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).

A humorous rant would do just as well, as long as it's funny, although I'm not sure anyone could beat Jared'd Haiku (http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/haiku.pdf).

I'd also like something on the whole Indie scene, there are so many great games out there, and whilst I try to buy most of them, I just don't have the time to write about them all.

Any takers can pmail me here or write to editors@ptgptb.org.

The original thread is here

Bring a packed lunch. And a map.

Steve, did you want any comments or hashing out of the issues here on the forum? The original thread is a fine example of an RPGnet furball, despite containing one of my better GNS posts on RPG.net, if I do say say myself.

And, I say guiltily, the coining of the term "Forgista".

Hello,

Discussion of the topics in that thread can only be carried on here as new threads of their own, with specific inquiries and topics. The thread itself can't be continued here as such, and "So and so said this on the RPG.net thread, here's what I think, discuss," is not a valid topic.

Best,
Ron

Steve,

I'm a big supporter of what you do - I think Places to Go, People to Be is one of the most enduring and best web-based RPG resources.

But, are you seriously asking, "Hey, I'm taking a big snag of a thread, intentionally written to be burred and pointy, and probably anathema to a lot of you, and was wondering if any of you'd like to respond?" 'Cause if so, why would anyone?

As for an overview of some of the hep new indie RPGs coming out, someone should jump on this. I've never enjoying a writing assignment more than the one I wrote for PTGPTB, and I'd take this one, except I have a little game coming out this month, so I'm a bit biased (and busy.)

I can't actually read RPG.net at all at the moment (some problem with my membership) so I don't know what the thread says. I've got an alternate identity which I'll try out tonight when I get home (as work blocks evil RPG.net but is fine with the good ol' Forge)

Discussing the issues here is fine, not that I could, or would want to prevent that anyway! If that leads to an article for http://ptgtpb.org, then even better.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: But, are you seriously asking, "Hey, I'm taking a big snag of a thread, intentionally written to be burred and pointy, and probably anathema to a lot of you, and was wondering if any of you'd like to respond?" 'Cause if so, why would anyone?

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: As for an overview of some of the hep new indie RPGs coming out, someone should jump on this. I've never enjoying a writing assignment more than the one I wrote for PTGPTB, and I'd take this one, except I have a little game coming out this month, so I'm a bit biased (and busy.)

I see what you're saying. And I'm sure we all appreciate the sense of justice and collaboration that motivates you to want to provide Forgistas a chance to (your word) "refute" a possible misunderstanding. But I think you may be laboring under a misconception about attitudes 'round here, so that the responses you get may strike you as a little... strange.

Many folks on the Forge (including myself on my good days) aren't trying to be understood. They are trying to understand.

Being understood is often confrontational. It draws you into saying "No, what you have said is wrong, and here is why!" That proves to the people on the other side of the discussion that they did not achieve their goal of being understood, which leads to further confrontation.

Understanding is cooperative. It draws you to say "I see what you're saying here and here, but I'm fuzzy on that last bit, how would it apply in such-and-so a situation?" That shows the other people that they have been understood, and also gives them a better chance to understand you in turn.

I think I see what you're saying about the importance of... well... proselytizing for Forge-theory. People benefit from the Forge. Ergo giving these ideas a broader circulation will help more people. Have I got it right? Is that just about what you're saying? And if so, how do you propose to achieve that in a "refuting" context that is so heavily slanted toward being confrontational and disrespectful? It seems a very worthy goal, but perhaps an impracticable method.

s the Beeg Horseshoe present in Lacuna, is My Life with Master another fantasy heartbreaker? This are good questions to ask, as long as the answers come in terms that are more generally understood (rather than having to explain every single term, or refer back to Ron's excellent glossary all the time).

Hey all,

Thanks very much for making this overture, GB Steve. I hope someone takes you up on it. Something like the workshop Vincent Baker was going to do at a Con in NY would be just the thing (no, Vincent, I'm not volunteering you). Steve, I think you're pointing to a real need.

However, as Tony pointed out, it could easily be perceived as a shouting match (esp. given the incendiary nature of the "other side"), so I can understand why folks here might be hesitant to get into it.

Walt, the fact that the questions being posed about the state of rpg theory here don't match up with current theory speaks volumes about how wide the gap is between the forge and the larger rpg community. It is surprising that there isn't an analog to the FRPAdvocacy FAQ for current theory. The articles and glossary are steps toward this, but the articles are less accessible in structure than a FAQ, and a glossary does not put the ideas into a conceptual framework. Someday that Role Playing Handbook project will come into being.

