# What is "The Forge?"



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2005)

What is "The Forge?" I've seen a couple of passing references to it - it sounds llike some sort of gaming think-tank.

(Please feel free to ridicule my weak gamer-fu.)


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2005)

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/

It's an site focused on creating independent RPGs.  Quite a few have come out of there.

There was some discussion on RPG Theory (and the "GNS Model"), but those forums have been shut down.  (The discussion continues, but only in reference to actual games being played and the issues that arise from them.)

There are some articles about the GNS (gamist/narrativist/simulationist) Model on the site as well.  It's about identifying the goals that individuals want out of a game, as well as common pitfalls of "incoherent" games (where there is a clash as to what you're trying to get out of the game).

I'd start off with System Does Matter and from there GNS and Other Matters of RPG theory.

I stumbled on it about 2 months ago and it really helped rekindle my waning interest in RPGs (in general, and D&D in particular).


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 14, 2005)

Which one?

Bastion's campaign setting The Forge of Oathbound?

- or - 

The Forge Studios?

- or - 

Independent Game Publisher Forums?


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 14, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> What is "The Forge?" I've seen a couple of passing references to it - it sounds llike some sort of gaming think-tank.
> 
> (Please feel free to ridicule my weak gamer-fu.)




Well... there are two entities who call themsevles 'The Forge'. The first of these is a kind of rolepaying thinktank and the second is a publishing company unaffiliated with the first. The former Forge has, through years of claiming to be The Illuminati of RPGs (i.e., some kind of secret cabal responsible for all important innovation in the hobby), alienated the vast majority of the roleplaying community. The height of this delusion was revealed in a recent thread on RPGnet.

In this thread Luke Crane (the creator of the Burning Wheel) and other Forge members claimed that their theory was the driving force behind the success of D&D 3x, Shadowrun 4e, _Hero_ and a lot of other games that really have very little (if anything) to do with The Forge. They went so far as to openly suggest that several respected designers such as Bruce Baugh, Justin Achilli, and others were deeply in debt to The Forge, but refused to pay them homage _for fear of The Forge's vast superiority_ (I kid you not). 

What's really sad is that The Forge _might_ have had an impact on the hobby if they hadn't been so given to hubris and delusions of grandeur that they actually started to believe much of their own propaganda. That recent thread on RPGnet (I believe it is entitled "Ron closes Theory and Design forums"  or something) really puts things in perspective. For years, a lot of people have jokingly referred to The Forge as "The Cult of Ron" - but if that thread is any indicator, it's no longer a joke 

[Edit: *Here* is a link to the RPGnet thread. Sorry, I know cross-posting is frowned upon, but I didn't want to say what I did and not offer proof to back it up. So there it is - crazy at its finest.]


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 14, 2005)

What jdrakeh said.


----------



## Henry (Dec 14, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> For years, a lot of people have jokingly referred to The Forge as "The Cult of Ron" - but if that thread is any indicator, it's no longer a joke




YEEEIKES!
I can only hope I'm reading _"A theory rejected or a theory embraced -- either way it's a theory that influences"_ wrong -- because the way it reads, it's an absurd statement, and one that implies that "Even if you say I didn't influence you, the fact that i exist influenced you."


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 14, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> I can only hope I'm reading _"A theory rejected or a theory embraced -- either way it's a theory that influences"_ wrong -- because the way it reads, it's an absurd statement, and one that implies that "Even if you say I didn't influence you, the fact that i exist influenced you."




Nope. That is, as explained later in the linked thread, the thrust of the statement in question. BTW, just so everybody knows - I was a former Forge 'follower' and I'm certain that if a current Forge member stumbles across this thread, they'll use this as an opportunity to say that my current outlook on The Forge is just a case of 'sour grapes' (I've seen them attack other former contributors turned detractors on these grounds before). I'd like to state, for the record, that this isn't the case.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 14, 2005)

Hmm...it's a shame there's so much crazy there, because some of the games on the Forge are really good.  I've got a couple in my sig...


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 14, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Hmm...it's a shame there's so much crazy there, because some of the games on the Forge are really good.




Yep. That's the other real shame. To say that The Forge hasn't produced some good games would be a lie. In the end, though, the 'be all, end all' mentality of the community and its willingness to openly attack all of those who disagree with their ideas as inferior beings has finally become its defining feature


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> In the end, though, the 'be all, end all' mentality of the community and its willingness to openly attack all of those who disagree with their ideas as inferior beings has finally become its defining feature




I've been lurking around the Forge for a while now and haven't seen this sort of behaviour.  At least I don't think so.

Anyway.  I went into the Forge having a vague idea of its reputation.  But I didn't focus on that; instead, I looked for what I could get out of the Forge for use in my own games.  It's really helped; I probably would have quit playing if I hadn't come across that site.

I guess I'd say that anyone who wants to take a look at the Forge should go there with the intent of getting whatever they can out of (the theory, posting in Actual Play, games you might enjoy but didn't hear about elsewhere) and forget about anything else.


----------



## pogre (Dec 14, 2005)

Does the term "The Big Model" make anybody else giggle?  

The folks over at The Forge always reminded me of us football coaches - "Smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enouygh to think it's important."


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 14, 2005)

Wow.  Is it just me, or is everyone in that thread just taking everything that everyone else says as a direct insult to themselves wihtout real basis?


----------



## fafhrd (Dec 14, 2005)

Maybe the comments in this thread prejudiced me, but the impression gained in my (admittedly brief) foray was baloney firmly ensconced in a layer of meta-baloney.


----------



## Wil (Dec 14, 2005)

My experience with Forgeites comes from several discussions I participated in regarding using Object Oriented Programming principles in RPG design.  Basically, a few obvious Forgeites came pimping their favorite Forge system (it may have been The Burning Wheel, but I don't remember) as "OOP".  When pressed as to what made it object oriented, they gave extremely weak responses similar to, "It has objects in the game...that you do stuff with...it just is, okay?  It can do anything!  Believe me!  They'll kiiiiiillll me if you don't!!!!111!One!"  (well, I made up the last part).  It was actually implied that because I couldn't see the OOP aspect of the game that they were pimping, that I was just not astute enough.

With that being said, I have read some very interesting discussions on the Forge and gleaned some useful tidbits for running and designing games.  I don't completely "subscribe to their newsletter", as it were, and I think the good and bad about even out in the end.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 14, 2005)

Disturbingly enough, after having just finished reading through that entire thread, I still have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 14, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I've been lurking around the Forge for a while now and haven't seen this sort of behaviour.




Well, to be fair, most of the outright sniping occurs on other forums (see the RPGnet thread that I linked to for an example of Forge SOP). On the actual Forge forums, if somebody disagrees with and/or questions prevalent theory, they'll simply get shut down with a flurry of 'you don't get it' responses, after which they'll either be asked to leave the forums or dismissed as useless and ignored (I left of my own accord, but I personally know several people who were either asked to leave or shutdown in this manner). If you only lurk at The Forge, you can largely avoid this. 

So, what about The Big Model? Well, like the GNS theory previously held out by The Forge as the sole unifying theory of design, it's nothing but a collection of nebulous, poorly-defined, jargon  presented in a purely subjective manner with little (if any) empirical evidence to back it up. In short, The Big Model is our hobby's equivelent of Dianetics (i.e., it's an ideaology created from whole cloth specifically to support a certain outlook in the absence of actual facts). It's arguably the least valuable thing on the whole Forge site.

Now, as I said - there are some good games that have come out of the Forge. There is also some stuff there worth discussing elsewhere. I'd be lying if I said that the Forge hadn't influenced my play style or preference in games, but I don't blindly embrace their philosophy at the expense of all others, nor am I ready to recgonize them as the sole driving force behind RPGs, regardless of how hard they push for that (and they do push _awfully hard_ for that, as evidenced by one of the founder's remarks in the RPGnet thread).


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> On the actual Forge forums, if somebody disagrees with and/or questions prevalent theory, they'll simply get shut down with a flurry of 'you don't get it' responses, after which they'll either be asked to leave the forums or dismissed as useless (I left of my own accord, but I personally know several people who were either asked to leave or shutdown in this manner).




I have seen some of that.  Since I am in "what the hell is all this?" mode, I can't say if that's true or not - that they just don't get it.  So, you know, either way.



			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Well, like the GNS theory previously held out by The Forge as the sole unifying theory of design, it's nothing but a collection of nebulous, poorly-defined, jargon  presented in a purely subjective manner with little (if any) empirical evidence to back it up.




I guess we disagree here; I think I understand it and can apply it to my games.  Although I don't think it is "the sole unifying theory of design".  But it works for me, so far at least, and I don't really care about anything/anyone else.  (I am a bastard!  )



			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> nor am I ready to recgonize them as the sole driving force behind RPGs regardless of how hard they push for that (and they do push _awfully hard_ for that, as evidenced by one of the founder's remarks in the RPGnet thread).




Yeah, that was nuts.  Although to me it seemed like a troll.  But I'm not so familiar with these guys yet so I could be wrong.  (Benefit of the doubt phase still.)  Although... I could see it in the case of "the Forge was influenced by this, which also influenced these things".  But that's a pretty generous interpretation.

So you see where I'm coming from, I guess.  The Forge (and its theory) helped me out I get defensive when people say negative things about it.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 14, 2005)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Disturbingly enough, after having just finished reading through that entire thread, I still have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.




That's because you don't get it!  (joking!)

Seriously, that's the magic of communicating almost entirely in an invented language (i.e., jargon) - only the people who invented it 'get it' and, thus, can use the failure of an uninitiated individual to understand it as an excuse to dismiss them as inferior. Jargon has never been coined to inform or convey thought, but to foster an appearance of importance and facilitate the illusion of social superiority. This is one of several reasons why I openly oppose the use of jargon where plain language will suffice.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 14, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Yeah, that was nuts.  Although to me it seemed like a troll.




It (sadly) wasn't a troll. Here's some context - Clinton Nixon (the guy claiming that The Forge has heavily influenced every RPG designed in the past five years, except for the ones that suck) is the _co-founder_ of The Forge and a forum administrator there, while 'abzu' is Luke Crane, the creator of The Burning Wheel (last year's Forge 'darling' RPG) and longtime Forge contributor. 



> So you see where I'm coming from, I guess.  The Forge (and its theory) helped me out I get defensive when people say negative things about it.




Sure. I'm not saying that people shouldn't visit The Forge or buy into its theory (that choice is up to every individual to make), but I _am_ saying that _I_ don't visit The Forge or buy into its theory. I did both of these things at one time, but when I started expanding my worldview instead of narrowing it (as the Forge suggests one do), a lot of the theory and design principle being discussed there no longer made any kind of sense to me.


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 14, 2005)

Abzu (to use his nom de Internet) is a case of somebody coming up with a good game despite his favorite hypothesis.

(Nota Bene: I use 'hypothesis" and "theory" in their scientific meaning, instead of their academic.)


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I did both of these things at one time, but when I started expanding my worldview instead of narrowing it (as the Forge suggests one do), a lot of the theory and design principle being discussed there no longer made any kind of sense to me.




Cool.  So how did you expand your worldview?  I'm looking to do the same sort of thing.


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 14, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Cool.  So how did you expand your worldview?  I'm looking to do the same sort of thing.




He started reading Robert Heinlein.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 14, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Jargon has never been coined to inform or convey thought, but to foster an appearance of importance and facilitate the illusion of social superiority. This is one of several reasons why I openly oppose the use of jargon where plain language will suffice.




 

After reading some of the apparent theory, I was suddenly overcome by a feeling of being crushed beneath old White Wolf style Words With Capital Letters To Make Them Seem More Important Then They Really Are.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 14, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> He started reading Robert Heinlein.





Dune did it for me.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 14, 2005)

I went there a few times, but when I watched *Fusangite* try and pry information out of them as to _what the hell they were talking about_ (and he is a smart, smart guy) only to get told tht he "simply wasn't able to grasp the fullness of what it all meant" etc. I was stunned.

The fact that their position was that *Fusangite* wasn't smart enough to understand their precious theory was my biggest clue that they were full of it. 

Like, full right to the top.

I mean, they guy is pretty much the smartest person any of us in Vancouver have ever met, he's approaching his PhD, he can speak knowedgeably on most any subject you care to name...

I did take a certain joy in watching him dismantle the theory (getting no fewer than 3 people to claim that the "Gamist" element in GNS theory had nothing to do with Game Elements, and 3 others to claim it did) before he wandered off.

As near as I could figure, the whole thing was a huge circle jerk by a group of people who really, _really _wanted to matter in the grand scheme of (RPG) things. 

That said, I loved _Burning Wheel_ and _Kayfabe_.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 14, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Cool.  So how did you expand your worldview?  I'm looking to do the same sort of thing.




Ironically, most of that came about as a result of focussed private correspondence with former Forge members and other designers who are apparently looked upon with disadain by current Forge members. A bit of email here, a bit of IRC there, PM exchanges, etc. In fact, far more people whom I consider to be influential in the roleplaying industry as a whole post either here or at RPGnet, as opposed to The Forge. 

#RPGnet over on the MagicStar IRC network was of particular use to me a few years back (and when the moon is full and the stars are right, you can still catch S. John Ross in said channel). In more recent years, I've talked to a lot of people via the RPGnet PM system, as well as via private email (you'd be surprised how many people are willing to talk to you at length via personal email about their approach to design). 

What I've found is that The Forge views on design are, largely, unique to The Forge and its assocaiated entities. The rest of the industry (including the vast majority of non-Forge affiliated independent publishers) is far less concerned with making _different_ games, than with making games that are _functional_ - and guess which design philosophy rules the commercial market? That isn't a fluke. 

If you're specifically interested in looking at different design philosophies, you could do worse than to read Bruce Baugh's blog, Sergio Mascarenhas' columns at RPGnet, and Brian Gleichman's columns at the same site. After that, start conversing with people who do design for a _living_.

_[*Note:* Unlike many of the Forge folks, I haven't published my own RPG. Just so we're clear - I'm not a game designer by profession or an individual of any great importance in the RPG industry. I know and/or converse with a lot of people who are one or both of these things, but that's largely happy coincidence. I'm first and foremost a fan of RPGs, despite having done a tiny bit of work within the industry. I'm certainly nobody's better and if I've conveyed that, I apologize as that was not my intent.]_


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 14, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> He started reading Robert Heinlein.




Ironically, I've never read any of Robert Heinlein's fiction


----------



## Dirigible (Dec 14, 2005)

> In short, The Big Model is our hobby's equivelent of Dianetics




L. Ron Edwards?


----------



## Psion (Dec 14, 2005)

pogre said:
			
		

> Does the term "The Big Model" make anybody else giggle?




More, it makes me roll my eyes.

I've been known to espouse the threefold model myself (though I prefer to speak to the less jargon obfuscated and less biased take of GNSs predescessor, GDS). But I always saw it as just one of a number potential models that you can use to examine a game.

The idea of "one model to bring them all and in the darkness bind them" strikes me as a little to tidy and grandiose to take seriously.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 14, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Like, full right to the top.



quoted for truth.

it is a load. and no one wants to change that diaper.


----------



## Henry (Dec 14, 2005)

I'll say this: I am influenced heavily by Robin Laws, myself. When reading his book, "Robin's Laws to good gmemastering", it was one of those things where I just "got it," and realized his ideas were what I was using all along and never had it written down anywhere, and plus gave me even more things to chew on, besides. His ideas (I won't call them "theories") are more about as a GM what to give your players at game-time, rather than any sort of design theory (his ideas are that you can apply these things to almost ANY game, rather than designing one from scratch). His work in the first chapter of the DMG2 are a continuation of this, and is very good reading.

Now, if the Forge Big Model or GNS influenced Robin Laws, they've influenced me, for sure. If they haven't, then they haven't influenced ME, either, no matter how much a proponent tells me they have.

Of the times I've gone there, their ideas are clouded in terminology, very high-concept, and in no way speak to how I can get the most out of my weekly RPG games. I'm not playing Burning Wheel, or Kayfabe, or Sorcerer, or any such thing - I'm playing whatever strikes my fancy, and my players' fancy, is fun, and is easy to learn. None of the product turned out at the Forge has interested me in any way. As game designers, they don't have a TERRIBLE P.R. engine, in my opinion.

If I want to play westerns, I play Boot Hill, or Sidewinder.
If I want fantasy, I play D&D.
If I want far future, I play gamma world, or GURPS, or lately Grim Tales.
If I want gritty fantasy, I play Black Company.

What does "Burning Wheel" do? What's it's concept? What does the name tell me?
What is the hook for "Sorcerer"? Why would I play it over, say, Ars Magica?
I only knew what "Kayfabe" was by looking it up - but its name evokes no interest, no desire to find out more, it's just... there. (Then again, I'm not a Wrestling buff).

If you're niche, you try to make your product appealing on more than just a design level, and nothing ever hyped by the site's proponents has ever driven me to check it out. When I hear people talk about D&D or Exalted, they talk about their characters, what they did, what a bastard the GM was, etc. When I see someone mention Sorcerer, or Burning Wheel, the one thing missing - are the "war stories." The signs that they've done something more than just read it and praised concept. That's what leaves me flat with the things the Forge's proponents praise.


----------



## shaylon (Dec 14, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> I went there a few times, but when I watched *Fusangite* try and pry information out of them as to _what the hell they were talking about_ (and he is a smart, smart guy) only to get told tht he "simply wasn't able to grasp the fullness of what it all meant" etc. I was stunned.
> 
> The fact that their position was that *Fusangite* wasn't smart enough to understand their precious theory was my biggest clue that they were full of it.
> 
> ...




Just wanted to back up TB here.  I went to dinner with Crothian, Fusangite, and Ironwolf one night at Gen Con this year and we spoke at length about the Forge and Fusangite's attempts to understand what they were talking about.  It sounded to me as if they have a small circle of people that they say "get IT" and everyone else is dumb.

I would also like to add that Fusangite is a pretty brilliant guy and if he doesn't "get IT" then there are few on this earth that would.

-Shay


----------



## Kanegrundar (Dec 14, 2005)

I poked my head in at the Forge just to see what a few people here and (mostly) on RPG.net were talking about.  It appeared to me that it was a bunch of failed game designers using obscure references and intelligent sounding theories to describe why their pet system is better than any successful system.  

Personally, I think the whole GNS theory is a load of crap.  I play games because their fun, not because I'm a Gamist, Narativist, or Simulationist.  I really got the idea that most of the people that frequent the Forge have forgotten totally about the GAME aspect of rpG's to instead look for some "higher meaning" in their roleplaying.  Bah.  What a bunch of claptrap!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 14, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> That's because you don't get it!  (joking!)
> 
> Seriously, that's the magic of communicating almost entirely in an invented language (i.e., jargon) - only the people who invented it 'get it' and, thus, can use the failure of an uninitiated individual to understand it as an excuse to dismiss them as inferior. Jargon has never been coined to inform or convey thought, but to foster an appearance of importance and facilitate the illusion of social superiority. This is one of several reasons why I openly oppose the use of jargon where plain language will suffice.




That's not true.  Jargon exists to facilitate discussion of difficult concepts.  If I didn't have jargon, I could not easily communicate meaningfully with other biologists.  If my wife didn't have jargon, she could not easily communicate meaningfully with other philosophers.  If my friend didn't have jargon, he could not easily communicate meaningfully with other engineers.

The thing about jargon and designing RPGs is that there are a lot of times when you want meta-terminology that helps you talk about things like structure, orientation, and effect of the various game elements.  Like the word "traction" that they've mentioned in the WotC design threads.  It describes a phenomenon that it's useful for them to know about, and something they don't want to have to explain every time they talk about it.  Multiply that by a hundred such phenomena, and you have a lexicon of game design jargon.

Now, that's not to say that jargon can't be used in an exclusive fashion.  My wife and I could have a conversation about philosophy that completely goes over the heads of anyone not familiar with the jargon, without even getting into the issue of being unfamiliar with the various authors involved.  But it's not the purpose of jargon, it's just an effect.  The thing is, if you do it on purpose to confuse or obfuscate, you're being a jerk.  It doesn't prove that you're smarter than the other person to use jargon, only that you're familiar with a technical language that they don't know.  I'm sure that computer programmers could totally lose me in ten seconds if they start "talking shop," but I'd lose them as soon as I start talking about gene replication.

It's not jargon that's the problem, it's people who use jargon to try to indicate that they are superior to others.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 14, 2005)

Ah, the Forge. Where to begin?

The Forge is largely the result of Ron Edwards advocating two things:

1) Selling games outside of the traditional distribution model.

2) Analyzing games according to his modified version of the GNS model original developed in the Usenet RPG community.

What Ron did was showcase his game, Sorceror, as an example of both, while being the first to really bring discussion about either to an organized web community. He got there first and was rewarded accordingly.

But as you might have noticed, the Forge is not without its detractors. First of all, it is worth noting that not only does most game design not really pay attention to the Big Model and its ilk, but that many Forge people -- including Ron -- do not really have a good grasp on the creative process used by commercial game writers and designers. Their criticism falls short because they don't know how we got there, why we got there or what's influencing us, but the comfort themselves that the answer must be found in the totalizing Big Model.

Functional game design either proceeds from craft (this is the position of Robin D. Laws) or theory that has commonalities with movements in other fields. Both Bruce Baugh and myself have some interest in post-structuralism, for instance, which does come from a bucnh of dudes who wrote 20 page games for each other on the web.

Incidentally, my post-structuralist bent leads me to a second critique, which is the way that Forge terminology inevitably either breaks down or divorces itself from key practical concerns. For instance, people on the Forge do not generally like to talk about the effect of real world social inequality (ethnicity, religion, economic differences) in game design, even though this is a hot topic in the mainstream arts community. They pretend its a subset of the abstract "play contract." Other terms break down when tested against real standards. Even the definition of "indie," is questionable, since Ron saw fit to include Heroquest, an RPG that uses all the things he sees fot to exclude from "indie"-ness otherwise (it is not designed by the IP-holder, the IP was collaboratively created and it sells through a distributor), simply because he fancied it.

But Ron was the first to take such discussion to web fora in a big way, and that's a pretty big deal.


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 14, 2005)

Those times I've been to The Forge the more outspoken denizens struck me as academic types. Lots of high-falutin speechifyin' with little sense to back it up.

Consider the prevalent misunderstanding of 'theory'. Properly speaking a theory is the best description for a phenomenon we've been able to come up with so far. What academics refer to as a theory is better known as an hypothesis. Basically, a guess. It might be an educated guess, it might be a wild ass guess, but it remains a guess.

They also struck me as trying to pass themselves off as members of a secret club. Complete with secret pass signs and vocabulary, and so on and so forth. The sort of thing Steve Jackson Games parodies in the card game *Illuminati*. (*Illuminati RPG*, the card game of the conspiratorial world of the RPG industry. That has possibilties.  )

Ran across an essay on a '3rd culture'. People from the academic world who are starting to use science with academic subjects. I'll look for the essay and put up a link to it.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 14, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> That's not true.  Jargon exists to facilitate discussion of difficult concepts.  If I didn't have jargon, I could not easily communicate meaningfully with other biologists.  If my wife didn't have jargon, she could not easily communicate meaningfully with other philosophers.  If my friend didn't have jargon, he could not easily communicate meaningfully with other engineers.
> 
> . . .
> 
> It's not jargon that's the problem, it's people who use jargon to try to indicate that they are superior to others.




I'd more say that the problem is when the jargon doesn't actually equate to a defensible idea. In the context of the Forge, you get these baroque semantic games thet go like this:

A: "Because of the principle of Frugab, we have apples."

B: "Frugab giving you apples does work. You also need apple trees."

A: "Obviously you don't understand what Frugab is, because it has nothing to do with getting apples."

B: "You just talked abnout Frugab in that context, didn't you?"

A: "Obviously, you don't know what apples are when we talk about them."

B: "What are they, then, if not the apples I see every day?"

A: "The product of Frugab!"


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Personally, I think the whole GNS theory is a load of crap.  I play games because their fun, not because I'm a Gamist, Narativist, or Simulationist.  I really got the idea that most of the people that frequent the Forge have forgotten totally about the GAME aspect of rpG's to instead look for some "higher meaning" in their roleplaying.  Bah.  What a bunch of claptrap!




I didn't get that impression; but I was more interested in seeing how Narrativism looked in play.  (So I read Actual Play threads, for the most part, the RPG/GNS Theory not having great worth to me.)

I think the GNS theory is about taking a look at why you have fun.  For times when the fun dries up (like it did for me).


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 14, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> Those times I've been to The Forge the more outspoken denizens struck me as academic types. Lots of high-falutin speechifyin' with little sense to back it up.




No. Ron is an engineer. In fact, the Forge community doesn't really know much about intellectual trends in the wider world. In fact, I'd say Forge theory is specifically designed to appeal to people who feel alienated by more relevant intellectual trends.



> Ran across an essay on a '3rd culture'. People from the academic world who are starting to use science with academic subjects. I'll look for the essay and put up a link to it.




Those people are usually fools when they think outside their own disciplines, and appeal to people who feel that surely, the Nerds shall have their revenge over the art-school types who still get hired to write adcopy and Star Trek episodes instead of them. Jaron Lanier is a notable exception, but he's there to give some pretense of a broad movement for what is essentially a promotional tool by one literary agent.

Oh yeah -- I hear strong AI is just around the corner! *chortle*


----------



## Kanegrundar (Dec 14, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I didn't get that impression; but I was more interested in seeing how Narrativism looked in play.  (So I read Actual Play threads, for the most part, the RPG/GNS Theory not having great worth to me.)
> 
> I think the GNS theory is about taking a look at why you have fun.  For times when the fun dries up (like it did for me).



 I'm glad you got some use out of what they have to say over there.  I found it to be a bunch of self-important blowhards trying to show how smart they were.  Not my idea of fun reading.  I understand the premise behind what they have to say, I just think it's silly.


----------



## Henry (Dec 14, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> That's not true.  Jargon exists to facilitate discussion of difficult concepts.





That I can get behind. However, when someone points me to a 5-page discussion paper on the definition of "Gamist", or "Narrativist", or "Simulationist," and this discussion paper *itself *points to other multi-page papers to understand for an explanation, I call "too confusing to be useful" on that jargon.

By its nature, jargon SHOULD be able to be defined back to relatively simple concepts so that a lay person can get into it quickly. Object oriented programming, for example, can be easily defined in a couple or three sentences. RAM, ASCII, ActiveX, Memory Space, Macros, all these things can be defined (some more easily, some harder, but all within a few sentences). Id, Ego, and Superego can be defined in a few sentences or less. If Jargon is not understandable with little effort, it is not useful.

Jargon should not be a screen; it should be, as said, a facilitator.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 14, 2005)

There is such a thing as a RPG "Think Tank" you say?  Man o man...


----------



## Wil (Dec 14, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> That I can get behind. However, when someone points me to a 5-page discussion paper on the definition of "Gamist", or "Narrativist", or "Simulationist," and this discussion paper *itself *points to other multi-page papers to understand for an explanation, I call "too confusing to be useful" on that jargon.
> 
> By its nature, jargon SHOULD be able to be defined back to relatively simple concepts so that a lay person can get into it quickly. Object oriented programming, for example, can be easily defined in a couple or three sentences. RAM, ASCII, ActiveX, Memory Space, Macros, all these things can be defined (some more easily, some harder, but all within a few sentences). Id, Ego, and Superego can be defined in a few sentences or less. If Jargon is not understandable with little effort, it is not useful.
> 
> Jargon should not be a screen; it should be, as said, a facilitator.




This was why it was so frustrating with the Forgeites participating in the OOP discussion I was trying to have - they couldn't define, easily, why their example games would fit into a clean OOP model.  While it's obvious that in applying those principles there's going to be a lot of wiggle room (and as was pointed out, a lot of rpgs already have semi-OOP principles in place), saying that the game "is a perfect example of that", and then either backpedalling with "It just is" or "you don't understand" when pressed illustrates how tenuous a lot of the jargon is.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2005)

edit: whoops.

Okay, something interesting then.  Here's a short bit on GNS theory that seems pretty easy to understand: http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html#3


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2005)

Wil said:
			
		

> While it's obvious that in applying those principles there's going to be a lot of wiggle room (and as was pointed out, a lot of rpgs already have semi-OOP principles in place), saying that the game "is a perfect example of that", and then either backpedalling with "It just is" or "you don't understand" when pressed illustrates how tenuous a lot of the jargon is.




I remember reading that thread and I got the feeling that some people didn't understand what OOP was.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Dec 14, 2005)

Wil said:
			
		

> This was why it was so frustrating with the Forgeites participating in the OOP discussion I was trying to have - they couldn't define, easily, why their example games would fit into a clean OOP model.  While it's obvious that in applying those principles there's going to be a lot of wiggle room (and as was pointed out, a lot of rpgs already have semi-OOP principles in place), saying that the game "is a perfect example of that", and then either backpedalling with "It just is" or "you don't understand" when pressed illustrates how tenuous a lot of the jargon is.



 Anytime I hear the handwave of "you just don't understand" my BS detector goes off big time.  I don't consider myself to be a dumb or even thick-headed person, so when a person can't properly discuss the finer points of a "theory" or can't explain what A or B doesn't fit into the grand scheme, it's just time for me to walk away since that person(s) don't even have a good grasp of what he is espousing.


----------



## Wil (Dec 14, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I remember reading that thread and I got the feeling that some people didn't understand what OOP was.




That was a lot of the issue..."But The Burning Wheel is object-oriented!  There's objects, and you can say what direction they're pointing..._narratively_!"  Obviously I'm using a lot of hyperbole, but that was the gist of things.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2005)

Hang on, though, dude - it can't all be BS, or people like me wouldn't get any use out of it.

I'm willing to say that it is of _limited_ use, and that some people who espouse that terminology or frequent the Forge may be BSers, but I believe that there is some use to the theory.


----------



## Bastoche (Dec 14, 2005)

1) I think most of the jargon on the forge is hard to understand because it came out from discussions on the board. It lacks proper editting and the articles are in serious need of update.

2) Ron's writing skills sucks. Plain and simple. IMO of course. His texts lacks introduction and conclusion. It seems like the texts were thought of as he wrote along, similar to a post on a forum rather than written with a purpose "I'm coming from there and going there".

3) What he wants to dicuss of is a subject that borders on psychology/sociology. These notions are by nature subjective and often ill defined and/or personnally defined (subjective). Everything is difficult to define but one has to start somewhere.

4) Often does Ron say "This is not the be all and all solution. It's MY be all and all and I'm sharing it. That being said, it will serve as the "default" be all and all until we have something better to offer".

5) nobody who ever had gaming problems will think that the forge is overblown hype.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2005)

Wil said:
			
		

> That was a lot of the issue..."But The Burning Wheel is object-oriented!  There's objects, and you can say what direction they're pointing..._narratively_!"  Obviously I'm using a lot of hyperbole, but that was the gist of things.




 That's what I remember, and I was thinking, "Dude, that's doesn't mean it's object-oriented."  I didn't read too much of the thread though.

But this seems interesting to me - I would have said, "You don't understand what OOP is" to Luke there.  Which is what a lot of the Forgers are criticised for doing (as I see it).


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2005)

Thanks very much to everyone, especially *jdrakeh*, for explaining The Forge and the concepts engendered by it (and not ridiculing my weak gamer-fu in the process...  ).

I read the linked thread at RPGnet (and I'd like to know who I talk to about getting my lost SAN points back... :\ ) and wanted to briefly note a couple of things: (1) the statement by Ron Edwards (I think...) explaining the closure of the theory forum should probably have been posted at the start of the thread instead of somewhere around page 38 - it might have saved some of the rather pointless squabbling that appeared in the thread (yeah, not bloody likely, but a man can dream...), and (2) based on his posts I came away with the impression that Mike Mearls was a supporter of the concepts espoused by The Forge - his comment on 4e _Dungeons and Dragons_ was interesting.

I was inspired by the thread to check out a couple of the games mentioned, specifically _My Life with Master_ and _Dogs in the Vineyard_. Both games seemed like they offered interesting premises, but in each case I found myself thinking the same thing: both could be interesting campaign settings for a d20 _Modern_ game (adding _Sidewinder: Recoiled_ for _Dogs in the Vineyard_).

I'm not enough of a gamer - excuse me, A Gamer - to get too hung up on systems. I look for games that play fast, are versatile, and are popular enough so that I can find other players. I'm past the point where I want to teach and/or learn a half-dozen different systems: there's a very practical limit on the amount of time that I can afford to spend on this hobby, and I'd rather devote that time to writing adventures and characters than learning the intracacies of different games - what I look for in gaming products are things that make that part of my gaming experience easier, by minimizing the work for me as the gamemaster (and honestly, learning a new system is work).

IRL I am an applied scientist, and while I appreciate theory, I am most interested in where the rubber meets the road, that is, how theory translates into practice, so I'm curious to check out the Actual Play forum, to mine for ideas for my own games. Theorizing is fun and interesting in its way, but theories that inform practical action are pure gold.

Again, thanks for the replies.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 14, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I'd more say that the problem is when the jargon doesn't actually equate to a defensible idea. In the context of the Forge, you get these baroque semantic games thet go like this:




Baroque...yeah, that's a really good adjective in this context.  It captures exactly the kind of atmosphere that kind of discussion always generates...one of the reasons I confine my message-boarding to heavily (neutrally) moderated boards.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 14, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> There is such a thing as a RPG "Think Tank" you say?  Man o man...



it was made popular by Thomas Crapper. it is the tank you put the goldfish in when they float to the surface of their bowl.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Dec 14, 2005)

I don't participate at the forge, but I've read most of their stuff and found it very helpful.  The most useful thing that happened was that I became aware of different ways of playing.  It gave me a lot of new option for things to do in RPGs.  I didn't really find the material all that hard to follow, either, but that may just be because grad school required me to become used to dealing with jargon and obtuse writing.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Dec 14, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Thanks very much to everyone, especially *jdrakeh*, for explaining The Forge and the concepts engendered by it (and not ridiculing my weak gamer-fu in the process...  ).



