TheRPGSite

Is GNS still a thing? On the internet I mean?

I friend of mine recently told me he thought he was either "Simulationist or Gamist". He treads lightly on the internet, but apparently long enough ago that he would say something as written above. I thought that wrong headed bullshit died a long time ago. Are there still sites or message boards or (god forbid) game designers that use that terminology?

A couple of people were trying to thing it on EN World this last week. I offered my blunt criticism of GNS's descriptive ability. I was told that either I had never read Ron's essays or I had forgotten what I read.

So, yeah, alive and well. :)

I think GNS has some limited usefulness as broad and vague descriptive terminology.  It's kind of like D&D alignment terminology, or like the terms "old school" or "new school."  That is, if you describe a game using the GNS terms, I get an immediate general idea of the kind of game it is (or at least the kind of approach it emphasizes), so it's useful in that sense.  But if you try to make precise definitions or develop a formal and consistent classification system based on the terminology, the wheels fall off and you end up looking the fool.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;466496I think GNS has some limited usefulness as broad and vague descriptive terminology.  It's kind of like D&D alignment terminology, or like the terms "old school" or "new school."  That is, if you describe a game using the GNS terms, I get a immediate general idea of the kind of game it is (or at least the kind of approach it emphasizes), so it's useful in that sense.  But if you try to make precise definitions or develop a formal and consistent classification system based on the terminology, the wheels fall off and you end up looking the fool.

I don't visit the Forge much, but from what I understand, that's actually what has mainly happened over there, with the Big Model largely replacing GNS for technical discussions of game play.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;466496But if you try to make precise definitions or develop a formal and consistent classification system based on the terminology, the wheels fall off and you end up looking the fool.

More generally (outside of rpg games), this seems to be the case almost universally in practice.

With the exception of some areas in the hard sciences (ie. chemistry, physics, math, etc ...), there's very few niches where this can be done effectively without the wheels falling off.

Quote from: KrakaJak;466493Is GNS still a thing? On the internet I mean?

I friend of mine recently told me he thought he was either "Simulationist or Gamist". He treads lightly on the internet, but apparently long enough ago that he would say something as written above. I thought that wrong headed bullshit died a long time ago. Are there still sites or message boards or (god forbid) game designers that use that terminology?

The Forge website is still around and active (though many indie designers have left it), and it still hosts Ron's essays on GNS theory.  

I would point out that "Simulationist" and "Gamist" are terms that predate Ron's GNS writings.  They were coined back in the 90s in discussion on rec.games.frp.advocacy.  From my observation, a lot of people have heard of those terms, but they generally understand them more-or-less as they were originally coined.  

NOTE:

1) In the original rgfa discussion, people who play for story are "Dramatist".  

2) In Ron's GNS model, people who play for story are Simulationist if they have a pre-determined theme (according to Ron, like White Wolf, Theatrix, and other games), or Narrativist if they are addressing a moral/ethical premise.  

In practice, even if they have heard of the terms from Ron's essays, people still think of Simulationist as being about simulation, and do not include explicitly dramatic games.

Quote from: jhkim;466500original rgfa discussion, people who play for story are "Dramatist".  

2) In Ron's GNS model, people who play for story are Simulationist if they have a pre-determined theme (according to Ron, like White Wolf, Theatrix, and other games), or Narrativist if they are addressing a moral/ethical premise.  

So problematic... I actually used Theatrix on EN World as an example of narrativist-simulationist convergence, and why that created problems for Ron's three-color theory. It's simply difficult to say character in Vampire don't break premise, or that characters in a "moral exploration" story don't exist in some conventional text, or that this crossover represents any kind of shift in playstyle.

Rather than rehash old theoretical arguments, I've been working in my "copious spare time" on a terminology for describing actual play in a more accessible, and less contentious, way.

Greasy Nacho Salsa, what?

Quote from: jhkim;4665002) In Ron's GNS model, people who play for story are Simulationist if they have a pre-determined theme (according to Ron, like White Wolf, Theatrix, and other games), or Narrativist if they are addressing a moral/ethical premise.

If you look at the early GNS essays, it's pretty easy to see how Edwards developed the GNS:

(1) Take the Threefold Model (which is actually a fairly useful model within its specific scope of describing the factors considered during specific decision-making at the gaming table).

(2) Attempt to broaden the Threefold Model so that it covers much more than specific decision-making. (Somewhat useful since there are some typical agendas which accompany prioritizing/preferring certain types of decisions over others.)

(3) Take a very narrow slice from the "dramatist" portion of the theory that corresponded to Edward's preferences in gaming and label that slice "narrativism".

(4) Take all the left over material you just lopped off from the "dramatist" stance and stuff it arbitrarily into "simulationist". (Why? AFAICT, Edwards never actually understood simulationist play. Ergo, it was a convenient dumping ground for playing styles he found inconvenient.)

The result is something which is functionally broke and conceptually incoherent.

I frequently find the Threefold useful. GNS, on the other hand, is basically worthless (particularly in comparison to its progenitor). Unfortunately, GNS has so thoroughly poisoned the well when it comes to the terms "gamist" and "simulationist" that it's difficult to have a meaningful public discussion using the Threefold.

Quote from: Phantom Black;466508Greasy Nacho Salsa, what?

Oh God I wish. That would be delicious.

Okay, so it's still a thing and it's mere mention still brings about pseudo-intellectual bullshit. Gotcha. I had not heard it mentioned in a while and presumed it dead. Sorry for stirring that pot.

I still see these terms thrown around on forums (lately quite a bit on en world). Also seeing terminology employed by video game designers and academics. One of the problems i see with this is the jargon can confuse people who are unfamiliar with it and it is often used to make a simple idea seem more weighty or complex.

My father was a sales trainer and he used a social styles program in his courses to help sales people adapt to the personalities of their clients. There were four social styles: amiable, expressive, driver and analytical. According to the program each style makes buying decisions differently. Analyticals need info, expressives need personal connection, etc. It was a model you could apply to improve your overall chances of landing sales, but it was important to realize it was only a model. People are individuals and don't adhere neatly to types. You could lose a sale just as easily by adhering too rigidly to the model and ignoring what the customer is really trying to tell you.

Quote from: pawsplay;466497I don't visit the Forge much, but from what I understand, that's actually what has mainly happened over there, with the Big Model largely replacing GNS for technical discussions of game play.

If The Big Model is a sword, GNS is the blade. Sure, you've got a hilt and pommel and everything as well, but what does the nasty work is the blade.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;466509... it's pretty easy to see how Edwards developed the GNS:

...

(3) Take a very narrow slice from the "dramatist" portion of the theory that corresponded to Edward's preferences in gaming and label that slice "narrativism".

(4) Take all the left over material you just lopped off from the "dramatist" stance and stuff it arbitrarily into "simulationist". (Why? AFAICT, Edwards never actually understood simulationist play. Ergo, it was a convenient dumping ground for playing styles he found inconvenient.)

The result is something which is functionally broke and conceptually incoherent.

I frequently find the Threefold useful. GNS, on the other hand, is basically worthless (particularly in comparison to its progenitor). Unfortunately, GNS has so thoroughly poisoned the well when it comes to the terms "gamist" and "simulationist" that it's difficult to have a meaningful public discussion using the Threefold.

This, this. A thousand times this.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;466496I think GNS has some limited usefulness as broad and vague descriptive terminology.  It's kind of like D&D alignment terminology, or like the terms "old school" or "new school."  That is, if you describe a game using the GNS terms, I get an immediate general idea of the kind of game it is (or at least the kind of approach it emphasizes), so it's useful in that sense.  But if you try to make precise definitions or develop a formal and consistent classification system based on the terminology, the wheels fall off and you end up looking the fool.

This, it's handy to be able to say "this RPG is more G than N" or whatever, but it's a broad triangle diagram, not a rigid set of categories.

It's a tool, nothing more.

Quote from: KrakaJak;466493Is GNS still a thing? On the internet I mean?

...

Are there still sites or message boards or (god forbid) game designers that use that terminology?

A chap called Richard Stokes writes regular columns on http://www.ukroleplayers.com where he is in effect trying to resurrect a lot of GNS stuff; although he at least largely avoids the specific terminology of G, N and S, he has considerable praise for Forge theory. (See the "Columns" subforum on ukroleplayers.com for links and discussion.)

Highlights:- calling comments in traditional roleplaying books "asinine" which refer to the GM as having ultimate authority over the game, and backing this up with references to "social contracts".

My riposte on the discussion thread:- hang on, you've missed the point of the GM's final authority:- you haven't given any thought to immersion in this analysis.

There is a lot of discussion of immersion versus GNS on the Omnifray hosted forums on ukroleplayers.com in the thread about the Invitation to Soul's Calling freebie PDF. You might find it interesting, although it eventually derails the thread, and my responses are a bit long-winded and lost up my own arse if I'm honest. At one point I provide copious links to and quotes from Forge theory including the amusing "brain damage" thread on the Forge which Ron Edwards eventually closed when it became clear he was offending people. Partly in response to me referring (admittedly offensively) to heavily railroaded gaming as an "abortion" of a playstyle, Richard Stokes then concludes that I believe there is only One True Way to play trad RPGs and that he needs to steer clear of me and my games. (Because clearly someone who thinks that a critical feature of a whole playstyle is "asinine" and who promotes the theories of someone who after formulating those theories at one stage called "almost all story-ish roleplayers" literally brain-damaged because they don't follow narrativist doctrine... would never subscribe to any kind of One True Way views!?)

The only thing I would ask is - if any of you do turn up on ukroleplayers.com, please be polite and don't flame or insult people there. The free-for-all style of conversation which works great on this site simply would not be welcome there.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;466509I frequently find the Threefold useful. GNS, on the other hand, is basically worthless (particularly in comparison to its progenitor). Unfortunately, GNS has so thoroughly poisoned the well when it comes to the terms "gamist" and "simulationist" that it's difficult to have a meaningful public discussion using the Threefold.

