I'm going to be contrary (it's what I do) and come at this from another angle.

If you do game design -- even something as simple as creating a new feat or spell for D&D -- then you're going into the theoretical realm.  But there is more than way to theorize.

From what I have seen, the Forge theorizes in a way that reminds me of the social "sciences" -- lots of high-falutin' concepts, intentionally confusing terminology, and unfounded assumptions taken as proven theory.  (You might be able to tell I'm not a fan.   )

Another way to look at RPG theory, though, is more analogous to engineering.  3e uses this sort of approach with its emphasis on "game balance".  The design philosophy is to try to make the different options of the game equal in power -- something I feel it fails miserably at.

I take the engineering-stylez approach when I'm designing things, but my emphasis is on *fun*, rather than game balance.  Exalted is a completely unbalanced game.  A Solar Exalt will have better stats, better skills, and a lot more charms (powers) than a Dragonblooded Exalt -- not to mention that the Solar's charms are better!  But the game still works and is still fun.

So, I use a lot of theory, but I'd get in a knife fight with someone from the Forge.  I'm concerned about building a better die mechanic and making powers work smoothly, not with fucking "deep meaningfulness".

Quote from: CyberzombieFrom what I have seen, the Forge theorizes in a way that reminds me of the social "sciences" -- lots of high-falutin' concepts, intentionally confusing terminology, and unfounded assumptions taken as proven theory.  (You might be able to tell I'm not a fan.   )

Another way to look at RPG theory, though, is more analogous to engineering.  3e uses this sort of approach with its emphasis on "game balance".  The design philosophy is to try to make the different options of the game equal in power -- something I feel it fails miserably at.

Yes, I must agree with this split. I'm starting to like you Cyberzombie. You might consider that a bad thing...

I'm however uncertain that "game balance" was the primary driving philosphy (a much better word choice for this the theory btw) behind 3rd edition. I've always consider it likely that D&D was more driven by the philosphy of niche protection first and foremost.

I imagine one would have to ask Mr. Cook to get the real thoughts behind it. And if you or another have, please let me know.

Quote from: gleichmanYes, I must agree with this split. I'm starting to like you Cyberzombie. You might consider that a bad thing...

:heh: You may consider it a bad thing, too, when you get to know me better.

Quote from: gleichmanI'm however uncertain that "game balance" was the primary driving philosphy (a much better word choice for this the theory btw) behind 3rd edition. I've always consider it likely that D&D was more driven by the philosphy of niche protection first and foremost.

I imagine one would have to ask Mr. Cook to get the real thoughts behind it. And if you or another have, please let me know.

I will admit that, while I have talked to Monte (he's even been a Nutkinlander in some incarnations), I have not talked to him directly on this subject.  However, I've been following 3e since before it was released (on Eric Noah's 3e site) and I think I'm pretty safe in saying that game balance was the primary concern in 3e's design.  Add in the commentary he's written on his site and in Dragon/Dungeon, and I'm thoroughly convinced 3e was all about game balance.

I won't dispute that they were out to protect and expand their market share -- that's what the d20 licence is all about, really -- but that's not really tied into the design of the rules themselves.  If, say, GURPS was the first and biggest RPG, and Wizards bought up the property, I think they would have used the same strategies.

I will say, however, that I don't think that when Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams were using the concept of "game balance" that they were thinking of it as a divine law, like the morons in ENWorld's Rules forums do.  (Okay, maybe Skip Williams did, but I don't think the other two did.)  I think that they thought of it as a useful tool to try to keep the classes equal in power.  They failed, and it has mutated into the monster of GAME BALANCE, but I don't blame them for that.  

I'm guessing that Gleichman, by "niche protection" was thinking more of the different roles of the members of a typical D&D party. The fighter fights, the sneak sneaks, the healer heals and so forth.

Y'all might be surprised about how much mathematical balancing effort goes into the majority of Forge designs.  I put a ton of work into mine, and I also have been "mathmonkey" for other people.  We certainly don't dismiss it.

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: Cyberzombie:heh: You may consider it a bad thing, too, when you get to know me better.

:heh:

Quote from: CyberzombieI will admit that, while I have talked to Monte (he's even been a Nutkinlander in some incarnations), I have not talked to him directly on this subject.  However, I've been following 3e since before it was released (on Eric Noah's 3e site) and I think I'm pretty safe in saying that game balance was the primary concern in 3e's design.  Add in the commentary he's written on his site and in Dragon/Dungeon, and I'm thoroughly convinced 3e was all about game balance.

