TheRPGSite

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...

Nah, I don't think that covers all the meanings of theory. I realize that there's a lot of BS over Forge talk being academic and "rigorous" as if it were a social science or even natural science, but that's neither here nor there. You're fighting against a strong tradition in many fields of using "theory" to refer to generalized, abstract discussion of craft and aesthetics--film theory, color theory, literary theory, music theory. Some is utter twaddle. Some has actually guided creators toward valuable innovation or at least competent creation.

So it's that sort of abstracted thought and speculation, efforts to gain new insights and improve understanding of RPGs "in general" that I'm comfortable calling "theory". Where that leaves off from craft is an interesting question, though--but probably not important in re the OP question--all that matters there is whether that's the stuff that he's asking about or if he just means GNS.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYou're fighting against a strong tradition in many fields of using "theory" to refer to generalized, abstract discussion of craft and aesthetics--film theory, color theory, literary theory, music theory. Some is utter twaddle. Some has actually guided creators toward valuable innovation or at least competent creation.

I don't know about film and art theory, but I took a pretty good stab at literary theory in university, and I think it's fair to say that literary theory never created a single Shakespeare, nor rid us of a single Dan Brown. It's largely useless. Literary craft, on the other hand - grammar and rhetoric - that sure as shit helps.

Quote from: Elliot Wilenall that matters there is whether that's the stuff that he's asking about or if he just means GNS.

Who knows. Usually, "theory" just means "GNS." Which is a tremendous victory for Uncle Ronny, and a sad defeat for anyone who wants to speak rationally, clearly and logically about the more abstract aspect of it all.

That's too bad because it also leads to an ideological muddle. I.e. you get people who react to criticisms of "theory" as if their own (non-GNS-based) thoughts are under attack, and you also get GNS folks who regard criticisms of GNS as anti-intellectualism.

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's not "theory", it's "craft."

Trying to understand how something works is "theory."

Trying to make something work better is "craft."

I should have made this distinction in my original post. One of the things about theory which always bothered me - and please, I like theory okay, I find it confusing sometimes, but there are a few guys that talk theory, which makes sense :) - were the actual play threads.

I found it pretty unreliable because it came from the perspective of the GM and what he/she thought of the whole experience. The ideas - theory -which were discussed and used in the game were being filtered through the GM. Which is kind of the reason I think that all this theory stuff is aimed more towards GMs than players.

Regards,
David R

If you're talking about Forge AP threads, many are from the GM, but there are also many from players, and some in which both players and GM join.

I think James S has a point about the strand of Forgista design that leads to GM-less games, but it's not the be-all and end-all. On the matter of whether Forge discussions have improved my game, I'd say that I've learned techniques and ways of thinking that strengthened my focus in GMing (and made my task easier), and helped me identify and capture what I like in playing. So, yeah, both.

There's a couple of different things that get conflated when people talk about theory.  GNS is not really a theory for game master or players, it's meant as a theory for game designers.  It gets applied to both and doesn't work very well, leading to endless argument and circlejerking.  My own theories about gaming are really GMing theories, they don't have much to say about designing games and can work well with most systems.

I think one of the biggest weaknesses in gaming discussion is that there's little to no talk of how to make a good player.  There seems to be an attitude that for the player RPGs should be entertainment - if they can bathe, show up on time, and not throw a hissyfit when things don't go their way they're considered good players.  And don't get me wrong, those are all great traits, but there's more to it than that.  Good players are just as vital to a great RPG session as a good GM.  Now how can we as players aid that, and how can we encourage our fellow players?  I don't know, but the existing theories don't seem to question it at all.

I think that most theory talk is aimed at the people who have the power to implement it.  The point is to change actual play, right?

So, in many groups, the only person who can change the rules (and often the only person who can change the social contract, in many ways) is the GM.

In those groups, the GM is going to be the person who finds it easiest to apply the theory.  In a real sense, the theory is aimed at them.

