Hello everyone,

I thought I'd make my introduction and start off with a quick look at RPGPundit's Landmark's of Gaming Theory.  Actually, I think he might have meant Landmark's of RPG Theory -- but I think of RPGs as a subset of GAMES more generally, and will approach it from that angle.

1. The vast majority of gamers are having fun gaming.

Players enjoy the challenge, process, and/or potential for reward in the games they are playing, or they would stop playing them.

2. The vast majority of gamers are satisfied with the majority of their game as it is played.

Yes, otherwise they would stop playing it.

3. D&D is the model of what most people define as an RPG, and therefore also the model for a successfully-designed RPG. It can be improved upon or changed, but any theory that suggests that D&D as a whole (in any of its versions) was a "bad" RPG is by definition in violation of the Landmarks. You don't have to say it is the "best" RPG, but you are obviously not in touch with reality if your theory claims that D&D is a "bad" game, and then try to invent some convoluted conspiracy theory as to why millions of people play it anyways, more than any other RPG.

The most popular games can not be defined as bad games, otherwise people would stop playing them.

4. Given number 3 above, it is self-evident that games that have a broad spectrum of playstyles (as D&D does) are by definition successful games. Any theory that speculates that games must be narrowly-focused to be "good" games is automatically in violation of the Landmarks. Note that this doesn't mean that you must say narrow-focus games are "bad", or that narrow-focused games can't be considered appropriate, only that you cannot suggest that gamers don't want to play in RPGs that have a broad spectrum of playstyle, because they obviously do want to play exactly those kinds of games.

Players enjoy the challenge, process, and/or potential for reward in the games they are playing.  Players might enjoy a narrowly focused game, like Chess.  The might enjoy a game with a less than enjoyable process if the potential reward is great enough (eg. spending $ on the lottery). They may also enjoy games that are enjoyed on multiple levels, with different types of challenges and rewards.

5. Conflicts do arise in gaming groups; these conflicts are usually the product of social interaction between the players and not a problem with the rules themselves. The solution to these problems is not to "Narrow the rules", but to broaden the playstyle of a group to accomodate what the complaining players are missing. Thus, it is a Landmark that all correct gaming theories, if they deal with "player dis-satisfaction" at all, must focus the nature of that dissatisfaction on the rules ONLY to suggest that a given rules-set is too narrow; and even then only because it is a symptom of an interpersonal social conflict within a group.

All players should understand the rules and goals of a game, and be happy with the game they are playing.  Differing rules, goals, narrowness and broadness have varying appeals to different individuals and groups.

6. Given point #3, above, any gaming theory that suggest that the GM should get disproportionately more or less power than they do in D&D in order for a game to be "good" is inherently in violation of the Landmarks. The vast majority of players enjoy a game where the GM has power over the world and the players over their characters; and while a theory can suggest ways that GMs and Players can experiment with interactively creating the setting, it cannot suggest that the Players should have the power to tell the GM what to do (except for the "power" to walk away from a game).

The level of narrative control given to players and the GM, whether there is a GM at all, or even to what degree roleplaying is part of the game has no bearing on whether a game is "good" or not.  

At this point we're starting to talk less about an overall game theory, and more about how to make a particular style of game.

I believe that limiting players to the control of their characters, and leaving narrative control to the GM is a superior method to give players a sense of immersion in their character and the game world, than sharing greater narrative control between all the players.  If immersion is not an important goal of the game (perhaps it's wargaming strategy or collaborative storytelling) then the balance of narrative control could likely be different.

7. Any gaming theory that tries to divide gamers into specific criteria of "types" must make it clear that this is only one kind of categorization, and not an absolutist and literal interpretation that is a universal truth; it is only one form of categorizing gamers.

Categorizing gamers into types is somewhat short-sighted as people can enjoy multiple types of games and styles of play, often during the same gaming session.

8. Any theory that suggests, therefore, that its "types" are mutually exclusionary in gaming groups is in violation of the Landmarks. Individual people can end up being mutually exclusive to each other, unable to play in the same group, etc; but that is because of individual personal issues, not because of an issue of playstyle.

Yes.  People who understand the rules and goals of a game should be able to play it despite it not being their favourite type of game.  A player may prefer storytelling games to strategy games, but you would not expect that they would make bad moves in a game of chess because "the Knight is in love with the Queen and wants to be nearer to her..."  People are capable of playing a wide variety of games, but must be agreeable to doing so.

9. Any gaming theory that suggests that a significant element of what many players find entertaining is in fact a "delusion" or unreal, or that the gamers themselves don't know what they're doing or what they're thinking, or what they want from gaming, is in violation of the landmarks.

