@categories:

Those are plain-english categorizations of "elements that cause fun", clearly the most successful games brandish several at the same time.

And I´m not saying they are neccessarily good. But they are a meaningful addition to debate.

Not CAs. If you don´t see the difference, your command of Forger-Lore is lacking.

BUT: Reading Forger-talk, essays and lore can be fruitful for your own thinking. But as a model it is inherently flawed.

Quote from: droogWe'll see how it's all going in a few more years, I guess.

And you know, there is always the point that D&D 3.x is a more coherent game than its predecessor, and seems to have pulled a lot of people back to roleplaying.

Fun with Applying the Model!

This is good: Let's Apply TBM/GNS to D&D 3.5 and make a determination about it's coherency or lack thereof.

To do this, it's simple:

Cite what the model has to say about using it to assess coherency, and then describe the assessment, findings, and conclusions (using the framework and procedure described by the model)

My assertion: The model gives you no tools to make this determination.

Sure, anyone can say, "D&D 3.5 is more Gamist because it has hit points" or "It's less Simulationist because it doesn't have a Whore Table" or whatever...

Absent guidance and framework from the model, this kind of "application" is nonsense.

I think if you actually look at the model you'll find

1) No framework for assessment
2) Therefore no way to make any kind of real determination how coherent any game is
3) Therefore, no way to make your statement above meaningful.

But it's still a good exercise -- and exactly the kinds of things people should be thinking about when making claims about any model's use for a purpose.

FWIW: I can make an equally compelling claim that D&D 3.5 is Sim or Gam and I can certainly make a case for it being Nar-facilitating.

Cheers,
-E.

I cannot understand why everything in the world is multi-dimensional, but (some) RPG Theorists claim it´s all about coherence.

Get ready for a big shock:

RPG sessions are multi-dimensional too!
Humans are inconsequential.

See what that does to your model, if you wanna discuss actual play.

RPG is interactive, and it´s all about negotiated actions. But people change modes of negotiation in mid-course, Wow!
How dare they!
It´s evil drift.

No, I say. It´s not. The idea of drift is bullshit, because the idea of CA is bullshit. Adventure Gamers want everything at once:
Story, Loot, Adventure, Impact on the Game World, a great game World, they want to win everytime, they want to feel great because they win, they want to fail, etc.

Player preferences are basically "incoherent". It takes a lot of growing up, to accept that you can´t have everything at once. And most people never get to the point that they truly understand what they are exchanging for what. So they remain inconsequential. But still they have rocking sessions all over the world.
How dare they!

It´s because people might not know intellectually what they want, but they know how to deal with their fellow humans. So they arrange impomptu/ ad hoc solutions, which form the social contract/ house rules and table rulings (which is again way more case law than etched in stone).

So all depends on social communication, not on some abstract phony categories. CA is a chimaera of the uninformed. It´s like blind people talking about colours. They touch green slime, and are told it´s green. So green=slimey.

Quote from: -E.My assertion: The model gives you no tools to make this determination.

Sure it does. It's just that those tools are not systematised. We'll have to feel our way.

Is it the case that D&D today is far more streamlined and conscious of its purpose than in the past? Looks like it to me, but others will have to confirm or deny that.

Quote from: SettembriniPlayer preferences are basically "incoherent". It takes a lot of growing up, to accept that you can´t have everything at once. And most people never get to the point that they truly understand what they are exchanging for what. So they remain inconsequential. But still they have rocking sessions all over the world.
How dare they!

It´s because people might not know intellectually what they want, but they know how to deal with their fellow humans. So they arrange impomptu/ ad hoc solutions, which form the social contract/ house rules and table rulings (which is again way more case law than etched in stone).

Gosh, Set, are you saying I'm more grown up than you? That's not nice!

People do have directed fun in this world. A sports team, an improv troupe, a historical reenactment society. Why is this idea so weird? Why so defensive ("How dare they!")? I said from the beginning, if you're having fun, that's great. You might have an easygoing group, you might have a talented GM, or you might have a solid understanding of what you most want. Hard to tell without you or somebody else dissecting your play.

