Hi everyone.

So, look.  I've spent 4 years on the Forge.  I'm writing a fucking textbook about the theory (although I've been slacking on that lately.)  I know from Forge-theory.

So if you want me to explain whatever term or concept to you, this is the thread.  I reserve the right to say "shut up and go away," which you will all understand as either "I think that concept is stupid," "I think your question is stupid," or "I don't know."

I don't particularly want to get into a debate about right-ness or wrong-ness.  You can believe in the theory or not.  I just want to help you penetrate the fog of confusion and jargon and understand what the fuck we're talking about.

What do you say?

yrs--
--Ben

So...

What is that fucking Forge theory of gaming anyway?

Quote from: Ottomsoh the ElderlySo...

What is that fucking Forge theory of gaming anyway?

In a nutshell?

1) Role-playing games are played by people in a social group.  If there's trouble with the social group itself, no change to the game will make the game fun.  You have to fix the social group.

2) Games continue because everyone in the group decides to continue.

3) Different people mean different things when they talk about the activity "role-playing."  Confusion about "what activity we're doing right now" is the cause of a lot of unsatisfying play.

4) Lots of other stuff that's less important.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  If you're saying "that's painfully obvious," I agree.  Most theories are.  To take another one of my favorite theories, the basis of all classical physics is "if you push it, it goes."

In shorter: "Roleplaying is social.  The rest is commentary."

All right, I'll bite.  I know some Forge theory, but there's two big things I could never figure out.

Is there any actual repository of clearly-defined "techniques" as defined in Forge theory, including explanations of their effects and potential effects on play, available anywhere online?

It seems from my reading that it's entirely possible to construct games by means of Forge theory (specifically, the big model), that don't actually involve challenge or tactical elements as found in what anyone outside of those circles might consider a game, or that does not contain actual roleplaying, in terms of taking on characterisation of a role.  If my reading is correct, than how is this a theory of roleplaying games?

For those playing along at home, "techniques" is a technical Forge term, but it basically means what you probably think it means -- the techniques that we use for play.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAll right, I'll bite.  I know some Forge theory, but there's two big things I could never figure out.

Is there any actual repository of clearly-defined "techniques" as defined in Forge theory, including explanations of their effects and potential effects on play, available anywhere online?

This is historically a big bugaboo.  There are old theory threads about: Stance, IIEE, probability and die mechanics, etc.  These may or may not be helpful to you.  They confuse the fuck out of me.

When Ron started the site, he thought that GNS was an obvious no-brainer, and that with that aside, we were going to go on to discuss techniques and their application to disparate play goals.  As it turned out, GNS was not an obvious no-brainer.  Ron has some stuff he's been working on, but he's decided to keep it mostly offline and between peers.  Honestly, this is a good thing.  The flamewars it would cause would make GNS look like a "sell me on" thread.

Emily is also working on some technique-oriented articles but, characteristic for her, she's keeping it tightly under wraps until she's very, very done with it.

So, the short answer is no, and that's why.  Historically, what's happened is that the games themselves have become technique repositories -- Dogs for example has a great deal of techniques embedded in it (structured situation, "say yes or roll dice," character development as history, etc).  So does Polaris (list-based prep, situation diagramming, key phrases, etc).  So does almost any one of our games including and past My Life With Master.

But most of those are offline, and cost money.

QuoteIt seems from my reading that it's entirely possible to construct games by means of Forge theory (specifically, the big model), that don't actually involve challenge or tactical elements as found in what anyone outside of those circles might consider a game, or that does not contain actual roleplaying, in terms of taking on characterisation of a role.  If my reading is correct, than how is this a theory of roleplaying games?

In terms of defining roleplaying games: Shut up and go away.

However, I think you are basically correct in your assessment.  You can also use a literary theory of prose to analyze a play, but you're missing some of it.  I think that using Forge theory to construct non-tabletop story/role-playing game things may be useful, but it will ineveitably be missing some things.

