Okay ultimately it benefits both(if at all :pundit: ). So, do you think theory talk starts of as more of a GM thing than filters down to the players?

Regards,
David R

Sure, absolutely. GMs are generally the people who really get in "under the hood" of a given game system, and spend the most time thinking about games and how they work. Players may think about theory in a "but this is what I wanna do" type of way, but it's GMs who try to figure out how to make it happen. In general. In my opinion. And all those other happy horseshit qualifiers.

I think you are pretty spot on Colonel. Some of the by- products of all this theory chatter are issues such as deprotaginization, control etc which should be addressed from a player perspective instead of a gms'. Okay, not making sense here.

What I'm saying is that I don't think theory actually addresses issues that help create a functional social dynamic whatever the playstyle and instead focuses on issues that promote a specific agenda (playstyle?) normally concertrating on how the rules help achieve this playstyle. Needless to say, that all this talk centers around the GM.

Admittedly theory also talks about breaking down the barrier between GM and players -this again is an example of not addressing the traditional dynamic and really more about advocating a certain style of play.

Not, that I'm pissing on any kind of playstyle, mind you, but I'm just wondering why theory (IMO) doesn't speak to players, the most important element in RPGs.

Regards,
David R

This is interesting to me because from my perspective it's the exact opposite.  Actually, what I would propose is that Theory actually comes from people who do neither (play or GM) more than the other. It would appear that the GM side contributes the rules knowledge and analysis, while the player side contributes the desire to empower the player.

How else do you explain the oft-seen theory goal of eliminating the GM, or "player empowerment," which could also be called "GM disempowerment?" It's possible that these could come from GM's who were tired of taking on so much responsibility, or could sense unhappiness amongst players with certain aspects of the game. But I think it's more likley that theory comes from people who were both heavy duty players and GM's.

Interesting analysis James with regards to content, but do you think theory as it is discussed/presented is geared more towards GMs ? Or maybe I'm reading your post wrong....

Regards,
David R

As I recall, theory from the early days (in rec.games.frp and rec.games.frp.advocacy) was primarily about different GMing paradigms and how they impacted the experience of the player. That's certainly what the Threefold (GDS) was about. The stances stuff I'm not so sure about, but I think that from the player perspective a lot of it (both stances and Threefold "paradigms") had to do with trying to develop a clear method of expressing one's preferences to both GMs and other players. (E.g., being able to explain that another player's use of out-of-character information, or tendency to minimax, would mess up the game for you.) So from the player's side the approach to theory was fairly passive: it didn't do much to tell you how to be a better player (or even define what that could possibly mean), it just helped you phrase your needs to the GM and other players, and maybe recognize when there was a paradigm clash.

Whereas, yes, theory (of whatever sort, whether Threefold or GNS/Big Model or Robin's Laws or whatever you might call the stuff I do on my livejournal) tends to be about helping GM's do their jobs better. That can range from evaluating and selecting rules systems (and stealing from them), to scenario/campaign design, to finding ways to "empower the players".

That said I also agree that the impetus behind a lot of theory seems to be from players who are trying to "teach" GMs (often themselves when they take up that role) how to do a better job. E.g., when I used to discuss what would now be called theory on rec.games.frp (late 80's/early 90's), I'd often be reacting to what I felt were bad practices by some of the GMs I'd played with.

Only later I think did I start to see people who, as GMs, were trying to improve their own experience. But today we do see that: people who say they're tired of the workload, or just creatively burned out, etc., even though their players were perfectly happy.

RPG theory comes from people not playing enough and/or having no life.

Seriously. If you're running even one game a week, have a full-time job and a spouse and friends and the occasional TV show or DVD you like to watch... you won't have time or energy for that stuff.

I am certain the guy who wrote the Kama Sutra did not get laid much.

Thinking of rpg theory is like drawing heaps of maps you'll never use in play, or buying and reading game books you know you'll never use. It's for entertainment, because you're bored, you're not gaming enough.

It would seem to me that gaming theory came out of the whole "GM Tips" thing... you know, the "GM advice" section in RPG books, which evolved to similar stuff in other books (including books on ONLY that subject) to discussions on that subject in usenet, to gaming theory.

At each stage of development it moved further away from anything to do with actual RPGs, and closer and closer to the purely abstract and "theoretical".

