Hello all, Robert here...
(anxious deep breath taken)

IreallylikethissitebutIdon't thinksomeofitisverynewbiefriendly.

OK. I said it.
( a little calmer now)

Look, I've been reading posts here at the Forge for about two years now, and very occasionally posting, but I still consider myself a newbie here.

The main reason for that is that I still don't feel I really understand the whole Creative Agenda/GNS model. GNS discussions are the core of this site, yet I feel like I flounder a bit every time the subject comes up. I've noticed that this is really common experience for new posters here.

I have a couple of suggestions/requests that I think might help newbies like myself:

1) Taking a "....For Dummies" approach to explaining GNS.

I suspect the majority of people who come to the Forge are probably familiar with the "For Dummies" books and their imitators. The for dummies books really aren't for stupid people, they're for people inexperienced with the topic covered.

With that audience in mind, the publishers of that series tend to break up whatever subject they're covering in a way that they hope makes the subject more easily digestible to the reader.

Part of the method used to (attempt to) achieve that is nothing more than visual formatting.

What I'm getting at: The GNS articles might gain in accessibility simply by a little use of visual re-formatting. Those articles are pretty long, and pretty dense visually right now. On the plus side, I understand that a number of Forge regulars have good experience with both paper and computer site layout. It might be useful to draft them into a re-formatting effort.

2) Besides the GNS/CA articles, there are a number of other (sometimes related) topics that probably should get their own articles.

Stances, protagonism, GM duties, illusionism, and other interesting subjects all probably deserve seperate articles.

I've noticed that these things have been discussed in a lot of threads, and hashed out repeatedly. Maybe it is time to take the ideas generated in those threads and do a full article on them.

3) Challenging the dominant paradigm

I remember reading a thread recently ( I think it was on the birthday forum) where someone listed a number of concepts bulletpoint style that seem to be common assumptions about rpg design. The starter of the thread (as well as other contributors to the discussion) noted that these were ideas that were commonly challenged here at the Forge.

I really liked that post. I think it would be the beginning of a great article.

The aspect of this site that brings me back repeatedly. addictively even, is that posters here regularly question some of the sacred cows of rpg design (at least as far as big company commercial products go). Those challenges to design assumptions have really expanded my idea of what rpgs can be on many levels.

An article along these lines, targeted to Forge newcomers, would be great at a couple of levels:

a) It gives newbies a chance to see a distillation of previous discussions w/o hunting through thousands of threads.

b) It helps prevent re-hash threads.

Anyway, thanks for listening.
Robert

PS- Yes, I know that this post is lengthy and is guilty of layout/formatting crimes. No, the irony does not escape me...

Robert,

I think a lot of this will be helped when the Glossary is completed.

There have also been several threads about the user-friendliness of the Forge here on the Site Discussion forum, which might be interesting to you.

Forge As Community (split)
New Here
Forge Glossary Project
Newbie Question
"Newbie" Discussion (split)
Glossary

Lots more where that came from!

Once the new Glossary is complete and readily available, which I gather will happen fairly soon, I think there will probably be some discussion of how to structure things a bit to make the site more newcomer-friendly.

Hey Chris:

Thanks for the response. I do look forward to the glossary. I also noticed that you were contributing heavily to the thread on creating a Players' Guide to RPGs in the RPG Theory Forum, which I think is great.

Thoughts I had about a couple of recurring issues at this site:

Newcomers ( I kinda hate the diminuitive implications of the term Newbie) who think the CA/GNS theory is bunk.

It seems like a lot of folks have thought the theory was bunk. People read the related essays and post something to that effect. Longtimers then jump in, some more diplomatically than others, and defend the theory. The newcomer then may or may not ever respond, or even stay on the site.

Has anyone thought that part of the problem here is that there is no article available in the articles section titled something like "Rebuttal to the GNS Model"?

(For the record, with my limited understanding of GNS Theory, I tend to think it is fairly thoughtful and important to design and actual play.)

The side effect of not having a rebuttal article appears to be that the discussion comes up repeatedly when newcomers hit the site. That is made even more likely due to the fact that GNS has an entirely seperate forum devoted to it. It is sorta like putting a big bullseye on GNS theory.

Problems with terminology:
I think the glossary should help, tons. I hope you will consider a topical layout rather than an alphabetical one. Or both. Or links. Whatever works.

Disagreements over terminology seem to take the second place prize at this site for rancorous rehashes. Since I've been reading threads here for a while, I find myself sorta drifting towards the "God, just get used to the terminology as used here" camp. Still, I think that the terminology does create something of a barrier.

Lack of Distillation and further rehashing

Links to previous discussions are nice, especially when there is some ongoing debate in a current thread.

However...

For me, I'd like to see some bold theorist/designer take the bull by the horns on a few of these recurring topics and do an article. Or even a rebuttal article to an article. Why? It heads some of the rehash threads (possibly like this one) off at the pass. Seeing that previous posters have weighed in for and against various ideas means that you may not have to.

Newcomers running headlong into the Avante-garde

Newcomers here are, well, newcomers. Not usually newcomers to rpgs ( if you end up at this site, chances are good that you have a fairly long background with rpgs, and very likely as a GM), but newcomers to a whole host of ideas about play style, rules, social contract, narrative rights, stances, etc. I felt a great deal of culture shock when I encountered some of the ideas presented on this site, coming as I did from a big company/commercially available game background.

As just a request etiquette-wise, I'd definitely rather get responses from oldtime posters who are in "kindly teacher" mode, than from oldtimers in "debate opponent" mode.

For me, as a newcomer, getting responses from "debate opponent" mode posters is a bit like getting in a heated barroom argument with a guy that turns out to be a Ninja. Really. End result is no fun. Makes me not want to go back to said bar.

Thanks,
Robert

Komradbob,

I like a lot of what you have said and to me it makes a lot of sense. I consider myself a relative newcomer, having lurked for the most part and only really posted to very "light" discusions where I felt I wouldn't get a swift "kick up the jacksie" by any of the old hands or too involved in heavy debates.

Simon