You can use GNS to talk about movies (I've seen people do it, sadly) but you're really missing a big chunk about the movie when you do that.  Better to use a theory more applicable to your goals.

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: Ben LehmanThere are old theory threads about: Stance, IIEE, probability and die mechanics, etc.  These may or may not be helpful to you.  They confuse the fuck out of me.

Stance is easy.  IIEE isn't helpful.  In general, ah, well.

Quote from: Ben LehmanIn terms of defining roleplaying games: Shut up and go away.

Oh, very well...

*Exit stage left*

:melodramatic:

What is the 'big model'?  :confused:

(I'm vaguely familiar with the G/N/S categories, but understand that the 'big model' supplanted that.  Or something.)

I've never bought into Forgespeak, related definitions, or that community as it stands.

If your summary of Forge-essence is correct, I finally know why -- we have a significant disconnect at a fundamental level.

http://www.plaguegames.com/index.php?id=15

That link may not last forever, since I'm currently upgrading my blog, but it's there for now.

Why was the term "Narrativist" chosen to describe a facet of the theory that--according to the Theory and it's adherents at the Forge--has nothing to do with Narrative?

double post.  :-(

Quote from: AkrasiaWhat is the 'big model'?  :confused:

(I'm vaguely familiar with the G/N/S categories, but understand that the 'big model' supplanted that.  Or something.)

Role-playing exists at three levels: Social (interactions between real people at the table), Creative (the content of the game), and Technical (the procedures used for play -- whether mechanical or not.)

The Big Model, in short, is a model of the interactions between these three levels.

The relationship to GNS is like this: One of the categories in the Big Model is called "Creative Agenda."  Basically, what it means is "what the group, as real people, wants to get out of play."  Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism are three broad types of Creative Agenda.

Does that answer your question?  I avoided talking about the specific structure of the model because it is, honestly, pretty complicated.  I don't want to get into it unless you're enthused about learning.

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: rumbleI've never bought into Forgespeak, related definitions, or that community as it stands.

If your summary of Forge-essence is correct, I finally know why -- we have a significant disconnect at a fundamental level.

http://www.plaguegames.com/index.php?id=15

That link may not last forever, since I'm currently upgrading my blog, but it's there for now.

Rumble --  Nope!

See, you're talking about characters.  If you look at the post above, that's the creative level.

I'm actually talking about honest-to-goodness humans at the table playing a game.  The social level.

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: Teflon BillyWhy was the term "Narrativist" chosen to describe a facet of the theory that--according to the Theory and it's adherents at the Forge--has nothing to do with Narrative?

Stupid historical reasons.  If that's good enough for you stop here.

Okay, so here's the longer one.  A lot of the basis of RPG theory was done by on the rec.games.fantasy.advocacy newsgroup.  They came up with the GDS model (Gamism, Dramatism, Simulationism).  Ron and some folks on the Sorcerer mailing list found this stuff, loved it, and started their own discussions.  However, they were also talking about Jon Tweet's work on resolution systems (Drama, Fortune, Karma), and there was some confusion about Drama resolution and Dramatism.  Since the term "Drama resolution" predated "Dramatism," they decided to rename "Dramatism" into "Narrativism."

Which actually turned out to be helpful, because GNS is pretty different from GDS.

At that point, it was like six guys talking about theory on a mailing list.  There was no idea that it would become as widespread as it has.  The terms were pretty ad-hoc, and sometimes shitty.  We've been trying to revise them, slowly.  ("fiction" instead of "shared imagined space," for example.)

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  Seriously, dude, don't capitalize Theory.

Quote from: Ben LehmanRumble --  Nope!

See, you're talking about characters.  If you look at the post above, that's the creative level.

I'm actually talking about honest-to-goodness humans at the table playing a game.  The social level.

yrs--
--Ben

I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm derailing your thread, but your ultra-short version was, "Roleplaying is social. The rest is commentary."

My ultra-short version is, "Gaming is social. Roleplaying is personal."