Well, then, allow me to be the first:

/me points at The Shaman, stifling a laugh at his weak gamer-fu.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I was inspired by the thread to check out a couple of the games mentioned, specifically _My Life with Master_ and _Dogs in the Vineyard_. Both games seemed like they offered interesting premises, but in each case I found myself thinking the same thing: both could be interesting campaign settings for a d20 _Modern_ game (adding _Sidewinder: Recoiled_ for _Dogs in the Vineyard_).




Just a quick note on Dogs: the setting isn't what's important.  It helps keep the game focused, and it totally reduces prep-time for the GM (to about 30 minutes per 4-hour game), but the game is all about the mechanics.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 14, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No. Ron is an engineer. In fact, the Forge community doesn't really know much about intellectual trends in the wider world. In fact, I'd say Forge theory is specifically designed to appeal to people who feel alienated by more relevant intellectual trends.




Not being employed in academia does not prevent one from behavign like an "academic type".  Convergent evolution happens, you know.  One can view The Forge as a sort of mixture mini-university and journal publication in some regards.  The same modes of behavior may develop.

And, of course, what a thing is designed to do, and what it actually does do, are not necessarily as related as one might hope...


----------



## Bastoche (Dec 14, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I was inspired by the thread to check out a couple of the games mentioned, specifically _My Life with Master_ and _Dogs in the Vineyard_. Both games seemed like they offered interesting premises, but in each case I found myself thinking the same thing: both could be interesting campaign settings for a d20 _Modern_ game (adding _Sidewinder: Recoiled_ for _Dogs in the Vineyard_).
> 
> I'm not enough of a gamer - excuse me, A Gamer - to get too hung up on systems. I look for games that play fast, are versatile, and are popular enough so that I can find other players. I'm past the point where I want to teach and/or learn a half-dozen different systems: there's a very practical limit on the amount of time that I can afford to spend on this hobby, and I'd rather devote that time to writing adventures and characters than learning the intracacies of different games - what I look for in gaming products are things that make that part of my gaming experience easier, by minimizing the work for me as the gamemaster (and honestly, learning a new system is work).




I think that the most important contribution by Ron et al to the gamer community is that RPGing goes way beyond "learning a system" and by doing what you do (ie. sticking to one system to play "all" games) *might* be a recipe for trouble. For a specific example, playing "dogs in the vineyard" with d20 modern (or past) rules will be a game eons away from the dogs in the vineyard "feel". That's what the big model tries to teach: before choosing a game, identify your gaming priorities as a group and then find the game that fits (and if it does not exists, create your own  )


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 14, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Oh yeah -- I hear strong AI is just around the corner! *chortle*



Oh god.  I can't read American philosophy because it's all about this crap.  Just a bunch of people who aren't neuroscientists and aren't computer scientists going on about the brain and AI.

There are a few exceptions, of course, but in general it's all just, as someone put it, a "circle jerk" by a few people who made a name for themselves and who are now "important" in the discipline.  I could go on, but I won't, because it would be a huge off-topic rant.  But yeah, this kind of behaviour is certainly not confined to RPG design.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 14, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I was inspired by the thread to check out a couple of the games mentioned, specifically _My Life with Master_ and _Dogs in the Vineyard_. Both games seemed like they offered interesting premises, but in each case I found myself thinking the same thing: both could be interesting campaign settings for a d20 _Modern_ game (adding _Sidewinder: Recoiled_ for _Dogs in the Vineyard_).




I can't speak to Dogs In The Vineyard, since I haven't played it, but My Life With Master is a good system for what it seeks to accomplish.  Play involves essentially sitting around and narrating scenes without regard for the mechanics of the character.  The character's actual abilities are left abstract, and their traits are essentially purely narrative ones, by which I mean, only things that can change the outcome of a scene are included, and these are heavily abstracted.  The character's traits are also all based on conflict-inducing factors, specifically, Fear, Self-loathing, Weariness and Love, which means that paying attention to the game mechanics turns you back toward the narrative thread of the game, which is essentially interpersonal conflict.

The dice mechanic is there so that no matter what you do narratively during a scene, you won't know how the scene will end (although you have some influence on it by calling for bonus dice), which performs the role of keeping an objective check on a system that is very subjective.  i.e. the rules say whether you succeed or fail, regardless of how you think the scene should end, so roll with it dramatically.  That way you avoid that problem with very narrative games where the characters always win because that would be in their idiom.

It is taken for granted that someone will win, which is important, because you know how the game will end.  That takes the focus away from the outcome and puts it on the struggle.  The important bits are: the relationship between the master and his or her minions, the relationship between the minions and the town, and the relationship between the minions and individual townsfolk.  To a lesser extent, minion/minion relationships come up, but this interaction is not the focus of the game, and the rules actually manage to downplay it to a certain extent.

I can't see this kind of play working as well in a system like d20 modern.  The reason for this is that the MLWM system is pared down to include only what you need to get the kind of game that MLWM provides.  Adding more rules on top of it would complicate the game unnecessarily, and with many things that don't need to be there.  Not to say you couldn't play that game, but abstracting away the details of conflict allows you to focus on the conflict and not the details.  There is no reason why a MLWM character needs a constitution score.  That simply doesn't matter to the outcome of the game.  If I were going to play MLWM using a different system, I'd probably pick another heavily-abstracted system like FUDGE, rather than a detail-laden system like d20 Modern or GURPS.

My point is essentially that the MLWM rules contain only what is necessary to play a game that elicits the kind of game that MLWM seeks to generate.  A problem with this is that MLWM has limited replay value.  Eventually all the games start to feel the same.  There are only so many variations on the master and the minions that are original and interesting.  But it's really good while it's still fresh.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 14, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Just a quick note on Dogs: the setting isn't what's important.  It helps keep the game focused, and it totally reduces prep-time for the GM (to about 30 minutes per 4-hour game), but the game is all about the mechanics.




The guy goes to the trouble of creating a game about "Mormon Cowboy Occult Troubleshooting Gunslingers in the Old West" and you say the setting isn't important?

The setting is the draw man


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 14, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Hang on, though, dude - it can't all be BS, or people like me wouldn't get any use out of it.
> 
> I'm willing to say that it is of _limited_ use, and that some people who espouse that terminology or frequent the Forge may be BSers, but I believe that there is some use to the theory.




Agreed, but in a situation like that at The Forge, the ratio of "Noise" to "Signal" is so high that it's hardly worth listening closely for the gems.

...or is that too jargon-heavy


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> ...or is that too jargon-heavy




To quote the Simpsons: It depends what your definition of "is" is.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 14, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> To quote the Simpsons: It depends what your definition of "is" is.




LOL


----------



## Henry (Dec 14, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> The guy goes to the trouble of creating a game about "Mormon Cowboy Occult Troubleshooting Gunslingers in the Old West" and you say the setting isn't important?
> 
> The setting is the draw man





Mormon... Cowboy... Occult... Troubleshooting Gunslingers.



Now THAT's the kind of thing that needs to be in the ad copy.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 14, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Mormon... Cowboy... Occult... Troubleshooting Gunslingers.
> 
> 
> 
> Now THAT's the kind of thing that needs to be in the ad copy.




...You see what I am saying here Lost Soul?


----------



## Henry (Dec 14, 2005)

Heck, even if Dogs' wasn't your thing, you could drop that puppy into Deadlands or Savage Worlds without batting an eyelash. 

Ron Edwards seems to be the type who espouses "tool the game from the ground up for a specific purpose of play." I have a friend in our group who is the gamer equivalent of the mechanic who takes a Pontiac Grand Am, reinforces the suspension, drops in the largest size engine she'll hold, adds an NO2 injector if he can get away with it, puts track-grade tires on it, and finishes it off with a high-end speaker-system tackily installed and plugged into a CD-player taped to the dashboard.  She ain't pretty, she needs a constant low amount of TLC, but she's a lot more fun than anything "custom-designed" and he can maintain her himself inexpensively.  I've seen Star Wars d20 mated to Star Trek, Feng Shui mated to GI Joe, D&D mated to WW2 action movies, and in all cases, we had a LOT of fun.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 14, 2005)

The Forge, without a doubt, has made some positive contributions to gaming. It has helped people to develop more precise ways of talking about gaming by offering a body of theory developed by volunteers. It has helped to provide a network for clever people who think about RPGs in an academic way. It was, most importantly, created a community of people who facilitate the design and publication of some very innovative games. 

Unfortunately, with that goes a lot of crap. Ron Edwards' GNS theory is a perfectly good model for analyzing RPGs and learning something about them. But unfortunately, Edwards and his followers propose it as a totalizing model. By totalizing, I mean that it is to gaming what Marxism is to history or economics -- it purports to be able to represent and analyze virtually all gaming phenomena. When confronted with modes of play or understanding that the model cannot handle, its defenders become hostile, suggesting that, if a game doesn't fit into the model, it isn't being described properly or is so flawed as to be unworthy of categorization. Because GNS purports to be a theoretical umbrella under which all RPGs are covered rather than just a useful toolbox of terms and ideas, what insights it can offer are seriously undermined by its excessive claims.

Secondly, the discourse on the Forge is steeped in poststructualist academic blather. A post in the now-defunct theory fora, if properly written, would begin with a 2000 word essay defining the terms in the post, sometimes with an attached bibliography. As a result, people would be bandying about words that (a) most posters didn't know the meaning of (e.g. the great _bricolage_ wave), (b) were neologisms that didn't mean what their cognate word indicated (e.g. narrativism pertaining to theme rather than narrative) or (c) were common words onto which people attempted to impress an excessively precise meaning (e.g. only Claude Levi-Strauss's definity of "myth" being acceptable). Needless to say, this results in the theory fanboys of the site talking incomprehensible nonsense at anyone who appears to threaten GNS hegemony.

Thirdly, the Forge, over time, sharpened the definitions in GNS so as to go from being a useful analytical tool to a means of judging styles of gaming. Over time, narrativism went from being a useful way to talking about games in which mechanics can act, unmediated, on story to being a very narrow category of games that excluded larger and larger portions of games whose mechanics acted directly on story but not in a way that the Forge members liked. Basically, they decided that to be narrativist, a mechanic had to act directly on story for the purpose of foregrounding a thematic question -- thus, games that built mechanics that let players act directly on story like _Buffy_ that, in my view, could be properly viewed as narrativist, were excluded from the category. I find this especially ironic -- besides original Warhammer and a handful of other systems with fate mechanics and the like, the Forge really contributed to the rise of games that mechanically reflect some people's desire to make their RPG sessions into collaborative storytelling enterprises. But in the end, they categorized these games as "simulationist" or "gamist" if players weren't using the story control mechanics to ask questions like, and I quote the Forge here, "Is it more important to save a friend or rescue a stranger?"

I did not enjoy visiting the Forge. In part, this is because I don't like game systems where players can act, unmediated by the world's physics, on story. To me, system=physics -- the rules of the game are also the rules of the game world and my suspension of disbelief gets messed up when there is a gap between these things. I'm not interested in seeing my games as a committee-based script writing session; I'm interested in exploring a world that the GM has made, not building it with him as we go. Mostly, however, I did not enjoy the Forge for the same reason I wouldn't enjoy a MENSA meeting -- an ugly social dynamic arises when you have a small group of people who are genuinely clever and a bunch of hangers-on who are there to pretend to be clever. It's also ugly when people are doing unpaid academic work; when people do that, they almost always compensate themselves in the same way: with an inappropriate sense of importance and authority.

I met Chris Lehrich in person, by the way. And although the rest of the evening went pretty well and I ended up quite liking him, our initial argument expresses my difficulty with the Forge. We got into an argument about postmodernism. It turned out, after a while, that we were actually having an argument about the definition of postmodernism; I held the view that postmodernism meant what people who use the word generally consider it to mean; he held the view that it meant what Jacques Derrida defined it to mean. We then debated what we should call the thing that the majority of people are referring to when they use the term "postmodernism"; he would not accept "postmodernism" so I called it "folk relativism," and we got on with our evening.

All in all, I have a positive view of the stuff produced by indie-rpgs. Although the stuff isn't to my taste as a player or GM, I can see the value and creativity there. I do not, however, have a positive view of the theory forums at the Forge and think Ron was correct to shut them down.

EDIT: And thanks, TB, for all the complimentary stuff about me on page 1.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2005)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Well, then, allow me to be the first:
> 
> /me points at The Shaman, stifling a laugh at his weak gamer-fu.



I absolutely earned that.




			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> Just a quick note on Dogs: the setting isn't what's important.  It helps keep the game focused, and it totally reduces prep-time for the GM (to about 30 minutes per 4-hour game), but the game is all about the mechanics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm absolutely with *Teflon Billy* on this one - I looked over the game handouts to see what was covered and how, and I didn't see anything that made me say (in my best Keanu voice), "Whoa?!?"

How are the mechanics special?







			
				Bastoche said:
			
		

> I think that the most important contribution by Ron et al to the gamer community is that RPGing goes way beyond "learning a system" and by doing what you do (ie. sticking to one system to play "all" games) *might* be a recipe for trouble. For a specific example, playing "dogs in the vineyard" with d20 modern (or past) rules will be a game eons away from the dogs in the vineyard "feel". That's what the big model tries to teach: before choosing a game, identify your gaming priorities as a group and then find the game that fits (and if it does not exists, create your own  )



I can understand that, particularly in light of the following post:







			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I can't speak to Dogs In The Vineyard, since I haven't played it, but My Life With Master is a good system for what it seeks to accomplish.  Play involves essentially sitting around and narrating scenes without regard for the mechanics of the character.  The character's actual abilities are left abstract, and their traits are essentially purely narrative ones, by which I mean, only things that can change the outcome of a scene are included, and these are heavily abstracted.  The character's traits are also all based on conflict-inducing factors, specifically, Fear, Self-loathing, Weariness and Love, which means that paying attention to the game mechanics turns you back toward the narrative thread of the game, which is essentially interpersonal conflict....My point is essentially that the MLWM rules contain only what is necessary to play a game that elicits the kind of game that MLWM seeks to generate.



Please forgive me for paring this down so much, *Dr. Awkward*.

I can definitely see how the rules-system can be used to help create a particular gaming experience - the _Call of Cthulhu_ Sanity mechanic comes to mind.

I tend to look a bit sideways at this approach to gaming for exactly the following reason:







			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> A problem with this is that MLWM has limited replay value.  Eventually all the games start to feel the same.  There are only so many variations on the master and the minions that are original and interesting.  But it's really good while it's still fresh.



Versatility and what *Dr. Awkward* terms replay value are very high on my list of important system attributes - I would rather muddle along with a more generic system and tweak it to get the feel that I want to create than have such a finely-tuned game that only takes you a handful of places. Put another way, I'd rather have a Maglite than a laser pointer.

That's not a criticism of the latter approach, just a matter of personal preference.

This is why I haven't played much _Call of Cthulhu_, actually: after the first few times, the games started to feel very flat to me - how can I contrive a situation to drive your characters mad this time? I prefer a more open approach, perhaps - horror, yes, but with more options than just see monster, lose SAN, roll new character, which is what _CoC_ becomes after a fairly short time for me.

A final thought:







			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I can't see this kind of play working as well in a system like d20 modern.  The reason for this is that the MLWM system is pared down to include only what you need to get the kind of game that MLWM provides.  Adding more rules on top of it would complicate the game unnecessarily, and with many things that don't need to be there.  Not to say you couldn't play that game, but abstracting away the details of conflict allows you to focus on the conflict and not the details.  There is no reason why a MLWM character needs a constitution score.  That simply doesn't matter to the outcome of the game.  If I were going to play MLWM using a different system, I'd probably pick another heavily-abstracted system like FUDGE, rather than a detail-laden system like d20 Modern or GURPS.



One of the Mike Mearls posts in the RPGnet thread mentioned this as well, something along the lines of, "If I want a game to be about encountering aliens, do I really need a mechanic for how much fuel the starship has in the tanks? Does this improve on the contact aspect of the game that I want to keep in the forefront of the players' minds?"

It's an interesting question, and one that deserves consideration along with genre emulation and simple playability in game design. I believe that every gamer has sweet spots along contiuua such as roleplaying v. game mechanics, complexity v. simplicity, and so on. Tailoring mechanics to achieve one or several specific effects is certainly elegant and stylistically intriguing, but for me, there needs to be a certain universality to a system as well for it to be appealing. IMX, a more generic system is easier to strip down or build up as needed - a CON score may be irrelevant to _MLWM_ as written, but can I also play a Modern game in which ability mechanics are subsumed by the interpersonal conflicts of the characters? Can I make Fear, Self-loathing, Weariness and Love the basis around which a Modern game revolves without specific conflict resolution mechanics designed for that purpose?


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2005)

I can't disagree with that...



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> But in the end, they categorized these games as "simulationist" or "gamist" if players weren't using the story control mechanics to ask questions like, and I quote the Forge here, "Is it more important to save a friend or rescue a stranger?"




...except maybe here.  I think that this is a useful definition of a "Creative Agenda"  - or let's just say the kinda thing I want out of my gaming experience.  (Except perhaps the word "narrativism" which implies something different.)


----------



## Ragnar_Deerslayer (Dec 14, 2005)

*What the Forge Taught Me*

1.  Some Forgites are arrogant jargon-spewers.
2.  Some Forgites have worthwhile things to say about gaming.
3.  Some Forgites are both.

What I’ve learned from the Forge:

1.  There are many ways of playing; other people may want different things out of play than you do. Some styles of play are almost mutually exclusive.  (“GNS”).
2.  System does matter.  Systems support a certain style of play. (“System Does Matter”)
3.  Many problems among gaming groups occur because players are expecting different styles of play and not getting to play the style they like.  Some problems can be resolved by acknowledging different styles of play and discussing up front the style of play that will be dominant in the game.  (“Social Contract”)
3.  The GM cannot “author” the game while the players also simultaneously have control over their characters.  Someone has to give.  (“The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.”)

I have been roleplaying for 16 years, and did not realize most of these things until they were pointed out on the Forge.  Whatever weirdo claims about “influence” in the industry certain Forgites make, whatever disgusting “elitism” is shown, these things have been invaluable to me, and I will keep going back to the Forge to learn.

Heck, I’ve had my share of arrogant and jargon-spewing grad school professors.  If I stopped listening to someone because I disagreed with some of what they said, or how they said it, I would be seriously ignorant. 

Ragnar


----------



## Kanegrundar (Dec 14, 2005)

Issues such as Social Contract and (to a lesser extent) System Does Matter weren't new concepts that the Forge created.  They may have been the first, or at least the most prominent of websites to really delve into the concepts, but I would find it extremely surprising if anyone told me that having a base concept for the game that all playing in can get behind was suddenly new to them upon reading about Social Contract on The Forge.  After all if there's a game where the DM wanted to run a RP-heavy court intrigue game with players that were looking forward to a campaign based around everything from killing monsters in a dungeon to pirates on the high seas, then it shouldn't suprise anyone that the campaign will very likely fail to be fun for anyone involved.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 14, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Secondly, the discourse on the Forge is steeped in poststructualist academic blather.




I cordially invite you to tell me what you think poststructuralism is.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> How are the mechanics special?I can understand that, particularly in light of the following post:




Some of the "mechanics" are more like what you'd see as setting.  But there's something in there that talks about judging your character.  It says that your character can only be judged by you.

This allows the player to take a moral or ethical stance on whatever issues that he or she is facing.  Compare that to a Paladin, who must act Lawful Good or lose his powers.  A Dog is a Dog, no matter what he or she does, until the player of that character decides otherwise.

There's also a rule for the GM: Say yes or roll the dice.  Which is a sweet little thing that forces you to get down to what really matters instead of having conflicts over things that don't matter.

In a more concrete way, there are the Escalation mechanics and the Give mechanic.  When you start off Just Talking, there's no chance that you're going to end up dead.  When you start pushing each other, that raises a bit; more when you're using weapons; and even more still when guns are involved.

Now since you can see all the dice on the table, you can make a reasonable judgement as to whether or not you are going to lose the conflict or not.  Or how much the conflict is going to cost you.  

If you see that, just by talking, you can't win, then you have to decide: is this conflict worth fighting over?  It continues to escalate: is this worth killing over?  Possibly dying over?

And when things are just too hot for you - you don't want to die for this conflict, or you don't want to hurt whoever's opposing you - you can Give.  You lose the conflict, but don't suffer any additional ill effects.

To put this in perspective from actual gamplay:

I was playing in a Dogs game.  The townspeople had formed a lynch gang and were coming to string up the guy we were protecting.  Guns came out.

Now I had rolled crap, and I saw that if I kept fighting I was going to get shot.  I looked at my dice, and thought, "Well, I can just give."  But I decided, "Screw that, they'll only lynch this guy over my dead body."

That sort of choice is less obvious in other game systems.  And it's that sort of thing that Dogs is about, in my opinion, not "Mormon Cowboy Occult Troubleshooting Gunslingers in the Old West".   (Which is cool, because then you can adapt it to other settings easily enough.)


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 14, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Not being employed in academia does not prevent one from behavign like an "academic type".  Convergent evolution happens, you know.




Not in this case. When folks shoot the breeze about culture in an academic context there might be some odd language, but they also talk about things like how being black or poor affects one's experience of a culture, or how real world history affects our perspectives. The Forge starts from the basis that gaming is separated from history and culture completely. Contemporary thinking about culture is pretty much entirely opposed to the idea that we should pretend that there aren't real people and events (including abstractions substituted for reality) informing what's happening.

This is the result of a destructive subtext in thinking about RPGs, which is that gamers are, in the wider world, often ashamed of the intellectual affort they put into gaming. If gaming is trivial, than ideas about gaming cannot be about anything that really matters, so it must be walled off fromthe dangers of relevance.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> *snip*



I admit I'm not 100% sure what some of the examples mean - "There's also a rule for the GM: Say yes or roll the dice. Which is a sweet little thing that forces you to get down to what really matters instead of having conflicts over things that don't matter."    - but I can get a general sense of how the mechanics are designed to produce a particular feel in play.

I think I'd rather play _S:R_ Mormon Cowboy Occult Troubleshooting Gunslingers.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 14, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> That's not true.  Jargon exists to facilitate discussion of difficult concepts.




I can get behind that - the problem with jargon at The Forge is that it isn't used to faciliatate the discussion of difficult concepts, but to 'dress up' rather mundane concepts to make them sound more intellectual than they really are. I've seen dozens of non-Forge designers discuss Forge concepts using plain Enlglish and not lose anything in the translation (except, perhaps, for the pretension). In some cases, an antire lexicon of jargon isn't necessary - game design seems to be one of those cases. 



> It's not jargon that's the problem, it's people who use jargon to try to indicate that they are superior to others.




This is somewhat true - as I state above, however, jargon _is_ part of the problem. A lexicon of invented terminology and/or re-definition of existing words isn't necessary to elucidate the things that The Forge espouses. Plain language will work just fine, but it is passed over specifically in favor of more complex, invented, jargon (much of which lacks objective definition). There is no doubt in my mind that this choice was made to 'sound important' - why else would you invent new terminology when words already existed that could easily explain your ideas without confusion? Jargon _is_ part of the problem, but not the _whole_ problem.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 14, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I think I'd rather play _S:R_ Mormon Cowboy Occult Troubleshooting Gunslingers.




I'd buy that. *Sidewinder: Recoiled* is my Cowboy game of choice


----------



## ZombieButch (Dec 14, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> ...the problem with jargon at The Forge is that it isn't used to faciliatate the discussion of difficult concepts, but to 'dress up' rather mundane concepts to make them sound more intellectual than they really are.




This one sentence pretty well sums up my real beef with the Forge. I think discussing RPG theory is nifty, but I do think some folks have a tendency to try and put a dress on the pig and call it a prom date.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Dec 14, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> I'd buy that. *Sidewinder: Recoiled* is my Cowboy game of choice



 You aRE such a gamist!  

Edited for a total lack of proofreading.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I admit I'm not 100% sure what some of the examples mean




Might as well quote the text:



> Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes.
> 
> If nothing’s at stake, say yes to the players, whatever they’re doing. Just plain go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they’re there. If they want it, it’s theirs.
> 
> ...




If that's not clear: you don't get bogged down in things that are unimportant because, if they are just unimportant, you "say yes".  If you don't want to "say yes", they _are_ important, and you roll the dice.

An example would be something like this:

The Dogs are searching for a clue to find out who the possessed killer is.  They search under the bed, under the dresser, in the dresser, etc.  But they don't search under the rug.  They don't find the clue, and everyone spent 30 minutes getting nowhere.

Boring.

Instead, when the Dogs start searching, you either "say yes" ("Okay, you search for 30 minutes and under the rug you find a bloodied MacGuffin") or you roll dice.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 14, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I'd more say that the problem is when the jargon doesn't actually equate to a defensible idea. In the context of the Forge, you get these baroque semantic games thet go like this:




That would be my second problem with much of the Jargon over at the Forge, and what I was trying to convey earlier when talking about "smoke and mirrors" - a lot of the jargon seems to lack objective (or meaningful) definition and is often utilized differently by different posters in defense of whatever position they happen to be taking at a given time. That is, a lot of Forge terminology seems to be the equivalent of the old AD&D 'anything device' - a snippet of tenuously defined terminology that can be applied to mean whatever the individual utilizing it wants it to mean. 

It took me almost two years of observing terms like 'narrativism' and the like being bandied about the Forge, before I realized that they weren't being applied with anything resembling consistency - rather, individual posters applied them differently, specifically redefining them for optimum effect where whatever point they were trying to make was concerned. When I'd ask about this I would get the notorious 'You don't understand' instead of an explanation (much as you outlined with the example in your quoted post). Obviously, this raised a _huge_ red flag.


----------



## The Shaman (Dec 14, 2005)

palehorse said:
			
		

> ...I do think some folks have a tendency to try and put a dress on the pig and call it a prom date.



We went as just friends, okay? :\ 







			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> An example would be something like this:
> 
> The Dogs are searching for a clue to find out who the possessed killer is.  They search under the bed, under the dresser, in the dresser, etc.  But they don't search under the rug.  They don't find the clue, and everyone spent 30 minutes getting nowhere.
> 
> ...



Okay.

Am I missing something here, or is this pretty much the way most roleplaying games work? Or is that the point? Sorry to be so thick about this, but I'm sure I'm missing the revolutionary bit here.







			
				Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> You are such a gamist!



If liking _Sidewinder: Recoiled_ means I'm a gamist, then dammit I'm a gamist and proud of it!


----------



## Kanegrundar (Dec 14, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> If liking _Sidewinder: Recoiled_ means I'm a gamist, then dammit I'm a gamist and proud of it!



Same here.  I loves me some SW: R!!!


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 14, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Am I missing something here, or is this pretty much the way most roleplaying games work? Or is that the point? Sorry to be so thick about this, but I'm sure I'm missing the revolutionary bit here.




Naw, there's nothing revolutionary about it, it's just a nice little addition in there that helps run the game along.  GM advice dressed up as a rule.


----------



## SWBaxter (Dec 14, 2005)

It's worth noting that the Forge's forums were not solely, or even mostly, dedicated to academic discussions of the big model or GNS or whatever else. There's always been lots of resources for people to get started publishing their own stuff, to iron out problems in their games, etc. Focusing on the theory flamewars and saying that's all there is to the Forge would be like focusing on some of the rules lawyerish threads in the Rules forum and claiming that's all there is to EN World.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 14, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> You aRE such a gamist!
> 
> Edited for a total lack of proofreading.




By all accounts, I am a Simulationist if I am anything.

but honestly, it depends who you ask over there


----------



## Kanegrundar (Dec 14, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> By all accounts, I am a Simulationist if I am anything.
> 
> but honestly, it depends who you ask over there



 Very true.  It was just my poor attempt at "Forgish" humor.  In all honesty, I don't think I could really tell you the difference in any of the three theses days.  It's been a while since I read the GNS theory.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 15, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> I don't think I could really tell you the difference in any of the three theses days.




It's not really complicated....

Gamists want to Prove Themselves.
Simulationists want to Be There.
Narrativists want to Say Something (in a lit 101 sense).

http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html#3


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 15, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> It's not really complicated....
> 
> Gamists want to Prove Themselves.
> Simulationists want to Be There.
> ...




According to Lumpley - but other Forge posters have used and do use different definitions where those terms (especially 'narrativism' and/or 'Narrativist') are concerned. Again, eyebeams (MS) really hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Dec 15, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> It's not really complicated....
> 
> Gamists want to Prove Themselves.
> Simulationists want to Be There.
> ...



Easy for you to say.  I'd wager that there would be a few over at the Forge that would disagree with really big wurds  with you, which was the beginning of my beef with the forums at the Forge.  There are some decent games that come out of there, but my views of some of the people behind the games keep me from going back.  It's just better for all.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 15, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> According to Lumpley - but other Forge posters have used and do use different definitions where those terms (especially 'narrativism' and/or 'Narrativist') are concerned. Again, eyebeams (MS) really hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread.




I'm not sure where you're going - are you saying that there is no point in providing a definition of these terms because some people don't agree with those definitions?


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 15, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where you're going - are you saying that there is no point in providing a definition of these terms because some people don't agree with those definitions?




No, he's saying that, traditonally, the terms as you define them will defined differently _several times over_ by voices of authority at The Forge.

One of the main complaints visible in this thread is that the denizens of The Forge--self confident though they may be when arguing that people are dumb--have never managed to adequately define their new jargon.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 15, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where you're going - are you saying that there is no point in providing a definition of these terms because some people don't agree with those definitions?




No. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, a lot of Forge jargon is very tenuously defined at best and, as eyebeams said, doesn't actually equate to a defensible idea as a direct result of that tenuous definition. I'm saying that trying to pass off purely subjective criteria (such as that used by Lumpley in the cited reference) as definition is pointless. Definitions _define_ things - and most of the Forge jargon doesn't do this, rather it cleverly _avoids_ defining things. 

For instance, what does 'Saying Something (in a Lit 101 sense)' actually mean? That phrase can mean any number of things depending upon who is reading it. It isn't a definition at all, but a cleverly constructed bit of obfuscation that hides the fact that there is _no definition_. It's my contention that this is deliberate, as it provides a built-in strawman defense for any possible criticism that may be leveled at Forge design philosophy. 

The question of what 'Narrativism' or 'Gamism' or any other such thing actually consists of is, in fact, a very valid question worth answering in concrete terms - the key being _in concrete terms_. The Forge definitions of these things define precious little and I don't believe that this is accidental. I see a good deal (but not all) of The Forge theory as being much like David Copperfield's disappearing Statue of Liberty - at first glance it's absolutely what it appears to be, but if you examine it very closely, the illusion falls apart. 

The complete lack of objective definition for major cornerstones of The Big Model is a glaring flaw, but one that many people are distracted from. The big words and flashy grandstanding that surround theory discussion at The Forge (or _did_ surround theory discussion at The Forge before Ron shut it down) aren't accidental - they're specifically designed to shift the attention away from the The Big Model's flaws (and to be fair, they manged to shift my attention away from those flaws for more than 2 years). 

The Big Model is the illusion. The reality is that nobody at the Forge can explain The Big Model in its entirety with objective terminology (which in and of itself is actually a byproduct of earlier GNS theory not being defined objectively). That said, it's an attractive illusion and I admire it much as I admire David Copperfield's disappearing Statue of Liberty - but I also see it for what it is (or what I believe it to be, failing the lack of an objective definition to date).


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Dec 15, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> No, he's saying that, traditonally, the terms as you define them will defined differently _several times over[/i[] by voices of authority at The Forge.
> 
> One of the main complaints visible in this thread is that the denizens of The Forge--self confident though they may be when arguing that people are dumb--have never managed to adequately define their new jargon._



_

Well, that's what happens as a theory is developed, especially if developed by committee.  Ideas evolve, meanings change, and so on, and people disagree.  They might be better off starting over with new terms though, now that Ron's decided that they have their final result, just to avoid such problems._


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 15, 2005)

Mishihari Lord said:
			
		

> Well, that's what happens as a theory is developed, especially if developed by committee.




While it is true that theories can and do evolve, the assertion that they exist in a continual state of flux and, thus, are unable to ever be defined objectively is a load of horse pucky (although this is the defense of The Big Model often put forth by The Forge).


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 15, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> For instance, what does 'Saying Something (in a Lit 101 sense)' actually mean? That phrase can mean any number of things depending upon who is reading it. It isn't a definition at all, but a cleverly constructed bit of obfuscation that hides the fact that there is _no definition_.




I don't think we are going to agree here.  I see it as a valid definition and I find it difficult to see how one would misinterpret it.  (Now maybe I just haven't had enough exposure to the theory.)

I'm still interested on your views, especially since they challenge my own, but I wonder if this forum is the right place to hash it out (since we are talking about another forum and that's generally frowned upon).  For example, I'd like to hear how the theory falls apart based on examples from actual play.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 15, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> No, he's saying that, traditonally, the terms as you define them will defined differently _several times over_ by voices of authority at The Forge.




I just pulled those definitions from the link I posted (from one of those authorities at the Forge).  I'm not sure exactly how I'd say things in my own words.  But I've got the impression that the authorities at the Forge are pretty consistent on what they mean when they define those terms.  I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

eh, maybe this thread has run its course.  I'd be willing to continue discussion via email, if anyone is so inclined.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 15, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I see it as a valid definition




Then tell me - what does it _mean_?   I assume he means 'literally speaking', but since both Clinton and Ron have gone on record in the past as saying that 'Narrativist' has nothing to do with literal narration or narrative, this can't be correct. 

[Edit: If so inclined, you can email me your explanation.]


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 15, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Then tell me - what does it _mean_?   I assume he means 'literally speaking', but since both Clinton and Ron have gone on record in the past as saying that 'Narrativist' has nothing to do with literal narration or narrative, this can't be correct.
> 
> [Edit: If so inclined, you can email me your explanation.]




