The next issue of Places to Go, People to Be is going to be carrying a small article by Balbinus. This is basically a reprint of a post to RPG.net in which he posited, semi-seriously, that narrativists are munchkins in theorists' clothing (I would link to the original but I can't access RPG.net at the moment).
I was wondering whether some hardy soul at the Forge would like, partially by way of response, to give an overview of the current state of play of RPG theory. A couple of thousand words should do, covering early ideas (advocacy newsgroup, A&E) and more recent developments (here and Scandinavia).
A humorous rant would do just as well, as long as it's funny, although I'm not sure anyone could beat Jared'd Haiku (http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/haiku.pdf).
I'd also like something on the whole Indie scene, there are so many great games out there, and whilst I try to buy most of them, I just don't have the time to write about them all.
Any takers can pmail me here or write to editors@ptgptb.org.
The original thread is here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=96578&highlight=munchkin)
Bring a packed lunch. And a map.
Steve, did you want any comments or hashing out of the issues here on the forum? The original thread is a fine example of an RPGnet furball, despite containing one of my better GNS posts on RPG.net (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=1857285&postcount=255), if I do say say myself.
And, I say guiltily, the coining of the term "Forgista".
Hello,
Discussion of the topics in that thread can only be carried on here as new threads of their own, with specific inquiries and topics. The thread itself can't be continued here as such, and "So and so said this on the RPG.net thread, here's what I think, discuss," is not a valid topic.
Best,
Ron
Steve,
I'm a big supporter of what you do - I think Places to Go, People to Be is one of the most enduring and best web-based RPG resources.
But, are you seriously asking, "Hey, I'm taking a big snag of a thread, intentionally written to be burred and pointy, and probably anathema to a lot of you, and was wondering if any of you'd like to respond?" 'Cause if so, why would anyone?
As for an overview of some of the hep new indie RPGs coming out, someone should jump on this. I've never enjoying a writing assignment more than the one I wrote for PTGPTB, and I'd take this one, except I have a little game coming out this month, so I'm a bit biased (and busy.)
I can't actually read RPG.net at all at the moment (some problem with my membership) so I don't know what the thread says. I've got an alternate identity which I'll try out tonight when I get home (as work blocks evil RPG.net but is fine with the good ol' Forge)
Discussing the issues here is fine, not that I could, or would want to prevent that anyway! If that leads to an article for http://ptgtpb.org, then even better.
Quote from: Clinton R. NixonBut, are you seriously asking, "Hey, I'm taking a big snag of a thread, intentionally written to be burred and pointy, and probably anathema to a lot of you, and was wondering if any of you'd like to respond?" 'Cause if so, why would anyone?
Seriously, I am. It's a point of engagement. It seems to me that roleplaying theory either sits too far in the background or when visible is misunderstood - something which I'm quite capable of doing. I thought it might be a good chance for theorists to answer the general criticisms of elitism and distance from 'normal' roleplayers and to show the real benefits that it can bring.
Quote from: Clinton R. NixonAs for an overview of some of the hep new indie RPGs coming out, someone should jump on this. I've never enjoying a writing assignment more than the one I wrote for PTGPTB, and I'd take this one, except I have a little game coming out this month, so I'm a bit biased (and busy.)
Also, I'd like to be more convinced myself without having to read the Forge every day to keep up with the multiplication of terms and theories. I think being more out in the open and engaging with the public is a good thing for theory to do. Theory into practice is my angle, which is why I suggested the second piece. It's clear that many indie RPGs have benefited from the discussions and support of the Forge, what is less clear is what the direct impact of theory has been.
Is the Beeg Horseshoe present in Lacuna, is My Life with Master another fantasy heartbreaker? This are good questions to ask, as long as the answers come in terms that are more generally understood (rather than having to explain every single term, or refer back to Ron's excellent glossary all the time).
I see what you're saying. And I'm sure we all appreciate the sense of justice and collaboration that motivates you to want to provide Forgistas a chance to (your word) "refute" a possible misunderstanding. But I think you may be laboring under a misconception about attitudes 'round here, so that the responses you get may strike you as a little... strange.
Many folks on the Forge (including myself on my good days) aren't trying to be understood. They are trying to understand.
Being understood is often confrontational. It draws you into saying "No, what you have said is wrong, and here is why!" That proves to the people on the other side of the discussion that they did not achieve their goal of being understood, which leads to further confrontation.
Understanding is cooperative. It draws you to say "I see what you're saying here and here, but I'm fuzzy on that last bit, how would it apply in such-and-so a situation?" That shows the other people that they have been understood, and also gives them a better chance to understand you in turn.
