Either one, without the other, is incomplete.
 
You can navel gaze all day.  If you don't do something with your wisdom, you've still got nothing.
 
On the other hand, if you have no idea why you're doing what you're doing, or what impact your actions have, then you'll never really get that good.

Quote from: David RAs 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.

All depends upon who you talk to or about.

Over on the Forge, there are those who claim they used the guilding light of the Big Model and GNS to create their games.

I myself have spoken to a lot of internet designers who created a range of games ranging from complete crap to actually very impressive work. And frankly none of them worked under anything close to a "theory" of design. The better of them had specific likes and dislikes in other game systems and moved towards correcting them in their own works.

Few rpg designers since the earlier days had actual experience designing any other type of game, and as a result they tend to suffer on that side of design. Modern game design is far more about the fluff favor text and 'gaming advice' then it is the hard nuts and bolts of game design.

Sadly this is true even of what would appear to be striking exceptions like modern production for HERO System.

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

If you look at the "dozen pieces of advice" I put up - that came from about as many arguments about how to apply theory to actual play.

Quote

Quote from: gleichmanAll depends upon who you talk to or about.

Over on the Forge, there are those who claim they used the guilding light of the Big Model and GNS to create their games.

Hey Gleichman, are you saying that there is no real concrete evidence that those at the Forge used the Big Model and GNS to create their games or are you saying that there could never be any tangible evidence to the claim that theory is used in game design.

QuoteI myself have spoken to a lot of internet designers who created a range of games ranging from complete crap to actually very impressive work. And frankly none of them worked under anything close to a "theory" of design. The better of them had specific likes and dislikes in other game systems and moved towards correcting them in their own works.

But couldn't something like what you describe be considered a kind of design philosophy? Maybe not a theory...but something akin to it.

QuoteFew rpg designers since the earlier days had actual experience designing any other type of game, and as a result they tend to suffer on that side of design. Modern game design is far more about the fluff favor text and 'gaming advice' then it is the hard nuts and bolts of game design.

Okay i'm a bit confused here. You write modern game design is about the fluff favor text and gaming advice then it is about the nuts and bolts....but(i may be mistaken because my theory knowledge is pretty basic) isn't what some theories try to do is translate elements found in movies and books into concrete rules. Or is this one minor aspect of theory. Like i said, my knowledge is pretty basic.

Regards,
David R.

It's a false dichotomy.

You absolutely need craft.  Theory is one type of craft, but it isn't total and, as Judd said, it doesn't stand alone.

Why do we needs engineers anyway? Can't we just, like, build the damn bridge?

I have always favored craft myself. Practical application of tested techniques suits me nicely. However theory is a necessity! Theory begets new techniques as the theories are tested and honed. Theory alone can be beautiful and elegant, but without practical application, it is also useless. Craft is immediately useful because it is all about practical application of techniques, both in testing and in broad use, but without the purely intellectual forays of the theoreticians, craft would become hidebound and ultra-conservative. Thus even though I strongly lean towards craft, I recognize the need for theory.

Thing is, right now theory is in its infancy. It's far too nebulous and at the same time too rigid. Example: Every popular theory - not just GNS - tries to shoehorn everything into three basic groupings. Why three? Because it's beautiful and symmetric, I suppose, but each has problem areas because of this. With GNS, the practice seems to be "if it's not Gam or Nar, it must be Sim." Because Sim is not rigorously defined, it has become a dumping ground, an everything else area, a place to put everything which doesn't fit.

Because there 'must' be three creative agendas, and Gam and Nar are well defined, Sim has become impossible to adequately define within the GNS theory. The theory thus breaks down and becomes useless with everything not Nar or Gam, just as Einsteinian physics breaks down and becomes useless at the quantum level. This doesn't invalidate what GNS has done for Gam and Nar gaming, just as the quantum break doesn't invalidate the Einsteinian universe on the macro scale. It just means GNS doesn't work for anything not Gam or Nar.

Whatever. I'm trading dangerously close to theory here myself - perhaps metatheory...

-mcie

Quote from: bondetampWhy do we needs engineers anyway? Can't we just, like, build the damn bridge?

And he says it better than I can in less words.

High Five!

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: David R

QuoteHey Gleichman, are you saying that there is no real concrete evidence that those at the Forge used the Big Model and GNS to create their games or are you saying that there could never be any tangible evidence to the claim that theory is used in game design.

I'm not attempting to say either. I was just noting that some have made the claim and I was passing that along.

Quote from: David R

QuoteBut couldn't something like what you describe be considered a kind of design philosophy? Maybe not a theory...but something akin to it.

Not as I understand theory. Theory must be formal and open to inspection. Gut feeling for "this is better than that", really isn't either.

Quote from: David R

QuoteOkay i'm a bit confused here. You write modern game design is about the fluff favor text and gaming advice then it is about the nuts and bolts....but(i may be mistaken because my theory knowledge is pretty basic) isn't what some theories try to do is translate elements found in movies and books into concrete rules. Or is this one minor aspect of theory. Like i said, my knowledge is pretty basic.

I would agree that RPG theory should produce some sort of impact on mechanics. I know that the little (and insignificant) works that I published online were geared in that direction.

But modern game design makes little use of theory. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that RPG design lacks formal theory with rare exception- the efforts of the Forge not withstanding.

QuoteI would agree that RPG theory should find some sort of on mechanics. I know that the little (and insignificant) works that I published online were geared in that direction.

Could you post a link to your work. It would be interesting to see what you have come up with. It would give me a better understanding of the kind of stuff you are interested in. And in discussions of rpgs - there is no such thing as insignificant. I like games period...some more than others off course.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: David RCould you post a link to your work. It would be interesting to see what you have come up with. It would give me a better understanding of the kind of stuff you are interested in. And in discussions of rpgs - there is no such thing as insignificant. I like games period...some more than others off course.

Regards,
David R.

Here you go. Suprised they haven't taken them down.

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/elements.html

QuoteWhatever. I'm trading dangerously close to theory here myself - perhaps metatheory...

It's okay. I always like reading what people post. Theory is a bit out of my league...but hey, it's there.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: gleichmanHere you go. Suprised they haven't taken them down.

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/elements.html

Whoa...okay glanced through some of your stuff. Real heavy reading. Going to read more...but man, I get where you coming from.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: David RWhoa...okay glanced through some of your stuff. Real heavy reading. Going to read more...but man, I get where you coming from.

Regards,
David R.

I tried to warn you.

Quote from: David RIt's okay. I always like reading what people post. Theory is a bit out of my league...but hey, it's there.

Regards,
David R.

Yep! Out of my league too. I try to keep abreast of it, but I couldn't possibly make any contributions. I'm not exactly an original thinker.

-mice