got (in your terminology) is value theory.  I assume that stuff like gaming currency, and feedback loops, and reward mechanics, and social contract and all that jazz would, for you, fall under value theory.  

Have I got that right?

That's the kind of stuff I use to do design.  It helps me design better games.  Are you cool with that?

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... I don't really have any definition for "design theory," so I don't know where you think that figures in.

As best I can tell, you're saying that you believe in two types of theory:  Design theory and value theory.  You don't think there is any design theory for RPGs.  I'm fine with that.  It's your terminology, you can define it however you want.

So what we've got (in your terminology) is value theory.  I assume that stuff like gaming currency, and feedback loops, and reward mechanics, and social contract and all that jazz would, for you, fall under value theory.  

Have I got that right?

That's the kind of stuff I use to do design.  It helps me design better games.  Are you cool with that?

Hmm... well, I can't quite take credit for distinguishing between scientific and literary / critical models.

If you haven't run into this stuff before, here's a quick summary:

Scientific models include a vast body of scientific thought and can be "used" to design things in engineering disciplines. Economic, physical, and applied mathmatics (e.g. computer science) theories are all "scientific" theories in the common sense.

Literary and critical theories include things like aesthetics and value theory (and stuff like "film theory" and so on) and are used to analyze, understand, and judge artistic works.

Again, this isn't -E's view of the world... this is pretty standard stuff. I suspect you ran into it during your computer science training.

Now, I guess it's possible that forge theory is some new body of theory never before seen... but I doubt it, and I don't think that's what you're saying.

To be a scientific theory a theory makes predictions about the natural world and can be falisfied.

Game theory falls into this category. So do many economic theories, as virtually all in-use computer science and engineering theories.

Where would you put RPG theory? Does it make predictions that can be falsified?

I would say, "Yes" -- but these are mostly absurd (Vampire most likely results in on-going power struggle).

In terms of mechanics -- where you use it -- what predictions does it make about reward mechanics? Does rpg theory tell you how to create a voting scheme?

Just acknowledging that those things exist isn't an insight any more than the idea of using cards or dice as randomizers -- would you credit rpg theory with  those ideas?

Probably not.

Ideas about behaviorism and so forth would be held to the same low standard, I think (if an idea is wildely acknowledged across numerous disciplines and popularlized, it's in the common domain, I'd think -- maybe you have a different standard?)

RPG theory *could* have a lot of neat things to say about voting schemes and reward mechanics -- predictions and models that could be used by game designers to develop mechanics that drive behavior in a certain way.

Certainly other disciplines (economics, psychology, game theory) have done that kind of work...

But right now rpg theory doesn't. The work hasn't been done. If rpg theory is going to say anything interesting about voting schemes or game theory it's got a lot of catching up to do...

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.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"?

Ah!  Okay, I get you.

See, from theory, what I want is to have my attention directed to places where I haven't been looking.  Sometimes, a rack of questions can do that, like those nineteen.  But usually, it occurs when someone else postulates what they think goes on it some general 'space' - and whether or not I agree with them is unimportant so long as it spurs me to think; in fact, if I vehemently disagree, that's good, because it might just cause me to spit out a fully-formed thought on the issue entirely of my own, which I can then refine.

So, I look at the 'theme and premise' stuff in GNS, and read it, and don't agree, and come out ahead anyway.

Like that.

Quote from: Spike'Cause if you still say they're useless, then your reputation as an open and fair minded theorist guy is a bit inflated....

:confused:

Uh, okay?

Quote from: -E.Scientific models include a vast body of scientific thought and can be "used" to design things in engineering disciplines. Economic, physical, and applied mathmatics (e.g. computer science) theories are all "scientific" theories in the common sense.

Literary and critical theories include things like aesthetics and value theory (and stuff like "film theory" and so on) and are used to analyze, understand, and judge artistic works.

Look, here's how I see things.

   Evidence #1 (from me):  I use RPG Theory to design games.

Claim #1 (from you):  Scientific theory is useful for design, critical theory is not.

Claim #2 (from you):  RPG theory is critical theory, not scientific.

Claim #1 plus claim #2 contradict evidence #1.  Right?

So here we are.  I'm not going to accept any argument that tells me that the things I know have happened can't happen.  How could you expect me to?

So if you want claim #2 then I'll ask you to give up claim #1.  I'm perfectly happy to hear that RPG theory is merely a critical theory, as long as you accept that critical theory can be used to design games.

If you want claim #1 then I'll ask you to give up claim #2.  I'm perfectly happy to hear that critical theory cannot be used to design games, as long as you accept that RPG theory is not a critical theory in that way.

Together, those two claims add up to you telling me that RPG Theory cannot be used in the way I know I've used it.  There is no word-play or semantic juggling that's going to make me okay with that claim.

So, frankly, if you're committed to making both of those arguments, together, I'll tell you right here, right now:  You are wrong.  Your theory about the world doesn't stand up to the facts.  Go back and start over.

The way you use an art theory in creation is to look at what people have done in different ways, which provides inspiration and a deeper understanding of what you're doing. It may also provide specific techniques.

So, I want to do a narrativist hack of HeroQuest. I read the primary sources and understand the author's points. Informed by this reading, I then read carefully many actual play reports, trying to glean out exactly what supports my agenda (and what to discard). I note working techniques as I find them. I participate in further seminars to clear up lurking points of confusion. I test some things I have learned in actual play.

Voila! My HQ game is markedly different to previous games I have run. I have put theory into practice. A very interesting exercise it was, too. Oh, and the game was fun....

QuoteI then read carefully many actual play reports, trying to glean out exactly what supports my agenda (and what to discard).

This concept gets a lot of emphasis from the Forge folk.  However, using these "actual play" reports to help design new games can be challenging.  To be honest, most "actual play reports" aren't nearly as useful as the title suggests.  Consider the difference between an audio recording of an actual gaming session vs. reading a forum post by the GM discussing how they felt the game went.  The actual play contains the good, the bad, and the ugly.  The "actual play reports" are often heavily biased, and miss the little details that really make a difference.

I'd *love* to get more actual examples of play.  If anyone has any links, please share. :)

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAh!  Okay, I get you.

See, from theory, what I want is to have my attention directed to places where I haven't been looking.  Sometimes, a rack of questions can do that, like those nineteen.  But usually, it occurs when someone else postulates what they think goes on it some general 'space' - and whether or not I agree with them is unimportant so long as it spurs me to think; in fact, if I vehemently disagree, that's good, because it might just cause me to spit out a fully-formed thought on the issue entirely of my own, which I can then refine.

So, I look at the 'theme and premise' stuff in GNS, and read it, and don't agree, and come out ahead anyway.

Like that.

Roger that -- and (trying to be clear here), I'm not in any way saying "Forge Theory could no-how, no-way be useful to designers."

I'm not -- clearly it has been (designers say it has).

Anything from inspiration to pointing your attention in a direction it wouldn't have gone before, to asking questions that trigger deeper thought could be of value.

I think that's especially true if you're coming at the subject from a critical perspective (as in critical thinking, rather than "skeptical") and asking reflexive (as in self-referential) questions about the questions themselves.

So I agree with all of that --

But I think there's a difference between "useful" and "used" when we're talking about applied theory.

In most disciplines, the standard for "useful" is *much* lower than the standard for applied theory.

When one applies a theory in design or engineering, that's an implicit test of the theory and it's models (we see this all the time in economics, when economists are hired as consultants to design "games" for things like bandwidth auctions).

By using the same terms in rpg theory, we're holding it to a much lower standard -- or (and I think this is the case for some folks) mistaking the theory for something it's not.

Despite my misgivings about Forge Theory, I like RPG theory; I think it's interesting and potentially useful (I'm going to put my money where my mouth is one of these days and post a set of game rules).

