TheRPGSite

I'm not pro or con on any theory of gaming, but I am interested in understanding where people are coming from.  Having said that, I'm confused on Forge Theory and OGL.  Can somebody point me to a site, post or even give me a breakdown so that I have a basic understanding?

I will say it all seems like crap.  If you like it, that is great and that is all that should matter.  But, in I want to put in the effort because you never know everything.  Thanks.

If I'm being stupid, just don't answer the post.  Nothing I hate more than people who are not only unhelpful, but assholes about it.  And dog will fight, but would much rather game.  :D

BobManGM

Well, Bob, there's yer two basic ways of thinking of Forge Theory:

• All theory that people thought up in association with the Forge:  This is a big spaghetti tangle of discourse back and forth, and no one person believes all of it (indeed, since people have proposed mutually incompatible theories on the Forge, it would be illogical for a single person to believe all of it).  There is a general foundation of stuff about system influencing behavior, and some attention to reward systems, but seriously ... that may just be me.  I can tell you my personal take on the "important" bits of Forge theory, but ask another person and you'll get a different laundry list.
• Only the specific theory that Ron Edwards proferred in a series of articles, and which many people spent a lot of time talking about:  This includes such popular terms as GNS and the Big Model.  I can't tell you very much about it, because it simply doesn't make my laundry list of important things that I've taken away from the Forge into my own theory.  No doubt someone else can pick up my slack.

If ya want to hear my laundry list of Forgey-think stuff, I'll tell you.  But if you want the Ron Edwards stuff then I won't bore you with mine.

Sound good?

Would it be accurate to say Ron Edwards started the movement and it is from his original ideas the rest of the 'Forge' has grown?  I've already seen a post that questions his credentials.  But, that doesn't mean his ideas are crap, but less academically based.

I assume from your post that their isn't a true 'Forge Theory' but a loose group of ideas and camps (even if it is only one person shouting in a field).  But they have a web site or a preferred posting site?

What is GNS?  I think I also so a OGL?

:confused:

Would Capes be a 'Forge Type' game?  No GM.  Narrative in nature.

Quote from: bobmangmI'm confused on Forge Theory and OGL.  Can somebody point me to a site, post or even give me a breakdown so that I have a basic understanding?

You could always try the site itself, their articles are here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/).

Most significant in terms of "Forge theory" are The Provisional Glossary (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/27/), and to know the basis of it, GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/).

If those make no sense to you, don't feel bad, it's just because they're badly-written nonsense. But by all means, read all of them just to make sure. :D

Quote from: bobmangmWould it be accurate to say Ron Edwards started the movement and it is from his original ideas the rest of the 'Forge' has grown?

Yes.

And to judge the worth of his ideas, you should read them. I did, and so I'm fully-qualified to dismiss them all as utter nonsense.

Quote from: bobmangmWhat is GNS?  I think I also so a OGL?

GNS is short for Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist, which are intended as three different ways of looking at gaming that groups might have - game as game, game as shared story, game as simulation.  It goes on from there.  Personally, I don't think that it's valid - it's close to a valid concept, but carries along a lot of really unfortunate baggage.  That's my own opinion, and as JimBob says, forming your own opinion is good.

OGL usually means Open Game License, which is connected to d20 and D&D and not at all to Forge theory.

Quote from: bobmangmIf I'm being stupid, just don't answer the post.

It's not that you are stupid. It's just that you are being lazy. The theory is over there, at the Forge, for all to see. It has also been debated extensively on multiple websites such as the Forge itself and RPG.net, again for all to see.

I suggest you follow JimBob's advice and go read it for yourself.

Then if you have specific questions or things you want to debate, maybe that could be more productive.

Quote from: bobmangmI'm not pro or con on any theory of gaming, but I am interested in understanding where people are coming from.  Having said that, I'm confused on Forge Theory and OGL.  Can somebody point me to a site, post or even give me a breakdown so that I have a basic understanding?

I will say it all seems like crap.  If you like it, that is great and that is all that should matter.  But, in I want to put in the effort because you never know everything.  Thanks.

If I'm being stupid, just don't answer the post.  Nothing I hate more than people who are not only unhelpful, but assholes about it.  And dog will fight, but would much rather game.  :D

BobManGM

Here's a very quick breakdown:

1) Back before there was a Forge, there was Usenet. It was a wild place. Many of the folks here, at RPG.net, and at The Forge participated in a news group calle rec.games.fantasy.advocacy (or something) -- r.g.f.a., for short.

2) R.g.f.a came up with some basic concepts that underpin a lot of RPG theory including "forge theory"

A sample would be the concept of "stances" and the idea of a "social contract" defining what's acceptabled / expected in a game, and so-on.

r.g.f.a also came up with the idea that "different people like different things" in gaming and even defined a taxonomy of how different GM's might make decisions based on their priorities.

Ultimately, as the web evolved, discussion moved from Usenet to forums like this one and The Forge.

NOTE: Almost *all* the good ideas in RPG Theory came from r.g.f.a. If you're talking to a theorist and he's making sense, it's a good bet he's leveraging r.g.f.a. ideas.

I didn't realize this when I started getting familiar with the theory. It was an eye-opener.

3) Ron Edwards created The Forge to develop & advance his own ideas -- he was one of several voices in r.g.f.a -- at The Forge, thanks to his moderation style, he was / is the only one that matters.

He created GNS, now called The Big Model, to explain what people like about gaming and how game systems deliver "fun."

Very simply, GNS/TBM posits that there are 3 agendas that a person might have in a game:

1) Gamist -- the person wants to impress his friends with his skill at the game. Usually Gamists, "play to win"
2) Narrativist -- the person wants to address some human-interest issue in the game and dislikes being railroaded
3) Simulationist -- used to mean the person was into exploring the world. Now, Forge Theory is kinda broken, and Simulationism is NOT DEFINED... which is a pretty big problem for the theory since the other agendas are often defined in terms of Simulationism.

According to GNS, everyone prioritizes one of these. Game systems (meaning the mechanics, the non-mechanical rules, the flavor text in the book, the setting, etc.) can facilitate these agendas in a way that is not and has never been well defined...

This leaves theorists with a bit of a ... hole in the theory: according to TBM, a game could be designed to facilitate, say, Gamist play... which seems to make sense at a high level (it would be more like a tactical war game, maybe, than like a story-telling game).

Thing is, the theory doesn't give any guidance or framework to help a gamer (or a designer, or anyone trying to actually use the theory) figure out exactly what, about a game, might make it gamist-facilitating.

Same absence of framework exists for the other agendas.

In practice, theorists who like a game and think it's "deep" call it Narrativist. Some of them will even make idiosyncratic arguments to explain why they believe that...

GNS/TBM has some other key and amusing bits:

1) Games that don't facilitate a single agenda are "incoherent" -- incoherent games will, most-likely end in on-going power struggle between the players and the GM
2) Narrativist players who play incoherent games will get BRAIN DAMAGE!!! That's right! Brain Damage! It's not a "metaphor" it's not a "figure of speech" -- the theory posits real, identifyable BRAIN DAMAGE!

Some people find the theory insulting because of this -- if you say BRAIN DAMAGE in ALL CAPS, though, it can actually be more amusing than insulting. I recommend you read the posts on The Forge describing the Brain Damage...

They're... a hoot :)

Anyway...

4) Even before the BRAIN DAMAGE things were falling apart. The theory never made a lot of sense, and The Forge shut down the forums for discussing them.

After the whole damage thing a lot of people who used to follow the theory moved even further away.

Now you get a lot of blogs and far less... ahem... coherent discourse.

There are, periodically, good ideas out there -- but fundamentally the theory (and the spin-off theories) are pretty flawed.

Forge Theory works well as *advocacy* -- if you want to call your game cool, you can say it's "Narrativist." If you're part of the community, you can be part of the "Indie Revolution" (this is like being an indie film maker or musician! Pretty cool, huh? The big-boys have sold out to their corporate overlords!)

Cheers,
-E.

Breaking Through The Noise...

I was trying to break through the noise here and there.  It is something that is done all the time.  Lazy?  Maybe.  Is it better to not reinvent the wheel when people already have?  Definitely.

And trust me, once the links to the “core” where there, I will read them.  And "At the Forge" means nothing to me, hence the reason I asked for links (or a URL would do too).

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOGL usually means Open Game License, which is connected to d20 and D&D and not at all to Forge theory.

Actually, GNS and OGL are connected in some respects, in that rpg theory itself is really a game, and GNS is effectively under an OGL, because whenever someone posts supporting it, they post an interpretation of it which is quite different from what the original text actually says.

Quote from: JimBobOzActually, GNS and OGL are connected in some respects, in that rpg theory itself is really a game, and GNS is effectively under an OGL, because whenever someone posts supporting it, they post an interpretation of it which is quite different from what the original text actually says.

True dat.

Quote from: bobmangmWould Capes be a 'Forge Type' game?  No GM.  Narrative in nature.

Well, see, there's a great example.

Capes was, quite literally, developed on the Forge.  If you go back far enough you can see me working through prototypes by discussing them with people on the boards.  So it's clearly heavily (like, nearly 100%) influenced by my first category:  "Theory that people fiddle with and work at on the Forge."

But I don't even know what you mean when you say "Narrative in nature."  I mean ... yeah, it's an RPG ... there's narration.  But I'd guess that's not what you mean.

I know that Capes doesn't have any particular affiliation to one of the three GNS modes ... enough so that Ron and I have had heated discussions about the game's nature, and we still have unsettled issues.  So I feel pretty confident in saying that it doesn't owe much (if anything) to GNS or the Big Model.

So is it a "Forge Type" game?  :shrug:

Quote from: TonyLBI know that Capes doesn't have any particular affiliation to one of the three GNS modes ... enough so that Ron and I have had heated discussions about the game's nature, and we still have unsettled issues.  So I feel pretty confident in saying that it doesn't owe much (if anything) to GNS or the Big Model.

So is it a "Forge Type" game?  :shrug:

It doesn't really matter whether it is or not. "Forge games" range from shitty to excellent, like every other games. Although I must say I'm starting to see more and more redundancy from Forgites.  

But from everything I know about Capes, I tend to associate your game as a "Forge type" game. (Again, keeping in mind that this isn't necessarly good or bad).

I wonder how different your game would have turned out if you hadn't sought extensive feedback over there.

Quote from: -E.A sample would be the concept of "stances" and the idea of a "social contract"

I think it was more common to talk about a "group contract". In any case, the meaning of rgfa terms was altered considerably when Edwards started using them. However I did find at least one post on rgfa, by Carl Cravens in 1996, where he spoke about a "social contract" in terms very similar to the Forge concept.

QuoteRon Edwards created The Forge to develop & advance his own ideas -- he was one of several voices in r.g.f.a -- at The Forge, thanks to his moderation style, he was / is the only one that matters.

As far as I know, Edwards never participated on rgfa, although he acknowledged reading it while developing his ideas. I think the first forum where he discussed the stuff that became GNS was The Gaming Outpost (http://www.gamingoutpost.com/discussions/). Some other theories by other participants in those discussions, such as "GENder theory", also fed into GNS.

See? Two Forgers, three opinions! You're worse than rabbis!

If you want to know about GNS, get it straight from the horse's arse - er, the horse's mouth! Read the essays.

Of course, the OP would rather that we make four hours' effort explaining it to him, than he make one hour's effort learning it for himself.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI think it was more common to talk about a "group contract". In any case, the meaning of rgfa terms was altered considerably when Edwards started using them. However I did find at least one post on rgfa, by Carl Cravens in 1996, where he spoke about a "social contract" in terms very similar to the Forge concept.
As far as I know, Edwards never participated on rgfa, although he acknowledged reading it while developing his ideas. I think the first forum where he discussed the stuff that became GNS was The Gaming Outpost (http://www.gamingoutpost.com/discussions/). Some other theories by other participants in those discussions, such as "GENder theory", also fed into GNS.

Thanks for the clarification! I'd missunderstood the degree of his participation, then... I've read some of the r.g.f.a stuff (and summaries by folks who participated) and I *thought* I found the term social contract... maybe I missed that.

Thanks,
-E.

Quote from: JimBobOzSee? Two Forgers, three opinions! You're worse than rabbis!

Those of you who know Invader Zim?  Imagine the following in his voice:  "Worse?  Or ... BETTER?" :D

Assuming OP = Original Poster

He was actually all set after post #5.  This has gone on too long already, but thank you.

Quote from: -E.Thanks for the clarification!

No prob.

QuoteI'd missunderstood the degree of his participation, then... I've read some of the r.g.f.a stuff (and summaries by folks who participated) and I *thought* I found the term social contract... maybe I missed that.

It is there (more than I implied above, if you do a search), but I don't think it was ever "jargonized" and capitalized, while "Group Contract" did achieve that status on rgfa. Generally, "Group Contract" was/is focused pretty clearly on how the group will approach the game (stuff like "PC glow", "script immunity", etc.), while Forgean "Social Contract" expands, contracts, and mutates depending on the speaker. It's especially problematic because at some point the leading Forge theorists began including the social relations of the players in their notion of "System", which creates problems for their hierarchical model.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNo prob.

It is there (more than I implied above, if you do a search), but I don't think it was ever "jargonized" and capitalized, while "Group Contract" did achieve that status on rgfa. Generally, "Group Contract" was/is focused pretty clearly on how the group will approach the game (stuff like "PC glow", "script immunity", etc.), while Forgean "Social Contract" expands, contracts, and mutates depending on the speaker. It's especially problematic because at some point the leading Forge theorists began including the social relations of the players in their notion of "System", which creates problems for their hierarchical model.

Yeah -- my point (which I don't think I actually wrote down) is that the ideal that the set of social conventions and expectations of the group are important in play is a reasonably useful insight...

It was one of the actual, usable ideas that I credited The Forge with coming up with before I learned it had basically come out of r.g.f.a.

The Forge's... extension? Use of the concept? TBM/GNS original thought on the subject has been more muddled advocacy than thought leadership.

Certainly TBM/GNS's "model" is broken beyond usability -- but I don't think anyone's really using it anymore.

My guess is that most of the folks who used to follow Forge Theory have more or less given up on a unified body of thought -- after the colapse of the forums and the Brain Damage, it ceased to serve it's primary utility (giving a veneer of intellectual respectability to what was essentially role-v-roll-play drivel).

Cheers,
-E.

Fantastic analysis, E.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt's especially problematic because at some point the leading Forge theorists began including the social relations of the players in their notion of "System", which creates problems for their hierarchical model.

No it doesn't. Look:

Social contract
Exploration
Techniques
Ephemera

with creative agenda comprising all of the layers.

Quote from: -E.it ceased to serve it's primary utility (giving a veneer of intellectual respectability to what was essentially role-v-roll-play drivel).

I disagree. I was able to use the model to analyse my RQ game, which supposedly falls under one of the marginalised categories (ie Sim). The model is not about 'your type of game is bad'.

Most of the furore surrounding the model does not actually stem from any ramifications of CA. It stems from dispute over techniques, eg illusionist GMing.

Quote from: droogI disagree. I was able to use the model to analyse my RQ game, which supposedly falls under one of the marginalised categories (ie Sim). The model is not about 'your type of game is bad'.

Most of the furore surrounding the model does not actually stem from any ramifications of CA. It stems from dispute over techniques, eg illusionist GMing.

I guess we could discuss what it means to "use the model" for a purpose. People say the model has been used to analyze games, to design games, to analyze play, etc.

In RPG Theory, "using the theory" means almost nothing -- some folks would tell you they were "using the theory" if they thought about it as they wrote or played their game. Contrast this to other theories used in, say, design or even art analysis which provide far more of a framework, predictive models, etc. (TBM/GNS does provide predictive models -- it predicts power-struggle and brain damage -- these are absurd).

I don't think there's a framework which allows one to really use the theory, but let's look at your claim:

You've identifed RQ as a Sim game which, according to the theory, is shorthand for "facilitates the prioritization of the Sim agenda during play."

The Sim agenda is currently undefined -- so it's not really possible to categorize any game as SIM...

Further, the theory doesn't explain *how* a game might facilitate the Sim agenda during play -- it doesn't provide one with a framework for judging mechanics, flavor text, etc.

So any judgement that RQ is a "Sim facilitating game" (whatever that means) is purely ideosyncratic.

Btw: you see this kind of confusion all the time. Is The Riddle of Steel a Nar game or a Sim game or a Gamist-facilitating-game? There are good arguments to be made for all of them. The theory, itself, provides no good guidance... it's all a matter of analyst opinion.

And so-on.

Without knowing what kind of analysis you're performing or what insights the model you're applying delivers, it's hard for me to guess what you're doing (due to the currently-broken-nature of SIM, I doubt you're applying GNS)... What I suspect you're doing is looking at your game through the r.g.f.a lense, and getting some insight from that. Which would make sense.

In a lot of forums, you see someone come in and say, "Hey! All GNS says is that different people come to the game with different priorities! What could be  contraversial about that?!"

But, of course, GNS doesn't really say that (to the extent it does say that, r.g.f.a said it better and first) -- GNS has always worked best at the facil, trivial level of assessment. It's not really suitable for deeper analysis or design activities.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: RPGPunditFantastic analysis, E.

RPGPundit

Thanks! I'm doing my part to add clarity and precision to the RPG Theory dialog.

Cheers,
-E.

One of the reasons the S in GNS remains undefined is actually the dark secret of the Forge.

Let me explain:

GNS actually comes from GDS. That's "gamism, dramatism,simulationism". This is the idea that when you observe people playing, some are more or less in it for the game elements, some are more or less in it for the simulation (of any given thing- be it cinematic kung-fu or 1812 war reenactment or whatever), and some are more or less in it for the story. GDS is actually very forgiving in that it doesn't say being into one thing excludes you from being in anything else, or that you can be more or less G-N or S all at once or at any given point.  

Ok, but you can't make marketing propaganda out of that. Because that just basicly describes normal behavior, and I don't even think it was meant to be inclusive or exclusive. It's just some general dsescriptive RGFA bullshit.

So it was subtly changed. What narrativism is currently defined as is this narrow narrow thing: those games that have a specific theme and a premise-statement (not actually a premise, but a "thematic question". Turns out Ron is a bat-penis guy, not a literature expert), and that 'create stories' by the acts of the players dealing with the premise-statement.

In other words, it creates a simulation of a short story from the outside in. See, first the players define the theme and the premise, and then they just fill in the mad libs with characters who address the premise. They often don't even actually encourage in-character speech. Heck, often the players of these games don't even remember the names of their PCs. The rejection of the serial campaign as a mode of play is tied up into the desire to create a simulation of a short story. Or a TV series. (as in Indie darling PTA) : with a "producer" and "fan mail". Tell me that isn't a simulation!

In short: The reason forgies have never been able to address simulationism, (and have never been able to explain why narrativism on their terms is so narrowly defined) is because they are the simulationists.

Nearly everything else is marketing blather.

This is also the reason they worked so hard to define what a story is: you can't simulate what you can't define.

This is also the reason the definition they all arrived at for what a story is does not actually define a story, but rather a moral parable.

This also explains the weird beef they have with D&D: there is overwhelming evidence  (http://www.enworld.org/forumdisplay.php?f=14)that many D&D players are creating incredible stories  (http://www.enworld.org/forumdisplay.php?f=15)(because of the way campaigns are structured, they really can't help it). Because everyone knows D&D players are unwashed peasants and cavemen, this isn't really acceptable.

It just doesn't fit in the theory! This is one of those situations when they look at the chart, and then compare it to the coastline, and when the coastline looks different, they conclude that the coastline must be "wrong" somehow, rather than the chart.

Quote from: -E.Here's a very quick breakdown:

1) Back before there was a Forge, there was Usenet. It was a wild place. Many of the folks here, at RPG.net, and at The Forge participated in a news group calle rec.games.fantasy.advocacy (or something) -- r.g.f.a., for short.

In case nobody else mentioned this, it's rec.games.frp.advocacy.  It was set up to siphon flamewars of the "GURPS sucks!  Hero rocks!" variety from rec.games.frp.misc, but serious discussion broke out when people started trying to explain exactly why they preferred one system or approach to another.

Quote3) Ron Edwards created The Forge to develop & advance his own ideas -- he was one of several voices in r.g.f.a -- at The Forge, thanks to his moderation style, he was / is the only one that matters.

I think someone else did mention this, but I don't ever remember Edwards posting in rgfa, and if he ever actually read it he did an amazingly poor job of it, because he screwed up practically every concept that ever came out of rgfa to such an extent that it's difficult to believe he understood the general thrust of discussion.

Quote from: -E.You've identifed RQ as a Sim game which, according to the theory, is shorthand for "facilitates the prioritization of the Sim agenda during play."

The Sim agenda is currently undefined -- so it's not really possible to categorize any game as SIM...

Wrong on both counts. Firstly, I did not define RQ as 'a Sim game' at any point. What I said was that our group used RQ in playing a sim agenda, and that for some time the system was an aid in that. I also provided reasons why I thought so.

Secondly, the sim agenda is defined. It's defined as Being There, Celebration, Dreaming, and any number of other phrases people have thought up; all along the same lines. 'Make-believe', you might call it. 'Escaping' would be another possibility (going on Tolkien's positive definition of escape in On Fairy Tales).

Quote from: -E.Further, the theory doesn't explain *how* a game might facilitate the Sim agenda during play -- it doesn't provide one with a framework for judging mechanics, flavor text, etc.

There are a few answers to that, old sport. First, it's no surprise that a bunch of people uninterested in sim haven't developed much in the way of simminess.

Second. that sort of thing emerges during discussions at the Forge (sometimes other places). Mike Holmes, for instance, has said quite a lot over the years about his take on sim.

Third, if that's what you want, you could always pitch in and help develop it. It's all most definitely a work in progress. If you're no good at theorising or designing you could always do some collating (eg of various insights into sim gaming).

Quote from: droog(going on Tolkien's positive definition of escape in On Fairy Tales).

That would be a damn fine way of describing something that I have seen in games.

I don't know if it's "sim", but I get it.

Quote from: -E.Ultimately, as the web evolved, discussion moved from Usenet to forums like this one and The Forge.

NOTE: Almost *all* the good ideas in RPG Theory came from r.g.f.a. If you're talking to a theorist and he's making sense, it's a good bet he's leveraging r.g.f.a. ideas.

I didn't realize this when I started getting familiar with the theory. It was an eye-opener.

3) Ron Edwards created The Forge to develop & advance his own ideas -- he was one of several voices in r.g.f.a -- at The Forge, thanks to his moderation style, he was / is the only one that matters.

As others have pointed out, Ron didn't actually participate on r.g.f.a. (which was rec.games.frp.advocacy).  He heard about rgfa ideas and read some of the FAQs and such, but didn't participate.  He did participate on the Gaming Outpost, which was where many of the other ideas came up -- notably Scarlet Jester's ideas on exploration.  You can read some of Jester's GENder model on the threefold model page here:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/

The most striking change is that the rgfa concept of Simulationism is extremely different than Ron's GNS.  Genre emulators -- like those who wants to make four-color comic-book stories, say -- are considered Dramatist in the Threefold, but are considered Simulationists in Ron's GNS.  Threefold Simulationism is about simulating things -- i.e. a virtual situation where you're concerned about what would really happen given the premises.  

Quote from: -E.Even before the BRAIN DAMAGE things were falling apart. The theory never made a lot of sense, and The Forge shut down the forums for discussing them.

After the whole damage thing a lot of people who used to follow the theory moved even further away.

Now you get a lot of blogs and far less... ahem... coherent discourse.

There are, periodically, good ideas out there -- but fundamentally the theory (and the spin-off theories) are pretty flawed.

Eh?  Yes, the blogs have disagreement between them, which I guess makes them incoherent with each other.  I would consider this a step up from certain tendencies on the Forge theory boards, which were moderated by Ron and had a number of people who would try to spin whatever was said as being consistent with the "core theory".  

Quote from: -E.Forge Theory works well as *advocacy* -- if you want to call your game cool, you can say it's "Narrativist." If you're part of the community, you can be part of the "Indie Revolution" (this is like being an indie film maker or musician! Pretty cool, huh? The big-boys have sold out to their corporate overlords!)

While I disagree with most of what it advocates, I think that a good creative theory should say something -- rather than a namby-pamby "all games are good, and all styles are good" which ends up saying nothing at all.  While they will often have flaws, I think manifestoes have an important place in any creative theory.  Within any creative field, it's almost never the case that you have a theory which is objectively right.  For example, there are lots of theories over drama, literature, film, and so forth -- and some are definitely more popular than others, but they are never really proven or disproven.

E's summary pretty much nails it, but here's the points I wanted to add.

Quote from: -E.2) R.g.f.a came up with some basic concepts that underpin a lot of RPG theory including "forge theory"

A sample would be the concept of "stances" and the idea of a "social contract" defining what's acceptabled / expected in a game, and so-on.

The "stance" thing, incidentally, is something I wish was explored more, in that it's at least vaguely observable - you can observe someone's play style and say "OK, that person gets excited about actor stance, this one is very keen on director stance" and so forth. You can't quite do the same thing about the narrative agendas as posited in GNS theory as they are about what people desire, and ultimately people's desires live inside their heads and are only imperfectly communicated through their behaviour and comments.

Quoter.g.f.a also came up with the idea that "different people like different things" in gaming and even defined a taxonomy of how different GM's might make decisions based on their priorities.

The "decision" thing should be stressed. GDS (the rgfa equivalent of GNS) was originally all about analysing individual decisions rather than categorising people or games. "This decision was made in a gamist way because it was all about keeping things balanced... this decision was dramatist because it was made for the story's sake... this decision was simulationist because it was all about what would 'really happen' in the gameworld."

QuoteNOTE: Almost *all* the good ideas in RPG Theory came from r.g.f.a. If you're talking to a theorist and he's making sense, it's a good bet he's leveraging r.g.f.a. ideas.

I didn't realize this when I started getting familiar with the theory. It was an eye-opener.

I think there's another way to distinguish people: folk who've read the discussions that created the theories, and people who have just read the theories.

The discussions are great. The rgfa archives on Google Groups are worth a look. They're all about people talking about what they want from games, and what happens in their games. RPG theories are ultimately brief summaries of what the person who wrote that theory took away from the discussion, and ultimately a lot gets lost or put aside when a 100+ post thread is reduced to a 1-paragraph theory.

QuoteIn practice, theorists who like a game and think it's "deep" call it Narrativist. Some of them will even make idiosyncratic arguments to explain why they believe that...

Witness Ron calling the Riddle of Steel narrativist despite its declared aim and the way it plays out - it's realism, realism, realism all the way, baby, with a smattering of character motivations to spice things up.

QuoteForge Theory works well as *advocacy* -- if you want to call your game cool, you can say it's "Narrativist." If you're part of the community, you can be part of the "Indie Revolution" (this is like being an indie film maker or musician! Pretty cool, huh? The big-boys have sold out to their corporate overlords!)

Although to be fair, "indie" and "narrativist" are different things. A|State is pretty much a hardcore simulationist game as written, and is sold through the Indie Press Revolution.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIn short: The reason forgies have never been able to address simulationism, (and have never been able to explain why narrativism on their terms is so narrowly defined) is because they are the simulationists.

Nearly everything else is marketing blather.

It probably helps to dredge up the old RGFA definition of simulationism here, because really it hasn't been better defined since.

Quote from: RGFA FAQ"simulationist": is the style which values resolving in-game events based solely on game-world considerations, without allowing any meta-game concerns to affect the decision. Thus, a fully simulationist GM will not fudge results to  save PC's or to save her plot, or even change facts unknown to the players.  Such a GM may use meta-game considerations to decide meta-game issues like who is playing which character, whether to play out a conversation word for word, and so forth, but she will resolve actual in-game events based on what would "really" happen.

"Meta-game" in this context means "OOC", something not existing in the gameworld.

If we go by the RGFA definition, then the narrativist crowd aren't simulationists at all - they have a powerful meta-game drive which they want to explore (making something which looks like a story) which is prioritises above other things.

But, note that you have to go back to RGFA to unravel that. I suspect it would be difficult for someone to dispute your point using Forge theory, Abyssal Maw...

Thanks everyone! This thread is better than the Forge.

For what it’s worth, I once wrote a brief summary of what Tony called the “Ron Edwards stuff” for a German RPG board. Of course, this is filtered through my own perception. Here’s a quick translation:

What are the main points of Forge Theory?

Role-playing is a social activity
RPGs are played by people because they want to have fun. Therefore, any sensible analysis of role-playing must start with the players as real persons, and not with the characters as fictional persons. The whole context of social interaction between the players has been called “Social Contract”.

Role-playing is creating fiction together
The participants of an RPG are creating imaginary events through play. To do that, the pictures in everyone’s head of what happens need to match to a good degree. These matching pictures have been called the “Shared Imagined Space”.

The Shared Imagined Space is created through negotiation
The players’ interaction at the gaming table is directed toward including certain situations or events into the Shared Imagined Space. The back and forth thus developing is best understood as a process of negotiation. Only if all players at least tacitly agree to a new piece of fictional content can play continue on that basis. This simile has been called the „Lumpley Principle“.

