...is that every minute you spend theorizing is a minute you didn't spend coming up with cool adventures and scenarios for your players to run through.

That is all.

I don't get it.

People who care about "theory" are people who are just trying to get at a better gaming experience for themselves, their players and anyone out there who might be wrestling with the same issues or problems.

In that way, considering such things is as productive as coming up with cool adventures, etc. . . and in some cases more so, because all the adventures, etc in the world aren't going to fix it if you and your group have varying expectations about the game to be played.


That being said, I am not much of a theorist beyond the following:

Role-playing games are a social experience. If the social dynamic is not working the game won't work, doesn't matter what the game is.

Quote from: el-remmenI don't get it.

People who care about "theory" are people who are just trying to get at a better gaming experience for themselves, their players and anyone out there who might be wrestling with the same issues or problems.

In that way, considering such things is as productive as coming up with cool adventures, etc. . . and in some cases more so, because all the adventures, etc in the world aren't going to fix it if you and your group have varying expectations about the game to be played.


That being said, I am not much of a theorist beyond the following:

Role-playing games are a social experience. If the social dynamic is not working the game won't work, doesn't matter what the game is.

So you should spend the vast majority of your game prep time theorizing instead of drawing maps, detailing NPCs, developing plot hooks, and writing encounters?

...or maybe not the vast majority? Maybe just 70% of the time theorizing?

...or maybe 40% of the time theorizing would be appropriate? It's kind of a shame that after years of running a campaign, you have to spend so many hours a week on it, but if it's SO important it can't be neglected, I guess you have to get it done.

I guess if you don't spend a good chunk of your time theorizing, your games just won't be any fun.

Quote from: Name LipsSo you should spend the vast majority of your game prep time theorizing instead of drawing maps, detailing NPCs, developing plot hooks, and writing encounters?

...or maybe not the vast majority? Maybe just 70% of the time theorizing?

...or maybe 40% of the time theorizing would be appropriate? It's kind of a shame that after years of running a campaign, you have to spend so many hours a week on it, but if it's SO important it can't be neglected, I guess you have to get it done.

I guess if you don't spend a good chunk of your time theorizing, your games just won't be any fun.

I am at a loss for how you got this from what I posted.  

I'll put it more simply.  Sometimes it is more productive to take some time before you do your prep to give some consideration to what you and your players want from the game, what is fun for them and agree on some terms so you all know what it is you're talking about when discussing these items - or else all that prep may be for naught.  

Heck, you might just figure out the kind of gaming you all like does not need all that much prep at all.

Quote from: el-remmenI am at a loss for how you got this from what I posted.  

That's because I'm trolling to make a point, and I'm trying to make a square peg (you) fit into a round hole (my point).

QuoteI'll put it more simply.  Sometimes it is more productive to take some time before you do your prep to give some consideration to what you and your players want from the game, what is fun for them and agree on some terms so you all know what it is you're talking about when discussing these items - or else all that prep may be for naught.  

Heck, you might just figure out the kind of gaming you all like does not need all that much prep at all.

What I'm getting at is that there seem to be an abundance of people who are spending hours upon hours discussing theory online.

They could be brainstorming campaigns. They could be posting stat blocks of NPCs. They could be scanning maps. They could be writing a story hour.

But they're not. They're literally spending hours debating and defining minute points of theory. This isn't in preparation for this weeks session. It doesn't seem to directly apply to anything they're actually doing.

Why is that? Why spend so much time and effort theorizing about the concept of gaming, and so little time putting their theories into practice?

Quote from: Name Lips...is that every minute you spend theorizing is a minute you didn't spend coming up with cool adventures and scenarios for your players to run through.

That is all.

I'd change theorizing to participating in pointless flame wars and the latter half with ways to make your games cooler.

So:

Internet forums...is that every minute you spend participating in pointless flame wars is a minute you didn't spend coming up with ways to make your games cooler.

That is all.

And I'd like to point out this thread.

I say bring on the cool.  Show the cool at your table lately, anything.