I don't think theorists do it any service by saying they "used the theory" to design a game when that kind of terminology is going to lead people to assume the theory does things it doesn't actually do:

Example: GNS claims that there are coherent and incoherent games and that incoherent games are bad across a spectrum of issues.

It sort of has a model -- it makes predictions, even dire ones (Brain Damage!) -- but it doesn't provide a designer with any way to actually use that idea (that there are coherent and incoherent games).

• There's no way to test a game for coherence
• The examples of coherence and incoherence are ambiguous at best
• The underlying concepts (CA's, force) are so poorly defined that there's no way to 'test' for them

A designer trying to apply GNS to his game is going to inevitably come to one conclusion: the only way to determine if a game is coherent or not is to ask the theory author... "coherence" is pure ideosyncratic opinion.

As a design principle, that's no different than saying, "Make your game good."

This sort of thing is shockingly sloppy from people who seem to want to see the state-of-the-art advanced; it goes in the wrong direction from emperical thought, back to dogma.

The Pundit talks about people being "crippled" by theory -- I wouldn't use that kind language, but I think someone trying earnestly and sincerely to figure out how to apply forge theory the usually sense of "applied theory"  would at best discover they'd wasted their time.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.By using the same terms in rpg theory, we're holding it to a much lower standard

Well now ... are you actually "using" the terms?  Or are you just applying them?  Because I don't think that by your jargon-redefinition of the word "use" you can say that the terms are being "used" here. :rolleyes:

Quote from: TonyLBLook, here's how I see things.

   Evidence #1 (from me):  I use RPG Theory to design games.

Claim #1 (from you):  Scientific theory is useful for design, critical theory is not.

Claim #2 (from you):  RPG theory is critical theory, not scientific.

Claim #1 plus claim #2 contradict evidence #1.  Right?

So here we are.  I'm not going to accept any argument that tells me that the things I know have happened can't happen.  How could you expect me to?

So if you want claim #2 then I'll ask you to give up claim #1.  I'm perfectly happy to hear that RPG theory is merely a critical theory, as long as you accept that critical theory can be used to design games.

If you want claim #1 then I'll ask you to give up claim #2.  I'm perfectly happy to hear that critical theory cannot be used to design games, as long as you accept that RPG theory is not a critical theory in that way.

Together, those two claims add up to you telling me that RPG Theory cannot be used in the way I know I've used it.  There is no word-play or semantic juggling that's going to make me okay with that claim.

So, frankly, if you're committed to making both of those arguments, together, I'll tell you right here, right now:  You are wrong.  Your theory about the world doesn't stand up to the facts.  Go back and start over.

Well, you were the one who told me that you saw RPG theory more like literary theory -- a point of agreement.

You seem to believe that literary theory can be used to write books and that rpg theory can be used to design games.

This isn't uncommon -- a lot of people would like to think literary theory can be used to write books; but that's not what literary theory is for (according to most literary theorists).

It's not hard to understand why the idea of literary theories being useful for design is attractive though: analysis is *much* easier than creation. It's also much less rigorous -- no one can tell you your "post modern, feminist assessment of Hemmingway" is wrong, or that the theory you applied to make your judgement is wrong (no one can "disprove" film theory).

Applied theories, on the other hand, can be tested and often are -- I mean, look right at GNS: it predicts that Vampire should be a horribly failed game (most likely it's no fun to play) -- right there, in the very first essay, is an acknowledgement that Vampire is successful, and some weird stuff about "economic factors."

That's probably the first example of RPG theory failing in application -- it makes predictions that the author admits aren't true (well, actually predictions that are rationalized away without explanation, but this amounts  to the same thing).

In non-rpg terms, I'm talking about nothing more esoteric or hypothetical than the difference between being a movie reviewer and being a director.

And again: this isn't my model of the world -- this a pretty standard one that's part of a generalized liberal arts education. I didn't make up the difference between critical/literary theory and applied/scientific theory... and I'm not the first person to point out that there's a difference between critics and authors.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: TonyLBWell now ... are you actually "using" the terms?  Or are you just applying them?  Because I don't think that by your jargon-redefinition of the word "use" you can say that the terms are being "used" here. :rolleyes:

My position on this isn't an attack on you and isn't an insult.

I think it's reasonable to talk about differing standards and different types of theories and how they might be applied.

When you agreed that RPG theory isn't scientific theory, what did *you* mean by that?

Cheers,
-E.

Pseudo-academics of all kinds just LOVE to have stuff they call "theory", or even "science" (this is a social SCIENCE), but the last thing that they want is that their stuff actually have to be proveable or disprovable.

Just for trying, you're clearly one of the oppressors, an agent of patriarchy, or Imperialism, or reality.. you know, the enemies of pseudoacademia.

RPGPundit

QuotePseudo-academics of all kinds just LOVE to have stuff they call "theory", or even "science" (this is a social SCIENCE), but the last thing that they want is that their stuff actually have to be proveable or disprovable.

Ok. I see.

Quote from: -E.You seem to believe that literary theory can be used to write books and that rpg theory can be used to design games.

Wow, you're right!  I do believe that RPG theory can be used to design games.

I wonder where I could possibly have gotten that idea.

Quote from: -E.

• There's no way to test a game for coherence

Sure there it.

You play it, and see if the game, played as written, does the job of informing everyone as to a single playstyle and is capable of selling players on the kind of fun that the playstyle provides.

Quote from: StuartThis concept gets a lot of emphasis from the Forge folk.  However, using these "actual play" reports to help design new games can be challenging.  To be honest, most "actual play reports" aren't nearly as useful as the title suggests.  Consider the difference between an audio recording of an actual gaming session vs. reading a forum post by the GM discussing how they felt the game went.  The actual play contains the good, the bad, and the ugly.  The "actual play reports" are often heavily biased, and miss the little details that really make a difference.

That's all quite true, but if incomplete information is all you have to go on, you use that.

The real problem with GNS is this...

From the wikipedia entry -- which I assume is most accurate or the legions of GNS fans would have corrected it by now...

    * Gamist decisions concern competition and challenge
    * Narrativist decisions concern story and theme
    * Simulationist decisions concern experience and celebration of source material

"Gamist" is a game -- even a game based on storytelling and improv.  D&D is a gamist.  Theatre Sports is gamist.

"Narrativist" isn't a game, particularly if you feel being N discounts being G or S.  Novel Writing is narrativist.

"Simulationist" isn't a game either, and it's not storytelling.  The SCA is simulationist.

GNS is fine for describing a set of activities with roleplaying as a component.  It is very poor for describing a set of games, because unless something is "G" it's not a game at all...

Think about it.  Football is a game.  If you had players make decisions NOT on playing the game but instead on creating themes (tragedy, foregiveness, etc) it would stop being a game.  However as soon as the players recieved points for these narrative elements, the narrative would become part of the competition and challenge, and the players would make decisions on football + themes in order to try and win the game.  It would be gamist again.

Quote from: Stuart"Narrativist" isn't a game, particularly if you feel being N discounts being G or S.  Novel Writing is narrativist.

Once Upon A Time is a game.  It's not an RPG, but it sure as hell is a game.

And it involves the same kind of decision-making.

So, uh, what?

Quote from: StuartThink about it.  Football is a game.  If you had players make decisions NOT on playing the game but instead on creating themes (tragedy, foregiveness, etc) it would stop being a game.  However as soon as the players recieved points for these narrative elements, the narrative would become part of the competition and challenge, and the players would make decisions on football + themes in order to try and win the game.  It would be gamist again.

Sorry, man – I can't do this Jesuitical thing. It's too futile.

QuoteOnce Upon A Time is a game. It's not an RPG, but it sure as hell is a game.

And it involves the same kind of decision-making.