In other groups, any player can have an influence on rules and social contract.

In those groups, everyone will find about the same ease in applying the theory.  In a real sense, the theory is aimed at them too.

Does that make sense?

GM's talk technique. They always have talked about technique since the very earliest days of RPGs.

Theorists talk theory. I nearly said "asshats" but I totally stopped myself!

You'll note that many (perhaps most?) theorists seem to regard the GM as a figure of hatred and suspicion.

Quote from: TonyLBI think that most theory talk is aimed at the people who have the power to implement it.  The point is to change actual play, right?

So, in many groups, the only person who can change the rules (and often the only person who can change the social contract, in many ways) is the GM.

In those groups, the GM is going to be the person who finds it easiest to apply the theory.  In a real sense, the theory is aimed at them.

In other groups, any player can have an influence on rules and social contract.

In those groups, everyone will find about the same ease in applying the theory.  In a real sense, the theory is aimed at them too.

Does that make sense?

What he said, because it does.

Quote from: TonyLBI think that most theory talk is aimed at the people who have the power to implement it.  The point is to change actual play, right?

Agreed, and actually, mixed with Elliot’s characterization of early theory talk, the foundation for my assertion.

Quote from: TonyLBSo, in many groups, the only person who can change the rules (and often the only person who can change the social contract, in many ways) is the GM.

In those groups, the GM is going to be the person who finds it easiest to apply the theory.  In a real sense, the theory is aimed at them.

And this is the way, I think, theory was for quite some time – especially in the old r.g.f.a newsgroup. The assumption was that the GM had the power and was most likely the person concerned with design. And then something changed – this structure was challenged.

Quote from: TonyLBIn other groups, any player can have an influence on rules and social contract.

In those groups, everyone will find about the same ease in applying the theory.  In a real sense, the theory is aimed at them too.

IMHO this was a very small minority until recently (I agree that it’s still a minority, but it is certainly reaching more and more people). And it’s where things, I think, began to change.

To a large extent, theory is now inextricably and inexplicably entwined with Forge and Forge-related theory. I know there’s more out there – lot’s more. But take it from a guy who came to the party late. You start hunting the web and you are quickly shunted in that direction. It takes effort to find other theory; it takes no effort to be shown the Forge.

So to whom is Forge theory geared? I think it’s actually the player. Or at least away from the GM. This results from the need to break away from the older, GM driven theory that dominated until the end of r.g.f.a and related news groups

Why? Let's assume that you are a player unable to derive pleasure from your current gaming. You want to game, but you’re not happy with your choices. You have theories as to why this is the case, many of which call into question the current “power center” of games and theory, The GM. Traditional games are GM driven.  Current Theory is GM driven.  What are your options? Particularly if you are of the opinion that GM’s are part of your problem and highly unlikely to give up that power. You have no choice; you have to appeal to players.

So much of Theory, which is usually revolves around Forge and Forge-critique (for better or for worse), is now geared towards players. But not in the way the old theory used to be geared towards GMs.  Now it seems to be how to even have games that don’t have the traditional GM power center and how to absorb that fundamental change. That is why, I think, Maddman ends up sensing that there’s not enough about how to play well. The theory culture is still struggling with how to play at all in this configuration. IMHO it's why the theory discussion were stopped and focus was on play.  They are really testing the theories to see if they can even work the way they originally thought.

This is my Theory.

Quote from: James J SkachSo to whom is Forge theory geared? I think it's actually the player. Or at least away from the GM.

Nice points!  I hope you don't mind a quick request for clarification:  Are you saying that the GM is less able to implement theory than other players?  Or are you saying that historically he was far more able, and now he is reduced to "one of the guys," and that's a shift away from targetting the theory to the GM and toward targetting it to everyone?

Quote from: TonyLBNice points!  I hope you don't mind a quick request for clarification:  Are you saying that the GM is less able to implement theory than other players?  Or are you saying that historically he was far more able, and now he is reduced to "one of the guys," and that's a shift away from targetting the theory to the GM and toward targetting it to everyone?