System does matter
”System” has been used to describe the rules by which the negotiation process is organized. These rules may be written or implicit. In some groups, they deter massively from what is laid down in the game text. Therefore, if someone tells you that system doesn’t matter, she is referring to the rules in the game text, and she is saying so because her group is not playing much by those rules anyway. The actual rules they play by are mainly their own, and they do matter indeed. These actual rules greatly influence two equally important things:

1) The fictional content shaping the Shared Imagined Space.
2) How players act at the table to create said content.

There is role-playing, and then there is role-playing
The way how people role-play (see the above points) may vary widely from group to group. That’s because different people have different priorities in playing RPGs. You get the best chance for a gaming group to be fun on a sustained basis when all players in that group follow the same or similar priorities when playing together. This has been called the Shared Creative Agenda.

Note: Creative Agenda is the full picture! It is recognized when watching a group play for a longer instance, with special attention to moments where specific priorities may conflict with each other. That’s not to say that any action by a player at any time during play needs to fit a scheme or something.

The following three general categories of Creative Agenda have been identified in the GNS model:

1) Gamism: The players accept the challenges of the Shared Imagined Space, taking risks and showing performance (as players) and reaching or missing a certain goal. Sometimes all players may work together to a goal, sometimes they may compete.

Note: Gamism is not the same as “Powergaming”, which represents a sub-species.

2) Narrativism: The players engage in the moral and human issues of the Shared Imagined Space, taking a position (as players) and thereby making a statement about their characters/the game world/themselves.

Note: This is not what is commonly called „Storytelling“ or „Cinematic“. If functional (= fun), both is usually considered:

3) Simulationism: The players experience the Shared Imagined Space as something worthwhile for it’s own sake, something which they do not fully control because it follows it’s own laws. Experiencing the Shared Imagined Space and contributing to it is part of any role-playing, but in this mode, it’s the top priority.

Note: Complex „realistic“ rules are only one style of Simulationist role-playing. More frequently, you’ll find features like style, atmosphere, acting, or dramaturgy.  


So, that’s what I have gathered. Ask a different person, you’ll get a slightly different account.

What Frank isn´t mentioning, is that it took himself two years of heavy reading and posting at the forge to gain that "model of the model".

Only recently he exclaimed on his blog:

"Finally I´ve understood SIM according to Ron!"
Good for him, but it´s  a telltale for the essays.

So, it´s really not in the essays, which was one of the points made.

Quote from: malleus arianorumThanks everyone! This thread is better than the Forge.

Most things are.

I mean fuck, a thread discussing horrific skin infections is no doubt better than actually having a horrific skin infection, too, but that's hardly high praise.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Frank TWhat are the main points of Forge Theory?

You know, that was an excellent overview and it really helped me clarify some of the other reasons why Forge theory is so wrong for what I want.  I was going to explain why but I'm just kinda tired of talking about it.

Quote from: SettembriniWhat Frank isn´t mentioning, is that it took himself two years of heavy reading and posting at the forge to gain that "model of the model".

Only recently he exclaimed on his blog:

"Finally I´ve understood SIM according to Ron!"
Good for him, but it´s  a telltale for the essays.

So, it´s really not in the essays, which was one of the points made.

The thing is, I understood Ron's essays, particularly the sim essay, straight away. I could go through that essay pointing to various features of my RQ game.

I'm thinking that perhaps most people really don't play sim.

Quote from: droogThe thing is, I understood Ron's essays, particularly the sim essay, straight away. I could go through that essay pointing to various features of my RQ game.

I'm thinking that perhaps most people really don't play sim.

I understood the essay too, but the essay bears little resemblance to how sim is described (including by Ron) in most Forge discussions.

If it was just the essays I don't think there'd be an issue, they're fairly clear, but they're also not terribly representative anymore of where the theory headed.

Quote from: BalbinusI understood the essay too, but the essay bears little resemblance to how sim is described (including by Ron) in most Forge discussions.

If it was just the essays I don't think there'd be an issue, they're fairly clear, but they're also not terribly representative anymore of where the theory headed.

I just don't see it, B. I know some people have, in some discussions, said silly things. I know that at one point there was a notion floating around that sim=trad gaming=dysfunction. One of the reasons I wrote my AP post was to apply a corrective to that, in fact.

Again, I think it's simply that sim is not a majority choice for people. For example, one point I didn't go into in my write-up was that Glenn,  a player who joined the game very late in its life, was often highly frustrated by the way we played. His priorities were different.

How about you link to some of these discussions you're talking about and we'll deconstruct them? Later – I'm off to work now.

Quote from: droogFirst, it's no surprise that a bunch of people uninterested in sim haven't developed much in the way of simminess.

Especially given the open hostility directed at Simulationism at various points at the Forge, is that really surprising?  What were those lines again?

"No, we think that Simulationism is a form of retreat, denial, and defense against the responsibilities of either Gamism or Narrativism."

"That would give us Gamism and Narrativism as 'real' RPG goals, and Simulationism as a historical, perhaps even regrettable artifact of bad design. "

"Instead, the Simulationist profile (behaviors) represents a retreat from the responsibilities of either Gamism or Narrativism. It's a way to blame any undesirable outcomes on 'the game,' or to put all responsibility for the quality of the story on the GM, and ultimately, on the game designers (metaplot). "

"'S' remains part of G/N/S - it is indeed a set of demonstrable behaviors, and it is indeed a set of specific RPG design principles which reinforce those behaviors. But it fascinates me that, as Paul has described, it is vastly unlike 'G' and 'N' because it is founded on FEAR."

(All of those quotes come from the Forge.  Would you like to guess which people I'm quoting?)

Quote from: droogSecond. that sort of thing emerges during discussions at the Forge (sometimes other places). Mike Holmes, for instance, has said quite a lot over the years about his take on sim.

And how much has it changed the usefulness of the definition?

Quote from: droogThird, if that's what you want, you could always pitch in and help develop it. It's all most definitely a work in progress. If you're no good at theorising or designing you could always do some collating (eg of various insights into sim gaming).

Been there.  Done that.  Was told that the Forge theory was just fine the way it was and didn't need changing.  The same with plenty of other people.  Not just ornery opinionated people like Brian Gleichman and me but also nice people who really didn't deserve the treatment they got.

Quote from: droogI just don't see it, B. I know some people have, in some discussions, said silly things. I know that at one point there was a notion floating around that sim=trad gaming=dysfunction. One of the reasons I wrote my AP post was to apply a corrective to that, in fact.

Again, I think it's simply that sim is not a majority choice for people. For example, one point I didn't go into in my write-up was that Glenn,  a player who joined the game very late in its life, was often highly frustrated by the way we played. His priorities were different.

How about you link to some of these discussions you're talking about and we'll deconstruct them? Later – I'm off to work now.

I think nobody plays sim because it kept getting a narrower and narrower definition, well that and I don't think GNS reflects real world priorities particularly.

Linking to discussions, the thing is the discussions in question piss me off, and I've taken the view of late that it's healthier not to seek out stuff that I already know pisses me off.  Besides, it's years of discussions, not a thread here or there.

If you don't see it, that's cool.  The thing is, for me there is so little useful content in GNS or the Big Model that it's simply not worth the work to try to retrieve it, particularly when it's most fervent proponents clearly have such a hate on for the way I like to game.  Additionally, I think GNS is not really that current a theory anymore, the main guys on the indie scene hardly ever seem to refer to it nowadays, they have I think moved on.

I also genuinely question whether a quasi-academic theory is really a useful tool for addressing intra-group issues about style of play preferences.  I think there are easier, less judgemental and far easier applied tools already in existence to help with those kinds of problems.  Essentially, simple conversation.  Once you chat with someone in ordinary English to point out that people play for different reasons and that sometimes those reasons clash, and ask them to consider if maybe that's what's happening in their group, I think you have done pretty much all the good that GNS originally aimed to but without in the process categorising anyone or creating quite dreadful jargon.

Quote from: BalbinusI think there are easier, less judgemental and far easier applied tools already in existence to help with those kinds of problems.  Essentially, simple conversation.

ZOMFG, u r a cheetoist!

Talk to your group, without labels and jargon? Amazing stuff! :p

Quote from: John MorrowEspecially given the open hostility directed at Simulationism at various points at the Forge, is that really surprising?  What were those lines again?

"No, we think that Simulationism is a form of retreat, denial, and defense against the responsibilities of either Gamism or Narrativism."

"That would give us Gamism and Narrativism as 'real' RPG goals, and Simulationism as a historical, perhaps even regrettable artifact of bad design. "

"Instead, the Simulationist profile (behaviors) represents a retreat from the responsibilities of either Gamism or Narrativism. It's a way to blame any undesirable outcomes on 'the game,' or to put all responsibility for the quality of the story on the GM, and ultimately, on the game designers (metaplot). "

"'S' remains part of G/N/S - it is indeed a set of demonstrable behaviors, and it is indeed a set of specific RPG design principles which reinforce those behaviors. But it fascinates me that, as Paul has described, it is vastly unlike 'G' and 'N' because it is founded on FEAR."

(All of those quotes come from the Forge.  Would you like to guess which people I'm quoting?)

Not that I don't believe you (god knows I do), I'm just curious if you have links.  I'd love to see the entire discussions (I'm a glutton).

Quote from: James J SkachNot that I don't believe you (god knows I do), I'm just curious if you have links.  I'd love to see the entire discussions (I'm a glutton).

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24.0

There are some other gems in there (e.g., using the GNS to classify gamers).  What I think that discussion shows, more than anything, is that Ron never really "got" the Simulationist label he lifted from the r.g.f.a Threefold so it became a sort of dumping ground that meant "bad role-playing".  To Ron's credit (and I honestly mean that), he's never deleted that thread.

[EDIT: Added Material Below]

It's not that difficult to find more examples of blind people trying to describe clouds (or claiming that they don't exist because they can't see them).

For example, the Forge Provisional Glossary (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html) defines the "Beeg Horseshoe Theory" as "A proposed visual model for the relationship among the three Creative Agendas around a flat circle, with an 'open space' for Simulationist play, because it may not exist. First proposed by Jared Sorensen as a criticism of Simulationist play (or pseudo-play), then re-proposed by Mike Holmes in an effort to validate Simulationist play."  In other words, it often looks like they spent more time trying to define Simulationist play away than trying to understand it, perhaps because they weren't able to understand it.

Quote from: John MorrowTo Ron's credit (and I honestly mean that), he's never deleted that thread.

Yeah ... wow, that's old stuff.  I've never seen a link that has a topic number as low as 24.  The 24th thread ever made on that board, way back in 2001.  You do have a long memory.

Ron doesn't delete threads at all to my knowledge, he closes them sure but he doesn't delete them.

That stuff dates back to 2002 I think, whether it remains relevant I leave to others.

Quote from: TonyLBYeah ... wow, that's old stuff.  I've never seen a link that has a topic number as low as 24.  The 24th thread ever made on that board, way back in 2001.  You do have a long memory.

It's old, but there was discussion on Gaming Outpost before that.  

Yes, I do have a long memory (I often reference threads from a decade or more ago on rec.games.frp.advocacy, too -- Google Groups helps there).  I can remember being in my crib and baby carriage and hearing crickets outside for the first time as a child.

The way dialogue works is that people propose things and weigh them. Nobody says 'pervy' at the Forge any more (they'd stopped before I started reading), and nobody is talking in these terms about sim.

You guys really need to let some of this go.

I agree. I still think there are serious problems with Forge theory as it currently exists (which is hard to put a finger on since it's really just whatever the speaker of the moment says), but unless you want a public apology for everything dumb someone's said in the past, it'd be better to let sleeping dogs lie. Or rather if someone says something dumb now, you can call them on it. (Particularly if it's said to your face. If I worried about people saying dumb things out of earshot I'd be very busy, living in a university town as I do.)

Quote from: BalbinusRon doesn't delete threads at all to my knowledge, he closes them sure but he doesn't delete them.

Still, given that he could delete potentially embarassing comments but doesn't is worth noting.  

Quote from: BalbinusThat stuff dates back to 2002 I think, whether it remains relevant I leave to others.

I think it remains relevant for a few reasons.  First, that's the end of the period in which the GNS was formed and it reflects the thinking (or lack of thinking) that went into that model.  Second, there has been a great deal of resistence to any sort of major revisions to the model since that period, so that sort of thinking (or lack of thinking) still persists in the structure of the model.  Third, the Beeg Horseshoe and later discussions containing similar comments suggest that the same sort of thinking persisted for a long time and may never have gone away.  So my vote is for, "Yes, it remains relevant."

Quote from: droogThe way dialogue works is that people propose things and weigh them. Nobody says 'pervy' at the Forge any more (they'd stopped before I started reading), and nobody is talking in these terms about sim.

This thinking is still embedded in the GNS model and the definitions surrounding it.

Quote from: droogYou guys really need to let some of this go.

Has the Forge let the GNS model go?  Have they done a major comprehensive revision of it based on their current thinking?

Quote from: Elliot WilenI agree. I still think there are serious problems with Forge theory as it currently exists (which is hard to put a finger on since it's really just whatever the speaker of the moment says), but unless you want a public apology for everything dumb someone's said in the past, it'd be better to let sleeping dogs lie.

I've said plenty of dumb things in the past online.  If something I've said really bothers you and I no longer agree with what I said, I'll be happy to tell you so and even give you an appology if I think one is warranted.  

I'm sorry but I think this whole, "Let's just forget about that and move on," attitude is a big part of the problem.  That's not facing a problem.  That's refusing to deal with it.

Quote from: John MorrowI've said plenty of dumb things in the past online.  If something I've said really bothers you and I no longer agree with what I said, I'll be happy to tell you so and even give you an appology if I think one is warranted.  

I'm sorry but I think this whole, "Let's just forget about that and move on," attitude is a big part of the problem.  That's not facing a problem.  That's refusing to deal with it.

The real problem is that the attitude is still there...it's just hidden a little better now.  Sim games are still talked down to left and right, it's just that the talking-down-to is all dressed up in academic language.  Frankly I'd rather have the original honest disdain.  

There's the occasional post where the original honesty still shines through (Brain Damage, anyone?)...but mostly its all been sublimated and intellectualized.  But anyone who thinks it isn't still there -- that person is incapable of seeing how it looks to Sim players (ie, those whose play styles are descibed using words like "dysfunction").

Quote from: Lee ShortThe real problem is that the attitude is still there

Absolutely -- and don't forget: the long period of a (poorly) hidden agenda came  *between* the original GNS essay and the Brain Damage.

Guys: theory is all about how the kinds of games I like to play cause on-going powerstruggle and brain damage, and how indie games with reduced GM control are required for functional gaming...

Not all theory guys (even some of the diehards) believe that.

But a lot of them certainly appear to.

Because a lot of them had on-going power struggle and, instead of saying, "Hey. This is absurd. I need to grow up." they said, "It can't have been *me* -- it must have been that evil game that made me fight with my friends!"

Absurd.

And even worse -- serious discussion about gaming gets stuck there because for most of the people participating it's either about how their early gaming experiences scared them or how their current gaming approach is superior -- gaming 'theory' without critical thought or insight.

J. Kim -- who is *not* one of those guys, and who has done far more for RPG theory than The Forge -- mentioned that he'd prefer a theory with a point-of-view to a theory without one:

John -- I know you dislike points-of-view that are exclusive ("Games of this sort aren't real RPG's") and you seem to have a low tolerance for some of the conspiracy theories or faulty logic I've seen you speak up against.

Forge theory is just more of the same. I have no problem with a point of view made as part of a rigorous and good-faith argument... but there are several very telling points about this stuff that suggests that that's not the case here.

1) All the appologism:
- "It was A LONG TIME AGO" -- no, the Brain Damage was recent, and echoed what's been being said all along
- "It's like a metaphor! It's a similie! It was a figure of speech" -- not it wasn't
- "No one understands what he said -- it's all emotional reactions to his (poor) choice of words" -- no. everyone understands what he said. Unlike some of theory, it's quite clear. And absurd
- etc.

Theories don't need appologism. Dogma does.

2) All the (previous) claims that people who saw insulting or absurd stuff in the theory were projecting or didn't understand it.

It turns out they did -- they were right all along -- now that the truth is out, it suggests a *long* history of dishonest dialog on the part of the theorists.

3) Posts -- like one in your blog (in response to your post) -- asking what theorists should tell people who have had terribly disfunctional, power-struggle experiences with traditional games: the poster asks (and I paraphrase... I can find the exact post if necessary) if a well known theorist should simply tell them that yes, it's their fault -- or continue to assure them that it was the game's fault.

Clearly the poster felt that telling people who are in power-struggle that it's their fault would be... doing them a disservice? That telling them the game rules had relieved them of their responsibility for getting along well with other human beings would be... what? Cruel?

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have namby-pamby than intellectual dishonesty.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: jhkimAs others have pointed out, Ron didn't actually participate on r.g.f.a. (which was rec.games.frp.advocacy).  He heard about rgfa ideas and read some of the FAQs and such, but didn't participate.  He did participate on the Gaming Outpost, which was where many of the other ideas came up -- notably Scarlet Jester's ideas on exploration.  You can read some of Jester's GENder model on the threefold model page here:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/

The most striking change is that the rgfa concept of Simulationism is extremely different than Ron's GNS.  Genre emulators -- like those who wants to make four-color comic-book stories, say -- are considered Dramatist in the Threefold, but are considered Simulationists in Ron's GNS.  Threefold Simulationism is about simulating things -- i.e. a virtual situation where you're concerned about what would really happen given the premises.  

Yeah. The definitions are quite different. My guess is that realism was more of a priority then than it is now (I see general agreement that versimilitude is a better objective than 'realism' than I did in the 90's), and so got its own category.

I *do* think that simulating a comic book (where events are clearly plot driven) *is* GDS-Dramatist (and that's a useful and insightful observation). Simulating a comic-book-like-reality would be, GNS-Sim-Classic...

Maybe.

I missed both Gaming Outpost and r.g.f.a. but to the extent I've read the posts, I respect the thinking and the discussion that went into them.

As I've said elsewhere, I think one of the reasons that so much good stuff came out of r.g.f.a was the absence of discussion-killing moderation. The Forge's habit of closing threads that question GNS has done more to make the theory weak than all the agenda-driven agency put together.

Quote from: jhkimEh?  Yes, the blogs have disagreement between them, which I guess makes them incoherent with each other.  I would consider this a step up from certain tendencies on the Forge theory boards, which were moderated by Ron and had a number of people who would try to spin whatever was said as being consistent with the "core theory".  

When I called the discussion incoherent, I meant that it was diffuse, the way ambient light is not like laser, or "coherent" light.

If you thought I was saying that the blog discussions make no sense or are garbage, I suggest that you are projecting your own desire to be persecuted into my neutral diction.

I think this is because the games you have played have conditioned you to lose your natural reading ability... you're only able to see personal attacks and  insults.

I recommend Dogs in the Vinyard. ;)

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.When I called the discussion incoherent, I meant that it was diffuse, the way ambient light is not like laser, or "coherent" light.

If you thought I was saying that the blog discussions make no sense or are garbage, I suggest that you are projecting your own desire to be persecuted into my neutral diction.

I think this is because the games you have played have conditioned you to lose your natural reading ability... you're only able to see personal attacks and  insults.

I recommend Dogs in the Vinyard. ;)

Cheers,
-E.

This is brilliant, though I don't think John is the one is should be directed at.

Quote from: -E.Absolutely -- and don't forget: the long period of a (poorly) hidden agenda came  *between* the original GNS essay and the Brain Damage.



2) All the (previous) claims that people who saw insulting or absurd stuff in the theory were projecting or didn't understand it.

It turns out they did -- they were right all along -- now that the truth is out, it suggests a *long* history of dishonest dialog on the part of the theorists.

Well, it's my theory that the ones they're hiding the agenda from is mostly themselves and the intellectual dishonesty is mostly because they won't admit to themselves the nature of their discussion.  Why else would Ron go on like a broken record about how no one has done more to foster respectful RPG discussion on the internet.  Truth is, no one has dome more to foster faux-respectful RPG discussion* on the internet.  Not the same thing at all.  

Not that ALL of them fit this mold.  But many do.  


*I define faux-respectful discussion as a discussion where the forms of respectful discussion are followed, but not the functions.  In other words, you can be insulting and condescending as long as you're careful to use pedantic verbiage.  Being straightforwardly insulting and condescending is not tolerated at all.

Quote from: Lee ShortThis is brilliant, though I don't think John is the one is should be directed at.

John, in his earlier post (correctly) "Eh'ed?" me for describing the blog discussions as less... coherent than The Forge discussion.

Therefore, I felt compelled to respond this way.

John, although I don't think he likes me trashing the theory, is obviously, not one of the people who perpetuates that kind of dialog.

He might appreciate my response though (my serious response is in the post above).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Lee ShortThe real problem is that the attitude is still there...it's just hidden a little better now.

Sure, but refusing to hold people accountable for what they've said or at least asking them to confirm or deny that they still feel that way only enables that sort of behavior.

Quote from: Lee ShortFrankly I'd rather have the original honest disdain.

I don't think it's even real disdain.  In many cases (as expressed in the quotes I cited above), I think the problem is that they don't even understand some of these other styles of play.  I'd be happier about their disdain if I thought they at least understood what they were hating.  

Quote from: Lee ShortThere's the occasional post where the original honesty still shines through (Brain Damage, anyone?)...but mostly its all been sublimated and intellectualized.  But anyone who thinks it isn't still there -- that person is incapable of seeing how it looks to Sim players (ie, those whose play styles are descibed using words like "dysfunction").

In my experience, that's where the person gets told that they are really a Narrativist and just don't know it.

I've seen some of you guys go on about these same things, over different forae, for several years. Meanwhile, at the Forge, people just keep on with what they're doing.

You want to show how powerful and fantastic your game is to the Forge crew? Go write it up in Big Model terms. I'll say it again: the model itself is nothing more or less than an analytical tool. It contains no value judgements. It doesn't even insist upon the exclusivity of creative agenda, nor does it insist that G, N, and S are all the agendas possible. I have proved this to my own satisfaction.

I'd argue, in fact, that the possibility of more CAs has been admitted at least since Vincent Baker wrote this:

Quote from: Vincent BakerWhy are they doing this? What do they get out of it? For now, let's limit ourselves to three possibilities: they want to Say Something (in a lit 101 sense), they want to Prove Themselves, or they want to Be There. What they want to say, in what way they want to prove themselves, or where precisely they want to be varies to the particular person in the particular moment. Are there other possibilities? Maybe. Certainly these three cover an enormous variety, especially as their nuanced particulars combine in an actual group of people in actual play.

An enormously influential article. But it's like January 2004. People are moving on (those who are interested might like to have a look at Brand Robins' article GNS and Genre Theory (http://games.spaceanddeath.com/yudhishthirasdice/67)).

You're all just waaaay too precious in my view.

Quote from: John MorrowHas the Forge let the GNS model go?  Have they done a major comprehensive revision of it based on their current thinking?

Quote from: Lee ShortThe real problem is that the attitude is still there...it's just hidden a little better now.  Sim games are still talked down to left and right, it's just that the talking-down-to is all dressed up in academic language.  Frankly I'd rather have the original honest disdain.

Here's three recent Forge threads in which none other than Ron Edwards discusses Sim play positively and enthusiastically. In the last one, he's even playing what he calls a Sim-facilitating game himself, and loving it!

Rifts with Settembrini (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21684.0)

Werewolf with David Berg (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=22017.0)

Dead of Night, himself (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=22017.0)

So at the very least, that's far from considering Sim a dumping ground or refuge of cowards or any such thing, isn't it?

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: droogI've seen some of you guys go on about these same things, over different forae, for several years. Meanwhile, at the Forge, people just keep on with what they're doing.

You want to show how powerful and fantastic your game is to the Forge crew? Go write it up in Big Model terms. I'll say it again: the model itself is nothing more or less than an analytical tool. It contains no value judgements. It doesn't even insist upon the exclusivity of creative agenda, nor does it insist that G, N, and S are all the agendas possible. I have proved this to my own satisfaction.

This is priceless!

We complain about how the current discussion uses slanted language to describe forms of gaming some of us enjoy.  The solution to this problem?  Embrace the slanted language!  

Yeah, I call that empathy.

Quote from: droogI've seen some of you guys go on about these same things, over different forae, for several years. Meanwhile, at the Forge, people just keep on with what they're doing.

You want to show how powerful and fantastic your game is to the Forge crew? Go write it up in Big Model terms. I'll say it again: the model itself is nothing more or less than an analytical tool. It contains no value judgements. It doesn't even insist upon the exclusivity of creative agenda, nor does it insist that G, N, and S are all the agendas possible. I have proved this to my own satisfaction.

This is priceless!

We complain about how the current discussion uses slanted language to describe forms of gaming some of us enjoy.  The solution to this problem?  Embrace the slanted language!  

Yeah, I call that empathy.  

Of course, maybe if the criticism were engaged with in a meaningful fashion, the response might be different than it in fact has been.  But the Forge's response to criticism has never been to engage with it.

(Bah!  meant to be an edit, not a repeat).

Quote from: Lee ShortOf course, maybe if the criticism were engaged with in a meaningful fashion, the response might be different than it in fact has been.  But the Forge's response to criticism has never been to engage with it.

If by "The Forge" you mean "Ron Edwards" then ... yeah.  When people criticize him in other fora he pretty much ignores it.  It's possible, in fact, that he doesn't even read it.  Who can know?

If by "The Forge" you mean "People who are active at the Forge" then I'd really love to get you (who say the Forge people don't defend their theory online enough) and a couple of other people (who say the Forge people defend their theory online too much) together in a room and let you fight it out :D

Quote from: Lee ShortThis is priceless!

We complain about how the current discussion uses slanted language to describe forms of gaming some of us enjoy.  The solution to this problem?  Embrace the slanted language!  

Yeah, I call that empathy.

I have no empathy for you. But if you want to talk to Marxists, you learn to talk Marxism. If you want to talk to neo-liberals, you learn the language of neo-liberalism.

If you absolutely want your favourite gaming to be recognised by the Forge (and there may be various reasons for this), post about it in Actual Play.

Quote from: John MorrowI've said plenty of dumb things in the past online.  If something I've said really bothers you and I no longer agree with what I said, I'll be happy to tell you so and even give you an appology if I think one is warranted.

I see your point here, but I also think a good deal of what gives this whole thing legs is polarization over personal, not ideological issues. Attacking the Forge, or Forge theory, in the abstract, or over old quotes, just pisses off people who've somehow obtained something useful from it, or who have some sort of personal link back to the Forge tribe.

QuoteI'm sorry but I think this whole, "Let's just forget about that and move on," attitude is a big part of the problem.  That's not facing a problem.  That's refusing to deal with it.

What I'm suggesting is that, instead of attacking the Forge or Forge theory in the abstract, it's better to respond to the nonsense as it arises--and there's still plenty of that. When someone says that your game is just dressed-up GM Fiat, and that means the players are just along for a ride on a storyline of the GM's devising, call them on it, but don't let yourself get stuck to the tar baby of debating the validity of Forge theory. Because then you do get caught up in all the myriad excuses, caveats, and latest-updates.

Quote from: droogI have no empathy for you. But if you want to talk to Marxists, you learn to talk Marxism. If you want to talk to neo-liberals, you learn the language of neo-liberalism.

Where did I say I want to talk to people at the Forge?  

Once upon a time, long long ago, I thought that I did.  I have since been rather thoroughly disabused of that notion.  Now I'm just explaining why.

Quote from: TonyLBIf by "The Forge" you mean "Ron Edwards" then ... yeah.  When people criticize him in other fora he pretty much ignores it.  It's possible, in fact, that he doesn't even read it.  Who can know?

If by "The Forge" you mean "People who are active at the Forge" then I'd really love to get you (who say the Forge people don't defend their theory online enough) and a couple of other people (who say the Forge people defend their theory online too much) together in a room and let you fight it out :D

Engaging with criticism is a very special case of "defending the theory."  The general case of "defending the theory" certainly doesn't qualify as such.  So consider that for a minute before you answer to yourself how often you've seen this happen.  

Ah, well, enough about this...I've got a game of Shock to prepare for.

Quote from: Lee ShortAh, well, enough about this...I've got a game of Shock to prepare for.

Now that's a good comeback. Let us know how it went.

Quote from: droogPeople are moving on (those who are interested might like to have a look at Brand Robins' article GNS and Genre Theory (http://games.spaceanddeath.com/yudhishthirasdice/67)).

I'm sorry but I just don't see how that's moving on.  Seriously.  Looks like it's embracing and trying to validate the existing GNS to me.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm sorry but I just don't see how that's moving on.  Seriously.  Looks like it's embracing and trying to validate the existing GNS to me.

That it is. The old language of GNS has the old assumtions and ideas built into it. If you use the GNS-language, you cannot help but conclude that GNS is, broadly-speaking, correct. Which of course is why they insist we use the GNS language.

Whereas if you use words in their everyday sense, you quickly realise the banality and inaccuracy of much of GNS and The Big Model. Much the same applies for droog's other examples of Marxism and economic liberalism.

Those who favour GNS and scorn Simulationism are quite correct that Simulationism, as described by them, would make for crap gaming, and probably doesn't even exist. Thing is, the same applies to Gamism and Narrativism. Or Social Contract, etc.