As far as I can tell, "Saying Something (in a lit 101 sense)" is about expressing an answer to a moral or ethical issue through play.

In some games, it's obvious what's going on: When I decided to risk my life because I didn't want the lynch gang to hang the guy we were guarding, I was answering some kind of question.  (I'm not very good at identifying theme, so I don't know what the issue was there exactly - maybe something like "Justice is worth dying for."  Which is one of the questions that the mechanics push - "What is worth dying for?")

In other games, it's not so obvious.  I had a Star Wars game back in the day where some evil Jedi was ready to repent, if the players forgave him and embraced him into the light.  They knew this - I think I told them flat out - but they decided not to.  So the question posed there was "What sins are you willing to forgive?"  and their answer was "Not his."   Not that I had any idea that sort of thing was going on.

That's how I see it.  I could be wrong.  If I am, eh, screw it, this works for me.


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 15, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Not in this case. When folks shoot the breeze about culture in an academic context there might be some odd language, but they also talk about things like how being black or poor affects one's experience of a culture, or how real world history affects our perspectives.




(snip)

The academic method (to coin a term) is not what you talk about, it's how you talk about it.

As an example take creationists. Creationists talk about evolution, but they talk about it as academics would. And this includes the scientists among them. Their opposition is academic, their proposals are academic, their arguments are academic. They, in short, use the academic method. Philosophers and fine art critics do much the same thing.

So one could have a conversation that does not include blacks, the history of fine art in 13th century Pest, or the hitory of blacks in fine art in 13th century Pest, and still be engaged in an academic conversation.

Hell, for all their appeals to scientific thinking I've noticed that more sceptics approach matters from an academic viewpoint than a scientific than  not.

Remember, it is not the subject, it is how you approach the subject.


----------



## Akrasia (Dec 15, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> ... We got into an argument about postmodernism. It turned out, after a while, that we were actually having an argument about the definition of postmodernism; I held the view that postmodernism meant what people who use the word generally consider it to mean; he held the view that it meant what Jacques Derrida defined it to mean. We then debated what we should call the thing that the majority of people are referring to when they use the term "postmodernism"; he would not accept "postmodernism" so I called it "folk relativism," and we got on with our evening. ...




Thank Zeus I work in analytical philosophy and do not have to deal with 'postmodernism' rubbish.

Why one would even read Derrida in one's spare time is a mystery.  The stuff is torture.  I couldn't be paid to look at that, let alone post about it on some RPG message board.

As for the FORGE, I always found the GNS scheme useful as a shorthand for figuring out what people wanted out of a game.  Indeed, it would have been helpful  had we confronted that issue straight-up in my last group, as there was a clear G-N split.

'Sorcerer' is a brilliant game.  But it's also a game I'll probably never play.  Same goes for 'Burning Wheel'.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 15, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell, "Saying Something (in a lit 101 sense)" is about expressing an answer to a moral or ethical issue through play.




You get all of that out of 'Saying Something (in a Lit 101 sense)' - wow. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you've formed a conclusion based on something other than Vincent's definitions. As much as I'd like to, I really can't believe for a minute that your answer came about as a result of reading Vincent's definition alone as his definition of 'Saying Something (in a Lit 101 Sense)' and the explanation that you've given have very little to do with each other outside of the fact that they're both composed of words. That is, making the leap from one to the other without first consulting other sources of information seems absolutely incredible. 

At any rate, note that your interpretation is actually quite a bit different than the official (and much more vague) entry in the Forge Glossary, which defines 'Narrativist' as a mode of play defined primarily by one of three recognized Creative Agendas known as 'Narrativism' which in and of itself is defined primarily by Story Now, a Commitment to Addressing Premise (which does not necessarily include moral or ethical dilemma) through actual play. 

Vincent's definition touches on absolutely none of that. More importantly, however, is that the entry in the Forge Glossary concerning 'Narrativism' directs the reader to another entry (created at a later date) for the definition, which in turn directs the reader to _yet another entry_ (also created at a later date) that does, finally, define the principle criteria of Narrativism - but stops short of defining Narratvism itself, instead referring back to the intial entry for Narrativism. What else makes Narratvisim what it is besides Story Now? What _is_ Narrativism? 

Sadly, we may never know. What we _do_ know is that it isn't explained in The Big Model or covered by the official Forge Glossary in any sort of definitive, non-circular, manner. If you look closer at The Big Model and the Glossary, you'll find that a lot of these fairly evident logic errors exist. 

[Note: For a graphic representation of why the majority of Forge theory and definition thereof falls down, see the Oxford University Invariant Society's *Circular Logic FAQ*.]


----------



## ForceUser (Dec 15, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> ...there was a clear G-N split.



Maybe that's the problem with one of my groups. Hm. How to address it without spitting and frothing in DM frustration. 

Gamist relativism--there is no wrong way to have fun gaming.
Gut Response--there is in my game, and that's favoring mechanics over narrative.

Hm.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 15, 2005)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> Gut Response--there is in my game, and that's favoring mechanics over narrative.




Note that, according to Forge dogma, narrative actually has nothing to do with 'Narrativism' (I know - I could never wrap my head around that, either).


----------



## Knightfall (Dec 15, 2005)

Man, just reading *THIS* thread made my head hurt. Forget this "The Forge" place.  

Oww!

KF72


----------



## fusangite (Dec 15, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> As for the FORGE, I always found the GNS scheme useful as a shorthand for figuring out what people wanted out of a game.  Indeed, it would have been helpful  had we confronted that issue straight-up in my last group, as there was a clear G-N split.



I certainly don't find the scheme valueless. However, to me a successful gaming group is one that is based on a balance of gaming foci and creative agendas. I think systems, campaigns and groups are at their best when neither the simulationist nor the gamist "agenda" is clearly privileged and different players find fulfilment in different parts of the play. In my experience, this diversity helps to give everyone time in the spotlight. I also think, as stated before, that most people who want mechanics to act directly on story don't necessarily have the thematic focus that narrativism presumes.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 15, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell, "Saying Something (in a lit 101 sense)" is about expressing an answer to a moral or ethical issue through play.



Now that a little piece of the Forge debate has found its way onto ENWorld, I have to ask: how do you categorize games in which the mechanics act directly on story, the players see their role as collaborative storytelling but they don't care a fig about these moral or ethical issues and don't intend to use the game mechanics to explore these questions?


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 15, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> You get all of that out of 'Saying Something (in a Lit 101 sense)' - wow. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you've formed a conclusion based on something other than Vincent's definitions.




You're right - I've read about it here and there.  However, I believe that conclusion was formed mainly by Ron Edward's "Story Now" essay, for the most part, and then buttressed by Vincent (and other's) writings.

When I read about Premise in that first essay, it hit me like a bullet.  I wasn't sure about the extent of it at that time (do you have to address Premise 24/7 for it to be narrativist?  what if you don't know that you're addressing Premise? etc.) but I'm reasonably clear on it now.

I don't see how else you can interpret it, honestly.



			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> the explanation that you've given have very little to do with each other outside of the fact that they're both composed of words.




 



			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> At any rate, note that your interpretation is actually quite a bit different than the official (and much more vague) entry in the Forge Glossary.




This is what I get from Story Now, on the Forge, in the original Narrativist essay:



> Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing.




I could be wrong when I relate an "engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence" to moral or ethical issues, but I don't think so.



			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> What else makes Narratvisim what it is besides Story Now? What _is_ Narrativism?




Narrativism is Story Now.  Story Now is defined in the quote above (from the Narrativist essay).  I'm just not seeing the disconnect here.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 15, 2005)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> Man, just reading *THIS* thread made my head hurt. Forget this "The Forge" place.
> 
> Oww!
> 
> KF72



might i recommend you drink heavily.

that's what i do whenever people start talking about the forge. i imagine i'm there in my tightie whities with something in hand. so i'm gaming. i tell them what i'm doing while i do it. so i'm narrating the action. and then i simulate my satisfaction by redecorating the nearest forger.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 15, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Now that a little piece of the Forge debate has found its way onto ENWorld, I have to ask: how do you categorize games in which the mechanics act directly on story, the players see their role as collaborative storytelling but they don't care a fig about these moral or ethical issues and don't intend to use the game mechanics to explore these questions?




I'm not really sure; good question.

(I'm not really sure what you mean by mechanics that act directly on story - something like Escalation in Dogs in the Vineyard, or something like Action Points?)

If they don't care about addressing moral or ethical issues, they don't have a narrativist agenda.  If they remove (or ignore) the mechanics that support that kind of play in order to get the kind of play they are looking for - that seems to me to be "drift", probably to support Simulationist play.  (The collaborative storytelling making me think that it's not gamisim that those players are looking for.)

(Drift, as I understand it, is when you make up house rules to support a play style that isn't supported by the game mechanics.)


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 15, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> (snip)
> 
> The academic method (to coin a term) is not what you talk about, it's how you talk about it.




We weren't talking about method. We were talking about content.



> So one could have a conversation that does not include blacks, the history of fine art in 13th century Pest, or the hitory of blacks in fine art in 13th century Pest, and still be engaged in an academic conversation.




If there was a prominent African influence in Pest art in the 13th century, then it would be a lousy academic conversation to have which decided to ignore them. More generally, talking about that subject without talking about how people in Pest lived and their social cicumstances would also be pretty dumb. It is in this sense that Forge discussion is pretty dumb.



> Hell, for all their appeals to scientific thinking I've noticed that more sceptics approach matters from an academic viewpoint than a scientific than  not.




I'm not parsing this.



> Remember, it is not the subject, it is how you approach the subject.




Nah. sometimes its the subject. Glaring holes in discourse do imply that something's wrong with the method, though, since a good method ought to reveal what is relevant.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 15, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Thank Zeus I work in analytical philosophy and do not have to deal with 'postmodernism' rubbish.




I hear strong AI is just around the corner, now that analytical types have been nice enough to explain consciousness!

Everybody has rubbish.



> Why one would even read Derrida in one's spare time is a mystery.  The stuff is torture.  I couldn't be paid to look at that, let alone post about it on some RPG message board.




What do you think Derrida is saying? It really does get quite tiresome to continually read people who read some postmodernists as an undergrad decide that they know the whole shebang and they may as well follow departmental fashion.

This is where I suspect you get wierd things like declarations that the Forge is both "totalizing," and "postrstructuralist," which is one of the few patently impossible configurations of poststructuralism.


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 15, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> We weren't talking about method. We were talking about content.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Nice use of the academic method.


----------



## Bastoche (Dec 15, 2005)

IMO, the problem with the GNS definitions is that they are in fact irrelevant. And IMO, that's the latest take from Ron about it. and their most important contribution. The point is that identifiying the creative agenda for a given group is what matters most when organizing a game (afterwards, system does matter  ). And I believe there are as many CAs out there as there are gamers and combination of group of gamers among these gamers (a lot). GNS is the the "most obvious" ones or caricatures. The G and S have strong historical example ie most RPGs out there on the market. All the others are the gazillions of house ruled RPG out there.

If all gamers understood the notion of CA and the relation it has to RPGing in general and to rules system, there would be about half less threads going on on enworld. All the "problem players/GM" thread would vanish, the house rule section would either vanish or split in gazillions of sections (or 3 a G a S and a N  ) and nobody you would go condescending about "good" roleplaying vs "bad" roleplaying. Most paladin and alignement issues would also vanish. Etc. And the OGL license would certainly be more fruitful. If and only if those snobs at the forge could put their stuff in order.


----------



## SWBaxter (Dec 15, 2005)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> Maybe that's the problem with one of my groups. Hm. How to address it without spitting and frothing in DM frustration.




Yeah, and in that you've just twigged on one of the quietly useful aspects of the Forge - when somethings going wrong with a campaign, it's not a bad thing to read some of their discussions about what can go wrong and see how other people have fixed it. Regardless of whether you buy into the idea that GNS or the big model or whatever is an all-encompassing theory of RPG design, there's no question that it developed from trying to understand and address the problems people have in gaming groups. That's not the aspect of the Forge that gets publicity, because somebody saying "hmm, that gives me an idea about a problem in my group, thanks" isn't nearly as likely to draw attention as a flamewar over semantics, but it's almost certainly a far greater contributor to the Forge's fame and longevity.


----------



## Bastoche (Dec 15, 2005)

SWBaxter said:
			
		

> Yeah, and in that you've just twigged on one of the quietly useful aspects of the Forge - when somethings going wrong with a campaign, it's not a bad thing to read some of their discussions about what can go wrong and see how other people have fixed it. Regardless of whether you buy into the idea that GNS or the big model or whatever is an all-encompassing theory of RPG design, there's no question that it developed from trying to understand and address the problems people have in gaming groups. That's not the aspect of the Forge that gets publicity, because somebody saying "hmm, that gives me an idea about a problem in my group, thanks" isn't nearly as likely to draw attention as a flamewar over semantics, but it's almost certainly a far greater contributor to the Forge's fame and longevity.




Actually just posting an actual play part exposing the problem is what they are best at. It's like conseling for gaming groups 

The reason why they'd rather go for actual play instead of overdefining stuff is that in real situation everybody can "feel" what is "right" and what is "wrong" during play time. They are trying to put words on these feelings and so far, they have failed.

Denigrating the forge, IMO, is like being a early 1900's physicist denigrating quantum mechanics or general relativity. Nobody could understand it yet because there was a breaking through pending. I'm such in a few years from now it will all make much more sense and be integral part of RPG designing in the mainstream industry (4E anyone  )


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 15, 2005)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> Actually just posting an actual play part exposing the problem is what they are best at. It's like conseling for gaming groups




Theory does nothing to solve 90% of the problems at the root of poor games, which come from pressures external to play. The Forge posits an excellent way for players to insulate themselves from the fact that they are, it fact, people who have lousy days at work, come off breakups and are distracted by things for no particular reason, because gamers like to pretend they're funky rational interest robots when they really, really are not.



> The reason why they'd rather go for actual play instead of overdefining stuff is that in real situation everybody can "feel" what is "right" and what is "wrong" during play time. They are trying to put words on these feelings and so far, they have failed.




No, they are in intense denial of these feelings, as a rule. Of course, 90% of actual play threads come from GMs or alpha players projecting their interests onto the group, so AP posts are nicely indicative of the ego-states of one guy posting, and terrible when it comes to what anybody else in the group thought.



> Denigrating the forge, IMO, is like being a early 1900's physicist denigrating quantum mechanics or general relativity. Nobody could understand it yet because there was a breaking through pending. I'm such in a few years from now it will all make much more sense and be integral part of RPG designing in the mainstream industry (4E anyone  )




From an Arts perspective, it's the other way around. In fact, it is amazing how much Forge business resembles the flailing of 19th century thinking, with its totalist, essentialist postions.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 15, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I don't see how else you can interpret it, honestly.




I have a hard time believing that you _honestly_ mean that, as you've already admitted that reading several Forge essays is a requirement to interpret the phrase as you have. In short, it's pretty easy to interpret the definition given by Vincent as a meaning lot of other things, provided that one doesn't first go do a lot of research (indeed, at least one person on this thread has already supposed that Narrativism has something to do with narrative or literature, neither of which is necessarily true according to Forge canon).



> I could be wrong when I relate an "engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence" to moral or ethical issues, but I don't think so.




Well, according to the Glossary definition, that isn't a qualifier of Story Now. So one Forge founder says X and one says Y. According to the Glossary, the only qualifier of Story Now is that it address premise through actual play, and premise, while it _may_ be an engaging issue (that's an extremely vague qualifier, but I digress) is not necessarily engaging. Likewise, premise is not necesssarily a "problematic feature of human existence" (which, again, is quite vague and not necessarily a moral or ethical dilemma). 

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about where the lack of definititive explanation of terms is concerned. Clinton's Glossary states one thing whereas Ron's essay states another thing entirely (it adds a qualifier absent from the Glossary definition). Which is odd... given that the Glossary definition post-dates the essay. So, perhaps, it's that the official Glossary drops a qualifier? Either way, the two definitions (each issued by a Forge founder) are in conflict on a fundamental level. 



> Narrativism is Story Now.  Story Now is defined in the quote above (from the Narrativist essay).  I'm just not seeing the disconnect here.




Story Now is _also_ defined by the _other_ Forge founder in the glossary - and what's more, therein it is defined differently. The definition of Narrativism in the Forge Glossary refers the reader to the entry for Story Now (which, BTW, didn't come into being until three or more years after 'Narrativism' did) that, in turn, explains Story Now as being only one _feature_ of Narrativism and cites the entry for Creative Agenda as a qualifier.

Now, if you choose to ignore the existence of one definition and embrace another as the only one that matters, that's certainly a choice open to you - but making that choice doesn't mean that the contradictory definitions cease to exist, nor does it address the basic logic flaws that assert themselves as a result of these tenuous defintions. So, what _is_ Narrativism? Ron, Clinton, Vincent, and Yourself all provide a different answer to the question insofar as qualifiers are concerned: 


*Ron Says:* Narrativism _is_ Story Now, a Creative Agenda that addresses an engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence. 


*Clinton Says:* Narrativism is a Creative Agenda whose primary _feature_ is Story Now, a Creative Agenda* that addresses premise (a thing that, by basic literary definition, is not necessarily tied to either of the two things that Ron suggests it is). 


*Vincent Says:* Narrativism is people who want to Say Something (in a Lit 101 sense), a definition that neither quantifies Narrativism or Story Now in and of itself - instead it only draws a vague comparision to basic Literature courses as taught by a Univiersity. 


*You Say:* Narrativism _is_ Story Now, a Creative Agenda that specifically addresses moral or ethical issues.

Now, if one is to objectively evaluate all of those answers, they'll see that they're all quite different. Ron's defintion presents only vague qualifiers that are completely open to interpretation, Clinton's definition specifically defines _a_ qualifier but differentiates between that qualifier and the thing that it qualifies in addition to suggesting that more qualifier exist, Vincent's definition addresses _no_ qualifiers, and your definition specifically defines a qualifier that neither Ron nor Clinton do 

Of the 4 definitions, I think that Clinton's comes the closest to being objective as it utilizes terms that it attempts to objectively define via external reference and, in doing so, actually attempts to answer the question 'What is Narrativism?' definitively (sadly, it stops short of telling the reader what Narrativism is, other than a Creative Agenda characterized by Story Now*). As to which definition is the most worthwhile... 

At the present time, I'm going to say _none of them_ - Ron's is entirely subjective, Clinton's is incomplete, Vincent's doesn't define anything in and of itself, and yours is extremely narrow, holding out one qualifier as the 'be all, end all' (e.g., moral and ethical dilemma). As they stand, I'm not convinced that any of those definitions are useful when applied to the Big Picture (i.e., the hobby as a whole). I think that Clinton's definition has the _potential_ to be useful (ditto yours, if you widen the scope), but Ron and Vincent's definitions only seem to facilitate the need to sound important, as they stop short of defining anything in objective terms (well, and again, Vincent's doesn't even _try_). 

Sincerely,
James D. Hargrove

*This might be viewed as a logic error if one asserts that a Creative Agenda cannot inform another Creative Agenda or that Narratvism and Story Now are the same thing  (Clinton asserts that the latter is not true in his definition).


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 15, 2005)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> Denigrating the forge, IMO, is like being a early 1900's physicist denigrating quantum mechanics or general relativity. Nobody could understand it yet because there was a breaking through pending. I'm such in a few years from now it will all make much more sense and be integral part of RPG designing in the mainstream industry (4E anyone  )




Bam! And there it is! The infamous 'If you question it, you just don't get it!' mantra. I suppose it was only a matter of time


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 15, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I have a hard time believing that you _honestly_ mean that, as you've already admitted that reading several Forge essays is a requirement to interpret the phrase as you have.




I do honestly mean that; it just seems obvious to me.  But I see your point.  (And while I've read up on this and that, I don't think I've really changed my interpretation since the first time I read the original Story Now essay.  I may have had some questions answered, but what I understood Narrativism as when I read that is the same as it is today.  As far as I am aware.  )



			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Ron, Clinton, Vincent, and Yourself all provide a different answer to the question insofar as qualifiers are concerned:




Interesting analysis.  For me, all those definitions seem pretty much the same.  Your points seem, to me, like nitpicks.  Whether or not they are nitpicks, I'll leave to others to decide for themselves (as my own view is coloured).  As to whether or not I see these definitions as the same because I'm firmly attached to my own definition and I see other, different definitions as validating my own - that could be the case.  But I'm okay with it, it works for me. 

I guess I just don't see the fundamental conflict between the various definitions.

I don't think that my definition is narrow.  Sometimes it seems that way to me, but then I remember it's as broad as the human condition.

It would be cool if we could sit down together and play some games where I tried to facilitate one of the Creative Agendas.  "Today I'll try to facilitate narrativist play; tomorrow it's gamism, and then simulationism."  That would probably be a better way for us to understand each other.  And fun, too.


----------



## mcrow (Dec 15, 2005)

after reading that thread and observing some the forgites I will not be buying products made by some of them anymore. Not that there are so many "big hit" RPG to come out of these guys anyway or any that I really like.  I can't support games who have developers that are so sphincteric. It's the same reason I don't buy White Wolf stuff.


----------



## Wil (Dec 15, 2005)

mcrow said:
			
		

> after reading that thread and observing some the forgites I will not be buying products made by some of them anymore. Not that there are so many "big hit" RPG to come out of these guys anyway or any that I really like.  I can't support games who have developers that are so sphincteric. It's the same reason I don't buy White Wolf stuff.




Yeah, because we know that Rebecca Bergstrom is _so_ pretentious.  I mean, she's always trying to push her style of play on everyone else, and overreacts whenever anybody says anything negative about her!

That was sarcasm, by the way...while I may not be fond of all of the people who work for WW (and I only play Exalted), there are quite a few - Geoffrey C. Grabowski (and I know I just mangled his name) RGB, Phillipe Boulle, and a couple of others - that are top notch.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 15, 2005)

Wil said:
			
		

> Yeah, because we know that Rebecca Bergstrom is _so_ pretentious...
> 
> That was sarcasm, by the way...




Her body of work comes across as pretentious (in the "arsty-fartsy" deeper-than-thou sense)

*Nobilis *lost me, *IOSHI *failed to change my mind, *Exalted: The Fair Folk* was more of the same...

I don't think that--given that you don't think it's pretentious stuff--that using "we know Rebecca Borgstrom is _so_ pretentious" is that great of an opening sally for you


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 15, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I do honestly mean that; it just seems obvious to me.




Yes - but only, by your own admission earlier in this thread, after reading related material (the Story Now, essay in particular). You couldn't and, more importantly, _didn't_ reach the understanding that you did by reading Vincent's definition alone, but by reading Ron's essay and examining Vincent's extremely vague definition in that context 



> I may have had some questions answered, but what I understood Narrativism as when I read that is the same as it is today.  As far as I am aware.  )




I am convinced of your belief that this is true, but your inability to explain Vincent's definition without referencing an entirely different definition fails to convince me that it _is_ true 



> But I'm okay with it, it works for me.




Well, as I said, belief is a personal choice. If you choose to believe in what the Forge offers, that's ultimately your call. I really don't think that we have much else to discuss, though - we understand each other perfectly, we merely disagree vehemently


----------



## mcrow (Dec 15, 2005)

Wil said:
			
		

> Yeah, because we know that Rebecca Bergstrom is _so_ pretentious.  I mean, she's always trying to push her style of play on everyone else, and overreacts whenever anybody says anything negative about her!
> 
> That was sarcasm, by the way...while I may not be fond of all of the people who work for WW (and I only play Exalted), there are quite a few - Geoffrey C. Grabowski (and I know I just mangled his name) RGB, Phillipe Boulle, and a couple of others - that are top notch.




Yeah, I do realize that most of the folks @ WW are cool but the ones that get under my skin do it with such zeal that it ruins the whole thing for me.


----------



## Wil (Dec 15, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Her body of work comes across as pretentious (in the "arsty-fartsy" deeper-than-thou sense)
> 
> *Nobilis *lost me, *IOSHI *failed to change my mind, *Exalted: The Fair Folk* was more of the same...
> 
> I don't think that--given that you don't think it's pretentious stuff--that using "we know Rebecca Borgstrom is _so_ pretentious" is that great of an opening sally for you




That's all a matter of perspective (I happened to like E:tFF and I think Hitherby Dragons is entertaining, and I don't think of myself as an "artsy-fartsy" kind of person) - but mcrow's complaint seemed to be levelled at the _people_, not the products.  With a few rare exceptions (and really only one I can think of readily) I have not interacted with anyone from WW who comes across in the same way that some Forgeites have - and that one person was just an ahole, pure and simple, and had nothing to do with any elitist attitude.

I've run into plentry of WoD players - particularly Mage - that I want to beat with a heavy object because of their elitist attitude, but I find that in virtually every subculture there's people I want to beat with a heavy object.


----------



## mcrow (Dec 15, 2005)

Wil said:
			
		

> That's all a matter of perspective (I happened to like E:tFF and I think Hitherby Dragons is entertaining, and I don't think of myself as an "artsy-fartsy" kind of person) - but mcrow's complaint seemed to be levelled at the _people_, not the products.  With a few rare exceptions (and really only one I can think of readily) I have not interacted with anyone from WW who comes across in the same way that some Forgeites have - and that one person was just an ahole, pure and simple, and had nothing to do with any elitist attitude.
> 
> I've run into plentry of WoD players - particularly Mage - that I want to beat with a heavy object because of their elitist attitude, but I find that in virtually every subculture there's people I want to beat with a heavy object.




Yes, there only a few WW people who I don't like, but part of what boils my blood is  noone did anything about it. One employee who (I think we all know who I'm refering to) would go spouting off on mesage boards insulting all comers and noone @ WW said or did anything about it. I just expect a little professionalism in publishers than that. It someone says they don't like your game don't get on the boards and trash them whether they have valid points or not, or if they insulted you first. publishers should take the high road knowing that there will bill critics. So to me it reflects on how they do business and how they view their fans.


----------



## Wil (Dec 15, 2005)

mcrow said:
			
		

> Yes, there only a few WW people who I don't like, but part of what boils my blood is  noone did anything about it. One employee who (I think we all know who I'm refering to) would go spouting off on mesage boards insulting all comers and noone @ WW said or did anything about it. I just expect a little professionalism in publishers than that. It someone says they don't like your game don't get on the boards and trash them whether they have valid points or not, or if they insulted you first. publishers should take the high road knowing that there will bill critics. So to me it reflects on how they do business and how they view their fans.




If it's who I think it is, that is a valid concern - but at least you admit that it can really be narrowed down to one bad apple and not the entire company (although the fact that this person is - or was? - on the frontline doesn't help a whole bunch).


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 15, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> and (2) based on his posts I came away with the impression that Mike Mearls was a supporter of the concepts espoused by The Forge - his comment on 4e _Dungeons and Dragons_ was interesting.




If by "interesting" you mean "oh God don't let him near 4e" then I agree.  Seriously, he seems to be one of the biggest Kool Aid drinkers there, and I really don't want D&D to be ruined by a "What is G/N/S?" section in the introduction to the 4e DMG. I mean, he came out and basically said that making games that people enjoy isn't as important as sitting around thinking about how The Big Model applies to people's experiences. This does not bode well!

The Forge is basically the apartment where RPG designer wannabes go to smoke pot and figure out how to save the world...then they wake up the next day and go man the register at Conoco so they can buy more pot. Thinking about something isn't nearly as valuable as doing it, otherwise gamers everywhere would get monthly checks from Hasbro just for thinking about ways to make a better game.

Even a lowly 1,000-selling RPG supplement reaches more people than the Forge, and based on their own thinking, is more influential (since rejection of a thought means it influenced you   ).


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 15, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I really don't think that we have much else to discuss, though - we understand each other perfectly, we merely disagree vehemently




 It was fun, though.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 15, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> If they don't care about addressing moral or ethical issues, they don't have a narrativist agenda.



Even if their creative agenda is "Story Now"? As far as I can tell, neither the word "story" nor the word "now" connote the resolution of ethical issues.


----------



## mearls (Dec 15, 2005)

I don't support everything that comes out of the Forge, but I do support many of the key points, or at least twist them to meet my own ends.

1. Simulation As Tool, Not Goal.
This is the big one for me, and the example that The Shaman pulled from the RPG.net thread is what I'm talking about. There's a vast world of difference between trying to simulate a reality in an RPG because that's what you think you're supposed to do, and doing that because you know it's what you're supposed to do.

To take the starship fuel example, I might want a tightly focused game where the players spend 90% of their time talking to aliens, negotiating treaties, and so on. I don't really care about running scenes where the PCs fly their ship around.

OTOH, I might want the game to incorporate that because it makes for more interesting gaming. Do you press on to a primitive alien world knowing that you might not have enough fuel to make it there, but your rivals from the Klingon Empire have already sent a delegation? Do you risk being stranded at the cost of stopping the klingons from exploiting the planet?

The key is that, as a designer, I'm making a conscious choice. I add, or ignore, such rules with the intention of shaping how the game plays. I recognize that simulation is useful for extending the game and for making things easier for the players to cope with, but I also recognize that a game can't do everything. Ideally, if I choose to ignore rules for space travel, I make it very clear in the game that it doesn't support that style of play. OTOH, if I try to do a more thorough job of simulation, I don't write about how my game is designed purely to support storytelling. It isn't - there's a level of sim there that, unless you're willing to ignore rules, pushes drama behind it. The GM can't just say "You're low on fuel and have to land on this planet."

2. System Matters
This is another big one. The rules of the game shape how the game works. If a group has to make lots of house rules, then maybe the game doesn't fit what they want. They may have been better off with something else. This isn't always the case. Sometimes, only a homebrew does what you want. But, all in all, a designer should strive to build his game so that the closer the players stick to the rules, the more fun they have.

I truly and utterly hate the idea that if the game goes wrong, it's always the players fault. Could you imagine a car dealer telling you that it's always your fault if a car breaks down? Would you buy an XBox if it crashed every half-hour and Microsoft's tech support said, "It's your fault, you weren't playing the game the right way"?

I hate the idea that rules get in the way of fun even more. If that's true, and if a GM can make any game system fun, why even bother buying an RPG? Why not just find a good GM and play in all the games he runs? What's the point of even designing games? The designer's efforts mean nothing if we accept that rules don't make any difference. I've played lots of RPGs, and I can categorically say that some games are more fun than others.

3. Many Game Play Problems are Relationship Problems
If Bob's the one who always plays the character who ruins plots, attacks other PCs, willfully tries to derail interesting scenes, and can't shut up when others are trying to talk, the problem is with Bob, not his character. If Bob says, "But that's what my character would do," he's just hiding behind the game. Kick him out of your game. Don't try to use game rules to "reform" him into playing the way you want him to play. The problem isn't with Bob's character. The problem is Bob. Game rules won't make Bob into a different person.

RPGs are collaborative exercises. Even in a pure hack n' slash game, everyone is there to have fun. If someone is doing things to prevent others from having fun, kick him out of the group. If you have a friend who hates bowling, who when you go bowling does everything he can to get you kicked out the alley, would you keep inviting him to go bowling? Of course not. Same applies to RPGs.

4. Put Up or Shut Up
This ties into system matters. If your game has the same basic design paradigm as D&D, and if it features heavy sim, don't slap some prattle in the intro about how it's the "true inheritor of the shamanic story telling tradition," or some other bunk. It's a game designed to simulate something, or it's built to provide interesting challenges to the players. If it's all about storytelling, then that's what the rules should talk about. Don't just tack on some grad school reject essay about theme and expect that your game is now about storytelling, and people who play it are suddenly Real Roleplayers.

5. The Forge's Shortcomings
The main problem with the Forge is that it ties its theory together with the "indie" publishing label. I understand why Ron chose to do that, but I think that in the end it makes it harder for RPG theory to spread. Ron really doesn't like the "industry" (for good reason, IMO), so the Indie thing is pretty much there as a firewall.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 16, 2005)

mcrow said:
			
		

> Yes, there only a few WW people who I don't like, but part of what boils my blood is  noone did anything about it. One employee who (I think we all know who I'm refering to) would go spouting off on mesage boards insulting all comers and noone @ WW said or did anything about it.




Justin Achilli?

Why would WW have done anything about it? He was the best thing they ever put online 

No punches pulled, no bland "Corporate Speak", no time for whiners.

White Wolf would've been doing a grave disservice if they'd tried to rein him in in defetrence to some imagined level of "professionalism"



> I just expect a little professionalism in publishers than that.




I'm tired of "professionalism". It usually comes across as barely-disguised ass-kissing, born of a fear that they might lose a sale. If the product can stand on it's own merits, I'm not really interested in hearing Company Reps treating every idiotic utterance as if it had legitmate merit.



> If someone says they don't like your game don't get on the boards and trash them whether they have valid points or not, or if they insulted you first.




I can't understand how this is an example of anything I would find interesting or compelling. Company reps either agreeeing with, validating, or stroking people who don;t like their game...or just shutting up?

It sounds suspiciously like Mr. Achilli took umbrage with some negative comment you had made at the expense of one of their games, and lit you up over it. Probably you got dogpiled by his fanboys.

Am I close? Or do you just plain have a love of very, very neutral, non-colorful commentary from Company Reps?

I can't think of anyone I know who would like to see more  9or expect more) "professionalism" on internet forums.  _Particularly_ if they had been insulted first.



> publishers should take the high road knowing that there will bill critics. So to me it reflects on how they do business and how they view their fans.




Bleh  :\ 

They do business like gangbusters, and they view their fans in a manner that seems to generate more every year.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 16, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Even if their creative agenda is "Story Now"? As far as I can tell, neither the word "story" nor the word "now" connote the resolution of ethical issues.