I think I see what you're saying about the importance of... well... proselytizing for Forge-theory. People benefit from the Forge. Ergo giving these ideas a broader circulation will help more people. Have I got it right? Is that just about what you're saying? And if so, how do you propose to achieve that in a "refuting" context that is so heavily slanted toward being confrontational and disrespectful? It seems a very worthy goal, but perhaps an impracticable method.
Quotes the Beeg Horseshoe present in Lacuna, is My Life with Master another fantasy heartbreaker? This are good questions to ask, as long as the answers come in terms that are more generally understood (rather than having to explain every single term, or refer back to Ron's excellent glossary all the time).
Actually those are pretty silly questions... as is the original question of "are Narrativists munchkins?"
Wanting to talk about theory and practice is fine, but discussing juxtapositions of random bits of terminology with random game examples or popular concepts isn't the way to go about it. You'd end up arguing a whole lot of negatives. It would be like trying to write an article carefully refuting the proposition "black holes are actually cartels" without explaining a lot of astrophysics and economics terminology. About the most you can say, with that limitation, is "no, that notion makes no sense."
To write an article about Fantasy Hearbreakers, for instance, one would likely look mostly at examples of games that are Fantasy Hearbreakers, as well as examples that resemble the Hearbreakers in important respects but are not Heartbreakers themselves. (Which, not surprisingly, is exactly what Ron has done in two separate articles already.) My Life With Master is completely off that radar. Explaining why it it's not a Fantasy Heartbreaker is like explaining why the Supreme Court is not a dessert topping.
An article about what Fantasy Hearbreakers are and what lessons game designers and game consumers should take from them sounds great (though again Ron's articles already cover that pretty well). An article about what current theories (if any) were used in developing My Life With Master also sounds great (though perhaps only Paul Czege could or should write such an article). But focusing on the question "is My Life With Master a Fantasy Hearbreaker?" would severely hamper either article. Likewise, a relatively terminology-free article about Narrativism might be possible (though problematic, as the concept of Narrativism is understood in the context of a much larger model and was never intended to "stand alone"). Articles about munchkins might also be of interest. But focusing on the question "are Narrativists munchkins?" (even in the form of "why Narrativists are not munchkins") would just obfuscate both topics.
- Walt
"Are you saying that a Supreme Court justice isn't physically capable of climbing on top of a medium-sized pastry?"
"No, but the average Supreme Court justice weighs 205 pounds. That much weight would crush any dessert, so the Supreme Court cannot be a dessert topping."
"But you could make many desserts stronger by increasing the egg white content, and redistribute the weight using a thick fondant."
"No, even that wouldn't be strong enough."
"I doubt your analysis on that, I'd want to see the figures you're using for compressive strength. But it doesn't matter anyway. In principle, you could make the desserts out of concrete. That would certainly be strong enough."
"Then they wouldn't be edible."
"Why is that important? Does your definition of 'dessert' require that it be edible? Not everyone's definition is going to agree with that."
"In any case, no Supreme Court justice would have any desire to stand on top of a dessert."
"Ah, now we see the arrogance of your position, presuming to tell me what every Supreme Court justice would or wouldn't want to do. Have you ever served on the Supreme Court? Then how would you know?"
"That's ridiculous. You've entirely missed the point of what the Supreme Court is."
"Ah, you call my arguments ridiculous but you've not shown a single citation backing up your assertions. You've failed to prove that the Supreme Court is not a dessert topping. I'm going to continue to regard the Supreme Court as a dessert topping. Perhaps you'll understand my reasoning better when my article on the topic is completed."
"Whatever."
Hey all,
Thanks very much for making this overture, GB Steve. I hope someone takes you up on it. Something like the workshop (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13175) Vincent Baker was going to do at a Con in NY would be just the thing (no, Vincent, I'm not volunteering you). Steve, I think you're pointing to a real need.
However, as Tony pointed out, it could easily be perceived as a shouting match (esp. given the incendiary nature of the "other side"), so I can understand why folks here might be hesitant to get into it.
Walt, the fact that the questions being posed about the state of rpg theory here don't match up with current theory speaks volumes about how wide the gap is between the forge and the larger rpg community. It is surprising that there isn't an analog to the FRPAdvocacy FAQ for current theory. The articles and glossary are steps toward this, but the articles are less accessible in structure than a FAQ, and a glossary does not put the ideas into a conceptual framework. Someday that Role Playing Handbook (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10939) project will come into being.
Taking an analytical look at one game as it exemplifies current theory might be a good idea, especially since it is a common feeling here that the way that these ideas are or even should be communictated is specifically through design.
yrs,
Emily
I think before we can answer the question "Are Narrativists Munchkins?" we need to answer the question "What Is A Munchkin?"
