Forge Hubris, Part II

[Valamir]

It IS much easier to play and wane poetic than it is to knock the ideas together into a new shape.  

Dav

Shut the fuck up Dav.

As I recall you've got at least two articles you could be writing right now instead of spewing in this thread bein' all this n' that 'n shit.

Ralph,
dropping the hammer

[Dav]

Ralph:

What's the second one?!  I've got one in mind, but seriously, what's the other one?

Dav
who was perhaps hit hard on the head by the hammer and has lost something

[Dav]

The Good Rev decided to get all venial sin on it:
"ORX"
"What the hell is bleeding edge now"
(Notice how I paraphrase there but still use the quotes.)

And I get all absolving on it (use Palmolive, washes Souls clean!):

ORX: It will be owned as soon as it is ownable.  I will purchase all hell out of it, and you know it.

Bleeding Edge of Design now: to my mind, experimenting with the following aspects in game design:

1) character.  Not as in, more races, more classes, more whatever the fuck you d20 people use nowadays (and don't think I didn't see your d20 thread!).  Why an entity?  If single player ownership of of a certain aspect of a game must exist (defined, ultimately, as the PC), why a single entity or even one side of a conflict?  I am in the midst of having a game where each person is a particular emotion or impetus, and can take action with anything in a scene so long as that emotion or impetus has been introduced to the scene.  Or, playing a squad or army often leads to rather boring, hacking wood scenarios, rather than playing four or five specialists forming a squad, play with only a relationship map.  Lose the character entirely, no attributes, no skills, just a relationship map.

2) reward systems: when you get it, how you get it, and what specifically is awarded through a particular game.  Oh, and, when you use this reward currency.  In the end, a system of play is functional only so far as it gives a sense of recognizable development or accomplishment, most often associated with stat increases or similar actions ("leveling").  THere is tons to be mined from that.

Conflict resolution and character trait labeling and definitions were what we just went through back that way a bit.  FitM, DFK, and all the various resolution systems developed and studied are one thing, and can be used effectively.  I think that resolution mechanics and philosophy of player approach and designer approach are finished (GNS, GDS, what-have-you).  We know what they are and where they lie, even if we see constant argument over this tiny patch of ground here, or this game that seems to break some mold in some small aspect.  For the most part, it is completed.  

Now, let's move to new ways to approach character definition (not in some quote the Sociologist or find the Psychologist with the most divorces before suicide to plaster across the screen, but in the, the character would be defined this way, that is a new approach, and as you can see through this simple game design I made over here, it is easily highlighted and demonstrated through play in this manner) and reward systems.

That is the new bleeding edge (by the way, I largely just jumped over there and said, "THIS!" because you asked... but we did player vs GM vs why have either? and social contract BS and all that, so it seemed logical, and I recently had a nice discussion regarding both of these things).

You ask, and I giveth.

Dav

[M. J. Young]

I missed a day and came back to an explosion.

Well, I'm only going to comment on two thoughts here.

1) Move the official articles and reviews out of their own section, and instead have links to them and others as part of the Resource Library.  By having a list of links instead of requiring hosting at the Forge, the official Forge article list could be more diverse -- pointing to some of the excellent articles on the Oracle, RPGnet columns, and/or (ahem) my own RPG theory site.  As it stands, Ron is sole author of 38 out of 48 of the official works (27/30 reviews and 11/18 essays), as well as being the moderator and #1 most prolific poster of the boards (with nearly 9000 posts).

You speak as if there were some elitism involved in deciding what sort of things get posted in the articles and reviews sections here. Ron is undoubtedly the most prolific author here represented because this is his site; this is where he posts his articles. I've got one article here. It happens to be GNS-related. That's in part because I was trying to think of something that would be appropriate to what's here, and I had this idea for an article that would fit well here and not very well anywhere else. I've got a huge website with lots of my own material on it; very little of it is related to game theory. I have a weekly column at Gaming Outpost (still, going on three years), a monthly column at the Christian Gamers Guild (just past three years), and I'm published in a lot of other places--a couple articles at RPGnet, three at Places to Go People to Be, something at RoleplayingTips, and articles scattered all over. Probably I'll write another piece for this site sometime; it's not at the top of the list at the moment, as I've got a lot of other obligations.