Absolutely.  Suggesting people don't understand when they are enjoying playing a game is somewhat absurd.  The only potential for confusion is if the players of a multi-faceted game have different ideas about what the goal of the game is, and are in fact playing different games at the same table.

10. Given points #9 and #1, the suggestion that so-called "immersion" is not a real or viable goal in an RPG, or that "genre emulation" is not a viable priority in a game, is in violation of the Landmarks.

Genre Emulation and specifically Immersion (meaning character-immersion) can be the most important elements in an RPG.  Other games can offer superior challenges in other areas, but this is where a roleplaying game is unlike most other types of game.

I, too, will respond to the so-called Landmarks. Despite having the same name as the previous poster, my thoughts on the Landmarks differ dramatically. The Landmarks have been bugging me since they appeared on the pundit's blog.

   Here are my "Landmarks of Gaming Theory":

    1. The vast majority of gamers are having fun gaming.


Almost certainly true.

There are, however, populations other than gamers who might be of interest, including (but probably not limited to): (1) former gamers who quit because they weren't having fun gaming, (2) people who might enjoy gaming in some form but find barriers to their likely enjoyment in the options available to them, and (3) those gamers who aren't in the vast majority.

Is a gaming theory invalid if it considers (or even focuses upon) these other populations? If so, why?


    2. The vast majority of gamers are satisfied with the majority of their game as it is played.


Probably, but not certainly true.

More to the point, though, many people have a low threshhold for satisfaction. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of gamers who "are satisfied with the majority of their game as it is played" [sic] could be made at least slightly happier with changes in their games or playstyles.

Again, there are a probable minority of gamers that aren't satisfied. If I'm in that group, can't I make a theory that is self-focused?

   3. D&D is the model of what most people define as an RPG, and therefore also the model for a successfully-designed RPG. It can be improved upon or changed, but any theory that suggests that D&D as a whole (in any of its versions) was a "bad" RPG is by definition in violation of the Landmarks. You don't have to say it is the "best" RPG, but you are obviously not in touch with reality if your theory claims that D&D is a "bad" game, and then try to invent some convoluted conspiracy theory as to why millions of people play it anyways, more than any other RPG.


I've addressed this in the past. I think it is worded imprecisely and, as such, makes claims that it doesn't actually support. What can you actually validly claim here? (1) D&D is commercially successful (2) A lot of people enjoy playing D&D (3) Insofar as the measure of whether a rpg is a bad one is whether people enjoy playing it, it makes no sense to call D&D a bad rpg.

Of course, if I don't enjoy playing D&D (I do enjoy it, by the way), there is nothing stopping me from saying that D&D is a bad rpg for me.


   4. Given number 3 above, it is self-evident that games that have a broad spectrum of playstyles (as D&D does) are by definition successful games. Any theory that speculates that games must be narrowly-focused to be "good" games is automatically in violation of the Landmarks. Note that this doesn't mean that you must say narrow-focus games are "bad", or that narrow-focused games can't be considered appropriate, only that you cannot suggest that gamers don't want to play in RPGs that have a broad spectrum of playstyle, because they obviously do want to play exactly those kinds of games.



It isn't self-evident and they aren't "by definition" successful. Take an elementary logic class.

First, a game could conceivably have a broad spectrum of playstyles that all suck. Second, it isn't clear what you mean by 'successful' here - do you mean commercial success? critical success? success at actually enabling people to enjoy playing it? These are three separate things. None of them actually follow necessarily from having a broad range of playstyles.

Also, it might be that many gamers - even gamers who play D&D -  prefer a narrow playstyle. They might only play D&D in that single playstyle. The fact that they play a game that (arguably) has support for a wide variety of styles doesn't mean that this is an aspect of the game that most of them value.


   5. Conflicts do arise in gaming groups; these conflicts are usually the product of social interaction between the players and not a problem with the rules themselves. The solution to these problems is not to "Narrow the rules", but to broaden the playstyle of a group to accomodate what the complaining players are missing. Thus, it is a Landmark that all correct gaming theories, if they deal with "player dis-satisfaction" at all, must focus the nature of that dissatisfaction on the rules ONLY to suggest that a given rules-set is too narrow; and even then only because it is a symptom of an interpersonal social conflict within a group.

There is no reasoning here, merely an assertion. I happen to think that it is wrong for many groups and conflicts. Often, the solution to these problems is, in fact, to find a different group who enjoy the same playstyle as you. That might, in fact, be a narrow playstyle. It is not clear to me that if I am unhappy with a group because it is missing a particular aspect of play that I enjoy, the group ought to broaden their playstyle to encompass that aspect if including that aspect would ruin the fun of others in the group.