That's my position as well.

Re:OP: I have not seen it used much lately. It is sometimes still invoked in debate or mentioned casually, but it fortunately does not dominate discussion any longer, and is not considered inviolable.

Or maybe people have just become more adept at hiding their porcine leanings. ;)

Quote from: KrakaJak;466493Is GNS still a thing? On the internet I mean?

I friend of mine recently told me he thought he was either "Simulationist or Gamist". He treads lightly on the internet, but apparently long enough ago that he would say something as written above. I thought that wrong headed bullshit died a long time ago. Are there still sites or message boards or (god forbid) game designers that use that terminology?

To a large extent GNS is dead -- I'm including The Big Model here, as well -- since its creators have ceased to defend it and because its explicit link to concepts like "Some RPGs cause BRAIN DAMAGE" have been widely publicized.

That said, people with only a passing familiarity with it still make reference to it -- usually using the terms in an incorrect manner.

Most of the people who used to champion GNS have largely abandoned it because the whole Brain Damage thing was embarrassing and it eliminated the primary use of the theory: insulting majority gamers with a (somewhat) plausible claim that they weren't really being offensive.

1) GNS was never very good at categorizing players; its concepts were never sharp enough to really distinguish one play style from another
2) GNS was never well-defined enough to be useful for designing games.

GNS / TBM theory was founded on the precept that the majority of gaming was horribly dysfunctional and the theory was the secret to fun gaming. They believed that, ultimately, traditional-model games would be surpassed in popularity by (in their view, much more fun and effective) indie games.

At this point, I think it's clear that that's not the case. The traditional model is alive and well, and remains uncontestedly dominant. Alternative models retain a niche standing for people who like that sort of thing, and the world continues to turn.

My advice is that when someone uses GNS terminology, it's best not to assume anything and just ask them, "what do you mean by that?" -- you usually get a coherent answer.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Justin AlexanderI frequently find the Threefold useful. GNS, on the other hand, is basically worthless (particularly in comparison to its progenitor). Unfortunately, GNS has so thoroughly poisoned the well when it comes to the terms "gamist" and "simulationist" that it's difficult to have a meaningful public discussion using the Threefold.

This.

Quote from: Omnifray;466549The only thing I would ask is - if any of you do turn up on ukroleplayers.com, please be polite and don't flame or insult people there. The free-for-all style of conversation which works great on this site simply would not be welcome there.

No, it wouldn't.

Quote from: -E.;4665531) GNS was never very good at categorizing players; its concepts were never sharp enough to really distinguish one play style from another
2) GNS was never well-defined enough to be useful for designing games.

It's like Ron designed the salt, pepper, garlic theory of game design, and he won't admit that there's salt in just about everything (including chocolate chip cookies) and he was never able to explain what the paprika as doing, to say nothing of the onion (when he wasn't calling it drifted garlic).

Quote from: krakajak;466511oh god i wish. That would be delicious.

Okay, so it's still a thing and it's mere mention still brings about pseudo-intellectual bullshit. Gotcha. I had not heard it mentioned in a while and presumed it dead. Sorry for stirring that pot.

screeeeee!!!!

Quote from: pawsplay;466603It's like Ron designed the salt, pepper, garlic theory of game design, and he won't admit that there's salt in just about everything (including chocolate chip cookies) and he was never able to explain what the paprika as doing, to say nothing of the onion (when he wasn't calling it drifted garlic).

Ha!  Yeah, that's a good analogy.

And it underscores that GNS or TBM was never about analysis or game design. It was about advocacy.

Cheers,
-E.

Is Levi Kornelson (do I have that name right?) still working on his thing, creating terminology and paradigms to describe gaming preferences?

Some of my beefs with Ron's theory, as I understand it...

As JA said - Simulationism covers a huge amount of ground. If Toon (emulation of cartoon genre) and Phoenix Command or Aftermath are the same type of game, your classification system is in trouble.

From (say) the immersionist perspective the classification is largely  useless (quite apart from Ron being a behaviourist and considering  identification with a character a  severe psychosis...). His threefold  model isn't that useful for determining whether a given system is  immersive (by which I mean, you feel like you are your character), since while  many of the narrative systems basically kill any capacity to function as  if you were a character, many of the 'simulational' systems would as  well - either because the systems are super-heavy and require extensive  dice rolling, or because the system is a 'simulation' of a genre whose  tropes are in conflict with playing a character who acts like a human  being (Feng Shui?).

Also, it appears to be useless as far as actual design. The basic premise  has to assume that the 3 styles are in conflict ('incoherent') in order  for it to be worthwhile to even attempt to design a 'pure Nar' or 'pure  Sim' game. Ron's Trollbabe for example sucks IMHO, because it  deliberately dispenses with 'gamist' elements like character death or  any sort of advancement system. Also, while he rips on D&D (e.g. 2E)  a bit for being incoherent a bit, its mixture of elements (good gaming +  enough realism +some roleplaying through alignment/kits/NWPs) its  mixture of elements is what I like about it, and part of it (and  successors up to say 3E)  broader appeal. The wheels seem to have fallen off  the incoherence argument after Riddle of Steel and more lately, though, with more and more systems designed by friends of Rons being described as 'functional hybrids'.

As far as the traditional model being alive and well...
while 'Narrativist' play remains niche, I think its arguable that the GNS theory may have had an impact on the development of the latest iteration of D&D, which is strongly 'Gamist' in focus. While some of the fans like it, the alienation of a significant portion of the fanbase by some estimates has been a great experiment for proving that GNS is worse than useless - whether or not the edition was directly influenced by the theory...

Quote from: KrakaJak;466493Is GNS still a thing? On the internet I mean?

I friend of mine recently told me he thought he was either "Simulationist or Gamist". He treads lightly on the internet, but apparently long enough ago that he would say something as written above. I thought that wrong headed bullshit died a long time ago. Are there still sites or message boards or (god forbid) game designers that use that terminology?

I'm a game designer, and even publish a few. I've never given a shit about GNS. I much rather play and create games, then put them under the scholarly microscope, and that is what GNS always seemed to be for me.

Richard

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;466651As far as the traditional model being alive and well...
while 'Narrativist' play remains niche, I think its arguable that the GNS theory may have had an impact on the development of the latest iteration of D&D, which is strongly 'Gamist' in focus. While some of the fans like it, the alienation of a significant portion of the fanbase by some estimates has been a great experiment for proving that GNS is worse than useless - whether or not the edition was directly influenced by the theory...

A lot of people have credited GNS as providing design guidance for their games. I have no idea if the D&D 4e people do or not, but I'd recommend looking at any such claims skeptically:

For one thing, GNS is hardly the first body of theory that has suggested people enjoy tactical and competitive elements of RPGs. It's not even the first theory to call that realization "Gamism." To the extent that someone credits GNS with that observation, it's just a lack of familiarity with the theories which GNS was built on and lifted nomenclature from (it's sort of like giving the guy who wrote your college text book credit for discovering Calculus because it's the first place you encountered it).

And while GNS claims to be useful for designing games, it doesn't actually provide any real insight in practice, beyond incredibly vague guidance (e.g. if you want your game to be fun for Gamist players, reward Gamist decisions).

Think of GNS-in-game-design as a bit like astrology in game design. Someone might assure you that their game turned out how they wanted because they wrote the combat section when the sun was rising in the House of Leo, and the Social Jujitsu rules when Jupiter was in the House of Orion... and they might well /believe/ it -- but you'd probably be dubious about following their approach. Same with GNS.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: RI2;466653I'm a game designer, and even publish a few. I've never given a shit about GNS. I much rather play and create games, then put them under the scholarly microscope, and that is what GNS always seemed to be for me.

Richard

Nothing beats real play IMO.

Quote from: -E.;466654A lot of people have credited GNS as providing design guidance for their games. I have no idea if the D&D 4e people do or not, but I'd recommend looking at any such claims skeptically:
-E.

More or less just my opinion (though I've also heard it from a number of other people hereabouts) - so feel free to dismiss this as 'tinfoil hat' speculation if you like ...Circumstantially, there's discussion of 'narrativist' techniques in about Martial Power 2 or thereabouts IIRC, and IMHO I'd say most modern game designers will have bumped into a reasonable amount of Forge discussion, but I can't prove anything definitively.  

Certainly around WOTC's boards now there's a certain amount of posthoc derision of older D&D's simulational aspects:  I do think it'd be difficult to design something like 4E without actively attempting to remove 'simulational' elements (in accordance with something like Ron's 'mixing the three types is bad' theory).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;466663More or less just my opinion (though I've also heard it from a number of other people hereabouts) - so feel free to dismiss this as 'tinfoil hat' speculation if you like.

Mike Mearls, the head of R&D for D&D, was a regular voice at the Forge. I don't think he ever officially drank the kool-aid, but he sure hung around in the punch-bowl a lot. The fact that D&D 4e seems a definitive "Gamist" game, it could just be Rob Heinsoo (the lead designer) was more in to boardgames then RPGs.

It's worth pointing out that the Forge consistently gives at least one piece of terrible advice due to GNS theory, which is to focus on a singular "creative agenda" - one of G, N or S - and create games that are "coherent", whereas any sort of empirical examination of the most popular and beloved games in all of roleplaying shows that they are "incoherent".

So what was the ultimate point of GNS theory (or at least it's Ron Edwards incarnation)? Originally I understood it simply as a broad classification of gamer types (guys who like to get immersive (simulationists); guys who dig systems (Gamists), and fellows who liked their games to have plots (Narrativists).

