Quote from: RPGPundit;467855Swine Theory doesn't absolutely demand micro-games but it certainly encourages them, by suggesting that a well-rounded fully-functional RPG that appeals to a large number of different gamers is "Incoherent" and an example of bad design.

It doesn't say that, though.  

I will say, for as much as I like aspects of the whole theory-stuff, I do have a problem with the glut of micro-games in the commercial market, both economically and conceptually (because they're generally ripping people off, and a lot of them aren't that good).  The problem is that a lot of people who do want to publish their own game are confusing one (maybe) good idea with actual game design, but they don't know any better because they have limited experience.  People have confused game-theory with practical game design.  One can inform the other, but if all you know is theory, you're not going to go anywhere.

Watching what has happened since the Forge's call of "You can design your own game!" is kind of like watching the proliferation of horrible webcomics over the last decade.  For every solidly entertaining strip, there are a hundred or so really awful ones.  People think that just because someone has shown them how to put the comic on a webpage, that they should.  When in reality it takes a lot of hard work, experience, and sometimes actual technical skills to produce something that's significant (or that just works on a fundamental level).

Quote from: BenoistInteresting read in context :

http://stevieb1972.com/you-hate-mono...-wrong-reasons

Good article.  I've always played by the rules, and I still hate it, though.  

(Aside to pawsplay:  Despite us disagreeing here, kudos on contributing to the meltdown at CM.  It was pretty entertaining.)

Quote from: Benoist;467867Interesting read in context :

http://stevieb1972.com/you-hate-monopoly-for-all-the-wrong-reasons

My family were Monopoly rules lawyers. Seriously. I didn't play a game from the time I was 18 until I was about 26.

Well, Sturgeon's Law (IIRC) 90% of everything is crud. Edwards' promoting game designers to go out and build stuff is good, but to an extent I'd say he's also subverting good design on ideological grounds -  since I love heartbreakers . The GNS model makes it much easier for wannabe designers to go out and build "Narrative" systems - making it easier by giving a pass on poor design.

Thinking about it some more, the tight focussing is probably part-and-parcel of his thing on "Premise" with regard to Narrative games - a narrative game is about telling a specific story agreed on in advance, rather than telling a story in general.

Depends how you incorporate premise.  Some games allow you to customize it, like Burning Wheel, The Shadow of Yesterday/Solar System, Shock: Social Science Fiction.  FATE has been more of the "toolkit" type of thing I was talking about above, and Dresden Files has focused it a bit more procedurally, but themes are still customizable.

Dogs, Sorcerer, Polaris, and all of that -- yeah.  They're focused on a particular kind of story, and if you don't like it, then you're kind of boned, although the setting for the story is customizable (you could do scifi with Sorcerer or Dogs just fine, assuming the type of story you want to tell fits the premise).  Some of them are cute for one shots or short mini-series, and are fun in their own right, but I can see why more campaign-focused players may not take to them.

As far as giving bad game design a pass...well...I've seen some harsh comments from some designers about others' designs.

What's worse, the fact that Ron Edwards is a philosopher of games or the fact that his philosophy is a failure?

Quote from: B.T.;467932What's worse, the fact that Ron Edwards is a philosopher of games or the fact that his philosophy is a failure?

Making snarky, empty comments on message-boards.

But we're all guilty of that, so I'll give you a pass.