RPGPundit

Quote from: David RInteresting analysis James with regards to content, but do you think theory as it is discussed/presented is geared more towards GMs ? Or maybe I'm reading your post wrong....

That's an interesting question. I'd make the same answer though. I think half of the information is geared towards GM's - some in how to design better, some in how to GM better.  The other half is geared towards people who don't want GM's any more, or at least want to disenfranchise the GM in some way. Theory from that quarter is geared towards players in a sort of support group way. To me anyway, it seems as if there is a whole thread (no pun intended) of theory that is saying "it's OK to dislike the traditional GM model, we're here to help you through that." That seems geared towards the player.

So, as in most things, it's difficult for me to point to the vast landscape that is theory and say it's for one or the other. And in this case, it seems to be split fairly evenly.

I wasn't aware of the details to which Elliot refers.  I knew some of it on the superficial level, but I was out of gaming for a long time and so I was not aware of it. I knew it from a superficial going back and looking at it. So thanks for the insight Eliot.

What strikes me most about theory and indeed what prompted me to start this thread, was the whole "design" aspect of theory discussions. To me it seems that most of the discourse is centered around trying to create rules for roleplaying which kind of misses the point of rpgs.

And maybe I'm stuck in the trad mindset of rpgs but it seems to me, any discussion of designing is normally the province of the GM - hence my original question.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWhat strikes me most about theory and indeed what prompted me to start this thread, was the whole "design" aspect of theory discussions. To me it seems that most of the discourse is centered around trying to create rules for roleplaying which kind of misses the point of rpgs.

And maybe I'm stuck in the trad mindset of rpgs but it seems to me, any discussion of designing is normally the province of the GM - hence my original question.

Perhaps this is players (who are not happy with GMs) way to get on even footing with the very GMs against whom they are competing?

I mean, think about it. You don't like the traditional GM. Traditionally GMs are concerned with game design. You think if you can get into game design and do it from a more player-centric perspective; you can change the power structure with which you are unhappy. And you can either a) convince GMs this is a better way, b) convince players like you to take up the mantle of running games without traditional GMs, or c) both. And you can do this all without ever really confronting the traditional structure within your normal community. You do it through this "back-door" of Theory.

I don't think it was necessarily a thought out conspiracy or anything. I think it was the confluence of events and a bit of passive-aggressive behavior.

Quote from: James J SkachI don't think it was necessarily a thought out conspiracy or anything. I think it was the confluence of events and a bit of passive-aggressive behavior.

Hope I didn't sound as though I was implying that it was any kind of conspiracy.

Will do a rethink before I post on this subject again- certain issues interest me, so I'll come back to this when I've got something more concrete to discuss.

Regards,
David R

I don't think theory benefits either the player as he plays or the GM as he GMs. I think theory is most beneficial on the design level. And not just the design of new RPGs, also the design of homebrews, characters, NPCs, etc. Most (but not all) design is handled by the GM.

In other words, theory can be a great help in lightening the workload... but there ain't no way in hell it'll really change the way I play.

Not that I'm an inflexible GM, mind you... It's just that if I'm going to change, I'm going to change for the specific needs of my players, not because the intarweb told me to.

Once again I'm confused over whether people are talking about theory in general or Forge-talk specifically. E.g. to JimBob's comments I'll readily cop to, at times, talking about games as a way of getting my gaming fix. But a lot of the stuff that I'd consider "theory" is just the stuff that Pundit points to and which we all do around here: people discussing how to improve their games, critiquing rules systems, dealing with specific problems (like getting players to retreat) and so forth. And even that stuff tends to be aimed at GMs more than players, which is interesting, don't you think?

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut a lot of the stuff that I'd consider "theory" is just the stuff that Pundit points to and which we all do around here: people discussing how to improve their games, critiquing rules systems, dealing with specific problems (like getting players to retreat) and so forth.

That's not "theory", it's "craft."

Trying to understand how something works is "theory."

Trying to make something work better is "craft."

Yes, there's a lot of overlap between the two. But you can have one without the other. A physicist may know all the equations governing the operation of their car's engine - doesn't mean they can even change a spark. A mechanic may be able to get a car running properly - and have no idea of differential equations.

Not that rpg theory is as complicated as physics, or that running a good game session as complicated as being a mechanic, but still...