I see no reason not to take your word on the matter. So for now I accept it well enough that I see no reason to go digging further.

Quote from: CyberzombieI won't dispute that they were out to protect and expand their market share -

Oh, not what I meant.

I meant niche as in class roles. To have a function in the game that was both required for success in a typical campaign, and focused primarily in the individual classes.

D&D used to be a model of this design philosophy.

3e did weaken it significantly. This adds weight to your claim that they chased Game Balance instead.

Foolish. I could have told them it wouldn't work, but they didn't ask (and wouldn't have care or believed if they did). On the other hand, it did work well enough for them to remain the top fo the heap didn't it? So they have the last laugh.

Quote from: Ben LehmanY'all might be surprised about how much mathematical balancing effort goes into the majority of Forge designs.  I put a ton of work into mine, and I also have been "mathmonkey" for other people.  We certainly don't dismiss it.

yrs--
--Ben

If that is the case, then I suggest you go smack Maddman upside the head for misrepresenting what you do.  If y'all *do* care about mechanics and not just making soap opera-style games, then y'all might well be better than what I've heard.

Quote from: gleichmanOh, not what I meant.

I meant niche as in class roles.

Gotcha.  I just automatically think marketing when I hear the word "niche".    I think I understand you now.

Oh!  I assumed that Maddman was acting in the spirit of the Pundit/Swine forums, which is to say blatantly accepting our stereotypes and laughing at ourselves.

But, I mean, in the real world?  For reals?  We're basically all gearheads.  I mean, we make soap-opera games.  (My game?  Unabashedly soap.  My demo scenario is "you walk in on your wife having in bed with your commanding officer and he's possessed by her demon lover.")  But we make them in a carefully balanced, mathematically precise manner.

So, lots of theory, yes.  But a fair share of craft as well.  Like I said, they go together.  Either theory or tradition can tell you what to do, only craft can tell how to do it.

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: Ben LehmanBut we make them in a carefully balanced, mathematically precise manner.

I must laugh.

I really shouldn't. Even the simplest mechanic can and should be considered with a good dose of math before putting it into a game. And if you're using dice pools or the like, that good dose can be over the head of the typical person.

But I have to laugh anyway.

Quote from: Ben LehmanOh!  I assumed that Maddman was acting in the spirit of the Pundit/Swine forums, which is to say blatantly accepting our stereotypes and laughing at ourselves.

If you make fun of yourselves, you just gained a bunch of more points...

Quote from: Ben LehmanBut, I mean, in the real world?  For reals?  We're basically all gearheads.  I mean, we make soap-opera games.  (My game?  Unabashedly soap.  My demo scenario is "you walk in on your wife having in bed with your commanding officer and he's possessed by her demon lover.")  But we make them in a carefully balanced, mathematically precise manner.

...and if you have no illusions that you're creating crappy soap opera games, then you get even MORE points.  I still have no interest in playing your Jerry Springer wet dream fantasies, but since you KNOW that's what they are, that's cool by me.  :bow:

Laugh away, man.  I was chuckling while I posted it (and getting strange looks from the 20-something Chinese guys next to me).

yrs--
--Ben

Now, now.  Hold on.

Soap Opera has a great, long tradition of melodramatics.  I'm a fan of melodramatics.

Jerry Springer, on the other hand, is just abysmal, poorly done tripe.

I'd like to think that I produce good soap opera.  Or at least passable.

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: Ben LehmanLaugh away, man.  I was chuckling while I posted it (and getting strange looks from the 20-something Chinese guys next to me).

yrs--
--Ben

Yep, it is funny. Brings to mind images of using a Battleship to run down a rowboat.

But props to those who do it :emot-rock:

Quote from: Ben LehmanNow, now.  Hold on.

Soap Opera has a great, long tradition of melodramatics.  I'm a fan of melodramatics.

Jerry Springer, on the other hand, is just abysmal, poorly done tripe.

I'd like to think that I produce good soap opera.  Or at least passable.

yrs--
--Ben

Nah.

Besides, you've gained enough cool points for one day don't you think? You're putting the other Swine to shame.