That people have observed some matches does not mean much. I could take western or Chinese astrology and get matches to people's game styles, or a deck of cards. Here's my Cardist Theory,

   Some people are Diamondists (interested in xp and treasure), others are Heartists (most interested in character relationships), some are Spadeists (digging down into the depths of conflict and nastiness), and some Clubbists (they just game to hang out with friends). The number on the card represents how intensely they feel this urge. If it's a Jack, they are a minor leader in their group and try to swing it that way; if a Queen, they try to manipulate the group that way, but aren't overt; if a King, they dominate the group and try to force it that way openly; if an Ace, they GM. By taking your set of cards and matching it to the personality of your players, you will be better able to design a game which matches what they play like.

There you go, JimBobOz's Cardist Theory. It's a load of old bollocks, of course, but it sounds vaguely plausible, and you can probably match some of the description to the people you've gamed with. That's because the human mind seeks patterns. That's why when you stare into the darkness, sometimes you see shapes - your mind's trying to make sense of the dark, so you end up seeing things that aren't actually there. We also look for evidence to reinforce the point of view we already have, and tend to ignore or not notice evidence against it. So for example if you don't like GNS, it's because you don't understand it.

*shrug*

But hey, go read the essays for yourselves, and judge for yourselves. You shouldn't criticise it unless you've read it - but you shouldn't support it, either. And I see that many of its supporters plainly don't understand it. For example, many of the supporters of GNS are unaware that the three of G, N and S are supposedly incompatible. If you try to put them together in one game, that game's "Incoherent" and won't be any fun.

Quote from: JimBobOzThere you go, JimBobOz's Cardist Theory. It's a load of old bollocks, of course

Oh, you only say that because you're an Ace of Clubs.

Hey, I need to correct myself from earlier--I just had the sudden realization that I'd made a totallyfalse statement.

to wit: Settembrini's Rifts game that he and Ron discussed on the Forge was diagnosed as Gamist, not Simulationist. I was mixing up a couple of issues in my mind fromthis and other current threads, and so lumped the Rifts account in with the others. I do still think it's relevant in tht it's a pretty trad piece of play that Ron speaks very positively about. But it's not Sim.

So, sorry, Sett! And sorry to anyone I may have confused. Hopefully, since nobody's responded to tht post yet, there's no harm done.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorSo, sorry, Sett! And sorry to anyone I may have confused. Hopefully, since nobody's responded to tht post yet, there's no harm done.

I had started responding but real life and work intruded so you got a pardon. ;)

Whew!

Quote from: John MorrowI'm sorry but I just don't see how that's moving on.  Seriously.  Looks like it's embracing and trying to validate the existing GNS to me.

For the record, I see it as a critique...but since Brand is comfortable with GNS, it's not a strongly hostile one. Break it down, though, and it basically says that GNS are arbitrary constructs.

Quote from: MelinglorHere's three recent Forge threads in which none other than Ron Edwards discusses Sim play positively and enthusiastically. In the last one, he's even playing what he calls a Sim-facilitating game himself, and loving it!

Rifts with Settembrini (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21684.0)

Since you retracted this one, I'll simply point out that it reminded me of being told that I'm not a Simulationist but a Narrativist.  There actually is something useful in that observation but it has to be wrestled free of the rest of the GNS to make it useful.

Quote from: MelinglorWerewolf with David Berg (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=22017.0)

In this one, I still see evidence that Ron doesn't "get" the real objective of play.  You'll also notice how much time he spends talking about non-Sim games and markers in his examples.

Quote from: MelinglorDead of Night, himself (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=22017.0)

This link is the same as the previous link.

Quote from: MelinglorSo at the very least, that's far from considering Sim a dumping ground or refuge of cowards or any such thing, isn't it?

The question is whether he really feels that way or not.  Those quotes I posted earlier were from 2001.  The infamous "Brain Dead" essay happened years latter.  In between, Ron made all sorts of neutral or even approving noises about Sim.  Does he really feel that way or is he just one more bad day away from blaming Simulation for dead puppies and global warming?  Have we heard any retractions of his previous rants?

But maybe the bigger issue is that I still don't see a lot of evidence that people understand what Sim is.  Oh, it gets defined and described but the descriptions contain a lot of assumptions that seem to miss what many people get out of role-playing.  The problem is that the model insists that the players have a goal and some players do not have a goal in the sense that they are looking for.  They play for the experience.  Trying to describe a roller-coaster ride in terms of the goal or, maybe even worse, as a form of travel utterly misses the point that it is an experience.  The objective is nothing more than just doing it, not reaching a goal or creating a product.

(And, yes, I expect people who don't get it or don't believe it to wonder what the goal that I'm just not seeing really is.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenFor the record, I see it as a critique...but since Brand is comfortable with GNS, it's not a strongly hostile one. Break it down, though, and it basically says that GNS are arbitrary constructs.

Yes, but it also praises them regardless.  I don't think it's hostile at all.  Reread the conclusions.

Quote from: TonyLBOh, you only say that because you're an Ace of Clubs.

A hit, sir, a palpable hit!

Well done TonyLB, soon, your journey to the Cheetoist Side will be complete!

Right, not hostile at all. Pleonasm, I think.

Hmmm.  I think I just realized one of the other reasons why there was so much hostility to the r.g.f.a Threefold (GDS) by people complaining about how it framed issues.  The r.g.f.a model was largely an experience model, not a goal model.  Its focus was how the GM resolved single situations and how those resolutions were experienced by the player.  I wonder if people who are primarily driven by goals or a need to create were as frustrated by people framing things in terms of individual resolutions points and the player's experience as I am by having everything framed in terms of a goal or creating something.

I think there is a viable distinction between:

1. GNS/TBM theory.
2. The dialog specifically around that theory.
3. All the dialog at The Forge.

These aren't the same things and asking about Forgey-Theory almost necessarily conflates some of them.

I think it's true that sort of ironed into the initial theory (GNS/TBM) is the concept that the game rules are responsible for things I don't think game rules can be responsible for (ongoing power struggle, promoting a paradoxical view of gaming that leaves well-intentioned readers helpless to make adult decisions about play, actual damage).

However: if you want to suggest that people have some goals or preferences and maybe there are three buckets, so long as you aren't dogmatic about it, I'm okay with that (I find GDS useful. I find the concept of Narrativist play as exemplified by DitV useful).

What I think is really rough is that a lot of people's bad experiences, misunderstandings, and prejudices got encoded into the dialog (and then the 'theory') in a way that makes it really difficult to extricate. The need to have the theory be 'defended' led to some twists in the conversation that were certainly not for the better.

The one thing that John M's link has that's absolutely relevant to the 'current' state of the theory is how in 2001 there's some notes about how to defend the theory the conversational construct that gamers are not classified is created (but, um, we all know gamers *are* classified). In 2006 (5?) we see posts talking about how the brain-damage was a really bad word choice because it's a metaphor. Same stuff.

This *is* different than having some underlying insights. It's also theoretically possible to separate at least some parts of the 'theory' from the convoluted dialog: this is what Brand does with his geners post.

So there's a bunch of different stuff going on and it's never easy to clearly tell who is talking about what.

For my part I think some incredibly interesting stuff comes out of there--and Ron's not-so-long-ago discussion about the context of GM actions based on the way the game is set up was, IMO, an inspired piece of writing and insight.

So it's not all victim-y. It's not all hostile. But some of it certainly is (and, um, well, I haven't seen too many calls for people's heads on stakes from The Forge--so they don't have a monopoly on that, unfortunately).

That's too bad.

-Marco

Quote from: John MorrowThe question is whether he really feels that way or not.  Those quotes I posted earlier were from 2001.  The infamous "Brain Dead" essay happened years latter.  In between, Ron made all sorts of neutral or even approving noises about Sim.  Does he really feel that way or is he just one more bad day away from blaming Simulation for dead puppies and global warming?  Have we heard any retractions of his previous rants?

John, this just shows that you didn't understand the whole brain-damage furore at all. 'Brain damage' was about would-be narrativist players harmed by pseudo-narrativist games. Whether or not you thought it was a load of hogwash, it wasn't about simulationism.

I think Marco (two posts above) is spot on with his analysis. That's pretty much how I view the whole debate as well.

Quote from: MarcoHowever: if you want to suggest that people have some goals or preferences and maybe there are three buckets, so long as you aren't dogmatic about it, I'm okay with that (I find GDS useful. I find the concept of Narrativist play as exemplified by DitV useful).

I found the GDS very useful.  But as I've said above and elsewhere, the GNS has helped me understand not only why the GDS wasn't useful for others but why its use by rec.games.frp.advocacy frustrated them to the point of anger.  Trying to describe what you do in a model that doesn't describe what you do very well (or at all) is frustrating.  Having other people insist in describing what you do, incorrectly, in a model that doesn't describe what you do very well (or at  all) is maddening.

That said, I do find parts of the concept of Narrativist play not only useful but brilliant.  But they are only useful to me if I extract them from a lot of other concepts that, in the mind of many Forge people, must come as a package deal.  I understand why Vincent Baker told me that maybe I'm Narrativist and there was a valuable insight in there.  But if someone took that observation and ran with it, with all of the baggage that the GNS straps on to it, it would damage their understanding of what I want and do.

Quote from: MarcoWhat I think is really rough is that a lot of people's bad experiences, misunderstandings, and prejudices got encoded into the dialog (and then the 'theory') in a way that makes it really difficult to extricate.

I think the problem may be even simpler than that.  Every model needs a place to put "bad role-playing", especially if it limits all of role-playing to only three categories.  In the case of the GDS, Gamist was the place where "bad role-playing" was inevitably put.  Why?  Because most of the people debating that model were Simulationists or Dramatists and, other than Brian Gleichman and maybe a few others, nobody tried to define or defend that style from the inside.  In the case of the GNS, Simulationism was the place where "bad role-playing" was inevitably put.  Why?  Because most of the people debating that model were Narrativists (or GDS Dramatists) and Gamists.

Quote from: MarcoThis *is* different than having some underlying insights. It's also theoretically possible to separate at least some parts of the 'theory' from the convoluted dialog: this is what Brand does with his geners post.

While I don't feel Brand successfully does that with his genres post, I do think there are some useful insights in the Forge theory.  The problem is that they are burried under piles of garbage and if you don't know what to look for, they are easy to miss.

Quote from: MarcoSo there's a bunch of different stuff going on and it's never easy to clearly tell who is talking about what.

It also didn't help that for a very long time (and still to this day, in many cases), if you ask two Forge regulars to define a word or theory, you'll get at least two different answers.  It's telling that John Kim could summarize the rec.games.frp.advocacy theories in a couple of pages of FAQs, at most, but understanding Forge theory turned into something akin to studying the Bible.

Quote from: JimBobOzFor example, many of the supporters of GNS are unaware that the three of G, N and S are supposedly incompatible. If you try to put them together in one game, that game's "Incoherent" and won't be any fun.

See, you just don't know the full gamut of the discussion on this. Ron says incoherency is more likely than coherency to lead to dysfunction. That's not the same thing as you said. Moreover, Mike Holmes cheerfully admits to incoherency in his game and claims you can have a bit more flexibility.

The basic principle is: if you're having fun incoherently, bully for you. Somehow you make it work. Now, how reproducible are your efforts?

Quote from: droogJohn, this just shows that you didn't understand the whole brain-damage furore at all. 'Brain damage' was about would-be narrativist players harmed by pseudo-narrativist games. Whether or not you thought it was a load of hogwash, it wasn't about simulationism.

What was "pseudo-" about the "pseudo-narrativist" games?  If they weren't Narrativist, what were they?  And if they were incoherent, what other CA did they use?

Quote from: John MorrowWhat was "pseudo-" about the "pseudo-narrativist" games?  If they weren't Narrativist, what were they?  And if they were incoherent, what other CA did they use?

The 'pseudo-' bit was supposedly the focus on 'story' in the text of those games, while promoting railroad plots and empty posturing. Of course we're talking about everybody's favourite white lupine here.

I see your train of thought. Look, I'll say it again: there are no games that are simulationist. There are games that facilitate a sim agenda – i.e. if you are playing with a sim agenda, BRP or GURPS may be a good fit for you. My Life with Master probably isn't. HeroQuest might be (Mike Holmes and I think so). Simple as that, no harm, no foul.

Is it at all useful to classify these things? Well, people have been doing it for a long time. It helped me clarify my thinking and drive harder at an objective. For me, it's always been about trying things and seeing if they work.

Quote from: John MorrowI think the problem may be even simpler than that.  Every model needs a place to put "bad role-playing", especially if it limits all of role-playing to only three categories.  In the case of the GDS, Gamist was the place where "bad role-playing" was inevitably put. [snip] In the case of the GNS, Simulationism was the place where "bad role-playing" was inevitably put.

Yes, this does happen. No doubt about it. And quite frankly, it's a natural human reaction, when your enjoyment of a certain activity is vastly different from others with whom you share the activity, to react in shock when that rift is demonstrated beyond doubt, in play. Ron calls it "Martians at the dinner table," or some such. I've been there. And for what it's worth, the couple of times that I've gone on the Forge with a play report ranting and raving about the "horrible" behavior of a fellow gamer, I wasn't greeted with any sympathetic "there, there, it's all right now, you're among friends, we won't let the bad, bad non-Narrativists get you." What I got instead was, "whoa, simmer down there fella, this guy may not be a badguy, he might just have different and totally valid expectations from play than you do."

And I think that's characteristic of where Forge Theory is at right now. On the whole, anyway. And yes, even including Ron Edwards, which is mainly why I posted those links. If you believe his understanding of Sim is poor, fine, that's a whole 'nother ballgame than "Ron really just thinks that Simmies are brain-damanged fraidycats who aren't man enough for his One True Way of playing."

In fact, even back in that old, old thread, Ron says a couple of posts down,

QuotePaul and I may not be right in applying this idea to Simulationism as a whole. We may be WAY off-base, or we may have identified the loser-equivalent for Simulationism (corresponding to munchkinism in Gamism, or to scenery-chewing in Narrativism). Working this out through dialogue is absolutely required.

So there's bad S, as well as bad G and bad N. (FWIW I think Ron has just as much disdain for "pretentious fucks" as the Pundit, though they obviously differ on what qualifies.) Not any one category as a "dumping ground." S may be underdeveloped at the Forge, but as people have pointed out that's just because most Forgers' interests lay elsewhere. I personally responded to Ron's Werewolf and Dead of Night threads with a big "O-o-oh." Really cleared a lot up for me. But your mileage may vary, I suppose.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: droogThe basic principle is: if you're having fun incoherently, bully for you. Somehow you make it work. Now, how reproducible are your efforts?

That supposes that "incoherency" exists, which supposes that things called "Gamism," etc exist. As I said, if you accept all the language, all the new words and definitions and categories, then you have to accept the conclusions.

It's like saying, "well, if you feel the Holy Spirit even outside the Eucharist, that's great! Somehow you make it work. Now, how reproducible are your efforts?" Such a statement begins by assuming that Catholic doctrine is entirely right; unsurprisingly, when you beging by assuming that the basic ideas are right, you end up concluding that the conclusions are right. If you begin by assuming that the Eucharist is real and meaningful, not just as something symbolic, but as something real, as in for example transubstantiation (the doctrine that the bread and wine really do become the body and blood of Christ at the moment of communion), you can't help but conclude a lot of other stuff, such as the importance of consecrated male priests, etc.

You're saying, "accept all the basic assumptions of the Forge, now tell me why those basic assumptions are wrong." Which of course is impossible, and why you've asked for it.

There is no such thing as "Incoherence", because there is no such thing as Gamism, Narrativism or Simulationism; and if there were, it'd still be entirely possible to have a game, or game session, with several of those appearing at once, and still have fun. We know this to be possible because it happens every day in game sessions; people do several different things in one session, and enjoy them all, and people compromise what they enjoy for the sake of others' enjoyment, and their own pleasure is greater because of, not despite, other people's fun. It's fun to see others having fun, so when I compromise on what I want so they can have some of what they want, I actually end up with more fun than I'd have without compromise.

GNS is inaccurate, and even if it were accurate, is an incomplete descrition of what happens in a game session. Same goes for the Big Model. To see this, a person need look no further than the Provisional Glossary. "Narrativism: see Story-Now." "Story-Now: see Narrativism." Brilliant!

Don't like it, don't talk about it. But that's different from misinterpreting.

Quote from: JimBobOzTo see this, a person need look no further than the Provisional Glossary. "Narrativism: see Story-Now." "Story-Now: see Narrativism." Brilliant!

That's pretty disingenuous, dude. It says no such thing. Whatit actually says is:

Story Now

    Commitment to Addressing (producing, heightening, and resolving) Premise through play itself. The epiphenomenal outcome for the Transcript from such play is almost always a story. One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority of role-playing, the defining feature of Narrativist play.

You can complainabout terms like Premise, or whatever, but the definitition is there, anyway. And it's clarified by four additional terms in the Glossary (Addressing, Premise, Transcript, Story). Which a lot of people bitch about, too, but hey, whaddyagonnado?

At any rate, your claim here is false.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: droogThe basic principle is: if you're having fun incoherently, bully for you. Somehow you make it work. Now, how reproducible are your efforts?

The expectation that it won't work and is not reproducible is the problem.

The group of people I've played with since college plays incoherent games.  Contrary to Ron's caricature in one of the threads provided above, we've used all different systems from none and no dice to Hero and d20, plenty of homebrew systems, Fudge, and so on.   We play different genres, long campaigns, mini-campaigns, one-offs, and so on.  We seem to have a lot of fun, to the point where several of us were willing to take time off of work to play for a few years just to play with an old friend who couldn't give up a day of his weekend to play our regular game (we do ~12 hour sessions on Saturdays).

The new group I play D&D with (one person overlap with my regular group) plays incoherent games.  Great fun.  Heck, we were using D&D 3.5 to play a game with a great deal of deep role-playing and very little combat and it worked just fine.  Players in that game drive hours and spent entire weekends playing in a game that sounds incoherent to me, yet they seemed to have a lot of fun with that, too.  I've played in plenty of incoherent groups and "mismatched" system and had fun, to the point where I wonder what people are doing wrong when they don't.  

Several times, I've had people tell me to read one or more Actual Play threads on The Forge to understand what's so magical about a certain game (e.g., Dogs in the Vineyard) and walked away scratching my head thinking, "That looks like just about all the games I've played.  What's the big deal?" exept perhaps that everything was driven by abstract mechanics that didn't seem to have much to do with what was actually happening in the game.  Do I really need to play a quick game of Yahtzee! to determine how my character responds to having a gun pointed at them in a dramatic or interesting way?  I don't need rules for that.  

In fact, I think I just figured out how to explain, in quasi-Forge speak, why the rules in Dogs in the Vineyard (and very innovative and otherwise fine game) seem to bother me so much.  Using dice and rules do decide how my character responds through a conflict situation deprotagonizes my character.  Instead of the GM deciding what my character does, the rules do.  I should be doing that. (OK.  More correctly, it removed me from having ownership of my character's protagonism.  Better?)

Going back to this:

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's like saying, "well, if you feel the Holy Spirit even outside the Eucharist, that's great! Somehow you make it work. Now, how reproducible are your efforts?" Such a statement begins by assuming that Catholic doctrine is entirely right; unsurprisingly, when you beging by assuming that the basic ideas are right, you end up concluding that the conclusions are right.

Now, first of all, JB, this is one of your ploys. You're escalating here, by trying to insinuate cultishness. Remember what I told you, young man.

Secondly, you don't have to accept ideas in a final way. If I said, "Wow, your game is incoherent, but you make it work so well!", there are several possibilities:

1. We can debate whether 'incoherence' exists.
2. We can discuss what techniques you employ.

I've got a hypothesis on this point: I think it takes a very, very good GM to make an incoherent game work. That's one reason why people like you are so hot on the importance of the GM, because the whole shebang falls down if the GM doesn''t have his shit together.

Just an idea.

Quote from: droogThere are games that facilitate a sim agenda – i.e. if you are playing with a sim agenda, BRP or GURPS may be a good fit for you.

How about Fudge?

Quote from: droogIs it at all useful to classify these things? Well, people have been doing it for a long time. It helped me clarify my thinking and drive harder at an objective. For me, it's always been about trying things and seeing if they work.

I had the same experience on r.g.f.a with the GDS.  The GNS doesn't work for me.  The GDS didn't work for some people, either, and both don't work for some people.  Don't mistake personal utility with universal utility and don't assume that makes it harmless.

Quote from: John Morrowhttp://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=24.0

Ok, I'm laughing my ass off at that description of Shadowrun.

:rolleyes: <-- Not directed at John Morrow.

Quote from: John MorrowHow about Fudge?

Obviously, Fudge is pretty much what you make it.

QuoteI had the same experience on r.g.f.a with the GDS.  The GNS doesn't work for me.  The GDS didn't work for some people, either, and both don't work for some people.  Don't mistake personal utility with universal utility and don't assume that makes it harmless.

If an analytical framework doesn't work for you, that's life.

[EDIT: I don't agree that the rules of DitV in any way decide what you do, but that is another argument]

Quote from: droogI've got a hypothesis on this point: I think it takes a very, very good GM to make an incoherent game work. That's one reason why people like you are so hot on the importance of the GM, because the whole shebang falls down if the GM doesn''t have his shit together.

I've seen incoherent games work more often than not.  When they don't work, it's usually because of problem players, not incoherency.  Where games do fail from incoherency is where a single style dominates a game of players with different styles, which is exactly what the theory of coherency says that you should do.  The way single style games prevent the problem is to exclude people of differing styles from the table instead of giving everyone something they can have fun with.

Quote from: John MorrowWhere games do fail from incoherency is where a single style dominates a game of players with different styles, which is exactly what the theory of coherency says that you should do.  The way single style games prevent the problem is to exclude people of differing styles from the table instead of giving everyone something they can have fun with.

Okay, and that's a preference and experience thing. I've seen some games that were utter shit because everybody brought different expectations to the table.

The thing about 'problem players', is more dismissive, I think, because you're not allowing for the possibility that the player is a problem because he's not getting what he wants. Going back to my game, there was a lot of muttering about the one guy who wasn't with the program. Socially he was fine, but for the purposes of the game he brought a certain atmosphere with him that clashed with the rest of us and made me feel awkward (at the time I saw it as partly my fault). He got accused of being a 'powergamer'. My diagnosis is that Glenn would have been happy with either crunchy gamism or full-on emo narrativism, but he simply wasn't on board with our style of sim, where just existing in the setting was an end in itself. Better we had just said, "No, why don't we get this other game together instead if you want to RP with us?"

Quote from: droogIf an analytical framework doesn't work for you, that's life.

Or it could indicate a weakness in the analytical framework.

Quote from: droog[EDIT: I don't agree that the rules of DitV in any way decide what you do, but that is another argument]

Do the rules deal with social encounters?  Is the example of play in this review (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10742.phtml) reasonable?  If they don't decide how the social encounter plays out and is resolvecd, what am I rolling dice for?  Why do I need dice mechanics at all to play out a scene like this?  Can't I just, you know, role-play through it?

Quote from: droogOkay, and that's a preference and experience thing. I've seen some games that were utter shit because everybody brought different expectations to the table.

I think that's the player version of coherency -- a player that's only happy with one style of play and can't endure other styles.  Flexibility, on the part of both players and GM, makes a great deal of this disappear.

Quote from: droogThe thing about 'problem players', is more dismissive, I think, because you're not allowing for the possibility that the player is a problem because he's not getting what he wants.

I don't consider that a problem player.  I consider the problem player who has a "creative agenda" that could be called "annoying everyone else"/"jerkism" or the drunk player who shows up at the game and insists on playing an inappopriate character.  There are players like that.  To a lesser degree, there are players with deficient social skills and players who can't follow instructions.  If a player is willing to bring a ninja to a pirate game (and a cave man game, and a Western, etc.), then I'm not convinced they won't also try to bring a ninja to a Dogs in the Vineyard game.

Quote from: droogGoing back to my game, there was a lot of muttering about the one guy who wasn't with the program. Socially he was fine, but for the purposes of the game he brought a certain atmosphere with him that clashed with the rest of us and made me feel awkward (at the time I saw it as partly my fault). He got accused of being a 'powergamer'. My diagnosis is that Glenn would have been happy with either crunchy gamism or full-on emo narrativism, but he simply wasn't on board with our style of sim, where just existing in the setting was an end in itself. Better we had just said, "No, why don't we get this other game together instead if you want to RP with us?"

Have you read Robin Laws' book Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering?  It has a seven-category way of describing players but instead of saying that you should run games with only one player type, describes how to run games with different types in the same game.  In other words, the alternative to kicking him out may have been to toss him a cookie every now and then.  Would that really have ruined the game for everyone else?

Quote from: John MorrowDo the rules deal with social encounters?  Is the example of play in this review (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10742.phtml) reasonable?  If they don't decide how the social encounter plays out and is resolvecd, what am I rolling dice for?  Why do I need dice mechanics at all to play out a scene like this?  Can't I just, you know, role-play through it?

Look, dude, millions of electrons have died in the arguing of social-mechanics vs none. It's a preference in system. Try and remember that.

Let's look at this:

QuoteAnyway, there wasn't much to the plot. The PCs showed up, spoke with the Steward and his two wives, and ended up engaging in a social contest to convince him that there really was a problem with the town (he didn't want to believe it). Once they succeeded in that, they were able to get the townsfolk to open up a little... the wife of one of the gamblers gave them hints and the PCs ended up pretending to leave town and lying in wait to see where the sinners were going.

What's actually happening here? The players want their characters to convince the NPC of something. He's going to end up convinced or not convinced, and somehow you must resolve that.

In the specific case of DitV, you can:
(a) Say, "Okay, the steward loves you."
(b) Roll for it.

Once you begin rolling, either side can Give at any time. Nothing ever says, "This is what you must do."

In another game, you might act it out. Same thing happens: he's convinced or not convinced and that must be resolved. In this case it's resolved by the GM using his judgement.

Quote from: John MorrowI think that's the player version of coherency -- a player that's only happy with one style of play and can't endure other styles.  Flexibility, on the part of both players and GM, makes a great deal of this disappear.

Exactly.

The success or failure of a game session isn't about the particular styles of play everyone wants matching ("Coherency") or not ("Incoherency"), but about people getting along, working with each-other, compromising, having fun because someone else is having fun, etc.

For example, droog won't game with me, not because he's a "Narrativist" and I'm a "Gamist" or any shit like that, but because he thinks I'm a cock, or whatever his favourite insult is today. Our game play style preferences, however you wish to label them, are irrelevant, because he doesn't feel we'd get along at a person-to-person level. Whether he's right or not I've no idea, but that's the way game groups work, or don't work - because of how the people get along.

If you see a game group break up, or form, it's got fuck-all to do with play style preferences, and all to do with how the people get along as individuals.

Play style talk may take an okay group and make it into a great group, but it won't take no group or a crap group and turn it into an okay group - that's what individuals have to do, by getting along with one another. The fact is that if people can sort out that basic person-to-person stuff to get an okay group, they'll muddle through on the rest, and don't need an elaborate rpg theory for it.

Quote from: droogLook, dude, millions of electrons have died in the arguing of social-mechanics vs none. It's a preference in system. Try and remember that.

Sure.  And some players enjoy being railroaded.  Does that invalidate my original comment about why it didn't work for me?

Quote from: droogWhat's actually happening here? The players want their characters to convince the NPC of something. He's going to end up convinced or not convinced, and somehow you must resolve that.

Correct.  

Quote from: droogIn the specific case of DitV, you can:
(a) Say, "Okay, the steward loves you."
(b) Roll for it.

Can you just play out the debate?

Quote from: droogOnce you begin rolling, either side can Give at any time. Nothing ever says, "This is what you must do."

And if you don't want to Give because you think it's out of character?

Quote from: droogIn another game, you might act it out. Same thing happens: he's convinced or not convinced and that must be resolved. In this case it's resolved by the GM using his judgement.

What purpose do the actual words spoken by the characters serve in both cases and how do they contribute to the outcome?

Let me put an example to this, using a more conventional personality mechanic for comparison.  In Hero, if I decide to do a presence attack on some NPCs, I tell the GM what I'm saying or doing and add d6 based on my character's Presence and add a number of bonus d6 based on how the GM thinks what my character is saying or doing will be interpreted by the NPCs, and I roll to see how much I exceed their Ego by.  

In that example, what I my character says or does contributes to the outcome, even though how much is interpreted by the GM and Hero allows for a fairly weak contribution, in my opinion.  In Dogs, does what my character says or does have any similar impact on the outcome?  And if the player or GM can simply Give because they are persuaded by the argument, isn't that simply abandoning the personality mechanic and playing it out?

I'm not simply trying to be difficult here.  I've had people tell me to read Actual Play threads to understand the "magic" that they experience playing Dogs and I own a copy.  I'm trying to understand where that feeling comes from.  If you've got a Forge thread or an Actual Play thread that actually describes why the players are enjoying this process, I'll happily look at it.

Quote from: JimBobOzFor example, droog won't game with me, not because he's a "Narrativist" and I'm a "Gamist" or any shit like that, but because he thinks I'm a cock, or whatever his favourite insult is today.