I'm not saying the GM is more or less able to implement theory. I wouldn't even use the term reduced. I do believe that there is a shift away from focusing theory on the GM. I don't ascribe the high-minded goal of gearing it to everyone.  In fact, I think it was a purposeful shift away from GM-centric to Player-centric.  By definition, this would move it from one group to another, and therefore not toward everyone.

Before I get accusations of some kind of bias, I don't think it's good or bad. I was a player first, GM second. Now that I'm back into gaming, it's as a player, currently. But I think there was a belief that in order to find a method of play that was more enjoyable to the people asserting these theories, the traditional GM-centric view of game rules/design had to be broken.

Now we are all dealing with the results of that breaking - for better or worse according to your preferences.

EDIT: After reading your request again, and my response, I realized I might have muddled things even more.

Anyone should be able to implement theory in their own group – according to the social interactions and bonds of that group.  In some, this might be players, in other GMs.  I think that traditionally it was the GM; now, not as much, but still probably the largest proportion.

I do hold to the idea that current theory is not necessarily aimed at everyone.  I think it’s aimed at those who are of the opinion that in order to increase enjoyment, the GM-centric model is not longer assumed. It might exist, but it’s not the assumed foundation for play. So current theory (again, remember this is specific to Forge and Forge-related theory which dominates discussion) is not geared for everyone, but for those who hold this opinion.

So I’d change your text as follows: Historically the GM was far more likely to implement theory. The likelihood and ability of the GM to implement theory now depends completely on the style(s) of game to which the specific gaming group adheres. This does not shift theory away from GMs to everyone. It does broaden the field of target for theory. However, those theories tend to fall into two camps, one for traditional GM-centric and one for all other structures, and end up targeting one group or the other.

Does that help?

I fear that you're reading way more into my question than I intended.  You were saying that the focus has shifted away from GM-Centric and toward Player-Centric.  I'm down with that, using my definition of the terms.  But I don't want to assume that my definitions are your definitions.  That'd be arrogant.

So I'm trying to find out whether you mean "player-centric" to be "all of the players, including the GM" or to be "all of the players, which doesn't include the GM."  I see theory shifting to focus on the former, but I'm not convinced that it has shifted to focus on the latter.

Quote from: TonyLBI fear that you're reading way more into my question than I intended.  You were saying that the focus has shifted away from GM-Centric and toward Player-Centric.  I'm down with that, using my definition of the terms.  But I don't want to assume that my definitions are your definitions.  That'd be arrogant.

So I'm trying to find out whether you mean "player-centric" to be "all of the players, including the GM" or to be "all of the players, which doesn't include the GM."  I see theory shifting to focus on the former, but I'm not convinced that it has shifted to focus on the latter.

I guess I'm saying that part of the shift was to redefine the traditional roles such that there is far less (in some case no) distinction between player and GM. So I would assert that it has shifted toward all players including the GM according to the new definitions of GM, which excludes the traditional GM.

How's that for complicating the discussion?

No, that makes sense.

Say we set aside the abstract traditional role of the GM (which may, in some sense, be excluded from such theory-talk).  What we're left with is Bob, the guy who is the GM.  Bob is a target for either type of theory ... the old because he's the GM, and the new because he's a player.

Okay.  I get what you're saying, and I agree.  Thanks for clarifying!

Quote from: TonyLBNo, that makes sense.

Say we set aside the abstract traditional role of the GM (which may, in some sense, be excluded from such theory-talk).  What we're left with is Bob, the guy who is the GM.  Bob is a target for either type of theory ... the old because he's the GM, and the new because he's a player.

Okay.  I get what you're saying, and I agree.  Thanks for clarifying!