What I don't get is howsomething that's essentially a one page 80's gaming magazine article is elevated to the status of a "Theory". I mean, in as much as any "Types of Dates" article in Cosmo or Maxim is a "Theory".

What am I missing?

Quote from: -E.;466553To a large extent GNS is dead -- I'm including The Big Model here, as well -- since its creators have ceased to defend it and because its explicit link to concepts like "Some RPGs cause BRAIN DAMAGE" have been widely publicized.

That said, people with only a passing familiarity with it still make reference to it -- usually using the terms in an incorrect manner.

Most of the people who used to champion GNS have largely abandoned it because the whole Brain Damage thing was embarrassing and it eliminated the primary use of the theory: insulting majority gamers with a (somewhat) plausible claim that they weren't really being offensive.

1) GNS was never very good at categorizing players; its concepts were never sharp enough to really distinguish one play style from another
2) GNS was never well-defined enough to be useful for designing games.

GNS / TBM theory was founded on the precept that the majority of gaming was horribly dysfunctional and the theory was the secret to fun gaming. They believed that, ultimately, traditional-model games would be surpassed in popularity by (in their view, much more fun and effective) indie games.

At this point, I think it's clear that that's not the case. The traditional model is alive and well, and remains uncontestedly dominant. Alternative models retain a niche standing for people who like that sort of thing, and the world continues to turn.

My advice is that when someone uses GNS terminology, it's best not to assume anything and just ask them, "what do you mean by that?" -- you usually get a coherent answer.

Cheers,
-E.

all truth. especially the part about the primary use of the theory.

Quote from: TristramEvans;466676So what was the ultimate point of GNS theory (or at least it's Ron Edwards incarnation)? Originally I understood it simply as a broad classification of gamer types (guys who like to get immersive (simulationists); guys who dig systems (Gamists), and fellows who liked their games to have plots (Narrativists).

What I don't get is howsomething that's essentially a one page 80's gaming magazine article is elevated to the status of a "Theory". I mean, in as much as any "Types of Dates" article in Cosmo or Maxim is a "Theory".

What am I missing?

-e covered it pretty well. a *lot* of people used the theory and its pseudo-intellectual jargon as a means to criticize games or play styles that they did not like, while promoting their own chosen play styles or games as superior. it was really just "fuck you" dressed up with big words.

Quote from: ICFTI;466688-e covered it pretty well. a *lot* of people used the theory and its pseudo-intellectual jargon as a means to criticize games or play styles that they did not like, while promoting their own chosen play styles or games as superior. it was really just "fuck you" dressed up with big words.

So then what was that about when Ron closed the Forge and gave that weird Victory "speech"/essay? I thought the "Big Model" had something to do with the design of a couple games by "forgites" like Dogs in the Vineyard?

Quote from: ICFTI;466688-e covered it pretty well. a *lot* of people used the theory and its pseudo-intellectual jargon as a means to criticize games or play styles that they did not like, while promoting their own chosen play styles or games as superior. it was really just "fuck you" dressed up with big words.

Ideally it would have been intended as a way to understand gaming styles so that game designers could better play to the crowd, but it ended up being a navel gazing hate fest alright.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;466667It's worth pointing out that the Forge consistently gives at least one piece of terrible advice due to GNS theory, which is to focus on a singular "creative agenda" - one of G, N or S - and create games that are "coherent", whereas any sort of empirical examination of the most popular and beloved games in all of roleplaying shows that they are "incoherent".

This. The realities of what sells and how people really play dont seem to match the theory. Most big games have broad, not narrow appeal.

Quote from: TristramEvans;466676So what was the ultimate point of GNS theory (or at least it's Ron Edwards incarnation)? Originally I understood it simply as a broad classification of gamer types (guys who like to get immersive (simulationists); guys who dig systems (Gamists), and fellows who liked their games to have plots (Narrativists).

What I don't get is howsomething that's essentially a one page 80's gaming magazine article is elevated to the status of a "Theory". I mean, in as much as any "Types of Dates" article in Cosmo or Maxim is a "Theory".

What am I missing?

1) Your description of what the three letters mean is how they're commonly interpreted, but not exactly what the theory says. I only mention this to underscore how unintuitive the theory really is -- the terminology actually confuses things significantly, since caring about plot can be either a Nar or Sim thing, immersion isn't really covered, etc.

2) The main purpose of the theory was to criticize / insult traditional games and traditional gamers and to advocate highly-focused alternative games. It was also used to blame games for the dysfunction suffered by some people.

I will summarize (and necessarily omit some nuance and detail):

The theory postulates that fun-in-gaming comes from one (and only one) of three (and only three) creative agendas -- G/N/S.

What exactly these means changed over the life of the theory. They were, at one point, codified in three essays, but subsequently the author deprecated the Sim essay (said it was no longer valid)... and the whole thing really fell apart. I'd guess this was a major reason the theory discussion was closed (the theory became untenable)

The theory then said that to be fun, a game should focus on a single agenda, rather than trying to satisfy multiple agendas (games without a clear agenda were called "incoherent").

Incoherent games were said to cause "on-going power struggle" amongst the players and -- in at least one case -- Brain Damage.

Basically the theory is advocating limited-scope games with highly-specialized mechanics.

GNS kinda-sorta claimed you could use it to diagnose play-problems (the solution it proposed was to play games so narrow that disagreements couldn't occur) or to design games (although it offered only the vaguest and most basic / obvious advice on how to do this).

In practice, Narrative gaming and highly-focused Nar games were considered more sophisticated / deep / mature / etc. while popular games were called incoherent, considered puerile, and in the case of Vampire... actually /damaging/.

A lot of people who had social problems with their gaming group blamed the games.

People who wanted to believe that their games / gaming was superior used the theory's bizarre and poorly articulated language to say insulting things about popular games and then claim that anyone taking offense was simply misinformed ("Calling a game Incoherent isn't an insult!") or -- better yet -- "projecting" in some pop-psychology sense.

In most cases the people advocating the theory didn't actually understand any better than detractors did.

I think the theory fails the most-basic reality test: games which support broad play-styles are by far the most popular. The game called Brain Damaging and Incoherent (Vampire) is hugely popular compared to the supposedly superior alternative models.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: TristramEvans;466706So then what was that about when Ron closed the Forge and gave that weird Victory "speech"/essay? I thought the "Big Model" had something to do with the design of a couple games by "forgites" like Dogs in the Vineyard?

It's impossible to be sure what he meant. I think he stopped talking about the theory because

1) The Brain Damage thing meant no one wanted to be associated with it anymore -- it became kind of laughable and embarrassing, and it was no longer useful for insulting people with a veneer of plausible deniability. With the implications of the theory articulated clearly, for once, the cat was out of the bag, so to speak.

2) His best attempt at codifying it (the essays) failed even in his own view, and continuing to use or defend became increasingly untenable

As to games designed "by the theory" -- I think there are some people in the indie game scene who think deeply about games and what makes them work, but drawing lines from any games to the published theory is incredibly subjective. To the extent that a particular designer credits TBM with guiding his design process, you can make your own decision, but as I said above, I'd recommend skepticism.

Cheers,
-E.

Tristram -

Quote from: TristramEvans;466676So what was the ultimate point of GNS theory (or at least it's Ron Edwards incarnation)? Originally I understood it simply as a broad classification of gamer types (guys who like to get immersive (simulationists); guys who dig systems (Gamists), and fellows who liked their games to have plots (Narrativists).

What I don't get is howsomething that's essentially a one page 80's gaming magazine article is elevated to the status of a "Theory". I mean, in as much as any "Types of Dates" article in Cosmo or Maxim is a "Theory".

What am I missing?

Like E said, but more emphatically, this is not at all what Ron Edwards' GNS Theory says.  What you say is much closer to rgfa's Threefold Model, although it does not claim to classify people into those three categories - only games in play.  

Early on (circa 1999), Ron had adopted the Threefold Model but made the further claim that it was a problem if an RPG system tried to satisfy more than one of the three modes.  However, by the time he wrote "GNS Theory" - his version of the three modes was quite different from the rgfa Threefold.  Narrativism is not about liking games to have plots - indeed, most liking games to have plots is part of GNS Simulationism.  

Quote from: TristramEvans;466706So then what was that about when Ron closed the Forge and gave that weird Victory "speech"/essay? I thought the "Big Model" had something to do with the design of a couple games by "forgites" like Dogs in the Vineyard?

Ron did not close down the Forge.  It is still an active forum.  What he did was close down the GNS and RPG Theory sub-forums, and claim that discussion of those topics should be part of the "Actual Play" subforum.  

As far as I can tell, the Big Model was not particularly a response to particular game designs like Dogs in the Vineyard.  He did adopt a suggestion of DitV author Vincent Baker's into the model (as "The Lumpley Principle"), but in general the posts and essays make no reference to recent games.

Its not a thing, it never really was; but now, all but the most absolutely fanatical devotees have utterly surrendered even the attempt to defend it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;466712This. The realities of what sells and how people really play dont seem to match the theory. Most big games have broad, not narrow appeal.

I think that is true from a games sales point of view. And being able to accommodate a wide range of players is also a key skill for a GM, especially if you play at clubs or Cons.

However if you cast you mind back at your own most satisfying gaming experience as a player, I suspect it probably be one of those game session in which all the players around the table subscribed to the same "creative agenda"

Quote from: RI2;466653I'm a game designer, and even publish a few. I've never given a shit about GNS. I much rather play and create games, then put them under the scholarly microscope, and that is what GNS always seemed to be for me.

Richard

+1 from D101 Games :)

I'm much more interested in looking at games that work in a fun interesting way, and taking best practice from them than GNS theory.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;466712This. The realities of what sells and how people really play dont seem to match the theory. Most big games have broad, not narrow appeal.

I doubt GNS is about creating bestsellers, it is about creating good games. Most of the time good things are outsold by inferior crap.