This is not a personal slur, and if you stopped reacting as if it were, the dialogue would be a lot calmer.

Don´t know what you are talking about, I suspect major fuckup of communication.

Quote from: droogWe'll see how it's all going in a few more years, I guess.

And you know, there is always the point that D&D 3.x is a more coherent game than its predecessor, and seems to have pulled a lot of people back to roleplaying.

First, its not "coherent" in the Forge sense, which is no doubt what you're using.

Second, while it is a much-improved system, that's NOT why it pulled people back to roleplaying.  It pulled people back to roleplaying because it focused on the fundamentals that appeal to Roleplayers, and threw off all the White-Wolf Story-based crap AD&D 2e had been burdened with.

You're seriously trying to rely on THAT as an argument in FAVOUR of Forge Theory?? Holy fuck what a hail-mary pass if ever I saw one. D&D 3.x is the strongest clearest argument in favour of the fact that what MORE people want are games that actually read and play like ROLE PLAYING GAMES and not nonsensical byzantine piece-of-crap Forge Microgames, or pretentious White Wolf Metaplot drivel.  It proves that what people love about RPGs is what they've always loved, and that the efforts to subvert and transform RPGs are based on the actions of a tiny and aggresive minority who do not have widespread support and who's THEORIES ARE A FAILURE in the public judgement.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditFirst, its not "coherent" in the Forge sense, which is no doubt what you're using.

Second, while it is a much-improved system, that's NOT why it pulled people back to roleplaying.  It pulled people back to roleplaying because it focused on the fundamentals that appeal to Roleplayers, and threw off all the White-Wolf Story-based crap AD&D 2e had been burdened with.

That's exactly what 'coherence' implies. The story-based crap conflicted with the rules. Get rid of it, presto, already more coherent. Then work the system over so that it makes more sense and allows people to gain mastery and show their skill (didn't a WotC designer talk about this?).

Much improved? Looks like it to me. I can appreciate the design goals.

Quote from: SettembriniDon´t know what you are talking about, I suspect major fuckup of communication.

You're probably right.

Quote from: droogSure it does. It's just that those tools are not systematised. We'll have to feel our way.

Is it the case that D&D today is far more streamlined and conscious of its purpose than in the past? Looks like it to me, but others will have to confirm or deny that.

Ah... well, no -- it doesn't... but look at what you're doing here:

Coherent, in GNS is jargon meaning a specific thing (that the system is focused on supporting a single GNS-agenda).

Streamlined?
Conscious of its purpose?

I see those nowhere in GNS [definitions]...

Those might be ways that the term "coherent" would be used in normal, English dialog.

The absence of systematized tools is, in fact, the empty heart of the model.

GNS's predictions about on-going powerstruggle don't predict that less streamlined, less conscious-of-purpose games will "most likely" produce "ongoing power struggle"

They're about the specific GNS-jagon definition of coherence...

Which, of course is meaningless -- not defined, because the component definitions don't exist.

We can certainly talk about we feel that D&D 3.5 is more focused, more conscious of it's purpose...

But that's *not* a GNS discussion.

Cheers,
-E.

QuoteThat's exactly what 'coherence' implies. The story-based crap conflicted with the rules. Get rid of it, presto, already more coherent. Then work the system over so that it makes more sense and allows people to gain mastery and show their skill (didn't a WotC designer talk about this?).

Much improved? Looks like it to me. I can appreciate the design goals.

Ahh, the basic Forge-Reader fallacy! Been there, done that.
You are filling the holes in the theory with common sense!

Now look, you are right. 3.5 is a masterpiece of professional design work.

But if so, what do we need the indie press revolution for?
Why all those Thematic games, if 80% of the market and of the players are already playing "coherent"?

And how would you call someone, who is not playing after those masterful rules? Who is introducing other elements, just wings the skill system, and doesn´t even care to really grasp the basics of bonus types etc?
That´s an evil incoherent drifter!

And his name is Ron.

Yes, the guy who says bad things to people who don´t grok Sorceror.

I tell you now what actually is happening:

There are people out there, who are "forging" a new type of game, anew type of hobby. They invented their own lingo for that.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with Adventure Roleplaying Gaming as we know it.