   6. Given point #3, above, any gaming theory that suggest that the GM should get disproportionately more or less power than they do in D&D in order for a game to be "good" is inherently in violation of the Landmarks. The vast majority of players enjoy a game where the GM has power over the world and the players over their characters; and while a theory can suggest ways that GMs and Players can experiment with interactively creating the setting, it cannot suggest that the Players should have the power to tell the GM what to do (except for the "power" to walk away from a game).


Once again, either your reasoning fails or you are overstating your claim.

"it cannot suggest that the Players should have the power to tell the GM what to do" - why not? You haven't shown that this is an invalid game design. You argue (poorly) for the position that it cannot be a requirement of all "good" games that GM-power is different than in D&D. That doesn't mean that a good game can't exist that has a different power differential.

Can someone say, "I enjoy games where players have considerably more plot influence than they do in D&D" - or does that not make sense to you?

   7. Any gaming theory that tries to divide gamers into specific criteria of "types" must make it clear that this is only one kind of categorization, and not an absolutist and literal interpretation that is a universal truth; it is only one form of categorizing gamers.

I assume this is a response to your perception of G/N/S. ::shrug::


    8. Any theory that suggests, therefore, that its "types" are mutually exclusionary in gaming groups is in violation of the Landmarks. Individual people can end up being mutually exclusive to each other, unable to play in the same group, etc; but that is because of individual personal issues, not because of an issue of playstyle.


Strong conflicts in terms of playstyle preferences can't become individual personal issues?


    9. Any gaming theory that suggests that a significant element of what many players find entertaining is in fact a "delusion" or unreal, or that the gamers themselves don't know what they're doing or what they're thinking, or what they want from gaming, is in violation of the landmarks.


Again, an assertion without any justification. I may not approve of these theories, but you're just saying "They will no longer exist from now on. So there." What's your point?

   10. Given points #9 and #1, the suggestion that so-called "immersion" is not a real or viable goal in an RPG, or that "genre emulation" is not a viable priority in a game, is in violation of the Landmarks.


Whatever. Given a vague generalization and an assertion of your own choosing, you can make any conclusion you want. I don't necessarily disagree with your claim here, I just think that you haven't actually provided a valid argument for it.

   So there are my 10 Landmarks. That's it, fuckers, game over. From now on any future gaming theory should be designed with them in mind, and any existing or future gaming theory that is in violation of those landmarks should be instantly rejected as a product of a brain-damaged mind. The clear line in the sand has been marked, on the level.


I don't think so.

I'm not a G/N/S guy, but I do like to think about gaming theory occasionally. I find these Landmarks to be almost wholly useless.

-Stuart

Fascinating.

Everyone knows that bearded Spock is cooler...

QuoteThe landmarks are, in other words, an attempt at defining what the Gaming community is like and how it works.

Which is odd for RPGpundit to say, since they are a direct response to his perception of G/N/S and Forge-theory.

-Stuart

The Landmarks are one of the reasons I won't be hanging around this site in the long term. As a framework for the exchanging thoughts on theory and design they are about as friendly to me as the fluff found at the Forge. Which is to say of course not friendly at all.

Pssst...I don't know if Pundit would own up to it, but I read the landmarks and the philosophy of this site overall as just meaning that "silly ideas and pretension can be mocked freely without fear of moderation".

Quote from: Elliot WilenPssst...I don't know if Pundit would own up to it, but I read the landmarks and the philosophy of this site overall as just meaning that "silly ideas and pretension can be mocked freely without fear of moderation".

I was told much the same about GNS at the Forge. That it wasn't that important and wouldn't affect me. Didn't work out that way (and this was before they did any moderation).

As for "silly ideas and pretension", I'm rather certain I qualify for both in RPGPundit's mind.

Quote from: gleichmanAs for "silly ideas and pretension", I'm rather certain I qualify for both in RPGPundit's mind.

I think we all do, certainly I think Pundit I do more than some here.

So it goes.

That said, it is of course for you to decide how much to participate and when to quit.  So, in case you decide to quit while I'm not about, thanks for your participation so far, I'm pleased to have you back online even if it needs must be brief.

I have to say that some of the landmarks are rather silly in a way.  Their reasoning is of the form:

A is good
Therefore not A is bad.

in setting up D&D as the sole model of success (even if you love D&D, you must admit that there are also historical and business reasons for its success, not just its design).