So, uh, what?

Once Upon A Time is gamist.  Nothing wrong with that.

You make decisions in the game in an attempt to win the game, not to make the best story.  You won't produce any deep, moving narratives with OUAT.

In fact, this is a frequent criticism of OUAT -- the stories tend to be formulaic, and players can take steps to prevent other players jumping in.  If I say "The hero raises his *sword*" and you have the sword card, you can jump in.  If I say "The hero raises his *mace*" you can't -- there's no mace card.

QuoteSorry, man – I can't do this Jesuitical thing. It's too futile.

Never heard that term before...

QuoteAdj.   1.   Jesuitical - having qualities characteristic of Jesuits or Jesuitism; "Jesuitical education"

and at wiki...

QuoteThey have also been accused of using casuistry to obtain justifications for the unjustifiable. In several languages, "Jesuit" or "Jesuitical" therefore acquired a secondary meaning of "devious."

Classy.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSure there it.

You play it, and see if the game, played as written, does the job of informing everyone as to a single playstyle and is capable of selling players on the kind of fun that the playstyle provides.

I don't think that kind of test proves anything -- Vampire is an incoherent game according to the theory.

My experience of it was that the game, as written, met your criteria (we played vampires, it was fun).

If coherence / incoherence is something that actually exists and is an attribute of games (as in "Vampire is incoherent") then we should be able to find evidence of that in the game's rules and mechanics.

I can point to any game (including Sorcerer, GURPS, DiTV, etc.) and claim it's incoherent or coherent because of my personal experience of it or because of my interpretation of how a rules set supports an agenda.

Consider that I can make a case for DiTV being incoherent ("I say it's incoherent because the mechanic is Gamist, and the yet the flavor text and the premise is Nar") and the theory doesn't provide any guidance.

Judging a game coherent or incoherent comes down to nothing but an unsupported assertion. That's a good indication that the theory isn't actually usable (in this case, even as a critical/literary theory).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: StuartOnce Upon A Time is gamist.  Nothing wrong with that.

You make decisions in the game in an attempt to win the game, not to make the best story.  You won't produce any deep, moving narratives with OUAT.

...I'd like to throw in an "oh, really?" here, and talk about some deep narrative I've built with Once Upon A Time, but it'd be a lie; most of our games of OUAT devolve into shallow porn (I tend to play it with otherwise-all-female groups, often including a lesbian couple, so I got no complaints, but still).

I would do so in order to make a point I still believe, despite not having an easy-to-share example on hand:

It is possible for a game to be engineered so that 'smart' decisions also make good story.

Quote from: StuartThe real problem with GNS is this...

From the wikipedia entry -- which I assume is most accurate or the legions of GNS fans would have corrected it by now...

    * Gamist decisions concern competition and challenge
    * Narrativist decisions concern story and theme
    * Simulationist decisions concern experience and celebration of source material

"Gamist" is a game -- even a game based on storytelling and improv.  D&D is a gamist.  Theatre Sports is gamist.

"Narrativist" isn't a game, particularly if you feel being N discounts being G or S.  Novel Writing is narrativist.

"Simulationist" isn't a game either, and it's not storytelling.  The SCA is simulationist.

GNS is fine for describing a set of activities with roleplaying as a component.  It is very poor for describing a set of games, because unless something is "G" it's not a game at all...

Think about it.  Football is a game.  If you had players make decisions NOT on playing the game but instead on creating themes (tragedy, foregiveness, etc) it would stop being a game.  However as soon as the players recieved points for these narrative elements, the narrative would become part of the competition and challenge, and the players would make decisions on football + themes in order to try and win the game.  It would be gamist again.

The wikipedia entry is actually not correct; I dunno why no one corrected it, but that's not the way the terms are used at the forge...

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I don't think that kind of test proves anything -- Vampire is an incoherent game according to the theory.

Vampire's GM advice is what causes it's incoherence according to GNS theory.

Did your GM follow that advice as written?

QuoteIt is possible for a game to be engineered so that 'smart' decisions also make good story.

Absolutely.  No argument at all.  In fact, that's where I think people should be putting their effort -- making better games (meaning GAMES) that produce good story.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenVampire's GM advice is what causes it's incoherence according to GNS theory.

Did your GM follow that advice as written?

... yeah... I did it wasn't a problem; my guess is that in any english-language set of instructions there is room for multiple interpretations. I chose a set of interpretations that wasn't problematic.

I didn't play a whole lot of Vampire, but we did a campaign or two and found it to be a reasonable game -- certainly not the disaster GNS has it to be.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.... yeah... I did it wasn't a problem; my guess is that in any english-language set of instructions there is room for multiple interpretations. I chose a set of interpretations that wasn't problematic.

I didn't play a whole lot of Vampire, but we did a campaign or two and found it to be a reasonable game -- certainly not the disaster GNS has it to be.

So, you had a pre-plotted story along which you guided the players, carefully, using such great tools as foreshadowing, flashbacks, and...

Okay, I'll stop there.

My point is that, yes, of course, the "your game is DOOMED!" line you might occasionally hear is baloney.

But there is also stuff in Vampire: The Masquerade, specifically in the GM advice section, and very specifically where it talks about how story comes to pass in RPGs, that sucks much ass.  There have been attempts at running games directly by those guidelines that have led to really shitty play.

The thing I found *wrong* with Vampire was that the game text suggested game mechanics would revolve around social machinations, and a more subtle approach to interacting with others in the game.  The reality was that it was full of swords, guns and cool powers.  If the combat emphasis had been replaced with rules to support other approaches, it would have worked a lot better.

I don't think it had anything to do with G vs N vs S though...

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSo, you had a pre-plotted story along which you guided the players, carefully, using such great tools as foreshadowing, flashbacks, and...

Okay, I'll stop there.

My point is that, yes, of course, the "your game is DOOMED!" line you might occasionally hear is baloney.

But there is also stuff in Vampire: The Masquerade, specifically in the GM advice section, and very specifically where it talks about how story comes to pass in RPGs, that sucks much ass.  There have been attempts at running games directly by those guidelines that have led to really shitty play.

The big GNS essay defines two kinds of Incoherence--one is where the game is substantially broken and is unplayable in some (meaningful) sense.

The other is a clash of agendas. In this case, Narrativist setting and Simulationist rules.

You can argue for the first case (V:tM is, as written, unplayable) because railroading is dysfunctional in any CA (unless you're in the Sim is okay if it's railroaded camp, something a lot of people do believe--which makes dysfunctional Nar functional Sim and leads to the idea that GNS says all kinds of bad things about Sim-play).

In the second case, though, Narrativist fluff (you're a vampire) and Sim game mechanics (real-world physics) is the one that is discussed in the essays.

Playing a game this way (I played GURPS V:tM which did not contain, as far as I recall, the same V:tM game advice) is still incoherent under GNS terms. That wasn't my experience either (the game didn't degenerate into power-struggle, there wasn't an on-going war with the GM vs. the players, there was no pre-planed plot).

At any rate, testing your game isn't a way to determine if the game is coherent or not (according to Ron). It takes hundreds of hours of observation and a proper assessment of the CA's attempted and the CA's supported by the rules.

There simply is no way to do this. Tony, for example, can't distinguish between Gamism and Narrativism in Capes (and, he says--and I'm inclined to believe him, neither can anyone else). I don't think when I play GURPS there's any clear distinction between Sim and Nar play (and same for Sorcerer and Dogs).

I believe that outside of "the game is too broken to play" (which may be the case with the GM adivice) the fundamental theoritical use of the term Incoherent isn't spelled out enough to be useful or objective in any sense.