Nor does the actual term 'Story Now' as defined in the Forge glossary - it only connotes the presentation and resolution of _premise_ (which may or may not have anything to do with moral or ethical issues dependent upon a given game session). For example, The Forge defines Jared Sorensen's _SQUEAM_ as a Narrativist game - and it's a satire of gore-encrusted 80s slasher movies. Ethic and moral debacles aren't a focus of the game. At all.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 16, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> 4. Put Up or Shut Up
> This ties into system matters. If your game has the same basic design paradigm as D&D, and if it features heavy sim, don't slap some prattle in the intro about how it's the "true inheritor of the shamanic story telling tradition," or some other bunk. It's a game designed to simulate something, or it's built to provide interesting challenges to the players. If it's all about storytelling, then that's what the rules should talk about. Don't just tack on some grad school reject essay about theme and expect that your game is now about storytelling, and people who play it are suddenly Real Roleplayers.




i say this about D&D on every message board i belong to...

maybe you've read it a few thousand times. 

edit: that is why to me d02 ain't D&D. even though it wants to tell you it is.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 16, 2005)

Now I'm not saying that the Forge is valueless here but I must dispute somee statements here:



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> 2. System Matters
> 3. Many Game Play Problems are Relationship Problems
> 4. Put Up or Shut Up



Do we need a think tank to come up with these insights? Aren't they blatantly obvious to everyone? And even if they're not, why do they need to be dressed-up in Forge-speak and trotted out like they are profound insights? These things don't need to be attached to a theoretical paradigm -- they just need to be articulated in plain language. They're common sense ideas that I have been observing since my late teens when I began to think about which systems to use with which groups of players and campaigns.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> 3. Many Game Play Problems are Relationship Problems
> If Bob's the one who always plays the character who ruins plots, attacks other PCs, willfully tries to derail interesting scenes, and can't shut up when others are trying to talk, the problem is with Bob, not his character. If Bob says, "But that's what my character would do," he's just hiding behind the game. Kick him out of your game. Don't try to use game rules to "reform" him into playing the way you want him to play. The problem isn't with Bob's character. The problem is Bob. Game rules won't make Bob into a different person.
> 
> RPGs are collaborative exercises. Even in a pure hack n' slash game, everyone is there to have fun. If someone is doing things to prevent others from having fun, kick him out of the group. If you have a friend who hates bowling, who when you go bowling does everything he can to get you kicked out the alley, would you keep inviting him to go bowling? Of course not. Same applies to RPGs.




Whether or not this is true (and most people figure it out eventually), what does it have to do with the Forge? The Forge is the last place *anyone* should go for any type of relationship advice (yes, that includes NTL  ).


----------



## fusangite (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> The Forge is basically the apartment where RPG designer wannabes go to smoke pot and figure out how to save the world...then they wake up the next day and go man the register at Conoco so they can buy more pot. Thinking about something isn't nearly as valuable as doing it, otherwise gamers everywhere would get monthly checks from Hasbro just for thinking about ways to make a better game.



This paragraph is so great, so cutting, such a tour de force, that I, as a chronic pot smoker, am not even slightly offended.


----------



## ForceUser (Dec 16, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> This paragraph is so great, so cutting, such a tour de force, that I, as a chronic pot smoker, am not even slightly offended.



For your cataracts, right?


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 16, 2005)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> For your cataracts, right?




All four of them, I believe.

joe b.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 16, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I can get behind that - the problem with jargon at The Forge is that it isn't used to faciliatate the discussion of difficult concepts, but to 'dress up' rather mundane concepts to make them sound more intellectual than they really are. I've seen dozens of non-Forge designers discuss Forge concepts using plain Enlglish and not lose anything in the translation (except, perhaps, for the pretension). In some cases, an antire lexicon of jargon isn't necessary - game design seems to be one of those cases.
> 
> This is somewhat true - as I state above, however, jargon _is_ part of the problem. A lexicon of invented terminology and/or re-definition of existing words isn't necessary to elucidate the things that The Forge espouses. Plain language will work just fine, but it is passed over specifically in favor of more complex, invented, jargon (much of which lacks objective definition). There is no doubt in my mind that this choice was made to 'sound important' - why else would you invent new terminology when words already existed that could easily explain your ideas without confusion? Jargon _is_ part of the problem, but not the _whole_ problem.



From the sound of it, it's not jargon that's the problem.  It's Humpty-Dumptyism.



			
				Through The Looking Glass said:
			
		

> "There's glory for you!"
> "I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
> Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously.  "Of course you don't--till I tell you.  I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
> "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
> "When _I_ use a word", Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."


----------



## Samuel Leming (Dec 16, 2005)

*A Thimble, a Bucket & a Barrel*

Imagine this. A group sits down to play and in addition to playing their characters they add and/or subtract elements such as locations or locations from the campaign setting using a system of rules designed for this purpose.  Since characters are being played, this is more than just collaborative world building.

So, how would one classify these players and their system in GNS terms?  It’s not Narativist, since setting is being addressed rather than the thematic aspects of situation.  It’s not Gamist, since the player performance & risk aren’t being brought to the forefront.  It must be Simulationist then, since that’s the catch all category for everything that’s not Narativist or Gamist and it has to fit somewhere.

This is a problem though, since the games that typically get pegged as Simulationist don’t support this style of play any better than they support Narativistic play.  Really this game has more in common with Narativism, with it’s co-GMs and direct addressing of setting elements, not to mention the meta-gaming elements.

So, this game doesn’t qualify as Narativism and it’s certainly not Gamism.  Since all the typical simulationist styles are a poor fit, so maybe an entirely new category should be created for it.  I’ll call it Milieuism, since that has the proper pretentious and pompous ring such categories require.

Adding Milieuism, we now have GNMS theory.  Why should the way Ron Edwards plays get top billing and Milieuism is relegated to the Simulationist ghetto?

I don’t think it would take much effort to come up with yet another style that doesn’t qualify as N or G and doesn’t fit S very well.  We’d soon have the Alphabet Soup Theory.

This is one of the main problems I have with GNS theory.  These categories are like a thimble, a bucket, and a barrel.  Anything that doesn’t qualify for the extremely tight and narrow Narativist thimble and doesn’t obviously belong in the overflowing 00Gamist bucket is dumped into the Simulationist barrel.  If you were to instead give gaming styles with overt metagaming(Gamism, Narativism, Milieuism, etc.) their own top-level titles you’d soon run out of letters.

If you could fit Milieuism and other Xisms into Simulationism, than you can certainly fit Narativism in there too.  Milieuism uses metagame to address setting, but doesn’t Narativism just use metagame to address the theme aspects of situation?

Perhaps it would be better to look at the situation using the old Game/Toy divide.  From those two you could look at how much metagaming is being used to address the various elements such as Character, Setting, Situation, System and Color.  This would cover more GNS does now, but would it cover everything.  I don’t know, I’m not a theory wonk.

Narativism as a separate high level category is a fatal flaw to the theory right from the start.

Sam


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 16, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I tend to look a bit sideways at this approach to gaming for exactly the following reason:Versatility and what *Dr. Awkward* terms replay value are very high on my list of important system attributes - I would rather muddle along with a more generic system and tweak it to get the feel that I want to create than have such a finely-tuned game that only takes you a handful of places. Put another way, I'd rather have a Maglite than a laser pointer.



Yeah, they'll get my d20 when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.  But for those days when I just want something different, MLWM only cost me what, like $10?  Come on, I spend more than that on coffee in a week.  I can afford to keep it around for when my meat-and-potatoes system needs some gravy.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 16, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> From the sound of it, it's not jargon that's the problem.  It's Humpty-Dumptyism.




I rather like that comparison. It both illustrates the point that I've been trying to make in fewer words and does so in a manner that makes me smile. Hooray for Doc Awk and Lewis Carroll!


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 16, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I don't support everything that comes out of the Forge, but I do support many of the key points, or at least twist them to meet my own ends.




Hm.



> 1. Simulation As Tool, Not Goal.
> This is the big one for me, and the example that The Shaman pulled from the RPG.net thread is what I'm talking about. There's a vast world of difference between trying to simulate a reality in an RPG because that's what you think you're supposed to do, and doing that because you know it's what you're supposed to do.
> 
> To take the starship fuel example, I might want a tightly focused game where the players spend 90% of their time talking to aliens, negotiating treaties, and so on. I don't really care about running scenes where the PCs fly their ship around.
> ...




See, they lose me once they talk about a monolithic play style. The fact of the matter is that the play contract is a sham, and designs that assume one will be in force support a basically dysfunctional group dynamic.

You have startship fuel rules not because it will be more fun for everybody. You have it as an option for the bean-counting player. If no such bean-counting player exists you, as a halfway intelligent designer, ought to have an explanation for why the option need not be used higher up in the hierarchy that begins at the core mechanic and devolves into various individual manifestations.

This method is handy because it formalizes the way people actually play RPGs, which is by erratically ahering to specific mechanics but defaulting to core if they can't or won't bother with  complex by-case system.



> 2. System Matters
> This is another big one. The rules of the game shape how the game works. If a group has to make lots of house rules, then maybe the game doesn't fit what they want. They may have been better off with something else. This isn't always the case. Sometimes, only a homebrew does what you want. But, all in all, a designer should strive to build his game so that the closer the players stick to the rules, the more fun they have.




Ah, but doesn't this contradict the idea that the rules serve the player? This is part of the problem with the Forge -- the schizophrenic leap between "serving" a play group and ordering them to behave in a certain way, usually by simply removing the tools players could use to explore individual niches. Of course, this is awfully handy at letting Forge folks generally write far less than a commercial designer has to.



> I truly and utterly hate the idea that if the game goes wrong, it's always the players fault. Could you imagine a car dealer telling you that it's always your fault if a car breaks down? Would you buy an XBox if it crashed every half-hour and Microsoft's tech support said, "It's your fault, you weren't playing the game the right way"?




But you see, Mike, this contradicts:

"But, all in all, a designer should strive to build his game so that the closer the players stick to the rules, the more fun they have."

There is an implicit punitive component to this. As the designer, you are now telling folks how to play instead of enabling different kinds of play. The best games present emergent modes of play that are not part of the intentional design --i.e, I can do this cool thing with this spell/power/skill.

You cannot simultaneously be saying that you are serving players while applying coercive tactics to create a rigid consensus on how to play.

It's not like a faulty XBox. It's like an XBox that's bought to serve the needs of the family PC. I want to word process, she wants to use the Net, little Billy wants to play RTS games -- but instead we have an XBox that does one thing decently and only does the rest if I pry open the case. The difference with the XBox is that I pay a discount *because* it comes crippled.

This is, of course, why rules light games often suck.



> I hate the idea that rules get in the way of fun even more. If that's true, and if a GM can make any game system fun, why even bother buying an RPG? Why not just find a good GM and play in all the games he runs? What's the point of even designing games? The designer's efforts mean nothing if we accept that rules don't make any difference. I've played lots of RPGs, and I can categorically say that some games are more fun than others.




I think how the rules are framed by exposition is a significant factor. Few players understand the substance of the rules without some extended play. Look at Exalted: Its rules are framed by text that reminds you how cool your character is, but it is a game with a lot of discrete strictures on what you can actually do.



> 3. Many Game Play Problems are Relationship Problems
> If Bob's the one who always plays the character who ruins plots, attacks other PCs, willfully tries to derail interesting scenes, and can't shut up when others are trying to talk, the problem is with Bob, not his character. If Bob says, "But that's what my character would do," he's just hiding behind the game. Kick him out of your game. Don't try to use game rules to "reform" him into playing the way you want him to play. The problem isn't with Bob's character. The problem is Bob. Game rules won't make Bob into a different person.




True, but IME Forge discussion talks about Bob's problem's with Capitalized Terms, not that Bob is a jerk for sensible, real-world reasons.



> RPGs are collaborative exercises. Even in a pure hack n' slash game, everyone is there to have fun. If someone is doing things to prevent others from having fun, kick him out of the group. If you have a friend who hates bowling, who when you go bowling does everything he can to get you kicked out the alley, would you keep inviting him to go bowling? Of course not. Same applies to RPGs.




RPGs are *coercive* exercises. The idea of a magical creative sharing in the geek noosphere is one of the single most destructive folk ideas in gaming. There are people whose ideas about what happened in the game win, and those who lose. There are those who impose their will on the game and those who must mediate their vision with the coercive pressure of other members.

It's about time the community admitted that, in fact, that non-idealized power struggles determine how and how well RPG sessions fly. I've observed many, many groups where the dysfunction came from the group antagonizing an individual to the breaking point and then blaming him her for "trouble."



> 4. Put Up or Shut Up
> This ties into system matters. If your game has the same basic design paradigm as D&D, and if it features heavy sim, don't slap some prattle in the intro about how it's the "true inheritor of the shamanic story telling tradition," or some other bunk. It's a game designed to simulate something, or it's built to provide interesting challenges to the players. If it's all about storytelling, then that's what the rules should talk about. Don't just tack on some grad school reject essay about theme and expect that your game is now about storytelling, and people who play it are suddenly Real Roleplayers.




My objection ties into the objection about system, too. A game that provides a central mechanic and a devolving hierarchy of specialized rules by case is ten times the Storytelling game that tells you to spend Dilemma points to create a pickle or make a Hate roll or something like that. The essays are a framework for tuning the resolution of a hierarchical system, so you know when spaceship fuel points ought to matter and when they ought not to matter. Forge darlings replace this with rules that remove most of the options for players outside of what the designer wants. This isn't really "serving players."


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 16, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> It's not really complicated....
> 
> Gamists want to Prove Themselves.
> Simulationists want to Be There.
> ...




I guess I'm about half gamist and half narrativist with the merest dash of simulationist then.  I really couldn't care less about realism so long as the game is fun, engaging, and rife with conflict.  I love the min/maxing D&D has available to it, but I can totally cast that aside and play a rules-light game that focuses on characterization, because these are the two ends of the conflict spectrum.  And I crave conflict.  I can see how some people want to have a realistic experience with lots of attention to detail and whatnot, but that's not my bag, baby.  I play my GURPS with the cinematic turned all the way up.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 16, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> For instance, what does 'Saying Something (in a Lit 101 sense)' actually mean? That phrase can mean any number of things depending upon who is reading it. It isn't a definition at all, but a cleverly constructed bit of obfuscation that hides the fact that there is _no definition_. It's my contention that this is deliberate, as it provides a built-in strawman defense for any possible criticism that may be leveled at Forge design philosophy.




I think something can be said for allowing a certain kind of theoretical discussion in which terms are partially undefined, or defined only by analogy (e.g. Saying Something), because it allows a certain amount of fluidity to meaning, and can make for an increased breadth of expression.  I have experience with this sort of thing, and it can be really useful and enlightening.  _IF_ everyone understands that the terms being used are undefined and uses them with this in mind.  Which I take it was not happening at The Forge.  Rather, it seems everyone had a concrete definition which only they knew, and everyone's definition was something else.  Or definitions kept changing but nobody noticed or was able to follow.

You'll notice that GNS theory, despite the lack of well-defined terms, does provide a way of talking about gaming that is both useful and interesting.  I don't know that nailing down definitions would improve that.  Maybe the theory does all it can already (in its messy way), and more specifics won't add anything.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Dec 16, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I guess I'm about half gamist and half narrativist with the merest dash of simulationist then.  I really couldn't care less about realism so long as the game is fun, engaging, and rife with conflict.  I love the min/maxing D&D has available to it, but I can totally cast that aside and play a rules-light game that focuses on characterization, because these are the two ends of the conflict spectrum.  And I crave conflict.  I can see how some people want to have a realistic experience with lots of attention to detail and whatnot, but that's not my bag, baby.  I play my GURPS with the cinematic turned all the way up.




This illustrates my second big problem with GNS theory, the terms don't always match up with the meanings most people would associate with them.

Consider these three players:
1). The guy who enjoys playing in deep character.
2). The guy that wants as much realism in the game as posible.
3). The guy who just wants to sit around with his friends, roll dice and drink a few beers.

In GNS theory ALL THREE of these guys have a simulationist agenda. 

You say you're a narativist at least partially.  Would you disadvantage your character or even cause your character to fail to strenghten the story's theme?  If not, then you're not what Edwards considers a narativist.

Sam


----------



## Paka (Dec 16, 2005)

Or we could just quote the Forge's ABout the Forge page (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/about/):



> About the Forge
> This site is dedicated to the promotion, creation, and review of independent role-playing games. What is an independent role-playing game? Our main criterion is that the game is owned by its author, or creator-owned. We don't care what its physical format is - it can be:
> 
> * a book in the game store
> ...




And a question concerning eyebeams' post:



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> First of all, it is worth noting that not only does most game design not really pay attention to the Big Model and its ilk, but that many Forge people -- including Ron -- do not really have a good grasp on the creative process used by commercial game writers and designers. Their criticism falls short because they don't know how we got there, why we got there or what's influencing us, but the comfort themselves that the answer must be found in the totalizing Big Model.




I'm intrigued.  Are you going to tell us or is it a big secret?

I'm sure the two sentences above come off as sarcastic but they are really not trying to mock you out in any way.  But if there is something indie game designers trying their best are missing and you think commerical game designers and writers have a secret, why not share?

What's the secret, the influence?  What is the journey?  As I said, I'm intrigued.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 16, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I rather like that comparison. It both illustrates the point that I've been trying to make in fewer words and does so in a manner that makes me smile. Hooray for Doc Awk and Lewis Carroll!




Yay!  Go me!   

Also, go discount used editions of classic works of literature for easy reference!


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

Paka said:
			
		

> I'm intrigued.  Are you going to tell us or is it a big secret?
> 
> I'm sure the two sentences above come off as sarcastic but they are really not trying to mock you out in any way.  But if there is something indie game designers trying their best are missing and you think commerical game designers and writers have a secret, why not share?
> 
> What's the secret, the influence?  What is the journey?  As I said, I'm intrigued.




Come on Paka, this ain't RPG.net.  Eyebeams' assertion was no crazier than "we at the Forge have influenced every major RPG of the 21st Century and beyonnndddd-oonnnd-ooonnnd."  I know you love the Forge and all, but not everybody thinks it's useful or even relevant to the day-to-day business and love/play of the RPG hobby. In fact, I showed quite clearly how, by the Forge's own standards, it is nigh-irrelevant when held up against the worst-selling Instant Adventure. 

EDIT: I should also say that I share fusangite's wonder at the fact that some people consider what's coming out of the Forge to be deep insight. Mostly it's people working hard to make realizations that reasonably cogent people made after a few years of playing D&D.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 16, 2005)

Samuel Leming said:
			
		

> This illustrates my second big problem with GNS theory, the terms don't always match up with the meanings most people would associate with them.
> 
> Consider these three players:
> 1). The guy who enjoys playing in deep character.
> ...



Ehh, whatever.  It's all just beer & pretzels talk between games anyway.  Edwards probably has a different idea of what I mean than I do.  That doesn't make either of us more right.  I have in the past disadvantaged a character to strengthen his characterization.  He was an anal-retentive micromanagement freak who happened to be placed in charge of the security department of a space station above two of the worst "loose-cannon" types you could come up with.  The conflict between his authority and their insubordination made for some zany mad-cap adventures, let-me-tell-you.  At the end I let killer robots loose on the space station because my control-freakism was causing my sanity to fray.  Much fun was had by all involved.  Especially the killer robots.

This was in FUDGE, which made it simple for us to pay attention to the things we wanted to and not pay attention to the things we didn't care about.  The GM was what I'd call a simulationist/narrativist and the loose-cannons were gamist/simulationists.  They liked to kill bad guys a lot, at least, and they liked their characters to be kick-ass and win.  I'm sure some dude somewhere thinks I've got them pegged all wrong, but as far as I'm concerned, it's close enough for jazz.


----------



## Paka (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf,

I really wasn't flaming or trolling or anything negative but I really wonder at the nation that commercial game designers know something that others can't comprehend or have taken some journey that others can't know.

And if there is something to be passed on, I'd love to know what it is.

Seriously, I wasn't being nasty.  I was asking an honest question.

Regarding the Forge's relevance, I enjoy Forge games, simple as that.  I don't think everything that comes out of it as relevant to my table and don't really dig GNS theory in the slightest but when it comes down to it, the games have been fun.

I'm really not trying to start a flamewar; I might end up disagreeing with an idea here and there but I feel more than up to doing that without attacking anyone personally.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

Paka said:
			
		

> d20Dwarf,
> 
> I really wasn't flaming or trolling or anything negative but I really wonder at the nation that commercial game designers know something that others can't comprehend or have taken some journey that others can't know.
> 
> ...




That's good, I didn't want this to become the RPG.net thread, and there's already a lot of baggage on this issue (I didn't participate in that thread, but read it).

It seems like you're taking eyebeams' statement as an attack on the Forge, and you've reworded his initial statement to sound more demeaning. In fact, it may or may not be true that the Forgeites know what it takes to make a commercial game design. I'll direct you to RPG Now and ask how many of those self-publishers know either. 

A commercial game designer might try to figure out what people want out of a game and give it to them. An "indie" designer, at least as represented at the Forge, is much more interested in telling people exactly how to play and making sure they know they're wrong if they deviate. 

That would be one difference I see between commercial designers and vanity publishers.


----------



## Paka (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> That would be one difference I see between commercial designers and vanity publishers.




Woops.  Vanity publishers don't make money.  Everyone I know who publishes at the Forge is in the black.  

Self-publishers, Wil, self-publishers.

I didn't take what eyebeams said as a slam on the Forge.  I just wanted to know what commercial designers know that other people don't.  I'm curious about the influences and the journey that he speaks of.

I'M HONESTLY CURIOUS.  I'm asking an honest question here.

I am not waiting with bated breath so I can slam him in public.

I'm really nice.  

Really.

Now I might challenge his ideas but I think I can do so without attacking him.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

Paka said:
			
		

> Woops.  Vanity publishers don't make money.  Everyone I know who publishes at the Forge is in the black.
> 
> Self-publishers, Wil, self-publishers.
> 
> ...




Oh I know how nice you can be.   

Sorry, self-publishers. That still includes most of the companies represented at RPGNow.


----------



## Paka (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Oh I know how nice you can be.




C'mon, I'm all over a bunch of gaming online communities, when have I been mean?

Seriously.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

Paka said:
			
		

> C'mon, I'm all over a bunch of gaming online communities, when have I been mean?
> 
> Seriously.




I'm not saying you are. Defensive? Maybe. 

I too would like to know what commercial designers know that others don't, since, as a commercial designer, I must know it but wouldn't know what it is!


----------



## Samuel Leming (Dec 16, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Ehh, whatever.  It's all just beer & pretzels talk between games anyway.  Edwards probably has a different idea of what I mean than I do.




You can count on that.  As I said, Edwards uses the terms differently.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> That doesn't make either of us more right.




Well, I suppose you can describe your games however you want.  I wouldn't use GNS to describe my gaming style at all, since I don't subscribe to that theory.  I'm not a Narativist, Gamist or Simulationist.

I'm right, you're right, Edwards is wrong.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I have in the past disadvantaged a character to strengthen his characterization.  He was an anal-retentive micromanagement freak who happened to be placed in charge of the security department of a space station above two of the worst "loose-cannon" types you could come up with.  The conflict between his authority and their insubordination made for some zany mad-cap adventures, let-me-tell-you.  At the end I let killer robots loose on the space station because my control-freakism was causing my sanity to fray.  Much fun was had by all involved.  Especially the killer robots.




Did you take those actions because that's what the character would do(Sim), make the game more fun(Sim) or back up the theme of the story(Nar)?

I was talking more along the lines of using an action die or something like it to cause your character to miss a shot at the fleeing bad guy for the sake of the story even though your character would want to bring him down.  Doesn't make sense for most styles of play, does it?  That's Narativism for you.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> This was in FUDGE, which made it simple for us to pay attention to the things we wanted to and not pay attention to the things we didn't care about.  The GM was what I'd call a simulationist/narrativist and the loose-cannons were gamist/simulationists.  They liked to kill bad guys a lot, at least, and they liked their characters to be kick-ass and win.  I'm sure some dude somewhere thinks I've got them pegged all wrong, but as far as I'm concerned, it's close enough for jazz.




As others have said in this thread, you can find plenty of those dudes over at the Forge.

Sam


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> You have startship fuel rules not because it will be more fun for everybody. You have it as an option for the bean-counting player. If no such bean-counting player exists you, as a halfway intelligent designer, ought to have an explanation for why the option need not be used higher up in the hierarchy that begins at the core mechanic and devolves into various individual manifestations.




Is this really the case, or is it what you would like things to be? Have you considered the possibilty others may not have your motivations? A survey of one is a poor predictor of group behavior.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> Is this really the case, or is it what you would like things to be? Have you considered the possibilty others may not have your motivations? A survey of one is a poor predictor of group behavior.




A complete roleplaying game system will try to anticipate how it will be used by the end user. If you want to have a little specialty game that does one thing, then you don't have to do this. It's much easier, simpler, which is why self-publishers might choose to go this route. However, these are roleplaying games that bear more resemblance to How to Host a Murder Mystery than what historically we know as a roleplaying game.


----------



## coyote6 (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Eyebeams' assertion was no crazier than "we at the Forge have influenced every major RPG of the 21st Century and beyonnndddd-oonnnd-ooonnnd."




I kind of got the impression (solely from the RPG.net thread linked to earlier) that they were mostly joking. 

<shrug>

I don't really care too much about theory in-and-of-itself; I've no game designer ambitions, so my concern is more like, "Will I and my group enjoy playing this?"

One of these days, I'll get around to reading the copy of Burning Wheel I bought at Gen Con SoCal, so I can see whether I like it or not. (A game I bought, by-the-by, largely because of comments from Ken Hite & some people here -- TB, maybe?)


----------



## Paka (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> A complete roleplaying game system will try to anticipate how it will be used by the end user. If you want to have a little specialty game that does one thing, then you don't have to do this. It's much easier, simpler, which is why self-publishers might choose to go this route. However, these are roleplaying games that bear more resemblance to How to Host a Murder Mystery than what historically we know as a roleplaying game.




Wil, c'mon, man.  That's condescending. -little specialty game-  I'm disappointed.

I think people go that route because it is a game they want to play.  As you said earlier about commercial game designers making games based on what they think other people want. 

Through use of POD, one can make a complete RPG for not so much money and make the game they always wanted to see.

For example, I'm seriously thinking about making up and publishing the RPG that I wish had been out in the world to welcome me when I was 12.

And I can without borrowing money or owning a printing press.

That's pretty nifty.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 16, 2005)

Samuel Leming said:
			
		

> Did you take those actions because that's what the character would do(Sim), make the game more fun(Sim) or back up the theme of the story(Nar)?



I drove him up to the edge of sanity because I thought it would work well for his character.  He was neurotic to start with, but I made him obsessive.  It made his life hell, and he totally lost all his credibility as a commanding officer.  Then he let loose with the death robots as a last play at regaining control of a completely out-of-control situation.  So I see the example as being mostly narrative.  I dispute that "making the game more fun" is simulationist.  All three aspects of play can make the game more fun, depending on what "fun" is.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

Paka said:
			
		

> Wil, c'mon, man.  That's condescending. -little specialty game-  I'm disappointed.
> 
> I think people go that route because it is a game they want to play.  As you said earlier about commercial game designers making games based on what they think other people want.
> 
> ...




I agree, this subject is veering into an area I've been thinking a lot about over the past 12-18 months...and, gasp, done so without visiting the Forge a single time! 

I'm not denigrating self-publishers, except ones that claim their tightly focused mega-niche game handles every aspect of true roleplaying better than any other game. Those I don't mind taking down a peg or five.  The proof is in the pudding, and in the market...if it truly is a better, purer product, then why isn't it reaching a broad audience?


----------



## Paka (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> I agree, this subject is veering into an area I've been thinking a lot about over the past 12-18 months...and, gasp, done so without visiting the Forge a single time!




If you have any questions about it, there is a publishing forum and friendly folks who have some experience in this arena and will gladly answer questions.



			
				d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> I'm not denigrating self-publishers, except ones that claim their tightly focused mega-niche game handles every aspect of true roleplaying better than any other game. Those I don't mind taking down a peg or five.  The proof is in the pudding, and in the market...if it truly is a better, purer product, then why isn't it reaching a broad audience?




You totally are denigrating 'em, man.  C'mon.  Their cute lil' games.

Down a peg or five?  Ya lost me.

The proof isn't in the pudding, the proof is in their goals.

If their goal was to publish a game, *own their intellectual property*, break even/make a profit and see their vision in print, then they won.  They don't need to play the distribution game by the same rules as you big ole publishers do (there is a GNS joke here but I can't quite spit it out   ).

They can publish a game, make some cash, continue working their day-jobs and when they hear people are playing their game and having fun, feel like geek rock stars.

Where's the harm in that?

The Forge is saying, "This isn't an isolated incident."

The Forge is saying, "If you have an idea and are willing to work at it and make it solid, playtest it and bring it to life, you can see it in print without taking out a mortgage on your house."

The Forge is saying, "Come play."

What's the harm in that?

I don't understand the grief.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> There is an implicit punitive component to this. As the designer, you are now telling folks how to play instead of enabling different kinds of play.




Yes, because a single game can only enable so much.  We certainly don't want designers tryign to make each individual game into all things for all people, do we?  

When there's a disjoin between what the players want and what the designer wrote, then the players have to deviate from teh rules to have more fun.  But it isn't like the designer knows and can match what all players want ahead of time.  So, there's some burden upon the players to chose the right game for what they want to do, and then to use the tools the designer created properly.  

This latter may seem odd at first, but bear with me.  Let's say you tell me you want to make a bird house.  I hand you directions, wood, hammer and nails.  You still have to use the hammer and nails _properly_ in order to end up with the birdhouse you told me you wanted.  If you insist on trying to drive the nails with the claw-end of the hammer, you won't be happy with the birdhouse, and you shouldn't try to blame me for it.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Dec 16, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I drove him up to the edge of sanity because I thought it would work well for his character.  He was neurotic to start with, but I made him obsessive.  It made his life hell, and he totally lost all his credibility as a commanding officer.  Then he let loose with the death robots as a last play at regaining control of a completely out-of-control situation.  So I see the example as being mostly narrative.




It's not completely clear what you mean by 'narrative'.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I dispute that "making the game more fun" is simulationist.  All three aspects of play can make the game more fun, depending on what "fun" is.




If I had said "more entertaining for the group", the statement would have been less ambiguous.

Sam


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> I'm not saying you are. Defensive? Maybe.
> 
> I too would like to know what commercial designers know that others don't, since, as a commercial designer, I must know it but wouldn't know what it is!




You'll understand when you're 10th. 

(I've been meaning to talk to you, d20Dwarf. I think you're ready to learn real game design.)


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

Paka said:
			
		

> If you have any questions about it, there is a publishing forum and friendly folks who have some experience in this arena and will gladly answer questions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm not representing a big publisher. I am not a big publisher. I have many games in print and I have not taken a mortgage out on my house. I do not own the IP. Many people have done all the things you talk about on RPG Now, yet, the Forge is different. The Forge claims that its games are superior to all games that came before, and that all commercial games are somehow influenced by them. This clearly is madcap, insular nonsense that gets in the way of the simple message you've outlined above.

What you've outlined above can be achieved at many places, by many people, most if not all of whom are not influenced by the Forge at all. If the Forge would stop talking crazy, some people might be willing to regard them as something other than nonsense-spouting blowhards. But if they keep saying things like "our theories revolutionized games and all games owe their pedigree to the Forge!" then their message will be drowned out by lunacy.

Small publishers? Love 'em.
Creators owning IP? Love it!
Vanity press with a messiah complex? Not my thing.

As long as the Forge continues to assert their dominance of RPG thought, I will continue to provide examples of their lunacy. I've never seen anything come out of the Forge that revolutionized anything. They're just codifying house rules, or giving voice and creating indecipherable jargon for theories that are obvious to anyone with half a brain that takes the time to think about RPGs as games and activities. The emperor has no clothes.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 16, 2005)

Samuel Leming said:
			
		

> It's not completely clear what you mean by 'narrative'.




I don't see that as a barrier to understanding.  It's obvious what I was getting out of the scenario, based on my descriptions.  I define narrative as "more of that."  Now you have an idea what I mean by it, and if I bring it up again, you might remember.  The reason why the GNS debates don't make any sense to me is because I think that so long as the terms are taken as placeholders for non-discrete aspects of the gaming experience, you can leave some wiggle-room.

You seem to be trying either to force me to define my terms or to paint me into a corner with them, or both, in an effort to discredit GNS theory, although I may be overstating your efforts.  I just see GNS as a handy way to talk about gaming.  Different versions of the term "je ne sais quoi", as in, "that certain special je ne sais quoi."  Only there are 3 of them and they're defined against each other in a loose fashion.

Edit:

I think what makes me care about GNS is that I can sit back and think about my fellow players, and I can peg them with it.  And whether or not my definitions are the same as someone else's definitions, I can still peg my players.  I can put them on the GNS triangular continuum and it will tell me information about their preferred play style.  I can use this information both as a player and as a GM to help facilitate the game so that it goes in directions that all of us can agree on.  And I can use it to talk them into doing the same.  So the game is more enjoyable for all.  Which, again, is not simulationist, but metagame.  Enjoyment is the point of the game, not one of several goals that could be realized.  GNS just describes three non-exclusive ways to enjoy a game.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> You'll understand when you're 10th.




But I'm 15th-level! Hey, where's my sig?!?!


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> But I'm 15th-level! Hey, where's my sig?!?!




As a free-lancer. Publisher is a different skill set altogether.


----------



## Paka (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> As long as the Forge continues to assert their dominance of RPG thought, I will continue to provide examples of their lunacy. I've never seen anything come out of the Forge that revolutionized anything. They're just codifying house rules, or giving voice and creating indecipherable jargon for theories that are obvious to anyone with half a brain that takes the time to think about RPGs as games and activities. The emperor has no clothes.




You talk about The Forge as if it were this single entity (cue Cult of Ron barb) but it isn't.  It is a community where people get together and talk about how to make their gaming experience better and how to publish games.

Sure there are other places that do that.  God bless 'em.

I dunno, we'll just agree to disagree.

What examples of lunacy?