That was particularly funny to read while looking at your icon of Samuel L. Jackson. :)

Quote from: John MorrowThat was particularly funny to read while looking at your icon of Samuel L. Jackson. :)

I might have to change it, even I'm finding it hard to take myself seriously with that guy looking on. I think it's good to have a reminder not to take yourself too seriously, but you probably only need one of a silly screen nick or avatar, not both.

Ron Edwards would find himself making much more sense if only he'd use an avatar of a man with a teapot on his head, or something like that.

Quote from: John MorrowIn that example, what I my character says or does contributes to the outcome, even though how much is interpreted by the GM and Hero allows for a fairly weak contribution, in my opinion.  In Dogs, does what my character says or does have any similar impact on the outcome?  And if the player or GM can simply Give because they are persuaded by the argument, isn't that simply abandoning the personality mechanic and playing it out?

What you say has an effect on the traits, relationships etc you bring into the conflict, or whether you escalate or not. That in turn affects your chance of winning the conflict.

What you say is also part of the fiction of the game now. If you pistol-whipped an old woman, it happened and now we know where your character will go. That's part of the point of playing DitV.

(Of course, when you say "I pistol-whip the old woman!", it's always possible another PC Dog will challenge you on it – "Damn if you're goin' to do that, Brother Jedediah, in my presence!")

Giving isn't abandoning the mechanic, it's one possible resolution of the mechanic. To start a conflict and then back down has a different narrative significance from not starting a conflict in the first place.

If you don't enjoy that process of seeing and raising, of bouncing your roleplaying off the dice, you won't enjoy the game. But it's not because the game takes choice from you.

Quote from: JimBobOzFor example, droog won't game with me, not because he's a "Narrativist" and I'm a "Gamist" or any shit like that, but because he thinks I'm a cock, or whatever his favourite insult is today. Our game play style preferences, however you wish to label them, are irrelevant, because he doesn't feel we'd get along at a person-to-person level. Whether he's right or not I've no idea, but that's the way game groups work, or don't work - because of how the people get along.

My presumptive opinion of you aside, how do you account for Glenn? He was a good friend of all the people in our group, yet his game style didn't go with that game. And it was definitely that game in particular, because he's played other games with me and we've both had a good time.

I don't want to play in a game with you GMing, because I don't like the techniques you use (as I read them). Also, I find your take on DitV very puzzling, and I think there must be some huge disconnect in our perceptions or goals. That's entirely apart from my opinion of you as a person.

Quote from: droogMy presumptive opinion of you aside, how do you account for Glenn? He was a good friend of all the people in our group, yet his game style didn't go with that game. And it was definitely that game in particular, because he's played other games with me and we've both had a good time.

I didn't say that game play style preferences never had any effect whatsoever, I said that the most basic and important thing is how everyone gets along.

And it's quite possible for Anna, Bob, Charlie and Dave to get along fine, but Anna, Bob, Charlie and Erika explode in argument, or Charlie feels slightly uncomfortable, or whatever.

The exact make-up of the group is important. I mean, two gamer buddies of mine, I see them as basically similar guys - outspoken, talkative, both think that people are the most important part of gaming, etc. I get along very well with both of them. But one I can't game with at all, and the other I can, and the two can't stand each-other. Why? Human relations are often mysterious things, someone more knowledgeable about psychology and so on could probably answer better than me why two people who both get along with me, neither likes the other.

Quote from: droogI don't want to play in a game with you GMing, because I don't like the techniques you use (as I read them).

I'd be curious, in some other thread about GMing, to hear of your own techniques, we could then discuss my own and those of others, too.

Quote from: droogThat's entirely apart from my opinion of you as a person.

Thing is, that's the most important part. If you get along with someone, you can very often, though not always, work out any differences in game play style, or work style, or whatever. If you don't, you can't even begin to sort anything else out.

I don't say that other things don't matter, only that people getting along well is the most important thing, and if that's sorted, everything else is easy by comparison.

May I cite myself:

QuoteAnd that´s why I can´t buy the Big Model. RPGs and instances are texts which are received and formed in an interactive process, which need textual analysis, criticial literary discourse and the like. In short: methods from the humanities. The forge has nothing in that regard.
This is their main failure, and Ron´s main failure.

That´s all that is wrong about it.
They are using the wrong tools.

Why should there be special categories for play-motivation? Bullshit, you game  because of the same reasons you do anything else in the world.
The jargon from the forge is phony stuff made upt because people didn´t know shit about stuff like Action theory, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_theory) or anything else friom the humanitites.

That´s why it´s all fucked up. There is socialisiation into bad behaviour, but there is no brain damage. There are preferences, but there is no CA.
CA is a bad placeholder for the underlying preference spectra and an artifact of the lacking tools the Forgers had to use.

Talk about causes and reasons for behaviour like you do in real sociology (or any newspaper): Socio-psychological motivations and longings, not some made up categories.

Actually Settembrini, John Kim recently put up a link to a computer game comany' study of why people enjoy computer games. It's not from the humanities or any area - just asking people why they enjoy it, and trying to sort it out.

I think the full pdf is worth downloading, but here (http://www.xeodesign.com/whyweplaygames.html) is the summary page.

Amazingly, "why we play games" has nothing to do with GNS :p Some may argue that rpgs and computer games are completely different, but what's said there... it all seems pretty familiar to me.

This IS action theory. And the humanities at work. That´s exactly the stuff I´m talking about.

Quote from: droogSee, you just don't know the full gamut of the discussion on this. Ron says incoherency is more likely than coherency to lead to dysfunction. That's not the same thing as you said. Moreover, Mike Holmes cheerfully admits to incoherency in his game and claims you can have a bit more flexibility.

The basic principle is: if you're having fun incoherently, bully for you. Somehow you make it work. Now, how reproducible are your efforts?

Actually, GNS predicts on-going powerstruggle as the *most likely* result of incoherent play.

When faced with the self-evident observation that incoherent games are hugely popular and more successful in the market-place than "coherent" ones, the theory punts.

"Incoherence" is really "flexibility"

In actual play traditional games are highly adaptable to player desires and preferences making it more likely that a diverse group (or a group with diverse tastes) will enjoy them than highly-focused / limited games.

Consider the huge differences in numbers of people who have played and enjoyed Vampire (the poster child for Incoherence) and the numbers of people who have ever heard of DiTV or Sorcerer.

Whatever Incohernence is, it's what real gamers are asking for.

Don't forget that.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: SettembriniThis IS action theory. And the humanities at work. That´s exactly the stuff I´m talking about.

That is any more to do with the humanities research than Big Model? Hardly. They surveyed thirty game players (computer game players) and fifteen friends. There are three references listed.

It's a pretty slick-looking document and webpage, but there isn't much substance considering people are actually paying for this to be produced. Looks like marketing.

Quote from: -E.When faced with the self-evident observation that incoherent games are hugely popular and more successful in the market-place than "coherent" ones, the theory punts.

We'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.

QuoteIt's a pretty slick-looking document and webpage, but there isn't much substance considering people are actually paying for this to be produced. Looks like marketing.

Well, it´s shallow.
But it´s the sort of thing. And as you might know from reading a newspaper, discussions about popular culture are the sum of individual opninions. THis is one.

The underlying notion, that it´s regular stuff that drives peoples actions, and not some constructed and limited phony categories is the important thing here.

GNS is just a stand-in, because the people using it don´t know better. So it´s  inherently flawed and twisted. But people learned to use those flawed and twisted tools to make a certain type of game. And they work. But it doesn´t tell us anything worthwhile about RPGs.

But it amazes me, that so few people see this fallacy. Makes me wonder.

You´d need to seperate:
1) GNS as a toolbox
2) GNS as a model for reality

Number two is a slap in the face for western liberal arts, humanities and (pop)-cultural discourse itself.

Do Forum posters don´t read any newspapers?

QuoteThe underlying notion, that it´s regular stuff that drives peoples actions, and not some constructed and limited phony categories is the important thing here.

Hard Fun
Easy Fun
Serious Fun
People Fun

????

Quote from: JimBobOzI'd be curious, in some other thread about GMing, to hear of your own techniques, we could then discuss my own and those of others, too.

My basic problem with you is your insistence on the Viking Hat GM model and your use of fudging. I prefer a more easygoing approach myself, and I don't see anything so radical in a bit of (formalised) shared narrative control. And if dice roll, I want them to decide something. Also, your choice of systems really doesn't turn me on (though I see you're looking at HQ).

I've declined to play in games run by good friends for similar reasons, so don't feel bad.

@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 (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html). 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.

Quote from: droogI 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.

If the irony of the doesn't get you...

Why of course GNS, and particularly the ongoing-power-struggle aspect, makes sense - I see power struggle everywhere!

:D

John Morrow is my new hero.

And why didn't Ron call them Inflexible (Coherent) and Flexible (Incoherent)?  It's obvious.  He's using terms that cast upon the onject his own prejudices. In the best of worlds, he would have called them Coherent and Flexible, thereby putting a positive spin on both.

And then the Theory could go on to talk about how to accomodate both in the best fashion.  If you're playing with a group that is Flexible, here's how to tell, and here's how to keep that group together and here a re games that support you.  If you're playing with a Coherent group, here's how to tell, here's how to keep it going, and here are some games that are good bets you'll enjoy. Keep it positive.

But that seems never to have been the goal.

Hey, can we determine the different goals of Gaming Theory people - their Agendas?  Like - Inclusive, Exclusive, and Reactive?

Quote from: SettembriniIf 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.

Let me take as an example Thomas Hobbes, a thinker to whom I am ideologically opposed. Hobbes nevertheless represents an important moment in the development of liberal political thought. He dug the channel all subsequent liberal thought has flowed through, to use the words of CB McPherson.

Similarly, even you have said that you discover interesting insights in the discussions. The foundation and bedrock of those discussions is the analytical framework (constructed ad hoc and over time) of the Big Model.

No gain without pain.

Quote from: James J SkachIf the irony of the doesn't get you...

Why of course GNS, and particularly the ongoing-power-struggle aspect, makes sense - I see power struggle everywhere!

Quite so. But why is it ironic? Everybody brings a framework of reference along with them.

Quote from: droogThe foundation and bedrock of those discussions is the analytical framework (constructed ad hoc and over time) of the Big Model.

The foundation and bedrock of the things people find are observations that match someone's experienced reality.

The effort to make it an all-encompassing analytical framework is where it fell apart.  And not because it didn't or doesn't include things that are accurate, but because that effort was so frought with a bias and a goal.

As JimBob has said in this discussion if you accept A is true, then you set out to prove A, it's not surprising you will be successful.

Cuts both ways, right?

Quote from: droogI 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.

IHO, this is the problem with coherence, and it's desire as a goal for game design.  Look at what John Morrow said earlier in the thread:

Quote from: John MorrowThe new group I play D&D with (one person overlap with my regular group) plays incoherent games. Great fun. Heck, we were using D&D 3.5 to play a game with a great deal of deep role-playing and very little combat and it worked just fine.

Now here you have a groups that plays a deep-role playing game - given John's other comments about being Narrativist, I assum that means it was the Agenda they had.  But at some point, combat did break out, and they used D&D 3.5 to handle that as well. So what do people who, like John, want a lot of deep role-play (Nar, if you choose), but want some combat/challenge (Gam, if you choose), and wrap it all up in the simulation of a fantasy world?  In my little corner of the world and in my limited experience, it's some mix of these that people play - game to game, group to group, preference to preference. But in TBM, it's Incoherent.

Quote from: droog'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.

I'm sorry, it's Coherent with Drift?  How many holes are in a boat before it's drift wood?

But isn't that the way you are suppose to do analytical work?  Try to prove it wrong? Try to punch holes in your theory? And then, when there are so many instances where your theory doesn't hold, even with slight adjustments and so forth, you try again?

Quote from: James J SkachNow here you have a groups that plays a deep-role playing game - given John's other comments about being Narrativist, I assum that means it was the Agenda they had.  But at some point, combat did break out, and they used D&D 3.5 to handle that as well. So what do people who, like John, want a lot of deep role-play (Nar, if you choose), but want some combat/challenge (Gam, if you choose), and wrap it all up in the simulation of a fantasy world?  In my little corner of the world and in my limited experience, it's some mix of these that people play - game to game, group to group, preference to preference. But in TBM, it's Incoherent.

Just because you have combat in a game doesn't make it gamist, nor does it mean that your narr game is suddenly incoherent.

QuoteI'm sorry, it's Coherent with Drift?  How many holes are in a boat before it's drift wood?

You tell me. My GM Herbie can solve everything.

Quote from: James J SkachBut isn't that the way you are suppose to do analytical work?  Try to prove it wrong? Try to punch holes in your theory? And then, when there are so many instances where your theory doesn't hold, even with slight adjustments and so forth, you try again?

I just wish people would get it all straight first.

Quote from: droogMy basic problem with you is your insistence on the Viking Hat GM model and your use of fudging.

Like I said, this is something that deserves its own thread, GMing styles.

On the one hand I post the occasional joke about wearing the Viking Hat. On the other hand, I post a lengthy description of how I created my best game ever (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2937) - best because I asked everyone what they wanted, and carefully created the game and its style based on that. So whether I really dominate the game session as my personal ego trip, or whether it's closer to what you'd call, "shared narrative control," well, I leave to your judgment. You can go on the occasional joke, or the lengthy description.

Yes, I do fudge.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd why didn't Ron call them Inflexible (Coherent) and Flexible (Incoherent)?  It's obvious.  He's using terms that cast upon the onject his own prejudices. In the best of worlds, he would have called them Coherent and Flexible, thereby putting a positive spin on both.

No, because now you're naming things in terms of your own prejudices. "Flexible" is almost always taken to be a good thing. But Edwards' idea is that two or more styles of play can't be accomodated in one game or session. If you try to have Gamist and Simulationist things in one game, or one session, it won't work, you'll get a mess, and no-one will have any fun. So he had to call it "Incoherent."

Whereas "flexible" implies something good, to most people. It implies that you can combine different styles of play into one "coherent" whole.

We choose words which express our meaning. Edwards' meaning was that combining different styles doesn't work. So he had to call it "Incoherent." If he'd called it "flexible", he'd be saying the opposite thing - that combinations work, in fact that it should work.

Quote from: James J SkachBut isn't that the way you are suppose to do analytical work? Try to prove it wrong? Try to punch holes in your theory? And then, when there are so many instances where your theory doesn't hold, even with slight adjustments and so forth, you try again?

Or you can just ignore large parts of reality, or assume that it's bad data. "You were having fun in a way that proves my theory wrong? Obviously you didn't really have fun, you just thought you were having fun! But it's not your fault, you were just brain-damaged from that bad gaming, just like a victim of child abuse doesn't know what good sex is, you don't know what good gaming is. So my theory is preserved!"

Toss out the data which doesn't fit your theory, and then you don't have to change your theory at all :p

Quote from: JimBobOzOn the one hand I post the occasional joke about wearing the Viking Hat. On the other hand, I post a lengthy description of how I created my best game ever (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2937) - best because I asked everyone what they wanted, and carefully created the game and its style based on that. So whether I really dominate the game session as my personal ego trip, or whether it's closer to what you'd call, "shared narrative control," well, I leave to your judgment. You can go on the occasional joke, or the lengthy description.

Yes, I do fudge.

I want not to get personal here. There are other reasons you might go for that style than ego. I'll also take your word for it that you're not as extreme as you sometimes portray yourself. It actually seems to me from your stuff that you've either read Forge narr stuff or spontaneously recreated some of the ideas.

I don't want to play a game where people fudge the dice. That's straying into a kind of storytelling I'm not keen on. I like randomisers.

Quote from: JimBobOz"You were having fun in a way that proves my theory wrong? Obviously you didn't really have fun, you just thought you were having fun!

You know, I would sincerely like to see any links that people have to instances of this statement on the Forge, especially from Ron Edwards. 'Cause it's alien to my experience.

And no, brain damage doesn't count; offensive or no, that's not what it's about.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorYou know, I would sincerely like to see any links that people have to instances of this statement on the Forge, especially from Ron Edwards. 'Cause it's alien to my experience.

And no, brain damage doesn't count; offensive or no, that's not what it's about.

Peace,
-Joel

I don't know if this counts, but it's a quote from one of the links provided earlier in the thread:

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThat would give us Gamism and Narrativism as "real" RPG goals, and Simulationism as a historical, perhaps even regrettable artifact of bad design.

But I could sure see someone taking it as such.

I'm sure people with more time invested in Forge-ness will come up with something better...

Quote from: droogI 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.

Heh. I guess I see a power-struggle right here, too, for what it's worth.

But I don't see them in the games I play.

If you define "being in power-struggle" as the human condition the way, say Nietzsche might have if he'd been an RPG theorist, then it's like oxygen... everywhere.

But that's not a very useful definition of the term, and it's not the one GNS uses. In GNS/TBM, some games have power struggle and some don't.

Yeah?

Much more useful than seeing it everywhere, no?

And if it's not everywhere, then there must some factor that puts it in your games, but not in mine.

I think that's actually a profound revelation: A *lot* of people who see value in the theory see traditional RPG's as unending struggles for dominance in which the rules are the battlefield, and the GM is unfairly loaded with power and authority...

What they *don't* see (probably because they're *inside* the situation) is that such a view is simply their way of seeing things. Across the street people are enjoying the traditional dynamic and getting a lot out of it...

Where power-struggle is an issue, it's with the people involved, not the game.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.I think that's actually a profound revelation: A *lot* of people who see value in the theory see traditional RPG's as unending struggles for dominance in which the rules are the battlefield, and the GM is unfairly loaded with power and authority...

What they *don't* see (probably because they're *inside* the situation) is that such a view is simply their way of seeing things. Across the street people are enjoying the traditional dynamic and getting a lot out of it...

See, old bean, you keep on coming with this attitude. Just skating around the edges and making tiny little ad hominems.

Yes, everything's political. And I say that, and apply it to roleplaying games, from the perspective not of a wounded player, but of somebody who's been a GM almost always. I've had a couple of decades to observe things going on and learn my craft.

If you're not on the same page, things go pear-shaped more easily. Simple.

Now, do you want to talk, or be smooth?

Quote from: MelinglorYou know, I would sincerely like to see any links that people have to instances of this statement on the Forge, especially from Ron Edwards. 'Cause it's alien to my experience.

And no, brain damage doesn't count; offensive or no, that's not what it's about.

Actually, that's exactly what it's about.

From the famous brain damage comment (http://lumpley.com/marginalia.php?entry=158&comment=3777)

Quote from: Ron Edwards[...] protagonism was so badly injured during the history of role-playing (1970-ish through the present, with the height of the effect being the early 1990s), that participants in that hobby are perhaps the very last people on earth who could be expected to produce *all* the components of a functional story. No, the most functional among them can only be counted on to seize protagonism in their stump-fingered hands and scream protectively. You can tag Sorcerer with this diagnosis, instantly.

[The most damaged participants are too horrible even to look upon, much less to describe. This has nothing to do with geekery. When I say "brain damage," I mean it literally. Their minds have been *harmed.*]

By "tagging Sorcerer with this diagnosis, Edwards does not mean (as youc an see from the wider context of his comments, see last quote below) that Sorcerer inhibits "protagonism", but that people's coments on and understanding of Sorcerer have been coloured by their inability to understand what "story" and "protagonism" are.

So if you say that you understand very well what "story" and "protaginism" are, Edwards will reply that in fact you don't, that your early poor experiences with the things make you unable to understand what they really are.

Later he attempts to explain his "brain damage" comments by saying he meant that it was like child abuse (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18707.0).

Quote from: Ron EdwardsNow for the discussion of brain damage. I'll begin with a closer analogy. Consider that there's a reason I and most other people call an adult having sex with a, say, twelve-year-old, to be abusive. Never mind if it's, technically speaking, consensual. It's still abuse. Why? Because the younger person's mind is currently developing - these experiences are going to be formative in ways that experiences ten years later will not be. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the characteristic behaviors of someone with this history, but I am very familiar with them - and they are not constructive or happiness-oriented behaviors at all. The person's mind has been damaged while it was forming, and it takes a hell of a lot of re-orientation even for functional repairs (which is not the same as undoing the damage).

In his second post, he goes on,

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI don't know what to call it, this thing, is a pure inability actually to understand and enjoy stories of any kind.

So, Edwards says that you are not having real stories, or real "protagonism."

"But I am having real stories, and real protagonism," you reply.

"Ah, you only think you are. Really your story-making ability is handicapped, warped by your early bad story-making experiences, just like a child abuse victim doesn't know what proper sex is, you don't know what a proper story is."

So if you agree that the common ideas of "story" are wrong, that proves Edwards' theory. And if you say that the common ideas of story are right, well then you're brain-damaged and that proves Edwards' theory, too.

Whatever the data, his theory is correct.

Also, if you don't like Sorcerer, or even if you like it but for the "wrong" reasons, that proves you're brain-damaged, too!

Quote from: Ron EdwardsJesse's first post in Why complex conflict is so confusing (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18690.0) makes a very clear point: the Sorcerer rules work, but the gamer brain (well, the "story-oriented" variety) does not. Confronted with these rules, the mind recoils and re-interprets and retrofits what "must" be meant into a tortuous shape which does not work, but at least the frustrations and confusions are familiar.

Adjust reality to fit the theory!

Quote from: droogThat'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.

A standard interpretation of Forge theory would mean that a game is either coherent or its not. Being "more coherent" would be like being "a little bit pregnant".

Either a game presents one single method of play, or it doesn't. You can't be sort-of coherent.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JimBobOzActually, that's exactly what it's about.

No. . .no, it's not.

What I was saying it's not about is your "Obviously you didn't really have fun, you just thought you were having fun!" The Brain Damage thing is about ability to appreciate and understand story. Whole different claim. Maybe it's wrong. Maybe it's offensive. But that wasn't what I was asking about. You (and others, I think) have been tossing around Brain Damage references as a substitute for "whatever I find offensive about Ron Edwards." Go ahead. Hate "Brain Damage." But hate it for what it actually says. For other things about Ron that you hate, please find other references. Which was what I was asking for. Thanks.

Quote from: James J SkachI don't know if this counts, but it's a quote from one of the links provided earlier in the thread:

But I could sure see someone taking it as such.

Thanks for the reply, James. But no, that's not what I'm talking about. I read the link, or the first couple pages anyway, and what Ron's talking about there is the idea (again, love it or hate it, let's just be clear) that Simulationists play based on fear. So he's talking about people not having fun. He never says, "if you think you're having fun, you're really not." And for what it's worth, a couple of posts down Ron admits that he may be off base. I personally think that Ron is identifying a real phenomenon here; that there really are gamers who are fearful and insular and shy away from vulnerability in their gaming, and Ron incorrectly identifies it with Sim as a whole. He doesn't appear to believe this now.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: RPGPunditA standard interpretation of Forge theory would mean that a game is either coherent or its not. Being "more coherent" would be like being "a little bit pregnant".

Either a game presents one single method of play, or it doesn't. You can't be sort-of coherent.

I don't see that. How closely does the game help you realise your agenda? Does it work with you, is it no help, or is it actively a burden?

Quote from: MelinglorThanks for the reply, James. But no, that's not what I'm talking about. I read the link, or the first couple pages anyway, and what Ron's talking about there is the idea (again, love it or hate it, let's just be clear) that Simulationists play based on fear. So he's talking about people not having fun. He never says, "if you think you're having fun, you're really not." And for what it's worth, a couple of posts down Ron admits that he may be off base. I personally think that Ron is identifying a real phenomenon here; that there really are gamers who are fearful and insular and shy away from vulnerability in their gaming, and Ron incorrectly identifies it with Sim as a whole. He doesn't appear to believe this now.

Well, the problem is, when he says they are playing based on fear, and they say they are playing for fun, isn't that it?  I mean, you can dance around teh words, but that's it in a nutshell.

Now Ron does go on an try to salvage the conversation by making appeals to the discussion being about whether or not it's a valid generalization.  But I have to tell you, it read like a lot of bait and switch.  I mean, he comes out all hellfire with all kinds of pseudo pschoanalysis about playing from fear - and you're telling me that that won't be perceived as an insult? - and ends by saying well that's not really what the question was.  Well, can't have it both ways.

Interesting that he is confronted with someone saying it's bad for threefold to say things like this - even if they are true! - as it's bad PR.  I have to give him credit - he responds that he's not going to avoid the question just because it might hurt someone's feeling.  But somewhere along the way, after he has some private e-mails, he changes his tune and bait-and-switches the question.

And finally - people who shy away in fear of vulne...WTF? I mean, is it the object of RPG theory now to psycho-analyze players to this depth?  I mean, talk about playing into the hands of critics who claim Forgery is all a reaction to a bad DM touching bad places...

Quote from: MelinglorWhat I was saying it's not about is your "Obviously you didn't really have fun, you just thought you were having fun!" The Brain Damage thing is about ability to appreciate and understand story. Whole different claim. Maybe it's wrong. Maybe it's offensive.

I am more or less indifferent to its offensiveness. Hell, it must be offensive, even John Wick posts in that thread to say it's offensive, and he should know about being offensive. But I'm not that worried about that. The main problem is that it's wrong.

If you read Uncle Ronny thoroughly, you'll find that "fun" = "Narrativism". If you come along and tell him about some game session where you had fun, he'll categorise it. If he liked it, he'll say it was Narrativist. If he didn't like it, it was Gamist, Simulationist, or had two or three of them at once, and was therefore "Incoherent."

Ask him if someone with "brain-damaged" is able to tell what is "really" fun. Go on. See what he says. He'll explain that like a molested kid, they have a warped idea of "fun."

"Fun" and "story" are synonymous to Ron Edwards. Consider for example some of the others posting in the thread,

Quote from: Brand RobbinsI, Brand Robins, am brain damaged. I have had to work long and hard in order to learn how to tell stories and enjoy them[...]

By all but the most pedantic of understandings, "enjoy" is the same as "having fun." If "fun" and "story" needed to be distinguished, then Edwards would do so in that thread, in response to people; he doesn't. Further, in his responses he makes it pretty clear that "story" = "fun", and "impaired story" = "not fun." Some examples,

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI also think that the story-features which can be easily elicited from people [who have not been damaged by bad roleplaying] are exactly the same things which excite and interest them about the story in the first place, before the dialogue.

So, non-gamers can come up with exciting and interesting things; gamers can't.

Quote from: Ron Edwards[...] I think White Wolf games of the early-mid 1990s were the high-water mark of the damaging trend, not the originator. And that I'd say "enjoy and/or tell," [stories] not just "tell." And to repeat (again) that I'm talking about playing these games with dedicated Narrativist goals, however unarticulated, not just "playing" them in any-old way. After all, in 1992, if your goal was to get into that goth chick's pants, playing Vampire was probably a pretty good way to do it.

As I said, you may wish to quibble, saying that "enjoy" does not necessarily mean, "fun." But then you're trying just too hard.

But of course you can see this for yourself if you read the thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18707.0).

Quote from: JimBobOzSo if you agree that the common ideas of "story" are wrong, that proves Edwards' theory. And if you say that the common ideas of story are right, well then you're brain-damaged and that proves Edwards' theory, too.

Nitpick:

Instead of "story", you should have said "collaborative storymaking".

Your point still holds overall.  But that specific - that some RPG books have dressed something up as collaborative storymaking that, in plain fact, is not - that's the bit where Ron was right.

The the extent to which this actually affects the play of a regular group, and the effects of same, those are the (much longer and more central) parts where he was wrong.

Well, "story", "collaborative storymaking", whatever, comes to the same thing in this context. If we're talking about everyone at a game session "creating a story", then we're saying it's "collaborative."

As for what rpg books have and haven't called "collaborative storymaking" and whether they labelled it correctly, that's a whole other question, which we can discuss and argue about in some other thread, if you care to start it.

The point is that Forger theory - that is, Ron Edwards' GNS (GNS being the core of Big Model) - is based on the idea that most gamers are miserable, and even if they say they're not miserable, really they are, because their bad roleplaying has warped their fragile little minds. Obviously this is a load of old bollocks.

So it's a theory based on wrong data, and thus can only accidentally be right.

We can argue over the various details of the theory, but what it comes down to is that if any theory is based on wrong data, it's hard to be hopeful about it, and you can't expect many people to take it seriously. When your very first sentence is wrong - "many gamers are not having any fun," - then most people won't pay attention to the rest. And fair enough, too.

Quote from: droogWhat you say has an effect on the traits, relationships etc you bring into the conflict, or whether you escalate or not. That in turn affects your chance of winning the conflict.

But it could really be anything, right?  A player could choose whether to escalate, give, etc. based on any agenda they want to follow, right?  Are these mechanics Narrativist or is the key innovation here in the set-up, defining characters and a milieu with conflicts that almost can't help but be addressed and resolved?  And would the game be any less Narrativist in the most important senses if I resolved that conflict by just role-playing it out, using the Hero system, or even using d20?  That's why I read the Actual Play threads and go, "Huh?"  I don't see how the mechanics are actually facilitating Narrativism.  All they seem to be doing is abstracting the conflict out and, frankly I'm at a loss to understand how abstraction helps.

Quote from: droogWhat you say is also part of the fiction of the game now. If you pistol-whipped an old woman, it happened and now we know where your character will go. That's part of the point of playing DitV.