Eliot Wilen pointed me to this essay. In it, the failings of the analytical value the Big Model are laid out.

Here´s a quote that puts my "CA is bullshit" a little bit more nicely:

QuoteFinally, RPG theory must move beyond hierarchical classification as a technique. There is no question that classification is a valid, even necessary goal for serious analytical work. But as in so many disciplines, most notably the study of religion, the tendency is to use the scientific character of classification to construct an aura of objectivity; we see this in discourses that stress "correctness". The natural upshot of such an endeavor is to reify the categories as ontologically legitimate, mystify their constructed character, and thus naturalize the authority-claims latent within such structures. Classification must recognize that the object does not exist outside of the construction of taxa; "religion" or "ritual" do not exist, but are means by which historically situated and motivated people classify certain behaviors. Similarly, "RPG" is not a thing, a singular object, unique and discrete from others, and Narrativist orientations do not differ from Simulationist or Gamist ones except insofar as we construct them so. Classification is the basis of comparison, not of truth or certainty. Until RPG theory takes on board serious recognition of its comparative nature, it will remain an ideology and not a science.

I think we're coming to some common ground.

If you think D&D3.x is 'coherent', the next step would be to ask: "What is this coherent design best at?"

Me, I look at it and think: "This is good for playing a crunchy game of tactics and character-maximisation." Not really my thing.

I can use D&D to play a narrativist game, no doubt. But I see other games that go more directly to what I want. I play those games instead.

IPR et al are filling a market space. Just because I like a coherent game doesn't mean I'll like the particular thing a game offers.

QuoteAnd how would you call someone, who is not playing after those masterful rules? Who is introducing other elements, just wings the skill system, and doesn´t even care to really grasp the basics of bonus types etc?
That´s an evil incoherent drifter!

'Drift' is not the same thing as 'incoherent'. According to theory, in fact, drift occurs in order to make a game more fit for the group's agenda.

Quote from: -E.GNS's predictions about on-going powerstruggle don't predict that less streamlined, less conscious-of-purpose games will "most likely" produce "ongoing power struggle"

I think you'd better remember this when talking to me: I'm a politics major specialising in ideology and political theory. I see power struggles everywhere, including right here. Naturally, I can come up with a hundred examples from games I have played.

QuoteI'm a politics major specialising in ideology and political theory.

If you are good at it, then you will clearly see, that GNS is an ideology with low analytical value.

And you should have an understanding of the aims of groups.
And the "coherence" you attribute to GNS is not the goal, cannot be the goal of Forger action.

They promote and disseminate their Thematic games.
Nothing more, nothing less.

QuoteMe, I look at it and think: "This is good for playing a crunchy game of tactics and character-maximisation."

And this is where you show that you don´t know nothing about D&D. D&D is a framework for Fantasy Adventure. Fantasy Adventure with challenges. It´s rules are the building blocks for the social contract. Nothing more nothing less.

As -E- and Ron will gladly point out to you, a game can never be coherent or not. Because CA is tied to a actual group of people.

Really I wonder if you are masterfully making us dance, or if you really are this limited in understanding text.
Your academic education should have trained you well in it, especially as you are so proudly waving this dick around.

Quote from: SettembriniYour academic education should have trained you well in it, especially as you are so proudly waving this dick around.

I'm not waving my dick (most of us, I think, have been to university). I'm alerting E to the fact that we're not going to agree one little bit on the prevalence of power struggles in human relations, due to my training.

I'm quite willing to admit I know little about current D&D. Would you explain this section for me?

QuoteD&D is a framework for Fantasy Adventure. Fantasy Adventure with challenges. It´s rules are the building blocks for the social contract. Nothing more nothing less.

QuoteAs -E- and Ron will gladly point out to you, a game can never be coherent or not. Because CA is tied to a actual group of people.

Absolutely. But a game can be designed, consciously or not, such that it facilitates one agenda or another more easily.

For our brand of sim, back in the day, RQ and Traveller were more suitable than D&D. If you want me to, I can go through and pick out aspects of these games that inform my opinion.