I have to say it doesn't really matter to me if "RPG Theory" consists of its own unique insights or instead of material drawn from other disciplines and applied in a useful fashion.

That said, figuring out how to make other disciplines useful is itself a useful insight, as e.g. engineering makes use of probability & statistics to analyze reliability and risk.

So while we can argue over whether RPG Theory (Forge-type particularly) makes good use of outside stuff, or whether the stuff RPG Theory says without reference to outside stuff is wrong, the question of originality is a minor one in my opinion.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI have to say it doesn't really matter to me if "RPG Theory" consists of its own unique insights or instead of material drawn from other disciplines and applied in a useful fashion.

That said, figuring out how to make other disciplines useful is itself a useful insight, as e.g. engineering makes use of probability & statistics to analyze reliability and risk.

So while we can argue over whether RPG Theory (Forge-type particularly) makes good use of outside stuff, or whether the stuff RPG Theory says without reference to outside stuff is wrong, the question of originality is a minor one in my opinion.

Agreed--if, in fact, RPG theory showed how to use other disciplines for RPG's that would be something valuable...

I can't really find where it does except at the most-obvious / assertion level:

* The assertion that mechanics can drive behavior
* The assertion that you can apply math (like probability) to dice mechanics
* Etc.

Look at the reward system one: exactly how game mechanics (like reward systems) affect player behavior is hugely important and complicated... an area deserving of investigation, thought, and discussion.

If I want to drive players to do X instead of Y in my game, how, exactly does one reward X without also creating un-intended consequences?

All good questions.

All the sorts of questions that RPG theory ought to answer... but instead of addressing these in a usable way, RPG theory simply says, "Reward systems affect behavior."

This isn't insightful (unless you're unfamiliar with basic psychology).

RPG theory is mute on the question of exactly *how* -- which is where it would need to go to be usable for game design.

Cheers,
-E.

Tony, I'm confused: are you now saying something different than what you were clearly saying on Levi's theory-friendly forums, where you supported the idea of "win-win game design", where the results of any action should be to "win if you succeed (a roll) and win in a different kind of way if you fail (a roll)"?

Because its pretty hard to interpret that, what YOU said, in any other way.

Why not just admit that, since you were talking in theoretical terms that have nothing to do with how RPGs are actually played, and you were so up the "ivory tower" that you were totally divorced from what actually makes RPGs fun (ie. the risk of losing), you came up with a theory that is useful only in its own imaginary world, and would end up being a disaster in practice to anyone other than the most narcissistic gang of oversensitive mollycoddled brats who couldn't bear to see their character be anything other than "Teh UBERCOOL" at all times?

You want to debate this face to face? I'm right here, motherfucker.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBWell, how about we, instead, consider things like reward mechanics, cycles of currency, positive and negative feedback loops, and point of contact?

Those are things that can tell me very clearly how a game will run, what patterns of behavior it will encourage and what sort of relationships it will support between players at the table.

Does that tell me whether the game will be "fun"?  Nah.  But I'm honestly okay with that.  If I can make a game that will strongly support the feel of (say) a desperate group of strangers trying to hang together in the face of a zombie-apocalypse, then I'm content with that.  I don't need the theory to tell me whether it will or won't be fun.  I'm willing to take my chances.

So, y'know, if RPG Theory doesn't give me the Formula For Fun ... so what?  I'm satisfied with less ambitious goals.  If it shows me how to make a self-balancing, challenging, tactically rich game that links to the themes and patterns I want to see at the table ... that's a lot.

Tony, I like the ending of your post, but I find the beginning intuitively reprehensible. "Positive feedback loops." I don't have an issue with technical language per se. I have an issue with technical language that's being used to treat me like a Pavlovian dog.

It spoils my fun when I play a game that foregrounds its reward mechanics so strongly that when playing it I can't help thinking, "Oh I see, someone's trying to reward me now... gee, I'm being fed back... *dingdong* bell's ringing, better start salivating here..."

In other words, my experience while playing the game is not of playing the game but of being asked to appreciate the effort that went into shaping my playing the game--and an effort that's based on some very crude stimuli response model of fun.

Quote from: RPGPunditTony, I'm confused: are you now saying something different than what you were clearly saying on Levi's theory-friendly forums, where you supported the idea of "win-win game design", where the results of any action should be to "win if you succeed (a roll) and win in a different kind of way if you fail (a roll)"?

I've bolded the parts in your "quote" of me where you've added stuff I never said, which I think is leading you astray.  I wasn't talking about giving character success no matter what the die roll turns out to be.  Here's the original post, so people can take a look on their own.

I was talking about "win-win" games where character success and character failure both lead to entertaining play for everyone at the table.  You can have positive feedback (both social and mechanical) that says "Oh man, your guy just got TOTALLY SCREWED!  That's awesome!  Take a Plot Point.  You're in such deep shit now ... what'cha gonna do next?"

Quote from: RPGPunditBecause its pretty hard to interpret that, what YOU said, in any other way.

Well, I hope this helps.  Other people seem to find it pretty easy to interpret what I said in a way other than the way you read it, but I totally get that you have a philosophical agenda that forces you to recast anything anyone says to fit your own theories.  Do you understand now?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIt spoils my fun when I play a game that foregrounds its reward mechanics so strongly that when playing it I can't help thinking, "Oh I see, someone's trying to reward me now... gee, I'm being fed back... *dingdong* bell's ringing, better start salivating here..."