One response.

I'm just saying.

That is all.

Greetings!

Hmmm...maybe I'm just not really getting it. For those here who know me, I *think* I've talked about all kinds of gaming theory over the years; campaign styles, encounter design, world-building, assumptions, and so on--and yet, when I read such threads by some other people specifically labeled as *Theory* and so on, I want to scream WTF!!!!?

It seems like a totally different kind of conversation, obsessed with obscure trivia. Am I just not getting it or what?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Name LipsThey could be posting stat blocks of NPCs.

thinking of which...

1 day left and i've yet to see that entry you said you'd make.

You could be spending your time making that, instead of bitching about theory... :heh:

Quote from: Thjalfithinking of which...

1 day left and i've yet to see that entry you said you'd make.

You could be spending your time making that, instead of bitching about theory... :heh:

Hrumph.

But I'm busy being the grumpy old poster bitching at people.

Quote from: Name LipsHrumph.

But I'm busy being the grumpy old poster bitching at people.

really? because I thought you were slacking off at work like normal. :heh:

Quote from: Thjalfireally? because I thought you were slacking off at work like normal. :heh:

YOU INSTALLED A CAMERA IN MY OFFICE DIDN'T YOU?

I'm working. Really I am. :mad:

I'm just reading and posting on two messageboards at the same time as I'm working. I bet you can't do that. So THERE!

Quote from: Name Lips...is that every minute you spend theorizing is a minute you didn't spend coming up with cool adventures and scenarios for your players to run through.

That is all.

A lot of people make the distinction between "theory" and "craft."

In grade school, we would run games where players made all kinds of characters and then the GM would sort of randomly do stuff to them (the GM's game-idea) and, as often as not, the nature of the PC's wasn't that important to the plot of the game.

For example: you, whoever you are, are all kidnapped by aliens and taken to a hostile new world.

In high school we came to the conclusion that who our guys were should matter more--so we hit on a new method: we would still have the big GM-scenario but between those each person would get a 2hr "mini-scenario" that would feature (sometimes solo) their character doing whatever their character normally did.

This refinement made character creation much more interesting and resulted in some *really* cool, gaming--even if a lot of it was 1-on-1.

By the time we were in college, however, we had refined this even more. We realized that it was often preferable (for time reasons if no other) that the PCs had more cohesion--and we also saw that it was cool if who the PC *was* was more closely relevant to the big-plot (whatever it was).

So we added a further element of refinement to our process where the GM would throw out an idea, we would make characters together and inter-relate them, and then the GM would further refine the plot around those PCs (and by plot, I don't mean "railroaded adventure"--I really hate that the word 'plot' has been degraded by RPG Theory discussions).

This series of refinements and the reasons behind them and the effects of them is very much part of anything that could be called RPG Theory.

These are the same techniques that'll keep your Riddle of Steel players happy if they don't like Spiritual Attributes pulling the party in multiple directions. It's the sort of thing that'll prevent Sorcerer characters from never meeting each other (if that's an issue for you--it is for me).

And so on. It's theory--but it applies directly to a better gaming experience. If someone had shown me this approach in grade school--and the dynamic around it (and there are some noted changes in the gaming experience when we do this--for example, individual character plots less often involve only one character)--I would've been very grateful for it.

-Marco

I talk about theory instead of writing stat blocks because one is more interesting than the other.

I would play right now if I had the opportunity.

I don't always feel like prepping for my game.

Then again, theorizing about gaming bores me.

Verdict:  To hell with it, I'm playing Oblivion.

-O

Quote from: Name Lips...is that every minute you spend theorizing is a minute you didn't spend coming up with cool adventures and scenarios for your players to run through.

That is all.

*Shrug*

I'm a landlord.  I have at *least* a good four hours a day sitting in my office, looking for the next appointment, answering calls, and such.

And sitting at my computer.  

Over the last two years, that's translated into me writing a bunch of games that you can download for free, and talking to a lot of people about a lot of stuff that interests me.

My games don't suffer a lack of prep, either.