More to the point, what does it take to write an article here? My understanding is that you have to write something with a coherent point, and that you have to be willing to consider constructive criticism before it goes to press. I submitted my idea to Ron and Clinton before I wrote, and they didn't seem too worried about whether it would be "good enough" or "right". I asked several Forge members whom I respect to give me feedback on the draft, and incorporated a number of the suggestions, but not all of them. It was published in the form I submitted. I'm sure if you, John, or probably anyone who has participated in this thread, decided to write a coherent article about some aspect of game theory or design, whatever stand it took, and submitted it for publication here, it would find its way into the articles section. There is no requirement that the article espouse official Forge theory or doctrine.

In this regard, I'll note that Erick Wujcik's artcle on "diceless" role playing games, in my opinion, fails to distinguish karma from drama resolution, a distinction made (by Jonathan Tweet, if I recall correctly) well before Ron incorporated it into System Does Matter, and that Erick's article seems to be preaching to the choir around here. Who among us really thinks that "diceless" resolution systems are a bad idea?

Chris Lehrich's article has very little to do with "official" theory here, either. A well-presented thesis is going to find a forum here if it is clearly related to role playing game theory or design. It just requires that someone submit one.

I'd wager that you don't submit articles here, John, because you're more comfortable putting them on your own site. I understand that. It's frustrating to be unable, for example, to tweak a link in an old article because you don't have access to it (a problem I have with articles on many sites). I would bet that just about anything you thought was worthy of inclusion on your site would pass muster here, if you chose to submit it here.

Now for the other item.

An increase in membership has no correlation to outside influences or ideas. Membership can increase all it wants, especially if the people newly joining are no influencing or bringing ideas of substansive worth to the group. Which, at the Forge, I see as the case.

I'll agree that the majority of new people aren't contributing greatly to the ideas here. That's going to be so anywhere. However, there are still new people arriving who do so contribute. Chris Lehrich is fresh in my mind because of his article; but there have been several others involved with him in discussions of ritual and related ideas that have indeed expanded the concepts in consideration here. We've had an influx of strong thinkers from the Scandinavian areas; at the risk of offending someone, Eero leaps to mind as a solid contributor who has arrived probably well within the past year. The sheer numbers of new members joining daily makes it difficult to see this; it takes time for someone new to make an impression, and longer to make a significant contribution. Yet there are new people who are contributing, and often in unexpected new directions.

New people do provide ideas of substantive worth. It just takes a while to get there sometimes.

--M. J. Young

[Jack Aidley]

To say that is not to avoid acknowledging the particular problems that sometimes come up here. Everyone agrees that there are problems - though by referring to them with sweeping terms like 'ego'... [snip] ...and 'xenophobia' (specific examples? Jack Aidley sure got run out on a rail for violation of the One True Narrativist Way in Great Ork Gods. Of course, by iron logic, all the games people like here are the ones people here like...)

What? I have no idea what you're talking about. Or was that a ironic point?

[Sean]

Hi Jack -

Definitely ironic. My point was that a large number of forge regulars (including me, inasmuch as I'm regular) love Great Ork Gods, an innovative gamist design which involves a player-level currency which doesn't necessarily have that much in common with some of the core ideas seen in other popular games available at the Forge. So that seems to be a data point counting against the 'xenophobic' charge: new game, new ideas, new designer, very different from almost everything that's already here (though with perhaps a slight resemblance to certain aspects of Elfs).

I was being ironic in the birthday forum when I said that it turned out to be difficult to prove that an external world exists too.

Sorry to confuse. Keep up the great design work, man!

Sean

[Jack Aidley]

Irony on the internet. Don't you just love it?

Sorry, Sean, normally my english nature saves me from such gaffs.