As far as I can tell, munchkin is a broad pejorative term that means, roughly, "gamers I don't like."
So, if you don't like narrativist play then, yes, all narrativists are munchkins, by definition.
yrs--
--Ben
P.S. There could be more specific defintions of munchkin, dealing with desired methods and goals of player power distribution but, frankly, that's another thread.
A single article covering 'Forge Theory' including GNS and concepts such as Bangs, Step On Up, etc would be nice to have, but the reason I say that is that I'm not realy up on all the terminology myself. Hence I wouldn't be a very good person to write such a summary. Frankly I find many of the seminal articles on these concepts very hard to get into because they don't realy summarise the concepts very well. Perhaps they were written at a time when these concepts were relatively new, and a new article could take advantage of the last few years of refinement to better articulate them in a more approachable manner.
I agree with the points that Munchkinism isn't realy anything to do with gaming theory or narativism. Narativism is just about the structure of the rules in an RPG. A Narrativist game will still have rules, which are still potentialy open to minimaxing and hence munchkinism.
Things like Hero Points and such can be seen as a munchkin's paradise, but in fact they're just a resource like any other. All characters genrealy get them, and the Narrator will presumably structure the challenges in the game taking them into account.
I recently read a Pendragon scenario in which the scenario's author presented a nhumber of ways in whcih the GM could intervene and alter the flow of the scenario: giving the characters extra healing if they're too injured to carry on; having arbitrary NPC magic slow the players down if they're progressing too fast for the drama of the narrative; taking note of new relationships and loyalties; taking note of the player's interests and actions in assigning rewards. All Hero Points and such do is put a little of that metagame power into the hands of the players, so that rather than leaving all this stuiff to arbitrary GM fiat, the players can become involved in many of these narative and character development issues aside from traditional RPG 'Leveling Up' or skill advances. Narative game design simply acknowledges that these issues are important to many players and narrators of RPGs and gives us a framework of game mechanical tools to help manage them (as much) recourse to arbitrary GM intervention.
Simon Hibbs
The problem with writing a comprehensive article on Forge theory is that's too much of it. We really need an entire book. I mean, all of Ron's article's combined - which don't even cover everything - are like 150 pages or something. That's why I'm hoping that the Role-playing Handbook Project works out.
What you really need to do is specify a topic you want to be addressed.
I do think a thread on the current Indie scene would be cool.
I've been following this thread with mixed thoughts.
I would certainly be willing to write another piece for PtGPtB; I have a lot of respect for the e-zine and its editorial staff. I've been here at The Forge for some time now, and was present at Gaming Outpost when a lot of the seminal events occurred. Also, I don't have a current new game to push in the process (although much of what has been discussed here has impacted my understanding of my "old" game).
On the other hand, my direct exposure to the games here is somewhat limited. Most of my knowledge is second hand. I have a solid grasp of the theory, but little experience with the games that have sprung from it.
That puts me in much the same place as I was with the law article: I don't have strong handle on the practical examples.
So take that however, you will, and feel free to e-mail me if you want to pursue the matter. I'll give some thought to how I might handle such an article. Meanwhile, you might find some value in my
Applied Theory here at The Forge, and if you still have a Gaming Outpost subscription,
Game Ideas Un
limited: Credibility. Both articles attempt to put theory into the hands of gamers in more practical ways.
--M. J. Young
Quote from: TonyLBMany folks on the Forge (including myself on my good days) aren't trying to be understood. They are trying to understand.
I think possibly that when I say "refuting" a lot more is being read into it than I mean. I tend to be a bit freer and looser with my vocab thanks folks do round here. I'm a much more chatty "write first think later" kind of person, and the same goes for my remarks about the Beeg Horseshoe etc. I'm trying to stimulate a debat, and find out what the debate is.
But if refuting and defintions are too confrontational, then what about a road map of the theory project? I'm not expecting an exhaustive article on where theory is, that would be a book any way. But something that started out by saying "these are some of the issues in roleplaying" and answered this with "these are some of the theoretical approaches" should not, I hope, step on anyones toes.
From the way The Forge operates it seems that there is a natural progression, almost evolutionary, in the way theory arises, is discussed, then either sticks or falls away. I'm not sure that, much as with evolution, there is much clarity in the aims of the project (except perhaps in some of Ron's writing - but I could be wrong here) so some, as it were, literature review of the current ideas that are floating around, and their geneology would be very interesting.
I wasn't aware of the Handbook project but, if that's also this http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/push29jul04.html , then I guess what I'm talking about would be the introduction to such a thing, or at least the part about theory.
The other thing, a review of existing games and their relation to theory would then be the part about theory in practice.