The landmarks are boldly anti-Forge.  That in itself isn't so bad but it disproves Pundit's statement that he doesn't want the site to be defined by being anti something.

Like i said in another thread; different coloured shirts.

Quote from: NicephorusThe landmarks are boldly anti-Forge.  That in itself isn't so bad but it disproves Pundit's statement that he doesn't want the site to be defined by being anti something.

I don't want the site to be anti-something; I Do want THIS forum to be anti-forge, but only in the sense that here is not a place to wank about theory pretending that everyone accepts GNS and that GNS is a viable and correct theory.

The only way to have a theory board and not have it turned into a place for Forge-chatter is by making a clear statement that this is not what this board is for. That doesn't mean that anyone from the Forge is verbotten here. Shit, if Ron Edwards wants to come on here and talk about RPGs from a totally different perspective than what he does on the Forge, he's welcome to.

The "different perspective" part is the point, though.  This is a place to discuss theory based on the apparently unbelievably fucking radical concept that most gamers know what they like, and are playing what they like, and are neither stupid nor ignorant nor miserable.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe "different perspective" part is the point, though.  This is a place to discuss theory based on the apparently unbelievably fucking radical concept that most gamers know what they like, and are playing what they like, and are neither stupid nor ignorant nor miserable.

RPGPundit

...as long as what they like is d20. If they like another game, particularly one with any sort of support on the Forge, they are vile swine who, despite being a tiny insignificant blip on the RPG radar, are nevertheless singlehandedly destroying the industry. They should just suck it up and play d20 because it sold the most books.

I came in through your blog, Pundit, and the more I see you opine the less I agree with you. I thought you were just suggesting "gaming is fine as it is", which is short-sighted at best (betcha people thought the Model T was just fine as an automobile too; doesn't mean it didn't improve), but "d20 gaming is fine, everything else is Swinery and a disservice to the hobby" is goddamn idiotic.


Disclaimer: I am not the Xanga user Christmas Ape.
Editted to take it down a peg; no coffee makes me cranky.

I'm arguing that the MINORITY shouldn't get to dictate what gaming (much less "good gaming") is to the MAJORITY.

That's what the landmarks is all about.

If Forge-ites want to be on the Forge and talk about Forge-theories and Forge-games, more power to them. I don't go to the Forge and try to push the Landmarks over there.

They only become "Swine" when their pretentiousness is pushed on the rest of us.

Also, comparing D20 to the Model T? Not all that bright. Especially given that in that sort of comparison, the typical Forge game is the Pogo Stick.
So you got all these idiots on Pogo Sticks claiming that they're radically superior and innovative.

The truth is that RPGs haven't fundamentally evolved since D&D basic. There have been a couple of original ideas (almost NONE of them from the would-be "intelligentsia" at the Forge or White Wolf), and certainly production values are superior now.
And mechanics have improved in a few things, like the idea of single unified mechanics being a good thing.
But the fundamental WAY we Roleplay hasn't changed. You could argue that Roleplaying GAMES have improved, and that would be true (mildly), and someday there will be some other game that will come along and take D20's place, because it does certain things better as a game. I have no argument with that. It won't come out of the Forge though, or any of the "Swine" usual sites...

But you can't really claim that Roleplaying itself has changed at all. And efforts to change Roleplaying itself are really efforts to steal the term "roleplaying game" and use it for something else entirely.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm arguing that the MINORITY shouldn't get to dictate what gaming (much less "good gaming") is to the MAJORITY.

That's what the landmarks is all about.

Several of them are, as other posters have said, clearly a lot of words to say "GNS sucks! GMs are good for you!" in a misguided effort to drown out the "GMs suck! Narrativist play is good for you!" cries from the Forge. It's a monumental task, Pundit; this is the internet. All parties can always just yell louder. Why not just make a better case instead?

There are larger problems involved in the idea of "I speak for the majority and I am thus right!", but I imagine a clever fellow like you knows that and dips into the pool of hyperbole now and then to make a point. Imagine, someone honestly telling people what their goals in an RPG are without meeting them. It's so...damaged.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf Forge-ites want to be on the Forge and talk about Forge-theories and Forge-games, more power to them. I don't go to the Forge and try to push the Landmarks over there.

They only become "Swine" when their pretentiousness is pushed on the rest of us.