Let's be careful about how much we agree. :)  

We are in agreement only to the extent that Bob is part of the group that agrees with the shift away from traditional roles. Say, for example, Bob is a traditional GM. One of his players has been unhappy about his gaming. He doesn't speak to Bob because he doesn't like confrontation. So Pete, the unhappy player, starts dabbling in theory he discovered on the Internet. He starts exploring non-traditional setups and finds he likes them more. He brings this back to his original group in the hopes of implementing this new approach in his regular group. Now I don't think Bob is so happy with New Theory. I'm not saying he's right or wrong.  I'm not saying Pete is; he found a type of game in which he finds more enjoyment - rock on Pete. But I wouldn't say that Bob is necessarily the target of the new.

He is only if you set aside, as you say, the "abstract traditional role of GM." That's a pretty big set-aside.

So, for clarification: if Bob is the kind of GM/Player who was also looking for a way to deemphasize the traditional GM role, then I agree that "new" theory discussion is geared towards Bob.

Quite honestly, it doesn't matter whether Bob was a GM or player. I'm asserting that the qualification for being a target of the current Theory is a desire to investigate/challenge/alter the traditional power structure of RPGs.

Quote from: James J SkachQuite honestly, it doesn't matter whether Bob was a GM or player. I'm asserting that the qualification for being a target of the current Theory is a desire to investigate/challenge/alter the traditional power structure of RPGs.

Oh, you're right.  We don't agree.

I would assert, contrariwise, that the qualification for being a target of the current Theory is a desire to make your game-play better by examining the way you play, and thinking about it seriously.

Taken to its ultimate extent, yeah, I suppose that means you should examine the traditional power structure of RPGs, along with pretty much everything else.  Sacred cows of any sort run the risk of becoming hamburger.  But in practice everybody gets their kicks in different areas.  I know quite serious theorists and designers who don't have any interest in changing the traditional power structure (at least within RPGs).  They pay attention to different things.

Gaming "theory" has as much to do with gaming as porn does with sex.

Most "gaming theorists" spend far more time looking at gaming, talking about it, thinking of as a concept than they do gaming.

Chuck

Tony and James your discussion so far is really cool -  by this I mean, I kinda of agree with both of you :D

 

QuoteOriginally posted by Maddman
I think one of the biggest weaknesses in gaming discussion is that there's little to no talk of how to make a good player.

Yeah, I think this is a pretty important point. I'm sure theory helps both gms and players, but I do think there needs to be more discussion aimed specificaly at players

Regards,
David R

I don't see much reason to get rid of/revise the traditional GM. I mean, if it ain't broke...

Although, maybe if there was a *competitive* RPG. I've done gladiator matches where the GM rarely or never had to get involved...

...but beyond that, why?

As a side note, I'd say that GMs will have more use for theory than players. Regardless of any "play focus" shifts or what have you...

Quote from: TonyLBthat the qualification for being a target of the current Theory is a desire to make your game-play better by examining the way you play, and thinking about it seriously.

This is where I agree with Maddman. The following is my perception – as I said, from a guy who admittedly came late to the party.

Until the Theory threads in the Forge were closed down, I don't think theory was aimed at making game play better. It was focused on changing the way people thought about games. Could a happy by-product be that people found ways to improve play? Abso-fucking-lutley. But the main thrust was to challenge those "sacred cows."

Now challenging sacred cows is all well and good; but often it's done without a full understanding of what to do with the hamburger (to borrow your analogy); hence terms like "unintended consequences." In this case, I think the order of priority, whether explicitly stated, unconsciously understood, or otherwise was:

• Challenge sacred cows, particularly traditional power distribution.
• Improve game play.

The order is important because the goal assumed that part of the problem with existing play was the traditional power distribution. I don't see focus on the actual play as a way to improve play.  Instead, it was, and still is to a large extent, a desire to prove the theories. Play improvement is, I suppose, assumed to follow from proving the theories, and a happy by-product.