Okay.  Are you making the claim that rewards don't influence you?  Or do you simply want a game that's subtle enough that you don't realize you're being swayed?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityTony, I like the ending of your post, but I find the beginning intuitively reprehensible. "Positive feedback loops." I don't have an issue with technical language per se. I have an issue with technical language that's being used to treat me like a Pavlovian dog.

It spoils my fun when I play a game that foregrounds its reward mechanics so strongly that when playing it I can't help thinking, "Oh I see, someone's trying to reward me now... gee, I'm being fed back... *dingdong* bell's ringing, better start salivating here..."

In other words, my experience while playing the game is not of playing the game but of being asked to appreciate the effort that went into shaping my playing the game--and an effort that's based on some very crude stimuli response model of fun.

Wait a minute! Did I write this? I can't remember doing it, but those are my thoughts...

-clash

Quote from: TonyLBOkay.  Are you making the claim that rewards don't influence you?  Or do you simply want a game that's subtle enough that you don't realize you're being swayed?

I've said this before, Tony - people aren't dogs. They are smart enough to detect attempts to manipulate them, and some are individualistic enough to resent it.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI've said this before, Tony - people aren't dogs. They are smart enough to detect attempts to manipulate them, and some are individualistic enough to resent it.

'kay.  But the idea of rewards is pretty damn pervasive.  I'm surprised that you think you can get away from it.  Do you object to basic D&D offering you a tactical advantage if you choose to play an elf who uses long-sword or bow?  That's a classic reward for matching genre, right there.

EDIT:  Y'know what, I think this whole discussion of how reward mechanics can be insulting deserves its own thread.  I'd like to hear more, without derailing this thread any more than, y'know, it's already been.

Quote from: TonyLB'kay.  But the idea of rewards is pretty damn pervasive.  I'm surprised that you think you can get away from it.  Do you object to basic D&D offering you a tactical advantage if you choose to play an elf who uses long-sword or bow?  That's a classic reward for matching genre, right there.

EDIT:  Y'know what, I think this whole discussion of how reward mechanics can be insulting deserves its own thread.  I'd like to hear more, without derailing this thread any more than, y'know, it's already been.

OK.

-clash

(Reposted in new thread.)

I'd just like to add, for no particular reason, that in my limited career as RPG writer that at no point has anyone involved either spoken about or referenced RPG theory in any project i've been involved in. When i'm writing, i utilise RPG practise, not theory. Now, are they the same thing? Should theory be renamed, as it suggests a dry decitation on a piece of paper, or is it really divorced from practise?

Quote from: TonyLBI've bolded the parts in your "quote" of me where you've added stuff I never said, which I think is leading you astray.  I wasn't talking about giving character success no matter what the die roll turns out to be.  Here's the original post, so people can take a look on their own.

I was talking about "win-win" games where character success and character failure both lead to entertaining play for everyone at the table.  You can have positive feedback (both social and mechanical) that says "Oh man, your guy just got TOTALLY SCREWED!  That's awesome!  Take a Plot Point.  You're in such deep shit now ... what'cha gonna do next?"

What you're saying now sounds absolutely nothing like what you were saying originally. Ok, you see your position is untenable, and you've adapted. Good for you.

The problem is that what you ARE saying now isn't "win-win game design" at all; its just GAME DESIGN.  What kind of fucking game are you talking about that isn't cool when someone is fucked over??

I mean, you can only have it one of two ways:

1. You're using theory to advocate designing a game that mollycoddles players so that they never really lose. (which is asinine)

2. You're claiming that your theory has allowed you to advocate RPGs as they already currently exist. (which makes your theory utterly meaningless, not to mention worthless)

Which is it?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe problem is that what you ARE saying now isn't "win-win game design" at all; its just GAME DESIGN.  What kind of fucking game are you talking about that isn't cool when someone is fucked over??

Well ... D&D for one.  Fail your save against petrification and now your character's a statue.  Since the character is (in most D&D play I've ever seen) your only way to interact with the game, you're stuck as a spectator until either you're stone-to-flesh'd or you write up a new character.  Not as much fun as being in the thick of the action.

Now when someone house-rules it so that once you're taken out of combat you get to take over (say) a bunch of NPCs and play them ... then we're back into win-win territory.  I can either (a) keep fighting with my own character or (b) get to fight with some fun disposable goblins.

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean, you can only have it one of two ways

LOL!  Oh man ... are you serious with that?  Do you honestly think people don't see the sleaze of that kind of rhetorical tactic?  Rather than even turn it back upon you (which is oh so tempting!) I will quote Toy Story 2:
   Hamm:  You must choose, Sheriff Woody!  How shall she die?  Sharks?  Or death by monkey?
Woody:  I will choose ... and I choose BUZZ LIGHTYEAR!
Hamm:  What?  That's not a choice!For the record, I'm claiming that my theory has allowed me to more clearly identify good things that some people have (in most cases) already been doing, and to create rules that let everybody do them more reliably.

Quote from: TonyLBFor the record, I'm claiming that my theory has allowed me to more clearly identify good things that some people have (in most cases) already been doing, and to create rules that let everybody do them more reliably.

Not to be combative...but prove it!