Re: Big Model as a Scientific Theory

[apparition13]

4) The theory does not propose any experimental tests, and due to above points removes nearly any power that such tests could have, by enforcing a subjective basis for analysis.

As I understand it, the purpose behind the forge is to be resource useful in the developement of RPGs.  In other words, this forum is intended to be a research and design tool.  RPG theory is the research arm, and RPG design would be the developement arm.  Assuming this is correct,  a potential answer to the first clause in the above quote would be to examine the engineering effort at the forge by looking at games that have been developed using the resources here.  I think the first step in this process would be to try to answer the following questions:

1.  How many games have been developed using forge tools/theory?

2.  What are these games?

3.  What CAs do these RPGs address?

4.  How successful are they in achieving their design objectives?

I'm new to the forum and don't know the answers to these questions.  Has anyone here done this?  If so, where would the data be posted?  If not, can the members answer the above questions?  I'm curious to see if this leads anywhere.

Thanks




Edit:  I meant for this to be new topic.  Anyway to move it?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

The above was split by apparition13's request (see text) from Big Model as scientific theory.

Best,
Ron

[apparition13]

Well, since this doesn't seem to be going anywhere so I'll try to clarify a bit.  

Actual play>analysis and theory>game developement>finished game>actual play(ver.1.1)>?

It seems to me that this is about where the discussion is.  In order for the feedback loop to form it's necessary to analyse the games used in actual play(ver1.1) and see what can be learned from them to apply to the next generation of games.  

A specific example could be the "relationship map" idea.  Ron Edwards introduced it for use in Sorcerer,  Seth Ben-Ezra has used a modified version (storymap) in Legends of Alyria.  Like the essay question goes, how would you campare and contrast relationship maps in the two games, both in design and play?   This seems to be a tool that works for narrative games, would it work for other CAs?  If not, this seems to go against the idea that any technique should be able to be used in any CA.  Is "relationship map" a technique or a specialized tool for narrative games?  Can you imagine any situations where it would be counterproductive in a narrative game?  Does this tell us anything about narrative games, or role-playing in general, that wasn't known?  If it can be used in non-narrative game, what would a Gamist relationship map look like?  How could it be used to enhance step-on-up?  What else have games whose design has been influenced by the discussion here come up with and how do their innovations inform theory?

[Wormwood]

I'll chime in on this one.

The first, and most important clarification about design based on forge principles is the big warning on the package. The big model is intended for actual play only, it behaves oddly if removed from there, and design removed from play is one such place. By and large that means design at the forge is inspired by the model, rather than using the model as a tool proper.

Also its difficult to say exactly what your inspirations were in a design, so this makes it very hard to show any correlations between design success and application of the theory.

In terms of your feedback loop the real disjunction is betwen analysis and theory and game development, this jump is something each designer approaches differently and so the results vary greatly.

Lastly, as far as design results influencing theory, that seems to be less common that one might think. However, I will be the first to admit I am biased on that matter, since I have posted play resulting from novel design which has properties which are still claimed as impossible.

  -Mendel S.

[clehrich]

1.  How many games have been developed using forge tools/theory?

2.  What are these games?

3.  What CAs do these RPGs address?

4.  How successful are they in achieving their design objectives?

I find it very striking and somewhat disturbing that no game authors have yet volunteered games they have written in this way.  Let's set aside questions of the directness of influence or whatever.  The question is:

Have you, at some point after encountering the Big Model, written a game that you consider an application of Big Model theory?

Presumably Sorcerer is one example, and it addresses Narrativism.  Obviously it was written before the whole Big Model was formed, but since it was written by Ron we can consider it within the appropriate set.

We can also include the three games specially designed for the three CA essays.

I do not think that, apart from these special cases, anyone can answer this question except for the author of a game or, perhaps, someone who was closely involved with the game-design process and can speak fairly authoritatively about what the author was up to.

For the moment, let's set aside special weird cases like the Iron Chef games.

So, game designers.  Hello?  Anyone want to volunteer on this?

[lumpley]

Okay. Dogs in the Vineyard is absolutely an application of the Big Model Theory. It's absolutely a Narrativist play-facilitating game. I prefer "provoking" to "facilitating": Dogs' rules provoke Narrativist play.

Its town creation rules were absolutely based on Forge discussion of Ron's Relationship Maps and Seth's Story Maps.

-Vincent

[M. J. Young]

Multiverser predated my knowledge of the model. Aspects of the model have influenced my thinking in The Second Book of Worlds and continues to do so in preparing the next.

I do know that Seth Ben-Ezra was strongly influenced by the concepts presented in System Does Matter over at Gaming Outpost, which led to much of the development of Legends of Alyria, so I would count that one, even though it is not yet in print.

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I've perceived my participation in the thread to be borderline conflict of interest, which is why I haven't chimed in. Or to put it a little differently, I'm not sure what value a positive response of mine is worth, given the topic.

