The state of play, or refute-o-matic

[Matt Wilson]

I'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.

[GB Steve]

I'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 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.

[Callan S.]

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.

[simon_hibbs]

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.

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

[Matt Wilson]

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.

[simon_hibbs]

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.

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!

[John Kim]

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.

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, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13375">Task Resolution/Conflict Resolution.

[GB Steve]

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.

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.

[contracycle]

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.

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.

[GB Steve]

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.

[timfire]

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.

[clehrich]

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).

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.

[John Kim]

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).

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.  

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?

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.

[M. J. Young]

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.

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

[ffilz]

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