QuoteI'm trying to stimulate a debate, and find out what the debate is.
A debate would be valuable, but you can't really have a debate as long as one side of the debate's arguments are based entirely on a lack of understanding of the other's main points, which is what that "munchkin's new clothes" post basically is.
Quote from: Matt WilsonQuoteI'm trying to stimulate a debate, and find out what the debate is.
A debate would be valuable, but you can't really have a debate as long as one side of the debate's arguments are based entirely on a lack of understanding of the other's main points, which is what that "munchkin's new clothes" post basically is.
Actually I don't think the author of that piece does entirely misunderstand the debate. After all, the he does contribute to this site (263 posts).
The piece is partly tongue in cheek, to a certain extent about the po-facedness of theory. But there is a also a grain of truth in what he says, that some narrativists, in a similar way to munchkins (powergamers, call 'em what you will) want their characters to succeed and look cool whilst doing so. You don't have to look far for examples of narrativist gamers claiming that, for example, a James Bond PC should never fail in an attempt at seduction.
Is that a bad thing? I'm not so sure. After all there is a also a piece (http://ptgptb.org/0010/devil.html) on our site saying that the munchkin approach to gaming is as valid as any other. So we're trying to get a debate going.
It sounds like a call to turn theory into a 'something to gossip about over coffee' type of subject. I mean, if you want to get somewhere with analysing narrativism, you don't start by saying all narrativists are munchkins, then fall back to saying some are (which is wishywashy since the same can easily go for sim and gamist players). Or even use a poorly defined word like munchkin to begin with.
Might look like I'm dissing here, but it's actually a pretty fair objective. But it's not sparking debate, its more generating light controversy so as to get at least a stilted version of the subject out into discussion rather than the dry theory never getting out there.
But basically, if there's one reason theory doesn't circulate quickly, it's because it takes effort to think in it's frame of mind. Ie, to weed out vague terms like munchkin and actually give a concrete definition of what you mean. I don't think were looking at dry theory to practice here, it's more theory to something easy to talk about. Which is valid, but different from creating debate and that difference is important to note.
Quote from: GB Stevesome narrativists, in a similar way to munchkins (powergamers, call 'em what you will) want their characters to succeed and look cool whilst doing so. You don't have to look far for examples of narrativist gamers claiming that, for example, a James Bond PC should never fail in an attempt at seduction.
Some genres of literature, or more generaly forms of popular narrative, do involve characters largely succeeding and looking cool while they do it. Whether it's simulationist, gamist or narrativist any game based on such a genre will include these elements. In Bond, the act of seduction often isn't the conflict, because the participants don't meaninfuly resist seduction. Rather the love affair is a stage for conflict, a medium through which the lovers can influence or gain advantage over one another.
A game that incorporated this could be gamist or narrativist or simulationist, but it wouldn't be a Bond game if there wasn't any love play involved. I think looking at Bond games form a narrativist perspective is perhaps more likely to lead one to this insight though.
Simon Hibbs
Quote from: GB Steve
You don't have to look far for examples of narrativist gamers claiming that, for example, a James Bond PC should never fail in an attempt at seduction.
Is that munchkiny? Only if the seduction is the important part of the scene. However, from a narrativist POV, there's likely something more important at stake, and the seduction is just a small part. Okay, you got the nookie, as spies always do, but did you get the information you needed? Did you get this person to trust you so you can take advantage of that trust in the future?
That's what the problem is with the munchkin argument. Gamers who take that stance assume that the kicking ass in combat or always getting the hot sex is the goal of every gamer and the point of every game.
Quote from: Matt WilsonThat's what the problem is with the munchkin argument. Gamers who take that stance assume that the kicking ass in combat or always getting the hot sex is the goal of every gamer and the point of every game.
Exactly right, traditional task based game systems fail here because game mechanicaly they are such blunt instruments. Their focus on simulating physical action drasticaly limits the kinds of conflicts they can even attempt to resolve.
In traditional game design the game system is there to answer questions like 'does the character seduce the agent', 'does he shoot the guards' and in the process we find out if the character is cool or not. Is he like bond or not.
In modern games we know the character is cool - it's a Bond game and he's a secret agent. How could he not be cool? The question is, does he distract the enemy agent with his kiss for long enough to plant a radio beacon on her skirt. He shoots the guards, but does he do it well enough to get to the reactor room before Henchman X.
In a traditional game he'd have to shoot each guard, and do enough damage to take them out, and have enough movement points left to get to the reactor room first. None of the game mechanics directly address the central question which is, does he make it first? Whether he makes it or not is an emergent product arrived at indirectly from the individual game mechanics. In a modern narativist game, it's the central conflict the game mechanics are resolving. The guards being shot is merely a means to an end and therefore isn't itself what we're trying to resolve.
