Class in RPG Theory

[Tor Erickson]

Hello All,
 This semester I'm teaching a course on RPG theory, centering around GNS.  I have five students signed up and we meet for the first time on Monday night, and bi-weekly after that.  We've already begun email discussion, centering around what sort of a game they would prefer to play in (I gave three options, each one corresponding to gamisim, simulationism, or narrativism, and they chose which one they would rather play in and why).
 For the first class we'll be discussing their responses and questioning some of the classic assumptions of role-playing.
 I've reached a bit of a difficult spot, however.  I'm going to assign Kubasik's "The Interactive Toolkit" and also a short write-up of my own.  I'd also like to assign the game SOAP (hence my questions over in the Reviews forum), and perhaps even play a round at the end of our first meeting to demonstrate how rules can affect a game and perhaps to shake it up a little as to what role-playing is.
 I can't decide, however, if we should begin a GNS discussion this first meeting.  If we did, I'd probably throw in "System Does Matter" as pre-reading and then assign GNS 101 as homework.  But it seems like maybe too much to do in the first meeting, throwing in too much jargon or covering too many topics.  On the other hand, maybe there wouldn't be a problem.
 What do you think?  (I'm also welcoming any other ideas or comments or recommended reading for the class, including web-sites.  I'm especially looking for more gamist and simulationist material, as I think the Forge pretty much has the Narrativist covered.)
 -Tor Erickson

[Ron Edwards]

Tor,

"This semester I'm teaching a course on RPG theory, centering around GNS."

Whoa!!

I have to recover a little.

"(I gave three options, each one corresponding to gamisim, simulationism, or narrativism, and they chose which one they would rather play in and why)."

That's OK as a start, but I suggest that you emphasize that MANY flavors of each category exist, and that if I enjoy Ninja Burger (mighty Gamist), I don't necessarily enjoy Pantheon (also mighty Gamist in a different way).

Damn good thoughts for the first class, especially the plan for actually playing Soap.

"I can't decide, however, if we should begin a GNS discussion this first meeting. ... it seems like maybe too much to do in the first meeting, throwing in too much jargon or covering too many topics."

Speaking professionally, I venture that you are right - getting into the System/GNS stuff is too much for the first session in addition to the other material. Kubasik is great reading, and I think you will have enough to work with there.

I advise against taking the 101/FAQ document as anything but a flawed work in progress. If you're talking about GNS, I suggest the System essay heavily annotated as you see fit.

I also urge you, most seriously, to reference properly. The r.f.g.a archives are available, and please don't mislabel me, for instance, as the originator of the intellectual task at hand.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Tor, if you would, give me a private e-mail to tell me where all this is happening. I'm still in shock.

[jburneko]

On 2001-09-14 14:38, Tor Erickson wrote:
 This semester I'm teaching a course on RPG theory,

I just thought that I'd throw in that I'm seething with jealousy.  This was the whole reason that I made an attempt at trying to get my Ph.D.  My dream has ALWAYS been to teach a course on Interactive Narrative Theory.  However, at the time I was focusing on using computers as the medium.  Now with GNS, Stance and whole bunch of other new tricks and techniques I'd want to teach a two part class.

Semester I: Intro Interative Narrative Theory, Basically what you're teaching right now.

Semester II: Computational Interactive Narrative Theory, Basically all the Techniques taught in the first class as applied to the computer medium.

Sigh.

Now, I just might have to bite the bullet and go through all that hell that was my pitiful attempt at grad school again.

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

I'm not buying it. This is some sort of elaborate hoax. But you certainly seem to be serious.

Let me see if I understand you. Are you claiming, Mr. Ericson, that you are teaching a class at a college somewhere, or is this just some sort of informal thing with friends. If the latter, then I was merely confused by the nature of your post (terms like semester and students and the night-school schedule)). If at a college, in what department is this class supposed to be listed?

I have often thought that a school of game design and theory would be a great idea, but have always considered it to be a pipe-dream sort of notion. I am starting to think that the idea may not be quite as crazy nowadays. And I would love to see such a thing materialize.

But you'll have to excuse my disbelief. I'm still going to need a lot more convincing to buy that there is a college somewhere with a course in "RPG Theory".

(If you do prove to me that I can get credit for such a class I'm signing up next time it's available. I'm hoping that I can test out of it, or submit an aglomeration of my work here as some sort of thesis. Dr. Mike Holmes, PhD, Game Science...has a nice ring)

Mike Holmes

[Ron Edwards]

Mike,

I went and did some looking, and it is indeed being offered at Grinnell College in Nevada. Grinnell is an actual, reputable, non-dewey-eyed college; the course is being offered as part of the "Experimental College" program. This program is a lot like what at the U of Florida was called Eclectic Ed, or similar ones around the country; its classes aren't for majors credit or (sometimes) even for elective credit.

So it IS a college course, just not a CURRICULAR course.

