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

You'll have to forgive me.  I'm colourblind down in that spectrum.  :deviousgrin:

Quote from: Ben LehmanI also have been "mathmonkey" for other people.

Well, hey, there.  How YOU doin'?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenWell, hey, there.  How YOU doin'?

So, Levi.  I hear you pay...

(seriously, I'd be happy to do some math for you pro bono.  Send it my way via e-mail.  If you want heavy lifting, you'll need to seek out Walt Freitag, Eero Tuovinen, or Mike Holmes, though.  I'm a welterweight mathematician at best.)

yrs--
--Ben

All your replies have been pretty informative. I do note however that the subject of theory more than craft is somewhat of a touchy subject for most folks.

While i appreciate the exchanges between all the participants of this thread, what i would really like to see, perhaps using examples of actual plays or homebrew systems of the influence of craft or theory had in their making.

Now i wish i could post a system of my own creation but really as stated before, i don't have anything to post. I am not really a system guy. And the lady who does all our crews' system stuff has denied my requests(repeated i might add) to post some of her stuff.

Thats it i guess. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: David RWhile i appreciate the exchanges between all the participants of this thread, what i would really like to see, perhaps using examples of actual plays or homebrew systems of the influence of craft or theory had in their making.

And you thought that the last little bit I gave you was heavy reading. How does 200 pages sound? :heh:

I don't think I'll go there.

Instead for my own example of a design that followed many of the concepts I put forward in my articles I'll present AD&D 1st edition (as that is the one I'm most familiar with).

QuoteI don't think I'll go there.

Hey man, it's all gravy from where i looking. You dudes are serious about your stuff. I may not dig the actual stuff (my term for games ,theory, craft etc) but i do dig the passion and thought that goes into writing it down...many people like to talk but when it comes to writing it all down they demure. I am more of a i'd rather play than talk about playing guy myself, but realise that  my games have improved from what i have read...so there is that.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: David RHey man, it's all gravy from where i looking. You dudes are serious about your stuff.

Not so serious here.

That mass of stuff I've done (the articles, the 200 page rulebook, etc) may look impressive, but you have to consider that it's a production that's taken 25 years.

I'm actually rather lazy about it all, and spend far more time playing than I do writing or thinking up new theories.


Now Macro, the guy who did JAGS. That guy is serious.

And so are a few people at the Forge. But I don't consider that a good thing in their case.

Quote from: David RWhile i appreciate the exchanges between all the participants of this thread, what i would really like to see, perhaps using examples of actual plays or homebrew systems of the influence of craft or theory had in their making.

Eh, when I try to explain things in that way, I usually come off as boring at best, and incomprehensible at worst.

However, if you stick around for a while, I'll probably get around to working on my vapourware game system again.  It's a system built from the ground up, influenced but not based largely on both d20 and Exalted.  It's an attempt to create a generic rules set that will cover as many different genres as possible.  Ultimately, the goal would be to be able to take characters from one genre to another and still have all the rules work.

While there are many rules sets that have the same goal, they don't work for the genres I want.  GURPS, for example, is an utter failure at D&D-style high fantasy or at superheros.  It's not a bad system; it just doesn't do what I would want.

I think that properly done, theory is the body of thought that encapsulates craft (i.e. "I am doing this and these are the general rules that apply to it.")

The problem with RPG Theory, per se, is that, almost always, it is mired, strongly, in identity politics. This makes producing a taxonomy of "what we do" very, very difficult. It means that when we distill theory from a body of craft there is, almost always, inherent biases that damage the taxonomy/predictive ability in some way.

As a result, the discussions of pure craft seem to me to be more useful than most discussions of theory.

-Marco

Quote from: gleichmanNow Macro, the guy who did JAGS. That guy is serious.

And so are a few people at the Forge. But I don't consider that a good thing in their case.

:-O

Hi Brian!
-Marco

Quote from: Marco:-O

Hi Brian!
-Marco

Hi Marco! Winner of many deserved awards!

Quote from: MarcoThe problem with RPG Theory, per se, is that, almost always, it is mired, strongly, in identity politics. This makes producing a taxonomy of "what we do" very, very difficult. It means that when we distill theory from a body of craft there is, almost always, inherent biases that damage the taxonomy/predictive ability in some way.

This is very true.

The two most widely spread rpg Theories (GDS and GNS) both suffered greatly from this.

GDS was originally created and written into its final state by Simulationists while GNS was created and written into its final state by Narratists (they likely have a different term, I couldn't care less). Both models show that clearly.

This makes sense in a way. Both models were really just one person's attempt to make the gaming world make sense to them. This is IMO the core reason why they rejected the approach of other ideas into them. They were 'other' to begin with, i.e. that which cause them to seek the comfort of a nice safe model of rpgs to begin with.

I'm really just as bad. The little body of work I've done on rpg theory is nothing more than a method of ordering my own world of highly detailed tactical rpgs.


I doubt that we'll ever see a functional theory of rpgs until people are willing to label their offshoots by a different name and break from attempting to define the 'other'.

GNS is fine for making games around Narratism. It's pity that in order to get there it has to look down it's nose at everyone else.

Quote from: MarcoAs a result, the discussions of pure craft seem to me to be more useful than most discussions of theory.

-Marco

Yeah this is what i meant. But i think it resonates (at least to my thinking)  if people who are familiar with most or at the very least the more well known theories out there say it.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: CyberzombieHowever, if you stick around for a while, I'll probably get around to working on my vapourware game system again.  It's a system built from the ground up, influenced but not based largely on both d20 and Exalted.  It's an attempt to create a generic rules set that will cover as many different genres as possible.  Ultimately, the goal would be to be able to take characters from one genre to another and still have all the rules work.

Hey man, I'll be around, look forward to seeing your gaming stuff.

Regards,
David R.