----------



## pogre (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> But I'm 15th-level! Hey, where's my sig?!?!




You only get it once a thread. You would know that if you were 16th level.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

Paka said:
			
		

> You talk about The Forge as if it were this single entity (cue Cult of Ron barb) but it isn't.  It is a community where people get together and talk about how to make their gaming experience better and how to publish games.
> 
> Sure there are other places that do that.  God bless 'em.
> 
> ...




"But unlike it's predecessors, this system is versatile and powerful..." 

There's a prime example from Burning Wheel (not to pick on it, but it's fresh  ).

Or, "D&D, Shadowrun, and HERO are all directly influenced by the theories of the Forge."

Lunacy.


----------



## Paka (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> "But unlike it's predecessors, this system is versatile and powerful..."
> 
> There's a prime example from Burning Wheel (not to pick on it, but it's fresh  ).
> 
> ...




Yeah, I hate it when people ask what's so good about a game and the game designer comes on and tries to answer.

That's lunacy.

He even posted what he is willing to do in order to defend his claim.

Pieces of indie RPG's that have filtered through gaming circles have turned up in other games.  That doesn't sound so whack to me.

Focus on what you want to focus on.  *shrug*

I'll be playing fun games (well, okay, I'll still be here at work but you get the point   ).


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

Paka said:
			
		

> Yeah, I hate it when people ask what's so good about a game and the game designer comes on and tries to answer.
> 
> That's lunacy.
> 
> ...




I play fun games too. I don't even tell other people their games suck and are wrong and are wholly derivative of the games I play. But I guess some people need that self-congratulation.


----------



## Paka (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> I play fun games too. I don't even tell other people their games suck and are wrong and are wholly derivative of the games I play. But I guess some people need that self-congratulation.




Show me the thread where a Forge member told another gamer that their game sucked.

Show it to me.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

Paka said:
			
		

> Show me the thread where a Forge member told another gamer that their game sucked.
> 
> Show it to me.




For the sake of brevity, I'm willing to amend my statement to "your game is limited and weak." Then we have a built-in example and won't get caught up in semantic traps.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Dec 16, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Edit:
> 
> I think what makes me care about GNS is that I can sit back and think about my fellow players, and I can peg them with it.  And whether or not my definitions are the same as someone else's definitions, I can still peg my players.  I can put them on the GNS triangular continuum and it will tell me information about their preferred play style.  I can use this information both as a player and as a GM to help facilitate the game so that it goes in directions that all of us can agree on.  And I can use it to talk them into doing the same.  So the game is more enjoyable for all.  Which, again, is not simulationist, but metagame.  Enjoyment is the point of the game, not one of several goals that could be realized.  GNS just describes three non-exclusive ways to enjoy a game.




Yep, that's exactly what I wanted to know.

I'm glad I didn't respond before your edit.

Sam


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 16, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I drove him up to the edge of sanity because I thought it would work well for his character.  He was neurotic to start with, but I made him obsessive.  It made his life hell, and he totally lost all his credibility as a commanding officer.  Then he let loose with the death robots as a last play at regaining control of a completely out-of-control situation.




Dude, that's awesome!  I want to play in your games.  However they're defined.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 16, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Even if their creative agenda is "Story Now"? As far as I can tell, neither the word "story" nor the word "now" connote the resolution of ethical issues.




Wait, I'm lost.  "Story Now" or "story now"?  You see how I define "Story Now" - addressing moral and ethical issues.  If the goal isn't to address those issues, it's not "Story Now."  (Using my own definition.)  The desire to be part of/create a story isn't necessarily part of that.

For instance, playing through the saga of Beowulf with the intent of creating a story that mirrors Beowulf's.  (Let me clear that up - where the goal of play is to stay as true to the story of Beowulf as possible, and avoiding making your own, personal choices about the issues brought up in that saga; instead, you want to follow Beowulf's lead, and make the choices that he made.)  Since you aren't addressing moral and ethical issues, it's not "Story Now". 

The players want a story, but they avoid making personal choices about moral and ethical issues via gameplay - it doesn't fit my definition of "Story Now".  It might be "story now", however.

Maybe that means that "Story Now" is a bad label.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Dec 16, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> For instance, playing through the saga of Beowulf with the intent of creating a story that mirrors Beowulf's.  (Let me clear that up - where the goal of play is to stay as true to the story of Beowulf as possible, and avoiding making your own, personal choices about the issues brought up in that saga; instead, you want to follow Beowulf's lead, and make the choices that he made.)  Since you aren't addressing moral and ethical issues, it's not "Story Now".




I seem to remember that one of the essays addresses this kind of scenario directly.  I believe these kinds of games were classified as a subcategory of Sim called "Pastiche". :\

Yeah, "Story Now" is a bad label.

Sam


----------



## Wil (Dec 16, 2005)

Paka said:
			
		

> I didn't take what eyebeams said as a slam on the Forge.  I just wanted to know what commercial designers know that other people don't.  I'm curious about the influences and the journey that he speaks of.
> 
> I'M HONESTLY CURIOUS.  I'm asking an honest question here.




Lemme give an example that might illustrate what one of the differences might be.

For years, the company that bought out the outfit I work for developed standardized testing, along with other solutions, for the education industry.  It is an old company, based near Princeton, with a lot of academic types - complete with an ivory-tower syndrome.  They'd spend all kinds of time devising all kinds of new and interesting products, and then proceed to tell potential customers that this is what they need, because a panel of pipe-smoking, tweed-jacket wearing professor types told them so.  They, as might be expected, were not bringing in a lot of revenue - they didn't understand the culture, or the mindset, of the people they were trying to sell to.

Within the first year of being under that company's umbrella, my company was the only profitable section, beating out divisions that had been around magnitudes longer and were headed by professors.  Our company was headed by former school superintendents who knew the culture inside and out, and knew how to sell to them - find out what the client wants, sell it to them, and _then_ develop it.  Sure, it's hell on the development and technical staff - when someone comes back from negotiations with a school district and says, "We told them it would be no problem if we do _this_...we can, right?" it usually makes us want to hit the bar for a few hours to see if the problem goes away.

So, the Forge is like my company's Princeton office - they're trying to tell us what's innovative, what we should like, what is the best game to do _x_ with - and they've distanced themselves enough to not quite understand why most gamers don't care.  Most commercial publishers are like the Redlands office - they try to deliver what the public wants, and the really big publishers actually ask before doing it.  It may not be innovative, or artsy, or cheap - but time and again the game buying public has proven that they don't want innovative, or artsy, or cheap.  It doesn't mean that either side is 100% right or wrong though - to paraphrase my company president, "We have a lot to learn from each other


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 16, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> Is this really the case, or is it what you would like things to be? Have you considered the possibilty others may not have your motivations? A survey of one is a poor predictor of group behavior.




No, it's one of the things that has come up in coversation with real live designers, including those I have worked with freelancing and playtesting.


----------



## Paka (Dec 16, 2005)

Wil, I disagree with almost every word you said but I'll accentuate the positive:



			
				Wil said:
			
		

> "We have a lot to learn from each other




And amen.


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No, it's one of the things that has come up in coversation with real live designers, including those I have worked with freelancing and playtesting.




What of those who disagree? Do you consider viewpoints and insights that contradict yours, or only those that support them?


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 16, 2005)

Paka said:
			
		

> Woops.  Vanity publishers don't make money.  Everyone I know who publishes at the Forge is in the black.
> 
> Self-publishers, Wil, self-publishers.




Just because I sell you my old Monster Manual doesn't make me a used book propietor who should be given props in the booksellers community.



> I didn't take what eyebeams said as a slam on the Forge.  I just wanted to know what commercial designers know that other people don't.  I'm curious about the influences and the journey that he speaks of.
> 
> I'M HONESTLY CURIOUS.  I'm asking an honest question here.
> 
> ...




Funnily, when I actually explained what commercial game folks do from my PoV at the Forge they really, really didn't like hearing it.

There are three things people at the Forge do not, as a general rule, understand about how RPG stuff gets made:

1) The Forge assumes a collaborative process where some soulless business meeting determines the game and we follow a rigid outline to produce said game/book. The truth is that development exists mostly to vet ideas, not to impose them. For example, much of the conclusion of Mage: The Ascension came from my creative input above and beyond developer direction. Talking for Forgites, these guys assume that development is like Marvel Comics editorial direction c. 1993 or something. The problem now is that some companies are actually going in that direction and losing creative vitality, calming the brainstorm before it even starts.

The developer/freelancer relationship is a lot like the GM/player relationship, actually. The developer is responsible for a coherent line just as the GM is responsible for a coherent experience. Like players, freelancers don't just sit there. They must engage the subject and cooperate.

Now there are some extremely authorial developers out there, but they're generally folks who really don't want a certain vision to get lost. Or they suck.

Outside of this, the Forge seems to believe that we work in isolation and never play our games. I was once told right out that some dude who did his 10 page "game" was more in tune with me because I was writing by myself with no players. In fact, I talk to other writers all the time, we have many informal communities, and we're playing all the time.

Mind you, the "never play the games," thing has to do with Ron's bizarre assertion that nobody plays Vampire, but that's a different humdinger.

2) We look at players as autonomous individuals joined by an out of game relationship, who use that as the basis for game play. There is nothing bonding players to a shared vision. Instead, there is a relationship between the interests of players that negotiates itself before, during and after play. Sometimes we think of "types" of gamers (powergamers, social gamers, etc) and sometimes we think of game features that some like and some don't.

The result is a much less "focused" design and one that thinks of a multitude of interests. There is no contract or design driven auteur who is assumed to be in control of the game's vision. The game supports those varied interests. The trick is to link them to a bigger idea and creative play.

The illusion of "shared imagination," or a "play contract" don't come up and are actually pretty dangerous to the production of a viable game. The exception is a play contract that establishes minimum common standards (no sexual violence in a game; no PC backstabbing).

3) We look at things outside of gaming a whole lot and ask how we can apply it to games. This is individual and varied, but at its heart, it means that we are interested in linking RPG play and design to other ideas in popular (or academic) culture. It is not enough to be innovative inside the RPG community. We have to look at what's going on everywhere else. There's a commercial interest, but also one of relevance outside the hobby.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 16, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> What of those who disagree? Do you consider viewpoints and insights that contradict yours, or only those that support them?




OK Alan, you win.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 16, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Yes, because a single game can only enable so much.  We certainly don't want designers tryign to make each individual game into all things for all people, do we?
> 
> When there's a disjoin between what the players want and what the designer wrote, then the players have to deviate from teh rules to have more fun.  But it isn't like the designer knows and can match what all players want ahead of time.  So, there's some burden upon the players to chose the right game for what they want to do, and then to use the tools the designer created properly.




That's true, but you've got to be reasonable about what you demand of the player of you care about the form. If you, as designer, want everybody to play the game in one way, you may as well go the whole hog and write a novel or make a boardgame. The RPG form is dead without significant, individual player input on what mode we play in.

One of the outcomes of this is that rules heavy games sometimes allow more freedom, because I can ignore some rules or simplify them down to the core mechanic (like "Make a Jump check DC, uh. . . 20"  instead of looking up the rules -- so as you see, you *already* do this). I can play D&D many different ways and get something out of the game that's different than somebody in the same game, because the options are there.

Anything less and again, I wonder if the designer is actually interested in RPGs.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Come on Paka, this ain't RPG.net.  Eyebeams' assertion was no crazier than "we at the Forge have influenced every major RPG of the 21st Century and beyonnndddd-oonnnd-ooonnnd."




Actually, the big secret of successful game design (that someone actually passed down to me) is this:

*Most gamers are really bad at gaming.*

Lots of stuff proceeds from this, but we also can't directly tell gamers they aren't that good at it, because it sounds bad to say about one's audience. Disguising this while trying to solve it eats up a great deal of effort.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Dec 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually, the big secret of successful game design (that someone actually passed down to me) is this:
> 
> *Most gamers are really bad at gaming.*
> 
> Lots of stuff proceeds from this, but we also can't directly tell gamers they aren't that good at it, because it sounds bad to say about one's audience. Disguising this while trying to solve it eats up a great deal of effort.




How much influence has this philosophy had on, say, White Wolf? :\

Sam


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 16, 2005)

How can you be bad at gaming?  Do you mean following the rules badly?


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 16, 2005)

Samuel Leming said:
			
		

> How much influence has this philosophy had on, say, White Wolf? :\
> 
> Sam




Well, they don't do enough work to disguise it

But I do believe this. There are huge disparities in the quality of play between groups. That's why the Forge exists. It's responding to a real problem. Gaming is easy to pick up but hard to get good at. I personally believe this has implications for the health of the hobby because without a minimum competence level in place, gamers will not tolerate the hobby as they age. This is why D&D is derided as being childish and nerdy. People see it played with minimum competency, which makes it look halting and socially dysfunctional.

There is also a lot of self-deception, frankly. Lots of posted play reports benefit from rather serious editing and paring down of a clumsy narrative. I discussed this with folks at Gen Con and they admitted that they often rendered this stuff down into an "ideal" version of game events, rather than what happened. Otherwise, you have interpersonal problems whose solutions area bit more blunt than a problematic creative agenda.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 16, 2005)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> How can you be bad at gaming?  Do you mean following the rules badly?




You either have no fun, have fun at the expense of someone else, or have fun in a way that destroys the ability of your group to maintain fun gaming.

That covers most people, but nobody will admit it.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 16, 2005)

OK.  Yup, thats bad gaming alright. Had me worried there for a sec.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually, the big secret of successful game design (that someone actually passed down to me) is this:
> 
> *Most gamers are really bad at gaming.*
> 
> Lots of stuff proceeds from this, but we also can't directly tell gamers they aren't that good at it, because it sounds bad to say about one's audience. Disguising this while trying to solve it eats up a great deal of effort.






			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> How can you be bad at gaming?  Do you mean following the rules badly?






			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> You either have no fun, have fun at the expense of someone else, or have fun in a way that destroys the ability of your group to maintain fun gaming.
> 
> That covers most people, but nobody will admit it.





Well, that is a design philosophy that, in 30+ years of rpging, I haven't seen or heard expounded prior to now.


----------



## Wayside (Dec 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> There is nothing bonding players to a shared vision. Instead, there is a relationship between the interests of players that negotiates itself before, during and after play. Sometimes we think of "types" of gamers (powergamers, social gamers, etc) and sometimes we think of game features that some like and some don't.
> 
> The result is a much less "focused" design and one that thinks of a multitude of interests. There is no contract...






			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> You either have no fun, have fun at the expense of someone else, or have fun in a way that destroys the ability of your group to maintain fun gaming.
> 
> That covers most people, but nobody will admit it.



So good gaming is having fun without impinging on the fun of the group or the game, but this always ongoing negotiation on the part of the players never has the force of a contract, not even in the categorical form you have given it here?

If I understand where you're going with this (and really I'm taking my cue more from the interest in poststructuralism you claimed earlier than from anything immediately visible in the text above), you want basically to do away with any totalizing concept of _the game_ in favor of conversations about _this_ game, _someone's_ game, _some group's_ game. From a design perspective I can see how that would take you to some interesting places, and it certainly forbids, as you said, a designer auteurism.

I don't know that I believe gaming has to be about fun, anymore than I believe art has to be about beauty, but the rest of what you're saying is interesting. The emphasis on fun, while no doubt necessary commercially, seems to conflict with it though. Then again, internal conflicts can be very productive as well.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 16, 2005)

Gaming doesnt have to be about fun?

Um....


Im certainly not going to engage in a hobby that isnt fun.

Or am I doing something wrong?


----------



## GQuail (Dec 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually, the big secret of successful game design (that someone actually passed down to me) is this:
> 
> *Most gamers are really bad at gaming.*
> 
> Lots of stuff proceeds from this, but we also can't directly tell gamers they aren't that good at it, because it sounds bad to say about one's audience. Disguising this while trying to solve it eats up a great deal of effort.






			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> You either have no fun, have fun at the expense of someone else, or have fun in a way that destroys the ability of your group to maintain fun gaming.
> 
> That covers most people, but nobody will admit it.




I'll be hoenst, eyebeams, and say that in the past I've come away from some of your posts not enamoured with your point of view: but truly, you are the superior human being, because this is flat out genius!  

People often talk about the fact that RPGing involves talking to geeks, who are by their very nature not always great at interpersonal communication.  This perhaps pins down the problem better: RPGs are a group experience, and when problem arise it's invariably because one persons fun is treading on the toes of another.  Whether it's player/player, player/GM or GM/player is irrelevant: that's the core of most games' problems.

Slightly more on topic: I've never given the Forge a glance, and after this thread, I'm inclined not to.  I enjoy reading articles on how to run a better game, and things like Robin Laws section in the DMG II proved great in helping me think more about how I go about GMing, but I'm hearing enough 'intellectually elite' horror stories to not really want to try and brave it.


----------



## GQuail (Dec 16, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> What of those who disagree? Do you consider viewpoints and insights that contradict yours, or only those that support them?[
> 
> Ignoring for a momen t this is a very valid point, his initial statement...
> 
> ...


----------



## MerricB (Dec 16, 2005)

GQuail said:
			
		

> D6 Star Wars without the wild dice would play very differently.




If I can just bring up a point here: The first edition of WEG Star Wars _did not have the wild die!_ It was an additional rule that entered with the 2nd edition game. My group had been playing SWd6 for a campaign of two years standing beforehand, and the Wild Die was greatly disliked. It complicated a game that had been working well as a lighter system beforehand.

I feel there was a design paradigm change between 1e and 2e WEG d6: the former was more a light "fun" system; the latter more seriously orientated, pushing the game in ways d6 didn't really handle that well (but d20 SW does).

Cheers!


----------



## Wayside (Dec 16, 2005)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Gaming doesnt have to be about fun?



Gaming doesn't _have_ to be about anything. Gaming doesn't even _have_ to be about gaming.



			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> Im certainly not going to engage in a hobby that isnt fun.



"Hobby" is just a part of the rhetoric (not in any pejorative sense) that's been attached to what most gamers do. The idea of "fun" itself is a bit reductive for my tastes. People can take gaming more or less seriously, theorize it in similar or wildly divergent ways. Nobody's right or wrong in any absolute fashion, though in specific cases one theory might suit a particular set of practices better than another. In this sense mythusmage's issue with "theory" earlier in this thread is entirely off base. Theory, properly speaking, in the sense most academis use it, isn't a hypothesis; it's a point of view (hence the origin of the word--philosophy, you might say, offers hypotheses). And since the mid-17th century our understanding of how we interact with the world has been grounded in the recognition that _in every discipline_ what we see is determined by where we see from, what we see with, etc. There's nothing intrinsically valid about the concept of disciplinarity itself, for example, which is why it's begun breaking down in most academic institutions today (oh how I tire of hearing about "interdisciplinarity"). And this is not to say that nobody has any ground to stand on, only that all of us stand quite literally apart from one another, and that, until you posit some project, the desirability of which is itself debatable--the transparent, world-wide availability of gaming, maybe--there's nothing to say your ground is qualitatively different from mine.

That's all a bit abstract I suppose. Really I'm just agreeing with eyebeams' design philosophy, though not his belief in a telos of gaming. I see what we do, on a general level, as being open-ended, not goal-oriented. The goals only enter the equation, if they enter it at all, when specific gamers come together, form relationships, negotiate their interests, etc. (in eyebeams' terms); and it should be well within the realm of possibility for one group's goals to oppose another group's completely, including the idea that gaming amounts to nothing more than having "fun." But that's just _my _ theory, obviously, since my group doesn't fit any of these molds. Whatever affective dimensions our game has, none of us would use a reductive word like "fun" to describe them. That would be a bit like calling your wedding night "nifty," or something to that effect. I'm sure it happens, but you're setting the bar pretty low by making it the norm.


----------



## GQuail (Dec 16, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> If I can just bring up a point here: The first edition of WEG Star Wars _did not have the wild die!_ It was an additional rule that entered with the 2nd edition game. My group had been playing SWd6 for a campaign of two years standing beforehand, and the Wild Die was greatly disliked. It complicated a game that had been working well as a lighter system beforehand.
> 
> I feel there was a design paradigm change between 1e and 2e WEG d6: the former was more a light "fun" system; the latter more seriously orientated, pushing the game in ways d6 didn't really handle that well (but d20 SW does).
> 
> Cheers!




Well, there we go, I've learnt yet another pointless fact today.  Ta, Merric!  :>

And, to continue this ramble: my current group includes one person who loves D6 Star Wars, but another who despises it, and the topic came up recently when we dicussed using the D6 system for another game.  The Wild Die was mentioned because the pro-D6 player felt it helped capture the cinemative feel of Star Wars, where things go spectacularly wrong or great, while the anti-D6 player felt that it boiled down to a 1 in 6 chance of  failing any action, regardless of other factors.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> The proof is in the pudding, and in the market...if it truly is a better, purer product, then why isn't it reaching a broad audience?




Um, perhaps because quality of product doesn't mean diddly if you dont' have major marketing and distribution so that people hear about it and can get their grubby paws on it?  Making a good product and reaching an audience with that product are two thoroughly separate activities.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 16, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> Gaming doesn't _have_ to be about anything. Gaming doesn't even _have_ to be about gaming.





Im still confused. Maybe fun isnt the right word, or youre using it in a different way than I am.   Enjoyment is what I mean by "fun".  Do you enjoy gaming?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> That's true, but you've got to be reasonable about what you demand of the player...




Yes.  There is a balancing act of responsibilities here.  But from the talk I often see, both the designers and the players tend to forget that.  Each talks about how the other guy didn't do his job, but fails to consider how they might have done their own work better.



> But I do believe this. There are huge disparities in the quality of play between groups.




Hm.  Interesting.   Where I come from, disparity comnes from differences.  I'd imagine that if most gamers are bad at gaming, then the quality of play in most groups would be rather uniformly bad.  Only groups of collected good gamers would have high-quality play.  If good gamers are in the minority, there should be few of these groups, and thus few incidents of disparity. 



> There is also a lot of self-deception, frankly.




Hey, don't exempt the game designers from self-deception - that there's some sort of definition of good and bad in gaming that extends beyond the fun had by the players


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> OK Alan, you win.




My purpose here is nothing so benign as trying to win. No, my purpose when replying to your statements and assertions is a cruel one. It is a vile and nasty one. My purpose is to make you doubt.


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> You either have no fun, have fun at the expense of someone else, or have fun in a way that destroys the ability of your group to maintain fun gaming.
> 
> That covers most people, but nobody will admit it.




Could you expand on this? Why are people having no fun? What is it that drives people to have fun in a destructive manner? In your estimation.

I suspect it has a lot to do with the perception one engages in a game because one needs to. That not participating would, in some manner, disappoint others. That gaming is something you do because somebody else says you have to and not something you do because you want to.

Yes, there is something we agree on. I'd like to know your reasoning regarding this subject.


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 16, 2005)

Paka said:
			
		

> The Forge is saying, "Come play."
> 
> What's the harm in that?
> 
> I don't understand the grief.




The problem lies not in 'come play', when it comes to the Forge.  It lies in the Forgeites saying 'Come play..._our way_.'  

I've read through the articles posted there, posted a few times myself, though the responses weren't precisely helpful, and the assertion that you need to immerse yourself in the community or be considered a wannabe is downright destructive.  Some of it I found useful as GM, player and designer/writer/freelancer...some of it was, again, downright destructive - I cite as an example the assertion by the _Dogs in the Vineyard_ author that there's nothing wrong with letting players kibbitz, disrupt the flow of the game, read books and generally lose focus.  Bull, says I.  When I have to stop the game, backtrack and explain to someone who's sitting there shooting the breeze and not paying attention, then that's destructive to the game.  It's _not fun_.  Which, ironically, runs counter to the Forge's stated goals.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Um, perhaps because quality of product doesn't mean diddly if you dont' have major marketing and distribution so that people hear about it and can get their grubby paws on it?  Making a good product and reaching an audience with that product are two thoroughly separate activities.




What's the point in creating "the most superior, influential RPG in history" if you aren't attempting to distribute it? It's like people that claim to be great writers who never submit their work, or people that talk about what they could have done if they'd played college ball...it's worthless posturing. There have been plenty of games in the past that succeeded without a huge marketing push or distribution. Magic comes to mind. That M:TG was innovative and groundbreaking cannot be denied, and also that it served the gaming market with something it wanted. The same cannot be said for the Forge, which is why its grandiose claims are so ludicrous. The Forge has had zero impact on the roleplaying game industry.

You can fall back on "but it's distribution!" or "I can't market my game!", but they aren't convincing arguments. The market will find a way to your game if it's truly something the market needs, but I have to tell you that a new Take 10 mechanic and The Big Theory aren't going to revolutionize the hobby any more than the Action Die did. It's an eggheaded approach to a complex problem that fails to see the forest for the trees.

They love roleplaying? Great! They love spending their time dickering about obfuscated theories that are completely unsupported? Fine! I spend my time in much worse ways (boy is *that* a meta statement!). But until they prove they know diddly about the gaming market or game design vis-a-vis the future of roleplaying, they're just an internet community with a way overblown sense of its own importance.

In short, lack of distribution, marketing, and commercial success is an indicator of an inferior product (in relation to the market). We can game with inferior products, we've been doing it all along, but for the creators of such to deride successful games *with no basis in reality* is sad. They need to prove that their theories are sound via commercial success and a transformation of the roleplaying market. I hope they're interested in doing so.


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 16, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> So good gaming is having fun without impinging on the fun of the group or the game, but this always ongoing negotiation on the part of the players never has the force of a contract, not even in the categorical form you have given it here?
> 
> If I understand where you're going with this (and really I'm taking my cue more from the interest in poststructuralism you claimed earlier than from anything immediately visible in the text above), you want basically to do away with any totalizing concept of _the game_ in favor of conversations about _this_ game, _someone's_ game, _some group's_ game. From a design perspective I can see how that would take you to some interesting places, and it certainly forbids, as you said, a designer auteurism.
> 
> I don't know that I believe gaming has to be about fun, anymore than I believe art has to be about beauty, but the rest of what you're saying is interesting. The emphasis on fun, while no doubt necessary commercially, seems to conflict with it though. Then again, internal conflicts can be very productive as well.




Try this; a game needs to be engaging. It needs to get and keep the players' attention and interest. Any game that fails to do that is going to fail overall.

But the first person the game must engage is the GM. If he is not engaged, if he remains uninvolved, the game will not engage the players. How well a game engages its players owes a lot to how the GM presents it. If the game doesn't interest him his presentation of the game will end up boring his players.

But a gimmick, a gag, a schtick will only go so far. Once the gag has been used up the game will lose its appeal. For long term play a game needs a good background. It needs depth. Interesting settings, interesting situations, interesting people. And the game needs to model the setting in a manner that is comfortable to use. Hard to use mechanics will destroy the ambience.

So a setting that intriques the players and mechanics that don't interfere with a setting's ambience (at the very least) will help to get participants engaged.

But even the most interesting game can do nothing when dealing with people who refuse to be engaged.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> You either have no fun, have fun at the expense of someone else, or have fun in a way that destroys the ability of your group to maintain fun gaming.
> That covers most people, but nobody will admit it.




That really makes absolutely no sense what so ever. When you start overanalysing things to the point some of the Forge people apparently have, you lose sight of what you were after and you start to think others have as well. Gamers - most of them - still have more than adequate amounts of fun and they don't do any of thoese things.


----------



## mcrow (Dec 16, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Justin Achilli?
> 
> Why would WW have done anything about it? He was the best thing they ever put online
> 
> ...




Hey, I respect your position. Wil wanted me to explain my position so I did. I have never personally been insulted by Justin or anyone else @ WW, but I have seen the way he acts. The way companies act when the critics come out can either make me more intersted in their games or push me away. In WW's case it pushed me away. I'm not saying they have to agree with the critics, hell no, just do it in a respectful way. 

anyway it just looks like we have differing opinions on the subject , no biggie.


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 16, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> That really makes absolutely no sense what so ever. When you start overanalysing things to the point some of the Forge people apparently have, you lose sight of what you were after and you start to think others have as well. Gamers - most of them - still have more than adequate amounts of fun and they don't do any of thoese things.




We call this, generalizing from the specific. The practice of taking what one person has experienced and saying it exemplifies the subject as a whole.

Individual experience applies only to that individual. It is only when others relate similar experiences can a tendency emerge.


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 16, 2005)

mcrow said:
			
		

> Hey, I respect your position. Wil wanted me to explain my position so I did. I have never personally been insulted by Justin or anyone else @ WW, but I have seen the way he acts. The way companies act when the critics come out can either make me more intersted in their games or push me away. In WW's case it pushed me away. I'm not saying they have to agree with the critics, hell no, just do it in a respectful way.
> 
> anyway it just looks like we have differing opinions on the subject , no biggie.




I've read some of Justin's critics. There is a right way to critique somebody's work, and there is a wrong way to critique somebody's work. Saying that a passage doesn't work and explaining why is one thing. Saying a writer can't write because he's a doody head is another. When critiquing a body of work or a specific work you refrain from ad hominen attacks. A fundamental fact of the critic's art I've seen too many people ignore.

Justin gets attacked, Justin responds. I understand why Justin responds as he does, because I would not tolerate the sort of attacks he gets. Say what you like about what I say, but personal attacks will result in a very angry Mythusmage.

When judging a person's actions consider his motivations.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> In short, lack of distribution, marketing, and commercial success is an indicator of an inferior product (in relation to the market).




This statement just kind of jumped out at me.  Ever heard of Betamax?  Apple?  The list goes on and on.  An inferior product with superior marketing will almost always beat the reverse.


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 16, 2005)

Mishihari Lord said:
			
		

> This statement just kind of jumped out at me.  Ever heard of Betamax?  Apple?  The list goes on and on.  An inferior product with superior marketing will almost always beat the reverse.




Which is why Apple computers and Betamax decks comprise a teeny, tiny percentage of the market and are generally restricted to loyal hobbyists and a few specialists...?  Your statement doesn't bear the weight of the evidence, sorry.  Are you saying PCs are inferior?  That's a value judgement, not evidence.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 16, 2005)

Here's my "Lemme think about it for a night" take on the different types of RPG gamers. Think Meyers-Briggs for Gamers.

Simulationist - Pretender
Socializer - Gamer
Themeist - Player
Stratigist - Simplist

joe b.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> You can fall back on "but it's distribution!" or "I can't market my game!", but they aren't convincing arguments. The market will find a way to your game if it's truly something the market needs...




Two things:

One: you're changing the premise.  Earlier, we were talking about the game's "quality".  Now you're talking about the game being "something the market truly needs".  Those aren't the same thing at all.  

Two:  "if you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door" is an unconvincing assertion.  Distribution certainly does matter - it is literally impossible to succeed if people cannot get their hands on your product.  As for marketing - word of mouth works sometimes, sure.  But you effectively assert that word of mouth alone will guarantee success, and I just don't buy it.  Especially in a market so utterly dominated by one or two really major players.  I think you're being rather unfair to good products that don't have marketing budgets here - "Well, obvioiusly, you weren't _really_ so good, because if you were you'd not need any advertising to ever succeed."    

This is not to say that sometimes a given author might blame lack of marketing or distribution when the root problem really is that their game stinks.  But just because some folks lay that blame falsely, doesn't mean all such complaints are unfounded.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Two things:
> 
> One: you're changing the premise.  Earlier, we were talking about the game's "quality".  Now you're talking about the game being "something the market truly needs".  Those aren't the same thing at all.
> 
> ...




I don't really want to talk about game quality. I've not read much of the Forge's actual games, and I'm not here to bash creators for their work. If we don't agree on the mousetrap analogy, then we're not going to agree, because I define superior products by what the market wants, and especially in this day and age, the market can find what it wants. That's probably one major difference between a commercial designer and an auteur.  I certainly sympathize with the artistic mindset, but not with the attitude it seems to engender (and that's certainly not limited to the Forge).


----------



## Bastoche (Dec 16, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Bam! And there it is! The infamous 'If you question it, you just don't get it!' mantra. I suppose it was only a matter of time





First, I understand that was on page 3 and this is now on page 6. Second, I'm not a member of the forge "clique" and 3rd, my point is not "If you question it, you just don't get it!" but rather "If you reject it 100%, you just don't get it!'.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Dec 16, 2005)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> First, I understand that was on page 3 and this is now on page 6. Second, I'm not a member of the forge "clique" and 3rd, my point is not "If you question it, you just don't get it!" but rather "If you reject it 100%, you just don't get it!'.



 What about "if you reject it 100%, you just don't agree with it"?


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> What about "if you reject it 100%, you just don't agree with it"?




But everything you write from now on will be directly influenced by it.


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 16, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> What about "if you reject it 100%, you just don't agree with it"?




But that would make (gasp!) _sense_!


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 16, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> ...Gaming doesn't _have_ to be about anything. Gaming doesn't even _have_ to be about gaming...




"Gaming doesn't have to be about gaming"...  :\ 

I'm not even going to ask for claification. 

I will, however, point out that this is the kind of ivory-tower academic rhetoric that made me think of *The Forge* in the way I do.

It's perfect example actually. A link to that post mght well become a standard inclusion in future posts on the subect.


----------



## Dave Turner (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> In short, lack of distribution, marketing, and commercial success is an indicator of an inferior product (in relation to the market). We can game with inferior products, we've been doing it all along, but for the creators of such to deride successful games *with no basis in reality* is sad. They need to prove that their theories are sound via commercial success and a transformation of the roleplaying market. I hope they're interested in doing so.



Right, because commercial success is the sole indicator of a product's worth.  The games that have made the most money are obviously the best games, because the mere fact that lots of people like something is the surest indicator of its merits.  What game has the best rules?  Whichever one made the most money!  Danielle Steel and Stephen King are obviously the best writers in the world because they've sold the most books.  Titanic is obviously the best movie ever made because it made a whole pile of cash.  Commercial benchmarks are the best indicators of a game's quality as a game.