[Asrogoth]

I stopped playing role-playing games back in high school (14 years ago).  I thought they were, ahem, "of the devil."  For about a year, I've come to an alternate conclusion -- that rpgs are simply tools for "play" and "entertainment", and you get out of them what you put in.

I started playing D&D online recently and have thoroughly enjoyed it. It was by some freak chance -- I did a search on Yahoo! when I was thinking about creating my "own" game -- and I ended up at the Forge.

Cool!  I thought.  So, I spent several months just lurking, trying to figure out what in the blazes everyone was talking about.  After a while, I felt comfortable enough to email Ron and let him know I was interested in debating my own game on the Forge.  He recommended some forums for me to look through and was very kind in assuring me of the willingness of the Forge community to listen to what I had to say -- even if they thought it was dung.

So... I came to the Forge, not as an already established rpg designer or anything to do with the industry.  Because of this, I think I was able to adopt to the jargon and ideas a bit "easier" than someone who has decidedly pre-conceived notions on how these things work.

I'm not trying to suggest I understand it all.  In fact my first post -- about
Lego games was a dubios "resurrection" post, and I was informed of my community "faux-pas".

I sugget then, that the Forge "hubris" is less serious than is made out.  The purpose of the Forge is for people to gather and talk about the games, about creating new ones, and to ACTUAL(ly) PLAY them.

The forums are not here to make people feel good about their own ideas.  Like any forum, we're here to talk about ideas, not people; therefore, the ideas may get slammed or praised -- but the people shouldn't become obsessed with how their ideas are receivd so much as the fact that the people here are listening.

Sure it takes a bit of a curve to learn the "jargon", but every forum I've been on has its own "specialized" jargon -- some more, some less -- and I've had to become accustomed to the usage of each one.  The Forge is no different.

Finally, if the Forge as a community is prideful of its ideas and work... so what?  The people on the Forge spend a lot of time thinking about their ideas.  They seem to do it to assist themselves in understanding the overall scope and the detailed minutiae of gaming.  No one has ever claimed that the ideas presented on the Forge are the Gospel of Gaming -- especially not that Ron is some sort of savior.

I don't know if I've contributed anything worthwhile, but I hope your understanding of my approach to the Forge might quiet some of your concerns.

[xiombarg]

I mentioned this in another thread, but I wanted to post it here depending on who is watching what thread, as I think it's relevant:

http://www.memecentral.com/L3Communication.htm

This is a communication model deliberately designed to allow people to disagree without getting heated. I think some of these tips, on either side, might have helped prevent the drama with Chris Pramas. Just a thought...

[greyorm]

ORX: It will be owned as soon as it is ownable.  I will purchase all hell out of it, and you know it.

Wawesome. Like "awesome," but with a whammy bar.

Bleeding Edge of Design now: 1) character.  Not as in, more races, more classes...but in the, the character would be defined this way, that is a new approach...2) reward systems: when you get it, how you get it, and what specifically is awarded through a particular game. Oh, and, when you use this reward currency.

Hrm, ok, interesting. I'll have to look and see what others might come up with in this venue. I don't have any particularly weighty ideas on either at the moment...except maybe, everytime someone plays my game, they send me a pizza. Now THAT'S reward currency! Support your designers!

Seriously, though, what are other rewards that could be given out in play, or other ways to reinforce the ones we already use? I can think of XP (and character development) and the social rewards of playing and interacting. What are more? (new thread?)

more whatever the fuck you d20 people use nowadays (and don't think I didn't see your d20 thread!).

I've been using chickens. But I'm glad you saw my d20 thread! You should also know I'm writing a d20 supplement!

In the end, a system of play is functional only so far as it gives a sense of recognizable development or accomplishment,

I agree! That's a great summary of ultimate system purpose, there. Thanks for verbalizing that (we'll call it "the Harnish Principle" or "Effect" or something).

You ask, and I giveth.

Cool. Does that work in other ways as well? Like, if I ask you for 100 grand, you giveth me 100 grand?