Quote from: Soylent Green;466866I think that is true from a games sales point of view. And being able to accommodate a wide range of players is also a key skill for a GM, especially if you play at clubs or Cons.

However if you cast you mind back at your own most satisfying gaming experience as a player, I suspect it probably be one of those game session in which all the players around the table subscribed to the same "creative agenda"

In my case my most satisfying gaming experience involved a pretty goid mix of players with varied agendas. Personally i like to see different styled and different agendas at the table. The job of a good gm is to find an approach that keeps everyone engaged.

Quote from: Soylent Green;466866I think that is true from a games sales point of view. And being able to accommodate a wide range of players is also a key skill for a GM, especially if you play at clubs or Cons.

However if you cast you mind back at your own most satisfying gaming experience as a player, I suspect it probably be one of those game session in which all the players around the table subscribed to the same "creative agenda"

If you mean the game is fun when everyone's on the same page... and working together toward a common goal, well yeah.

That's true of any team activity. For me, the most powerful and satisfying gaming experiences have come when I'm highly immersed, and I feel a sense of deep emotional and intellectual attachment to what's happening in the game -- I'm /fascinated/ by the in-game action and experiencing it to such a degree that if it's thrilling, I'm thrilled... if it's suspenseful or tense, I feel anxiety, etc.

That happens best, when everyone's going through the same thing.

... but when you use the jargon term "creative agenda," you lose me.

Those words -- in GNS / TBM theory don't have arbitrary meanings; they define three, and only three agendas... which are, themselves, poorly defined but one thing we can be sure of is that they don't focus on immersion.

The words have all kinds of implications about the kind of games I've played -- those most-fun games? Broad, CA-less games that the theory says are "incoherent." Those absolutely riveting, remember-it-forever-experiences? Neither Nar nor Sim... some... combination of the two? Maybe?

It all falls apart.

And if I look at *campaigns* that were awesome, I see dramatic shifts -- some sessions focused on tactical battles, some on story-without-force, some on exploration or celebration, or whatever Sim is this week... Far from having a narrow focus, over time, they're all over the map.

So, while I can agree with what is maybe the *spirit* of your assertion, when I try to fit the term Creative Agenda into my experience, I can't get there.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;466873I doubt GNS is about creating bestsellers, it is about creating good games. Most of the time good things are outsold by inferior crap.

That's why I mentioned people loving incoherent games, not just purchasing them. Even within the Forge community, the more "incoherent" a game, the more people seem to like it. DitV and Burning Wheel excite and interest people far more than the Shab Al-Hiri Roach or other Forge microgames do.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;466878That's why I mentioned people loving incoherent games, not just purchasing them. Even within the Forge community, the more "incoherent" a game, the more people seem to like it. DitV and Burning Wheel excite and interest people far more than the Shab Al-Hiri Roach or other Forge microgames do.

I agree with you, I just wanted to note that number of sales is a particularly poor way to judge quality. I am a Burning Wheel fan myself.

Quote from: RPGPundit;466862Its not a thing, it never really was; but now, all but the most absolutely fanatical devotees have utterly surrendered even the attempt to defend it.

RPGPundit

Some of those sad refugees have been lapping up on the shores of EN World lately.

Quote from: Newt;466872+1 from D101 Games :)

I'm much more interested in looking at games that work in a fun interesting way, and taking best practice from them than GNS theory.

I have always felt that those who were the strongest proponents of GNS, actually either do not play, or play so infrequently, that they forgot that this is games. For me, the trend that took place a few years ago to apply a more scholarly approach to game design, is an example of people not playing regularly enough.

Richard

Quote from: -E.;466877If you mean the game is fun when everyone's on the same page... and working together toward a common goal, well yeah.

That's true of any team activity. For me, the most powerful and satisfying gaming experiences have come when I'm highly immersed, and I feel a sense of deep emotional and intellectual attachment to what's happening in the game -- I'm /fascinated/ by the in-game action and experiencing it to such a degree that if it's thrilling, I'm thrilled... if it's suspenseful or tense, I feel anxiety, etc.

That happens best, when everyone's going through the same thing.

... but when you use the jargon term "creative agenda," you lose me.

Those words -- in GNS / TBM theory don't have arbitrary meanings; they define three, and only three agendas... which are, themselves, poorly defined but one thing we can be sure of is that they don't focus on immersion.

The words have all kinds of implications about the kind of games I've played -- those most-fun games? Broad, CA-less games that the theory says are "incoherent." Those absolutely riveting, remember-it-forever-experiences? Neither Nar nor Sim... some... combination of the two? Maybe?

It all falls apart.

And if I look at *campaigns* that were awesome, I see dramatic shifts -- some sessions focused on tactical battles, some on story-without-force, some on exploration or celebration, or whatever Sim is this week... Far from having a narrow focus, over time, they're all over the map.

So, while I can agree with what is maybe the *spirit* of your assertion, when I try to fit the term Creative Agenda into my experience, I can't get there.

Cheers,
-E.

Fair point. I was only (mis)using term in a broad sense of "being on the same page".

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;466878That's why I mentioned people loving incoherent games, not just purchasing them. Even within the Forge community, the more "incoherent" a game, the more people seem to like it. DitV and Burning Wheel excite and interest people far more than the Shab Al-Hiri Roach or other Forge microgames do.

I didn't know incoherent was a scale.  That's not my reading of it, at all.  Especially considering Edwards has some contempt for the more automated "story-games."

Also gratz to theRPGsite for being the first site in a long while to bring up GNS.  For wanting it to stay buried, you folks bring it up a helluva lot.

Quote from: Peregrin;466972Also gratz to theRPGsite for being the first site in a long while to bring up GNS.  For wanting it to stay buried, you folks bring it up a helluva lot.

For someone with close on 2000 posts, i think we can dispense with the "you folks" can't we?

Quote from: One Horse Town;466974For someone with close on 2000 posts, i think we can dispense with the "you folks" can't we?

I guess you're right.

More aimed at the people who have a grudge against the forge. I just figured this would be the last place id see a gns specific thread pop up, especially after the whole "forge winter phase" announcement.

Quote from: Peregrin;466985More aimed at the people who have a grudge against the forge. I just figured this would be the last place id see a gns specific thread pop up, especially after the whole "forge winter phase" announcement.

Wrong!

Old battles are fun. They're nostalgic.

Much like a liking for od&d, Starsky & Hutch and lard sandwiches.

Quote from: Peregrin;466972I didn't know incoherent was a scale.  That's not my reading of it, at all.  Especially considering Edwards has some contempt for the more automated "story-games."

That's nice and everything, but coherence is certainly something which a game can have more or less of. It's not a binary. That Edwards doesn't like extremely coherent games is just his unwillingness to follow the consequences of his own theories to their logical end.

I don't see dogs or bw as incoherent by Edwards standards, basically.

I certainly wouldn't have started a thread on this subject, as I said, its a dead issue for certain.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Peregrin;467019I don't see dogs or bw as incoherent by Edwards standards, basically.

Where do you see BW in Edward's model?

Quote from: DominikSchwager;467054Where do you see BW in Edward's model?

Ssss!!!

Quote from: pawsplay;466603It's like Ron designed the salt, pepper, garlic theory of game design, and he won't admit that there's salt in just about everything (including chocolate chip cookies) and he was never able to explain what the paprika as doing, to say nothing of the onion (when he wasn't calling it drifted garlic).

And he insisted on referring to any salt that had iodine in it as "garlic". Just for kicks.

And although the model he started with was actually talking how people decide which food on their plate to taste next, he decided to modify it so that it was also attempting to classify meal-planning, cookbooks, and the organization of your refrigerator.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;466667It's worth pointing out that the Forge consistently gives at least one piece of terrible advice due to GNS theory, which is to focus on a singular "creative agenda" - one of G, N or S - and create games that are "coherent", whereas any sort of empirical examination of the most popular and beloved games in all of roleplaying shows that they are "incoherent".

Specifically successful because they're versatile tools which can be employed to satisfy a wide palette of tastes. Not just in the market, but at any specific table.

This is one of the reasons why I find the Threefold useful, because it was entirely about understanding discrete decision-making. It allowed for multiple influences on single decision points, and also allowed any given game experience to be made up of decision points coming from and addressing many different tastes. It's a tool I can use to make Suzi and Bob happy at the same gaming table.

GNS, OTOH, is about telling either Suzi and/or Bob to take a hike and find a different game.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;467054Where do you see BW in Edward's model?

Anywhere you want to put it. Or nowhere, if you'd prefer. Ron Edwards' theories are incoherent (real world meaning, not Ron Edwards double-talk), meaning that trying to get consistent answers out of them is a waste of effort. Since all the GNS definitions are long rambling essays that say opposite, or at least incompatible, things about all kinds of stuff.

The entire point is the Ron Edwards' tirades parse down to contradictions. They are so long because he's trying to make it an all inclusive model, so he has to encompass what are essentially opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately once you do that, you no longer have a thesis statement, a consistent worldview, or even definitions for your words.

Words like Narratavism only make any sense, only convey any meaning when you take them away from Ron Edwards' pseudo-intellectual bullshit terminology and return them to the natural English that people assume the theory is talking about before they read into his actual works and get disappointed. That's the entire point of discussions involving the terms today. Any time anyone is attempting to use the terminology of Ron Edwards it is for using it without Ron Edwards' actual definitions. And for that purpose, Narratavism is the portion of the game dedicated to storytelling. And yes, it's not particularly desirable to separate Narratavist elements from Gamist or Simulationist elements except in extremely obscure magical teaparty circumstances (see Munchhausen).