----------



## mcrow (Dec 16, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> I've read some of Justin's critics. There is a right way to critique somebody's work, and there is a wrong way to critique somebody's work. Saying that a passage doesn't work and explaining why is one thing. Saying a writer can't write because he's a doody head is another. When critiquing a body of work or a specific work you refrain from ad hominen attacks. A fundamental fact of the critic's art I've seen too many people ignore.
> 
> Justin gets attacked, Justin responds. I understand why Justin responds as he does, because I would not tolerate the sort of attacks he gets. Say what you like about what I say, but personal attacks will result in a very angry Mythusmage.
> 
> When judging a person's actions consider his motivations.




Yup, you are right. It's not right for people to insult him either. Critics who critique peoples work with nothing to back it up are being idiots and are not even worth responding to. I want to point out that I was not one of the people who have trashed Justins work. Justin is well known for his good work from what I gather from most forums. I don't have a opinion one way or the other on his work personally. So i'm out of this conversation because this has become way OT.


----------



## Bastoche (Dec 16, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> What about "if you reject it 100%, you just don't agree with it"?




Because many things they suggest makes sense. The key word here is "100%". If you reject it 100%, than yes that's not because you don't agree with but really because you don't _get_ it. This thread is going nowhere fast. In fact it already has.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> But everything you write from now on will be directly influenced by it.



 Hehehe.  Quite true!


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

Dave Turner said:
			
		

> Right, because commercial success is the sole indicator of a product's worth.  The games that have made the most money are obviously the best games, because the mere fact that lots of people like something is the surest indicator of its merits.  What game has the best rules?  Whichever one made the most money!  Danielle Steel and Stephen King are obviously the best writers in the world because they've sold the most books.  Titanic is obviously the best movie ever made because it made a whole pile of cash.  Commercial benchmarks are the best indicators of a game's quality as a game.




Well, sorta.  If you told me some crap movie I'd never heard of was the greatest film ever made and that all commercially successful films from the last 5 years owed it gratitude, I would think you were off your rocker. "High quality products will find distribution" is not the same thing as "that with the best distribution has the highest quality."


----------



## Bastoche (Dec 16, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Hehehe.  Quite true!




This is exactly the kind of "clique" self-congratulation that the forge clique is being accused of. Great job guys! It's nice to see that you really are part of the better clique of the 2


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 16, 2005)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> Because many things they suggest makes sense. The key word here is "100%". If you reject it 100%, than yes that's not because you don't agree with but really because you don't _get_ it. This thread is going nowhere fast. In fact it already has.




No, it means you don't agree with it, 100%.  

For example, I 'get' the political concept of fascism  - and I reject it 100%.  Are you going to tell me I don't 'get it'?  Your statement makes no sense.  Nor does saying the thread's going nowhere.  Just because you don't like the discussion doesn't mean discussion isn't taking place.  Of course, if you're rejecting it 100% (which you do with the statement 'In fact it already has.'), then are _you_ not 'getting it'?


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> This is exactly the kind of "clique" self-congratulation that the forge clique is being accused of. Great job guys! It's nice to see that you really are part of the better clique of the 2




Do you reject dramatic irony 100%?


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 16, 2005)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> ...If you reject it 100%, than yes that's not because you don't agree with but really because you don't _get_ it. This thread is going nowhere fast. In fact it already has.





Oh my God.

"...if you disagree with me, it's because you can't understand my point"

This one is going in the file as well.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Dec 16, 2005)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> Because many things they suggest makes sense. The key word here is "100%". If you reject it 100%, than yes that's not because you don't agree with but really because you don't _get_ it. This thread is going nowhere fast. In fact it already has.



 That's patently false.  Just because I don't agree with something 100% doesn't mean that I don't understand it.  That's the kind of attitude that turned me off to the Forge is the first place.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 16, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> That's patently false.  Just because I don't agree with something 100% doesn't mean that I don't understand it.  That's the kind of attitude that turned me off to the Forge is the first place.




Yeah. Believe it or not there are quite a few very intelligent people around here who are quite capable of "getting it" while still not agreeing with "it."

joe b.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Dec 16, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Yeah. Believe it or not there are quite a few very intelligent people around here who are quite capable of "getting it" while still not agreeing with "it."
> 
> joe b.



 Here.  There.  Everywhere.  It's been happening for a long time as well, from what I understand.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Well, sorta.  If you told me some crap movie I'd never heard of was the greatest film ever made and that all commercially successful films from the last 5 years owed it gratitude, I would think you were off your rocker. "High quality products will find distribution" is not the same thing as "that with the best distribution has the highest quality."




You know, _Citizen Kane_ was a flop when it came out.   (Yes, I know that has no relevance to the issue here.)


----------



## Wil (Dec 16, 2005)

Dave Turner said:
			
		

> Right, because commercial success is the sole indicator of a product's worth.  The games that have made the most money are obviously the best games, because the mere fact that lots of people like something is the surest indicator of its merits.  What game has the best rules?  Whichever one made the most money!  Danielle Steel and Stephen King are obviously the best writers in the world because they've sold the most books.  Titanic is obviously the best movie ever made because it made a whole pile of cash.  Commercial benchmarks are the best indicators of a game's quality as a game.




They're the best games for the people who want to buy them.  It's not an indicator of quality, it's demand and a host of other factors.  Popularity != quality, popularity  = success.


----------



## Dave Turner (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Well, sorta.  If you told me some crap movie I'd never heard of was the greatest film ever made and that all commercially successful films from the last 5 years owed it gratitude, I would think you were off your rocker. "High quality products will find distribution" is not the same thing as "that with the best distribution has the highest quality."



 Fair enough.  I better understand your objection now, since you're suggesting that Forge proponents are attributing the commercial success of non-Forge products to the Forge.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 16, 2005)

Dave Turner said:
			
		

> Forge proponents are attributing the commercial success of non-Forge products to the Forge.




I don't think that anybody _here_ has done that, but Clinton did _exactly_ that in thread on RPGnet that was linked to earlier. Luke suggested that those who do not apply Forge theory in design are directly influenced by it, because its mere existence means that it influences everybody. I think Henry actually quoted this latter bit of madness early on in this thread.


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 16, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I don't think that anybody _here_ has done that, but Clinton did _exactly_ that in thread on RPGnet that was linked to earlier. Luke suggested that those who do not apply Forge theory in design are directly influenced by it, because its mere existence means that it influences everybody. I think Henry actually quoted this latter bit of madness early on in this thread.




Y'know, I've noticed that the people from Forge-land that I tend to listen to (naturally) have ideas that synch up with my own, save that they've actually written them down instead of relying on the moon-language of internalization.  

Take Keith (who I mentioned earlier) - I asked him some months back (almost a year now...)  about Conspiracy of Shadows' engine, let him know I was impressed and thought it'd be nifty to utilize it for my own game.  Keith asked for a precis, which I sent...and damn.  I wasn't expecting his response - as enthusiastic as players who'd been in the campaign the game is based on for 10 years.  Never did he ivory tower me, berate me for being a 'd-20 head' (which I can only assume means 'doody head' or 'commoner' in Forgeite).  I suggest folks to to his site, read his blog - he subscribes to Forge theory, more or less, but it's remarkably BS-free, ivory tower academics need not apply.  For Keith's ideas on cinematic/television-dramatic play alone, it's worth the trip.

Like games, not all folks at the Forge are built alike.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 16, 2005)

First off, kudos to Samuel for the thimble/bucket/barrel analogy for the Forge. It expresses my difficulties with the categorization system well.







			
				Lostsoul said:
			
		

> Wait, I'm lost. "Story Now" or "story now"? You see how I define "Story Now" - addressing moral and ethical issues. If the goal isn't to address those issues, it's not "Story Now." (Using my own definition.) The desire to be part of/create a story isn't necessarily part of that.
> 
> For instance, playing through the saga of Beowulf with the intent of creating a story that mirrors Beowulf's. (Let me clear that up - where the goal of play is to stay as true to the story of Beowulf as possible, and avoiding making your own, personal choices about the issues brought up in that saga; instead, you want to follow Beowulf's lead, and make the choices that he made.) Since you aren't addressing moral and ethical issues, it's not "Story Now".
> 
> ...



Maybe? Maybe!? The fact that a term means something radically different depending on whether it’s capitalized!? 

Let’s suppose I wanted to rehabilitate narrativism into what a friend of mine, who is a Forge regular, thinks it is. I would define narrativism as follows:

A creative agenda where the participants wish to engage in collaborative storytelling by decentring from the GM those elements of the rules that permit direct modification of the story unmediated by the game world’s physics or the constraints of the individual powers/boundaries of a character. For example, a narrativist group might have rules enabling players to create and stat important NPCs during play; they might have rules enabling players to create or modify the challenges faced by their character or those characters played by others. An example of such a game is the Forge-affiliated _Prime Time Adventures_. 

Prime Time Adventures, as I understand it, can be played equally well by people choosing to conceptualize the choices they are making, as players, about the challenges their characters and those of fellow players face as moral or ethical and those who conceptualize them based solely on aesthetic criteria. I see no great conflict within a group comprised in equal parts of players who conceptualize the choices and situations they play out in different ways. 

The only way they are going to come into conflict is if those who are choosing to think about these things as about morality/ethics as opposed to coolness or grittiness is if they are arrogant pricks who can’t take gaming with people who fail to take notice of their profundity. Isn’t the purpose of identifying these different styles to prevent conflicts in creative agenda? Everybody in my example has a “story now” agenda but because half of them aren’t using the game to explore human ethics and morality, the game can’t be classified as “Story Now.”







			
				Wil said:
			
		

> So, the Forge is like my company's Princeton office - they're trying to tell us what's innovative, what we should like, what is the best game to do x with - and they've distanced themselves enough to not quite understand why most gamers don't care.



I think you are mistaken Wil. I think being a Forgeite wouldn’t be a desirable identity if it were available to everyone. How can people who play these games know they are superior if any old gamer might purchase, appreciate and, heaven forbid, _understand_ them.







			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Mind you, the "never play the games," thing has to do with Ron's bizarre assertion that nobody plays Vampire, but that's a different humdinger.



Do you mean that it falls into the fourth category of “illusionism” where people only think they’re playing a game. (I was stunned to discover that this was actually part of Forge thought!)







			
				Wayside said:
			
		

> Gaming doesn't have to be about anything. Gaming doesn't even have to be about gaming.



I hate to tell you this but yes it does. I can write all kinds of forum posts in this space but what I can’t do is write a post that is not about this post. It is impossible for a thing to _be_ itself and not _pertain_ to itself. 







> Nobody's right or wrong in any absolute fashion,



Wrong again Wayside! _*You’re*_ wrong. Right now.







			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Um, perhaps because quality of product doesn't mean diddly if you dont' have major marketing and distribution so that people hear about it and can get their grubby paws on it? Making a good product and reaching an audience with that product are two thoroughly separate activities.



While I don’t go all the way down the road with D20 Dwarf that good=popular and bad=unpopular when it comes to RPGs, to state that quality and popularity have nothing whatsoever to do with eachother is kind of absurd. There’s a pretty wide distance between “identical” and “completely separate.” The truth is somewhere in there. Otherwise, the Phantom Menace is an objectively great movie. Otherwise, Ishtar (a movie I happen to like by the way) is of equal quality to Schindler’s List.

I think D20 Dwarf’s main point, however, is not about a product’s quality but about how influential it is. The fact is that while there isn’t going to be a 1:1 correspondence here, there is pretty clearly a direct variation relationship.







> Where I come from, disparity comnes from differences. I'd imagine that if most gamers are bad at gaming, then the quality of play in most groups would be rather uniformly bad. Only groups of collected good gamers would have high-quality play. If good gamers are in the minority, there should be few of these groups, and thus few incidents of disparity.



Disparity in what sense? There are as many kinds of bad play as there are of good play, perhaps more.







			
				mythusmage said:
			
		

> My purpose here is nothing so benign as trying to win. No, my purpose when replying to your statements and assertions is a cruel one. It is a vile and nasty one. My purpose is to make you doubt.



If you want eyebeams to doubt that you are wrong, posting things like this isn’t exactly feeding into your grand strategy.







			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> the assertion that you need to immerse yourself in the community or be considered a wannabe is downright destructive.



Well observed Jim! The Forge’s occult approach to discourse (which is mainly what I’m referring to when I complain of ‘poststructuralist blather’) is such a huge chunk of its problem.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually, the big secret of successful game design (that someone actually passed down to me) is this:
> 
> *Most gamers are really bad at gaming.*
> 
> Lots of stuff proceeds from this, but we also can't directly tell gamers they aren't that good at it, because it sounds bad to say about one's audience. Disguising this while trying to solve it eats up a great deal of effort.




I think you may have grossly over-simplified, but I think I know where you're coming from. I can back 'Most roleplayers are really bad at _roleplay_' - I've met precious few roleplayers who don't _need_ detailed rules to dictate interaction between characters or with the world in which those characters live (oh how I long for those precious few). 

I've always run into the wall of 'You mean there isn't a skill list?!?! or 'You mean I have to act it out?!?!' when trying to introduce rules-light games to certain people. For many roleplayers, it seems that not having a mechanic specifically designed for X is a totally alien concept. Actually resolving social interaction through social interaction? Preposterous! 

Incidentally, I recall the two of us going for each other's throat over at RPGnet several times. I'm not sure if it's the serentiy that I've gained over the last year or this high altitude, but suddenly you seem like a guy worth listening too... and agreeing with. 

It's a Festivus miracle!


----------



## Bastoche (Dec 16, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> That's patently false.  Just because I don't agree with something 100% doesn't mean that I don't understand it.  That's the kind of attitude that turned me off to the Forge is the first place.




If you reject it *100%*, it implies you reject each and every little bits they say.

They say that role playing is a game. You rejecting 100% of what they say imply that to you, RPGing is NOT a game. I'm stretching it, but my point is that I'm emphasising on the *100%* part. not the rejecting/agreeing/whatever.<

What I find disgusting in this thread is that people reject what the guys at the forge has to say because of their _attitude_ rather than their _ideas_. Most people on this thread comment on hearsay. That's low IMO. And the thread is pointless because we can't really argue about their ideas themselves because they are so badly presented on the forge (IMO at the very least).


----------



## radferth (Dec 16, 2005)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> my point is not "If you question it, you just don't get it!" but rather "If you reject it 100%, you just don't get it!'.




I reminded of an old _Young Ones_ episode in which Rick Mayal's character is dressing down some older-generation type while in line for something.  He finnishes off his diatribe with the malaprop: "... and the only reason you don't understand our music is that you don't like it!"


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 16, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Well observed Jim! The Forge’s occult approach to discourse (which is mainly what I’m referring to when I complain of ‘poststructuralist blather’) is such a huge chunk of its problem.




I guess it's coming from an IT/customer service background...but I hate occult (in the sense of 'hidden' knowledge) language.  

As was rightly pointed out earlier, one of the very _biggest_ stumbling blocks to expanding the hobby, be it within the existing/potential customer base or the mainstream, is the thrice-damned jargon.  The Forge (but, again, not necessarily all who participate there) fosters what amounts to a culture of secrecy and 'geek cred' - if _you_ can't understand what _they're_ saying, then you don't 'get it', and then are summarily dismissed from the Forge's position of false intellectual superiority.  IMO, part of this is the cult of personality around Ron, and part of it is this insane desire to be the 'cool kids'.  Who cares about being cool?  Writecherdamngames!


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 16, 2005)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> If you reject it *100%*, it implies you reject each and every little bits they say.
> 
> They say that role playing is a game. You rejecting 100% of what they say imply that to you, RPGing is NOT a game. I'm stretching it, but my point is that I'm emphasising on the *100%* part. not the rejecting/agreeing/whatever.<
> 
> What I find disgusting in this thread is that people reject what the guys at the forge has to say because of their _attitude_ rather than their _ideas_. Most people on this thread comment on hearsay. That's low IMO. And the thread is pointless because we can't really argue about their ideas themselves because they are so badly presented on the forge (IMO at the very least).




And yet here we are, discussing the ideas.  And again you're pursuing ideas that are literally unsupportable.  Considering the attitude influences the ideas and contributes to the occult jargon that the Forge employs, I think the attitude's very important to address.  Sorry you're disgusted, and sorry you disagree 100%.  The rest of us, meanwhile, will continue to put lie to your assertion and discuss things like civilized folks.


----------



## Wil (Dec 16, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I think you are mistaken Wil. I think being a Forgeite wouldn’t be a desirable identity if it were available to everyone. How can people who play these games know they are superior if any old gamer might purchase, appreciate and, heaven forbid, _understand_ them.




Heaven forbid, I think it's as bad as the rivethead subculture...


----------



## fusangite (Dec 16, 2005)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> If you reject it *100%*, it implies you reject each and every little bits they say.



That's not true at all. I believe in God and think the Bible is a holy book. I still reject Wahabi Islam 100%. Why? Because accepting it excludes things I hold sacred; and mainly because Wahabi Islam's own criteria are that you accept 100% of it or none of it. 

Edwards has been very clear that people cannot modify GNS to suit their own purposes; they must accept the theory as a whole, not piecemeal. In that sense, he has placed some individuals who might not have rejected his thinking 100% in a position of having to do just that.







> And the thread is pointless because we can't really argue about their ideas themselves because they are so badly presented on the forge (IMO at the very least).



Where are they presented well? If you are suggesting that we can't argue about the Forge because the Forge hasn't equipped us with the necessary information to do so, I guess we can't because we've all now agreed that they're asshats.


----------



## Paka (Dec 16, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> If you are suggesting that we can't argue about the Forge because the Forge hasn't equipped us with the necessary information to do so, I guess we can't because we've all now agreed that they're asshats.




That isn't very nice.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 16, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Like games, not all folks at the Forge are built alike.




This is true, but the most vocal authority figures at the Forge - their 'public face' so to speak - are guilty of exhibiting all of the negative traits that the public has come to associate with the Forge community. Just dig that thread on RPGnet - the public need look no further than that to see The Forge at its worst. Sure, the Forge _has_ grounded members, but they aren't the ones making public appearances, thus the fact that they exist does little to sway public opinion where the Forge is concerned.

[Note: It is also my informed opinion that the same individuals responsible for defining the Forge's negative public image are not a minority, but a majority, on the Forge forums. That is, I find that Softspoken Reason and its standard bearers regularly get trampled by the legions of Crazy, Self-Obsessed, Propaganda at the Forge.]


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 16, 2005)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> They say that role playing is a game. You rejecting 100% of what they say imply that to you, RPGing is NOT a game. I'm stretching it, but my point is that I'm emphasising on the *100%* part. not the rejecting/agreeing/whatever.




Yes, you are stretching it alright, by using an patently false example to "prove" that your claim is true.



> What I find disgusting in this thread is that people reject what the guys at the forge has to say because of their _attitude_ rather than their _ideas_.




The very eseence of "Polite Conversation" and "Civilized Discourse" is that the message be delivered with an appropriate attitude. If someone is expecting me to "listen to what they have to say" they had better delvier it with an attitude that doesn't alienate me right from the get-go.

I feel like I am explaining--again--basic social courtesy 101 (I do that a lot here, ask around ).

To imply that someone who invents their own arcane (and poorly defined) terminology for fairly basic concepts...

And to then imply that when disagreement occurs during the discussion of their ideas that the proper response is for them to come back with nonsensical academic rheotric like "_Gaming doesn't have to be about gaming_" or "_If you 100% reject our ideas its because you don't 100% understand them_"...

Then I think I fairly say that I find _that_ disgusting. well, maybe not disgusting. 

"Childish" is a better term.

Marshall Macluhan is famed for his statement that "The Medium _is_ the Message". Anyone out there who feels that their ideas can be conveyed with  poorly defined terminology and a crappy attitude would do well to think on why Mcluahn's sound bite is considered a truism in today's world.



> Most people on this thread comment on hearsay. That's low IMO.




If both sides weren;t here doing it, I would probably agree with you.



> And the thread is pointless because we can't really argue about their ideas themselves because they are so badly presented on the forge (IMO at the very least).




The thread isn't pointless at all. It's not a particularly good tool for discussing Forge theory (for the reason you state), but so far it's been an excellent answer to the original poster's question "What is The Forge"?


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 16, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Maybe? Maybe!? The fact that a term means something radically different depending on whether it’s capitalized!?




 Well, I had no idea what "Story Now" or "story now" meant when I first read that, so I went in with a blank slate.  So the definition wasn't a problem for me, but _maybe_ I can see your point. 



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Prime Time Adventures, as I understand it, can be played equally well by people choosing to conceptualize the choices they are making, as players, about the challenges their characters and those of fellow players face as moral or ethical and those who conceptualize them based solely on aesthetic criteria. I see no great conflict within a group comprised in equal parts of players who conceptualize the choices and situations they play out in different ways.




I can see a possible conflict.

As I was recently told about Mage (this may or may not be true about Mage, but it's what I was told): I wanted to deal with issues about responsibility, to myself and others.  My idea was to come up with a playboy-type who got in all sorts of trouble because of his self-destructive patterns, and who continually alienated other people he cared about in order to satisfy his desires.  

One of the other players, who is interested in collaborative story-telling, told me I couldn't do that.  "That's not what Mage is about.  You can't make a character like that."

I think I see the conflict there as "This is my story" vs. "This is a Mage story".

I could have misunderstood what you're getting at though.  ("Aestheic criteria" has me confused.)



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Everybody in my example has a “story now” agenda but because half of them aren’t using the game to explore human ethics and morality, the game can’t be classified as “Story Now.”




I don't think you can classify a game using any of the creative agendas.  You can say that half your players are about "Story Now" and the others are about "story now".  Will they come into conflict?  It's possible.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> If we don't agree on the mousetrap analogy, then we're not going to agree, because I define superior products by what the market wants, and especially in this day and age, the market can find what it wants.




Ah, I think might see our fundamental difference here - "in this day and age, the market can find what it wants."

I don't think the market has gotten one whit or jot better and finding what it wants.  The naive first guess would be that the internet would allow us to find what we want.  But:

1)Given the memberships of sites like EN World, the conclusion is that most gamers don't use the internet as a source of gaming information.  From what I've seen here about WotC research, there seems to be a couple million gamers, but only a few tens of thousands of internet site members.  So, most gamers are gaining little from the information available.  These guys are finding what they stumble upon.

2) Between the much larger number of available games, the horrible signal to noise ratio, and the multitude of conflicting opinions, even folks who use the internet _don't_ have the ability to find what they want.  It's needle in a haystack time, and what hobbyist has time for weeding through the haystack?


----------



## Eridanis (Dec 16, 2005)

Time to rein in the rhetoric, folks. Please keep it civil toward one another.


----------



## Paka (Dec 16, 2005)

So, most gamers aren't very good at gaming, says eyebeams.

And

The games with the best sales, in a sub-culture that eyebeams says is inept at its own gaming process, are the best games, says d20 Dwarf.

Forge aside, that's interesting.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 16, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Yes, you are stretching it alright, by using an patently false example to "prove" that your claim is true.




What I understand Bastoche is saying is that, "You have to agree with at least some portion of the theory.  I don't see how you can disagree with everything there and still understand it."  Not "Obviously, if you don't get it, you don't understand it."  Which is what I think that you got out of it.

edit: possibly too hostile.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 16, 2005)

Paka said:
			
		

> The games with the best sales, in a sub-culture that eyebeams says is inept at its own gaming process, are the best games, says d20 Dwarf.
> 
> Forge aside, that's interesting.




Why doesn't anybody read what I wrote? I'm not even using arcane jargon to make my point.  :\


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 16, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> Why doesn't anybody read what I wrote? I'm not even using arcane jargon to make my point.  :\




Translating plain language to Forgese and vice-versa is like translating a web page written in one langauge to another using Babelfish - only about 60% of your original content gets through the filter uncorrupted.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 16, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> As I was recently told about Mage (this may or may not be true about Mage, but it's what I was told): I wanted to deal with issues about responsibility, to myself and others.  My idea was to come up with a playboy-type who got in all sorts of trouble because of his self-destructive patterns, and who continually alienated other people he cared about in order to satisfy his desires.
> 
> One of the other players, who is interested in collaborative story-telling, told me I couldn't do that.  "That's not what Mage is about.  You can't make a character like that."
> 
> I think I see the conflict there as "This is my story" vs. "This is a Mage story".



Obviously, simulationists can also disagree. I can still be a simulationist and tell another player that her play style isn't welcome because she uses her time to play out busking and romantic conversations with NPCs. But both she and I still have a simulationist creative agenda. The fact that this guy doesn't want you to generate the kind of story you want to generate doesn't make your disagreement a disagreement over creative agenda, at least as I understand the term to be defined.







> I could have misunderstood what you're getting at though.  ("Aestheic criteria" has me confused.)



I simply mean "does this seem like a cool thing to happen/imagine?"







> I don't think you can classify a game using any of the creative agendas.  You can say that half your players are about "Story Now" and the others are about "story now".  Will they come into conflict?  It's possible.



It's also possible if 100% are about "Story Now." You're just not disagreeing over creative agenda.


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 16, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> This is true, but the most vocal authority figures at the Forge - their 'public face' so to speak - are guilty of exhibiting all of the negative traits that the public has come to associate with the Forge community. Just dig that thread on RPGnet - the public need look no further than that to see The Forge at its worst. Sure, the Forge _has_ grounded members, but they aren't the ones making public appearances, thus the fact that they exist does little to sway public opinion where the Forge is concerned.
> 
> [Note: It is also my informed opinion that the same individuals responsible for defining the Forge's negative public image are not a minority, but a majority, on the Forge forums. That is, I find that Softspoken Reason and its standard bearers regularly get trampled by the legions of Crazy, Self-Obsessed, Propaganda at the Forge.]




Sure, and once again I find myself agreeing with you for the most part, though I wonder at the majority.  I'll even admit that my current feelings only represent my dealings with a few folks and some extremely negative experiences I had as a first-time poster on their boards - I got told that they 'weren't going to do the work for me' (implication - 'you're a lazy bastard'), and that my game was 'yet another pretentious wannabe'.  Please note, this is the opposite of what _another_ Forge contributor said when I spoke with him off the boards.

Perhaps, perhaps it's the mob culture on the boards themselves, the atmosphere of the forum proper, that perpetuates the oft-derided 'Forge attitude'?


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 16, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> What I understand Bastoche is saying is that, "You have to agree with at least some portion of the theory.  I don't see how you can disagree with everything there and still understand it."  Not "Obviously, if you don't get it, you don't understand it."  Which is what I think that you got out of it.
> 
> edit: possibly too hostile.




And I'm saying he's dead wrong, it's been proven repeatedly, and now he's sinking to PAs, effectively.  I see other posts where people are (in some cases tongue in cheek) bandying about and discussing, yet many of them do disagree with some of the default Forge assumptions 100%.  Having seen these posters talk elsewhere, saying they don't 'get it' because they vehemently disagree is disingenious at best, and insulting at worst.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 16, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> The fact that this guy doesn't want you to generate the kind of story you want to generate doesn't make your disagreement a disagreement over creative agenda, at least as I understand the term to be defined.




Right, good point.  I think I see where you are coming from now.

Let me try to put it in my own words: We are arguing not about my desire to make moral and ethical choices, but the aesthetics of the story; and that has nothing to do with our Creative Agenda.  (She might not like that character for Mage, but for another system/setting it would be fine - even though she doesn't want to address those issues in the same way that I do.)

I'm not sure if or how this invalidates the theory (is that your point?)... except to say that not all conflicts about play style are ones about Creative Agenda.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 16, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> What I understand Bastoche is saying is that, "You have to agree with at least some portion of the theory.  I don't see how you can disagree with everything there and still understand it."  Not "Obviously, if you don't get it, you don't understand it."  Which is what I think that you got out of it...




The difference in content there is minimal (both are: "There is no way for you to entirely disagree with me unless you are incapable of understanding the patently obvious--that the theory I am espousing is right.)

The difference is in the "Attitude", as mentioned earlier.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 16, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> And I'm saying he's dead wrong, it's been proven repeatedly, and now he's sinking to PAs, effectively.  I see other posts where people are (in some cases tongue in cheek) bandying about and discussing, yet many of them do disagree with some of the default Forge assumptions 100%.  Having seen these posters talk elsewhere, saying they don't 'get it' because they vehemently disagree is disingenious at best, and insulting at worst.




I just don't think he was trying to make personal attacks, even if his statements were read that way.  I think it's more of "How could they not agree with _anything_ about the theory it if they get it?" instead of "If you don't agree with _everything_ then yuo = teh suck."  

edit: cut a line that could have been interpreted the wrong way.

Bastoche, feel free to correct me if I'm interpreting your position incorrectly.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 16, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> The difference in content there is minimal (both are: "There is no way for you to entirely disagree with me unless you are incapable of understanding the patently obvious--that the theory I am espousing is right.)




What do we mean by "entirely disagree"?  Let me talk about myself instead of Bastoche, because I think our viewpoints are similar.

When someone says that they disagree with 100% of the theory, to me that means that they see absolutely nothing of value in the theory whatsoever (or that it's all wrong).  I don't understand that viewpoint, although I wouldn't make the jump to "You must not get it then".  (I'm more the other way, "What I am I not getting?")

I think Bastoche is looking at it the same way, although he might be making that jump.  I don't think that's because he believes people are dumb, but rather because he can't see how you could hold that view.  "Inconcievable!" to quote the Princess Bride.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 16, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> What do we mean by "entirely disagree"?  Let me talk about myself instead of Bastoche, because I think our viewpoints are similar.
> 
> When someone says that they disagree with 100% of the theory, to me that means that they see absolutely nothing of value in the theory whatsoever (or that it's all wrong).




Except that that doesn't seem to be the argument that Bastoche is saying.

Rather, he seems to making the argument that the theory includes words written in English, and if you disagree 100% with the theory, then that means you disagree that those words are in English, and boy does that make you dumb.

After all, one of his rebuttals was: 



			
				Bastoche said:
			
		

> If you reject it 100%, it implies you reject each and every little bits they say.
> 
> They say that role playing is a game. You rejecting 100% of what they say imply that to you, RPGing is NOT a game. I'm stretching it, but my point is that I'm emphasising on the 100% part. not the rejecting/agreeing/whatever.




The fact that RPGs are a game is not, to my thinking, a part of the theory.  Neither is the the fact fascism is a political philosophy.  Accepting that does not mean accepting in even the smallest percentage the theory.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 16, 2005)

Can we just drop the "What does 100% _really_ mean?" thing on all sides? I think we've made our positions clear. Anything from this point forward is just ridiculous lame nitpicking.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Dec 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> ridiculous lame nitpicking.




The Forge strikes again!


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 17, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Perhaps, perhaps it's the mob culture on the boards themselves, the atmosphere of the forum proper, that perpetuates the oft-derided 'Forge attitude'?




Sure, but that mob culture represents the mob (i.e., the majority)  Like I said, I think that the Forge has some members (and former members) who are very modest and grounded firmly in reason. I don't think that these folks 'are' the Forge or compose its core membership, however. That said... 

I certainly wish this were the case, as I think that a base constituency composed of the sane would elevate the Forge past 'extremist oddity' status in the arena of public opinion, but unless the rational membership grows a spine and asserts themselves, instead of lurking quietly and/or throwing in the towel, I don't see that happening.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Can we just drop the "What does 100% _really_ mean?" thing on all sides? I think we've made our positions clear. Anything from this point forward is just ridiculous lame nitpicking.




Good idea.

So I was thinking about what you were talking about earlier, and I'm not sure your points have sunk in yet.

If we have two groups of players with different agendas ("Story Now" vs. "story now" - jeez, that looks lame  ) and they get along just fine, does that mean that "Story Now" is too exclusive?  Does it mean that using "Story Now" to identify Creative Agenda conflicts is not going to help here, because conflicts (at least in this case) has nothing to do with Creative Agenda?

(I'm using "Story Now" as I define and understand it.)


----------



## Samuel Leming (Dec 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> First off, kudos to Samuel for the thimble/bucket/barrel analogy for the Forge. It expresses my difficulties with the categorization system well.




Thanks for the kind words.  Really I’m just pissing at GNS, if the Forge or an particular Forger is getting urine on themselves it’s because they’ve wrapped themselves too tightly in the theory.

Note to the casual reader: Words incased in ‘ ’ are GNS Speak.  They may not mean what you think they mean.

I put a little more thought into the theory.  GNS describes playing an RPG as ‘Exploring’ the ‘Elements’ of the game and ‘Simulationism’ as the ‘Agenda’ where such ‘Exploration’ is the primary goal.  The other two ‘Agenda’ both involve ‘Exploration’ since they’re RPGs, but they’ve specific metagaming components that become the primary focus of the ‘Agendas’.  ‘Addressing’ the ‘Premise’ in the case of ‘Narrativism’ and ‘Performance’ vs. ‘Risk’ in the case of ‘Gamism’.  Any game where ‘Addressing’ an ‘Element’ through any other metagaming means is relegated to ‘Simulationism’ even though it has very little in common with the mostly metagame free styles they reserved the term for.  An example of this would be White Wolf’s Storyteller systems, games that are usually heavy with various forms of metagaming but are crammed into the ‘Sim’ ghetto.

Perhaps a better basis for such a theory would be to identify what metagaming agendas are possible, or at least commonly used and then consider the effect their absence or amplitude have on play.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Do you mean that it falls into the fourth category of “illusionism” where people only think they’re playing a game. (I was stunned to discover that this was actually part of Forge thought!)




Illusionism?  I don’t remember reading about that one, but it sounds interesting.  You wouldn’t happen to have a link handy to a full explanation of that one.

Sam


----------



## Samuel Leming (Dec 17, 2005)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> What I find disgusting in this thread is that people reject what the guys at the forge has to say because of their _attitude_ rather than their _ideas_. Most people on this thread comment on hearsay. That's low IMO. And the thread is pointless because we can't really argue about their ideas themselves because they are so badly presented on the forge (IMO at the very least).




