From the Oxford Dictionary - Craft - 2 [sing]all the skills needed for a particular activity.

From the Oxford Dictionary -Theory -1 a formal set of ideas that is intended to explain why sth happens or exist.

Okay, the above is a very basic definition of both craft and theory. Now this is not about the validity of either concepts...okay it could turn out to be, but my interest is more in what other players find useful.

With regards to theory, i admit that my knowledge of the subject is pretty limited. This is not to say i find the subject uninteresting or even impractical, but rather i have found much more use for discussions on craft for my games.

Mind you, i have friends who are heavy into the theory discussions, and this is reflected in the homebrew systems they create and run. Their games are interesting and informative - being someone who does not really dig the whole rules part of gaming, it is interesting to see the use of certain philosophies reflected in the rules they create. Although for the life of me i could not really describe what the philosophy behind the rules were, only that we had a lot of fun playing them.

As for craft, i'm thinking about actual advice for running games. Techniques and such. An example of this would be the advice Robin Laws has written about in articles and in his blog.

I gravitate more towards the craft aspect because..well i see more of an impact it has on the games I run. Which again, is not a slight against theory...if i was more hip to the rules aspects of rpgs and was interested in designing systems, i'm sure theory would be very helpful(I assume)

So what aspects do nutkins gravitate towards? Please feel free to redine terms and such. Like i said, my knowledge on theory is extremely limited, and as for craft, i have only my experience as a GM and articles from writers who probably have had more experience or talent to rely on.

Also i do realize that theory and craft should probably not be discussed together...but like i said, i am curious.

Regards,
David R.

Theory without craft is hollow and useless.

You have to get out there and hit the heavy-bag or else what you think about gaming really means nothing.

Hitting the heavy-bag means gaming, playing games, running games and having fun doing so.  Fun (but then, so is hitting an actual heavy bag).

I couldn't get into Robin Laws' stuff and GNS Theory in isolation leaves me pretty cold but theory, tools in my toolboxes that have made my gaming more enjoyable, that have made my craft more...crafty, I can't say, "no," to that.

i vote for craft; its far more important to have a good GM and good players who are actually roleplaying, rather than just dungeoncrawling.  A really good system with a really well written setting, plot, etc is great, right up until you put it into the hands of a GM who doesnt know is Craft.  thats a sure way to ruin any game, regardless how good its theory is.

conversely, i am a very analytical thinker, so i find myself getting caught up in the little details a lot of the time, especially as a player.  In that respect its nice for me to see a system/setting that makes sense, otherwise i get distracted pretty easliy trying to debate hazy rules explanations and such.

Quote from: Harry JoyWhile not a presented option, I vote knowledge.
 
hth

Could you please elaborate on this. Not sure what you mean by knowledge. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
David R.

I like the place where they meet, though I've been spending more time overall in craft-type-stuff lately.

Craft for me. You can have knowledge about all the theories in the world, but bugger if you can't put them to use.

On the other hand, it is possible to learn craftsmanship without getting to know the ideas behind it, relying on experience and intuition.

Perfect would be a combination of the two, but choose one, I'm gonna choose craft.

A time and a place for all things under the sun as it were.

In addition to running games, I design games. Somewhere in all that you have to have both theory and craft.

But GNS <> rational theory.

Quote from: Zombie Hunter Wozi vote for craft; its far more important to have a good GM and good players who are actually roleplaying, rather than just dungeoncrawling.

HAY GUYS ROLEPLAYING NOT ROLLPLAYING AM I RIGHT HAUGHALAUGHALUAGH

:brood:

Seriously, though: Craft. You need craft to have a good game. The only thing theory is good for, based on what I've seen, is to give chronic overanalyzers that aren't having good games (or aren't actually playing RPGs at all) something arcane and repetitive to pour their spare time into online. Try World of Warcraft, guys. It's prettier.

Next phase, new wave, dance craze, anyways, it's still rock and roll to me.

You can talk all you want about theory, craft, or whatever. But in the end, it's still just new ways of looking at people playing make-believe and having a good time with their friends. Intellectualize or analyze all you want, but we've been playing the same game since we were 2 years old. We just have shinier books, spend more money, and use bigger words now.

Quote from: Name LipsNext phase, new wave, dance craze, anyways, it's still rock and roll to me.

You can talk all you want about theory, craft, or whatever. But in the end, it's still just new ways of looking at people playing make-believe and having a good time with their friends. Intellectualize or analyze all you want, but we've been playing the same game since we were 2 years old. We just have shinier books, spend more money, and use bigger words now.

Quoted for truth.

Anybody quoting Billy Joel can't be all that wrong.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI like the place where they meet, though I've been spending more time overall in craft-type-stuff lately.

I extremely interested in "the place where they meet", could you give me a couple of examples? I can't seem to articulate it myself.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Technicolor DreamcoatAnybody quoting Billy Joel can't be all that wrong.

I have been saying that for the longest time.

Would is be safe to say that there would be no d20 without at least some theoretical musings? Surely someone must have thought that making a unified system could make things better in order for the designers to leave their, I'm sure, perfectly adequate games of AD&D and start tinkering with new mechanics.

I would also think that a game tester without an at least somewhat theoretical bent would be fairly useless, as he would just run his game and be done with it, rather than comming with sugestions on improving game mechanics.

QuoteWould is be safe to say that there would be no d20 without at least some theoretical musings? Surely someone must have thought that making a unified system could make things better in order for the designers to leave their, I'm sure, perfectly adequate games of AD&D and start tinkering with new mechanics.

Yeah, this is an interesting point. I think i may have been a tad cavalier in my description of theory. Issues such as these do indeed crop up and i assume theory plays a part in resolving them. I am sure there are folks here who know more about the inner workings behind D20, how it came about and such.I reckon they are in a better position to answer this question.

QuoteI would also think that a game tester without an at least somewhat theoretical bent would be fairly useless, as he would just run his game and be done with it, rather than comming with sugestions on improving game mechanics.

I always thought that game testing was all about familiarity with the system in question. I assume experience with the system is really what counts. I mean there are people out there testing games who do not really know much about game theory but they know a hell of a lot about the system they are testing. I am off course talking about testing of new editions of a game. As for original systems...i guess theory may play a part, but i suspect it has more to do with the question of, do the testers like the rules? do the testers think that the rules will appeal to the general gaming public?...stuff on those lines.

Regards,
David R.