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;467246*snip*

I'm sorry. I didn't realise your name was Peregrin. I specifically asked him because he said it wasn't incoherent as he sees it.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;466509I frequently find the Threefold useful. GNS, on the other hand, is basically worthless (particularly in comparison to its progenitor). Unfortunately, GNS has so thoroughly poisoned the well when it comes to the terms "gamist" and "simulationist" that it's difficult to have a meaningful public discussion using the Threefold.

Wow. Someone that f'n gets it.

This here folks. Seriously. I used to have a sig that said this I dealt with so many impressionable young gets who didn't know what I meant when I talked about simulationism.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;467054Where do you see BW in Edward's model?

Despite the fact that I play "story-games" and don't really care for a divide between them and "regular" RPGs, if I had to use this site's generalized opinion, Burning Wheel sits firmly in the story-game camp because the core engine of the game is extremely Narrativist by Big Model standards.  Play in BW is solely centered around players making beliefs, and then having those beliefs challenged through play to make a statement of some kind.  Everything else in the system, while it may give the game the facade of being more "traditional" than other Nar games because of certain aesthetics about it (equipment lists, lifepath chargen, detailed combat, skill lists), ties in with the core of the system and serves to push play forward towards testing and resolving beliefs.  Everything in the game has to take place within that context or it all falls apart, and in my brief foray into the system, I think that's where a lot of people can't get it to work for them -- they're assuming it's "like" a trad RPG because of all the minutiae and familiar bits, but it does not gel at all if you try to push the game away from the core structure of the Nar skeleton that it all hinges on.

So yes, you could play bits and pieces of BW with Gamist or Simulationist priorities, but when you take a look at the long-term play that Burning Wheel is designed for -- the type of play that allows you to sort it out into one of the agendas, the only type of play Burning Wheel functionally supports as a primary creative goal is Narrativism, mostly because of how all of those game and sim bits interlock with the core system.

Anyway, that's all I really have to say on BW and GNS/The Big Model.  I was on a kick for a while where it really helped me sort out some thinking I had done about games prior to actually bothering to read or post on online RPG fora, but I've been trying to move away from it towards more generalized game design concepts that are more universally and practically applicable.  TBM offers an interesting lens to look through, and has produced some conceptually neat stuff, but I don't like the idea of resting on one's laurels or limiting design to a single model -- I think multiple models and approaches help to diversify and expand our understanding, whereas relying on a single model has the tendency to create a very narrow FOV.

Quote from: PeregrinBurning Wheel sits firmly in the story-game camp because the core engine of the game is extremely Narrativist by Big Model standards.

Narrativist means even less than the other terms in the big model.

Selected hilarity from the "actual" Ron Edwards definition of Narratavism:

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThere cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s).

Quote from: Landon DarkwoodIn Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless of the genre or setting used.

Quote from: Ron Edwards, in response to the above"In a word," I replied, "Yes."

Quote from: Ron Edwards(1) the actions of the players (2) teach the players something

Since the whole point of Narrativist play is apparently that you don't have anything coherent and can contradict yourself at will, I guess you could classify anything as Narrativist.

-Frank

*sigh*

I didn't mean story-game in any Forge or Edwards sense of the word, I was using it to distinguish it based on the criteria set forth on this site.  You can easily take out the first half of my sentence and the rest of the post still stands.

What Ron's talking about in regards to "the story" is something different.

*edit*

Regardless, if you really dislike GNS that much, just strip out all of the jargon, and just keep the core concept of "Play is focused on addressing and resolving character Beliefs, and the system does not function properly if you attempt to redirect play away from that."  That's it.  Dom asked me to sort it into a hat, and so I entertained that notion and did working within the context of TBM, using my own judgment based on my reading of the game text and actual play experience I've had with the system.  Doesn't mean I have to agree with anyone about the overall usability of the model, it was just an intellectual exercise I was asked to do.

Quote from: Peregrin;467346*snip*

Thank you. That was insightful and I am inclined to agree.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;466873I doubt GNS is about creating bestsellers, it is about creating good games.

So...you consider "successful" and "quality" to be mutually exclusive?

Quote from: DominikSchwager;466873Most of the time good things are outsold by inferior crap.

Ah, so you're some kind of hipster then!  Enjoy being a special snowflake, brosieve.  One day, someone just might love you enough to let you realize that being special for special's sake is just...pathetic.

Hey, I can do that, too!

QuoteSo...you consider "successful" and "quality" to be mutually exclusive?

So you consider the pursuit of profit and the quality of a product to be intrinsically tied?  :D

Although, I think Dom meant something slightly different.  More like, Twilight and Transformers outselling other movies is something we can expect regardless of their competitor's quality.  I also doubt that when Eminem made the comment that "most" mainstream hip-hop and rap sucks, he was doing so to fill up his hipster-cred account.

Comon' now, peoples.  We can use the thread for geek-sniping eachother, or, you know, let it die (you can imagine it dying in a fire if that makes it any better for you).  Unless someone actually has something profound to say regarding GNS still being a "thing"...which it's not.

Quote from: Peregrin;467479So you consider the pursuit of profit and the quality of a product to be intrinsically tied?  :D

Before I got snippy, I was actually asking a question.  I felt he answered himself.  I offered no opinion, but for the record, I don't believe quality can be completely objective.

GNS, since I should say something productive, is an interesting theory which was conceived and "codified" by technical people unused to qualitative theory.  The same goes with Threefold and Big Model.  One of the biggest issues I had with the Forge, and with really anyone who wants to come up with e decent theory of RPG design, is that they are confusing scientific phenomenology with philosophical/psychological phenomenology.  When you get a bunch of folks used to evaluating things quantitatively, they tend to look at theory as a quantitative pursuit.  Even Edwards himself is a scientist, not a literary analyst...he doesn't even have formal training in qualitative phenomenology!  I feel that he is the rule, not the exception, given that most gamers are from scientific background.

I don't think a qualitative approach is not possible when it comes to game theory, but roleplaying is unique in that there are both qualitative and quantitative elements.  The quantitative can be handled with statistical games theory, while the qualitative cannot reasonably be assessed by either literary theory or phenomenology.  

I'm not sure what educational background would be best applied to RPG theory, I know it's not mine, I'm a historian.  While I'm very comfortable and experienced with qualitative data, I've never applied it to anything current.

QuoteGNS, since I should say something productive, is an interesting theory which was conceived and "codified" by technical people unused to qualitative theory. The same goes with Threefold and Big Model. One of the biggest issues I had with the Forge, and with really anyone who wants to come up with e decent theory of RPG design, is that they are confusing scientific phenomenology with philosophical/psychological phenomenology

Which is funny, because despite Edwards' background, the discussions on the Forge regarding actual-play map better to broader general game design than anything else I've read.  Not all of it, mind you, but some of the insights in those discussions aren't nearly as controversial in general game-theory, and are almost spot-on regarding actual academic discussions into play-theory when it comes to games.

Really, though, GNS, along with broader game-design theory focused on actual play, is more concerned with the social and psychological aspects of gaming.  It's not going to give you direct insight into actually designing a game -- number theory and the quantitative stuff is something else entirely.  If anyone approaches GNS or TBM thinking it's going to instantly help them "design" a better game, they're sorely mistaken.  The only thing it's good for, like a lot of game theory, is analyzing how play functions so that you can then work on making your design better suit its purpose and provide more satisfying play.

IMO, the notion that RPGs are special-snowflakes with regards to how people interact when gaming/playing something and thus exempt from any game-theory is more of a problem (and potentially damaging to the hobby in the long-run) than crazy folk like Edwards attempting to model it.  For whatever reason, some people see "theory" and they think that people are trying to cram RPGs in with zero-sum game design, when that's not what modern game theory is about.  It's much more broad now, and much more focused on actual-play than number-theory.

Anyway, a really good book that I've started to read is called Rules of Play (Salen and Zimmerman, MIT Press).  While it only briefly mentions D&D/TTRPGs (because historically, a lot of RPGs are not games by their definition -- something that got some tabletop theorists in trouble for claiming), the rest of the book is an interesting take on the theory of play.

*edit*

Also, IIRC, I don't think Edwards is mistakenly confusing scientific/psychologic/philosophic -- I think he takes the stance that the sciences are a subset of the liberal arts.  Which is another topic unto itself.

Quote from: Peregrin;467479Although, I think Dom meant something slightly different.  More like, Twilight and Transformers outselling other movies is something we can expect regardless of their competitor's quality.  I also doubt that when Eminem made the comment that "most" mainstream hip-hop and rap sucks, he was doing so to fill up his hipster-cred account.

That is indeed and obviously what I aimed at, but on this forum people are usually too busy sniping each other to read someone else's post with even an ounce of good will. Case in point. Some random fellow tried to play the "you are a hipster"-card.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;467484That is indeed and obviously what I aimed at, but on this forum people are usually too busy sniping each other to read someone else's post with even an ounce of good will. Case in point. Some random fellow tried to play the "you are a hipster"-card.

I'm not some random guy, I have a name you know.  Also, I was being a dick.  I didn't try to play the hipster card, I was just calling it like I see it.  Matters of taste are not universal, or else Michael Bay's films would never exist.  I just don't like it when people say things like "Most of the time good things are outsold by inferior crap," since it sounds like someone desperately trying to be cool.  I'm not putting motivations on you, I'm just letting you know why I got snippy.

I also asked you a serious question before the snark...you know, because I read the entire post.

I've read Rules of Play.  I don't think it's very useful to RPGs, no one has come up with something useful for RPGs.  TBM and GNS are of limited utility, because RPGs are some kind of special snowflake in the gaming sense.  So far, the only decent analyses of computer based RPGs that relate to Tabletop are those articles related to free-form "sandbox"
style games.  