(Of course, when you say "I pistol-whip the old woman!", it's always possible another PC Dog will challenge you on it – "Damn if you're goin' to do that, Brother Jedediah, in my presence!")

Again, how is this different from any other system?  In d20 or Hero, the same exact scene could happen with held actions and die rolls with similarly dramatic resolution and, as an added bonus, all those die rolls are representative of specific actions rather than abstractions, so they can support a Simulationist mode of play and possibly even a Gamist mode.  

In other words, with a more traditional system in which the die rolls resolve specific declared actions, you could have Brother Jedediah threaten the old woman and it doesn't really matter if the player approaches that situation from a Narrativist (internal struggle), Gamist (tactical challenge), or Simulationist (being there) perspective because it will all look the same at the SIS.  That, in fact, is part of how to make "incoherent" games work.

Quote from: droogGiving isn't abandoning the mechanic, it's one possible resolution of the mechanic. To start a conflict and then back down has a different narrative significance from not starting a conflict in the first place.

Well, Giving is simply a decision that doesn't use the dice.  Yes, it is a "part" of the mechanic but it's essentially the same thing as deciding to give in with no mechanics behind that decision, is it not?  To that extent, it doesn't need any dice or rule to make it work.

Quote from: droogIf you don't enjoy that process of seeing and raising, of bouncing your roleplaying off the dice, you won't enjoy the game. But it's not because the game takes choice from you.

That may be the case, but then I'm still left wondering what the mechanics are supposed to do to facilitate Narrativist play.  It's more than simply disliking the processess of seeing, raising, and giving.  It's trying to understand how that process is supposed to help promote Narrativism.

Added:

I think it looks to me like abstract conflict mechanics are designed more to distance the mechanics from representing specific actions in the SIS, thus making it difficult to use the system for Simulationist or Gamist play than actually promosting Narrativism.  All of the Narrativism in Dogs in the Vineyard seems to me to be loaded into the setting and character generation process, not the conflict resolution mechanics.

Quote from: James J SkachWell, the problem is, when he says they are playing based on fear, and they say they are playing for fun, isn't that it?  I mean, you can dance around teh words, but that's it in a nutshell.

Well, I don't think it is. I mean, he's talking about actual reactions of fear, or at least what he percieves to be such. Whether or not the folks he says he's observed the reactions in were having fun, or claim to be, well. . .that's hypothetical. Certainly their goal is fun, but you can strive for fun without achieving it, no? I've always played "for fun," but have endured a lot of unfun play over the years, which is why I was attracted to the Forge as a possible diagnostic and corrective. So he's pegged a group of people as having this fear reaction. We can't assume until we see it in living HTML that he's asked each person (or even just some of them) if they're having fun or not., then told them "no you're not." That's the smoking gun I'm looking for. Ron says in his interview with Settembrini (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20623.0) that when he talks about people not having fun in their games, he's referring to people coming to him and complaining that they're having a bad time. And I dunno, maybe he's a scummy liar or whatever, but I'm looking for the counter-evidence.

Quote from: James J SkachNow Ron does go on an try to salvage the conversation by making appeals to the discussion being about whether or not it's a valid generalization.  But I have to tell you, it read like a lot of bait and switch.  I mean, he comes out all hellfire with all kinds of pseudo pschoanalysis about playing from fear - and you're telling me that that won't be perceived as an insult? - and ends by saying well that's not really what the question was.  Well, can't have it both ways.

I dunno, it didn't feel like a bait and switch to me, rather a self-check in mid-discourse to say "hmm, maybe I've got it wrong or am overstating my case. That's not disingenuous, just human and honest.

Quote from: James J SkachI have to give him credit - he responds that he's not going to avoid the question just because it might hurt someone's feeling.

I thought that was pretty admirable too. Though I have a sad suspicion that a lot of folks are reading that as more generic "Ron's an asshole" evidence.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd finally - people who shy away in fear of vulne...WTF? I mean, is it the object of RPG theory now to psycho-analyze players to this depth?  I mean, talk about playing into the hands of critics who claim Forgery is all a reaction to a bad DM touching bad places...

First, I can't help what hands this plays into; I'm just trying to express my thoughts clearly and give an honest read of the topic. Even if it's bad PR. :) And, well, I wasn't really trying to attain any depth of psychoanalysis, but we are talking about human behavior. it's gonna get personal and psychological from time to time. Given what Gam and Nar are purported to require of their players, yeah, it's gonna scare people off if they want a "safer" way of roleplaying. Not that all folks who eschew these CAs are fearful, just, as I said, SOME are. Didn't think it'd be that big a point, man, sorry.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: droogMy presumptive opinion of you aside, how do you account for Glenn? He was a good friend of all the people in our group, yet his game style didn't go with that game. And it was definitely that game in particular, because he's played other games with me and we've both had a good time.

Without actually observing the game or the people involved, it's impossible to tell.  But one guess could be that you were running a coherent game that didn't have anything to offer him rather than an incoherent game that might have had something to offer him.  The solution, in that case, could either be to kick him out or to start running an incoherent game that gave Glenn more of what he was looking for (See Robin Laws' advice in Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering, as an example).  One solution to style conflict is to make the game more exclusive and drive the heretics out.  The other solution is to make the players more aware of style differences and the game more inclusive.  And I don't think that has to run anyone's fun.

Quote from: droogI don't see that. How closely does the game help you realise your agenda? Does it work with you, is it no help, or is it actively a burden?

But what "coherency" is all about in Forgespeak is whether a game has mixed agendas or not. It can't have "sort of mixed" agendas. It either has mixed agendas, or it doesn't.

RPGpundit

Quote from: -E.Actually, GNS predicts on-going powerstruggle as the *most likely* result of incoherent play.

One would think that cooperation and accommodation could also be the outcome, especially if everyone at the table had a good set of tools to understand their differences and help them work together.

Quote from: -E."Incoherence" is really "flexibility"

Exactly.  

Quote from: -E.In actual play traditional games are highly adaptable to player desires and preferences making it more likely that a diverse group (or a group with diverse tastes) will enjoy them than highly-focused / limited games.

I'll go a step further.  For every style, there are elements that play well with others and elements that don't.  One way to solve the problems with "incoherent" games is to teach players to make choices within their own preference that play well with the preferences of others.  My chief interest in a functional system for classifying gaming preferences or styles is to use it as a diagnostic tool to help people with different preferences or styles play well together, rather than to isolate them into pure games that play well for one style but have nothing to offer to other styles.

Quote from: John MorrowThe solution, in that case, could either be to kick him out or to start running an incoherent game that gave Glenn more of what he was looking for (See Robin Laws' advice in Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering, as an example).  One solution to style conflict is to make the game more exclusive and drive the heretics out.  The other solution is to make the players more aware of style differences and the game more inclusive.  And I don't think that has to run anyone's fun.

Glenn wasn't a heretic, though that's the sort of brush he started to get tarred with. He was just in the wrong game (which he had joined for social reasons).

Now, given that the game had already been going about seven years when Glenn joined it, and that we had a good thing going, why should the game be the one to move? Every moment I spent attending to Glenn's needs was time taken from the game as a whole and the players who had stuck by it.

As far as talking it out, the only vocabulary we had for such things was pejorative: 'powergamer', for example, or 'He doesn't get it'. None of it struck me as correct. All I knew was that there was a problem and the fixes weren't appealing.

The only proper fix was to repeat the treatment we had given Brett many years earlier, which was to indoctrinate him in the ways of the group. Personally, I don't think it would have worked, but we were saved the decision when Glenn and I fell out. I had his character eaten by trolls immediately.

QuoteYour point still holds overall. But that specific - that some RPG books have dressed something up as collaborative storymaking that, in plain fact, is not

Well, people all over the world knew that the first time they opened up the Vampire book.
And Pundit calls those people swine.

It´s an observation many of us made.

See there is a fatal misunderstanding, stemming from historical development. It´s what I propagate in Germany as the "genetic appproach to RPG discourse".

D&D was an Adventure Roleplaying Game. It made several promises. One was the promise of "story-creation". A whole new audience was added to the people playing D&D for what it really is. And this subset wanted to create stories. It´s a marketing lie, and to many people believd in it. Ron is the best and most prominent walking talking example of it.
People who project their story needs on a hobby that never, ever even was made to cater to them.

That´s the real incoherence:
Wrong reception of the text, stemming from missing context of the text´s origin. Avdenture gaming needs the wargaming framework of reference.

Due to the false promises of "marketing" for story, and missing sub-cultural ties into the wargaming mindset, people form this new subset felt the urge to move away from D&D. Because they did not understand D&D.

Ron´s RPG-career is a archetypical example for this.

So finally, this subset is reflecting on the hobby, from their viewpoint. And that´s doomed to failure. As can be seen.
They are judging things from a perspective that isn´t the point of origin. They are judging from what they want RPG to be, but actually never was, until they made it up for themselves.

Good for them, but they thusly cannot analyze regular RPGs aka Adventure Games. Cause they don´t grok em, never played them as they were meant to be played.

To do justice: D&D invited this itself, because the earliest learning texts were´nt easy to grasp. But the hostility of White Dwarf, or Gary Gygax to fudging etc. where the first signs for  an audience they never wanted/could  cater to.

The story-audience.

Look at Forgers who started with wargaming mindset in place (for example Clinton R . Nixon), and you will see it is far easier to communicate with them. And they acknowledge the inherent differences.

There is no CA-clash.
There is unspoken assumptions about the very nature of the games at hand.

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

Hope springs eternal.

Quote from: droogAnd 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.

That's interesting, because it was purposely designed to be incoherent.  Don't believe me?  Read this Pyramid message board message from Ryan Dancey describing the marketing research and assumptions that went into the creation of D&D 3e (it was part of a longer and more detailed thread that said more of the same).

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html

Basically, Ryan Dancey claims that D&D 3e was designed to cater to four different play styles (Thinker, Power Gamer, Character Actor, and Storyteller) and eight "core values":

• Strong Characters and Exciting Story
• Role Playing
• Complexity Increases over Time
• Requires Strategic Thinking
• Competitive
• Add on sets/New versions available
• Uses imagination
• Mentally challenging

By my assessment, that means it's designed to be Narrativist, Simulationist, and Gamist, all at the same time -- that is, "incoherent".  So why do you think it's a coherent game or was designed to be one?

Quote from: JimBobOzIf you read Uncle Ronny thoroughly, you'll find that "fun" = "Narrativism". If you come along and tell him about some game session where you had fun, he'll categorise it. If he liked it, he'll say it was Narrativist. If he didn't like it, it was Gamist, Simulationist, or had two or three of them at once, and was therefore "Incoherent."

Now, that's simply not true. I even linked to several threads in this discussion where Ron told a poster, "awesome game," and then pronounced it Sim or Gamist.

Quote from: JimBobOzBy all but the most pedantic of understandings, "enjoy" is the same as "having fun." If "fun" and "story" needed to be distinguished, then Edwards would do so in that thread, in response to people; he doesn't. Further, in his responses he makes it pretty clear that "story" = "fun", and "impaired story" = "not fun."

[snip]

As I said, you may wish to quibble, saying that "enjoy" does not necessarily mean, "fun." But then you're trying just too hard.

See, I find this line of reasoning pedantic. Since "enjoy" means have fun (sure, I'll grant that), any instance of "enjoy story" refers to having fun overall? The only reason this even seems to make sense is that you've already assumed that Story=Fun to Ron, always. I don't share that assumption.

Quote from: JimBobOzBut of course you can see this for yourself if you read the thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18707.0).

I've read the whole Brain damage thread, and the shit-storm surrounding it. I was trying to avoid evoking that storm again. . .not because I'm scared of its ugly truth or whatever, just because I knew it would explode and overshadow what I was trying to investigate.

James and Jimbob, and anyone else for that matter:

These citations (obviously, give my responses) are not compelling to me. Regardless of whether you think they are evidence of the phenomenon, I'm looking for something more direct. And I'm looking for a widespread pattern. . .or at least a small chunk of instances. I want to know where all this "they tell us we think we're having fun but we're not" comes from. Is it really just from the Brain Damage? Or is there more out there?

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: Melinglor[...] he's talking about actual reactions of fear, or at least what he percieves to be such. Whether or not the folks he says he's observed the reactions in were having fun, or claim to be, well. . .that's hypothetical. [...] Ron says in his interview with Settembrini (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20623.0) that when he talks about people not having fun in their games, he's referring to people coming to him and complaining that they're having a bad time. And I dunno, maybe he's a scummy liar or whatever, but I'm looking for the counter-evidence.[...]

I don't doubt that Ron Edwards has had lots of gamers tell him they weren't having any fun. I do doubt that this is a representative sample of all gamers, and I do doubt that his anecdotal evidence - his experiences - are any more believable than, say, mine.

See for example this rpg.net poll about whether you're having fun (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=279944).

The results, as of today, are, out of 346 votes,
   "I game nowadays, and it's overall good.", 211, 60.98%
"I game nowadays, and it's overall okay.", 59, 17.05%
"I game nowadays, and it's overall bad.", 6, 1.73%
"I'm not gaming at the moment, but would like to, and when I last gamed, it was overall good.", 30, 8.67%
"I'm not gaming at the moment, but would like to, and when I last gamed, it was overall okay.", 21, 6.07%
"I'm not gaming at the moment, but would like to, and when I last gamed, it was overall bad.", 13, 3.76%
"I'm not gaming at the moment, and would not like to, and when I last gamed, it was overall good.", 1, 0.29%
"I'm not gaming at the moment, and would not like to, and when I last gamed, it was overall okay.", 1, 0.29%
"I'm not gaming at the moment, and would not like to, and when I last gamed, it was overall bad.', 1, 0.29%
"I have never gamed, but would like to.", 0, 0%
"I have never gamed, and don't want to.", 3, 0.87%

So what we get is that of all people who responded, 70% reported an "overall good" experience of gaming; 23% had an "overall okay" experience, and only 7% had an "overall bad" experience of gaming.

Now, I do not claim that this is a scientific survey, nor one which represents all gamers. But it's a survey which is at least as representative as "people who have complained to Ron Edwards." So if you will accept Edwards' account of people's experiences of gaming, then you must also accept this survey. Which creates a contradiction, because the reports are different.

What I think likely is that The Forge attracts people who are unhappy with gaming. Many of us will be familiar with police and psychologists; cops will sometimes think almost everyone is a criminal, and shrinks will sometimes think almost everyone has psychological troubles. It's "selection bias" - if your experience of a particular group is of the troubled members of that group, then you'll naturally come to think that everyone in that group is troubled.

So I think that Edwards has created a forum which welcomes people who are having bad gaming; he naturally comes to believe that everyone has bad gaming. He then builds his rpg theory not on the views of gamers in general, but on the views of unhappy gamers. So he talks to 7% of all gamers, and then reckons that they're 100%. Which is like basing your views of the human body only on physically ill people. A physician knows that you can learn as much from healthy people as from ill people, or even more from them; a good rpg theorist would realise you can learn as much from happy gamers as from miserable ones - or more.

Quote from: droogNow, given that the game had already been going about seven years when Glenn joined it, and that we had a good thing going, why should the game be the one to move? Every moment I spent attending to Glenn's needs was time taken from the game as a whole and the players who had stuck by it.

In other words, you didn't really care about giving Glenn what he wanted.  You were more interested in keeping your "good thing" going.  The problem isn't just that Glenn's style clashed but that you were unwilling to adjust the game to help Glenn have fun out of concern that you'd have less fun.  In other words, there was no flexibility or attempt to find a common ground.  You won't find a good compromise if you don't make even a half-hearted attempt to find it.

Quote from: droogAs far as talking it out, the only vocabulary we had for such things was pejorative: 'powergamer', for example, or 'He doesn't get it'. None of it struck me as correct. All I knew was that there was a problem and the fixes weren't appealing.

Which is why a good non-judgemental vocabular would be very useful for this hobby.  Again, I'll point you toward Robin Laws' book on GMing and ask if you've read it.

Quote from: droogThe only proper fix was to repeat the treatment we had given Brett many years earlier, which was to indoctrinate him in the ways of the group. Personally, I don't think it would have worked, but we were saved the decision when Glenn and I fell out. I had his character eaten by trolls immediately.

Frankly, this sounds like a social problem masquerading as a gaming problem to me.  But, like I said, I'm only getting a second-hand glimpse at what was going on from you.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut what "coherency" is all about in Forgespeak is whether a game has mixed agendas or not. It can't have "sort of mixed" agendas. It either has mixed agendas, or it doesn't.

A game doesn't have an agenda. You have the agenda. The game helps you realise it, or not.

A coherent game will strongly support an agenda. An incoherent game, such as HQ, will waver between agendas in its text. At times HQ appears to be aimed at something like Forge narrativism, at times it seems to be aimed at a more old-school simulationism. But you can play it either way (I know which way I think will be more successful).

Again, people will have to excuse my lack of knowledge, but it's my impression that D&D currently supports a gamist agenda very well, while having no particular support for narrativism. That's coherency. AD&D waffled between sim and gam, to my mind, and it's my understanding that 2nd ed. made that worse.

Quote from: RPGPunditD&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.

Well, what you need to realize is that metaplot is designed for people who read role-playing games rather than actually playing them.  It's an attempt to turn a role-playing game into a quasi-novel so that people can read along with the developments in the setting without actually having to play and make them happen themselves.  It's sort of like watching over people play.

Quote from: MelinglorThese citations (obviously, give my responses) are not compelling to me. Regardless of whether you think they are evidence of the phenomenon, I'm looking for something more direct. And I'm looking for a widespread pattern. . .or at least a small chunk of instances. I want to know where all this "they tell us we think we're having fun but we're not" comes from. Is it really just from the Brain Damage? Or is there more out there?

Uncle Ronny doesn't speak directly, he speaks in a roundabout way, with new meanings for old words. You have to look hard just to figure out what he wants to say, let alone what he's somewhat trying to hide.

My experiences, the survey I did at rpg.net with 346 respondents, does not match what Edwards says - "most are tired, bitter and frustrated." Confront him with this contrasting data, and does he adjust his theory? Nope. Why not? Well, by a startling coincidence, he says that gamers are warped in such a way that they don't know what fun is.

It's not really a great mental leap, from "deny gamers' experiences" to "GNS". Uncle Ronny makes it every day to avoid tossing his rpg theory in the toilet where it belongs. Why can't you?

The other thing you have to ask yourself is, why is it that so many gamers read what Uncle Ronny says, and get this idea that he's saying we're too stupid or crazy to know what our own experiences are? Why do we read it that way, if he doesn't intend that way? Are we stupid and crazy for reading him that way? Or is that what his dreadful writing is really saying?

Quote from: John MorrowFrankly, this sounds like a social problem masquerading as a gaming problem to me.  But, like I said, I'm only getting a second-hand glimpse at what was going on from you.

It couldn't have been a social problem. I socialised with Glenn on a regular basis – he's a great bloke to hang out and drink with. The falling out was over a very complicated matter, but it was not because we disliked each other. In fact, we're friends again now.

QuoteIn other words, you didn't really care about giving Glenn what he wanted. You were more interested in keeping your "good thing" going. The problem isn't just that Glenn's style clashed but that you were unwilling to adjust the game to help Glenn have fun out of concern that you'd have less fun. In other words, there was no flexibility or attempt to find a common ground. You won't find a good compromise if you don't make even a half-hearted attempt to find it.

You seem determined to take the most insulting interpretation, but yes, ultimately it was five to one. We tried...for several years, as it happens.

I haven't read Robin Laws' book, mainly because it isn't free. To bring this back to the big topic, I've found the Forge has influenced me to see other people's styles as legitimate and fun for them. The base vocab and the model are entirely non-judgemental, in my view.

Quote from: John MorrowIn other words, you didn't really care about giving Glenn what he wanted.  You were more interested in keeping your "good thing" going.  The problem isn't just that Glenn's style clashed but that you were unwilling to adjust the game to help Glenn have fun out of concern that you'd have less fun.  In other words, there was no flexibility or attempt to find a common ground.  You won't find a good compromise if you don't make even a half-hearted attempt to find it.

Haha, this is so true. And ironically, it's me old droog says has the Viking Hat style of GMing.

I've had game sessions with some pretty different sorts of gamers, and had fun. Shit, I had a blatant cheater, and everyone had fun! But the Forge-theory guy? Nope, has to be a particular kind of player, particular kind of fun. No working with each-other, no compromise, nothing. "My way or the highway, bitch!"

This just confirms what I've long felt - the Forge theory attracts people who aren't very good at getting along with others.

"Mate, quit cheating on your dice rolls."
"You are deprotagonising me!"
"Mate, I'm sorry, but you're pissing everyone off by constant complaints and arguments."
"You just don't understand my Creative Agenda!"
(etc)

Quote from: JimBobOzWell, "story", "collaborative storymaking", whatever, comes to the same thing in this context. If we're talking about everyone at a game session "creating a story", then we're saying it's "collaborative."

*Shrug*

You're telling folks to read all the posts on the thread.  My posts on that thread are largely concerned with exactly this detail.  Which is why I'm debating it here.

New thread coming up.

Quote from: JimBobOzHaha, this is so true. And ironically, it's me old droog says has the Viking Hat style of GMing.

No, dude. It was a group thing. Be nice or I'm going to get the knives out again.

Quote from: droogIt couldn't have been a social problem. I socialised with Glenn on a regular basis – he's a great bloke to hang out and drink with. The falling out was over a very complicated matter, but it was not because we disliked each other. In fact, we're friends again now.

As I said before, it sounds to me like it was a social problem. But just because Anna and Bob get along, and Bob and Charlie get along, does not mean that Anna, Bob and Charlie will get along. Or just because all three get along at work does not mean they'll get along while gaming. It's difficult stuff - the existence of psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc, tell us that there's no simple solution to "how people get along."

Quote from: droogA game doesn't have an agenda. You have the agenda. The game helps you realise it, or not.

There are two ways in which a game can help you realize an agenda:

(A) It can provide rules designed to produce outcomes that match the agenda.
(B) It can stay out of the way of an agenda.

People spend too much time worrying about the importance of (A) and miss (B).  This goes back to my point about Dogs.  I don't need mechanics to tell me how to role-play through a tense confrontation with an NPC or another player.  I can just role-play that out.  As such, the game that best helps me achieve a Narrativist agenda is not the game filled with mechanics that force Narrativist elements on me at the player level but the game that gets out of my way and let's me deal with those issues playing my character in character.

The way D&D serves a variety of non-Gamist goals is that it's silent on those goals.  It gets out of the way.  Don't undervalue that.

Further, there is another side to this:

(C) A game can actively thwart an agenda, making it difficult to achieve.

In many cases, it looks to me as if the rules in some "coherent" games are as much about (C) (in order to give players with other agendas no reason to play the game) as (A).

Quote from: droogA game doesn't have an agenda. You have the agenda. The game helps you realise it, or not.

Quote from: droogA coherent game will strongly support an agenda.

I think that the mistake her is the assumption that a game that strongly supports an agenda, in the sense that it has rules designed to cater to that agenda, will automatically help people realize that agenda.  In at least some cases, the rules can get in the way.  It's like having a friend with a problem.  Sometimes getting in their face about it and confronting them is the best way to help them.  Sometimes just getting out of their way and letting them sort it out themselves is the best way to help them.  What the Forge theory seems to do, in my opinion, is to say that being in your face about it is always the best way to deal with something.

Quote from: droogAn incoherent game, such as HQ, will waver between agendas in its text. At times HQ appears to be aimed at something like Forge narrativism, at times it seems to be aimed at a more old-school simulationism. But you can play it either way (I know which way I think will be more successful).

Why does one way have to be more successful and why does it have to be played just one way or the other?

Quote from: droogAgain, people will have to excuse my lack of knowledge, but it's my impression that D&D currently supports a gamist agenda very well, while having no particular support for narrativism. That's coherency. AD&D waffled between sim and gam, to my mind, and it's my understanding that 2nd ed. made that worse.

D&D's lack of specific support for Narrativism is actually a plus that facilitates the sorts of elements that Narrativists are looking for when people don't need specific rules to force the game the be only Narrativist.

Quote from: droogBe nice or I'm going to get the knives out again.

I'm already armoured up from the scar tissue from the last four hundred times you jabbed at me, mate. So go for it!

Quote from: John Morrow*stuff about DitV*

Bait and switch, man. You started with "DitV deprotagonises me!" Now it's "Conflict res ain't so narrativist!"

I have explained how DitV's mechanics give you choice all the way through. Would you like to respond to that?

Quote from: John MorrowThe way D&D serves a variety of non-Gamist goals is that it's silent on those goals.  It gets out of the way.  Don't undervalue that.

I don't.

And the point for the thread is: neither does the Big Model. All you need for narr – theoretically – is address of premise. You can do that without any rules at all if you want.

I told you at the beginning: it's a system preference. Some like chess, some like backgammon. Some perverts like both.

Quote from: droogIt couldn't have been a social problem. I socialised with Glenn on a regular basis – he's a great bloke to hang out and drink with. The falling out was over a very complicated matter, but it was not because we disliked each other. In fact, we're friends again now.

I don't think this is going to be very productive.  Suffice to say I'm not convinced.

Quote from: droogYou seem determined to take the most insulting interpretation, but yes, ultimately it was five to one. We tried...for several years, as it happens.

I'm not determined to take the most insulting interpretation.  I'm basing my assessment only on what you are saying.  You have given me no indication that the rest of you even tried to compromise for him.  Am I supposed to pretend that you did?  If you did, just say so.

Quote from: droogI haven't read Robin Laws' book, mainly because it isn't free. To bring this back to the big topic, I've found the Forge has influenced me to see other people's styles as legitimate and fun for them. The base vocab and the model are entirely non-judgemental, in my view.

Robin Laws' book is cheap and you can read a summary of his style categories on John Kim's site, though that doesn't really capture the whole scope of the book.

As for what you've gotten out of the Forge, plenty of people have gotten the same thing out of rec.games.frp.advocacy, RPGnet, ENWorld, and just about any other discussion board where gamers explain their styles to people with different styles.  That's not the problem.  The problem is the base vocabulary (as defined not only by essays and glossaries but the posts on The Forge) are not only not entirely non-judgemental (heck, people can't even agree on what Sim is) but are also confusing and often counter-productive.  

For years, astronomers used models of the cosmos that pictures the stars and planets moving on crystal spheres and they so perfected their model that they could even explain the troubling movement of planets fairly accurately using that model.  That astronomers used that model successfully and that it was useful for years doesn't mean it was right and that other models weren't better.

Quote from: JimBobOzAs I said before, it sounds to me like it was a social problem.

You're going to have to take my word for it. These are people I've known for twenty years.

Quote from: droogAnd the point for the thread is: neither does the Big Model. All you need for narr – theoretically – is address of premise. You can do that without any rules at all if you want.

Ding! Ding! Ding!  We have a winnah!  

So then why the claim that system matters and why the obsession on unconventional mechanics?  Why not focus on what really matters -- how to design characters and situations in order to create and address a premise independent of the system?  And why can't I use these same techniques on top of a system or structure that also gives a player with a different agenda  the ability to achieve their objectives, too?

Quote from: John MorrowI don't think this is going to be very productive.  Suffice to say I'm not convinced.

I'm not convinced, either. But in the end we have to accept that droog knows his game experiences better than we know his game experiences. I mean, he can say, "so-and-so happened," and we can say, "that sounds like this thing," we can speak of our impressions, and generalise from our experience, and suggest possibilities - but in the end, droog knows droog's experiences better than we do. If we think we know his experiences better than him, we may as well just join Uncle Ronny.

Quote from: John MorrowFor years, astronomers used models of the cosmos that pictures the stars and planets moving on crystal spheres and they so perfected their model that they could even explain the troubling movement of planets fairly accurately using that model.  That astronomers used that model successfully and that it was useful for years doesn't mean it was right and that other models weren't better.

There are two things here.

The first is that the crystal spheres model, like the flat earth model, actually worked just fine for certain applications. If you never go more than a day's walk from your village, the world may as well be flat, so the Flat Earth Model works just fine. So what we're looking at here is, not whether the model is correct or not, but whether it's good for certain applications or not.

The second thing is, the data. The crystal spheres model, they came up with that to explain the fact that when you look at the motion of the planets in the sky, they don't always move just one way. If they were just worlds rolling around Earth, then they'd always go one way, right? But actually, they roll forwards for a bit, then backwards. So they came up with this elaborate crystal spheres model to explain this backwards motion. "Um... we're surrounded by several layers of crystal spheres which roll back and around and stuff."

Now, the fact is that they were never really moving backwards, it was just that as the Earth went around the sun, the Earth overtook these other planets in their orbits, so the planets appeared to be moving backwards. So that's where the crystal spheres idea came from, the spheres moving back, forwards, roundabout - to explain the reality.

Whereas Edwards' GNS is like an astronomy theory that says, "move forwards? Never! Doesn't happen! They always move backwards!" His theory only talks about gamers who aren't having any fun - all 7% or so of them.

So you can have a theory which explains things, but is wrong (like the crystal spheres), or you can have a theory which ignores anything that contradicts it.  Edwards chose to go for the second option. I guess he just like Bitter Non-Gamers.

