This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Do you have fun discussing theory?

Started by Serious Paul, February 07, 2007, 11:59:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 6 7 8
User actions

Levi Kornelsen

#105
February 15, 2007, 12:48:46 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit(a general problem with most Theorists, who seem to believe the DM should have no role aside from the "monopoly banker" syndrome, and tend to arrogantly believe that they can know better what will be best for every single gaming group than said gaming groups will... that's pretty well what Theory is predicated on).

Hmm.

Okay, I've built stuff off theory.  The Exchange and Microcosm, as examples, are totally theory-informed.

In those specific creations, I assume that the main duties of the GM were to load up situations in ways that motivate action - which can mean a lot of different stuff - and to redesign the game itself in play.  In many ways, with those specific creations, I assumed that what I was providing was a "start point" which the actual game would mutate at the hands of the GM, towards the overall (but hopefully not the impulsive) desires of the players.

But that's me.

baran_i_kanu

#106
February 15, 2007, 02:17:09 AM
no, it gives me a headache.

i'm just not that deep or philosophical about why i game.
i just do it for fun and to hang with my friends.

other than that i really don't care.
Dave B.
 
http://theosrlibrary.blogspot.com/

I have neuropathy in my hands so my typing can get frustratingly sloppy. Bear with me.

Aos

#107
February 23, 2007, 12:24:38 PM
Quote from: Serious PaulI've noticed a lot of threads here since I've started posting, and a few have really caught my eye as unique perspectives on the games I like to play. However it seems like all too often these threads either lose their steam and drift after a short period of time, or degenerate into some name calling if people feel strongly enough.

So my question is, is it fun? Do you enjoy discussing Game Theory and Design? Why?

My own answer has evolved from an ignorant maybe to a definite no. The more i read here the less I like the design process, and the theory end of games, and less I want to know the people who make them.

When I bought Shadowrun I purchased it because it was cool. It covered a subject matter I had never really seen done in games, in a way I could relate to. I didn't even know it used a different system than 2nd edition AD&D until I bought it. And even then it had little to do with why we liked the game.

The more I read here, the more disappointed I get. Some of you people are the people designing and creating games for people like me to buy. The more I read, the less I want to buy. Hell, the less I want to game.

And I don't like feeling like that. (Which is why my posting has dropped, as my interest has waned.)

My sentiments exactly.
You are posting in a troll thread.

Metal Earth

Cosmic Tales- Webcomic

Balbinus

#108
February 23, 2007, 12:28:44 PM
Little nuggets of theory that I can directly apply to my gaming and see if it helps me or not, sure.

Grand unified theories of gaming which always seem to put me in some fucking box, not so much.

An example of the former, Tony's one simple thing threads on rpg.net.  Some I found useful, some I didn't, but each was just a little theory nugget I could take or leave as I chose.

An example of the latter, GNS.

Tony's one simple thing threads were good theory, that doesn't mean I agreed with everything, but they were at least potentially useful.

Grand unified theories seem mostly to involve some fucker who's never met me telling me how I play in a manner which I generally do not even slightly recognise.

Mr. Analytical

#109
February 23, 2007, 01:03:08 PM
Quote from: BalbinusGrand unified theories seem mostly to involve some fucker who's never met me telling me how I play in a manner which I generally do not even slightly recognise.

  :rolleyes:

  Projecting again... that's what brain damage will do to you.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 6 7 8
User actions