I happen to agree with Salen and Zimmerman's old view (Rules of Play is showing its age). Tabletop RPGs are usually not games in any kind of gameplay theory...because we don't yet have a cohesive vocabulary.  Perhaps some young rhetorician or literary analyst will write the definitive book on the subject and we can stop having discussions about half-baked, mostly useless "theory."

Quote from: joewolz;467478So...you consider "successful" and "quality" to be mutually exclusive?

Sorry, I just ignored you because, like you yourself said, you were being a dick.

I don't consider successful and quality mutually exclusive, but I do recognize that in pop culture successful and quality definitely are not one and the same thing. Quite the opposite indeed.
Look at our own hobby. D&D and pathfinder outsell everything and yet for my money they represent everything that is wrong with the hobby (well they and the people who have way more games than they play, but that is a different rant alltogether).

Quote from: DominikSchwager;467537Sorry, I just ignored you because, like you yourself said, you were being a dick.

I don't consider successful and quality mutually exclusive, but I do recognize that in pop culture successful and quality definitely are not one and the same thing. Quite the opposite indeed.
Look at our own hobby. D&D and pathfinder outsell everything and yet for my money they represent everything that is wrong with the hobby (well they and the people who have way more games than they play, but that is a different rant alltogether).

Everything that is wrong with the hobby? So if I enjoy playing Pathfinder, my games are wrong for the hobby?

Quote from: pawsplay;467539Everything that is wrong with the hobby? So if I enjoy playing Pathfinder, my games are wrong for the hobby?

If your games have supplement treadmills, overly complicated rules that achieve nothing simpler rules can't and a way too high entry cost, then yes. If you were talking about your individual campaign, then you either accidentally or intentionally misread what I was writing.

Quote from: joewolz;467517I happen to agree with Salen and Zimmerman's old view (Rules of Play is showing its age). Tabletop RPGs are usually not games in any kind of gameplay theory...because we don't yet have a cohesive vocabulary.  Perhaps some young rhetorician or literary analyst will write the definitive book on the subject and we can stop having discussions about half-baked, mostly useless "theory."

They haven't taken into account newer RPGs that actually have clear agendas baked into them.  

What I mean is, yes, OD&D, Traveller, and all of those are not games out of the box.  They're 'special snowflakes' because they are not games, they're toolboxes, like the Unreal Engine 3.0 is a toolbox.  It's a legacy thing from the hobbyist days of yore, when it assumed you'd have enough "gaming" experience to create your own procedures for play to overlay on top of the task resolution mechanics.  You'd have to create the game out of the toolkit.  The problem is that not everyone was used to the hobbyist approach (especially with the influx of non-war/hobby gamers), and not everyone was interested in creating their own game, and either gave up after getting bored or stumbling around with "incoherent" play.  The Forge recognized this problem and began to create games with clear play structures/goals rather than assuming the end-user would have to create their own game.

So no, it's not useful if you're trying to make a toolkit.  It's absolutely useful if you're trying to design a game.

As for the theory being useless, it's objectively improved my play, and gels with my first-hand observations, so that's all I have to go on.  I really don't think game-theory needs rigorous academic regimens to be considered useful.  This isn't rocket-science, nor is it cognitive science.  They're games.

(Also, what newer works do you recommend of RoP is showing it's age?  Most game-design texts date back older than that.)

Quote from: Peregrin;467551What I mean is, yes, OD&D, Traveller, and all of those are not games out of the box.  

You have just rendered your theory useless. A theory of RPGs that claim D&D is not a role-playing game fails.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;467543If your games have supplement treadmills, overly complicated rules that achieve nothing simpler rules can't and a way too high entry cost, then yes. If you were talking about your individual campaign, then you either accidentally or intentionally misread what I was writing.

I don't feel like I'm on a "treadmill," I don't think the rules are intrinsically overly complicted (particularly compared to stuff like Spirit of the Century) and the entry cost is $20. I am sure you have valid reasons for feeling as you do, but your view of the facts does not align with mine.

Quote from: Peregrin;467551As for the theory being useless, it's objectively improved my play, and gels with my first-hand observations, so that's all I have to go on.  

That's part of the issue, the lack of real evidence.  No one has real evidence, just anecdotes.

Quote from: Peregrin;467551I really don't think game-theory needs rigorous academic regimens to be considered useful.  This isn't rocket-science, nor is it cognitive science.  They're games.

We disagree on that.  I do think it needs rigorous academic study in order to be a real theory.  Most importantly, it needs not be evaluated by a science at all:  it's a whole lot closer to improvisational acting or the analysis of interpersonal communication.  The fact that folks trying to be (or really are) scientists, attempting to evaluate something that is most likely way outside their normal purview is a recipe for the kind of disaster we've seen in the online community.  Until we see some kind of decent analysis backed up with some evidence (qualitative as it must be) then just about everything written on game theory is just so much bullshitting amongst amateurs.

On a related note, science tends to define theory by whoever "wins" in publishing first, while folks in the humanities tend to have a longer, more protracted dialog on the subject.

Quote from: Peregrin;467551(Also, what newer works do you recommend of RoP is showing it's age?  Most game-design texts date back older than that.)

I'll get you some articles when I get home, all the text books are out of date.

Quote from: pawsplay;467577You have just rendered your theory useless. A theory of RPGs that claim D&D is not a role-playing game fails.

*facepalming, hardcore*

I said OD&D, not D&D.  Frex, I think Basic D&D and Tunnels & Trolls do a pretty good job of laying out what you're supposed to do during play, and don't muddle up the text with lots of bits that don't mesh well with the rest of the rules.  Games like 4e are even more clear about how procedures are supposed to work, and what play encompasses.

Also, you'll note I said "out of the box", referring to the rules text.  That says nothing about whether or not someone molds it into a game on their own.  You can make a game using the Unreal Engine, but that doesn't mean the Unreal Engine itself is a game.  Basically, a task-resolution system != a game.

I mean, you do realize Gygax once said the same thing about OD&D that I just did, right?

Quote from: joewolzThat's part of the issue, the lack of real evidence. No one has real evidence, just anecdotes.

Can there ever be any hard evidence in a hobby that generally concerns itself with fictional events that we envision in our head?  I mean, prettymuch all of our experiences are subjective, and you've got multiple layers of subjectivity.  Not to mention that this hobby in particular has a shitton of baggage and is extremely insular.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;466667It's worth pointing out that the Forge consistently gives at least one piece of terrible advice due to GNS theory, which is to focus on a singular "creative agenda" - one of G, N or S - and create games that are "coherent", whereas any sort of empirical examination of the most popular and beloved games in all of roleplaying shows that they are "incoherent".

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;466878That's why I mentioned people loving incoherent games, not just purchasing them. Even within the Forge community, the more "incoherent" a game, the more people seem to like it. DitV and Burning Wheel excite and interest people far more than the Shab Al-Hiri Roach or other Forge microgames do.

Yup.

Quote from: Peregrin;467607*facepalming, hardcore*

I said OD&D, not D&D.  

You're claiming the first RPG is not an RPG. Seriously.

Quote from: Peregrin;467607*facepalming, hardcore*

I said OD&D, not D&D.

OD&D and Traveller are not role playing games because they don't have a focus out of the box?

Riiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

Leaving the "toolboxes are not RPGs" nonsense alone for a moment, how do you call "The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures", the concept of exploration of the dungeon and unexplored territories? It's not a focus for the game, I presume?

Quote from: Benoist;467614OD&D and Traveller are not role playing games because they don't have a focus out of the box?

Riiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

Leaving the "toolboxes are not RPGs" nonsense alone for a moment, how do you call "The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures", the concept of exploration of the dungeon and unexplored territories? It's not a focus for the game, I presume?

"That's all well and good in practice, but how does it work in theory?"

Quote from: pawsplay;467613You're claiming the first RPG is not an RPG. Seriously.

I'm claiming that the word "game", while it may describe what happens at the table, was not was what was contained in the booklets.  A game was not presented in the text, even if what was going on at Gygax' table was a game.  A toolkit was written, which was then used by GMs to create games.  Sorta like legos.

Quote from: BenoistLeaving the "toolboxes are not RPGs" nonsense alone for a moment, how do you call "The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures", the concept of exploration of the dungeon and unexplored territories? It's not a focus for the game, I presume?

It's an attempt.  OD&D's faults lie more with never actually describing the procedures of play (hence AD&D and Basic as attempts to rectify this).

*edit*

Anyway, I should've cut out a page ago when I said I would after answering Dom's question.  Suffice it to say my gaming has improved because of certain insights surrounding game-theory.  Maybe it hasn't for you, and maybe you don't need it.  Good on you.  As long as you're having fun, I don't care.  I'm not going to force you to put cream in your coffee if you take it black.

An "attempt"? "Rectify"?

And mate, please, spare me the "you're having fun so it's awesome" justification. I know you're not a douchebag. I know.

I'm not trying to change your way of gaming either, just to be clear.

When you are getting WAY into nonsense territory like this, however, just for the sake of defending the game theory you think brought you some great insights, you deserve to be called out. And that's some nonsense, let me tell you.

Quote from: Peregrin;467617I'm claiming that the word "game", while it may describe what happens at the table, was not was what was contained in the booklets.  A game was not presented in the text, even if what was going on at Gygax' table was a game.  A toolkit was written, which was then used by GMs to create games.  Sorta like legos.

So OD&D was a roleplaying "game" and Dogs in the Vinyard is a role-playing GAME. I get you.

That's crazy. Sorry!

Quote from: Benoist;467619When you are getting WAY into nonsense territory like this, however, just for the sake of defending the game theory you think brought you some great insights, you deserve to be called out. And that's some nonsense, let me tell you.

I don't know what to tell you.  I don't think it's nonsense.

Quote from: pawsplaySo OD&D was a roleplaying "game" and Dogs in the Vinyard is a role-playing GAME. I get you.