Best,
Ron

[Tor Erickson]

Whoa there, fellas...
 Take a deep breath, count down from ten, have a seat.  I don't have time right now for a longer post, but let me put a couple of things in order.  
 I'm a student.  An undergrad.  This is my last semester at Grinnell College in Iowa (not Nevada).  This semester, as part of Grinnell's Experimental College segment, I signed up to teach a course called "RPG Theory."  
 Any schmuck here at Grinnell could have handed in the same application, and got exactly the same course listing as I did.  Even if they thought a role-playing game was what you did on your nintendo.  I was grateful enough for five people to sign up for the class, and to get the hundred or so bucks for books and photocopies that the college is giving me.
 So: to sum up.  I just happened to be a frequenter of the Gaming Outpost and the Forge whose college offered the opportunity to teach a class.  I'm not some RPG whiz getting ready to dispense RPG wisdom to Iowa.  I just read the posts and thought it would be fun to have somebody to talk to about it.
 Jeez, you guys are making me nervous.
-Tor

With that out of the way, though:  I'm very eager to hear ideas, thoughts, suggestions etc. about teaching a class in RPG Theory.
 And I mailed the first class readings today:  Some of my commentary on  their homework responses, The Interactive Toolkit, and SOAP.  I'll save the nitty gritty terminology stuff for later (thanks, Ron).

[Mike Holmes]

OK, I wasn't really going cazy back there, just acting like it. I figured that there would be some explanation of the sort. I was just having a bit of fun with the vague description.

What interests me about it, as I alluded to, is the idea that this just might become an actual field of study. It really is starting to seem like something that could be done. How much different is it from a literature or Physical Education degree? As society has more and more lesiure time (as evinced by shortening work weeks and lengthening vacations; not so much here in America as elsewhere. A by-product of increased productivity) won't this mean that people with skills at entertaining will be more in demand. I have friends who take classes in humor; very much like ComedySportz or Whose Line... And theatre, Improv or not has had entire schools for a long time now.

Isn't it time for a curriculum in Game Science?

Mike

[Blake Hutchins]

There are universities putting together Game Design and Development programs, mostly aimed at the computer gaming industry. A friend of mine has been offered a position at Savannah University.

Best,

Blake

[pacific_steve]

What interests me about it, as I alluded to, is the idea that this just might become an actual field of study. It really is starting to seem like something that could be done. How much different is it from a literature or Physical Education degree? As society has more and more lesiure time (as evinced by shortening work weeks and lengthening vacations; not so much here in America as elsewhere. A by-product of increased productivity) .

*Whew!* more and more leisure time? I wish! Hey, it aint all roses down here in Australia either :smile: Last time I looked, the working week was still the scourge of my life and my leisure time cut down to minimal proportions...
Anyway, as an English Lit major back in the day, I see no difference between RPG theory and Lit theory in terms of academic validity. Both share 'text' as a central theme.
One could get right into the social aspect of gaming really. Imagine analysing 'Hero Wars' as Myth and Heroic Story Generator....

Steve

[contracycle]

Working hours are creeping back up to the Industrial Revolution range again, especially in the Anglo-Saxon capitalist countries.  However...

I think there is great ground to be made in RPG theory.  Take the other aspects of game and psychology theory, such as Erich Bernes Games People Play and other works of formal analysis of a "game": a formalised exchange of action and response.  Then of course there are the fields of transactional analysis ("strokes" exchanged between participants) and formal game theory (the prisonners dilemma) and more recent drama theory (which introduces all sorts of complications to the basic PD or Iterated PD).

All in all, theres a fair amount of game-orient science around these days, and I'm confident a lot of it can be well exploited; in fact gaming from this sophisticated an analysis becomes a highly sophisticated activity - the voluntary submission of the actual personality to an artifical personality in order to vicariously experience the inputs, prompts and strokes experienced by a human in a radicaly different context to our own (and in this sense, even playing a non-human must be seen as an exploration of the human condition).

I suppose some of my reading in this direction is what prompts me to see "premises" emerging of their own accord from the game context, much as drama theory recognises that games properly occur in a material, dialectically-realised circumstance derived from the history that lead to this moment; no sequence of transactions can be syudied in isolation from their context.  Thus, I feel, all data introduced to the game space by player or GM contributes to this set of "historical" influences, dialectically realised during play by the actual decisions of the participants.  Thus, it appears to me, that inasmauch as the the characers have a personal history, the game implicitly has a backstory addressed by those characters (although this may be a backstory partially opaque to the GM).

Equally, it is worth bearing in mind that while it might be "only a game" in a truly objective sense, the very act of constructing an internally consistent environment, with plausible and consistent strokes and counter-strokes passing between "people" (PC's and NPC's) within that environment, does generate a suprisisingly persistant perception of the "reality" of that environment.  In fact, I think that this is the basis for the game element of RPG - by prompting actual in-character behavior among the participants the player IS, in effect, temporarily acting and reacting within that artificially constructed environment.  This is a major issue which drives my concerns about accidentally hitting horror hot buttons as mentioned in another thread.