I don't think the theory is ... coherent.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoYou can argue for the first case (V:tM is, as written, unplayable) because railroading is dysfunctional in any CA (unless you're in the Sim is okay if it's railroaded camp, something a lot of people do believe--which makes dysfunctional Nar functional Sim and leads to the idea that GNS says all kinds of bad things about Sim-play).

Honestly?

I believe what Forge theory says about Narrativism.

And that is all.  That's the base sytle there, and they know it front to back.  What they say about the rest, I ward off with the mystic element of handwavium.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHonestly?

I believe what Forge theory says about Narrativism.

Including when it says a given instance of play is (or isn't) Nar, and when it says a given game is (or isn't) Nar-facilitating?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHonestly?

I believe what Forge theory says about Narrativism.

And that is all.  That's the base sytle there, and they know it front to back.  What they say about the rest, I ward off with the mystic element of handwavium.

I'd say: the Forge is on to something about premise and addressing it. However: that doesn't necessiarily make Vampire "incoherent" and it doesn't mean you can point to mechanic X and mechanic Y and say "This makes the game problematic because the Address of Premise facilitated by X will get in the way of the Gamism facilitated by Y."

This has been tried to death with Riddle of Steel. The GM-advice there isn't Narrativist (it isn't utterly railroady advice, in fact, it's, IMO, decent advice--but it isn't distinctly Narrativist either). People (top-10 posters) have told me that "I'm playing it wrong if I don't play to the point of having SA's completely eclipse the tactical element inherent in the combat system."

So, no. Some of what Forge Theory says about Narrativism is on the money, IMO. But all of it? Or even major segments? I don't think so (OtE is Narrativist, because the setting winds up challenging the character about the basic nature of reality--I think that's ... highly questionable).

I also don't think that anything discussed on The Forge at any time is a good way to describe 'Forge Theory.' If I've never heard of the short-story ... and every time I wind up trying to pad out my 30 page narrative, it sucks, I could claim that my trip to the bookstore helped me design my novel when I discovered a book of short fiction and heard a discussion about book types I term 'Barnes and Nobles-theory.'

And I'd be right to claim that in a very foggy sense--but I think it would be stretching the words "theory" and "design" unnecessarily. There's a middle ground somewhere there--but if Forge Theory doesn't refer to GNS/TBM theory and a pretty distinct collection of related terms (pretty much in the articles section) then I'd question (but ... not actually condemn) the usage as being unnecessarily vague.

-Marco

Quote from: Elliot WilenIncluding when it says a given instance of play is (or isn't) Nar, and when it says a given game is (or isn't) Nar-facilitating?

If I say that Dragonraid is excellent for my trivialist agenda because it allows me to answer trivia Bible questions in order to successfully use abilities...  ...Sure, I'm being odd.  But, it's my agenda - it's proprietary, in a fashion.  So, I'm right.

We don't get to tell people that they're wrong about their own playstyle, unless we want to be assholes.

I can say that I play in a style that Ron calls Narrativism (true), but which doesn't match all particulars of GNS Narrativism in terms of what fits and what doesn't, and how it fits or doesn't (also true).  It's my playstyle; I call it "my playstyle" rather than calling it Narrativism, so as to not confuse the already-confused issue.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSo, you had a pre-plotted story along which you guided the players, carefully, using such great tools as foreshadowing, flashbacks, and...

Okay, I'll stop there.

My point is that, yes, of course, the "your game is DOOMED!" line you might occasionally hear is baloney.

But there is also stuff in Vampire: The Masquerade, specifically in the GM advice section, and very specifically where it talks about how story comes to pass in RPGs, that sucks much ass.  There have been attempts at running games directly by those guidelines that have led to really shitty play.

... Incoherence (in GNS) isn't the same thing as "shitty GM advice."

Coherent games can have shitty GM advice. Coherent games could be railroaded.

But beyond the definitions (which are famously hard to figure out) -- I asked if it were possible to test for incoherence; you told me that playing the game would perform the test.

But is that *really* the only way to test?

If I'm a new game designer who's run into GNS and I'm worried that my game might be Incoherent, is the only way to find out to conduct a wide variety of playtests and determine if ongoing powerstruggle is the most-likely result?

How many tests would I have to do? How many were done to determine that Vampire is Incoherent? Since games like Sorcerer have been played *orders of magnitude* less than Vampire, how do we know that they're coherent? Maybe the sample size is just too small?

Of course there aren't any answers to any of this.

GNS Coherence judgements are made informally based on textual analysis all the time -- just exactly the same way you asked me if I used the GM's advice.

That's because the informal definition of GNS Incoherence is something like, "bad." or -- more specifically -- "implies a traditional GM and places value on story" because GNS views the GM role as a magnet for power struggle.

If this were baked into the theory in a formal way, you could have an actual model:

"Games with a traditional GM that recommend the GM have a story in mind are likely to cause power struggle."

I don't think this quite... revolutionary enough for GNS to bother with -- and, of course, it's still wrong (games don't cause power struggle... missmatched expectations don't even cause power struggle -- and certainly on-going powerstruggle is purely the responsibility of the people involved).

But to be an actionable theory, the concept that there's something called Sim and something else called Nar and games that sort-of / halfway cater to both cause powerstruggle requires definitions of

* Sim
* Nar
* How games cater to one or the other

That simply don't exist. It's not a design principle without this.

Cheers,
-E.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.(games don't cause power struggle... missmatched expectations don't even cause power struggle -- and certainly on-going powerstruggle is purely the responsibility of the people involved).

"Mismatched Expectations" is pretty close to "Incoherence", in that terminology set.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen:confused:

Uh, okay?

To clarify: He stated a bunch of things that he though DitV was about, you dismissed them out of hand because he didn't design the game.  I suggest that if you continue to dismiss them as unimportant if he uses those 'about' things IN PLAY that you have essentially gone into the closed minded set, thus are not 'open minded'. After all, what people do 'at the table' is pretty damned important for game theory in some regards... yes?

Your 'it doesn't matter because you didn't design the game' struck me as completely out of character for what you are normally about. that's all.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen"Mismatched Expectations" is pretty close to "Incoherence", in that terminology set.

Sort of.

TBM/GNS poses a pretty dark view of games and gamers. According to GNS, there are these 3 CA's and they're incompatable; the proposed solution is not to game together. On the topic of adjusting the game to suit dynamic goals and player desires, TBM/GNS is equally dismal: it can be done ("drift"), but this causes "degredation."

Compare this to other theories--say, yours: people have different approaches people can get along. When drift happens it's fundamentally okay and usually the result of people taking the game in a fun direction.

Both of these theories address a real issue: missmatched expectations and goals within a group. They take very different approaches to the outcome.

This isn't a minor point of disagreement:

Accepting that GNS-Inoherence exists means accepting it's stark, anti-social nature of gaming.

Using the term informally to mean "missmatched expectations" means selling out on the idea that the theory represents deep, useful thought -- it's just jargon that's used instead of plain english.

It sounds to me like you'd prefer to take the second approach: to ignore the more strident and hysterical (brain damage) parts of the theory and use it as shorthand for a relatively tame concept ("People have different desires; this can cause conflict...")

I think this is probably a good social approach: what I'm doing isn't getting me invited to The Forge booth or making me popular over on Story Games.

But -- and this is completely sincere -- I think treating the theory seriously and not using terms informally -- is actually *good* for theory as a whole. It might not be so good for GNS (that stuff is embarassing, at best, to the community), but if you're not going to use those terms the way they're formally defined, why have them at all?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: SpikeTo clarify: He stated a bunch of things that he though DitV was about, you dismissed them out of hand because he didn't design the game.

He gave answers to one of a set of questions specifically and clearly intended as a design tool, and asked me how his answers measured up in the context of using that tool.

In that specific context, the answers can't be measured.  

Not "they're bad answer" - just "doing this, in this way, makes no sense".