Textually, yes.  But OD&D can be played as a game at the table, it just requires some foreknowledge and implementation of procedures by the GM, not all of which are made clear by the text, some even going unmentioned.  Which is why you ended up with a bajillion different versions of OD&D being played all over the country, why you ended up with Tunnels & Trolls and Runequest, and why TSR finally decided to create AD&D to "standardize" play.

Remember, we're talking about the game it took Tim Kask two weeks of solid reading to "figure out", even with the advantage of having played it.

Quote from: Peregrin;467623Textually, yes.  But OD&D can be played as a game at the table, it just requires some foreknowledge and implementation of procedures by the GM, not all of which are made clear by the text, some even going unmentioned.  Which is why you ended up with a bajillion different versions of OD&D being played all over the country, why you ended up with Tunnels & Trolls and Runequest, and why TSR finally decided to create AD&D to "standardize" play.

Remember, we're talking about the game it took Tim Kask two weeks of solid reading to "figure out", even with the advantage of having played it.

What I see is that the context is different, that OD&D was basically created with a specific audience in mind, 1970s miniature wargamers with a specific knowledge of the Chainmail rules, which in itself implies that the referee takes charge of the game and treats the rules as the base from which to rule fairly, rather than the entirety of the game confined within the boundaries of the text and box.

This is, by the way, a trait that role playing games share with wargames precisely because of this historical connection, that a TRPG is not, ever, a finished product right out of the box. That it is not a guide on how to use a toaster or the sum of all possible rules one plays by. Nor should it ever be.

The D&D audience evolved. The game itself saw an evolution via its supplements. AD&D represented the compilation of all the scattered material in a single corpus of rules with expensions, suggestions, etc. which in fact created a specific, different, game experience IMO, "Gygax's expended D&D game" as it were. In parallel, Holmes was basically restating the basics of the game for the changing audience of the game, including children who had never seen or played a wargame, let alone Chainmail, in their lives.

As for OD&D being played in a zillion different ways all over the country, some would actually call it a feature that was a lucky first strike for role playing games and jump started the entire hobby, instead of some sort of conceptual flaw according to some PhD in Bat Penises.

It's all a question of context.

There are bits and pieces of truth in what you say (the needs to standardize what D&D was and wasn't, to define the game through the AD&D corpus of rules for TSR, I believe), but you're taking this in a direction that is really puzzling.

Quote from: Peregrin;467607Can there ever be any hard evidence in a hobby that generally concerns itself with fictional events that we envision in our head?  I mean, prettymuch all of our experiences are subjective, and you've got multiple layers of subjectivity.  Not to mention that this hobby in particular has a shitton of baggage and is extremely insular.

There's hard evidence in psychology (without using brain scans and whatnot), someone just has to crack the nut.  I'm used to dealing with evidence from dead people, so I don't know how to gather this kind of data...but I know it can be done.

QuoteAs for OD&D being played in a zillion different ways all over the country, some would actually call it a feature that was a lucky first strike for role playing games and jump started the entire hobby, instead of some sort of conceptual flaw according to some PhD in Bat Penises.

It's all a question of context.

I don't think Edwards would disagree about that being a lucky strike, I think his concern was mostly with the way those bajillion other methods for play got shoved out of the way by the juggernaut of AD&D and "mainstream" games that attempted to standardize gaming paradigms.  A lot of the stuff the Forge does isn't really all that new or groundbreaking, it's just that it was lost when diversity was tossed under the rug when the hobby moved towards big-name companies with standardized rulesets and "official" supplements rather than focusing on hobbyist efforts.

Anyway, my saying that OD&D isn't a "game" isn't meant to down it, or other systems, at all, it's just a neutral statement.  I think that OD&D, as the "non-game" Gygax once called it, is in some ways far more powerful than any of the games that came out for decades after, simply because it was an idea they had, distilled down to its essence because of economical constraints, and then unleashed onto an unsuspecting hobbyist market.  Giving people that idea and saying "use this", with the expectation that they'd be running organic home-campaigns, IMO leads to more interesting things than handing someone a set of hardback books and saying "learn this".  

The problem comes about when you're trying to sell this thing to people who don't know what to do with it (or it's just ending up in their hands), and these people are approaching it with the expectation that you can run the game out of the book without layering your own procedures of play on top of it.

Guys with a wargaming background, or who really engage with the text?  No problem.  They're able to fill in the gaps within the spirit of the rules and run great games.  People who are more casual about it, or who aren't already gamers?  Not so much.  Hello Tracy Hickman and the horrible GM as Storyteller trend that would taint the hobby for years to come.  If the spirit of the rules had been more clearly communicated in a way regular folk could understand --discussions of actual play and social/table issues -- rather than the minutiae, perhaps it could've been avoided.

Quote from: joewolzThere's hard evidence in psychology (without using brain scans and whatnot), someone just has to crack the nut. I'm used to dealing with evidence from dead people, so I don't know how to gather this kind of data...but I know it can be done.

I can see behavioral psych being used because of its practical applications, but last time I saw it brought up, TTRPGers got all up in arms about it because they feel it oversimplifies things compared to cognitive stuff.

Quote from: Peregrin;467617It's an attempt.  OD&D's faults lie more with never actually describing the procedures of play (hence AD&D and Basic as attempts to rectify this).

... have you ever actually read the OD&D rulebooks?

They arguably do a better job of laying out a specific procedure of play than any edition of D&D since 1991 has achieved.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;467644... have you ever actually read the OD&D rulebooks?

They arguably do a better job of laying out a specific procedure of play than any edition of D&D since 1991 has achieved.

I've read them, yeah, but I did so with the experience I've already had with RPGs.  Like I said upthread, it took Tim Kask two weeks to figure out the game even after playing once or twice under an experienced DM and communicating with Gygax directly.  The procedure is there if you know how to muddle through the text, ans is arguably more visible because there's less cruft around it, but it was made much clearer in Basic.  Even then, it still requires a fair bit of dissecting for the non-gamer, especially when compared with something like the '79 edition of T&T.

Discussing post-1e/Basic D&D and its identity crisis would require another thread, though.

To be honest, the discussion around GNS has had some value in articulating certain techniques and concepts that I hadn't completely worked out on my own, or seen fully developed elsewhere. E.g., I think some of the discussions and essays helped clarify for me the interest of the moral dimension of player-character decisions, as opposed to purely tactical or instrumental decisions.

But the main theoretical innovation of GNS was the idea of coherence under the three categories. Most everything else was cribbed from elsewhere, while coherence in play and coherence in design was new--and pretty much rubbish as a general theory.

Quote from: Peregrin;467633I think that OD&D, as the "non-game" Gygax once called it,

I am always in awe seeing how many Gygax preachers manage to conveniently forget the many contradictory things the guy said.

QuoteGiving people that idea and saying "use this", with the expectation that they'd be running organic home-campaigns, IMO leads to more interesting things than handing someone a set of hardback books and saying "learn this".

I had the same feeling with RQ3.

Quote from: Imperator;467660I am always in awe seeing how many Gygax preachers manage to conveniently forget the many contradictory things the guy said.

I didn't invoke Gygax because of the infallibility of his word, I invoked him to reiterate the fact that these ideas are not new and you don't have to be crazy to think them.  Obviously his own opinion changed quite a bit, but the notion of OD&D not being a full-fledged "game" didn't come from nowhere or Crazytown.

Quote from: Peregrin;467663I didn't invoke Gygax because of the infallibility of his word, I invoked him to reiterate the fact that these ideas are not new and you don't have to be crazy to think them.  Obviously his own opinion changed quite a bit, but the notion of OD&D not being a full-fledged "game" didn't come from nowhere or Crazytown.

Sorry for not being clear. I was not talking about you, but pointing the fact that every Gygax evangelist I've seen always ignores something the old man said that clashes frontally with his ideology of the day.

Quote from: Peregrin;467663I didn't invoke Gygax because of the infallibility of his word, I invoked him to reiterate the fact that these ideas are not new and you don't have to be crazy to think them.  Obviously his own opinion changed quite a bit, but the notion of OD&D not being a full-fledged "game" didn't come from nowhere or Crazytown.

Gygax was trying to articulate ways in which RPGs are different from traditional board games.

You are trying to articulate how D&D isn't an RPG.

Quote from: Peregrin;467663I didn't invoke Gygax because of the infallibility of his word, I invoked him to reiterate the fact that these ideas are not new and you don't have to be crazy to think them.  Obviously his own opinion changed quite a bit, but the notion of OD&D not being a full-fledged "game" didn't come from nowhere or Crazytown.

I think gygax's point wasn't that d&d was less than a regular game, but that it was more. The reason i play rpgs and not Sorry is because rpgs are full of so many more possibilities. I think some rpgs can be more focused than others (and if you like more focus that is great-i run sessions like that once in a while) but my experience is most people are attracted to the broadnesd of the game. It is great that you have a game which can focus on tactics, exploration, investigation, role play etc sometimes all in the same session. I dont consider such a game incoherent. For me that is a pretty rich game.

Quote from: pawsplay;467740Gygax was trying to articulate ways in which RPGs are different from traditional board games.

You are trying to articulate how D&D isn't an RPG.

How one specific version of the text is not a game by one specific standardized definition, not that it's not an "RPG" in the historical context of the term.  I'm saying that applying the term "game" to a toolkit can be misleading in some contexts and cause problems for people expecting it to be a complete set of instructions on how to play.

In otherwords, I'm saying exactly what Gygax is saying, except I don't extend the definition of game as broadly as he does.

Holy Christ, dude.

Quote from: BedrockBrendanI think gygax's point wasn't that d&d was less than a regular game, but that it was more. The reason i play rpgs and not Sorry is because rpgs are full of so many more possibilities. I think some rpgs can be more focused than others (and if you like more focus that is great-i run sessions like that once in a while) but my experience is most people are attracted to the broadnesd of the game. It is great that you have a game which can focus on tactics, exploration, investigation, role play etc sometimes all in the same session. I dont consider such a game incoherent. For me that is a pretty rich game.

