The Game Development Kit (a game design tool)

[YeGoblynQueenne]

I disagree. I am well aware of the theoretical work done here at the Forge and I consider myself too courteous a person to barge in with my own, misinformed or half-formed theoretical schemes.

To treat my GDK as a theoretical tool, or the result of an analysis of play of RPGs is the miconception, not my describing it as a practical tool.

I will, once more, attempt to show the difference here:

The GNS and The Big Model developped at the Forge, are concerned with the aspects of RP gaming from design to play; they refer to content and context. What are RPGs like? How are they played? Why do people play them? What do they get out of it? And what do they put in?

The GDK, in particular the Basic Framework, is concerned with the aspects of general-format gaming, before and up to design; it refers to to components and function. What constitutes a game? How do a game's parts work? What are a game's possible states? What processes choose a game's state? What instruments are used?

Notice that for the GDK I use the term "game" not "RPG". I repeat that the GDK is about general, non-genre specific design. It is about Chess, Monopoly, Backgammon, Risk, Poker, Scrabble and Magic: The Gathering as much as it is about D&D and Vampire. The Forge theory is about RPGs in particular. There is overlap, but there must be, otherwise, as I said before, one of us isn't doing their job right.

So, to put it bluntly, I don't care whether the game is about telling stories, pretending to be someone else, exploring an imaginary world, recreating a reality, or winning. I care whether it uses dice and what size they are, and how you determine the target numbers you need to hit. Is there a board? How many squares? Or is it hexes? That kind of thing.

I am positive that if all my posts in this thread are read carefully, in particular if you look at the actual Basic Framework components at the first post, the fact of the practical purpose of the GDK will emerge naturally. I understand that there is quite a bit of reading to do- but there also was quite a bit of writing done (condensed to present it here). It's only fair to meet the one with the other halfway, if a genuine interest exists to what I 'm doing and a meaningful contribution is to be made.

Thank you for your comment. All the above having been said, your links seem like a good read- I 'll give them a try.

P.S. My official nom de plume here is Clarabelle. Feel free to use it.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Johnweed: Thank you, that is encouraging. What you say is true, ease of use is important if the GDK is going to have the parctical purpose I maintain it does. However, this is only the first part of the first version. I imagine it will take me a couple of years to bring this idea to full bloom.

Oh, I 'm going to release a first version before fall this year. But, well, first versions must be buggy. Otherwise, what's the point of getting a second one?

[Mike Sugarbaker]

I disagree. I am well aware of the theoretical work done here at the Forge and I consider myself too courteous a person to barge in with my own, misinformed or half-formed theoretical schemes.

To treat my GDK as a theoretical tool, or the result of an analysis of play of RPGs is the miconception, not my describing it as a practical tool.

From my original post: "you're doing theory, and plenty of it has been done and is in progress. More general gaming theory doesn't see a huge amount of play here at the Forge[.]" By this I meant to imply that what you're doing is quite rightly game theory (not in that term's mathy sense tho), not RPG theory or Forge theory. Sorry if that was less than clear.

Another point on which we violently agree: your GDK as a practical tool. See, to me, theory is a practical tool - when it's at its best, anyway. When I say that identifying what you're doing as a "development kit" instead of theory, I'm really just reacting to the implications of the term "development kit:" snapping together parts like LEGOs and voila, a game results. I don't think that's possible with anything as general as what you're shooting for here, and I don't think that's what you intended to communicate.

Maybe I am just freaking out over my own semantic hangups, I don't know. I think you're doing good theory here, and that it'll be even stronger with Rules of Play under your belt. As far as why I linked Ben's essays, I think the question of social context is crucial for all game design, not just RPGs.

[Mike Sugarbaker]

Okay, so, reading this thread over again I have mistaken your intent. Nevermind me, carry on.