Take a look here for the very first installment of the Ron Edwards Interview marathon.

Just in case anybody wantrs to know:
Here you can find the next installments of the Ron Edwards interview.
http://hofrat.blogspot.com/2006/07/hail-hail-witch-is-dead.html

I was going to say, very interesting Settembrini.. I've seen the Part I so far, but I've yet to see you getting to any place where you really nail him on any of the countless things you could nail him on.

RPGPundit

Your methods are not mine, and I don´t think that either the forge or Ron Edwards are "the Enemy".
But, at least to me, the first hour definitely shows where Ron is coming from, and how and why he´s always searching for "story". And where my needs and experiences are totally different.

So for me personally it was a huge succeess, because I am now able to totally disregard thematic play as a different hobby, and do so intellectually validated. Still, I will try out DitV in the near future, just to give them thematics a fair fighting chance.

I´d be really interested on your opinion on his take on Superheroe comics and rolplaying.

Quote from: SettembriniYour methods are not mine, and I don´t think that either the forge or Ron Edwards are "the Enemy".
But, at least to me, the first hour definitely shows where Ron is coming from, and how and why he´s always searching for "story". And where my needs and experiences are totally different.

So for me personally it was a huge succeess, because I am now able to totally disregard thematic play as a different hobby, and do so intellectually validated. Still, I will try out DitV in the near future, just to give them thematics a fair fighting chance.

I´d be really interested on your opinion on his take on Superheroe comics and rolplaying.

ANy transcripts of this, or at least some highlights?  I have youtube issues.  At work it doesn't play any sound and at home I'm on dialup.

As for thematic play being a different hobby, isn't that the whole presumtion that GNS is built upon?  That disfunctional play comes about when the players have a different creative agenda.  Player one is looking to explore themes while player two is looking to have an interesting tactical engagement while player three wants to immerse himself in a fantasy.  

I've experienced this myself in a very direct way that made me think there might be something to all this theory stuff.  I recall a game that first featured a complex interaction, debate, and compromise in a council that our PCs were involved in, and then we had to go out and put a stop to a nearing arc horde.  During the first part, half of the group was excited and engaged having the time of their lives while the other half participated half-heartedly wondering when we were going to get to the good stuff.  THen when we fought the orcs the same thing happened, but with the sides changed.  It occured to me then that it wasn't the case of one being right or good or what have you, but that we were looking for different things in a game.

That was one of the big things that led me to start experimenting with how I gamed and has led me to some totally awesome gaming.

I totally not subscribe "CA"s
No, that´s not what I´m talking about. You had just a regular adventure game going, with different elements. Most players that are real entities love those different elements in the same game.

Thematic games are a totally different animal.
These are games, where you, as a player, have an issue of thematic interest. Like lost love or lying to loved ones. Players get their kicks out of dealing with those thematic things, mostly without any prepared scenario.

Don´t get me wrong, adventure games have a thematic dimension too. But they are part of the big: Exploration, Combat, Social, Wonder, Genre, Tactic, Strategy, Riddle, Challenge -Experience. Thematic games are totally centered on thematic issues. And that´s what I am not into, but Ron is.
Because Story and Theme are important to Ron, and to the 20 active intelligent posters on the forge, the whole theory is totally a theory of thematic-story game design. It´s not a theory on Adventure Roleplaying Games as we know them. And the moment I understood that, I could let the forge and the Big Model be as it wants to, as they have a totally different hobby.

@youtube: It´s a three hour interview, so I´m definitely not transcribing it. If anybody wants to, he has my blessing.

Quote from: SettembriniI totally not subscribe "CA"s
No, that´s not what I´m talking about. You had just a regular adventure game going, with different elements. Most players that are real entities love those different elements in the same game.

Thematic games are a totally different animal.
These are games, where you, as a player, have an issue of thematic interest. Like lost love or lying to loved ones. Players get their kicks out of dealing with those thematic things, mostly without any prepared scenario.