Since the Big Model in one form or another has been my understanding of role-playing all along, it's pretty much axiomatic that all of my game designs have been based on it.

Elfs and Sorcerer were written without much more perspective than you'll find in System Does Matter - although I contend that that perspective has always utilized the fundamental layers of the Big Model and the concept of Creative Agenda as a unifying "nail."

Fantasy for Real and The Human Machine were written in the context of my first "put it all together" thoughts on role-playing, particular issues of Currency and the source of Premise. Neither of these is publicly available although both were strip-mined for later designs.

Obviously Mongrel, Black Fire, and Zero at the Bone were written in the model's context. The first two remain at proto-alpha stage; the latter is currently in fairly aggressive development.

Best,
Ron

[TonyLB]

Okay, yeah... Capes has been written because of the Forge, in oh so many ways.

I'm not surprised that more people haven't come out and said this sort of thing.  It is very hard to answer in a way that isn't grandstanding.  I like to ask questions, rather than make statements.  I don't generally learn much from making flat statements, and I often stick my foot in my mouth.  So I feel like a big, obnoxious jerk as I write this.  Sorry!

Anyway, Capes is (to humbly imitate Vincent's excellent phrasing) provocative of Narrativist results.  The insight I've been chasing is that strategy is not the sole province of Gamism, and genre tropes are not the sole province of Simulationism.  They're just techniques.  I make liberal use of competitive strategy and explicit genre tropes in Capes, all in the service of Narrativism.

Does it work?  I'm not going to be humble about this.  It works like magic.  System matters so much more than I thought it would.  I'd have bet you solid money that you couldn't get a twelve year old, hack'n'slash gamer to address issues of betrayal, self-worth, and the danger of dehumanizing others.  With a game that relied on the kid to actively seek out such questions I still say you couldn't do it, not in a hundred sessions.  With a game where the rules help address such questions as a response to any style of play we did it in one.

[Lxndr]

While Fastlane was most certainly written in response to the Forge in general, and most certainly inspired by the basics of the opinion of 'System Does Matter' (as well as numerous ideas put forth in RPG Theory here on the Forge), I'm hard-pressed to say that I had a particular mode of play in mind (in terms of G,N,S) during the process of design - and am still not sure which mode Fastlane is most likely to provoke and/or Facilitate.

In both design and playtest/play, I was more concerned with getting the system of Fastlane to work internally and consistently than I was worrying about leaning towards a particular mode (or away from a particular mode, for that matter).  I did use specific tools, although it's all sort of blended together now (the forums in general are a tool of course - heck, the 'Sorcerer Diceless' thread was a big source of inspiration in the early days of chip resourcing; then the idea of Relationship Maps - as well as Connections from MlwM, kinda spidered its way through Favors, Factions, and even some application of Lifes; the idea of non-GM buck-stopping in narration coming from The Pool, Dust Devils, and others; etc).

So while no, I didn't design Fastlane (or any other game so far) with a specific GNS node in mind, I still feel I took advantage of the Big Model, insofar as its insistence that System in general matters.  I just mostly played in a different part of the arrow (Techniques/Ephemera, rather than Creative Agenda).

[apparition13]

Ron Edwards wrote:

I've perceived my participation in the thread to be borderline conflict of interest

Not even a conflict, "step on up" and I'm glad you did.

To summarize what we have so far:  lumpley (Dogs in the Vineyard), M. J. Young (parts of the second book of Worlds), Ron Edwards (several), TonyLB (Capes), Lxndr (Fastlane) have all indicated the implications of the discussion here has had some influence on some part of their game design.  "Dogs in the Vineyard" and "Capes" are explicitily narrativist in intent while they and the others have all made use of something or other that was gleaned here.  

Wormwood wrote:

...as far as design results influencing theory, that seems to be less common that one might think.

Firstly a follow up question for the designers who spoke up:  Was there anything you encountered during the design process that has influenced your thoughts on theory?  Something to close the loop.  An  epiphany, a moment of clarity, a "so that's what that means" or "hey, this means that..." or "but that means "such and such" is wrong/incomplete/upsidedown/etc." revelation.   It needn't be a groundbreaking "eureka!", any little ol' idea would qualify.  So, turning a general question about design influencing theory into a specific one,  how has your design process influenced your conversation on theory?

Secondly, as I posted:
Actual play>analysis and theory>game developement>finished game>actual play(ver.1.1)>?
My initial idea was that theoretical refinements and developments would take place based on results gleaned from the play of new games.  Any comments on this topic?

Wormwoodwrote:

However, I will be the first to admit I am biased on that matter, since I have posted play resulting from novel design which has properties which are still claimed as impossible.

As an aside, could you direct me to those topics?  I would be interested to see what you encountered.