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHe gave answers to one of a set of questions specifically and clearly intended as a design tool, and asked me how his answers measured up in the context of using that tool.

In that specific context, the answers can't be measured.  

Not "they're bad answer" - just "doing this, in this way, makes no sense".

I think design tools can be used analytically on finished products.

If the concepts behind the questions are meaningful and valid, I think I ought to be able to look at how they were applied -- at very least to focused games.

Is DiTV "about" something in the sense of the Power 19? Does it's resolution mechanic reenforce what it's about?

My honest answer is: I'm not sure.

In engineering and art (you used the color theory example), I can look at theories that were used on certain finished products and the exercise deepens my understanding of the theory.

I'm not sure how to do that with the Power 19 and a game like DiTV.

Don't get me wrong: I can come up with an answer, and build an explanation around it that kind of makes sense. But I can do that with any *number* of answers.

This makes me *skeptical* that the concept of a game being "about" something and the resolution mechanic supporting it is really fleshed out.

I think there are a lot of theory people who would like that to be true -- but I don't think they've done the work necessary to help a game designer apply that concept. Trying to use the *concepts* with successful games, I'm lost:

Champions is about playing super heros... how does the resolution mechanic support that? Call of Cthulhu is about playing investigators... how does the resolution mechanic support that?

Can you answer these question? Or do they not apply to games like Hero and Champions? Or does a game's aboutness/resolution mechanic only apply to games you're making -- and make no sense when looking at other games.

If that's the case, then it seems like a dead end: I may make a game, think it's "about X" and think "here's how the resolution mechanic supports X" -- but if it's all intensely personal, then why bother? The players of my games will all have their own answers and they may find that my resolution mechanic absolutely does not work for whatever they think the game is about (or even if they agree on aboutness, they may not agree about the supporting relationship).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I think design tools can be used analytically on finished products.

Okay.  In this case, I don't agree.  The tool is useful, to me, for design.  I don't see any benefit in using it for analysis.

Quote from: -E.If that's the case, then it seems like a dead end: I may make a game, think it's "about X" and think "here's how the resolution mechanic supports X" -- but if it's all intensely personal, then why bother?

Because it's useful to get new perspectives on your own design?

QuoteCan you answer these question? Or do they not apply to games like Hero and Champions? Or does a game's aboutness/resolution mechanic only apply to games you're making -- and make no sense when looking at other games.

If you changed your POV it could work... you could apply aboutness/resolution mechanics to any game... but you need to abandon the GNS idea that Narrative games are not games.

A game about tactics should have resolution mechanics based on good tactical decisions.  Like most war games.

A game about improvisation should have resolution mechanics based on good performances.  Like Theatre Sports.

A game about storytelling should have resolution mechanics based on successful storytelling.  I don't think there's as many successful storytelling games as people believe... but if the game is about storytelling, then being a good storyteller should lead to success at the game.

Quote from: StuartA game about tactics should have resolution mechanics based on good tactical decisions.  Like most war games.

A game about improvisation should have resolution mechanics based on good performances.  Like Theatre Sports.

A game about storytelling should have resolution mechanics based on successful storytelling.  I don't think there's as many successful storytelling games as people believe... but if the game is about storytelling, then being a good storyteller should lead to success at the game.

By that measure, DitV would be about "How much of your character are you willing to risk for this?"

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOkay.  In this case, I don't agree.  The tool is useful, to me, for design.  I don't see any benefit in using it for analysis.

Because it's useful to get new perspectives on your own design?

The analysis is used (amongst other things) to validate that the design principle works. If games can actually be "about" something, we should be able to use the design principle to look at games and observe that.

In terms of getting perspective, would *any* question about your game ("What is your game's cardinal direction? What is your game's polarity?") yeild the same level of perspective?

If not, then there's something about "aboutness" and "supporting aboutness" that's implied somewhere -- that's where the deep thinking takes place, yeah?

Where is that body of thought and theory?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: StuartIf you changed your POV it could work... you could apply aboutness/resolution mechanics to any game... but you need to abandon the GNS idea that Narrative games are not games.

A game about tactics should have resolution mechanics based on good tactical decisions.  Like most war games.

A game about improvisation should have resolution mechanics based on good performances.  Like Theatre Sports.

A game about storytelling should have resolution mechanics based on successful storytelling.  I don't think there's as many successful storytelling games as people believe... but if the game is about storytelling, then being a good storyteller should lead to success at the game.

... okay -- that seems pretty vague to me (and about at the level of most rpg theory).

I don't disagree with it, but I don't think it's especially insightful: sort of along the lines of saying, "Movies that are character studies should have interesting characters."

Yeah... but that's not a design principle.

I've been told the Power 19 can apply to designing games. I'm trying to apply it: but when they ask, "What is your game about?" I'm not sure what they mean.

I'm told "Pirates" is a "stupid" answer... okay -- so, why is it stupid? I'm not being dense -- can't a game be about Pirates?

If we can't look at existing games (Hero, DiTV) and figure out what they're about, then that suggests to me that the idea that a game can really be "about" anything is flawed.

And if I assert that DiTV is about "Mormons" and I'm told it's "about 'how much would you risk for '" and there's *no way* for us to have a conversation about which of us is right (or if either of us are right), then I don't see this concept as being useful in design.

Let me suggest this another way:

Let's say I'm thinking about doing DiTV in D20. Power 19 asks if the resolution mechanic (1d20 + modifiers, roll-over) supports what the game is "about."

Does it? I have no idea... and I know the theory pretty well.

How would I apply the Power 19 in this situation?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Where is that body of thought and theory?

Let me be really clear:

Even if such a body of thought existed, I would refuse to accept it.

A body of theory attempting to create a fixed and predictive model of the full range of possible content in RPGs is a body of theory doomed to failure.  Attempts to create fixed models, if followed clearly, only calcify the thinking of those using such models exclusively, for as long as they continue to use them.

A community of theory containing multiple contradictory thoughts, in tension, does not suffer this problem.  But most communities of theory don't retain that tension - which is why I spend as much time reading here as on Story-Games.

I maintain a personal community under tension.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenLet me be really clear:

Even if such a body of thought existed, I would refuse to accept it.

A body of theory attempting to create a fixed and predictive model of the full range of possible content in RPGs is a body of theory doomed to failure.  Attempts to create fixed models, if followed clearly, only calcify the thinking of those using such models exclusively, for as long as they continue to use them.

A community of theory containing multiple contradictory thoughts, in tension, does not suffer this problem.  But most communities of theory don't retain that tension - which is why I spend as much time reading here as on Story-Games.

I maintain a personal community under tension.

I think there's something between

"Nothing exists. these terms have no meaning and no deep, reflective thougth behind them."

and

"Theory must be completely comprehensive and deterministic."

A request that the theory say something specific or even be clear isn't a demand that it be "fixed" and predictive of "the full range of possibilities."

Do you really think that by asking questions like what the Power 19 means when it says a game is 'about' something I'm asking for an extreme, and finalized model?

I assure you, I'm not.

But c'mon -- does saying a game is "about" something mean anything?

You said earlier that saying "My game is about Pirates and uses a roll under mechanic" was a stupid answer.

On what grounds? Why was that stupid? Is that just a personal judgement or does theory help with this?

Because if theory doesn't help distinguish stupid answers from not-stupid ones, then how does one apply it?

Cheers,
-E.

QuoteBy that measure, DitV would be about "How much of your character are you willing to risk for this?"

I don't know DitV enough to comment.

QuoteI'm told "Pirates" is a "stupid" answer... okay -- so, why is it stupid? I'm not being dense -- can't a game be about Pirates?

Ok, the theme is pirates -- but what's the game?  The theme in a classic Chess game is medieval, you can buy a Simpson's Chess set and it's the same game.