My exposure to the subject is certainly not as extensive as others, so take my opinion FWIW. My perspective might actually be helpful to those in the theory circles as an understanding of how to improve their image to increase acceptance of their theory.  But I've seen the "I don't care what you think.  I'm not here to argue. This is my opinion so if you disagree, fuck off, I don't need to hear about it," attitude, so I doubt it would make much of a difference.

Quote from: TonyLBI know quite serious theorists and designers who don't have any interest in changing the traditional power structure (at least within RPGs).

Yeah, as I've said, I've seen plenty of that. This is why, for all of the difficulties it may or may not have entailed (as egos clashed), I was sad to see some posters here decide not to engage. If I were Pundit, I'd be doing what I could to promote that kind of theory discussion here, as a counter-balance.  Alas, it's not my forum, so I'll just do what I can as a poster.  As I've also stated, for better or worse, current "theory" discussion seems to focus on The Forge, Ron Edwards, and GNS – not necessarily in that order. So those who don't care about such things are second tier discussions.

Ya know – I'm reconsidering my position.  I think the entire discussion is a bit of a straw man.  Why? I'm not sure I agree with the division along the lines of GM and Player.

It would seem to me to be most accurate to say that all Theory is geared towards people who think about game design. This makes the entire distinction that we've been discussing a moot point.

Was it more likely, in that past, that this was the GM? Sure.  But I don't think it was geared towards that group. I think, instead, it was simply geared towards people who enjoyed analyzing the games. In some groups this was the GM, on others, the Players. There were likely a myriad of reasons for exploring Theory, from wanting to be a better GM to trying to understand why play was not as enjoyable as desired. But look at the older discussions – like Gleichman – and notice the emphasis on tradeoffs and decisions with respect to design. There's almost no indication of the intended target, player or GM.

That's just one example, I'm sure there are plenty of counter-examples (particularly the more recent the Theory discussion). However, it seems that all have one thing in common. It's all geared towards people who want to design – play improvement, whether as GM tips or player empowerment, might be the goal, but I don't think that dictates the target.

Or maybe I'm just fucked in the head when I'm on the treadmill and these things some to me...

Quote from: beejazzI don't see much reason to get rid of/revise the traditional GM. I mean, if it ain't broke...

Although, maybe if there was a *competitive* RPG. I've done gladiator matches where the GM rarely or never had to get involved...

...but beyond that, why?

As a side note, I'd say that GMs will have more use for theory than players. Regardless of any "play focus" shifts or what have you...

re: bold.  I'd say a lot of the impetus for the move away from traditional GM/player designs and theory comes from people for whom that relationship was broken, and "theory" is an attempt to address why and how it is broken for them, and design new games to fix the problems they see in the traditional setup.

Quote from: apparition13re: bold.  I'd say a lot of the impetus for the move away from traditional GM/player designs and theory comes from people for whom that relationship was broken, and "theory" is an attempt to address why and how it is broken for them, and design new games to fix the problems they see in the traditional setup.

Really?

I usually see it as people saying "But we've already got so many games that organize GMs and players in this one way ... what about all the other ways it could work?  Why not try them too?"

Quote from: TonyLBReally?

I usually see it as people saying "But we've already got so many games that organize GMs and players in this one way ... what about all the other ways it could work?  Why not try them too?"

My response was directed specifically at the idea that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". For some people it is broke, and needs fixing. I didn't mean to imply it's the only motivation.

Quote from: TonyLBReally?

I usually see it as people saying "But we've already got so many games that organize GMs and players in this one way ... what about all the other ways it could work?  Why not try them too?"

For some folks sure. For others, it's the established dynamic that needs fixin' (although, I don't share this view). Personally as long as the games, interest me, I'm not too concerned with the motivations behind their creation or the inevitable dogma (from both sides) that gets spewed about in the various online rpg forums.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RPersonally as long as the games, interest me, I'm not too concerned with the motivations behind their creation or the inevitable dogma (from both sides) that gets spewed about in the various online rpg forums.