And if I - a proponent of GM power because I've always had a table full of players clamoring to give it to me - have learned useful things from Forge theories without ever having gone to the Forge (I mean it, I don't even have an account there. I've followed links and read some Heroquest threads, never even thought of posting there), should I not talk about them because you've got a hate on for Ron? Can I not offer the suggestion that "Hey, I learned this technique which provides this result; if this result is something you like, try this technique?" because it came from The Bad Place?
Note: I'm not gunning for any points here; I'm curious whether the Landmarks are Pundit Truth (and subject to scrutiny, questioning, and outright disagreement) or if they're simply considered Truth and must be adhered to whether you believe them or not, as well as how far the "Forge Theory burned my house down" approach stretches into techniques -popular- on the Forge.

As an example, the way I do conflict resolution looks like just about any other game except the rolls are all about more than a single task; it doesn't tell the GM what to do, it just points to the way things are going. I treat it, like players involved in setting creation, as a measure to save my valuable GMing time so I can fit more Awesome into a session. No GM can be emasculated by the rules who did not drop his pants to let them do so. I think this technique may be useful to some groups, and I support it. I'm not gonna tell you that you're a lesser human being because your players roll every sword strike. I will, however, acknowledge that we run our tables a little differently.

Quote from: RPGPunditAlso, comparing D20 to the Model T? Not all that bright.

That's not quite my comparison, but I shaped the thought badly and on reflection I should be clearer. d20 doesn't enter into it, it's the mode of gaming you tout as the default/one way that roleplaying games work that I meant to compare to the state of motoring in the Model T. It worked just fine for people who enjoyed a leisurely drive into town, but pretty much awful for the purposes of ambulance work, cross-country drives, large cargo hauling, drag racing, or any other number of things we have internal combustion powered vehicles to do now. Did we need all of them? No. Do some people enjoy the ones we didn't need? Yes. Should they be denied that because Farmer Joe thinks the Model T does every damn thing a car should do and that's just how the world is? I don't think so, personally.

Quote from: RPGPunditEspecially given that in that sort of comparison, the typical Forge game is the Pogo Stick.
So you got all these idiots on Pogo Sticks claiming that they're radically superior and innovative.

I'm largely with you here, except in my head it's more a Segway than a Pogo Stick. It serves some of the same functions of a car (like getting you from point A to point B, making a public statement about yourself, etc), but is for many other uses (hauling cargo, taking the kids to soccer, racing at 3am) grossly inferior. On the other hand, if you like moving slightly faster than walking without all that messy dignity, they've got something for you.

A lot of Forge games aren't RPGs as I think of them, sure. But they are games, they're often about roleplaying - and whether you want to roleplay a gay pudding-eating cowboy or not, some people do - and we're currently stuck with "roleplaying games" as an umbrella term for both of them. I think "Story Games" and "Adventure Games" would work as the two categories, except that both sound like games for 11 year-olds and lack the "cool" of the RPG acronym, and since the pettier the stakes the nastier the fight everybody's got their back so far up that nobody would even think about letting go of their death grip on the right to use "roleplaying game" to describe their products.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe truth is that RPGs haven't fundamentally evolved since D&D basic. There have been a couple of original ideas (almost NONE of them from the would-be "intelligentsia" at the Forge or White Wolf), and certainly production values are superior now.

Alright, a statement that doesn't involve metaphorical spittle being sprayed. We're progressing. I'm curious as to what you feel the original ideas are, and from that list which innovations I think of that we disagree on.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd mechanics have improved in a few things, like the idea of single unified mechanics being a good thing.

Score one for agreement between us; I'm with you here 100%. Raise the banners of "One Rule To Bind Them All" and on we go.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut the fundamental WAY we Roleplay hasn't changed.

The only way that sentence is true, given the sheer number of experiences out there, is if "we" means "the guys & girls I game with".

Quote from: RPGPunditYou could argue that Roleplaying GAMES have improved, and that would be true (mildly), and someday there will be some other game that will come along and take D20's place, because it does certain things better as a game. I have no argument with that. It won't come out of the Forge though, or any of the "Swine" usual sites...

As the spirits have woefully not yet bestowed upon me the terrible gift of Prophecy, I'll bow to your visions, Oh Seer Of Time To Come.

QuoteBut you can't really claim that Roleplaying itself has changed at all. And efforts to change Roleplaying itself are really efforts to steal the term "roleplaying game" and use it for something else entirely.

Where you see conspiracy, I see an evolutionary tangent. It's a different sort of game involving roleplaying, it doesn't look much like its better established cousin, and maybe it's totally useless to people who like what they've got. But for others it's just jim dandy, and the harder you try to push them away the more they're gonna fight to stay in where they are. If they've got a niche, they'll eventually settle into it and remain there. If they're a dead end, they'll try to mingle with the regular games, starve, and die. Either way, it's really no skin off your ass, is it?