Quote from: droogYou're going to have to take my word for it. These are people I've known for twenty years.

I think the problem is that you are interpreting that phrase differently than we are.  Or maybe you are just too close to the problem to see it.  Like I said, I'm not observing it directly.  But your own words lead me to believe that Glenn being the odd man out in that game had little to do with the game or system and a great deal to do with the players consciously choosing not the change anything to help Glenn have more fun.  

Let me put it this way, when my larger group of friends get together, there are quite a few computer people and quite a few non-computer people.  When the computer people start geeking out and talking about computers, the non-computer people lose interest and, if there are only a few or even one, feel alienated.  At that point, the computer people have a choice.  They can be indifferent to the fact that the non-computer people or person feels alienated and keep talking about computers because they are enjoying the discussion or they can change the subject to something that can include everyone and is still enjoyable for the computer people to talk about.

In the cases where the computer people keep talking about computers and the non-computer people felt alienated, the problem was a social problem.  It was people choosing to have an exclusive conversation rather than an inclusive conversation.

The problem in your game looks exactly the same to me.  Rather than running an inclusive game that he could enjoy when he entered the group, the people chose to keep running an exclusive game that he couldn't enjoy.

And the "solution" of just excluding Glenn in the first place is like saying that the solution to my non-computer friends feeling alienated by computer talk is to exclude them from parties dominated by computer people rather than changing the subject of conversation to something everyone can enjoy.  And the only cases where I can't imagine finding a conversation that everyone can enjoy is where two or more people enjoy such a narrow range of conversations that it's impossible to find overlap.  All around, the problem isn't flexibility but a lack of it.

Quote from: droogBait and switch, man. You started with "DitV deprotagonises me!" Now it's "Conflict res ain't so narrativist!"

Well, I added "(OK. More correctly, it removed me from having ownership of my character's protagonism. Better?)".  Frankly I still don't understand why people are rolling dice if the decisions are ultimately made by the players.  So I'm left with one of two conclusions: (A) the dice mechanics determine how the character reacts or (B) the dice mechanics are meaningless because the player really decides how the character reacts.  I went into this assuming (A) but you seem to be suggesting (B).  If there is a (C) where both happen at the same time, I'd love to have you explain it to  me.

Quote from: droogI have explained how DitV's mechanics give you choice all the way through. Would you like to respond to that?

My response is to ask you what purpose the mechanics serve, then?  It seems like the way that the player excercises a real choice could be done without the mechanics.  If the player always has a choice that comes down to changing the conflict, accepting consequences, or giving in, then why are they rolling the dice and comparing them?  Are the dice and mechanics simply there to give the player ideas if they don't know how to have their character react but to ignore if they do?  Do they put any limits on how the player can respond and, if so, why?

Quote from: droogSo at what point does a game shift styles or become incoherent?

So at what point does a game shift styles or become incoherent?

Edit:  I'd still like an answer to this, by the way.  I'll make it easier.  How can you tell when a game is coherent or incoherent?

Quote from: John MorrowWhy not focus on what really matters -- how to design characters and situations in order to create and address a premise independent of the system?  And why can't I use these same techniques on top of a system or structure that also gives a player with a different agenda  the ability to achieve their objectives, too?

Of course you can, but that's another matter. Please take it to the Forge if you want to debate design issues. I just play the things.

Now, as for your point about exclusivity and inclusivity, an RPG is not a casual gathering where one adjusts conversation to the company. It's a shared endeavour that people have worked towards and planned for.

You're suggesting that one person should have disrupted – by right – a game that had gone seven years without him. Why is that? It wasn't like there was a shortage of roleplaying around at the time. Some of the guys were playing three or four nights a week.

Glenn joined the game for social reasons (he wanted to hang out with us). It worked out all right for a while, it became increasingly harder, and we were saved from actually making a decision by a big out-of-game event that affected many people. We tacitly left him out from then.

Don't you practise some form of selectivity in social gatherings and/or gaming? Or is it like open slather?

Quote from: John MorrowWell, I added "(OK. More correctly, it removed me from having ownership of my character's protagonism. Better?)".  Frankly I still don't understand why people are rolling dice if the decisions are ultimately made by the players.  So I'm left with one of two conclusions: (A) the dice mechanics determine how the character reacts or (B) the dice mechanics are meaningless because the player really decides how the character reacts.  I went into this assuming (A) but you seem to be suggesting (B).  If there is a (C) where both happen at the same time, I'd love to have you explain it to  me.

The fuck? You decide what you want to achieve, the dice determine if you achieve it. It's not rocket science.

Quote from: JimBobOzI don't doubt that Ron Edwards has had lots of gamers tell him they weren't having any fun. I do doubt that this is a representative sample of all gamers, and I do doubt that his anecdotal evidence - his experiences - are any more believable than, say, mine.

The thing is, man, I never said anything about a "representative sample." I don't thik Ron did either. Just that there ARE unhappy gamers out there is validation enough for trying to figure out ways for them to improve their experience, right?

Quote from: JimBobOzWhat I think likely is that The Forge attracts people who are unhappy with gaming.

I won't deny that. It certainly attracted me on those grounds. And it did a lot toward helping me understand my play and improve it. I havew no idea how widespread my problem is. I just know it exists, and the Forge helps. Not saying the theory is perfect, or that Ron is God of all roleplaying. Just that ther Forge helped me. (It was Vincent more than Ron, really, though Ron did help.)

Quote from: JimBobOzSo I think that Edwards has created a forum which welcomes people who are having bad gaming; he naturally comes to believe that everyone has bad gaming. He then builds his rpg theory not on the views of gamers in general, but on the views of unhappy gamers. So he talks to 7% of all gamers, and then reckons that they're 100%. Which is like basing your views of the human body only on physically ill people. A physician knows that you can learn as much from healthy people as from ill people, or even more from them; a good rpg theorist would realise you can learn as much from happy gamers as from miserable ones - or more.

See, I don't think Ron thinks that. I'm not sure if he cares about the percentage any more than I do, just that they're out there. And as i've tried to point out above, he is very encouraging of positive play, as in the threads I linked. It's not all doom and gloom. But yeah, there is a pretty big emphasis on folks that are having dysfunction or boredome or whatever, and how to fix that. Nothing wrong with that, you know?

Quote from: JimBobOzUncle Ronny doesn't speak directly, he speaks in a roundabout way, with new meanings for old words. You have to look hard just to figure out what he wants to say, let alone what he's somewhat trying to hide.

Well, can you understand how that's not really helpful? "He doesn't really say it, it's really what he doesn't say. True or not, it doesn't get me any closer to understanding the source of this dissent.

Does Ron really say "most are tired, bitter and frustrated"? 'Cause that would be a datapoint.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's not really a great mental leap, from "deny gamers' experiences" to "GNS". Uncle Ronny makes it every day to avoid tossing his rpg theory in the toilet where it belongs. Why can't you?

What, are you gonna sic the deprogrammers on my ass? I'm not a Ron disciple or anything; I've just found the general framework of the Forge's thought helpful, even if I'm still confused or undecided on some issues. And as far as the mental leap, I still don't see strong evidence for "deny camers' experiences." Still looking for that "I'm having fun!" "No, you're not."

Quote from: JimBobOzThe other thing you have to ask yourself is, why is it that so many gamers read what Uncle Ronny says, and get this idea that he's saying we're too stupid or crazy to know what our own experiences are? Why do we read it that way, if he doesn't intend that way? Are we stupid and crazy for reading him that way? Or is that what his dreadful writing is really saying?

Well, I honestly don't know. It's not that I just kinda heard about this Ron guy and everyone was alll up in arms about him and I asked "what's the big deal?" I've read Ron Edwards' stuff extensively, and I don't get that reading at all. So now another vector enters the equation: Am I stupid or crazy for not seeing what you do?



Fuck, this thing has become way too much an identity politics issue, which is why I wanted to avoid the brain damage thing. I'm not trying to place myself in the Ron Edwards "camp" by a loing shot (unlike apparently the Pundit I believe there can be more than two "camps."). Just trying to make sense of this whole thing.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorI'm not trying to place myself in the Ron Edwards "camp" by a loing shot (unlike apparently the Pundit I believe there can be more than two "camps."). Just trying to make sense of this whole thing.

You can be on my team.  We've got...

Uh...

A straight white male market researcher, and a chinese lesbian geneticist.

We fight crime!

Quote from: MelinglorJust that there ARE unhappy gamers out there is validation enough for trying to figure out ways for them to improve their experience, right?

No. Physicians do not study only sick people, but healthy people, too. Mechanics do not only study cars that won't go, they study cars which work well, too. And a useful rpg theory will study gamers who are happy as well as those who are miserable.

Quote from: MelinglorDoes Ron really say "most are tired, bitter and frustrated"? 'Cause that would be a datapoint.

Mate... you're in favour of GNS? Try READING ABOUT IT.

Let's have a look at the foundational essay, GNS and other matters of roleplaying theory (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/) <-- that's a link, by the way. Go look at the thing.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsMy straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated.

The rest of the essay, if you can be bothered reading it, and his comments on The Forge, make it plain that he assumes, "gamers I encounter" = "all gamers." For example, on the seventh page of that thing, he says, (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/7/)

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThe tragedy is how widespread GNS-based degeneration really is. I have met dozens, perhaps over a hundred, very experienced role-players with this profile: a limited repertoire of games behind him and extremely defensive and turtle-like play tactics.

Either he really thinks that the miserable gamers are a minority, in which case his theory is based only on miserable gamers, and not happy gamers, and is thus incomplete, or

he really thinks most gamers are miserable.

And yet we're not. So his theory is either deliberately based on incomplete data, or accidentally based on incomplete data. Either way, it's based on incomplete data, and thus has problems.

This would be plain if you actually read his theories. Don't feel bad, lots of Marxists never read Marx, either. It's a lot easier to believe in a theory if you never read it thoroughly.

Quote from: MelinglorI've read Ron Edwards' stuff extensively, and I don't get that reading at all.

It's plain you haven't, when you're asking me if he's said what he's said. I don't want to respond to you anymore until you've read the theories you're defending. I wouldn't debate Christianity with a self-avowed Christian who'd never read the New Testament, it'd be pointless.

Dude. Huge difference between "most" and "many." That's why I bolded the word. He does say "most" once I see. . .but he refers to "most roleplayers I encounter. Not the same thing as "most roleplayers" by a long shot. Likewise, "widespread" and "all gamers." Ron may be scientifically off base in saying "widespread" based only on personal experience, but man, if I had dozens of fellow gamers exhibiting these symptoms, and if "most" of the roleplayers I encountered were bitter, I'd probably call it fucking widespread too. Fuck, I've never even met dozens of gamers. He calls it his "straightforward observation," which sounds an awful lot to me like "in my experience" rather than a statistical reality. So if you haven't had that experience, why not consider yourself fortunate? Who knows just what proportion the burned out or frustrated gamers are? They're numerous enough that a place like the Forge can sustain its dialogue on how to fix gaming problems, whatever you may think of the methodology or results of that dialogue.

Regarding Physicians and Mechanics: I never said "only." You keep inserting words or upgrading them to greater severity and trying to make me out to say something I didn't. I can't really engage in dialogue under these conditions.

ANd lastly. . .yes, I have read all of those essays. I obviously did not draw the same conclusions as you did. The insinuation that I haven't read them is insulting and obstructive to say the least. if a Christian asks you, "tell me where in the Bible it says that," it doesn't mean he/she hasn't read the Bible. It means it;'s a big body of work and complete command of its every chapter and verse is beyond most readers. And particularly given your claim that these statements of Ron's are all "between the lines" so to speak, it's pretty shitty to assume I'll see the same thing as you in all instances, then accusing me of not reading them if I don't.

I made a straightforward request, not because I;m poorly-versed in Ron's material and wanted a cheat sheet, but because I am pretty well versed and have no idea what writings of his are spawning these claims. You can help me or not. But I dislike being called a liar for merely disagreeing.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYou can be on my team.  We've got...

Uh...

A straight white male market researcher, and a chinese lesbian geneticist.

We fight crime!

Awesome! I shall be the Paisley Prince, Thriftstore Shopping Love Warrior!

Subject: JimBobOz

Action: Increase Respect +1

Oh boy. More "prove it to me" from Joel. I suspect a desperate move to derail the thread by sending people off to find links. Then he's denying the links say what they say.

There's the dishonesty that comes from outright lying, and then there's the dishonesty that comes from pretending you can't see the obvious or never saw it.

Quote from: MelinglorANd lastly. . .yes, I have read all of those essays. I obviously did not draw the same conclusions as you did. ... It means it;'s a big body of work and complete command of its every chapter and verse is beyond most readers. And particularly given your claim that these statements of Ron's are all "between the lines" so to speak, it's pretty shitty to assume I'll see the same thing as you in all instances, then accusing me of not reading them if I don't.

And here we come to the root cause of all this brouhaha.  Because, you see, there's a whole lot of negative connotation between the lines in those posts that any neutral reader would see.  But most people steeped in Forge discussion just don't see it.  The result of this is that when these people post about RPGs, they use the same negative and offensive connotations without intending to...just because their only model for talking about RPG theory has taught them to.  Look  here  (http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/26920.html?thread=404264#t404264) for the perfect example (reference Troy Costisick's anonymous comments).  

Like I said to droog, if Ron made those disparaging comments about, say Dogs, you'd immediately see how insulting it is.  The fact that you (and many others) don't even see it simply indicates how much Forgespeak has poisoned net RPG discussion.

So I don't think you're being dishonest at all about the fact that you don't see the insults in GNS discussion at the Forge.  But that don't mean they're not there.

Quote from: MelinglorDude. Huge difference between "most" and "many."

Okay, I've been skimming over much of this, but look: Ron does say "most", just not where you're looking.

"Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated."

Both this and the following quote cited by JimBob suggest either that Ron is a bitterness magnet, and that a theory based on his observations is necessarily skewed, or that Ron really does believe that most roleplayers don't enjoy their hobby.

Things may have changed and Ron may have corrected or contradicted himself at a later point in time, but that gets into a whole 'nother problem with grappling with GNS. Which is why, as I wrote upthread (I think it was this thread), I don't really find "GNS--saint or sinner?" threads to be terribly productive--or interesting at any rate. If someone says something that's wrong on the face of it and then tries to overcome your doubt by reference to a set of dodgy theories, you really don't have to refute the theory to reject the conclusion. Or rather, the faultiness of the conclusion is enough to refute the theory.

I think someone once said something about new wine and old wineskins, and also knowing a tree by its fruit...

Quote from: Lee ShortAnd here we come to the root cause of all this brouhaha.  Because, you see, there's a whole lot of negative connotation between the lines in those posts that any neutral reader would see.  But most people steeped in Forge discussion just don't see it.  The result of this is that when these people post about RPGs, they use the same negative and offensive connotations without intending to...just because their only model for talking about RPG theory has taught them to.  Look  here  (http://jhkimrpg.livejournal.com/26920.html?thread=404264#t404264) for the perfect example (reference Troy Costisick's anonymous comments).

QFT

A point I've tried to make a number of times here.

Personally, I think I can talk till next year without having to get offensive.

Quote from: droogThe fuck? You decide what you want to achieve, the dice determine if you achieve it. It's not rocket science.

First, it doesn't look that simple for me.  True, you decide what you want to achieve and roll dice but then go into a process of using the dice combined with discriptions of what's happening to determine whether you achieve it.  What's the advantage of that process between rolling the dice and determining who wins over, say, "He threatens to shoot the old woman" followed by, "I make a Persuasion roll to talk him out of it!"  If the answer is all the description that gets generated while interpreting the dice, I'm curious whether that's just elaborate flavor text or actually has a role in the outcome.  

In looks very much like it's trying to have one foot in rolling dice to decide what happens (like simple the Persuasion roll) and one foot in just role-playing it out (the player deciding to give in to the argument being made) because a player can decide to Give or change the nature of the conflict.  Is that the advantage of it, that it lets the players use the dice or the description to figure out what happens?  If so, that's interesting, but then how is that particularly Narrativist or help Narrativism and what happens when one player is leaning on the dice and the other player is leaning on deciding?

Second, you suggested that I was complaining about personality mechanics in a more general sense and there is truth to that.  I think I would argue that most personality mechanics "remove me from having ownership of my character's protagonism", not just DitV.  But to the extent that D&D has personality mechanics (e.g., Alignment, social skills, the Wisdom attribute), they are fairly easy to ignore and even in Hero it's possible to avoid psychological Disadvantages, though Presence and Ego can still be issues.  So they might bother me in other games but it's often easy to ignore them.

Since the mechanics in DitV seemed designed to be used for social conflicts (as well as other types of conflicts), they seem hard to ignore in that respect.  That's why I asked about just ignoring the mechanics and role-playing through a DitV social encounter without them.  What happens to the game if you use the conflict rules for some things but don't use them for others compared to, say, ignoring Alignment or social skills in D&D or ignoring Psychological Limitations in Hero?

I think social rules are often designed to (A) prevent bad role-players from playing their characters badly, (B) encourage people to create more 3-D characters with social depth, and (C) to help players play characters with social skills that are stronger than they can effectively role-play.  But if a player doesn't have those problems, they can just get in the way in my experience.  For me, deciding how my character reacts to what's going on in the game is fairly central to "having ownership of my character's protagonism".  So if the rules in DitV prevent me from just deciding, I'm going to feel that way.  If they don't, that's great but then it seems like I'm using a lot of rules for nothing.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat happens to the game if you use the conflict rules for some things but don't use them for others compared to, say, ignoring Alignment or social skills in D&D or ignoring Psychological Limitations in Hero?

Then you're playing a different game. If conflict looms in DitV, you make it a gimme or roll. Ignoring this would be like ignoring the combat system in D&D, not alignment.

For what it's worth (I suspect not much), I have never found that the conflict res mechanics in DitV to work the way you seem to think. I also find them fun to use. At that level, as I keep saying, it comes down to personal preference. If you don't like the mechanics, it's going to be difficult for you to see what I get out of them.

Quote from: droogOf course you can, but that's another matter. Please take it to the Forge if you want to debate design issues. I just play the things.

I don't think that's a design issue.  I think it's a theory issue.  An idea near the very center of the theory is the idea that "system matters".  What we've both just agreed is that, "No, it doesn't really." at least with respect to a key element of Narrativism.

Quote from: droogNow, as for your point about exclusivity and inclusivity, an RPG is not a casual gathering where one adjusts conversation to the company. It's a shared endeavour that people have worked towards and planned for.

The issue I was talking about (discussing computers around people who can't participate in the conversation) grew over a series of planned social get togethers.  They werne't simply casual gatherings.  But I do agree that can be a significant distinction.  

For example, if a group of friends planned a meeting to discuss computers and that's why everyone showed up, it would seem a bit silly to not talk about computers because someone showed up anyway, knowing what the gathering was for, who didn't want to talk about computers.  

So, yes, the group doesn't always have to bend.  But then I go back to my point that, in that case, "the problem isn't flexibility but a lack of it".  A gathering to discuss computers isn't as flexible as a gathering to just talk to friends.  The former is the equivalent of a "coherent" game while the latter is the equivalent of an "incoherent" game.  In the first case, anyone who doesn't want to talk about computers is going to be alienated while in the second case, the conversation can be adjusted to include everyone.  

Claiming that the coherent game is inherently more fun than an incoherent  game is similar to claiming that a gather of friends to talk about a very narrow topic is inherently more fun than a gather of friends with no agreed-upon common topic.  I just don't think that's true unless the participant of the freeform gathering have such narrow ideas of what's fun to talk about that they can't find any overlap.  Again, that problem isn't the flexibility of the gathering but the lack of flexibility from the participants.

So if the gathering isn't flexible (people are gathered to do something very specific) or the people aren't flexible (they only want to do something very specific), then matching expectations is going to be very important or people aren't going to have fun.  In Forge terms, coherency is more fun than incoherency for all of the same reasons.  But in cases where the gathering is flexible and the people are flexible, incoherency can be every bit as fun as coherency.  Why?  Because the people can find sufficient overlap and common ground to have fun.  Incoherency is a problem when people can't find common ground.  It's not when they can.  And there is nothing magical or rare about that.

Quote from: droogYou're suggesting that one person should have disrupted – by right – a game that had gone seven years without him. Why is that? It wasn't like there was a shortage of roleplaying around at the time. Some of the guys were playing three or four nights a week.

No.  I'm suggesting that if you wanted Glenn to have fun in the game, you should have tried to accommodate him.  You were framing this in terms of what you could have done to help Glenn.  From that perspective, you decided that the price of including Glenn was not worth the disruption of accommodating him.  I'm not claiming that your problem and decision wasn't real.  I'm claiming that it was a social issue, not a style issue.

Let me give you another personal example to step away from the specifics of your situation.  

When I spent time living in Japan, I stopped playing with my regular group and they ran a long campaign that all of the players enjoyed.  When I returned, I had no desire to join that campaign and I've had little interest in attempts to run other games in the same setting.  Why?  Because when people run long-term campaigns, the players develop a shared experience that's very difficult for other people to step into without changing anything.  

If I had joined that campaign after a year or more of playing, I would have changed the game simply because I would have brought a different  perspective to the table.  It would have had nothing to do with style clash or incompatible objectives.  It would have had to do with a shared history in the game, or a lack of it, and a difference in the composition of the gaming group.  A social issue.  And in my experience, such changes can cause problems even when the added person has played successful games with the same people in the past.

Even if, in your case, it was entirely a style-clash issue and not an issue of shared history and so forth, it's still a social issue and a flexibility issue to the extend that, after seven years, the group wasn't flexible and you weren't willing to risk changing your game for the worse to include Glenn.  That's not necessarily wrong or bad.  It means that there was no place for Glenn in the game.  Whether that was good or bad, right or wrong, is for you to decide.

With respect to Forge coherency and incoherency, the root of this discussion, the reason why Glenn was not having fun was the coherency of the game, not it's incoherency.  And the reason why the players didn't want to change the game for Glenn was concern over incoherency ruining the game.  Also looking at Glenn's role in this to be fair, it sounds like he had a very narrow idea of what was fun, too, and wasn't willing to adapt to the flow of the existing campaign.  Either way, the lack of fun wasn't because the game or group was incoherent.  The lack of fun was because the game and group was coherent and/or Glenn lacked flexibility.  

Coherency becomes an issue when the players, system, or milieu is inflexible.  When those things are flexible, it becomes a lot easier to find overlap.  It's like trying to pick a restaurant when one friends is a vegitarian, another friends only eats hamburgers, and a third friend only likes Italian food vs. trying to pick a restaurant when your friends will try or eat just about anything.  And the demand for coherency is akin to the person with friends who are vegitarians, hamburger only eaters, and Italian food fanatics demanding that the only way to have fun going out to a restaurant with friends is to agree on what kind of food you are going to eat first and then excluding those with different preferences.  Or worse, to insist that the only way to have fun is to pick only restaurants that serve a single narrow style of cuisine.  That leaves the people who can have fun eating anything (or who can at least be pretty flexible) going, "Huh?"  

If you have trouble picking a restaurant that everyone can enjoy with your friends, you've got two choices.  You can pick a bunch of friends with the same narrow preference and go only to restaurants that cater to that preference  or you can pick friends who are flexible and will have fun eating just about anything and go to just about any restaurant.  The same thing is true in role-playing.  If you have trouble having fun in games with other people, you can solve that problem by picking people to role-play with who enjoy exactly what you enjoy or you can find people who are flexible and have fun in the overlap.

Quote from: droogGlenn joined the game for social reasons (he wanted to hang out with us). It worked out all right for a while, it became increasingly harder, and we were saved from actually making a decision by a big out-of-game event that affected many people. We tacitly left him out from then.

And that also suggests that the priority wasn't to find a game that everyone could enjoy or to expend any effort to accommodate each other.  What I'm not seeing (and maybe it was there) was what your group did to help Glenn have fun or what Glenn did to try to fit in.  Maybe the flexibility problem wasn't your group.  Maybe it was Glenn.  Maybe it was both of you.  I'm only going by what you are telling me.  But what I'm seeing is that hanging out and preserving a 7-year campaign were higher priorities than finding common ground in the game where everyone could have fun.  To the extent that he was joining a long-running campaign is a special and different case than starting a new group.  Let me ask you this.  Could Glenn play with the same group that was in that 7-year campaign if he joined a new campaign with them at the very beginning?  Why or why not?

Quote from: droogDon't you practise some form of selectivity in social gatherings and/or gaming? Or is it like open slather?

Sure I practice some selectivity (e.g., to avoid socially deficient players), but if I invite someone to sit at the table or find myself sitting at someone else's table, I make a serious effort to work with them to find common ground.  If we can't find common ground, it's usually because of a lack of flexibility on somebody's part.

I recently joined a D&D game with people I had never role-played with before.  My play style can have some sharp edges so I purposely picked a character with fairly soft edges.  I also had some style clash issues with one of the players and took the effort to explain where I was coming from and suggested some ways in which we could meet in the middle.  That's the choice you have in those situations.  You can either dig your heels in and refuse to play with someone who isn't a perfect fit for what you want to do or you can figure out how to enjoy different things and find room in the middle where everyone can have fun.  Both work, but I find the latter much easier than the former, especially in a niche hobby like this one.  And the problem is that Forge theory suggests that one works and the other doesn't.

Quote from: droogThen you're playing a different game. If conflict looms in DitV, you make it a gimme or roll. Ignoring this would be like ignoring the combat system in D&D, not alignment.

OK.  That would explain my feelings that the mechanics are the least interesting and important part of that game.

Quote from: droogFor what it's worth (I suspect not much), I have never found that the conflict res mechanics in DitV to work the way you seem to think. I also find them fun to use. At that level, as I keep saying, it comes down to personal preference. If you don't like the mechanics, it's going to be difficult for you to see what I get out of them.

I don't have any doubt that it works great for some people and they have fun using it.  I'm not asking you to convince me to like it.  I'm asking you to explain why you like it and have fun with it.  

In the past, I've been told to read Actual Play threads to understand what makes games like DitV so different from traditional games and (A) looking at the game events and character dialog, they don't differ substantially from what I see in most games that I play in and (B) I don't really understand how the mechanics contribute to that dialog and flow of play.  To me, and I'm not trying to be nasty here, it looks very much like people playing Yahtzee while they are role-playing with the one having very little to do with the other.

Clearly, I'm missing something.  I know I am.  Maybe I'm just not asking teh right question.  What I'm asking is akin to, "How does the DitV system promote Narrativist play?"  Perhaps the disconnect is that I see the purpose of the system and the character-challenge concerns of Narrativism to be unrelated and often feel that the system interfering in that element of role-playing hinders complex and deep character play rather than helping it.  Maybe I just don't get how the mechanics help other people do something for which they only get in the way for me.

QuoteI don't think that's a design issue. I think it's a theory issue. An idea near the very center of the theory is the idea that "system matters". What we've both just agreed is that, "No, it doesn't really." at least with respect to a key element of Narrativism.

No, system matters. If system did not matter, you would enjoy DitV as I do. and I would enjoy D&D as lots of people do.

I don't think it can be seriously entertained that system does not have a major impact on how the game plays. Now, if you're going to ignore the game and play by your own system, it still matters. It just means that system may be harder for somebody else to learn.

Now, at a gut level, I know what DitV does for me (and everybody else I've seen play). But that's design stuff that I'm not good at addressing. Give me some time and I might be able to put a reply together, but after all I'm not getting money or paper qualifications out of this. There's a limit to how far I'm willing to go in the interests of internet debate.

QuoteAnd the problem is that Forge theory suggests that one works and the other doesn't.

I don't agree. I think there's now a general consensus on the forums that incoherency in a game can work (and the Big Model itself doesn't even address the issue). I postulated before that one effect of incoherency might be to place more responsibility on the social level for making the game work. What do you think?

I'd suggest that you drop trying to question my relationship with Glenn. It will get you nowhere. Consider that if I wanted to, I could have given you any impression I liked.

The Forge Theory

Hit anything long enough and hard enough and eventually it will behave itself.

Quote from: droogSee, old bean, you keep on coming with this attitude. Just skating around the edges and making tiny little ad hominems.

Yes, everything's political. And I say that, and apply it to roleplaying games, from the perspective not of a wounded player, but of somebody who's been a GM almost always. I've had a couple of decades to observe things going on and learn my craft.

If you're not on the same page, things go pear-shaped more easily. Simple.

Now, do you want to talk, or be smooth?

Talk or "be smooth?"

No one's ever accused me of being smooth! Thanks!

Actually, here we have a good point -- you see "little ad hominems" in my posts... Yeah?

Look hard at the theory you believe in -- they're there, too -- but dead center; not "skating around the edges."

You're surprised when people take offense at a theory loaded with Brain Damage, Power-Struggle, talk of gamers being turtles -- of having gripping protagonism with "stump-fingered hands"

Droog, people at The Forge (and on boards like Story Games) are *astonished* when they receive a less-than-warm reception...

Astonished that *anyone* could take offense at a theory that calls popular games "incoherent" (and then claims that's a neutral term) and states their popularity has nothing to do with being fun, or having a compelling setting, but is a function of "economic factors"

It continually amazes me that anyone would show up with those beliefs and that presentation and expect polite discourse...