Anyway, I'd be pleased to discuss this (IMO) fascinating and under-addressed topic.  Yes, the gamists DO have something worthwhile to contribute :wink:

[Tor Erickson]

Hello all,
 This is great stuff but the original question was, how do you deal with it in a real classroom with actual students?  How do you teach RPG's?
 Do you discuss actual gaming sessions?  Or do you discuss the games as written? If you want to discuss actual sessions, as is probably necessary, do you need some way of recording those games, like a football coach might record a football game, so that you can discuss it at leisure later?
 Or if you discuss the games as written do you (as the teacher) assign different games to read and analize?
 One idea I've had is to get the students to pick a game that seems interesting to them, one they've never played before and that demonstrates clear GNS principles, play it, and then write a review that could be posted to the Forge (I don't actually know what the policy of accepting reviews is, I'll check it out).  
-Tor

[Ron Edwards]

Tor,

My comments on the two other forums should address some of your questions, but my main reaction is this: Hell, man, YOU'RE breaking the new ground. YOU do it in some way that seems most sensible to you, see how it went, and tell US!

As for review, I suggest you avoid that - to most people, reviewing is nothing more nor less than a performance art, and they become far more oriented toward demonstrating their own clout than analyzing the material. A solid comparative paper is more effective (nose-bleeding prof that I am).

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Tor,

I think that one of the problems that I would have suggesting what to teach is that you'd have to consider the scope of the class. That is to say that I think that there is more than one class worth of material that you can teach, and you can't get it all in one semester (hence my assertion that there may be an entire degree worth of classes possible).

Anyhow, is this to be essentially a 100 level course? I'd imagine so, as none of the students have taken any prior background, nor, I am assuming, have you screened any of them. Given this condition, the question might be more usefully restated, what do you teack in role-playing 101.

First on the syllabus is to go over basic terminology so that everyone is on the same sheet of music. Not so much to enforce one set of terminology, but moreso to disect the RPG itsef. What is an RPG in terms of this class? Will you look at LARP, CRPG (from single-player to massively multiplayer), Interative Storrytelling, Online Play, or will the course be limited strictly to "tabletop"? From there you can go into what terms are used for the forms discussed, and how they relate and mutate (is it PC or Heroic Persona; discuss the many terms for game avatars). What can and does Game Master mean for many people. Consider the origins of terminology from its wargamming heritage right through D&D. Discuss D&D to death. Yes, levels and HP. What did it mean 25 years ago? How has it terminology changed?

After everybody can converse well on the subject, and you feel comfortable, then maybe move on to models, but keep it superficial. Gamism 201 will discuss specifically what makes for interesting and challenging mechanics, while Narrativist Play 211 will discuss effectively distributing player power in a Narrativist game. Remember to include GDS and GEN as well as GNS as alternate viewpoints. Discuss basically how these variations differ.

When everybody understands the basic terminology of the models then move on to actual play. Instead of writing papers, per se, students should do as you've indicated and run a session of a game (in a larger class you'd have study groups). The game should be selected to demonstrate something specific, and the games can then be discussed in class, or you may require written analysis. Effective/not effective type analysis as well as other observations.

Then finish the class with a mention of other general RPG issues. Women and race in RPGs (real and game), Anti-RPG hysteria, industry, etc. All just the basic overviews.

Anyhow, the concept would be to come out of the class with a broader understanding of RPG theory such that the student could go on to more detailed classes or move on from there on their own.

Identify goal first. If you want to make it more about something than another, go ahead. This is, of course, just my take. But if you have a goal in mind then the syllabus will be much easier.

Mike Holmes

[Mike Holmes]

All and sundry,

My working hours comments were in relation to the move in the twentieth century to a 40 hr work week or something similar in most industrialized nations, and France's recent move to the (IIRC) 32 hr. work week. Yes, the socialist nations are more progressive in this area, but with increasing producivity (spurred often by faster and better computer and other technology) other industrialized nations may soon follow.

I remember that there is a web site for the movement to a shorter work week in the US. This may not happen here while unemployment is still very low, and migrants frowned upon, but might easily become a reality if either of those things should change. The same can essentially be said of vacation and other time off policies.

This seems to be the trend sociologically. The question is what will we do in the future to fill all the free time? RPGs are a cheap and highly rewarding form of entertainment, IMHO.

Mike Holmes

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-09-15 17:44, Blake Hutchins wrote:
There are universities putting together Game Design and Development programs, mostly aimed at the computer gaming industry. A friend of mine has been offered a position at Savannah University.

I was vaguely aware of that, but it seems such a limited (yet not unimportant) part of the game design spectrum. How much of what they teach can be applied to tabletop or LARP? I do see it as a good start down that road though. I suppose that the need for such classes as I imagine would only be driven by such economic success as the CRPG industry has had (been playing an awful lot of Final Fantasy lately).

Mike