QuoteI don't disagree with it, but I don't think it's especially insightful: sort of along the lines of saying, "Movies that are character studies should have interesting characters."

I don't just mean the theme.  I'm not saying a game "about" Pirates should have Pirates in it. (Although "Dungeons & Dragons" seems to have a lot fewer Dungeons and Dragons than I remember... :D)

What I'm saying is if the game itself -- the gameplay -- the challenges the players are trying to overcome -- THAT should be supported by the resolution mechanics.

If this were my "theory" I wouldn't talk about "aboutness" and resolution mechanics.  I'd probably say something more straight forward like:  If you want a game about (tactics/storytelling/acting/luck), then make success at challenges to (tactics/storytelling/acting/luck) lead to success in the game.

Quote from: StuartOk, the theme is pirates -- but what's the game?  The theme in a classic Chess game is medieval, you can buy a Simpson's Chess set and it's the same game.

I don't just mean the theme.  I'm not saying a game "about" Pirates should have Pirates in it. (Although "Dungeons & Dragons" seems to have a lot fewer Dungeons and Dragons than I remember... :D)

What I'm saying is if the game itself -- the gameplay -- the challenges the players are trying to overcome -- THAT should be supported by the resolution mechanics.

If this were my "theory" I wouldn't talk about "aboutness" and resolution mechanics.  I'd probably say something more straight forward like:  If you want a game about (tactics/storytelling/acting/luck), then make success at challenges to (tactics/storytelling/acting/luck) lead to success in the game.

In my experience, in a roleplaying game -- even a pretty narrow one like Call of Cthulhu or James Bond -- the challenges and themes varry *wildly* from game to game...

Sometimes there are a lot of gunfights. Sometimes there's slow, creeping personal horror. Sometimes there's nothing but dialog, and so-on. Sometimes the conflicts come from the outside. Sometimes, from within.

I'm not talking about rules-set to rules-set. I'm not even talking about campaign to campaign. I'm talking about session-to-session.

So when someone asks what a game is "about" I don't know how to answer in the framework you're using: today it's about "what would you sacrifice for love." Last week it was about, "How many Viper Agents can I kill?" Next week, it'll be about something different.

That's why I think the Power 19 is probably a bad way to go about designing a game: the 'aboutness' in terms of challenges and conflicts of any play session comes overwhelmingly from the players -- not the game system (and I maintain that's true, overwhelmingly, for rpg's. Even the Indie ones, like Sorcerer and DiTV).

I'm not convinced that the mechanics have any direct relationship to "aboutness" and that implying they do (as the Power 19 does) is actually based on a misunderstanding of the role of game-designer in game play.

But maybe I'm wrong: that's why I'm asking the questions.

Cheers,
-E.

QuoteSo when someone asks what a game is "about" I don't know how to answer in the framework you're using: today it's about "what would you sacrifice for love." Last week it was about, "How many Viper Agents can I kill?" Next week, it'll be about something different.

I think this is both a strength and weakness of many RPGs.  Some are not games at all -- they're toolkits for creating games.  That can be great -- it gives people more options.  It can also be bad, because people who are looking to play "a game" don't  immediately get their needs met -- and some of the "games" built with the toolkit are both better constructed than others, and also more or less in line with what the player was hoping for.

Beyond thinking of RPGs as toolkits for games, I do think there are some things that are built into the system that make them better suited to creating games "about" certain things.

For example -- Vampire: The Masquerade
Does this look right?  "If you want a game about Storytelling, personal horror, etc, then make success at challenges to Stat Optimization and Dice Based Combat system lead to success in the game."

To me, it doesn't look like it's setup properly. ;)

Pish.

Wargames have rules. Improv doesn't.

Adding rules for the improve bits is ass backwards gamer thinking.

You get a wargame about arguments. Woot.

It's a useful crutch for people who arn't creative enough to do their own acting, but a skilled player won't need it.

Quote from: -E.Do you really think that by asking questions like what the Power 19 means when it says a game is 'about' something I'm asking for an extreme, and finalized model?

I assure you, I'm not.

*Snip*

Because if theory doesn't help distinguish stupid answers from not-stupid ones, then how does one apply it?

I despair of this line of thinking; I honestly believe that you're chasing a dead end here - that you want RPG theory to be something fundamentally different from what it is, and are trying to cast it in your terms.  In your terms, it is a complete failure.  So, if you are willing to accept that it has produced useful concepts, you need to change your terms.

So I'm trying to point at another set...

Here's a theory, Forge-type (my terminology):

It is useful for a designer to clearly answer "Who are the characters?" and "What kinds of things do they do?".  By answering this question, the designer creates a common foundation - a consensus of action - among players.  By studying existing games, a designer can learn the kinds of things that characters do in those games that players tend to enjoy, and in what combinations, allowing the designer to give answers that appeal.

Here's another theory, Pundit-type (my terminology):

It is useful for a designer to understand that most gaming groups, seeking their own consensus of action inside a game, will come to their own agreement as to who the characters are and what kinds of things they do.  A good design, therefore, is broad enough in terms of material and style to allow groups and GMs to create the game they want - no designer will ever know another group well enough to fine-tune a game for them perfectly.

These theories are both sensible.  They are usually portrayed as conflicting.

They are better because they conflict.

QuotePish.

Wargames have rules. Improv doesn't.

Adding rules for the improve bits is ass backwards gamer thinking.

You get a wargame about arguments. Woot.

:D

Not sure if you're serious or not... but I'll raise you a Tish Tosh. :D

Games have rules.  Improv doesn't.  If someone wants to talk about Roleplaying Improv, then they're right.  And that might be a really fun activity, and I'm not disparaging it... but if we're not talking about roleplaying games... well... WTF?

Wargames?  You decide!
* Charades
* I Spy
* Simon Says
* Hide and Seek
* Pictionary
* Blackjack
* etc etc etc

:domokun:

Quote from: StuartWargames?  You decide!
* Charades
* I Spy
* Simon Says
* Pictionary

Well, with these the rules are intended to encourage interaction instead of replace it.

In depth rules to social interaction would be like adding in depth rules to replace drawing pictures in Pictionary  (I roll my Draw a Donkey skill to Draw a Donkey - I get a six' 'you draw a donkey' 'Bitchin!' - worse than pointless.

In short, you can focus on roleplaying, and reward it, and focus on it, without a involved mechanical system for actually doing it (lets play football! I roll a 9 on my dribble! I get a six for my challenge! Excellent!).

I don't think we're disagreeing at all.  :)

I'm going to go back to my micro-theory:
If you want a game about Improvisational Acting, make success at challenges to Improvisational Acting lead to success in the game.

You would NOT make stat optimization and dice rolling, instead of improvisational acting, lead to success in the game.

If you don't want a game at all, and just want to do some Improvisational Acting?  That's cool too.

In the Improv. Acting game, you really want to make sure players can't just number crunch and dice roll their way to success.  Like in Vampire.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI despair of this line of thinking; I honestly believe that you're chasing a dead end here - that you want RPG theory to be something fundamentally different from what it is, and are trying to cast it in your terms.  In your terms, it is a complete failure.  So, if you are willing to accept that it has produced useful concepts, you need to change your terms.

So I'm trying to point at another set...

In *my* terms?

Hmm... I didn't create the Power 19. I didn't ask question 11.

I just asked what it meant, how it might be used, and if the concepts it hints at could be applied to games I see around me.

Is that really so hopeless? Are there no answers to these basic questions?

I'd like to talk about the (less problematic) questions you've pointed to in a second, but before we move on, I'd like to know if I'm understanding this right: what I'm getting is that theory provides no answers -- even basic ones -- to how Question 11 might be answered or used, or how it's answer might help a game designer.