I am arguing against the ideas presented in the GNS theory.  Mainly.  Only made one comment about the pretentious naming conventions.  Well, two comments now.

The essays in the articles section are fairly easy to read.  Those didn’t contain anything about ‘The Big Theory’ though.  Would somebody be so kind as to point me towards that or at least a summary of how it differs from GNS?

Sam


----------



## fusangite (Dec 17, 2005)

Samuel Leming said:
			
		

> Perhaps a better basis for such a theory would be to identify what metagaming agendas are possible, or at least commonly used and then consider the effect their absence or amplitude have on play.



Yeah. That's how I ended up at the Forge. I put forward a similarly-based theory suggesting that one could categorize types of play based on how they functioned predictively. Players decide their characters should take actions based on a reasonable belief that the action will produce a particular outcome; I suggested games could be categorized based on what the player's predictive model centred on. It produced a threefold model that sounded superficially like the GNS system but, on closer examination, wasn't that much like it after all. 

There was a rules-centred one where the player's main predictive tool was the rule book. There was a story/world-centred one where they player's main predictive tool was flavour text about the world and his character's lived experiences. And there was a symbolic/literary one where the player's main predictive tool was symbolic resonances between in-game events and literary and mythological tropes in the real world. The superficial parallel was further enhanced in that I was a proponent of the third, highly elitist, snobby kind of play that required a lot of explaining and showing off.

Aside from not being GNS, however, was the problem that my whole idea of a balanced game is to have an equal blend of players emphasizing each predictive model and that all the predictive models pointing towards similar actions was a sign of a successful game. Furthermore, I suggests that players could move happily from on mode to another and should do so.

I've since gotten kind of bored with this theory and instead try to minimize differences among different conceptions of play by trying to universalize the idea that rules=physics, regardless of how one plays, and that narrativist games are just simulationist but with post-modernist physics.







> Illusionism?  I don’t remember reading about that one, but it sounds interesting.  You wouldn’t happen to have a link handy to a full explanation of that one.



No. But it's in the GNS articles. The first time I read them I missed them too; I re-read them last October and noticed Illusionism that time. Edwards was arguing that games by White Wold weren't really games because the players had no free will but were only conned into thinking they were playing, when, in fact, they were spectators. Just go through the GNS explanation with a Find/Search thing and you'll find it.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 17, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Good idea.
> 
> So I was thinking about what you were talking about earlier, and I'm not sure your points have sunk in yet.
> 
> If we have two groups of players with different agendas



By agenda, do you mean 'creative agenda' or something broader? I would suggest that there are two ways to handle this:
(a) We can go down the road of accepting my minor modification to Ron's system and redefine the narrativist category to be all those games that prioritize 'story now,' of which 'Story Now' is a subset. If that is the case, the agendas don't conflict; one is simply a subset of the other; or
(b) We can keep Ron's mode of categorization in which 'story now' is divided between narrativism (when it equals 'Story Now') and simulationism (when it acts on story on an aesthetic rather than ethical basis). 







> and they get along just fine, does that mean that "Story Now" is too exclusive?



That's my point if we're going with (a), that over half of the narrativist games are mistakenly classified as simulationist because people are exploring the "wrong" issues with their story-oriented mechanics.







> Does it mean that using "Story Now" to identify Creative Agenda conflicts is not going to help here, because conflicts (at least in this case) has nothing to do with Creative Agenda?



Yes. These people are just having an argument about what kinds of things they are collectively going to do in their 'story now' game. They are having a dispute, most likely, about genre rather than about creative agenda. People can work together to produce a satisfying narrative, even if not all the parties to the interaction are attentive to questions of theme.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I've since gotten kind of bored with this theory and instead try to minimize differences among different conceptions of play by trying to universalize the idea that rules=physics, regardless of how one plays, and that narrativist games are just simulationist but with post-modernist physics.




That sounds very interesting.  Have you written about this anywhere?  I'd like to check it out.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> By agenda, do you mean 'creative agenda' or something broader? I would suggest that there are two ways to handle this:




I think I meant b), using (what I understand as) Ron's definition of creative agenda.

I am willing (at least for the moment  ) to go with a), because of the points you outline.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> snip excellent points




I got it, and I agree with you.  I can see that in my own, personal case; if I were to play with a group in a genre we all agreed upon, it wouldn't matter if I was looking for "Story Now" as I define it and the others were looking to create a cool story.  I don't see how there would be any conflict.

Thanks for the insight.  I'm mostly interested in the GNS theory because it pointed out exactly what I was looking for ("Story Now") and gave me techniques to avoid the problem I was having in my own play: I couldn't see how to get a story without railroading.  (I have a very broad definition of railroading.)

edit: I have a question.  The type of campaign where a GM is telling the story (and the players are spectators) isn't part of your redefined definition of narrativism, is it?  That's what you mean when you are talking about "collaborative", correct?


----------



## fusangite (Dec 17, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I got it, and I agree with you.  I can see that in my own, personal case; if I were to play with a group in a genre we all agreed upon, it wouldn't matter if I was looking for "Story Now" as I define it and the others were looking to create a cool story.  I don't see how there would be any conflict.
> 
> Thanks for the insight.  I'm mostly interested in the GNS theory because it pointed out exactly what I was looking for ("Story Now") and gave me techniques to avoid the problem I was having in my own play: I couldn't see how to get a story without railroading.  (I have a very broad definition of railroading.)



Glad things worked out. My normal mode in these threads is to try and rip everyone's head off, mainly because all my periods of substantial ENWorld posting are when I have writers' block, am trying to finish an essay, and am hopped-up on caffeine. (I'm currently two pages away from finishing this one.)







> edit: I have a question.  The type of campaign where a GM is telling the story (and the players are spectators) isn't part of your redefined definition of narrativism, is it?  That's what you mean when you are talking about "collaborative", correct?



You've got it. No it's not. Although I don't personally like it, in my definition, narrativism is truly collaborative storytelling. Illusionist games (although I hate the concept) are, like simulationist and gamist enterprises, ones where only the GM may act, unmediated, on story.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 17, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> That sounds very interesting.  Have you written about this anywhere?  I'd like to check it out.



Nope. The sum total of my expression of this idea is ranting to two friends of mine about it over breakfast. MAybe I will write something... eventually.


----------



## Greylock (Dec 17, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Here's my "Lemme think about it for a night" take on the different types of RPG gamers. Think Meyers-Briggs for Gamers.
> 
> Simulationist - Pretender
> Socializer - Gamer
> ...




Hey! I'm all five of those. 

/counts fingers

Four! All four of those!


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Nope. The sum total of my expression of this idea is ranting to two friends of mine about it over breakfast. MAybe I will write something... eventually.




Well, come on man!  Get on it!  Put down that essay and write!


----------



## Wayside (Dec 17, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> "Gaming doesn't have to be about gaming"...  :\
> 
> I'm not even going to ask for claification.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately it's exactly the opposite. For years my friends and I used gaming as an excuse to do _other _ things. We'd always start out gaming, but we never finished any game we started. To jump back to mythusmage, he replaced eyebeams' "fun" with "engagement." I still don't buy it. I don't think a game that _fails _ to engage players in the game is a _failure_ as a game--because maybe the point was never to engage the players in the game in the first place; maybe the point was to engage them with one another in some other context.

In my example, the only real purpose the game served was to get us all to the same place at the same time, yet I don't regard those games as failures in the least. In fact they were pretty much the most fun I've ever had gaming (so they were in line with eyebeams) despite being totally unengaging as games (so they aren't in line with mythusmage).

Calling this ivory-tower rhetoric is rather disingenuous, since I'm only concerned with specific gaming practices here, and not with any abstract set of beliefs about gaming writ large. If you're concerned with formulating a homogenous idea of gaming that _most people_ (back to eyebeams) are actually _failing _ at (!), I have to say I think you're the one in the tower. But that's a big if. Probably you just interpreted that one sentence of mine in the exact opposite way it was intended.

I admit I'm not phrasing things to either of our satisfaction, but I'm on the tail end of lot of writing here and my brain is groping for the right formulations, so you'll have to be a little generous and not assume the worst right off the bat.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Dec 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Yeah. That's how I ended up at the Forge. I put forward a similarly-based theory suggesting that one could categorize types of play based on how they functioned predictively. Players decide their characters should take actions based on a reasonable belief that the action will produce a particular outcome; I suggested games could be categorized based on what the player's predictive model centred on. It produced a threefold model that sounded superficially like the GNS system but, on closer examination, wasn't that much like it after all.
> 
> There was a rules-centred one where the player's main predictive tool was the rule book. There was a story/world-centred one where they player's main predictive tool was flavour text about the world and his character's lived experiences. And there was a symbolic/literary one where the player's main predictive tool was symbolic resonances between in-game events and literary and mythological tropes in the real world. The superficial parallel was further enhanced in that I was a proponent of the third, highly elitist, snobby kind of play that required a lot of explaining and showing off.




The rules for type one and the setting text for type two would certainly be set up ahead of time, but these symbolic meanings of in-game events would be so conditional and open to interpretation.  How could they not predict any thing you wanted?  Would there be ‘interpretation rules’ available so the player and DM would be on the same page or would this be for players with advanced literary degrees only. 



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Aside from not being GNS, however, was the problem that my whole idea of a balanced game is to have an equal blend of players emphasizing each predictive model and that all the predictive models pointing towards similar actions was a sign of a successful game. Furthermore, I suggests that players could move happily from on mode to another and should do so.




Well, having your rules, setting & mythological symbolism in harmony would certainly be balanced.  From my casual view it kind of looks circular(balance because it’s balanced).  Being a nostalgia-based Castles & Crusades game master, it looks like a bunch of extra work. 

Anyway, this would be one way of getting balance, but there are certainly balanced games that don’t follow this method, so this isn’t going to be a general theory like GNS tries to be.

Not trying to be a jerk, just fishing for explanations and more info.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> I've since gotten kind of bored with this theory and instead try to minimize differences among different conceptions of play by trying to universalize the idea that rules=physics, regardless of how one plays, and that narrativist games are just simulationist but with post-modernist physics.




Is that Ron Edwardsian Narrativist or Mearls/Awkward Narrativist?

I agree that GNS Nar is just Sim with metagame methods of acting on situation. If I hadn’t said something similar in one of my earlier posts, I had intended to.

By rules == physics are you implying the rules shouldn’t be overridden by sort of GM fiat?  Or maybe with a balance system a DM wouldn’t need to resort to ad hoc nasal demons?



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> No. But it's in the GNS articles. The first time I read them I missed them too; I re-read them last October and noticed Illusionism that time. Edwards was arguing that games by White Wold weren't really games because the players had no free will but were only conned into thinking they were playing, when, in fact, they were spectators. Just go through the GNS explanation with a Find/Search thing and you'll find it.




Oh, I remember reading that now.  I just took it as Edwards venting because he felt ripped off.  He’s being kind of bogus about that.  Just because it’s a storytelling game that doesn’t play out stories the way he prefers doesn’t mean they’re not really games.  It just adds more fuel for the “his way or the highway” accusations.

Sam


----------



## Wayside (Dec 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I hate to tell you this but yes it does. I can write all kinds of forum posts in this space but what I can’t do is write a post that is not about this post. It is impossible for a thing to _be_ itself and not _pertain_ to itself.



The problem you're running into is this idea of a thing being itself. It makes sense and is absolutely fine, in casual conversation, to talk about things this way (I'm sitting at a desk; that's what it _is_). It's posed a problem for thinking, though, since the beginning, which is why you get, say, Plato coming up with that ridiculous separate world of forms. Do you believe in that world? Because I don't believe in this transcendental idea of gaming that people either hit or miss with their own practices. So no, my game, as I _pracitce _ it, is not about gaming as you _think _ of it. Sometimes it's not even about gaming as _I_ think of it, anymore than going to a date at the movies has much necessarily to do with actually _seeing a movie_! Is that clearer?



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Wrong again Wayside! _*You’re*_ wrong. Right now.



If taking part of a sentence out of context without bothering to understand it in its entirety is the best you have to offer, TB gave you way too much credit. I'm sorry but there is no right or wrong way to game, no right or wrong definition of what gaming has to be. You could come up with a definition that extends to every game (and we're talking about people playing here, not rulesets) out there, but next week some kid will come along and do it in an entirely new way, and then your definition won't be worth much. Ideas and practices change over time--is that really news? If you believe otherwise, you're wrong. It's an issue of description v. prescription.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 17, 2005)

I would just like to say that game rules = game world physics is the best way to express my view of gamng that I have heard.


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> If you want eyebeams to doubt that you are wrong, posting things like this isn’t exactly feeding into your grand strategy.




Not that sort of doubt. [grin so evil it makes tyrannosaurs plotz.]


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 17, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> So good gaming is having fun without impinging on the fun of the group or the game, but this always ongoing negotiation on the part of the players never has the force of a contract, not even in the categorical form you have given it here?




Ideally, but the tragedy is that this ideal can never really exist. One of the problems with the Big Model is that it does abhors these paradoxes to the point of ignoring or overgeneralzing them.



> If I understand where you're going with this (and really I'm taking my cue more from the interest in poststructuralism you claimed earlier than from anything immediately visible in the text above), you want basically to do away with any totalizing concept of _the game_ in favor of conversations about _this_ game, _someone's_ game, _some group's_ game. From a design perspective I can see how that would take you to some interesting places, and it certainly forbids, as you said, a designer auteurism.




Yes! But we can also talk about commonalities and even larger models, as long as we understand that the model-making is in of itself something contingent upon the text of the discussion (the games we see and the people talking), and not an appeal to an ideal intellectial edifice for RPGs to situate themselves in. We have the advantage of similarities as well as differences in the subjective viewpoints we have playing, so talking about games and extending that talk into prescription is also a kind of "play."

What I mean is that we can still talk about "powergamers," but we know that we are not talking about something rigorous and must be prepared to go back to the semantic well to avoid stopping points where we agrue about what a powergamer is. We must accept that we will have differences about these things because the nature of talking about gaming makes such definitions amorphous.

So you and I talk about powergamers. Every once in a while we disagree, the term destroys itself, and we work it back up from specific instances and commonalities. What we write and read are ultimately the notes to ourselves we use to help better our games, rather than membership in a community of people following a set of ideas.

One we get here we can readmit the Forge's conversations with such a healthy sense of play.



> I don't know that I believe gaming has to be about fun, anymore than I believe art has to be about beauty, but the rest of what you're saying is interesting. The emphasis on fun, while no doubt necessary commercially, seems to conflict with it though. Then again, internal conflicts can be very productive as well.




Well, look at "fun," as a shorthand for some form of utility.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 17, 2005)

GQuail said:
			
		

> True, game rules are included because they're deemed relevant to the game: Cthulhu without sanity, D&D without hit points or D6 Star Wars without the wild dice would play very differently.  But sometimes rules are included for more trivial reasons that: encumbrance and mundane equipment (food, fire etc) being the obvious ones.  These things need to be acknowledged for those people who it matters to, be it people who want to control these factors in a realistic way, or those who play in a game where these are more than trivial matters.  (Waterskins in my D&D game are irrelevant: but the post-apocalyptic game my player is going to run next would suffer a big mood change without it)
> 
> Perhaps this is just a design methodolgy thing.  Certainly, RPG designers should accept that their system will be house ruled all over the place and played in a variety of different ways.  You may design your game for a narrow play style but even that can have wiggle room: WFRP may only really be a game system for playing fantasy horror adventures in a Warhammer World-like place, but even there the choice between "nobles banding together to fend of the seedy underbelly of the town" and "peasants rallying to save their home from corrupt aristocrats" would affect how much I'd worry about the price of a normal meal.  :>




Well, rules like SAN, Vampire's Humanity and so on *loosely* direct players to a certain kind of play. I'm not saying that games should be utterly rudderless, but that we ought to expect significant flexibility.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Dec 17, 2005)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> I would just like to say that game rules = game world physics is the best way to express my view of gamng that I have heard.




"Rules == game world physics" is one of those phrases that sounds really good when you first hear it but starts to look shallow once you think about it a bit.

Sam


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Do you mean that it falls into the fourth category of “illusionism” where people only think they’re playing a game. (I was stunned to discover that this was actually part of Forge thought!)




No. Ron believes that not many people actually play Vampire. He thinks everybody just buys the books to read. This is a common bit of silliness that was making the rounds in other circles, too.

If you want to really see Ron go off, venture the idea that Vampire is an indie game because it's creator owned and directed (Mark Rein*Hagen still part owns WW, after all) at least as much as Heroquest is.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 17, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No. Ron believes that not many people actually play Vampire. He thinks everybody just buys the books to read. This is a common bit of silliness that was making the rounds in other circles, too.



I realize that. But it's also true that in his GNS essay, he explains that Vampire doesn't fit into G, N or S but is in fact an "Illusionist" game because people only think they are playing a game but are actually spectators.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I realize that. But it's also true that in his GNS essay, he explains that Vampire doesn't fit into G, N or S but is in fact an "Illusionist" game because people only think they are playing a game but are actually spectators.




OK, that finally got my curiosity up enough to ask where this essay is. Is it in the RPG.net threads mentioned at the beginning of the thread? Does he mean he thinks people playing Vampire are being railroaded by a GM that misunderstands the concept of 'telling a story'?


----------



## Wayside (Dec 17, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> OK, that finally got my curiosity up enough to ask where this essay is. Is it in the RPG.net threads mentioned at the beginning of the thread? Does he mean he thinks people playing Vampire are being railroaded by a GM that misunderstands the concept of 'telling a story'?



Here you go, Wayne.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I realize that. But it's also true that in his GNS essay, he explains that Vampire doesn't fit into G, N or S but is in fact an "Illusionist" game because people only think they are playing a game but are actually spectators.




That's interesting, I didn't get that from the essay.  It could be that I'm reading the wrong one.  Let me quote it:



> The players of the vampire example are especially screwed if they have Narrativist leanings and try to use Vampire: the Masquerade. The so-called "Storyteller" design in White Wolf games is emphatically not Narrativist, but it is billed as such, up to and including encouraging subcultural snobbery against other Simulationist play without being much removed from it. The often-repeated distinction between "roll-playing" and "role-playing" is nothing more nor less than Exploration of System and Exploration of Character - either of which, when prioritized, is Simulationism. Thus our players, instead of taking the "drift" option (which would work), may well apply themselves more and more diligently to the metaplot and other non-Narrativist elements in the mistaken belief that they are emphasizing "story." The prognosis for the enjoyment of such play is not favorable.




He's saying that they are not creating a "story" - not that they are just spectators in the game, as far as I can tell.

edit: I can't find an instance where he's saying that people aren't playing when they are engaged in illusionism (I have seen instances where he says that it is a fun way to play, however).

edit, take 2: Here's a link to a Forge thread about Illusionism.  There doesn't seem to be much jargon there.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 17, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> The problem you're running into is this idea of a thing being itself. It makes sense and is absolutely fine, in casual conversation, to talk about things this way (I'm sitting at a desk; that's what it _is_). It's posed a problem for thinking, though, since the beginning, which is why you get, say, Plato coming up with that ridiculous separate world of forms. Do you believe in that world? Because I don't believe in this transcendental idea of gaming that people either hit or miss with their own practices. So no, my game, as I _pracitce _ it, is not about gaming as you _think _ of it. Sometimes it's not even about gaming as _I_ think of it, anymore than going to a date at the movies has much necessarily to do with actually _seeing a movie_! Is that clearer?



No. Going to the movies for a date is not not about going to the movies it's just also, more importantly, about going on the date. Things can be "about" more than one thing at a time. Gaming is always about gaming; it's just also about other things too most of the time.







> If taking part of a sentence out of context without bothering to understand it in its entirety is the best you have to offer, TB gave you way too much credit. I'm sorry but there is no right or wrong way to game, no right or wrong definition of what gaming has to be.



That's just not true. How can the word "gaming" have any meaning if it can potentially refer to anything and everything in in the entire world? The moment you bound/define gaming, you introduce the possibility that people will do it wrong. Take "walking" for instance. If I drag myself somewhere with my lips, I'm walking *wrong*.







> You could come up with a definition that extends to every game (and we're talking about people playing here, not rulesets) out there, but next week some kid will come along and do it in an entirely new way, and then your definition won't be worth much. Ideas and practices change over time--is that really news? If you believe otherwise, you're wrong. It's an issue of description v. prescription.



Glad you have come up with conditions under which I can be wrong. Clearly, then, the word "define" has parameters; why doesn't the word "gaming"?


----------



## fusangite (Dec 17, 2005)

LostSoul, I'm not going to ferret around looking for the words that gave me that impression. I'm happy to accept your judgement that I misremembered. You seem like an honest, thorough guy to me.


----------



## Staffan (Dec 17, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> If I can just bring up a point here: The first edition of WEG Star Wars _did not have the wild die!_ It was an additional rule that entered with the 2nd edition game. My group had been playing SWd6 for a campaign of two years standing beforehand, and the Wild Die was greatly disliked. It complicated a game that had been working well as a lighter system beforehand.



Going off on a tangent here...

I think the greater change in paradigm were seen in the chase/vehicle combat system. In 1e, vehicle fights were based on a simple one-on-one deal, where you simply had range bands - short, medium, and long (possibly something like "almost touching" and "very far" as well). Every round, you rolled the speed ratings of the two vehicles, adding Pilot skill if the pilot took an action specifically to get away/catch up. The one who won got to choose whether to increase or decrease range by one step. Shooting also used these range bands - someone at Medium range was at Medium range whether you used a light laser, an ion cannon, or a proton torpedo.

In 2e, you instead had a system where you tracked the position of each ship on a grid, with difficulties for various maneuvers. Weapons had ranges in units, and vehicles had their speeds rated in units as well (as opposed to dice). The way to use your greater skill to move faster was to use more actions for moving (up to four). In other words, a far more "crunchy" system.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 18, 2005)

d20Dwarf said:
			
		

> I don't really want to talk about game quality. I've not read much of the Forge's actual games, and I'm not here to bash creators for their work. If we don't agree on the mousetrap analogy, then we're not going to agree, because I define superior products by what the market wants, and especially in this day and age, the market can find what it wants.



You don't think the market wants crap and trite?  Because that's 90% of what people seem to buy.  There are small sections of the market that actively seek out superior products, and they often have the cash to keep those products in production.  I might go so far as to say that the RPG industry is driven mostly by people looking for quality, and that people looking for crap don't usually play RPGs, or at least don't look for crap _in_ RPGS.  But I'd have to be convinced, hard, that superior products in general are exactly what people buy.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 18, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> Unfortunately it's exactly the opposite. For years my friends and I used gaming as an excuse to do _other _ things. We'd always start out gaming, but we never finished any game we started. To jump back to mythusmage, he replaced eyebeams' "fun" with "engagement." I still don't buy it.




Not engagement, enjoyment.  If you're not playing a game because you enjoy it, why are you playing?  People might work a job they hate, but they usually don't have hobbies they hate.


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 18, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Not engagement, enjoyment.




The latter precludes the former? The latter contradicts the former? The former cannot be a prerequisite for the latter?

To paraphrase an old punchline, first you get their attention.


----------



## Wayside (Dec 18, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> No. Going to the movies for a date is not not about going to the movies it's just also, more importantly, about going on the date. Things can be "about" more than one thing at a time. Gaming is always about gaming; it's just also about other things too most of the time.



I'm going to disagree with you here and say that yes, while the aboutness of things can certainly be multidirectional, no, it doesn't _have_ to be. A good example would be certain kinds of allegory. Now, if you want to say that I'm wrong, that I'm not gaming without my gaming being about gaming, that in fact I'm simply not gaming at all, or that I'm gaming _incorrectly_, then you can keep on trucking with that one. I happen to believe that on the one hand there's a concept in our culture, "going to the movies," and then there's an actual practice where I go to a movie, and in my case there's no requirement that the two should overlap.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> That's just not true. How can the word "gaming" have any meaning if it can potentially refer to anything and everything in in the entire world?



Philosophically speaking, the word gaming can already do that. We've been talking about language games, the construction of social reality and the concept of play for half a century. And none of this is that chaotic evil continental philosophy you and Akrasia seem to despise so much; it's all of the upstanding analytic variety (which doesn't mean it's not poststructuralist, since most analytic philosophy is).



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> The moment you bound/define gaming, you introduce the possibility that people will do it wrong. Take "walking" for instance. If I drag myself somewhere with my lips, I'm walking *wrong*.



No, you just aren't walking. The idea that you're walking wrong here is absurd. Do snakes walk, but just do it wrong?

Look at it this way: in order to say that someone is doing something wrong, you have already to have a set of beliefs about a number of things. The most important of these is that you have to believe that they're trying to do right what you believe they're doing wrong in the first place, i.e. you have to believe that they're trying to walk by dragging themselves somewhere with their lips. If they're just in a "drag yourself somewhere with your lips" race, they can't be walking wrong; in fact if they were walking as you or I do in that same "drag yourself somewhere with your lips" race, they'd be doing _that_ wrong. Here the wrongness is determined by the immediate context of the race and its participants, and not by any transhistorical notion of "drag yourself somewhere with your lips" wrongness.

But, you might say, it would always be wrong to walk as you or I do in a "drag yourself somewhere with your lips" race, and that might be true, because that's already a very specific practice we've laid out, and it's difficult to break it down further into subsets of practices that might emerge and transform the sport of "drag yourself somewhere with your lips." I maintain, however, that it's still possible for this sport to change drastically through technological advances, cultural shifts, even through reassessments of what is significant in the sport--perhaps to the point where walking is no longer wrong when running a "drag yourself somewhere with your lips" race. I want to go on with this quite a bit further but I'm starving, so I'm going to finish this off and grab some food.

First let's take a quick moment to think about how we might try and define gaming here. I think this is where eyebeams has a lot to say that some other people just aren't registering. On the one hand, you can try and come up with your totalizing definition of what gaming is right now, today, and then flip it from a description of current gaming practices to a prescription for all "correct" gaming practices forever. On the other hand you can--and this seems to be eyebeams' big issue with The Forge, because they don't do this, don't even seem to grasp why it might be important--take a step back from this totalizing, culturally isolated concept of "gaming" and look at the larger socio-political factors that are responsible for producing such concepts.

How does anyone fail to see that the latter simply makes more sense? If you'd defined gaming by what everyone was doing in 1970, then we'd _all _ be gaming wrong today. So why, exactly, should today be the standard for tomorrow? And, to take this a step further, why shouldn't designers like eyebeams attempt to anticipate these shifts in how gamers go about doing their thing, or why shouldn't he attempt to develop games that even encourage certain shifts in gaming, based on his understanding of current and developing social contexts? Why shouldn't he, in other words, try and design the next Vampire:tM _on purpose_, try and capture the disillusionment of a generation, or anything to that effect?



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Glad you have come up with conditions under which I can be wrong. Clearly, then, the word "define" has parameters; why doesn't the word "gaming"?



If you couldn't tell, I was parroting your statement back at you. Still, you or me saying "you're wrong," and saying "Jimmy over there is gaming wrong," are two completely different things. While it may seem like an insane conceptual leap, even the idea of defining something can and has changed over time, can and will continue to change over time. Anyhow, tuna!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 18, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> The latter precludes the former? The latter contradicts the former? The former cannot be a prerequisite for the latter?
> 
> To paraphrase an old punchline, first you get their attention.



Well, you know, you can be quite engaged by the experience of being in a car crash.  Doesn't mean you enjoy it.  I think the reason why people do stuff that is supposed to be "entertainment" like playing games is because they enjoy doing it.  I don't think this is the most controversial hypothesis in the world.  People only do things they hate if they're being forced.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 18, 2005)

I guess we're getting back to Humpty Dumpty now?


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 18, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, you know, you can be quite engaged by the experience of being in a car crash.  Doesn't mean you enjoy it.  I think the reason why people do stuff that is supposed to be "entertainment" like playing games is because they enjoy doing it.  I don't think this is the most controversial hypothesis in the world.  People only do things they hate if they're being forced.




It therefor follows that you can't encourage people to do something they hate.

Get their attention, draw them in, and then present them with an experience that makes them want to come back. But it need not be done with empty rewards.

It is possible for the players to have a good time, even if their characters failed. What's important is the feeling they had a chance, while playing in a world that's well presented with interesting characters to interact with, interesting situations to get involved with, and interesting problems to solve.

The players don't have to always win. What they do need is a chance. And not always then, for sometimes there's just something about a lost cause that gets people roused. There's a stanza in an old filk (to _Men of Harlech_ that goes ...

In the stories ancients hoary
Knew defeat was generally the price of glory
Still they fight in masses gory
Yes, they are full of ose.​
A sharp sword, a stout shield, and I shall go to Heaven with an honor guard.

But that calls for a good GM who knows what he's doing, and can get his players excited about what they're doing.

There are many ways to enjoy a game, and in the long run trinkets and doodads are a poor substitute for a good adventure.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 18, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> It therefor follows that you can't encourage people to do something they hate.
> 
> Get their attention, draw them in, and then present them with an experience that makes them want to come back. But it need not be done with empty rewards.




Who's proposing empty rewards?  I seriously have lost track.  Anyway, when you "present them with an experience that makes them want to come back," you are causing them to enjoy the game.  If they come back, it's because they enjoyed the first experience and are looking for more enjoyment.  Of course, this is just a truism.  If they happen to enjoy watching their characters get phat loot, it's the same as if they happen to enjoy a deep roleplaying experience.  They could be capable of enjoying both, but latch onto whichever happens to be handy at the time.

My thesis here, such as it is, is that the reason people game is simply and concisely that it pleases them to do so.  Someone might start gaming thinking that it will please them, and find out that it doesn't, but they won't keep at it for long if they're not getting some kind of enjoyment out of it, much in the same way that most people don't slam their fingers in a door and say to themselves, "yow!  That sucked!  I guess I'll try it again and see if it gets any better."



> It is possible for the players to have a good time, even if their characters failed. What's important is the feeling they had a chance, while playing in a world that's well presented with interesting characters to interact with, interesting situations to get involved with, and interesting problems to solve.




Yup.  So long as you enjoy the experience of trying to succeed and failing, you'll enjoy a game that gives it to you.  You'll come back for more and enjoy challenges that you might or might not overcome.


----------



## evileeyore (Dec 18, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> How does anyone fail to see that the latter simply makes more sense? If you'd defined gaming by what everyone was doing in 1970, then we'd _all _ be gaming wrong today.



I think this statement and attitude is the crux of the problem.

As far as I'm concerned we are still gaming the same way we were in 1970.  We gather with like-minded people and play games that we enjoy.  Just as we did in 1970.  We just play different games.

If your doing anything else...  you aren't _gaming_.

Your socializing, your gathering, your ...  whatever.  But it ain't gaming.  I think your looking at the back of the cave and declaring the shadows reality when in fact they are but the two dimensional images of what makes up reality.  In this case your trying to deconstruct 'gaming' and the idea is falling apart.  Deconstruct games systems, genres, people preferences as you like.  But gaming is gaming is gaming.


----------



## mearls (Dec 18, 2005)

I'm terrible at nesting lots of quotes within a single post, so I'm going to try to answer a variety of comments without quoting. If I mess anything up, well, you can yell at me.

Fusangite: I find your ideas interesting and compelling, and would like to sign up for your newsletter. I really like breaking down player actions into player expectations, and looking at what drives/shapes those expectations. Interesting stuff.

Eyebeams: Two points, and they tie together.

RPGs as broad and flexible, as opposed to narrow and focused.

I think this one is a value judgement, or a dial that a designer can tune to fit his tastes. I happen to like broad, adaptable games. The best Mage game I ever played was one set in the Renaissance with background ripped wholesale from Ars Magica, run years before the Sorcerer's Crusade was released. One of the best D&D adventures I ran used mass combat rules and rules for siege warfare. Another one was almost pure roleplay and tactical planning that didn't involve the rules beyond a few Craft checks.

OTOH, when I think back to the sessions of Feng Shui and Dying Earth that I've played and ran, I'm always struck at the rules we used, and the ones we ignore. In Feng Shui, everyone wants to use the stunt rules to do cool and whacky things. The initiative system, the damage system, even the special kung fu maneuvers, most of these never came up in play. Dying Earth is similar: half-way through the first session, we were using the social interaction rules in every scene, but every other rule in the game had been dropped for a much simpler roll d6s and beat a target number system that I created on the fly.

"Gamers are bad at gaming."

I'd reverse this one: game companies are bad at telling gamers how to use their games, and I think this ties into the broad v. narrow rules debate. When a game tries to do everything, it lacks focus and makes it much harder for players and GMs to figure out what to do with it. A strong, well-supported core story can really help this, but few games clearer and repeatedly communicate their core stories.

Even worse, mainstream games in the 1990s were very, very bad at giving people realistic expectations of what an RPG can be. TSR in particular did a good job of telling people that the D&D they wanted to play was Bad Wrong Fun.

I have in my lap a copy of DMGR 1, the first DM-centric sourcebook for AD&D 2. This book has become an icon of sorts to me. It's the poster child for breeding bad DMs, unhappy players, and frustrated gaming groups. I think that a sizable portion, though not anywhere near a majority, of AD&D players suffered because of this book's unrealistic take on what makes D&D fun. Here's some quotes:

On "hack-and-slash" gaming:
"At first, most players love the thrill of battle. But all fighting eventually degenerates into boredom."

On the "righteous roleplayer" player type:
"This should be the preferred playing style, and is usually incorporated with other styles since it is essential that a fair amount of role-play place in order to create a believable game."

There's a very clear message here, and it's repeated throughout the text: using the rules is bad. Fighting monsters is bad. Spending an hour roleplaying the process of renting a room at an inn is good. Running a game where the PCs are spectators to your grand story is good.

These are obviously, as best, judgement calls that vary from group to group. Yet, they're presented as gospel. You play D&D to adopt a character and roleplay him out, while avoiding the rules and icky combat as much as possible. That not only isn't useful, it sets people up for disappointment. If you read this book back in 1991 and were convinced it was right, you had maybe a 5% chance of finding a group that would actually live up to what you were told is an acceptable gaming experience.