Simon
Note - Edited!
Quote from: simon_hibbsQuote from: Matt WilsonThat's what the problem is with the munchkin argument. Gamers who take that stance assume that the kicking ass in combat or always getting the hot sex is the goal of every gamer and the point of every game.
Exactly right, traditional task based game systems fail here because game mechanicaly they are such blunt instruments. Their focus on simulating physical action drasticaly limits the kinds of conflicts they can even attempt to resolve.
I replied to this in a separate thread,
Task Resolution/Conflict Resolution.
Quote from: Matt WilsonThat's what the problem is with the munchkin argument. Gamers who take that stance assume that the kicking ass in combat or always getting the hot sex is the goal of every gamer and the point of every game.
Well, you could also do that as a narrativist, but my point was really about there being something worth discussing here, and making the reasons behind narrativism more widely known.
Of course there is the question of where the tension might come from if not from the more traditional methods of resolution. We all know some of the answers to this, but does anyone else?
I never said that the munchkin argument is necessarily a good one, but it's the only one I've got on my site at the moment and I'd like to redress the balance.
QuoteWell, you could also do that as a narrativist, but my point was really about there being something worth discussing here, and making the reasons behind narrativism more widely known.
Yes but "discuss" is not equal to "we are going to publish this opinion piece". One would have thought that if you had actually wanted to discuss this, you would have come here and asked a question - not determined a conclusion, posted it publicly, and then planned to publish it formally.
Apart from that I have to say I am startled to see Balbinus make this argument. Having spoken to him I am surprised that has gone this far off base, it really looks more like axe-grinding than a real viewpoint. I don't really know what to make of it or what response would be appropriate.
Well, PTGPTB is not a theory journal. In fact we've hardly had any theory at all. This is something I would like to correct.
Now we've had some opinion on theory, albeit somewhat negative (although not entirely), but that doesn't mean we're opposed to theory. Theory is part of the roleplaying world and I want to report on it. And I would very much like someone from theory to do that for me, because I don't feel qualified to do so. I think the Forge has an important role in this which is why I came here to ask.
The practice of the Forge has always had a strong constructionist current, in which ideas are allowed to flourish in a safe environment. Not safe from hard constructive criticism, but safe from unhelpful comments about the point of the project, personal attacks and the like. I can only applaud the commitment that that has taken. And I also realise that given much of the hostility towards theory that this is probably one of the few environments in which it could have flourished. And there is now a theoretical community.
But there remains the question of engagement with the rest of roleplaying. This mainly comes through the games that have been published, but I'd like to see some more* of the theoretical underpining of these games being given an airing. After all, if such wonderful games have been produced from theory, then, let alone all the other benefits, doesn't this justify the project?
So where does that leave the opinion piece? Is it really such a barrier to theory being discussed/reviewed on ptgptb? It's just the opinion of one man. I don't see it as Balbinus sitting outside Theory Town with his cynical six guns, shooting down any theorist who strays outside, with Ron as Sherrif allowing folks to sleep safely in their theoretical beds at night.
*Obviously some already have, notably in Sorcerer and supplements, but there's much here that isn't down to Ron.
Steve, I'm sure someone would happily write a general article on theory if that's what you want. But what people don't want to do is try to 'refute' the munchkin argument. I'm sure they, like myself, don't think it would be an effective way to communicate theory.
If I wasn't so busy right now I would volunteer to write to such an article, given that it was unconnected to the munchkin article.
Quote from: GB SteveThe next issue of Places to Go, People to Be is going to be carrying a small article by Balbinus. This is basically a reprint of a post to RPG.net in which he posited, semi-seriously, that narrativists are munchkins in theorists' clothing (I would link to the original but I can't access RPG.net at the moment).
I was wondering whether some hardy soul at the Forge would like, partially by way of response, to give an overview of the current state of play of RPG theory. A couple of thousand words should do, covering early ideas (advocacy newsgroup, A&E) and more recent developments (here and Scandinavia).
I don't see it, Steve. Sorry. Here's what I suspect would happen:
1. Forger points out grotesque misunderstandings that make the (I realize not entirely serious) argument unworkable:
- Heroes or whatever do not always win in the source material (cf. recent discussion of Mountain Witch in Actual Play);
- Liking to win only defines "munchkins" if Gamists are all munchkins; the assumption is that wanting to win is a bad thing, which is crap;
- These two points link together: if players want to win, in the sense of never, ever failing, and if they think the genre source material makes this plausible, then such players are munchkins. Even taking that as true, neither premise is normally the case, and thus we're saying that a teeny subsection of people who play such games are indeed weenies. So what? There are weenies in all gaming.