But, I don't think they do -- I think the theory is popular because it draws fire. A good number of people here and other places simply get off on the conflict.

They have to be -- they're certainly not talking or thinking deeply about *games*

I'm just being obliging.

Cheers,
-E.

I wonder how many Forge theorists have backgrounds in Literary Theory, Film Theory, etc. and how many have backgrounds in Biological Science, Computer Science, etc instead.

Quote from: John MorrowWhen I spent time living in Japan, I stopped playing with my regular group and they ran a long campaign that all of the players enjoyed.  When I returned, I had no desire to join that campaign and I've had little interest in attempts to run other games in the same setting.  Why?  Because when people run long-term campaigns, the players develop a shared experience that's very difficult for other people to step into without changing anything.  

If I had joined that campaign after a year or more of playing, I would have changed the game simply because I would have brought a different  perspective to the table.  It would have had nothing to do with style clash or incompatible objectives.  It would have had to do with a shared history in the game, or a lack of it, and a difference in the composition of the gaming group.  A social issue.  And in my experience, such changes can cause problems even when the added person has played successful games with the same people in the past.

That's an interesting little story, John Morrow, and worth discussing in a thread of its own about new players in old groups (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=66729).

Quote from: droogNo, system matters. If system did not matter, you would enjoy DitV as I do. and I would enjoy D&D as lots of people do.

Correct.  But does it matter in the sense that the Forge theory says it matters?  My issues with DitV have little to do with it's Creative Agenda (after all, I've been told that I may play games like a Narrativist), for example.  They have more to do with stance issues and a very particular issue that's not distinguished in the model (e.g., Vincent Baker does not have the same problem I have).

Quote from: droogI don't think it can be seriously entertained that system does not have a major impact on how the game plays. Now, if you're going to ignore the game and play by your own system, it still matters. It just means that system may be harder for somebody else to learn.

System (in the sense of the game rules a group uses) can certainly have a major impact on how the game plays, especially if the group uses the rules and written.  The broader question is whether it matters the way Forge theory predicts it does.

Quote from: droogNow, at a gut level, I know what DitV does for me (and everybody else I've seen play). But that's design stuff that I'm not good at addressing. Give me some time and I might be able to put a reply together, but after all I'm not getting money or paper qualifications out of this. There's a limit to how far I'm willing to go in the interests of internet debate.

Hey, whatever you have time for.  You are under no obligation to answer.

Quote from: droogI don't agree. I think there's now a general consensus on the forums that incoherency in a game can work (and the Big Model itself doesn't even address the issue). I postulated before that one effect of incoherency might be to place more responsibility on the social level for making the game work. What do you think?

The problem is that you seem to assume that incoherency normally won't work and your ealier comments make it sound as if it's some sort of miracle when it does.  Yes, I agree that putting more responsibility on the social level is one way to make it work and that's part of what I've been trying to say (e.g., compromise).  But part of what I was also trying to explain with my restaurant analogy is that if your game consists of people who can have fun in multiple styles of play, aren't bothered by other styles of play, and/or who are willing to a focus on the parts of their style that play well with other styles, an incoherent game can work very well without anyone having to work very hard at it.  

Many people don't have narrow preferences.  Even to the extent that I say I don't like things, I'm often fairly tolerant of them and can have fun with them in practice so long as they don't get excessive.  But that's exactly what following Forge theory to run a coherent game will produce -- a game that excessively favors a single style.

Quote from: droogI'd suggest that you drop trying to question my relationship with Glenn. It will get you nowhere. Consider that if I wanted to, I could have given you any impression I liked.

I never saw it as an issue of your relationship with Glenn, but I'll drop it.  I will however, point out that it's a bit unfair to drop an example into an argument and then refuse to allow others to dig into it and figure out if it fits or not and whether it proves the point or not.

Quote from: John MorrowSystem (in the sense of the game rules a group uses) can certainly have a major impact on how the game plays, especially if the group uses the rules and written.  The broader question is whether it matters the way Forge theory predicts it does.

This is a classic example of theory nonsense -- the sort of thing that ensures that RPG theory won't be taken seriously until it's cleaned up.

System Does Matter means something very specific and GNS-related in GNS/TBM.

Of course, since GNS/TBM is so badly constructued, GNS-SDM is pretty much meaningless (Proof: GNS/TBM is meaningless, so anything referencing it is meaningless).

Of course RPG Theorists know this, so when they talk about System Does Matter they mean... what?

That people can tell the difference between D&D and Traveler, and so System must matter *somehow*?

Note how something that is supposed to deliver insight and meaning becomes a worthless generality when someone actually tries to apply it.

The same thing happened hear, a few posts earlier, with D&D 3.5 and "Coherent." Coherent has both a general, English-language meaning and a GNS/TBM meaning. When someone's actually *using* the theory, they're using the English language definition... in an attempt to illustrate the value of the theory!

Magic! But if you know how the trick is done, it's not entertaining anymore... and it clearly doesn't support the things the theory has to say about System Mattering or Incoherence, or anything else.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.You're surprised when people take offense at a theory loaded with Brain Damage, Power-Struggle, talk of gamers being turtles -- of having gripping protagonism with "stump-fingered hands"

To be perfectly honest, I don't think that's as important as a lot of people do.  I'll explain why below.

Quote from: -E.Droog, people at The Forge (and on boards like Story Games) are *astonished* when they receive a less-than-warm reception...

Near the end of the "Golden Age", rec.games.frp.advoacy was greeted with the same sort of hostility as the terminology spilled out into other Usenet groups like rec.games.frp.misc.  For example, see this message that I wrote in 2000 explaining how the rec.games.frp.advocacy terminology developed on rec.games.frp.moderated:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.moderated/msg/e7f3772aadaf5cc6?dmode=source

...and Bruce Baugh's first two responses, before he realized what he was doing...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.moderated/msg/117bb1b745b7a589?dmode=source

...and...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.moderated/msg/b4c2063b316c67b6?dmode=source

I'm choosing this example not to pick on Bruce in particular but because his quick explosion reflects the bad feelings that many people had at the time about that model (despite all of the warm and fuzzy "Golden Age" talk you'll hear these days) and he explains why he feels that way.  

To some degree, when the Forge theories borrowed r.g.f.a terminology, it inherented this hostility.  But more importantly, the dominant face of r.g.f.a was never as nasty as the comments that you cite above.  So to be fair I think the problem runs much deeper than insults and Ron.

At the time, I was pretty astonished at the hostility people showed toward r.g.f.a theory (and to this day, I can't understand the particular hostility directed toward Mary Kuhner).  In other words, I've seen this problem from both sides (as a true believer and as an outsider).

Quote from: -E.Astonished that *anyone* could take offense at a theory that calls popular games "incoherent" (and then claims that's a neutral term) and states their popularity has nothing to do with being fun, or having a compelling setting, but is a function of "economic factors"

While I'd agree that all of those things are big problems, even if Ron had simply taken the r.g.f.a theory and used it as is, he'd have critics.  See Bruce's comments above.  Those aren't directed toward the GNS.  Those are directed toward the r.g.f.a Threefold.

As someone who has been an insider and an outsider, I think the problem is that sweeping theories like both the GDS and GNS insist on forcing things into categories that don't always fit.  In a broader sense, they often associate things that aren't tied together, split things apart that are, and miss important factors that just aren't discussed in the theory.  I do think that r.g.f.a theory was less messy than Forge theory, but I can't say that isn't just my own personal bias speaking.

Quote from: -E.But, I don't think they do -- I think the theory is popular because it draws fire. A good number of people here and other places simply get off on the conflict.

They have to be -- they're certainly not talking or thinking deeply about *games*

While I think that may always be true of certain people in the debate, I prefer to think that Forge advocates are discussing the theories in what the believe is good faith unless proven otherwise.  I do think that some of Ron's messages (the honest and "brutal" variety) and the messages of some of his appologists make me assume otherwise of individuals, but I don't assume that's true of the majority of Forge people as a whole.

Quote from: John MorrowTo be perfectly honest, I don't think that's as important as a lot of people do.  I'll explain why below.


At the time, I was pretty astonished at the hostility people showed toward r.g.f.a theory (and to this day, I can't understand the particular hostility directed toward Mary Kuhner).  In other words, I've seen this problem from both sides (as a true believer and as an outsider).

While I'd agree that all of those things are big problems, even if Ron had simply taken the r.g.f.a theory and used it as is, he'd have critics.  See Bruce's comments above.  Those aren't directed toward the GNS.  Those are directed toward the r.g.f.a Threefold.

As someone who has been an insider and an outsider, I think the problem is that sweeping theories like both the GDS and GNS insist on forcing things into categories that don't always fit.  In a broader sense, they often associate things that aren't tied together, split things apart that are, and miss important factors that just aren't discussed in the theory.  I do think that r.g.f.a theory was less messy than Forge theory, but I can't say that isn't just my own personal bias speaking.

You make some good points -- and I certainly can't disagree that, with any theory, there will be critics.

Further: With any sizeable or complex body of work, people who dismiss it without reading it are irritating (I have been on both sides of this issue, as well) -- certainly Baugh's assessment of how the "typical GDS discussion" goes sounds somewhat familiar.

So if hostility toward any body of theory is a given, does that make the hostility generated by *all* theories equal?

And does that obviate the responsibility on the part of the theorists for taking part in generating a hostile dialog?

I answer "no" to both of my own questions (I'm interested to hear your answers) --

In reverse order: If I ever tell *anyone* they're in-denial about something, and I'm not their therapist or close friend, I expect dramatic hostility. If I don't *want* a fight, I need to find a different way to approach the issue (and it's best if I stop deluding myself that I'm qualified to make that diagnosis).

Let me be clear: I find you entirely reasonable and insightful; I have no idea if Bruce's accusation (in the post you linked to) was accurate or not -- and if it was accurate (i.e. if GDS-Holy-Warriors were diagnosing people across the Void of Usenet) that doesn't mean the GDS guys were *wrong* (maybe the folks arguing against the framework *were* in denial).

But it's still an approach guaranteed to generate hostility.

Anyone using that approach is responsible for the hostility they generate.

I think there are ways to frame theories -- even ones that label people -- without generating hostility... and if you can't find a way to apply a label from your theory to folks in a way that seems okay with them, it's a good bet your theory is fundamentally offensive.

The Forge guys have been told this many times -- they know it -- and they keep doing it (since the Brain Damage there has been less "you're in denial" and less "the theory isn't actually insulting... it's just you" stuff coming out).

I also know that a good deal of effort within the theory community has been spent trying to find less inflamatory ways to express some of the basic principles -- so it's not like this is a big mystery to them (if anyone's interested, I think there are a few basic changes that would make the theory 80% less inflamatory)

Finally, in terms of all-theories-finding-resistance:

There are a *lot* of theories out there. I'm sure all of them have their academic communities full of sharp swords. However, I don't know of any sizable body of people upset by Robin Law's classification of gamers. I know that the framework used in the WotC market research hasn't drawn many barbs in the places I've read (some people take issue with the research itself, but I haven't seen anyone call the categories insulting).

Clearly Forge Theory is a bit of a different animal. Why is this?

It's in the language of *revolution* -- GNS/TBM isn't here to explain how your game works or help you be a better DM.

It's the INDY REVOLUTION! It's *nuking* -- not just tipping over, but NUKING the applecart.

It's war (and if you don't believe me, look at Ron's posts at the end of the theory forums).

And it appeals to folks who want a war -- not, coincidentally, a similar group to those who enjoy RPG's but find the hugely popular and widely played games dysfunctional.

I don't detect a level of bitterness or us-v-them, or separatism (independence from... what? The big Corporate sponsorship that the mega-stars have?) in GDS. I don't see it in any of the other RPG theories I'm familiar with.

In terms of "good faith" the only places where I don't see "good faith" are in the overt appologism and posts that suggests the theorist is *knows better* but is trying to *help* disenfranchised gamers by presenting the theory instead of truth -- both of which happen --

But showing up wanting a fight isn't necessarily bad-faith: just go to any punk rock show -- it's what gets some people out of bed in the morning.

I prefer the punk-rock, in-your-face variety, however -- I prefer Brain Damage  to, "My, oh my?! Why is everyone angry at us?"

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.There are a *lot* of theories out there. I'm sure all of them have their academic communities full of sharp swords. However, I don't know of any sizable body of people upset by Robin Law's classification of gamers. I know that the framework used in the WotC market research hasn't drawn many barbs in the places I've read (some people take issue with the research itself, but I haven't seen anyone call the categories insulting).

It's because that stuff is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's saying, "going by what people have told us, this is how things look," rather than, "I reckon things are like so-and-so, so this is what you should do." The tone of the stuff is questioning, open-minded, and is overall positive about gamers. Whereas that other stuff is lecturing, closed-minded, and overall negative.

People like it when you show curiosity about them. It's well-known that if you want someone to find you an interesting conversationist, you should say, "tell me about yourself." "He's really interesting, he talks about me!" Questioning, like WotC and Robin Laws do, shows interest in and respect for people. People like that.

People like open-mindedness more than they like closed-mindedness. If you say, "I think this, and won't respond to any questions about it," that pisses people off. If you say, "I think this, what do you guys think?" then that interests people.

People like positiveness, hopefulness and optimism more than they like negativity, despair and pessimism. If you say, "you can probably have a great game if you do some of these things," people will be happy with it, even if they quibble over the details. If you say, "you're incapable of understanding what fun is, the whole hobby is broken," people don't like that much.

Be questioning, open-minded, and positive, and your ideas will be received enthusiatically. Be lecturing, closed-minded and negative, and your ideas will be roundly rejected except by lost and miserable people.

That's just human nature, nothing specifically rpg-ish in it.

Quote from: -E.So if hostility toward any body of theory is a given, does that make the hostility generated by *all* theories equal?

And does that obviate the responsibility on the part of the theorists for taking part in generating a hostile dialog?

I answer "no" to both of my own questions (I'm interested to hear your answers) --

Oh, I agree with you.  But my point is that at least some of the hostility would be there even if Ron didn't periodically give one of his "long and brutal" repllies that insult lots of people.

Quote from: -E.Let me be clear: I find you entirely reasonable and insightful; I have no idea if Bruce's accusation (in the post you linked to) was accurate or not -- and if it was accurate (i.e. if GDS-Holy-Warriors were diagnosing people across the Void of Usenet) that doesn't mean the GDS guys were *wrong* (maybe the folks arguing against the framework *were* in denial).

Bruce's response in that particular case was over-the-top and he admits as much later on in the thread, after some other people point out what he's doing.  But I think it reflected the general hostility floating around at the time toward the GDS and the overly enthusiastic use of that model at the time.

Quote from: -E.There are a *lot* of theories out there. I'm sure all of them have their academic communities full of sharp swords. However, I don't know of any sizable body of people upset by Robin Law's classification of gamers. I know that the framework used in the WotC market research hasn't drawn many barbs in the places I've read (some people take issue with the research itself, but I haven't seen anyone call the categories insulting).

Correct.  In fact, I think Robin Laws' classifications are probably the best out there right now.  He improved upon Glenn Blacow's model which goes back to 1980.

Quote from: -E.Clearly Forge Theory is a bit of a different animal. Why is this?

It's in the language of *revolution* -- GNS/TBM isn't here to explain how your game works or help you be a better DM.

I think it's a bit more than that, which is why I pointed out the hostility to the GDS.  Both models were used by people to tell other people what they were doing and, probably much worse, what they did or didn't find fun.  In other words, the conceit of both models is that they can tell people what they will or won't like and used by over-enthusiastic advocates, that's nearly as offensive as being told you are in denial.  

But I think the problem that bothered Bruce Baugh and others, and which I see from the outside in Forge theory, is that the theories force you to discuss issues in a certain framework and that framework warps not only how you think about thinks but what you'll think about at all.  I didn't see that from the inside on r.g.f.a but I certainly see it on the outside at The Forge.

Quote from: -E.I don't detect a level of bitterness or us-v-them, or separatism (independence from... what? The big Corporate sponsorship that the mega-stars have?) in GDS. I don't see it in any of the other RPG theories I'm familiar with.

Correct, but I don't see that bitterness or us-v-them or seperatism in all of the Forge people, either.  I think they've simply hitched their cart to a nasty horse.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect, but I don't see that bitterness or us-v-them or seperatism in all of the Forge people, either.  I think they've simply hitched their cart to a nasty horse.

I've snipped most of your reply -- it deserves a longer post and more time to think about than I have time for here.

Especially your observation that once one has adopted a language (a theory framework) it may limit what one is able to think about. I did some reading on linguistic theory a year ago or so (for a campaign, actually), and ran into a very similar notion... (well, two theories of how language might work)

However, I wanted to address the part I quoted since it's come up here and on RPG.net before:

A lot of people who participate in and support The Forge dislike the blowback they get from being... Forgistas? Forgites? People who participate in and support The Forge.

They tell me it seems unfair that they should be tarred with a brush aimed at Ron Edwards and the more problematic posters.

I'm not actually qualified to judge "fair" -- but I think that anyone who realizes that the cart they've hooked up to comes with ... baggage (I feel like I'm overloading the metaphor) is responsible for remaining hooked to that cart.

And it's certainly possible to un-hook one's self.

I have some sympathy for a minority of Forge participants who *I* don't see as part-of-the-problem -- I'm thinking of the three well-known posters in the Brain Damage thread who spoke up unambigously against the nonsense.

But they aren't the ones I see complaining. In fact, the folks I've seen complain about a chilly reception tend to *agree* with a lot of the worst of the theory.

Once again, the Sword of Truth (the Brain Damage) is a good test: if you're a Forge Poster and your answer to a question like, "What do you think about the Brain Damage" would be something like:

 "Ah--see, I disagree with this little *part* of it..." or "I, ahem, wouldn't have said it that way," or, "it's just a metaphor..." you can be pretty sure that any hostility you're getting is something you've signed up for and should expect.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: JimBobOzPeople like positiveness, hopefulness and optimism more than they like negativity, despair and pessimism.

All true, and all good points -- of course there *is* a minority that responds to the Dark Side -- those who feel disenfranchised by the mainstream.

But as you've pointed out here and elsehwere, that's far from being "most gamers."

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: John MorrowBut I think the problem that bothered Bruce Baugh and others, and which I see from the outside in Forge theory, is that the theories force you to discuss issues in a certain framework and that framework warps not only how you think about thinks but what you'll think about at all. I didn't see that from the inside on r.g.f.a but I certainly see it on the outside at The Forge.

And might I just peak in to point out, that for all of the bluster and swearing and such, this is I think what Pundit tries to say about how theory should be discussed here.  That is, let's not assume a framework and see if we can talk about things without all the baggage.

It's the one thing of his (one of the few things) with which I agree...

Quote from: -E.I'm just being obliging.

Yeah, right. Look, talk or not. It's no skin off my nose. But until you can remove that big old chip, you'll have to talk to somebody else.

Quote from: StuartI wonder how many Forge theorists have backgrounds in Literary Theory, Film Theory, etc. and how many have backgrounds in Biological Science, Computer Science, etc instead.

I have some lit theory, rather more visual arts theory, and a whole lot of political theory. I wasn't a science guy at school.

Mind you, it'd be presumptuous of me to call myself a theorist.

Quote from: -E.Let me be clear: I find you entirely reasonable and insightful; I have no idea if Bruce's accusation (in the post you linked to) was accurate or not -- and if it was accurate (i.e. if GDS-Holy-Warriors were diagnosing people across the Void of Usenet) that doesn't mean the GDS guys were *wrong* (maybe the folks arguing against the framework *were* in denial).

Mmm, well.  The Threefold described some useful insights, insights critical to some people's enjoyment of play.  It obscures other aspects of play, aspects critical to other people.  (I find that it does both at once, in different ways.)

Some people who felt that it incisively described the distinctive aspects of their play, throwing into high relief what they needed to analyze, found it very useful on a practical basis, and so defended it.

Some people who seemed primarily to be interested in social power struggles defended it fiercely and obnoxiously because acceptance of the Threefold defined an in-group and an out-group: they could put down critics with most of the same sort of rubbish Forge fanatics tend to throw at critics of Forge theory ("If you think it's wrong, you obviously haven't understood it.")

Some people who criticized it did so because it insisted on a necessary antipathy between effects that they always found complementary, and therefore hindered their thinking about how to get the most out of play; or because it made it hard, rather than easy, to make distinctions they needed to make.

Some people who criticized it did so out of pretentious anti-intellectualism: "Obviously, anyone who ever classifies anything does so out of elitist snobbery, and has no other motive, and lacks the common sense and insight of Those of Us Whe Don't Need to Think Because We're So Cool We Just Automatically Get It, Unlike You, You Pretentious Cretin.  How dare you categorize and label me! (How dare you describe a difference that you see by using different words to refer to different qualities! The nerve!)"  That is, for some people being a Threefold critic was another way of asserting social status and superior virtue, belonging to a group, and getting attention.

As soon as rgfa had an orthodoxy with Defenders of the Threefold Faith in one corner, and the Champions of Freedom from Categorization and That There Snobbish  Pretentious High Falutin' Analytical Thinking in the other, it became socially impossible to have a useful discussion in which the Threefold played much part, if one found it neither useless nor perfect.

... I don't know that I'd use the word 'accurate' or 'inaccurate' of Bruce Baugh's reaction.  He was one of those who didn't find the Threefold useful, and he had good social and personal reasons for his response.  On the other other hand, there were good social and personal reasons for some of the Threefold defenders to be strongly attached to the theory: some of the criticism of the Threefold really was coming from Story Uber Alles types who denied the existence or legitimacy of any preference but their own.  Problem was, that wasn't the motive or the real thrust of the argument in other superficially similar cases to which Threefold defenders reacted the same way, and that reaction added a lot of heat to the proceedings without greatly increasing the light.

From my perspective, rgfa was interesting and produced useful insights when the arguments were many-sided -- when people were arguing enough different positions that nobody could consistently identify an Us or a Them. When things consolidated enough so that there were Threefold defenders and Threefold critics as identifiable groups, the tenor of discourse changed.  It became impossible to attack or defend a position solely on its merits while avoiding association with one party or the other, and avoiding the guilt-by-association of the supercharged rhetoric of the attack dogs on both sides.

I found this frustrating because I found the Threefold both insightful and badly flawed; I wanted to explore the flaws in order to develop further insights; in the social atmosphere that prevailed in the latter days, it was impossible for me to do that in practice.  My life offline was extremely stressful and I definitely wasn't in my best debating-without-heat form, but even if I had been, I don't think I could have extracted useful discussion from the Us vs. Them dynamic.

QuoteI don't detect a level of bitterness or us-v-them, or separatism (independence from... what? The big Corporate sponsorship that the mega-stars have?) in GDS. I don't see it in any of the other RPG theories I'm familiar with.

Well, the Threefold did cause its share of flaming rows ... from one perspective.

From another, it caused nary a one of them.  It was never any theory that caused a row: it was always someone insisting that he knew more than the other person about how the other person really experienced play (no matter what he said he experienced), or how the other person really thought about it (no matter what he said he thought).

Rgfa theory had some semantic tripwires in it, things that are likely to lead to disagreements, but I don't think rgfa terminology has the attitude built into the Forge glossary, even if some of the individuals sometimes presented their position with a similar attitude.

Quote from: John MorrowThe problem is that you seem to assume that incoherency normally won't work and your ealier comments make it sound as if it's some sort of miracle when it does.  Yes, I agree that putting more responsibility on the social level is one way to make it work and that's part of what I've been trying to say (e.g., compromise).  But part of what I was also trying to explain with my restaurant analogy is that if your game consists of people who can have fun in multiple styles of play, aren't bothered by other styles of play, and/or who are willing to a focus on the parts of their style that play well with other styles, an incoherent game can work very well without anyone having to work very hard at it.

Very well. I suggest that this is where we must leave it. We agree that, in principle, a game without a coherent agenda can work. I think we'd have to look at cases before saying any more. Do you agree?

Quote from: John MorrowMany people don't have narrow preferences.  Even to the extent that I say I don't like things, I'm often fairly tolerant of them and can have fun with them in practice so long as they don't get excessive.  But that's exactly what following Forge theory to run a coherent game will produce -- a game that excessively favors a single style.

Well, 'excessively' must be relative. But yes – the general design trend around the Forge is to make highly-focused games. That goes along with the idea that no one game provides for all your needs; therefore, you will play various games of different styles instead of one game bent to different styles.

We accept this idea with board games or card games. I don't like to play poker or rummy, but I love a round of cribbage or euchre. I don't expect people to change the rules of poker so that it plays like cribbage – I just don't go to poker nights.

These sorts of games suit people for different reasons. Calithena at RPG.net finds the simplicity and charm of brown-box D&D. I find pace and intensity. Many of us appreciate games that don't take so long to play.

I'm pretty sure there's nobody who likes every single game associated with the Forge. I know I don't (and meanwhile one of my favourites seems to be languishing). But I think the idea of focused, short, intense games is an excellent one.

(On the other hand, I'm still officially running the stoners' game I started in 1984. But I will never run another game like that. I've got about forty or fifty more years on this earth and I've got to make it count.)

Quote from: John MorrowI never saw it as an issue of your relationship with Glenn, but I'll drop it.  I will however, point out that it's a bit unfair to drop an example into an argument and then refuse to allow others to dig into it and figure out if it fits or not and whether it proves the point or not.

The problem is that you're not taking my word for some things. I'm going to try once more to explain the situation:

Social: Glenn became friends with all of the group through a mutual friend in about '89. He was already a roleplayer, and played a heap of games with about a dozen other unemployed guys. In about '91, he asked if he could join our game. He wanted to hang out with us more.

If there was a social problem, it was that we couldn't bring ourselves to kick Glenn out when problems started to appear.

Setting: We were all hideous setting buffs. You have no idea how well-versed we all were in the arcane lore of Glorantha, nor how important that was in our game. Glenn didn't care. He just wanted to kick ass, or maybe have dramatic scenes, but not our slow, meandering pace where we lingered over every detail of Glorantha and made further observations and speculations.

System: We played RQ, and Glenn was a GURPS boy (those guys used GURPS for everything). We all thought RQ was a very fine system, and we bridled at complaints from Glenn. Plus, Glenn played in a very hard-core powergaming way with his other groups and he brought that edge to our gentle simulationist paradise where nobody reamed the system.

Do you see that where we clashed was in the sphere of the game? That it wasn't really anybody's fault, just mismatched agendas? That a different game could have accomodated Glenn, but this game was set along lines that couldn't be altered without destroying its texture (which we valued)?

Quote from: droogThe problem is that you're not taking my word for some things. I'm going to try once more to explain the situation:

The problem is that I see evidence in the very details that you are providing that you aren't really considering all of the relevant details.  Let's drop the whole phrase "social problem", since that seems to be a big sticking point and deal with the details I'm looking.  I'm not trying to call you, your group, or Glenn bad people.

Quote from: droogSocial: [...]If there was a social problem, it was that we couldn't bring ourselves to kick Glenn out when problems started to appear.

That's one issue, but not really the one I'm looking at.  My main point here is that there were two other paths not taken here (beyond what happened by default -- Glenn leaving the game), presuming they weren't physically impossible.  

The first was for the group to adjust the game to make it more to Glenn's liking.  Yes, I know you rejected that option and may be been quite justified in doing so, but it was an option that was rejected because you valued the continuity and continuation of your 7-year campaign over making the game more pleasant for Glenn.  I'm not judging your choice.  I'm pointing out that it was a trade-off that you made and it's a very important one when dealing with coherency.

The second is that Glenn could have tried to figure out how to enjoy your existing style of play in that campaign.  That's not always possible but I've found out that it's not always impossible, either.  And this goes to the point I was making about people with narrow preferences vs. broad preferences.  If your game wasn't Glenn's favorite style of game, he might still have enjoyed it if he were more flexible about how he played and what he enjoyed.  Again, I'm not judging Glenn for being himself.  I'm simply explaining that it was a contributing factor that's not always an issue.

So basically the three options are:

• Other players adapt to player that is unhappy to improve the game for them.
• Player that is unhappy adapts to other players and learns how to have fun with them.
• Player that feels unhappy leaves the group.

Just because your group did not use two of those three options for that game, perhaps with very good and perfectly justified reason (see my next point below), does not mean that those options don't exist for other situations and other groups.  And it's within those other options that people figure out how to make incoherent games work.

Quote from: droogSetting: We were all hideous setting buffs. You have no idea how well-versed we all were in the arcane lore of Glorantha, nor how important that was in our game. Glenn didn't care. He just wanted to kick ass, or maybe have dramatic scenes, but not our slow, meandering pace where we lingered over every detail of Glorantha and made further observations and speculations.

And my point here is that the "hideousness" of your group's style combined with the fairly narrow goals that Glenn had didn't overlap because they were narrow.  Yes, incoherent games can be a problem with groups and people like that.  But suppose your group had cared a bit less about the setting in that game and Glenn cared a bit more about it, in other words, if you were all a bit more flexible.  It would have been easier to find some overlap where you could all have fun.  

Again, that's how many people make incoherent games work.  While their primary interests are different, their broader interests overlap enough that they can find a happy compromise.  In your case, it doesn't sound like that was possible for this game, at which point not playing together may have been the only option.  That that's a very specific and (I think) in some ways fairly unusual example.