Bully for you, David.  And I mean that, it's not snark.  I'm glad that, for you, it's not important.

But for me it's not about whether or not the GM/Player dynamic being is being questioned.  It's that certain aspects of Forge-type theory seems to assign deficiencies to this and other aspects so that there can be a reason for theory to exist.

Examples?  I suppose I would point to my first thread here that dealt with Conflict Resolution and the need for it to exist. In that case, it was generally “railroading” and other similar poor GM tactics that were cited.  Perhaps this biases my view that Forge theory appears to be more a reaction to certain experiences than exploration for the sake of exploration.

Quote from: James J SkachBut for me it's not about whether or not the GM/Player dynamic being is being questioned.  It's that certain aspects of Forge-type theory seems to assign deficiencies to this and other aspects so that there can be a reason for theory to exist.

(Bolding mine) An interesting and concise expression of a point of view. I suppose there is some of this going on, esp with some of the more militant forgerites.

QuoteExamples?  I suppose I would point to my first thread here that dealt with Conflict Resolution and the need for it to exist. In that case, it was generally “railroading” and other similar poor GM tactics that were cited.  Perhaps this biases my view that Forge theory appears to be more a reaction to certain experiences than exploration for the sake of exploration.

(Bolding mine) I think reaction to certain experiences and exploration for the sake of exploration are both valid reasons with regards to the existence of theory.

A large part of my disinterest in the motivations behind certain games (Forge games in particular) is probably due to the fact, that I don't see these games changing the face of gaming that I (and many other folks) seem to enjoy.

Most theory discussions be it for or against has very little relevence (IMO) to most gamers. This view makes me a minority (I think) as far as forum subscribers go, but, I'll occasionally poke my nose into threads, where I have neither interest nor knowledge...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R(Bolding mine) An interesting and concise expression of a point of view. I suppose there is some of this going on, esp with some of the more militant forgerites.



(Bolding mine) I think reaction to certain experiences and exploration for the sake of exploration are both valid reasons with regards to the existence of theory.

A large part of my disinterest in the motivations behind certain games (Forge games in particular) is probably due to the fact, that I don't see these games changing the face of gaming that I (and many other folks) seem to enjoy.

Most theory discussions be it for or against has very little relevence (IMO) to most gamers. This view makes me a minority (I think) as far as forum subscribers go, but, I'll occasionally poke my nose into threads, where I have neither interest nor knowledge...

Regards,
David R

Theory discussions just confuse and mystify me, but, being a bear of very little brain, I keep poking my nose in and getting stung. None of it has ever done anything for me, and I can't see how it could, but some very nice people swear it has helped them, so I give it the benefit of the doubt. I keep sticking my nose in the hive, and getting stung. Anyways, I keep hoping some little technique will pop up that I can steal to make my own games better. :D

-clash

Quote from: David RI suppose there is some of this going on, esp with some of the more militant forgerites.

I don't know about militant - in some cases, in my personal experience, it seemed they were actually as confused about the theory as I was!

Quote from: David RI think reaction to certain experiences and exploration for the sake of exploration are both valid reasons with regards to the existence of theory.

I apologize as I see how my statement could be read that the former is not valid and the latter is valid.  The problem I have with the former is that it takes a level of rhetorical skill - apparently either not present or not sought at the Forge - to not use the former (reaction to experience) to call someone's kids ugly.

Quote from: maddmanThere's a couple of different things that get conflated when people talk about theory. GNS is not really a theory for game master or players, it's meant as a theory for game designers.

I think RPG theory is generally of most use to game designers.  That's certainly my interest.  If I wasn't working on a game, I wouldn't bother with it at all.

Quote from: beejazzI don't see much reason to get rid of/revise the traditional GM. I mean, if it ain't broke...

 Although, maybe if there was a *competitive* RPG.

Yes, I agree that a competitive game is one reason to consider this.