Do I have that right?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.what I'm getting is that theory provides no answers -- even basic ones -- to how Question 11 might be answered or used, or how it's answer might help a game designer.

Do I have that right?

It provides multiple conflicting answers.

No one of which I'm interested in speaking for - it's the whole mass of them that makes it useful to me.

Quote from: StuartIn the Improv. Acting game, you really want to make sure players can't just number crunch and dice roll their way to success.  Like in Vampire.

Nah man - because of the rules lite approch of things like Vampire and DnD you have to rely on your acting ability for talky bits, while in something with 'Social Conflict' rules, like, say forgy games, you can totally munchkin the speaking parts, relying on stats and feats instead of talking.

Course, some lesser beings may think that Talking Munchkins are better than Combat Wombats, but, lets face it, most people arn't very bright.

In short, DnD is the ideal roleplayers game, and once the forgers get the hang of improv their games will likly get more like it.

Quote from: StuartI think this is both a strength and weakness of many RPGs.  Some are not games at all -- they're toolkits for creating games.  That can be great -- it gives people more options.  It can also be bad, because people who are looking to play "a game" don't  immediately get their needs met -- and some of the "games" built with the toolkit are both better constructed than others, and also more or less in line with what the player was hoping for.

Beyond thinking of RPGs as toolkits for games, I do think there are some things that are built into the system that make them better suited to creating games "about" certain things.

For example -- Vampire: The Masquerade
Does this look right?  "If you want a game about Storytelling, personal horror, etc, then make success at challenges to Stat Optimization and Dice Based Combat system lead to success in the game."

To me, it doesn't look like it's setup properly. ;)

First: toolkit games? Like fudge? I'm not sure what other tool kit games are out there -- just to be clear: you're not talking about, say, D&D or GURPS or whatever, right? Or are you?

I think that, for almost any game, except maybe Host a Murder, people are going to have to do some prep work, so I'm not sure where you're drawing a line.

In terms of V:tM -- I don't think success at dice based combat is in any way a problem with personal horror and story telling...

Really.

How can I think such a thing?

Well, here's how I look at it: people don't need special rules or mechanics or reward systems to tell stories. They do it all the time without games or dice, or anything.

So "storytelling rules" seems -- to me -- to be unnecessary.

But figuring out if a character in a story wins a fight or survives a fall, or can hold his breath underwater (fighting, falling, and drowning -- three rules all good games should have ;) ) might be more tricky.

Having some guidelines for that are things I find helpful.

Vampire (and a lot of traditional games) work exactly as I need them to: they provide rules for things I want rules for (fighting, falling, and drownding) and they stay away from things I don't want rules for (Story telling, most social interactions, etc.)

I can see how folks might have other preferences, but there's certainly nothing objectively wrong with the choices Vampire made--in fact, for a game of personal horror, I don't see a set of choices that would make it better for me.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Erik BoielleIn short, DnD is the ideal roleplayers game, and once the forgers get the hang of improv their games will likly get more like it.

If you think that Improv has no rules...

...I'd like an invitation to your universe.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIf you think that Improv has no rules...

...I'd like an invitation to your universe.

It has rules, but they are there to encourage acting instead of replace it.

(football has rules, but they are 'if you kick the ball over the line you get a point', rather than 'once you reach shooting position, roll a vs. test on 3D6 against the goalkeeper to score'.)

Similarly with acting games. Roll 6+ to act would be a silly rule.

Quote from: Erik BoielleIt has rules, but they are there to encourage acting instead of replace it.

Right.

So, why would the RPG rules to encourage the same thing necessarily need to involve making rolls, using mechanics, etc?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenRight.

So, why would the RPG rules to encourage the same thing necessarily need to involve making rolls, using mechanics, etc?

They wouldn't, so why would adding (in depth) social combat mechanics to vampire make it better?

A lot of forgy games just have rules intended to spark the imagination (like having the audience shout ideas about where the bit will go on Whose Line Is It Anyway). I mean, if you need that, fine, but once you get the hang of it you'll find you can fly without the crutch, as it were.

Like you do in DnD.

Don't worry - if you work hard you'll get the hang of it!



:0)

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIt provides multiple conflicting answers.

No one of which I'm interested in speaking for - it's the whole mass of them that makes it useful to me.

Ah -- okay. Now I'm following you. I think that knowing a wide variety of theory is good. Certainly in management and communcation disciplines, as well as engineering (the areas I'm professionally familiar with), theories don't agree with each other and offer very different approaches to the same problems.

But each individual theory does answer those basic questions -- theories may not agree, but they are internally consistent and reasonably complete.

In my read of forge theory none of those multiple, conflicting answers actually answer the questions I've posed. Instead of multiple answers, I can't even find one set of good ones.

Where are you looking? And if you were recommending forge theory to a new designer, where would you send him to find insight into Question 11?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Where are you looking? And if you were recommending forge theory to a new designer, where would you send him to find insight into Question 11?

For that one, I look straight at rulebooks and look for the mechanism that doesn't look like it was meant to fade into the background - the nail that seems to stick out...

Call of Cthulhu is, to me, mechanically about sanity and how it erodes when you face the Unspeakable.

Amber is about secrets, absolutes, and creative, clever maneuvering.

The Mountain Witch is about trust.

Twilight: 2000 is about details - a set of details that I think the designers chose to make it feel real.

D&D is about heroic adventure.

d20 isn't about anything, but lends itself best to a progression that makes characters larger than life.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenTwilight: 2000 is about details - a set of details that I think the designers chose to make it feel real.

I think that might show the value of obfucating your real intention a bit - for is not the true key that Twilight 2000 PCs can take about ten times as much damage as NPCs. It doesn't actually Say that the idea is to cruise across a lawless europe leaving a bloody trail of eastern european corpses behind you, but...

Similarly, Vampire doesn't Say its about playing bad ass hip vampires in goth gear with a trenchcoat and a katana, and you don't have to play it that way, but...

And CoC doesn't Say it's about mowing down deep ones with a tommy gun, but that's certainly an option.

I think for real popularity you want to aim for something that looks deep, but really allows kewl play.

Its also why new editions intended to make things more how they Should be arn't as much fun as the original.

Dogs in the Vinyard does pretty well at this. Mormon gunslinger exorcists yo.

Quote from: Erik BoielleI think for real popularity you want to aim for something that looks deep, but really allows kewl play.

Just a little above, I rambled a little about the tension between 'clear focus' and 'group-made focus'?

Yeah.  I think this is related to that.

Hi,

I'm going to gingerly step over the whole whether theory is good thing....

I just want to address a point (I think John?) brought up on the first page, since I was the one who wrote the quote that started this whole thing off..

Quote from: jhkimPersonally, I think Kubasik's analogy is broken.  I find that the typical Forge games like Dogs in the Vineyard or Polaris are very little like stage drama, because they have a strong emphasis on narrated action rather than in-character dialogue.  Rather than just role-play out an argument as dialogue, you have to roll your dice and do your Raises or But-Only-If's or whatnot.

I may not have said it well, but my concern wasn't about whether or not there was dialogue between characters. The tradition of Dramatic Narrative is the tradition of charcters interacting with each other directly in conflict. That was the point I was making.

In Dogs, whether or not that the Players speak out the conflict's dialogue, the game's focus is the conflict at hand between characters and the resolution of that conflict.

The same thing holds true in cinema, which draws most of its discipline from theater, but played out in a different form. What matters most is how characters interact with each other in conflict. Often the interaction happens without dialogue (whether in acts of violence or a simple look from a woman trying to seduce a married many trying to remain faithful.)

So, dialogue isn't the key. Direct conflict between characters being the focus of the narrative is. Dogs does this in spades.

Quote from: jhkimI don't think the simple binary split works.  Larps are different than D&D, which are different than Forge games which are different than Amber.