And note that I am not trying to say that having narrow preferences makes someone a bad person.  I'm simply saying that it makes it less likely that you'll have fun in a game with people with different preferences.  I have some very narrow preferences concerning how I like to play and it limits the range of games I can have fun in and the compromises I'm willing to make.  But there are plenty of much more flexible people out there that just don't have the same problem.

Quote from: droogSystem: We played RQ, and Glenn was a GURPS boy (those guys used GURPS for everything). We all thought RQ was a very fine system, and we bridled at complaints from Glenn. Plus, Glenn played in a very hard-core powergaming way with his other groups and he brought that edge to our gentle simulationist paradise where nobody reamed the system.

I understand why you didn't want to change your game for Glenn.  Really I do.  And you don' t have to defend it or justify it to me.  I'm simply saying that it was a choice and that there was another choice that you simply felt was worse.

With respect to system, again flexibility is an issue.  Lot's of people are willing to play all sorts of systems.  My group has played with no rules, "high rolls are good", Fudge, homebrew systems, Hero, Warhammer FRP, d20, etc.  If system isn't as important to a player, then it's easier to find compromise with others.  Again, a person isn't bad for liking only a single system, but it makes it less likely they'll have fun in a game with another system or fit in with a group that uses a different system.

Quote from: droogDo you see that where we clashed was in the sphere of the game? That it wasn't really anybody's fault, just mismatched agendas? That a different game could have accomodated Glenn, but this game was set along lines that couldn't be altered without destroying its texture (which we valued)?

I honestly never didn't see this and I wasn't trying to blame anyone in the sense of calling anyone a bad person.  But when the group made a choice not to alter the texture of the game because of how much they valued it over changing the game so that Glenn would like it more, that was a choice (even if it was entirely justified).  I'm not saying you were bad for making that choice.  I'm pointing out that it was a trade-off and that alternatives (compromise) were not physically impossible for others, who can make different choices.  It looks like Glenn was making similar trade-offs (e.g., he valued hanging out with your group more than enjoying the role-playing).  Subjective trade-offs like this aren't a "right or wrong" issue, but they are still a trade-off and a choice.

The reason all of this is important to the issue of coherency and incoherency is that there are elements of your example that I think may be coloring your assumptions about how likely it will be for an incoherent game to work and how much better coherent games are for player enjoyment.  The more flexible a player or group is, the less important coherency is going to be to them.

Again, I'm not saying you are bad, Glenn is bad, or your group is bad for having narrow preferences and being unwilling to change what you were doing.  After all, you role-play for fun and if that's how you have fun, that's fine.  What I am saying is that the lack of flexibility in this example all around produced an inability to reach a compromise without ruining the game for someone and that people who are more flexible just won't have these problems.  In other words, it's "bad" in the sense that it made it impossible for Glenn to work out with your group, assuming that's a good thing.

Compromise is how incoherent games work and compromise doesn't always mean the loss of fun that tightly focussed people assume it will mean.  The reason why coherent games are a problem, in my opinion, is that when the system is also tightly focussed, it doesn't give the players and GM room to find compromise without falling out of what the system covers.  Thus if you have a player who enjoys tactical combat in a game with an abstract conflict resolution system, you can't really make the combat more tactical for them, even if everyone at the table would be fine with that and have fun.

Quote from: droogVery well. I suggest that this is where we must leave it. We agree that, in principle, a game without a coherent agenda can work. I think we'd have to look at cases before saying any more. Do you agree?

That's fine.  The main point here is that I don't think anyone should assume that fun incoherent games are rare without more than anecdotal evidence to back that up.

Quote from: droogWell, 'excessively' must be relative. But yes – the general design trend around the Forge is to make highly-focused games.

And while such games offer a great deal to players looking for the tight focus, they offer very little to people with other preferences, right?

Quote from: droogThat goes along with the idea that no one game provides for all your needs; therefore, you will play various games of different styles instead of one game bent to different styles.

I don't think that's true, either.  There are plenty of people who seem to have all of their needs met by a single system.

Quote from: droogWe accept this idea with board games or card games. I don't like to play poker or rummy, but I love a round of cribbage or euchre. I don't expect people to change the rules of poker so that it plays like cribbage – I just don't go to poker nights.

A role-playing game is not a board game or a card game in many significan ways.  But even accepting the analogy for the sake of argument, there are people who always play the same game (e.g., Rummy or Chess or Go, sometimes every day with the same person) and there are people who do change rules if they don't like the board or card game works (e.g., growing up, we had custom versions of Stratego and Bermuda triangle and my current group of friends tends to add house rules to Uno).

Quote from: droogThese sorts of games suit people for different reasons. Calithena at RPG.net finds the simplicity and charm of brown-box D&D. I find pace and intensity. Many of us appreciate games that don't take so long to play.

That's not the same thing as claiming that games designed that way are better than games that aren't.

Quote from: droogI'm pretty sure there's nobody who likes every single game associated with the Forge. I know I don't (and meanwhile one of my favourites seems to be languishing). But I think the idea of focused, short, intense games is an excellent one.

There is nothing wrong with the idea, per se, especially if people are having fun with it.  The problem comes from the specific claim that such focused, short, intense games produce an objectively better experience than other games with less focus, that run for a long time, and might not be as intense.  I don't think that's true at all as a general statement, even if it is true for some people.  Yet that's exactly what the claim that coherency is better than incoherency assumes.

Quote from: John MorrowYet that's exactly what the claim that coherency is better than incoherency assumes.

You're being too argumentative, John, and reading things that aren't there.

First of all, I think we've already disposed of the idea that anybody thinks a focused game is objectively 'better' (whatever that means). It will depend on the group.

Secondly, I would like you to read my posts with a little more analysis. When I say, for instance, that the Forge games go with a philosophy that no one game will satisfy everybody's needs, I do not say that this is a hard-and-fast truth for everybody. I'm saying that this is a key idea that goes with the Forge design philosophy.

Thirdly, when you say "You could have done this," it's missing the point. We didn't do that and that's all there is to it. Why didn't we do that: here are the reasons. Also, if you want to lay out all the options, you neglected playing a different game, which also would have solved it.

Fourthly, I do not see it as an issue of 'flexibility'. That would have to assume that only one game and only one style was ever preferred by any of us. The simple fact that this particular game had a particular agenda does not mean that other sorts of games were not had or enjoyed.

To return to card games for a minute, while you may house-rule poker, you don't play cribbage at the same time. I'm not saying that this analogy is a one-to-one fit with RPGs, I'm saying that to illustrate a mindset. It only stretches so far, because there is no card game equivalent to the RPG that tries to encompass all possible styles.

But even if your group made a blend of poker and cribbage, it would be a distinct game, and if somebody else came along and demanded that bridge be incorporated, you would still have to choose whether you were to keep your original game intact.

Quote from: droogYou're being too argumentative, John, and reading things that aren't there.

Earlier in the thread, you said, "The basic principle is: if you're having fun incoherently, bully for you. Somehow you make it work. Now, how reproducible are your efforts?"

Somehow we made it work?  Asking if it's reproducible?  Did you really think those were neutral comments?

Quote from: droogFirst of all, I think we've already disposed of the idea that anybody thinks a focused game is objectively 'better' (whatever that means). It will depend on the group.

Earlier in the thread, didn't you write, "Ron says incoherency is more likely than coherency to lead to dysfunction."  You don't think that a functional game should be considered objectively better than a dysfunctional game?  Do you want to argue that "dysfunctional" is a neutral word like people argue "incoherent" is?

Quote from: droogSecondly, I would like you to read my posts with a little more analysis. When I say, for instance, that the Forge games go with a philosophy that no one game will satisfy everybody's needs, I do not say that this is a hard-and-fast truth for everybody. I'm saying that this is a key idea that goes with the Forge design philosophy.

I do read your posts carefully.  You didn't say, "no one game will satisfy everybody's needs".  You said, "no one game provides for all your needs".  The former is likely true.  The latter is not.  I can only respond to what you actually say, not what you mean to say.

Quote from: droogThirdly, when you say "You could have done this," it's missing the point. We didn't do that and that's all there is to it. Why didn't we do that: here are the reasons. Also, if you want to lay out all the options, you neglected playing a different game, which also would have solved it.

It's not missing the point when we are discussing whether incoherent games work or not.  You may have had an excellent reason for not fixing the problem you had (and not wanting to risk ruining a highly successful 7 year-old campaign is at least a good reason) but that means that your example was a fairly specialized case where incoherency and different expectations weren't the only factors involved.

Quote from: droogFourthly, I do not see it as an issue of 'flexibility'. That would have to assume that only one game and only one style was ever preferred by any of us. The simple fact that this particular game had a particular agenda does not mean that other sorts of games were not had or enjoyed.

Please put the straw man down.  It would not have to assume only one game and one style was preferred.  Flexibility, in this context, means an ability to change, adjust, or compromise.  Please point out where any of you changed, adjusted, or compromised to make the game work.  Better yet, can you explain where the group or Glenn exhibited any sort of flexibility in your example?

And if this was one unique situation that's not characteristic of your gaming experiences, why are you using it as an example?

Quote from: droogTo return to card games for a minute, while you may house-rule poker, you don't play cribbage at the same time. I'm not saying that this analogy is a one-to-one fit with RPGs, I'm saying that to illustrate a mindset. It only stretches so far, because there is no card game equivalent to the RPG that tries to encompass all possible styles.

How much time have you spent playing card and board games?  There are categories of elements that attracts people to card games just as their are categories of elements that attract people to role-playing games.  In the case of card games and board games, there is luck (often in the form of randomness), strategy, memory, the social game (e.g., bluffing), gambling, and so on that games offer in different proportions which attract different kinds of players.

Chess, for example, is all about strategy and memory while Backgammon has less strategy, more luck, and a gambling component (the doubling cube).  Some board games are quick and others aren't.  Some games emphasize a single aspect and other games try to cover all of the bases.  And, yes, there are card games and board games that try to cover all of the bases offering a bit of luck, a bit of strategy, a bit of memory, a social game, some gambling, and so on.  In fact, I would argue that Magic: The Gathering does a pretty good job in that regard, which might be why it's been so popular.

Quote from: droogBut even if your group made a blend of poker and cribbage, it would be a distinct game, and if somebody else came along and demanded that bridge be incorporated, you would still have to choose whether you were to keep your original game intact.

You are mixing apples and oranges here.  Unless you are talking about blending role-playing systems, then blending specific card games isn't the issue.

If I'm playing Chess and a person tells me that they want more randomness, we can switch to Backgammon, which involves luck, strategy, memory (though weakly), bluffing (weakly), and a gambling component.  Or I can decide that I hate Backgammon, want to play chess, and tell them to take a walk.  But just because we can't both have fun playing Chess doesn't mean we can't play another board game that would give us both a reason to play and have fun.  And it's no mistake the the more popular games combine different elements are often more popular than games that are, for example, all strategy and no luck (Chess and Go) or all luck and no Strategy (children's games like Candyland and Chutes and Ladders).

Quote from: John MorrowEarlier in the thread, you said, "The basic principle is: if you're having fun incoherently, bully for you. Somehow you make it work. Now, how reproducible are your efforts?"

Somehow we made it work?  Asking if it's reproducible?  Did you really think those were neutral comments?

Yes, why not? I'm asking. How reproducible are they? Do they depend on a particular group of people or do they not? can your success be formulated?

Those are important questions in Forge design philosophy, which is what we're discussing.

QuoteEarlier in the thread, didn't you write, "Ron says incoherency is more likely than coherency to lead to dysfunction."  You don't think that a functional game should be considered objectively better than a dysfunctional game?  Do you want to argue that "dysfunctional" is a neutral word like people argue "incoherent" is?

I'm not arguing either. I was informing people of what Ron actually, currently says. Note how I say "RON says..."

As far as the word 'incoherent' goes, I'm arguing that the concept itself has some currency. If we can actually get it straight, we could move on to whether another term would be more suitable.

It seems to me that you have accepted the notion of 'coherent vs 'incoherent', and now you want to prove that incoherent is just as good. That's cool, but it's not what I'm talking about.

QuoteI do read your posts carefully.  You didn't say, "no one game will satisfy everybody's needs".  You said, "no one game provides for all your needs".  The former is likely true.  The latter is not.  I can only respond to what you actually say, not what you mean to say.

I do not see any meaningful difference between the two ways I phrased it. This'll be a dead end.

QuoteIt's not missing the point when we are discussing whether incoherent games work or not.  You may have had an excellent reason for not fixing the problem you had (and not wanting to risk ruining a highly successful 7 year-old campaign is at least a good reason) but that means that your example was a fairly specialized case where incoherency and different expectations weren't the only factors involved.

Dude – it's missing the point because I'm not trying to prove anything right now. That's why I suggested that we should leave this line of conversation alone.

QuotePlease put the straw man down.  It would not have to assume only one game and one style was preferred.  Flexibility, in this context, means an ability to change, adjust, or compromise.  Please point out where any of you changed, adjusted, or compromised to make the game work.  Better yet, can you explain where the group or Glenn exhibited any sort of flexibility in your example?

There are times when compromise is necessary and possible. There are times when it's neither. 'Flexibility' is not inherently a virtue (nor a vice).

Now, I have said several times (but you don't seem to be picking up on those points) that we tried, that I did various things to try and fit Glenn in. You seem to be trying to cross-examine a hostile witness.

QuoteAnd, yes, there are card games and board games that try to cover all of the bases offering a bit of luck, a bit of strategy, a bit of memory, a social game, some gambling, and so on.  In fact, I would argue that Magic: The Gathering does a pretty good job in that regard, which might be why it's been so popular.

It might be popular in the geek world, but I think you'll find poker or bridge outstrips by a long way overall.

I do not understand the point of your paragraph. I can't see it as disagreeing with my point.
 

QuoteIf I'm playing Chess and a person tells me that they want more randomness, we can switch to Backgammon, which involves luck, strategy, memory (though weakly), bluffing (weakly), and a gambling component.  Or I can decide that I hate Backgammon, want to play chess, and tell them to take a walk.  But just because we can't both have fun playing Chess doesn't mean we can't play another board game that would give us both a reason to play and have fun.  And it's no mistake the the more popular games combine different elements are often more popular than games that are, for example, all strategy and no luck (Chess and Go) or all luck and no Strategy (children's games like Candyland and Chutes and Ladders).

You seem to be agreeing that playing a different game altogether is a good solution. So what's the problem?

Are you sure it's me you're talking to?

Quote from: droogYes, why not? I'm asking. How reproducible are they? Do they depend on a particular group of people or do they not? can your success be formulated?

Those are important questions in Forge design philosophy, which is what we're discussing.

OK.  Taking this question at face value, I'll answer it (I think I already did).

Yes, they are reproducible and methods for doing so can be formulated. That's why I suggested seeing Robin Laws' book Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering.  A major point of the book is explaining how to run games for players with different agendas.

Quote from: droogI'm not arguing either. I was informing people of what Ron actually, currently says. Note how I say "RON says..."

Yes.  And Ron is the poster boy for The Forge, since the theory is largely defined by essays written by... Ron.

Quote from: droogAs far as the word 'incoherent' goes, I'm arguing that the concept itself has some currency. If we can actually get it straight, we could move on to whether another term would be more suitable.

I think the concept (broad focus vs. narrow focus) has some legitimacy, though I think another term would be more useful.

Quote from: droogIt seems to me that you have accepted the notion of 'coherent vs 'incoherent', and now you want to prove that incoherent is just as good. That's cool, but it's not what I'm talking about.

The assumption that "coherent" games are better than "incoherent" games is pretty central to the Forge ideal of tightly focused games.  If incoherent games are just as good (if not better) than coherent games, that's undermining a fairly major justification for the focus on tightly focused games.

Quote from: droogI do not see any meaningful difference between the two ways I phrased it. This'll be a dead end.

"your" is not a clear synonym for "everyone".

Quote from: droogThere are times when compromise is necessary and possible. There are times when it's neither. 'Flexibility' is not inherently a virtue (nor a vice).

Correct.  But if you are trying to avoid a dysfunctional incoherent game or create a game with broad appeal, flexibility is a virtue.

Quote from: droogNow, I have said several times (but you don't seem to be picking up on those points) that we tried, that I did various things to try and fit Glenn in.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing where you mentioned what you did to help Glenn fit in.  Can you either quote where you said that or point me to a message ID?  I'm being serious.  I just skimmed the entire thread and I'm not seeing it.

Quote from: droogIt might be popular in the geek world, but I think you'll find poker or bridge outstrips by a long way overall.

Of course they do, because they don't require players to buy hundreds of dollars of cards to pay competatively.  But both poker and bridge are games that combine a variety of elements -- luck, strategy, memory, gambling, and so on.  They are "incoherent" games.  Building a hand or taking tricks isn't akin to a creative agenda.  It's aking to using percentile dice vs. an open ended roll.  It's a mechanic.

Quote from: droogI do not understand the point of your paragraph. I can't see it as disagreeing with my point.

My point is that the card and board game equivalents of an incoherent role-playing game are generally more popular than specialized card and board games that are comparable to a coherent role-playing game.  They attrack a bigger audience because (A) they appeal to more people and (B) it's easier to get a group together to play them.

Quote from: droogYou seem to be agreeing that playing a different game altogether is a good solution. So what's the problem?

I'm not claiming that incoherent games are a problem.  That's one way to make a group with incoherent preferences work -- to pick an incoherent game that offers something to everyone.  You said you wanted a formula for success.  If you have players with different preferences, then pick a system and scenario that gives everyone at least a little of what they want.  That's the magic formula.  Or at least one of them.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm sorry, but I'm not seeing where you mentioned what you did to help Glenn fit in.  Can you either quote where you said that or point me to a message ID?  I'm being serious.  I just skimmed the entire thread and I'm not seeing it.

I din't say exactly what I did at any point, in fact. I did say we tried (Glenn played in the game for a couple of years, after all). But why should I look back through over two hundred posts to prove it? You're pulling all sorts of quotes from earlier comments without any context – why don't you find them?

Now, would you please give me a potted summary of Robin Laws' advice, because I'm pretty sure I already know what it is, and I'm pretty sure I applied it. But first, I'll make sure I understand it.

Quote from: droogYes, why not? I'm asking. How reproducible are they? Do they depend on a particular group of people or do they not? can your success be formulated?

There's really only one question I have.  Is D&D considered Coherent?  the problem is that either answer renders the term meaningless.

Yes - then what's the point?
No - then having fun playing an Incoherent game can be reproduced and has a formula that's been around since RPG's started. And Incoherent is actually the most successful approach in RPG history.

Blech...its late and I'm going to bed...

Quote from: James J SkachThere's really only one question I have.  Is D&D considered Coherent?  the problem is that either answer renders the term meaningless.

Yes - then what's the point?
No - then having fun playing an Incoherent game can be reproduced and has a formula that's been around since RPG's started. And Incoherent is actually the most successful approach in RPG history.

Blech...its late and I'm going to bed...

There's a yes and a no there.

AD&D – somewhat incoherent (witness EGG talking about 'just a game' and at the same time talking about the importance of keeping records and making a plausible world). Gam/sim.

AD&D 2nd ed. – greater degree of incoherence due to a concentration on 'story', while keeping the underlying game the same. Gam/sim/nar.

Is it a coincidence that 2nd ed. is widely regarded as a failure? I don't know.

D&D 3.x – high degree of coherence (gam). Hugely successful.


What's the point? Analytically, it's interesting. It has no point if you think that the only reason for Forge theory is advocacy. If Forge theory is, as I claim, an analytic framework, then we ought to accept the conclusions along with the framework.

Have some people, some time in the past, made excitable comments? Absolutely. But not me. I'm just trying to show where I think the basic framework of the model is rational, and that the more inflammatory speech by Forgeniks does not logically follow from the model.

Quote from: droogI din't say exactly what I did at any point, in fact. I did say we tried (Glenn played in the game for a couple of years, after all).

That Glenn played the game for a couple of years does not necessarily mean you actually tried anything to make the game work better.  Maybe you did try things but unless you mention them, I don't know that you did, especially since you gave me plenty of reasons to assume you didn't.

Quote from: droogBut why should I look back through over two hundred posts to prove it? You're pulling all sorts of quotes from earlier comments without any context – why don't you find them?

I did go back through them.  I couldn't find what you were talking about.  Rather than assuming you are lying and never said what you claimed you said, I assumed that I simpy couldn't find what you were talking about and figured that since you should know what you wrote and probably had something in mind when you made that claim, you might be able to point me toward what you are talking about.

Quote from: droogNow, would you please give me a potted summary of Robin Laws' advice, because I'm pretty sure I already know what it is, and I'm pretty sure I applied it. But first, I'll make sure I understand it.

Robin Laws identifies seven play styles (I think I provided a link to John Kim's summary earlier in the discussion) and then provides specific advice on how to make the different styles happy in the same game that could be very roughly summarized as "give everyone a little of what they want".  For many players, that's enough to have lots of fun.

Quote from: droogD&D 3.x – high degree of coherence (gam). Hugely successful.

Ryan Dancey (confirmed by Sean K. Reynolds) specifically claims that D&D 3e was not designed to be coherent and was, in fact, designed to be incoherent.  He explained how, in great detail, in a thread on Pyramid, part of which can be found here:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html

In another message about the segments described in that message, Dancey explained:

"We believe that a game that appeals to all four differentiated segments (the people in the middle are pretty happy with a modicum of time spent out of game, and pretty happy with most aspects of RPG play in general and are therefore pretty easy to please) is a game that is likely to have strong overall sales and retain long term interest in the player community."

"Games that lack support for one of the four differentiated segments struggle, and games that lack support for more than one are rarely played (though frustratingly for some such a game may be the >perfect< game for one of the subgroups; the problem is finding two or more people of the same inclination to play the game regularly)."

What he's saying here is that incoherent games sell, highly specialized coherent games don't.  This whole discussion makes it clear that, D&D 3e was designed to be incoherent.  So on what basis do people claim it's coherent?  That it's successful?  Is the assumption here that WotC set out to create an incoherent game and failed utterly in their objectives and created a highly coherent game, instead?

Also according to Dancey, in that discussion:

"When surveyed, the #1 game-related reason people cited for not continuing to play RPGs was 'couldn't find anyone to play with'."

"'Found a game that was more satisfying' and 'dissatisfied with the rules or game world' didn't even make the top 10.'"

Quote from: droogIf Forge theory is, as I claim, an analytic framework, then we ought to accept the conclusions along with the framework.

And what conclusions does Forge theory make about coherency, again?

Quote from: John MorrowRobin Laws identifies seven play styles (I think I provided a link to John Kim's summary earlier in the discussion) and then provides specific advice on how to make the different styles happy in the same game that could be very roughly summarized as "give everyone a little of what they want".  For many players, that's enough to have lots of fun.

Right – I thought as much.

That is indeed the sort of thing I tried. As far as it went, it was successful enough. But when you have five other players, all of whom enjoy doing a certain thing, and a sixth player who does not enjoy doing that same thing, it's difficult to pull off. At some point I realised it wasn't working as well as our game had worked before.

You are trying to second-guess me here, and it's rather irritating.

Quote from: droogYou are trying to second-guess me here, and it's rather irritating.

No.  And I think we've both said enough on the topic that anyone reading along can draw their own conclusions about our respective positions.

Quote from: Abyssal MawOh boy. More "prove it to me" from Joel. I suspect a desperate move to derail the thread by sending people off to find links. Then he's denying the links say what they say.

There's the dishonesty that comes from outright lying, and then there's the dishonesty that comes from pretending you can't see the obvious or never saw it.

Y'know, I didn't put a gun to anyone's head to hunt links. It was just a request. You can believe you want about motive, but I really did just honestly want to see the evidence for people's claims. If anyone's not willing to provide it, hey, no obligation.

I am going to more or less bow out after this post, though, because I don't want to derail the thread. The main discussion, bwetween Droog and John and others, has been pretty interesting, and I'd like to see it continue uncluttered. Also, that shit about the Rfga is hot. I'm very interested in the history, as I'm largely ignorant of it.

In response to others:

Lee: Fair enough, but given that I don't see it, I was hoping someone might provide other examples. Like, the Brain Damage thread may be impossible to agree on, so where else is this trend exhibited?

Note on the above sentence: All I'm saying here is that I don't think Brain Damage exhibits this particular phenomenon; it may have other problems but I'm not interested in discussing them here.

Elliot: I did come across that statement, though it took me a second pass to spot it. Thing is, that's a statement of personal experience: "most roleplayers I encounter. . ." JimBob argues that Ron's personal experience is not representative, but still, this statement is not claiming a universal reality.

Anyway. This whole thing has ballooned. I'm now being painted as a Ron-disciple, an undercover Forger, a threadcrapper, and a liar. I never meant to have a knock-down, drag-out on whether Ron Edwards is the nicest and smartest man to walk God's green earth, or whether the Forge theory is an infallible body of brilliant scholarly thought. I just wanted to get to the bottom of one specific issue that jumped out at me as I read the thread. It doesn't look like that's going to happen. I let myself get sucked into a frenetic posting war (two,actually), and that's nobody's fault but mine. But I'm calling a halt now, for my part. I'll be interested in anyone's further feedback, but I have no interest in continuing any flame wars.

Peace,
-Joel

PS. I do find it odd, being characterized as a sneaky little Forge spy. If I'd come on preacing GNS and spewing jargon around everywhere, I imagine I'd get a pretty hostile reception. So is this a case of damned if I do, damned if I don't?

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Quote from: John MorrowNo.  And I think we've both said enough on the topic that anyone reading along can draw their own conclusions about our respective positions.

Oh, good. Then we can get off this merry-go-round.

Brilliant work, John Morrow.  Dancey, whom you quoted, is pretty well just speaking common sense. The more ways you have to play a game, the more popular that game will be, which is why Forge games are a bag of shit right from the start.

RPGPundit

Quote from: MelinglorPS. I do find it odd, being characterized as a sneaky little Forge spy. If I'd come on preacing GNS and spewing jargon around everywhere, I imagine I'd get a pretty hostile reception. So is this a case of damned if I do, damned if I don't?

Yes, absolutely. Because you see, this is not a Forge-fan site. Get that through your head.  This is a bastion of freedom that stands against the Forge's efforts to subvert roleplaying, and will not break in that stance (at least not for as long as I have breath left in me).

So yes, if you come in here to preach the Forge Theory, either obviously so or covertly so, you would be getting a hostile reception either way.

Mind you, if you said it in a straightforward way instead of coming here claiming that you are not part of that, I'd at least have a little more respect for you.  The slimy wormy underhandedness of how the Forge tries to take over sites is a big part of what I despise about them. Its spineless; the tactics of a group who know that they could never possibly receive majority approval in a democratic context, if people actually knew what they stood for.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo yes, if you come in here to preach the Forge Theory, either obviously so or covertly so, you would be getting a hostile reception either way.

Hey, Pundit ... a quick question as I try to map the borders of your fervor:  Do you assume that anybody who comes to this site not already hating the Forge, and asks questions about what all the hub-bub is about must inherently be on the side of the Forge?  Are there, in short, no unallied parties left in your vision of the world?

Quote from: TonyLBHey, Pundit ... a quick question as I try to map the borders of your fervor:  Do you assume that anybody who comes to this site not already hating the Forge, and asks questions about what all the hub-bub is about must inherently be on the side of the Forge?  Are there, in short, no unallied parties left in your vision of the world?

No, but that was certainly not the case with Joel.  Its usually very easy to discern who is really ignorant of the whole thing, and who is just feigning ignorance for ideological purposes.

RPGPundit

Come on, Tony! That´s passive aggressive shit you´re talking.
Anybody can see that Melinglor is a sophomoric Forgeer-Loving weasel. He is neither up-front, nor funny. No truth, no joke, no balls.
He deserves a decent flame.

And you know that Pundit will and has treated Forgers respectfully.

First, I want to apologize.  This thread has taken on a life of its own and that was not my intention.  I had my answers in post #5.

Second, it is wonderful that this discussion can continue for this long and I definitely have learned something (although it is confusing as to "what I have learned" about Forge Theory...hehe).

Third, I think I will stick with the "Simple Fun" Theory of gaming.  "Do you have fun?" is the mantra, core and stick to be measured by.

Cheers.

Quote from: bobmangmThird, I think I will stick with the "Simple Fun" Theory of gaming.  "Do you have fun?" is the mantra, core and stick to be measured by.

Ahhh – but in what way do you have fun? And is it compatible with other people's fun?

Sometimes people think too much, too deep.  Go back and watch the D&D video on YouTube.  See what Gary says maybe his first RPG.  His, cops and robbers.  Us, we used to chase each other with broomsticks though the woods (good violent stuff) and we had a blast (and stitches, lost teeth and 1 concusion).  Nothing conplicated.  No grand agreement.  And nothing (especially no damned theory) could have made it better or a bigger memory.  

My "Simple Fun" theory is minimulistic in nature.  The less attached to it, the better it works.  A 3 year old can understand it.  But maybe not adults.  :)  And who cares if others have fun???  I got mine.

I have a new theory..."Theories are crap".  I'm gonna go have a beer.  :cool:

Whatever works for you.