I think that, throughout the 1990s, this was a common mistake in RPG publishing. The industry as a whole was so intent on out-Vampiring Vampire that customers were either given unreasonable expectations of what to expect from a game, or they were told that the style of game they wanted was worthless. No wonder so many people (myself included) stuck with 1e.

Stuff like Robin Laws's work is a good first step, but there's still lots more that needs to be done. Stuff like the Fantastic Locations maps show us that D&D is more fun when battles take place in larger, more open areas with lots of options for movement and tactics. It took the gaming world 5 years to figure that out! That "innovation" has been hiding in the rules for all that time, yet if you look at adventures from WotC and d20 companies, you see room after room drawn in the 20 x 20 foot, 2e, non-tactical style.

All of this ties into why I find parts of Ron's theories interesting and useful, and why the Forge is good. Even if you don't fully understand what GNS is, you can think, "I want my design to emphasize this "gamist" style of play that seems to match what I want to do. How do I communicate that to the end user?"

As an aside, "teaching" players and GMs how to run a good Iron Heroes game played a big part of the design. All of the classes are good at fighting, and all the classes were fighting styles, rather than game roles or setting elements. It's almost impossible to build a PC who is useless in a fight - you have to try rather hard to do so.

This turned off people who didn't want to play a game with lots of crazy battles, but that to me was a good thing. Such people would not have been happy with Iron Heroes! There was no point in trying to sell them on the game.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 19, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> I'm going to disagree with you here and say that yes, while the aboutness of things can certainly be multidirectional, no, it doesn't _have_ to be. A good example would be certain kinds of allegory.



Like what? For example... 

The thing is, though, even if you're somehow right about these specialized types of allegories, "gaming" is not an allegory. It is a term that refers to an activity or set thereof. 

You're failing, here, to apply the most basic semiotics. Gaming is always about gaming. It just is. No amount of high-fallutin' nonsense and Forge-speak will make it not so. And, by the way, I think Ron, Chris and everybody else I've corresponded with down at the Forge would agree with me here. Gaming is always about gaming. 

But rather than just repeat myself, I'm going to asak you to furnish me with an example of a time when gaming isn't about gaming. 

Why don't you operationalize what you're asserting and we can see if it is really capable of passing muster intellectually.







> Look at it this way: in order to say that someone is doing something wrong, you have already to have a set of beliefs about a number of things.



And, being human, I manage to do that.







> The most important of these is that you have to believe that they're trying to do right what you believe they're doing wrong in the first place,



Nope. Some people deliberately choose to do something wrong.







> Here the wrongness is determined by the immediate context of the race and its participants, and not by any transhistorical notion of "drag yourself somewhere with your lips" wrongness.



Look, I'm an historian by trade. And I'm big on the context. But this is just ridiculous. 

Sorry, but not everything is a social construction. Walking is not a social construction. Giving birth, getting pregnant, not social constructions either. 

[Faith Statement]Reality, as we experience it, simply, is not purely socially contingent. It arises from a dialectic between socially constructed realities and the actual physical world.[/Faith Statement]


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 19, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Who's proposing empty rewards?  I seriously have lost track.  Anyway, when you "present them with an experience that makes them want to come back," you are causing them to enjoy the game.  If they come back, it's because they enjoyed the first experience and are looking for more enjoyment.  Of course, this is just a truism.  If they happen to enjoy watching their characters get phat loot, it's the same as if they happen to enjoy a deep roleplaying experience.  They could be capable of enjoying both, but latch onto whichever happens to be handy at the time.
> 
> My thesis here, such as it is, is that the reason people game is simply and concisely that it pleases them to do so.  Someone might start gaming thinking that it will please them, and find out that it doesn't, but they won't keep at it for long if they're not getting some kind of enjoyment out of it, much in the same way that most people don't slam their fingers in a door and say to themselves, "yow!  That sucked!  I guess I'll try it again and see if it gets any better."
> 
> ...




The question now becomes, how do you do it?

Has anybody seen an RPG that provides guidelines for getting the players involved?


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Dec 19, 2005)

Samuel Leming said:
			
		

> The essays in the articles section are fairly easy to read.  Those didn’t contain anything about ‘The Big Theory’ though.  Would somebody be so kind as to point me towards that or at least a summary of how it differs from GNS?



Believe it or not, I've been waiting to post this all thread (and when I started reading, this was seven pages with 50 posts per page, so!).

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=232712

Vincent Lumpley explains it in a way which makes genuine sense to me. It may not be Edwardsian Big Model theory, but it's at least Edwardsian-Lumpleyan Big Model theory.

(In the future, there will be a nation of gamers who keep Vincent Lumpley's body preserved under glasss . . .)


----------



## Wayside (Dec 19, 2005)

evileeyore said:
			
		

> I think this statement and attitude is the crux of the problem.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned we are still gaming the same way we were in 1970.  We gather with like-minded people and play games that we enjoy.  Just as we did in 1970.  We just play different games.
> 
> If your doing anything else...  you aren't _gaming_.



And if you want to give the argument up and say I'm just not gaming, more power to you. Obviously, that doesn't affect me in the least. But from the point of view of this argument, the _idea _ of gaming is being theorized in much more complex terms than "like-minded people gathering to play games they enjoy." Much, much more complex terms. So, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that if someone had come along and devised a complex theory of gaming in 1970 the way they're trying to do now, it probably wouldn't have been able to account for what Vampire players were doing in the 1990s. By extension, I fully believe that any theory these people come up with today is only going to be provisional, because the variety of things gamers do in their games is only going to continue to increase as the decades go by. And if it happens that these people become intoxicated with the elegance of their own ideas (or the perceived elegance, at any rate), and continue to adhere to them long after they've outlived their usefulness, well, then you probably get something that looks a bit like this thread.


----------



## Wayside (Dec 19, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Like what? For example...
> 
> The thing is, though, even if you're somehow right about these specialized types of allegories, "gaming" is not an allegory. It is a term that refers to an activity or set thereof.
> 
> You're failing, here, to apply the most basic semiotics. Gaming is always about gaming. It just is. No amount of high-fallutin' nonsense and Forge-speak will make it not so. And, by the way, I think Ron, Chris and everybody else I've corresponded with down at the Forge would agree with me here. Gaming is always about gaming.



What Forge-speak? I've been to The Forge once, based on a ten-second google search/ctrl-F to get that link for WayneLigon. That's the extent of my contact with this place.

I think there's a turn in my argument that just isn't making it through. Let's say you think gaming = GNS. I know _you _ don't think that's true, but the "you" here is in a more general sense. What I'm saying is that my _specific_ game doesn't have to be about anyone's overarching concept of gaming, whether it's yours or The Forge's, ever. You can theorize and theorize and theorize, and someone can still come along and do something new that busts the theory of gaming but still _is _ gaming. I'm not saying you can go to a movie without it being about going to a movie, I'm saying you can to go to a movie without it being about "going to a movie." Just like I can play a game that isn't about "gaming."



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> But rather than just repeat myself, I'm going to asak you to furnish me with an example of a time when gaming isn't about gaming.
> 
> Why don't you operationalize what you're asserting and we can see if it is really capable of passing muster intellectually.And, being human, I manage to do that.



You can do it for me. Do you believe that any existing theory of gaming is so precise as to cover everything you do at the table? I imagine not. And do you believe it's possible to formulate a theory of gaming that this would be true for, not only for you but for everyone who will ever game? I hope not.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Nope. Some people deliberately choose to do something wrong.



Which is trivially parasitic on what I just said, when it works; but your case is not universal. Say "it's cold in here" and mean "it's warm in here." You can mis-utter but you can't mis-mean.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Look, I'm an historian by trade. And I'm big on the context. But this is just ridiculous.
> 
> Sorry, but not everything is a social construction. Walking is not a social construction. Giving birth, getting pregnant, not social constructions either.



Is there a point continuing this? It feels like you're stuck on the fact that I used a term for contemporary intellectual trends that you don't like, and you've decided to just not invest anything in the exchange. I never said walking was a social construction, or giving birth, or getting pregnant. I said you can't walk wrong, give birth wrong, get pregnant wrong, if you aren't trying to do any of those things in the first place. You aren't walking wrong by running, or sitting at your desk, or swimming; you aren't getting pregnant wrong by having other kinds of sex that can't get you pregnant. If I write a poem, you can't say "you wrote that book wrong." I wasn't writing a book, I was writing a poem.

At the same time, to pretend we don't have culturally constructed concepts associated with walking ("going for a walk," "power walking," etc.), giving birth (natural birth, Cesarian by appointment, etc.) and so on is silly.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> [Faith Statement]Reality, as we experience it, simply, is not purely socially contingent. It arises from a dialectic between socially constructed realities and the actual physical world.[/Faith Statement]



Yes, it does, and I never said otherwise. You may think, based on some words I've used, that I'm part of some totally alien intellectual trend, but in fact hermeneutics, which is where this insight originates, and ordinary language philosophy, which reiterates it, are my primary areas. I'm just not prejudiced against other forms of thought.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 19, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> And if you want to give the argument up and say I'm just not gaming, more power to you. Obviously, that doesn't affect me in the least. But from the point of view of this argument, the _idea _ of gaming is being theorized in much more complex terms than "like-minded people gathering to play games they enjoy." Much, much more complex terms. So, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that if someone had come along and devised a complex theory of gaming in 1970 the way they're trying to do now, it probably wouldn't have been able to account for what Vampire players were doing in the 1990s. By extension, I fully believe that any theory these people come up with today is only going to be provisional, because the variety of things gamers do in their games is only going to continue to increase as the decades go by. And if it happens that these people become intoxicated with the elegance of their own ideas (or the perceived elegance, at any rate), and continue to adhere to them long after they've outlived their usefulness, well, then you probably get something that looks a bit like this thread.




So did anyone else get,  "the people here are just intoxicated with the perceived elegance of their outdated ideas," from the above or is that just me?


joe b.


----------



## Wayside (Dec 19, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> So did anyone else get,  "the people here are just intoxicated with the perceived elegance of their outdated ideas," from the above or is that just me?



"These people" being the people at The Forge, who are apparently entirely dismissive of points of view that challenge their own. I'm basing this judgment off of anecdotal evidence from TB, fusangite and others.

My point is simply that grand metanarratives about gaming are useless. They don't have much to do with designing games, as eyebeams says, and they certainly don't have much to do with playing them.

Local narratives? Definitely. Larger trends with underlying causes we can discover and talk about and maybe even use to our advantage as designers (well, I don't design games, but you get the drift), maybe even take a part in shaping? Definitely. But trying to be the Czar of what is and is not gaming, trying to legislate everybody else's fun, or utility, or engagement, or whatever you want to call it? Meh.

edit: let me rephrase. I find Forge-type speculation interesting on a fundamental, broadly aesthetic level in terms of thinking on what gaming might really be "about," even though I completely agree with eyebeams that you can't just sit up on that mountain surveying the kingdom after you get there (you have to come back down and reevaluate the overview in terms of the points of view of the people on the ground actually doing stuff). Still, I'd find it quite a bit more interesting to hear someone theorize the contexts that _produced _ a place like The Forge and its theories, led to its marginal successes among other internet theorist types, its conflicts with others, and so on.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Dec 19, 2005)

One thing I recall Lumpley saying, very firmly, in the thread I linked earlier, is that the Big Model doesn't describe players, or game systems, it describes *games* (in the sense of "campaigns" or "chronicles"), and it can only really do so in hindsight by applying the model to find out exactly what kind of play you were actually engaged in moment-to-moment.

Which is a very different thing from GDS/GNS and so on.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 19, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> I'm going to disagree with you here and say that yes, while the aboutness of things can certainly be multidirectional, no, it doesn't have to be. A good example would be certain kinds of allegory.





			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> But rather than just repeat myself, I'm going to asak you to furnish me with an example of a time when gaming isn't about gaming.





			
				Wayside said:
			
		

> You can do it for me.



So, basically, you're saying that you can't actually support your own argument. Why would I do it for you? You say gaming doesn't have to be about gaming. I say it does. You insist that it doesn't. I ask you to furnish an example of how it doesn't... and you refuse and ask me to instead. I think we're done here.







			
				Wayside said:
			
		

> I'm not saying you can go to a movie without it being about going to a movie, I'm saying you can to go to a movie without it being about "going to a movie." Just like I can play a game that isn't about "gaming."



I don't know what these quotation marks are doing for you. But I'll tell you what they're doing for me: they're telling me we're _definitely_ done here.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 19, 2005)

mythusmage said:
			
		

> The question now becomes, how do you do it?
> 
> Has anybody seen an RPG that provides guidelines for getting the players involved?




Well, any game that includes something like the Robin's Laws theory (e.g. DMG II) provides such guidelines.  It's not hard to provide what will get your players involved, especially if you know them well.  Steal themes and plot devices from their favourite genres of fiction or go by what they have done in the past, making a checklist of "stuff I need to include for player X, player Y, player Z".  If you don't know them, ask.  Most people know what it is they're looking for in a game and can tell you.  Also, despite what it seems to indicate in DMG II, I think most people like variety.  If you have a power gamer, a role player, and a tactician in your group, they'll probably each enjoy getting the chance to play their personal style, but being in a group with a tactician can make tactical play more fun for everyone.

The only other thing I'd add to the Robin's Laws ideas is just general creative writing guidelines for writing adventures.


----------



## fusangite (Dec 19, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> If you have a power gamer, a role player, and a tactician in your group, they'll probably each enjoy getting the chance to play their personal style, but being in a group with a tactician can make tactical play more fun for everyone.



Exactly. In my experience, a mix of creative agendas makes for a better group; whereas the Forge argues the opposite.


----------



## jester47 (Dec 19, 2005)

I propose this thread and the other one for Archivisation.  There is a lot of good game design theory in both of these.


----------



## Wayside (Dec 20, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I don't know what these quotation marks are doing for you. But I'll tell you what they're doing for me: they're telling me we're _definitely_ done here.



Aren't you the guy who was complaining that when you went to The Forge for clarification they told you "you just don't get it, stop posting?"

I'm using quotation marks to set some concept of a thing off from its pure physical reality, in a rather obvious way, or at least I thought so. If you say gaming = G or N or S or some combination or subset of those things, when in fact my game = neither G nor N nor S etc., then my game != "gaming." I'm still choosing to call it gaming, but it's not "gaming," and it certainly isn't concerned with that concept (i.e. GNS) or about it in any way. This really seems like a trivial consquence of the disconnect between practices and theories to me. I'm going to keep doing what I do, and it really isn't about what some RPG theorist thinks gamers do in a broad sense. If you want specific examples, give me your theory, and I'll give you examples of where it fails to account for my practices. Without your theory, I can't give you those examples; all I can say is "do _you _ have a theory that accounts for everything you do at the table?" If you answer no, you're already agreeing with that part of my argument.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> So, basically, you're saying that you can't actually support your own argument.



What I'm saying is I don't have to, because _you've already done it for me_ by expressing dissatisfaction with The Forge's theory. If that's "gaming," but that's not what you do, then what you do isn't "gaming." And if you take the small step of conceding that there's no all-purpose theory of gaming, then on a practical level there's no absolute concept of "gaming" for specific gaming practices to ever be about. Gaming will always be about the gaming that it is, but that doesn't mean it's about the gaming some theorist posits.


----------



## Akrasia (Dec 20, 2005)

Warning: this post is a TANGENT.  



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> I hear strong AI is just around the corner, now that analytical types have been nice enough to explain consciousness!
> 
> Everybody has rubbish. …




I’m not sure what you’re claiming here.  There are many interesting positions concerning ‘consciousness’ being advanced by contemporary analytical philosophers of mind.  None of these positions have clearly emerged as the most plausible one – but at least they are presented in a clear, rigorous manner, and thus their claims can be critically evaluated and considered.  Sadly, clarity and rigour are generally considered to be intellectual vices in ‘postmodernism’.

Also, there’s a lot more to analytical philosophy than AI, btw (e.g. philosophy of science, epistemology, political philosophy, ethics, philosophy of language, etc.).   ‘Analytical philosophy’ describes a method, not a set of subject matter.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> … It really does get quite tiresome to continually read people who read some postmodernists as an undergrad decide that they know the whole shebang and they may as well follow departmental fashion. …




Thanks for the insult.  Do you know me?  No, you don’t.  So don’t go making assumptions about my educational background or present intellectual pursuits.   

My articles and research reflect _my_ interests – not any ‘departmental fashion’ (and given how diverse my colleagues in my present department are, there is no ‘fashion’ to follow, even if I were so inclined).



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> …
> This is where I suspect you get wierd thing
> s like declarations that the Forge is both "totalizing," and "postrstructuralist," which is one of the few patently impossible configurations of poststructuralism.
> …




Um, whatever.  (I certainly would _never_ use those terms.)

END of Tangent.  Please resume the Forge-bashing.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 20, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> Aren't you the guy who was complaining that when you went to The Forge for clarification they told you "you just don't get it, stop posting?"
> 
> I'm using quotation marks to set some concept of a thing off from its pure physical reality, in a rather obvious way, or at least I thought so. If you say gaming = G or N or S or some combination or subset of those things, when in fact my game = neither G nor N nor S etc., then my game != "gaming." I'm still choosing to call it gaming, but it's not "gaming," and it certainly isn't concerned with that concept (i.e. GNS) or about it in any way. This really seems like a trivial consquence of the disconnect between practices and theories to me. I'm going to keep doing what I do, and it really isn't about what some RPG theorist thinks gamers do in a broad sense. If you want specific examples, give me your theory, and I'll give you examples of where it fails to account for my practices. Without your theory, I can't give you those examples; all I can say is "do _you _ have a theory that accounts for everything you do at the table?" If you answer no, you're already agreeing with that part of my argument.
> 
> ...




Well, thank God I was wrong about Forge member's propensity for Academic navel-gazing.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 20, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Warning: this post is a TANGENT.
> 
> I’m not sure what you’re claiming here.  There are many interesting positions concerning ‘consciousness’ being advanced by contemporary analytical philosophers of mind.  None of these positions have clearly emerged as the most plausible one – but at least they are presented in a clear, rigorous manner, and thus their claims can be critically evaluated and considered.




This is the same slippery talk I hear from proponents of memetics and would-be poltical philosophers, as well: that it's just one position out of many and shouldn't be taken too serious. Then of course, they take it seriously enough to casually insult other positions and disciplines -- like you did.

But the analytical stream produces silly humdingers *all the time.* AI-related nonsense is just part of it. It's when you get into things like the utilitarian justification for the free market that you get some seriously faith-based loony stuff.



> Sadly, clarity and rigour are generally considered to be intellectual vices in ‘postmodernism’.




There are two Bogdanovs and a Schon (with an umlaut!)  for every Sokal Affair. Do me a favour and describe a specific position. The fact of the matter is that postmodernism just isn't concerned with the same things as analytical philosophy. Analytical types like yourself falsely think that postmodernism criticizes the ideas of objective reality and assumes that attempting to understand it is futile, even though such thinkers are a part of the field's fringe minority, much like the guys who propose we are all lying when we say we are conscious. Like the simplest behaviourism, radical deconstruction is really more of an embryo from which more developed ideas emerge.

I'd say that the core ideas of postmodernism -- that our thinking is deeply influenced by our subject positions and that communication is tenuous because of it -- is quite useful, fairly straightforward to justify and leads to a number of tools that we can use to recheck our assumptions. We just don't use it to redo math.



> Also, there’s a lot more to analytical philosophy than AI, btw (e.g. philosophy of science, epistemology, political philosophy, ethics, philosophy of language, etc.).   ‘Analytical philosophy’ describes a method, not a set of subject matter.




Never said it didn't.



> Thanks for the insult.  Do you know me?  No, you don’t.  So don’t go making assumptions about my educational background or present intellectual pursuits.




I think your position on postmodernism is simplistic and erroneous. Your statement was based on making much broader assumptions about an entire discipline, so your offense is misplaced.



> My articles and research reflect _my_ interests – not any ‘departmental fashion’ (and given how diverse my colleagues in my present department are, there is no ‘fashion’ to follow, even if I were so inclined).




Everybody says that about their departments and themselves. Were the world so truly full of snowflake-like distinctions in attitudes. Of course, the postmodern way of talking about this is to describe this as a logocentric ruse to give privilege to certain ideas without real analysis, but I don't think you'd like talking about that.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 20, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> Aren't you the guy who was complaining that when you went to The Forge for clarification they told you "you just don't get it, stop posting?"




I on the other hand, am the guy they told, "We know we aren't making any sense, but go screw yourself anyway."*















*This in response to, "How is Heroquest indie, exactly?" and "Hey, that's not how us mainstream guys write stuff."


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Dec 20, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> This is the same slippery talk I hear from proponents of memetics and would-be poltical philosophers, as well: that it's just one position out of many and shouldn't be taken too serious.



Do you think memetics (and political philosophy, but I care less about that) are dead-end avenues of inquiry? Or is it more accurate to say that just because they're sexy doesn't mean they shouldn't be subjected to careful analysis before they're used to explain everything ever?



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> I'd say that the core ideas of postmodernism -- that our thinking is deeply influenced by our subject positions and that communication is tenuous because of it -- is quite useful, fairly straightforward to justify and leads to a number of tools that we can use to recheck our assumptions.



I really admire this formulation. I'm going to quote it elsewhere in an argument/discussion I can't finish having until I get home and have access to USENET.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 20, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Do you think memetics (and political philosophy, but I care less about that) are dead-end avenues of inquiry? Or is it more accurate to say that just because they're sexy doesn't mean they shouldn't be subjected to careful analysis before they're used to explain everything ever?




No, I think they're interesting but pretentious fields, in the sense that they are sometimes constructed as embryonic sciences with little justification. Memetics is especially bad for this, since it is fundamentally non-falsifiable. It's also rather Forge-like in that its flagship cheerleading journal *also* declared victory and closed up shop.

Basically, as long as we think in terms of a community of ideas that criticize or support each other, and that these kudos and broadsides are not always rational (since they are being expressed through self-deceptive, venal, silly human agents), we'll muddle along.



> I really admire this formulation. I'm going to quote it elsewhere in an argument/discussion I can't finish having until I get home and have access to USENET.




Thanks. I won't defend every part of the postmodern/phenomenological-existential stream canon, since some of it is bollocks, but Some of the stuff that looks like it is, isn't. That stuff is often building off the ideas in other texts that talk about playing with language and the text as an exemplar of the process of thinking, rather than abroad argument about what one ought to think. For example, Foucault's Madness and Civilization is, in my view, most useful because of the method, where Foucault tries to boil the history of mental illness in society down to narratives about what kind of people the "mad" are and what relationship they have to everyone else, and how this acts are the template for power relations. Some of the history is bad, but MF is also saying," Try this out with your own research," by presenting a multiplicity of instances along a common theme.


----------



## Wayside (Dec 20, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I’m not sure what you’re claiming here.  There are many interesting positions concerning ‘consciousness’ being advanced by contemporary analytical philosophers of mind.  None of these positions have clearly emerged as the most plausible one – but at least they are presented in a clear, rigorous manner, and thus their claims can be critically evaluated and considered.  Sadly, clarity and rigour are generally considered to be intellectual vices in ‘postmodernism’.



Oddly enough, I thought there was more a concensus about the unlikelihood of strong AI in analytic philosophy than anywhere else. So on that count I think eyebeams is misrepresenting your discipline as much as you're misrepresenting his with some of your comments. But maybe I've just been spending too much time with Searle, and everybody else thinks strong AI is in fact right around the corner.

But anyway, a few points: most analytic philosophy is both postmodern and poststructural. These aren't antithetical movements in the least. As you say, analytic philosophy is a method, not a set of ideas; postmodernism and poststructuralism, on the other hand, are precisely sets of ideas. Continental philosophy, to be sure, has a very different style than analytic, but to say it has a general lack of clarity or rigor is simply wrong. It's practically a different language, but one that makes perfect sense if you speak it. Now, other humanities people, like English and X Studies Ph.D.'s, who are wasting an enormous amount of paper right now regurgitating these ideas in the worst ways, certainly make it _look_ bad; but if you're actually reading Gadamer or Foucault or Rorty you'll see the value in what they're doing. There's a reason analytic thinkers like Rorty and Donald Davidson have spent time making sure continentals like Gadamer get a fair shake in America. (Hell, once you get past the different discourses, Quine and Derrida, for example, are practically saying the same things. And if you know Searle's--and pretty much everyone else's--reply to Quine's indeterminacy thesis, it's the same damn counter Derrida got pwnz0rr3d with when he debated Gadamer. edit: eyebeams indirectly referred to this bit in his post as well.)

The hostility is misplaced, on both ends. Continental philosophers are already doing what analytic philosophers are doing and vice versa; each side just has different ways of going about their work. Postmodernism, at least, has the distinction of _encouraging _ this diversity of method, and you see this encouragement as well in the best thinkers on both sides.

Can't we all just get along?



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> END of Tangent.  Please resume the Forge-bashing.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 20, 2005)

I think that a lot of that way-out theory is making divisions where there are none, and the rest of it is purusing a dangerously detatched veiw of game-playing. All the while patting itself on the back for getting ideas that are obvious to any half-hearted game designer.

It's not useless. But it thinks it's *essential*. Which makes it _hilariously_ absurd.


----------



## Paka (Dec 20, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Well, thank God I was wrong about Forge member's propensity for Academic navel-gazing.




Yeah, this thread definitely captured what the Forge is about...

    :\


----------



## Akrasia (Dec 20, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> This is the same slippery talk I hear from proponents of memetics and would-be poltical philosophers, as well: that it's just one position out of many and shouldn't be taken too serious. Then of course, they take it seriously enough to casually insult other positions and disciplines -- like you did. ...




'Slippery talk'?  I'm sorry, but I don't see how this comment is related to the passage you quoted at all.  I certainly did not mean to suggest that the various accounts of consciousness on the table right now should not be taken seriously -- anything but that.  



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> ...  It's when you get into things like the utilitarian justification for the free market that you get some seriously faith-based loony stuff. ...




Um, okay.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> ... The fact of the matter is that postmodernism just isn't concerned with the same things as analytical philosophy. Analytical types like yourself falsely think that postmodernism criticizes the ideas of objective reality and assumes that attempting to understand it is futile...




Well, yes, to a great extent that _has _been my impression of 'postmodernism', at least from what I have read, a couple of unfortunate graduate seminars, and from far too many discusions with graduate students in other departments (especially 'literary studies' types).  I would be relieved if this impression were in fact incorrect (though I would be at a loss at that point to figure out what precisely postmodernism was trying to claim, and why there exists such widespread confusion over its core claims).



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> ...
> I'd say that the core ideas of postmodernism -- that our thinking is deeply influenced by our subject positions and that communication is tenuous because of it -- is quite useful, fairly straightforward to justify and leads to a number of tools that we can use to recheck our assumptions....




And we needed 'postmodernism' for this insight?  :\ 

Certainly, most of the analytic philosophy with which I'm familiar would not dispute that insight, at least when stated in those general terms.  (The devil would be in the details, of course.)



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> ...
> I think your position on postmodernism is simplistic and erroneous. Your statement was based on making much broader assumptions about an entire discipline...




Postmodernism is a 'discipline'?    

But perhaps my position is 'simplistic and erroneous'.  It's based on a couple of graduate seminars and interactions with people who take that stuff seriously over a long period of time.  However, it's thankfully not something that I work on, or think about much (at least over the past several years).  And I'm sorry if my initial comment upset you.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> ...
> Everybody says that about their departments and themselves. ...




Not really.  

With respect to departments, many have definite areas of concentration and strength-- and they are well aware of this.  (My department, in contrast, does not have any particular area of strength or focus.)  

As for individual research, many people deliberately choose to focus on 'sexy' or 'fashionable' issues or topics for their PhD theses and articles for straightforward careerist reasons.  I know some of these people.  I also know from speaking with hiring committees from various departments in the past that I have been passed over for jobs because my work "wasn't sexy enough".  But really, enough about me.


----------



## Imret (Dec 20, 2005)

Well, I'm only seven pages in on my first reading of this thread, but I'd like to share something.

This is more or less my first exposure to The Forge, and while reading I was fascinated by jdrakeh's reference to the Narrativism definition. So I opened another Firefox tab and loaded up The Forge, then checked their Glossary page and read some of it aloud since the wife is a linguistics geek and I thought she'd be amused.

And it *hung my computer*. Within a half-dozen entries from their glossary, my computer actually choked on the BS.

Just wanted to toss in my first experience with The Forge.


----------



## Akrasia (Dec 20, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> ... Continental philosophy, to be sure, has a very different style than analytic, but to say it has a general lack of clarity or rigor is simply wrong. It's practically a different language, but one that makes perfect sense if you speak it. Now, other humanities people, like English and X Studies Ph.D.'s, who are wasting an enormous amount of paper right now regurgitating these ideas in the worst ways,
> ...
> The hostility is misplaced, on both ends. Continental philosophers are already doing what analytic philosophers are doing and vice versa; each side just has different ways of going about their work. Postmodernism, at least, has the distinction of _encouraging _ this diversity of method, and you see this encouragement as well in the best thinkers on both sides.
> 
> Can't we all just get along?




I don't think that I disagree with your overall point here, though it is important to keep in mind that 'Continental philosophy' is much broader and varied than 'postmodernism'.

One of my colleagues works on Husserl and Heidegger (and Kant), but her method is distinctly 'analytical' in nature.  Another friend works on Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein.  I greatly respect their work, and learn a lot from discussing philosophy with them.  

In contrast, I've normally found myself deeply frustrated when trying to speak with cultural/political/literary theorists who identify themselves as 'postmodern' (or 'post-anything') in their approach.

Anyhow, I think I've encouraged this tangent quite enough now ...


----------



## Imret (Dec 20, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> I'm using quotation marks to set some concept of a thing off from its pure physical reality, in a rather obvious way, or at least I thought so. If you say gaming = G or N or S or some combination or subset of those things, when in fact my game = neither G nor N nor S etc., then my game != "gaming." I'm still choosing to call it gaming, but it's not "gaming," and it certainly isn't concerned with that concept (i.e. GNS) or about it in any way. This really seems like a trivial consquence of the disconnect between practices and theories to me. I'm going to keep doing what I do, and it really isn't about what some RPG theorist thinks gamers do in a broad sense. If you want specific examples, give me your theory, and I'll give you examples of where it fails to account for my practices. Without your theory, I can't give you those examples; all I can say is "do _you _ have a theory that accounts for everything you do at the table?" If you answer no, you're already agreeing with that part of my argument.






			
				Wayside said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is I don't have to, because _you've already done it for me_ by expressing dissatisfaction with The Forge's theory. If that's "gaming," but that's not what you do, then what you do isn't "gaming." And if you take the small step of conceding that there's no all-purpose theory of gaming, then on a practical level there's no absolute concept of "gaming" for specific gaming practices to ever be about. Gaming will always be about the gaming that it is, but that doesn't mean it's about the gaming some theorist posits.





I'm with Teflon Billy.

Forgespeak = English with the non-Euclidean template.


----------



## mythusmage (Dec 20, 2005)

The difference between the common man, a scientist, and an academic.

Question: Where does the sun rise in the morning?

Common man: In the East of course.

Scientist: In broad terms, in the East. But technically where the Sun rises in the morning depends on the time of year.

Academic: Before we can answer that question we first need to determine the meaning of the word, "where".


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 20, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think that a lot of that way-out theory is making divisions where there are none, and the rest of it is purusing a dangerously detatched veiw of game-playing. All the while patting itself on the back for getting ideas that are obvious to any half-hearted game designer.
> 
> It's not useless. But it thinks it's *essential*. Which makes it _hilariously_ absurd.




You'd probably be happy that Ron closed the RPG Theory forums and told everyone to talk about theory in terms of Actual Play.  Which is cool, because I enjoy reading those threads.

The way I see the theory stuff is that it's helpful to me.  Especially to people who always wanted to make a game but never tried before.  The fact that people are talking about it makes it obvious to this quarter-hearted game designer.   (That's because I never would have considered all of this before in the depth that a community is able to, nor was I able to come up with ways to get the type of game experience I wanted without the group I grew up playing with.)


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Dec 20, 2005)

This is a sad thread to read.. Lotta bitter-sounding people, slapping themselves on the back, crowing about how much some other website sucks. 

The Forge, on the other hand, has threads about people enjoying themselves and discussing gaming. 

Yep, you guys sure showed _them_.


----------



## jester47 (Dec 20, 2005)

Well if you take out the philosophical argueing, its a pretty good thread.


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 20, 2005)

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> This is a sad thread to read.. Lotta bitter-sounding people, slapping themselves on the back, crowing about how much some other website sucks.
> 
> The Forge, on the other hand, has threads about people enjoying themselves and discussing gaming.
> 
> Yep, you guys sure showed _them_.




Except that you've got it backwards there, hoss.  

Until recently, the forge's focus was on ever more arcane and occult ideas about the backdrop of RPGs...hypothesis, I'd point out that most GMs with any skill at all simply know or have discovered, sans the ivory tower academia.  There's good ideas that've come out of the Forge, but the environment is very much nose-in-the-air snobbery towards 'mere' gamers.  Cruise out there and mention d20 sometime, watch the reaction.


----------



## Henry (Dec 20, 2005)

It was a fascinating thread a few pages in, and unfortunately went nowhere but negative very fast. I don't feel like, after reading this last page, that it's going anywhwere productive, but keeps revisiting the same circular discussions that wax and wane with harsh feelings. All I've seen are "they're full of it," "they're being snobbish", "no, you're being snobbish," etc. Plus, I don't feel like watching a thread develop into some kind of forum-war, which I've seen happen in the past.

I feel like this discussion needs to go to rest for a while; if someone can convince me with actual quotes why this thread would still be productive to enhancing any understanding of the Forge's principles, rather than being another post to slam them, I'm willing to listen, but not necessarily change my opinion.

Thread Closed.


----------