- Finally, Narrativism isn't about having meta-rules.[/list:u]Now having done this, what will happen?
2. Response: "Ha ha, see, the Forger doesn't get it, see, he's a weenie munchkin." Followed by
3. Further response: "See, the Forger uses these wacky terms they made up, they're so elitist and stupid, told ya."
Why do I think this will happen? Because (a) it always does, and (b) the article is to some degree constructed within the "Forge theory is silly" mode. He hasn't done the "elitism" thing yet, so it's just waiting to happen.
What's the use? There's not going to be any dialogue here.
Let's suppose, hypothetically, that you had an article that argued against Narrativism (for example) as a decent play mode on the basis of some particular game, rather than in abstraction. Alternatively, suppose you had such an argument founded on a careful analysis of Forge definitions and theory, rather than in broad, general terms. Well, then you'd have a debate, and a potentially interesting one. But this article isn't going to do it, and I for one am not going to jump in and say, "Hey everyone, feel free to ignore definitions, make incoherent generalizations, and generally work out your aggressions!"
I'm sorry. I think you mean well, and actually I thought this article on munchkins does have a few flakes of gold dust worth panning for. But what you're proposing isn't going to work.
As to an article explaining Forge theory... what's wrong with the several we've already got? I don't get that. Sit down and read Ron's several essays, and maybe the glossary. That's maybe 50 pages printed out, probably less. What's the problem? That's another thread, I suppose, but I have never understood what's supposed to be so painful about reading three articles with a helpful glossary along the way.
Quote from: clehrichQuote from: GB SteveThe next issue of Places to Go, People to Be is going to be carrying a small article by Balbinus. This is basically a reprint of a post to RPG.net in which he posited, semi-seriously, that narrativists are munchkins in theorists' clothing (I would link to the original but I can't access RPG.net at the moment).
I was wondering whether some hardy soul at the Forge would like, partially by way of response, to give an overview of the current state of play of RPG theory. A couple of thousand words should do, covering early ideas (advocacy newsgroup, A&E) and more recent developments (here and Scandinavia).
I'm sorry. I think you mean well, and actually I thought this article on munchkins does have a few flakes of gold dust worth panning for. But what you're proposing isn't going to work.
Er, Chris? What do you mean "isn't going to work"? Is a PTGPTB article the ideal perfect kind of debate? Well, no. But that doesn't mean that a theory overview article in PTGPTB is a bad idea -- nor does it have to be a "nyah nyah no it (Narrativism) isn't" that you suggest. In fact, Steve specifically didn't ask for a "no it isn't" article -- he asked for a theory overview article.
Quote from: clehrichAs to an article explaining Forge theory... what's wrong with the several we've already got? I don't get that. Sit down and read Ron's several essays, and maybe the glossary. That's maybe 50 pages printed out, probably less. What's the problem?
Er, hello? Right, so all reviews and overviews are pointless because if anyone is interested they can just read the whole thing themselves. Sorry, that doesn't wash with me. Ron's essays are not what Steve asked for, which is an overview of RPG theory. Furthermore, Ron's essays do not represent the whole of RPG theory, nor do they even represent the whole of "Forge theory". They are just Ron's views, and it's not like they are the final word in theory which makes any other articles invalid.
Maybe that's not what you intended to mean, but that is what you said. Steve made a call for a new theory overview article, and your response was "There shouldn't be such a thing -- everyone should just read Ron's essays". I find that offensive and backwards. I don't think that is an insult to Ron -- his essays are fine, but they shouldn't be taken to be the final and only word on RPG theory.
Quote from: clehrichAs to an article explaining Forge theory... what's wrong with the several we've already got? I don't get that. Sit down and read Ron's several essays, and maybe the glossary. That's maybe 50 pages printed out, probably less. What's the problem? That's another thread, I suppose, but I have never understood what's supposed to be so painful about reading three articles with a helpful glossary along the way.
I sort of agree with John here. I can think of at least a couple reasons why such an article would be worthwhile.
- I've read Ron's theory articles; I've even written one of the theory articles in the library here related to that work. It took me weeks to get through them all, printing them out, finding a few minutes here and there to tackle them, taking my time to be as sure as i could be that I understood what he was saying. Maybe I'm a slow reader; I'm not thick. The material is at times difficult for the best of us, and it's easy to get lost in it particularly if you haven't been following the development of the theory for years, but even if you have. I do see the value of producing theory overview pieces. I did it to some degree in Applied Theory, and I did it at Gaming Outpost in several articles, most notably Game Ideas Unlimited: Credibility. Summarizing the theory is not a useless endeavor. It communicates the essential points, gives people a starting point for further research, and clarifies misunderstandings early. You might as easily say that freshman courses in subjects are a waste of university resources, because someone who really wants to know the field can major in it. Not everyone has the time or knows whether the effort is worthwhile.
