*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 25, 2014, 03:25:34 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4283 Members Latest Member: - otto Most online today: 66 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Author Topic: RULES FOR THIS FORUM: IN FORCE SEPT 1 2004  (Read 13755 times)
Bill Cook
Member

Posts: 501


« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2004, 08:43:51 PM »

What is the purpose of Big Model discussion? I see a number of possibilities:

[list=1]
[*]Support in learning it and identifying play style in its context.
[*]Develop unexplored regions.
[*]Support in making applications to improve play or support a play agenda.
[*]Pitching modified versions or alternate models of another focus.
[/list:o]

How much of this is appropriate or desirable? I describe the recent hairball as (1) under the guise of (4) competing with (2) expressed (again) as (4).

Another question: is RPG Theory the kiddy pool? That's kind of how it feels: like you have to graduate from there to GNS. Which, nothing wrong with that, if that's how you want to use it. Presently, when I don't feel up to the heritage and catalytic quality of GNS, I neuter my terms and post in RPG Theory.
Logged

clehrich
Member

Posts: 1557


WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2004, 09:16:07 PM »

Quote from: bcook1971
Another question: is RPG Theory the kiddy pool? That's kind of how it feels: like you have to graduate from there to GNS....
I hope not, myself.  I don't consider the Big Model to contain everything interesting or exciting about gaming theory, nor do I think the Big Model should try to contain all such things.  I don't consider discussion of the Big Model the be-all and end-all of gaming theory, nor do I think Ron would claim this.

To my mind, RPG Theory could potentially split off another forum on something completely different.  Suppose there just got to be so much traffic about this one theoretical thing that everything else on RPG Theory got drowned out, and everyone agreed that this one thing was really very cool and serious business -- and nothing to do with the Big Model. Well, then, it'd get its own forum.  Not that I imagine this is going to happen any time soon, but it could.

The point is that RPG Theory as a category encompasses the Big Model.  RPG Theory as a forum is relatively undifferentiated, and for practical reasons does not include most Big Model discussion.

That's how I see it, anyway.
Logged

Chris Lehrich
Bill Cook
Member

Posts: 501


« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2004, 10:12:58 PM »

Quote
I hope not, myself. I don't consider the Big Model to contain everything interesting or exciting about gaming theory, nor do I think the Big Model should try to contain all such things. I don't consider discussion of the Big Model the be-all and end-all of gaming theory, nor do I think Ron would claim this.


True, true. I lost sight of that.
Logged

Christopher Kubasik
Member

Posts: 1153


« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2004, 07:49:03 AM »

Hi,

I don't know whether this topic is still in play, but I think the name of either needs to be changed, or a new forum added.

To the point: turning myself into a seer for a moment, I believe the next Big Thing in discussions that needs to be addressed are matters of Social Contract and Creative Agenda.  

For many people in the game world, these are non-issues.  The negotiations of the Social Contract were done years ago with the first gaming group they joined.  The Creative Agenda was fixed when their gaming group did their best to nail down the game text of Shadowrun or Vampire into something that worked.

Focusing on GNS somehow elides the main point of the Big Model: that there are choices going on here long before GNS is even a concern.

I'll pull quotes from two recent posts:

"Matt has decided to Game on Purpose. This included canceling a session after everyone had shown up, but no one was really focused on playing. Instead of trying to fight the tide, Matt saved himself some frustration and let the game go. We used the time as a purely social hour instead. Right from the start, Matt set the tone. If we’re gamin’, we’re gamin’. This little (and in my opinion) critical decision sent the message loud and clear: This game, this story, these characters are important and I’m gonna treat ‘em that way, and so are you. "

and this:

"I personally find it only natural that the GM has final say. The GM is the person running the story, it's their creative work, and as a player you are participating in what they are doing (even if they want you in, you are still in THEIR work). The GM can if they so choose run the game without you (assuming that other players are accesible to them), so in effect if you insist on not playing as the GM likes to, they just leave your playing and play with others."