Don´t get me wrong, adventure games have a thematic dimension too. But they are part of the big: Exploration, Combat, Social, Wonder, Genre, Tactic, Strategy, Riddle, Challenge -Experience. Thematic games are totally centered on thematic issues. And that´s what I am not into, but Ron is.
Because Story and Theme are important to Ron, and to the 20 active intelligent posters on the forge, the whole theory is totally a theory of thematic-story game design. It´s not a theory on Adventure Roleplaying Games as we know them. And the moment I understood that, I could let the forge and the Big Model be as it wants to, as they have a totally different hobby.

@youtube: It´s a three hour interview, so I´m definitely not transcribing it. If anybody wants to, he has my blessing.

Well, I haven't exactly drank the kool-aid on GNS for many of the reasons you say.  While the definitions sound good, much of the discussion comes off like 'Well there's three agendas, Gamism which is what the powergaming munchkins play, Simulationism for the grognards with no imagination, and Narrativism which is what all the sexy and intelligent gamers play.'  I don't buy that.  I prefer Levi's "little model" myself, where he recasts them as focuses, and doesn't try to limit it to a set number.  More like "people look for different things in a game.  Some like this, some like that."

I wouldn't go as far to say it's a totally different hobby, but you're right if you don't get anything out of thematic play then what goes on at the Forge doesn't really affect you one way or the other.  I've adapted some thematic elements into my game, but haven't had them take over.  But then I'm running Buffy which is a little different - one could argue that thematic elements have gamist elements with the way the Drama Points work, and given that it was so frequently done in the series that it Sim as well.

I'll have to pull the interview up at a friend's house or something

Quote from: MaddmanWell, I haven't exactly drank the kool-aid on GNS for many of the reasons you say.  While the definitions sound good, much of the discussion comes off like 'Well there's three agendas, Gamism which is what the powergaming munchkins play, Simulationism for the grognards with no imagination, and Narrativism which is what all the sexy and intelligent gamers play.'  I don't buy that.  I prefer Levi's "little model" myself, where he recasts them as focuses, and doesn't try to limit it to a set number.  More like "people look for different things in a game.  Some like this, some like that."

I haven't read much on the board itself. The bits I did doesn't give me a very good vibe of Mr. Edwards at all.  "A lot of wind to say a little bit" is probably the best way to sum up my impression.

However in his defense from reading the Forge's actual essays and glossary I find that at it's core GNS is really talking about different focuses and mixtures of those focuses within a game.  It goes so far as to explicity give validity to gamism and simulation as a focus.  In practice what people do with GNS and it's terminology could be a different matter, falling back to elitism.

I think what the Forge does, it's real contribution, is identify and describe in words a number of pathological situations in games and gaming groups and some workable solutions to them. They weren't the first to do this of course.  But I think they do it roughly as well as any, and more comprehensively than most.

Quoteone could argue that thematic elements have gamist elements with the way the Drama Points work

I think this could be said about some of the other games that have come out there. Perhaps even moreso.  Burning Wheel is heavy crunch, with a system that codifies game play to a level beyond what D&D does in some ways.  It certainly doesn't have the namby-pamby text of rule 0 in it where the DM can abitrarily make up or the change rules on a whim as they see fit or, that authoritarian overtones that the DM PownZ everyone else at the table.

I think what happened with it was a meeting of story with tactical battle and rules. Even moreso with the Burning Empires, a sci-fi tragety opera whose rules are an evolution of Burning Wheel. I haven't played it yet, but reading through it has nearly a boardgame level of tactical gaming to it.  So much so that it is a lot like a GM side versus player side with a tennis match like scoring system to see who 'wins'.  But it is set up to generate a story that emulates the format of stories of the two Iron Empires graphic novels it is lisenced under.

More Ron Edwards goodness:
http://hofrat.blogspot.com/2006/08/with-thoughts-youll-be-thinkin-you.html