- Places to Go, People to Be is a respected venue. There are people at The Forge who are impressed by its standards. There are RPGnet people who follow it. Gaming Outpost cross-published a few articles with them. I've seen it mentioned on the Christian Gamers Guild list. I'd wager that there are a wealth of gamers out there who have a jaded view of The Forge who follow Places rather closely. An article there about the theory being done here would reach those people, possibly disarm some of their objections, and certainly provide understanding of the ideas to some gamers who have no idea we're here or what we're doing.
- Even apart from the identity of Places to Go, People to Be, one would expect that good theory would filter out of its place of creation to reach the masses. I don't expect RoleplayingTips.com to suddenly become enamored of the ideas here, or ENWorld to suddenly become a bastion of support for independent game design, because that's not the sort of thinking that is prevalent in those places. However, for articles presenting Forge-originated theory in simple Readers Digest Condensation or Science Digest or Cliff Notes terms in places where other gamers will take the time to read them will signal a broader acceptance and influence of the theories.[/list:u]
I don't think the article as requested works as a response to Balbinus, and I wouldn't write it that way. It should be a presentation of core ideas, what they mean, and why they help understanding game play and design.
That's how I'd handle it if I wrote it. (I did offer to consider it, and have been giving the matter some thought, as promised, so I do have some idea of how this could be approached.)
--M. J. Young
Quote
As to an article explaining Forge theory... what's wrong with the several we've already got? I don't get that. Sit down and read Ron's several essays, and maybe the glossary. That's maybe 50 pages printed out, probably less. What's the problem? That's another thread, I suppose, but I have never understood what's supposed to be so painful about reading three articles with a helpful glossary along the way.
One other possible reason: They're out of date? I admit to being somewhat lost in some of the theory and when I've come up confused, I've been pointed at multi-page threads that have to be carefully read to understand the point that came out of them.
I personally think it would be helpful to have some new essays written that cover some of the more recent discussion.
Frank
Yipes!
First, a little air-clearing...
Quote from: John KimQuote from: clehrichQuote from: GB SteveI was wondering whether some hardy soul at the Forge would like, partially by way of response, to give an overview of the current state of play of RPG theory. A couple of thousand words should do, covering early ideas (advocacy newsgroup, A&E) and more recent developments (here and Scandinavia).
I'm sorry. I think you mean well, and actually I thought this article on munchkins does have a few flakes of gold dust worth panning for. But what you're proposing isn't going to work.
Er, Chris? What do you mean "isn't going to work"?
I mean that setting up two articles head-to-head like this will produce exactly nothing of value. What is proposed here is Balbinus vs. Forge. I do
not think that Steve intends that, which is what I meant about thinking he means well. I
do think it will be read that way. I would advise strongly against setting up this particular situation, in
Places... or elsewhere, as it never produces anything useful.
QuoteQuote from: clehrichAs to an article explaining Forge theory... what's wrong with the several we've already got? I don't get that. Sit down and read Ron's several essays, and maybe the glossary. That's maybe 50 pages printed out, probably less. What's the problem?
Er, hello? Right, so all reviews and overviews are pointless because if anyone is interested they can just read the whole thing themselves.
Er, no. I have never understood, and will never understand, why the rather small amount of light prose Ron cranked out is such a stumbling-block. My apologies, MJ, but I'd be fascinated if you could explain that. What one could hypothetically get in a short summary is precisely what I got from a fast skim once.
Let me put this directly. Suppose I sat down to write a fast sketch survey of Theory Today. Couple thousand words -- that's about 6 pages double-spaced, which is essentially a student short essay as I assign them on a regular basis. Cool, I know how much can get done there. Not much, but a bit.
Okay, so what can I do? I can
Summarize a wide range of theory in no depth
Summarize a small range of theory in a little depth
Explain one theory in some depth
Make an argument[/list:u]I can do exactly one of these things, and that not very well. If my audience is presumed to know little or nothing about such theories, really not very well. If my audience is unlikely to stand for extreme academic-style compressed prose, really amazingly not well.
So what's my choice?