Finally, I wasn't trying to make a direct one to one correlation between these two styles of narrative (Dramatic Narrative and Novelistic Narrative) to "Forge Style" games and non-"Forge Style" Games (whatever the heck Forge Style means these days anyway.)

Different games and groups can draw on these two traditions however they want. My only point is that we are drawing on these traditions, and by thinking through how each of these narrative forms is constructed and used, we can better get the effects we want for our games.

I did address how some games (which are part of "Forge Games") use hardcore dramatic narrative techniques (again, pushing the story through characters in conflict with each other), but I was addressing my comments in the context of RPG.net, where people like, say, Plume, are utterly baffled that anyone would drive a story with conflict. I was just saying, "Hey, we've got centuries upon centuries of storytelling craft doing just that. It's called Dramatic Narrative and it works just fine.

Christopher

Quote from: Christopher KubasikHi

Word up.

QuoteI was just saying, "Hey, we've got centuries upon centuries of storytelling craft doing just that. It's called Dramatic Narrative and it works just fine.

I agree. The distinction between storytelling and soap opera melodrama styles really spoke to me, which is why I brought it up. But in part, it was the story telling aspect that interested me - as you say, soap opera melodrama isn't the only way of telling stories, and in many ways its this other aspect that interests me - give me a character and a conflict and some booze and I can discover long lost evil twins and murders my brothers all day, but attempts at a more considered style tend to be more difficult. Then again, the improv sucks alot as well, so maybe one just needs new techniques.

It suggest there might be an alternative to the forges domatic rejection of prewritten scenarios frex (which is doubly odd because to an extent most forge games Are one shot/con scenarios).

Quote from: Levi KornelsenFor that one, I look straight at rulebooks and look for the mechanism that doesn't look like it was meant to fade into the background - the nail that seems to stick out...

Call of Cthulhu is, to me, mechanically about sanity and how it erodes when you face the Unspeakable.

Amber is about secrets, absolutes, and creative, clever maneuvering.

The Mountain Witch is about trust.

Twilight: 2000 is about details - a set of details that I think the designers chose to make it feel real.

D&D is about heroic adventure.

d20 isn't about anything, but lends itself best to a progression that makes characters larger than life.

Thanks for this.

I find your conclusions *interesting* and a dialog around them would certainly be useful in game design -- but I was actually looking for some guidance from the theory itself: a post or essay or blog entry about how to conduct the assessment of what a game is "about."

Looking at your answers, I would give very different answers than you have for the games I'm familiar with (I would answer especially differently about T2K and CoC). If "aboutness" is important in design, different answers could be very meaningful:

CoC is a popular game -- a game designer might do well to study it and learn from it. If theory points the way and brings out the key factors in what makes it so widely praised and played, theory is very valuable...

But trying to apply the theory (as you've done here) gets us back to where we started:

If all estimations of "aboutness" are highly personal and the the theory doesn't give you any framework for making them or assessing them, then you can't really use the theory to help *answer* questions.

It also doesn't explain why CoC is a successful game; why most people have never heard of Moutain Witch.

Maybe theory can suggest some questions to *ask* ("Think about who the characters are and what they do...") but I still don't think any other discipline would consider those questions (absent guidance answering them) a "design" theory.

Architecture asks questions about what a building will be used for, how it will fit into the existing skyline, and what sort of emotional impact it should have on people who see it and enter it...

But architecture doesn't stop there. It tells you how to use material, shape, and rules of composition to achieve the goal of a functional and beautiful building.

Computer Science asks questions about user requirements, priorities, and leverage of investment... but computer science theories also provides frameworks for answering those.

Color theory asks about what meaning you want to convey with colors -- but it tells you which colors and pallets (historically) help do that.

Forge Theory may have some of the questions, but with none of the answers, I think it falls in a fundamentally different category from other theories used in design.

Again: that doesn't mean it's not valuable -- asking some interesting questions doesn't hurt... but if saying "I used RPG theory to make my Pirates Game" means something very different from "I used Component Theory to design my program" or "I used color theory to make my web page" I suggest using a different terminology.

Either that, or develop actual, usable RPG design theories.

And -- finally (you didn't respond to this point earlier) -- I suggest using the terms defined by the theory as exactly as possible. Even when they're insulting or stupid (Incoherence). It might seem like asking people to use the theory exactly is an attack on the theory, but it's not: it's actually a desire to make the theory into something more useful. It's a  measure of respect.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.And -- finally (you didn't respond to this point earlier) -- I suggest using the terms defined by the theory as exactly as possible. Even when they're insulting or stupid (Incoherence). It might seem like asking people to use the theory exactly is an attack on the theory, but it's not: it's actually a desire to make the theory into something more useful. It's a  measure of respect.

It is, indeed, a measure of respect to do so.

My misuse of the terms that I hate is a form of deliberate disrespect for those terms.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenMy misuse of the terms that I hate is a form of deliberate disrespect for those terms.

Pundit is Levi and Levi, Pundit?  I feel there is deep understanding at the heart of this matter.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIt is, indeed, a measure of respect to do so.

My misuse of the terms that I hate is a form of deliberate disrespect for those terms.

Sarcasm? I can never tell with you ;)

But seriously -- taking you at your word -- I didn't mean "respect for GNS/TBM" -- I meant respect for rpg theory *in general*

I... believe... that you have respect for theory (if not, it's the greatest put-on ever).

I get that you're not wholly bought into GNS.

But systematic misuse of the terms by theory advocates and people who claim to understand it is what's allowed GNS to survive unchanged.

What we protect, we make weak. GNS is weak. Like it or not, until the Manyfold catches on, it's pretty much in the shadow of GNS -- your kindly adoption of GNS/TBM terms doesn't do much to step out of that shadow.

You're playing into their hands! It's a trap! ;)

Seriously: if you keep on like this, next thing you know you'll be telling people Narrativism is like playing 'Die Hard' and people who think the theory says insulting things like 'Vampire causes Brain Damage' are just projecting!

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I... believe... that you have respect for theory (if not, it's the greatest put-on ever).

I have respect for people thinking about games.  For people examining their play and telling other people what they found, which in turn helps other people get better play.  For folks looking at games as abstractions.

I have no respect for folks that decide to engage in long semantic debates when they know damn well what you're talking about.  I have no respect at all for people that snark at others simply because those others don't know a bunch of artificial words, no matter how useful those words have proven to some.  I despise not being able to tell those situations apart sometimes.

The theory we have right now, including mine, is a giant mishmash of stating the so-obvious-it's-usually-invisible, of brilliant ideas, stupid sacred cows, and filler.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI have respect for people thinking about games.  For people examining their play and telling other people what they found, which in turn helps other people get better play.  For folks looking at games as abstractions.

I have no respect for folks that decide to engage in long semantic debates when they know damn well what you're talking about.  I have no respect at all for people that snark at others simply because those others don't know a bunch of artificial words, no matter how useful those words have proven to some.  I despise not being able to tell those situations apart sometimes.

The theory we have right now, including mine, is a giant mishmash of stating the so-obvious-it's-usually-invisible, of brilliant ideas, stupid sacred cows, and filler.

Fair enough... I can respect that :D

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI have respect for people thinking about games.  For people examining their play and telling other people what they found, which in turn helps other people get better play.  For folks looking at games as abstractions.

I have no respect for folks that decide to engage in long semantic debates when they know damn well what you're talking about.  I have no respect at all for people that snark at others simply because those others don't know a bunch of artificial words, no matter how useful those words have proven to some.  I despise not being able to tell those situations apart sometimes.

The theory we have right now, including mine, is a giant mishmash of stating the so-obvious-it's-usually-invisible, of brilliant ideas, stupid sacred cows, and filler.

Which is why you are a gem, Levi! :D

-clash