These two attitudes of the play reveal a lot about the SC and CA.  The similiarities and differences between the groups these quotes came from are really what need to be discussed.  Simply addressing these matters, up  front and center, without people needing to stub their toes on GNS is going to go a long way to helping people understand the issues of GNS in the long run.

By chaning the name of the forum, or opening up a new forum, I believe a broader range of topice related to the Big Model will be encouraged for disucssion. I think the current name is too narrow and let's folks miss the much larger picture of what's going on around here.

Christopher
Logged

"Can't we for once just do what we're supposed to do -- and then stop?
Lemonhead, The Shield
Christopher Kubasik
Member

Posts: 1153


« Reply #19 on: October 28, 2004, 07:58:21 AM »

Hi,

I don't know whether this topic is still in play, but I think the name of either needs to be changed, or a new forum added.

To the point: turning myself into a seer for a moment, I believe the next Big Thing in discussions that needs to be addressed are matters of Social Contract and Creative Agenda.  

For many people in the game world, these are non-issues.  The negotiations of the Social Contract were done years ago with the first gaming group they joined.  The Creative Agenda was fixed when their gaming group did their best to nail down the game text of Shadowrun or Vampire into something that worked.

Focusing on GNS somehow elides the main point of the Big Model: that there are choices going on here long before GNS is even a concern.

I'll pull quotes from two recent posts:

"Matt has decided to Game on Purpose. This included canceling a session after everyone had shown up, but no one was really focused on playing. Instead of trying to fight the tide, Matt saved himself some frustration and let the game go. We used the time as a purely social hour instead. Right from the start, Matt set the tone. If we’re gamin’, we’re gamin’. This little (and in my opinion) critical decision sent the message loud and clear: This game, this story, these characters are important and I’m gonna treat ‘em that way, and so are you. "

and this:

"I personally find it only natural that the GM has final say. The GM is the person running the story, it's their creative work, and as a player you are participating in what they are doing (even if they want you in, you are still in THEIR work). The GM can if they so choose run the game without you (assuming that other players are accesible to them), so in effect if you insist on not playing as the GM likes to, they just leave your playing and play with others."

This is fascinating stuff. And the similiarities and differences between the groups these quotes came from are really what need to be discussed. How to talk about these matters, what to talk about, the implications of different points of view on these matters... This is, really, I think the meat and potatoes of this place for a while.

Simply addressing these matters, up  front and center, without people needing to stub their toes on GNS is going to help clear up, I think, a lot of interesting disucssions about gaming.

By chaning the name of the forum, or opening up a new forum, I believe a broader range of topice related to the Big Model will be encouraged for disucssion. I think the current name is too narrow and let's folks miss the much larger picture of what's going on around here.

Christopher
Logged

"Can't we for once just do what we're supposed to do -- and then stop?
Lemonhead, The Shield
Christoph Boeckle
Member

Posts: 455

Geneva, Switzerland


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 04, 2005, 06:38:42 PM »

I was just wondering what the final decision was, if there was any.

Today I posted in this forum, but I'm not 100% sure that it's supposed go here instead of RPG Theory.

A clear statement could help me out, and others probably too.

BTW, point no 4 in the first post is a bit annoying to me.
I have not enough time to play here (and am not as confortable with english as I am with french), but I still play traditional and mail RPG, so I'm not completely cut off from RPG reality, and theory is for me an important aspect of that. This site happens to be the most interesting center of theory discussion I know about. May I still continue to post? :D
Logged

Regards,
Christoph
Paganini
Member

Posts: 1049


WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 26, 2005, 08:24:28 AM »

Hey Artanis,

The Actual Play forum is not a place to play RPGs. It's where you go to talk about whatever Actual Play you have been doing - in whatever medium. I play almost exclusively on IRC these days. Some people play LARP or forum or e-mail games. It doesn't really matter what form your play takes; as long as play is happening, Actual Play is where you talk about it.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!