Balbinus made the correct one. Make an argument and leave well enough alone. Anything else is going to accomplish little. For goodness' sake, over in the GNS forum people have arguments for months, hundreds of pages total, about exactly what Stance is. You're going to explain that in a short paragraph? That's what you'll have if you have 6 pages, double-spaced. In fact, what you'll have space for is this:Fast intro (1 para)
Background (1-2 paras)
History (1-2 paras)
RGFA (1 para)
GNS (1 para)
Other Forge (1 para)
Responses to such models (1 para)
Conclusion[/list:u]Do you really think this is going to improve discourse? I don't. I do not buy that this will achieve anything except to convince people of whatever it is they already think. I was nasty about RPG.net readers and their ilk, so let me turn it around: what will Forgers say of such responses, even honest confusions? "See, they're just trying not to understand." Of course that's not everyone, but let's be honest for a minute and recognize where the state of RPG discourse lies – a sewer. If it's done nothing else, the Forge has achieved the construction of a space for discussion in which such things are not permitted; I see no reason to violate that somewhere else and give Steve's
People... a shot of venom it doesn't need.
QuoteMaybe that's not what you intended to mean, but that is what you said. Steve made a call for a new theory overview article, and your response was "There shouldn't be such a thing -- everyone should just read Ron's essays". I find that offensive and backwards.
Sorry to offend, John, but let's bear in mind that Steve asked for a new
2,000-word theory overview article
that would be a "refute-o-matic".
Is there value in a new theory overview? Yes.
How long should it be? Depends how much you intend to cover. Plan on a good twenty pages, minimum, so you'll have room for examples.
Can it really be accurate? No. It will be your take, no matter what you do, and you ought to make it so. If I write a 25-page essay surveying The Big Model, for example, you can be damn sure it will be different by the time I get done with it. I would hope others would intend the same.
Is there value in a new theory overview that is really just an overview with no argument? No.
-----------
Quote from: MJI've read Ron's theory articles; I've even written one of the theory articles in the library here related to that work. It took me weeks to get through them all, printing them out, finding a few minutes here and there to tackle them, taking my time to be as sure as i could be that I understood what he was saying. Maybe I'm a slow reader; I'm not thick.
Well, the highlighted portion was one problem. I just sat down and read the things in an hour or so.
QuoteI do see the value of producing theory overview pieces.
So do I, but not in refutation of another article, and not at extreme brevity.
QuoteYou might as easily say that freshman courses in subjects are a waste of university resources, because someone who really wants to know the field can major in it. Not everyone has the time or knows whether the effort is worthwhile.
Freshman courses take 10-15 weeks, depending. This is a false analogy. I teach freshmen, and I teach them theory – you have too. If you wanted to write out what such a "course" might do, considering how basically small the theoretical corpus really is, what you'd do is essentially write through a discussion of the theoretical material, adding examples, clarifying, focusing on the highlights. This would take some space.
QuotePlaces to Go, People to Be is a respected venue.
Which is why I'd hate to see it tainted by the pointless and tedious bickering that happens between RPG.net and the Forge.
----------
Quote from: FrankI personally think it would be helpful to have some new essays written that cover some of the more recent discussion.
So do I.
All of this is what I understood Clinton and Pete to be saying. I'm just adding my vote and some reasons why I think they're right.
-----------
Steve, what I do think would genuinely be of value would be a careful presentation of what Forge theory right now seems to be producing and how it seems to work. I do not think this should go head-to-head with an "RPG.net furball," as Clinton put it.
Quote from: ClintonBut, are you seriously asking, "Hey, I'm taking a big snag of a thread, intentionally written to be burred and pointy, and probably anathema to a lot of you, and was wondering if any of you'd like to respond?" 'Cause if so, why would anyone?
Quote from: YouSeriously, I am. It's a point of engagement. It seems to me that roleplaying theory either sits too far in the background or when visible is misunderstood - something which I'm quite capable of doing. I thought it might be a good chance for theorists to answer the general criticisms of elitism and distance from 'normal' roleplayers and to show the real benefits that it can bring.
See, I just don't think this is going to produce valuable engagement. I agree with your concerns about elitism, theory in the background, and so on. But setting it up like this constructs and affirms the "two different teams" approach which is exactly where the current problem lies. One side says the other is elitist, the other side says the first is pointless or stupid or whatever. Articles from each side aren't going to help – especially if they're very short and sketchy, and especially when the RPG.net one is markedly hostile.
In passing, I thought the article was funny, and as I say, had its moments of truth. But I see no way to reply constructively from the Forge "side" without prompting justified guffaws.
Is this getting any clearer?
I think this argument has gone further than I intended. Perhaps I shouldn't have called it refute-o-matic in my off-hand kind of way.
I still believe there is worth in an overview of theory, and those that have said they are interested, thanks for the support. "Summarize a wide range of theory in no depth" would do for me as a starter, although I think you might be allowed some depth.
As for the review of theory inspired games, I'm going to make a list of all such games that I own and contact the authors myself to ask them about the influence of theory on their work. Hopefully something interesting will come of it.
Cheers,
Steve