That was not Gygax' point at all.  And not my point.  You can do all of those things in a "focused" game, too.  I consider Basic D&D to be a relatively focused game.  Maybe someone missed the part where I said that.

This is why I wanted to bow out of the discussion, because without everyone having read (or being familiar with) the content of the Forge discussions, let alone the previous threads on this very site, the discussion itself becomes "incoherent."

I have read their essays. But i think fundamentally what they are talking about is focus and they choose to recognize three categories of focus. I would argue it goes well beyond those three. That you could just as easily focus on rp, immersion, investigation, etc. It is all where you put the lense and how useful that lens is. For me, the forge lens just isnt that useful for my games. One thing to keep in mind, just because people dont adopt edward's vocabulary and just because they insist on using edward's terms as they are commonly used rather than as he would have us use them doesn't mean people are ignorant of his arguments.

If edward's essays are useful in your games i say stick with it. Where i think people are getting irked is you are using a very particular definition of game and doing so to make the point that people who play differently than you aren't playing games at all. Personally it doesn't bother me that you like this stuff.

QuoteIf edward's essays are useful in your games i say stick with it. Where i think people are getting irked is you are using a very particular definition of game and doing so to make the point that people who play differently than you aren't playing games at all.

Please re-read what I wrote, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Quote from: Peregrin;467753Please re-read what I wrote, that's not what I'm saying at all.

If you want to clarify your position, please feel free. It is possible i am misinterpreting your position (and it is an 11 page thread).But re-reading your statement you seem to be saying what i suggest. My impression is you are saying rpgs that aren't focused on a particular goal arent real games.

If you're willing, and I'm sorry if this comes across as thick, but what does Basic have that OD&D doesn't. I know you mean that OD&D lacks a described procedure of play, but where and what is the procedure of play in Basic which OD&D lacks? Is it simply a matter of play examples? A sample dungeon in the DMG? What, exactly? Maybe examples will help clear up the confusion.

I know one of the difficulties my 12-year old brain had when I read the Basic set--and I know I'm not the only one--was figuring out what exactly you were supposed to do with it. I had the Metzner set and the first encounter in the sample dungeon lists a variety of tactics the players might try. I had no idea that you weren't supposed to read those options aloud to the players, like a Choose Your Own Adventure. A friend of mine had the Holmes set, and he and his brother played the dungeon like a board game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;467755If you want to clarify your position, please feel free. It is possible i am misinterpreting your position (and it is an 11 page thread).But re-reading your statement you seem to be saying what i suggest. My impression is you are saying rpgs that aren't focused on a particular goal arent real games.

I'm saying that providing a toolkit, a resolution mechanic, or something similar, is not providing a finished game to the player.  I'm saying that people then take those tools and craft a game of their own out of it, which they then play at the table.  I'm not saying that people playing Original D&D or Basic Roleplaying aren't playing a game, I'm saying they've adapted the rules and created their own context for play which then becomes a game, either via in-game or out-of-game goals for play.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, especially in light of the fact that this was originally a hobby.  And much like other hobbies, we don't always get our stuff pre-assembled.  Some among us prefer to craft our own models or trains or whatever out of the tools that hobby companies provide us.  This makes the barrier for entrance harder on newbies, but it can also be more rewarding for the people who want to have a more personalized and organic experience.

Does that clear up my position at all?

Quote from: two_fishes;467758If you're willing, and I'm sorry if this comes across as thick, but what does Basic have that OD&D doesn't. I know you mean that OD&D lacks a described procedure of play, but where and what is the procedure of play in Basic which OD&D lacks? Is it simply a matter of play examples? A sample dungeon in the DMG? What, exactly? Maybe examples will help clear up the confusion.

Examples of play.  Much clearer instruction in general.  Some discussion of table-issues and running a campaign (at least in the Cyclopedia).  

It's still not as clear as Tunnels & Trolls in terms of discussing actual play, but it's a fair bit better than OD&D.

I see what you are saying now though i don't share your conclusion.

Quote from: Peregrin;467759I'm saying that providing a toolkit, a resolution mechanic, or something similar, is not providing a finished game to the player.  I'm saying that people then take those tools and craft a game of their own out of it, which they then play at the table.

How is that any different from, say, Monopoly? You don't buy a game, you buy a box with a board and some tokens and some rules, and you try to make some sense of it. And not everyone ends up playing it the same way.

It's true, I can't buy "chess." I can buy a chess set. I don't see that Dogs in the Vinyard is any more of a game than OD&D is. It's a toolkit for playing DitV type games.

Now, now. D&D really is a quite different game from DitV. DitV is only good for one narrow thing, where the setting is just a backdrop for, at most, a short run of moral-experiment-of-the-week. D&D can go anywhere from dungeon-of-the-week to a setting that takes on a life of its own. Peregrin's story-games-circa-2006-ish delineation of how trad games differ from highly-focused Forge games is meaningful--it just happens to be coming from the wrong side of the fence. :p

Quote from: pawsplay;467773How is that any different from, say, Monopoly? You don't buy a game, you buy a box with a board and some tokens and some rules, and you try to make some sense of it. And not everyone ends up playing it the same way.

It's true, I can't buy "chess." I can buy a chess set. I don't see that Dogs in the Vinyard is any more of a game than OD&D is. It's a toolkit for playing DitV type games.

It seems almost as if you're being intentionally thick, and taking offense where no offense is intended. Monopoly comes with very clear instructions concerning how the game is played, what the goals of the players are, and how all the pieces interact. DitV comes with very clear instructions on what the players' goals are, how they're expected to interact with each other, what the GM is supposed to do, etc. Basic D&D also comes with these sorts of instructions. These sorts of "how to play" instructions are what separates "games" from "toolkits" in a technical sense. OD&D (according to Peregrin--I haven't read it) is such a toolkit. It doesn't explain what the goals of the players are, or how they're intended to interact with each other. It just has the play-pieces. Players bring their own methods of play to OD&D, either they make them up or they import them in from a prior play-tradition. It's the difference, say, between a deck of cards and the game of Poker.

Quote from: two_fishes;467776OD&D (according to Peregrin--I haven't read it) is such a toolkit. It doesn't explain what the goals of the players are, or how they're intended to interact with each other. It just has the play-pieces. Players bring their own methods of play to OD&D, either they make them up or they import them in from a prior play-tradition.

That is just flat-out wrong. OD&D does describe what the game is about, how you're supposed to go about exploring dungeons and build them, then goes on explaining what happens when you try to detect a door, or walk within X miles from a keep in the wilderness, etc. It's actually one of the most complete and clearest versions of the D&D game in this regard. It does assume the reader is part of a certain audience (familiar with Chainmail and miniatures wargaming) with the logical approach that goes with it, however.

It's a difference in context.

Like I said, I haven't read it, so I can't vouch either way. Pawsplay seemed to be butting his head against the simple principles that Peregrin had been saying and getting his hackles up over it.

I know, Mark.

The whole DITV vs. OD&D thing strikes me as a bit silly. I think any issues with how its expressed would be pretty much due to it being the first of its kind.

I'm somewhat curious as to what theories the forge generates to defend how heavily focussed its designs are? To me the whole Rejection of Simulationism seems to be an abandonment on the part of its designers to attempt to create rules-heavy systems because this is beyond them.

Many new RPG systems have, perhaps, one good idea: its traditional for most - the ones Edwards' labelled 'heartbreakers' - to integrate this one new idea into a matrix of systems modelled after existing systems, if the designers couldn't think of anything else revolutionary.
By contrast, for example, DiTV is one possibly good idea - the social conflict mechanics which are essentially made into the only rule the game has - with the scope of the game narrowed until it becomes defensible that its the only mechanic.  

Its sort of like if the only rule for D&D was "You can reroll a failed Diplomacy check with a +4 violence bonus, but if you fail your target automatically gets to punch you in the face", with everything else removed on the pretext that the game is about exploring how badly the Diplomacy rules don't work.

Micro designs were (and still are in some indie circles, to an extent) a trend.  They're not mandated by theory.  You see "micro" variations of a medium in a lot of other indie markets, because the barrier for entry is lower, and micro-designs/art/whatever are easier to produce.  People have been making micro-RPGs focused on specific things for years now, it's just that the whole indie-movement thing brought focus on them, so a few peeps decided to cash in on it.

Second, they're not the "Forge's" games as if they're all in the same ideological club.  Otherwise the diaspora wouldn't have happened.  They argue just as much as we do, just about different shit.

Quote from: two_fishes;467776It seems almost as if you're being intentionally thick, and taking offense where no offense is intended.

I was not offended. Perhaps you are taking offense where none is intended. I think it's reasonable to ask Peregrin to justify a very peculier definition.

QuoteMonopoly comes with very clear instructions concerning how the game is played, what the goals of the players are, and how all the pieces interact.

Are you allowed to collude with other players? How do you decide who gets to play which piece? Is there such a thing as so-and-so's token? These are contentious rules issues which have come up before when I have played Monopoly.

QuoteDitV comes with very clear instructions on what the players' goals are, how they're expected to interact with each other, what the GM is supposed to do, etc.

Does it come with enough pre-made adventures to last a lifetime?

Swine 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.

The opposite of that design (you know, the one that actually sells) is to make a micro-game, as insipidly tiny in scope as you can manage.

RPGPundit

Quote from: pawsplay;467854Are you allowed to collude with other players? How do you decide who gets to play which piece? Is there such a thing as so-and-so's token? These are contentious rules issues which have come up before when I have played Monopoly.

Interesting read in context :

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

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.