Theory Seminar [cont'd]

[lumpley]

In my thread Roleplaying Theory in Person...

Vincent, this isn't the first time you've done this sort of thing, right? Do you feel that non-Forgies 'get-it'? What types of questions do they (non-Forgies) usually ask? Are there any 'typical' questions they ask?

Actually it was the first time. I talk theory informally a TON, but not formally before this.

I found the formality really useful, by the way. It's not really socially okay for me to take J, for instance, and lecture him for an hour. I suspect that he got some things out of the seminar just because I started at the beginning and explained through to the end. That doesn't happen in normal conversations.

I don't know what it would be like to talk to all non-Forge folks. I think I'd want better notes up front.

Vincent, will you be doing the seminar thing at GenCon? That might be a great opportunity for some of us.

I hope to.

-Vincent

[Christopher Weeks]

Sweet.  Like a ticketed event or just a standing at the Forge booth thing?  I'd like to know your planned schedule as soon as possible because we're planning ours now.

[timfire]

Actually it was the first time. I talk theory informally a TON, but not formally before this.

Oh! I was under the impression that you had done this at some other con some time ago. 'My bad' as they say.

[Harlequin]

Honestly I can think of two different organized theory activities I'd really enjoy participating in at GenCon.

One is Vincent's "starting to become standard" talk.  I have a pretty good feel for owning the material, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't love to sit in the back (out of the way of those for whom it's newer) and soak up the "talk is better than text" bonus dice.

The other is something that this forum just never seems, quite, to touch on, but which is close to the two points about contributions that Vincent's been nailing on his blog and so forth.  So, what do we recommend to the guys designing games?  This couldn't be lecture; there ain't no consensus yet, not much anyway (Be GNS Coherent; Nail Down Thy IIEE).  There probably never will be full consensus, that's okay.  It would have to be at the level of discussion only, but (if I get my dreams) a discussion with the intensity turned way up high.

This outcome is what the theory serves... at the root, GNS thought (all ten million pages of it) is just the implementation notes of the Be Coherent design tip.  And I'm not sure that onscreen text, here or elsewhere, has the bandwidth to handle this natter.  But man, I'd love to have it.  Come up with a clean, simple set of our own Ten Points (or however many we need), which can then have pointers to ten separate articles about why this is recommended by a number of voices - and what the dissenting voices say, too.  Those articles can in turn point to a selection of "Best of" threads, for those wishing to learn the material in depth.

I would cheerfully set aside supper & beyond, one night of the con, for that yammering session.  I seem to recall a fabulous mongolian barbecue place from last year.  Hell, first shout is on me, to anyone honestly participating.

Shall we?

- Eric

[Andrew Morris]

Vincent, I think I'm in the same situation as Shawn. A few minutes talking to you was more valuable than all the time I've spent reading the articles, trying to reconcile what's in there with the current GNS discussions going on in the threads.

[EDIT -- More valuable in my attempt to understand GNS, that is.]

[lumpley]

Eric: Hell yeah.

One of the distinctions I've been trying to draw at my blog is between description and prescription. I can stand up and describe roleplaying to you. I'm pretty much right, too; that is, my description is pretty much accurate, you can take it back to your game and check things off of it as they occur.

Prescription, though - that stuff's wide open. All the way down to and including "so my description's accurate, yay, but is it useful?"

Tim: I was going to run it last fall at UNY-con, but I ditched out. I talked about it some then, that's probably what you're remembering.

Christopher: I'm not even certain I can go yet. But now I know that people want to know, I'll be public with my plans.

Andrew: my pleasure.

It takes so much writing to convey the same as one little in-person example. Remember when I was laying out the lookie-me-I'm-a-principle with the can of peaches? Eric (not the Eric in this thread) raised the "GM's got final say" objection and it took me five seconds to deal with it. That's when I had Shawn say "screw you, GM, and I'm taking my Yoo Hoo with me!" and I was like, "where are the peaches now?" Bam. Done. Eric sits back in his chair, nodding.

-Vincent

[TonyLB]

It'd be... difficult... to give a general lecture of what should go in any design.  You're just sort of punching fog.  What's the first question we ask in the Indie Design Forum?  "What are you trying to do with your game?"  In an open lecture you're inherently not addressing that.

I'm very interested in trying to organize a "Pimp my Ride" sort of thing at a con, but for games.  Intrepid souls come in with unfinished game ideas and go 'round tables to various designers who give them insight, pick at the places where the design is incoherent, and like that.  You come in with a game that you think is cool, but that doesn't work in play... you go out with the tattered fragments of a game that might be awesome, if you can ever reassemble them.

At least for me, that would be a much easier venue to get across what's relevant to a design.  And it would be clearer who people should be talking to.  "You've got no clear process of IIEE... go over and talk to Vincent," or "You advocate for a certain relationship between the PCs, but only in the flavor text... you need to incorporate it into the rules... Timothy Kleinert's at that table there... go!"

[Keith Senkowski]

I'm very interested in trying to organize a "Pimp my Ride" sort of thing at a con, but for games.  Intrepid souls come in with unfinished game ideas and go 'round tables to various designers who give them insight, pick at the places where the design is incoherent, and like that.  You come in with a game that you think is cool, but that doesn't work in play... you go out with the tattered fragments of a game that might be awesome, if you can ever reassemble them.

This is a very interesting idea.  It reminds of when in my teens I got to show my art to a panel of comic guys at a con.  They each took a look and offered different (and sometimes the same bits) of advice on what to do to accomplish X, Y and/or Z.  It might be even more effective for game design...

Keith

[M. J. Young]

Actually it was the first time. I talk theory informally a TON, but not formally before this.

Well, not exactly. You were on my panel at UNY-con in 03, and although it was "game design" we did a fair amount of theory in the course of it. (Again, thanks for being part of it; your contribution was much appreciated. Are you still working about that game with the martians?)

--M. J. Young