Quote from: mythusmageSticking to the basics, narrative is an accounting of events, whether imaginary or real. By this description an RPG by the nature of the beast cannot be a narrative. It can produce narrative, but only as a result of the events that have occured in the course of play.

But doesn't that definition lead into the old "a story isn't a story while being told" problem? That is, what else than a narrative would you call an improvised story that hasn't yet come to an end?

Quote from: James J SkachI apologize.  You'll forgive me for mixing you and Sethwick up, though, won't you? I mean, you claimed I screeched at you like some raving lunatic. Since I didn't even participate in the Burning Wheel thread, that left only two threads - DitV and TROS. Since my only response in TROS was an honest question, I assumed that could not be screeching. Besides which, I wasn't responding to you, but to Paka. So that left DitV.

Clue: the screeching is coming from inside this thread.

I'd not interacted with you before. Then you jumped up my ass. See the problem there?

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd if you really want to convince me that you've got something worth saying, arguing with me in this thread isn't what's going to pull that off; I already gave you my challenge: start a thread about theory that doesn't deal with GNS/forgespeak.

OK, if you prefer to see no Forge discussion at all here (even stuff which disses the Forge), I can go along with that. I've actually wanted to start a discussion about genre in games for a while. (You aren't allowed to discuss genre under GNS theory. It's not a consideration. Never mind that the essay about the history of fantasy at the start of Sorcerer and Sword shows a keen appreciation of genre on Ron's part...)

It seems to me that the "advantage" that people who talk Forge-derived theory have is simple:  They have a theory.  When people ask general questions, they can make positive, constructive statements of the "Maybe the following ideas can help someone" variety.  They do that a lot.  Enough, obviously, to annoy those who don't find those ideas helpful.

Right now, this forum seems to be languishing from the rarity of any similar willingness among non-Forgey types.  Y'all don't seem ready to make general statements and provoke serious thinking about roleplaying games.

Until you've got something positive to say, you're only going to be able to say negative things.  RPGPundit:  If you want to encourage a kind of theorizing that isn't beholden to Forge ideas, why do you spend all your posts criticizing Forge stuff, rather than jumping in constructively on the threads of folks like David R., and Stuart, who are trying to do exactly what you're hoping for?  Quit cursing the darkness, sure ... but also, light a candle.

And now I'm off to start a theory thread that doesn't have anything to do with GNS.

QuoteY'all don't seem ready to make general statements and provoke serious thinking about roleplaying games.

Fuck you, Tony.
Go read my (and lots of other people´s) posts.
Come back and apologize.

Quote from: SettembriniFuck you, Tony.
Go read my (and lots of other people´s) posts.
Come back and apologize.

Well, Sett, I've gone and looked and looked for the threads you've started about theory, and ... no.  There will be no apology forthcoming for you

Now Stuart ... David R. ... these guys rock.  But, like I said ... rarity.

You've got me pegged wrong, Tony.  I don't actually BELIEVE in theory at all. I think "theory" for RPGs is imbecilic, we're talking about a FUCKING GAME here. I have yet to see any theory whatsoever that is something more than mental wankery, that produces something that I could not have come up with by just being a good gm.

I'm all about the practice.  The closest thing you will ever get to theory from me is the Landmarks.

However, if there are people who like to talk about theory, and their claim is that theory can really be useful for RPGs, ok, let's see. Put your money where your mouth is.  

We already know that GNS and the Forge's theories are wrong. That's a given. So what's next? Show me something that you think will be better.

Otherwise the alternative of sticking with the Forgers is very definitely NOT "better than nothing", since they are a dangerous cult out to destroy the idea of "fun gaming".

RPGPundit

OK, here we have proof:

Tony admits being a forger, and comes here to say we all are stupid and unreflecting kind of guys.

Utmost wankery and swinedom. Tony, you are proof of truth for many accusations made against your kind of guys. And you are indeed claiming to speak for them.

Here we go, the ugly swine has dropped the mask.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou've got me pegged wrong, Tony.  I don't actually BELIEVE in theory at all.

Gotcha.  That makes a lot of sense.

Does this mean that you've set this forum up specifically for people to do something that you think is foredoomed to failure?  I say that without snark!  That'd actually be very cool ... "I'm pretty damn sure you won't create anything useful, but you disagree, so I'm going to give you every resource possible to prove me wrong, and I hope you can do it."  That's damn openminded! :highfive: (we seem to be lacking an emoticon for straightforward "You rock!" encouragement ... I did the best I could).

Quote from: RPGPunditI think "theory" for RPGs is imbecilic, we're talking about a FUCKING GAME here. I have yet to see any theory whatsoever that is something more than mental wankery, that produces something that I could not have come up with by just being a good gm.

Hmm.  I think part of the problem might be that "theory" is perhaps a bad term for what we're doing (or should be doing) here.  Game design is a better term.  I'm not sure who started calling it "theory"... but outside of RPGs people talk about "CCG Design" or "Board Game Design"... not "theory".

Anyway, how do you instruct someone on "just being a good gm".  However you answer that is your theory approach to game design.

Personally, I believe a game design is superior if it still produces a fun and engaging game for novice players -- including a novice GM who hasn't figured out how to be "good" yet.

Stuart:  Or "coaching."  Like, a golf pro can suggest things that you might pay attention to, but your swing is still going to come down to what you've personally practiced and worked on.

Quote from: TonyLBStuart: Or "coaching." Like, a golf pro can suggest things that you might pay attention to, but your swing is still going to come down to what you've personally practiced and worked on.

Yes, that's a good comparison.

I still think it best to approach game design so that you don't need one or more pro-level players (eg. the GM) in order for the game to run smoothly and everyone to have fun.

Pundit:  I think you should consider changing the title of this forum to Game Design and Game Master Coaching.

I support that move.

Quote from: StuartHmm.  I think part of the problem might be that "theory" is perhaps a bad term for what we're doing (or should be doing) here.  Game design is a better term.  I'm not sure who started calling it "theory"... but outside of RPGs people talk about "CCG Design" or "Board Game Design"... not "theory".

Anyway, how do you instruct someone on "just being a good gm".  However you answer that is your theory approach to game design.

Personally, I believe a game design is superior if it still produces a fun and engaging game for novice players -- including a novice GM who hasn't figured out how to be "good" yet.

Thanks for reading my mind Stuart.

Quote from: TonyLBGotcha.  That makes a lot of sense.

Does this mean that you've set this forum up specifically for people to do something that you think is foredoomed to failure?  I say that without snark!  That'd actually be very cool ... "I'm pretty damn sure you won't create anything useful, but you disagree, so I'm going to give you every resource possible to prove me wrong, and I hope you can do it."  That's damn openminded! :highfive: (we seem to be lacking an emoticon for straightforward "You rock!" encouragement ... I did the best I could).

That's precisely what I did, and I'll add that I did so partly in the vague hope that someone out there will be able to prove me wrong, by somehow coming up with a theory that teaches me something new and useful, without being subverted by the Forgers.

Its a vain hope, but I lose nothing by offering this place and trying to keep it GNS-free, to see if something doesn't serendipitously spring forth like penicillin.

RPGPundit