Taking an analytical look at one game as it exemplifies current theory might be a good idea, especially since it is a common feeling here that the way that these ideas are or even should be communictated is specifically through design.

yrs,
Emily

I think before we can answer the question "Are Narrativists Munchkins?" we need to answer the question "What Is A Munchkin?"

As far as I can tell, munchkin is a broad pejorative term that means, roughly, "gamers I don't like."

So, if you don't like narrativist play then, yes, all narrativists are munchkins, by definition.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S. There could be more specific defintions of munchkin, dealing with desired methods and goals of player power distribution but, frankly, that's another thread.

A single article covering 'Forge Theory' including GNS and concepts such as Bangs, Step On Up, etc would be nice to have, but the reason I say that is that I'm not realy up on all the terminology myself. Hence I wouldn't be a very good person to write such a summary. Frankly I find many of the seminal articles on these concepts very hard to get into because they don't realy summarise the concepts very well. Perhaps they were written at a time when these concepts were relatively new, and a new article could take advantage of the last few years of refinement to better articulate them in a more approachable manner.

I agree with the points that Munchkinism isn't realy anything to do with gaming theory or narativism. Narativism is just about the structure of the rules in an RPG. A Narrativist game will still have rules, which are still potentialy open to minimaxing and hence munchkinism.

Things like Hero Points and such can be seen as a munchkin's paradise, but in fact they're just a resource like any other. All characters genrealy get them, and the Narrator will presumably structure the challenges in the game taking them into account.

I recently read a Pendragon scenario in which the scenario's author presented a nhumber of ways in whcih the GM could intervene and alter the flow of the scenario: giving the characters extra healing if they're too injured to carry on; having arbitrary NPC magic slow the players down if they're progressing too fast for the drama of the narrative; taking note of new relationships and loyalties; taking note of the player's interests and actions in assigning rewards. All Hero Points and such do is put a little of that metagame power into the hands of the players, so that rather than leaving all this stuiff to arbitrary GM fiat, the players can become involved in many of these narative and character development issues aside from traditional RPG 'Leveling Up' or skill advances. Narative game design simply acknowledges that these issues are important to many players and narrators of RPGs and gives us a framework of game mechanical tools to help manage them (as much) recourse to arbitrary GM intervention.


Simon Hibbs

The problem with writing a comprehensive article on Forge theory is that's too much of it. We really need an entire book. I mean, all of Ron's article's combined - which don't even cover everything - are like 150 pages or something. That's why I'm hoping that the Role-playing Handbook Project works out.

What you really need to do is specify a topic you want to be addressed.

I do think a thread on the current Indie scene would be cool.

I've been following this thread with mixed thoughts.

I would certainly be willing to write another piece for PtGPtB; I have a lot of respect for the e-zine and its editorial staff. I've been here at The Forge for some time now, and was present at Gaming Outpost when a lot of the seminal events occurred. Also, I don't have a current new game to push in the process (although much of what has been discussed here has impacted my understanding of my "old" game).

On the other hand, my direct exposure to the games here is somewhat limited. Most of my knowledge is second hand. I have a solid grasp of the theory, but little experience with the games that have sprung from it.

That puts me in much the same place as I was with the law article: I don't have strong handle on the practical examples.

So take that however, you will, and feel free to e-mail me if you want to pursue the matter. I'll give some thought to how I might handle such an article. Meanwhile, you might find some value in my Applied Theory here at The Forge, and if you still have a Gaming Outpost subscription, Game Ideas Unlimited: Credibility. Both articles attempt to put theory into the hands of gamers in more practical ways.

--M. J. Young

TonyLB wrote: Many folks on the Forge (including myself on my good days) aren't trying to be understood. They are trying to understand.

I'm trying to stimulate a debate, and find out what the debate is.

Matt Wilson wrote:

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.

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.

GB Steve wrote: 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.

GB Steve wrote:
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.

Matt Wilson wrote: 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 wrote:

Matt Wilson wrote: 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.

Matt Wilson wrote: 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.

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.

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.

GB Steve wrote: 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).

clehrich wrote:

GB Steve wrote: 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.

clehrich wrote: 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?

clehrich wrote: 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.

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.

Yipes!

First, a little air-clearing...

John Kim wrote:

clehrich wrote:

GB Steve wrote: 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"?

clehrich wrote: 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.

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.

MJ wrote: 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.

I do see the value of producing theory overview pieces.

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.

Frank wrote: I personally think it would be helpful to have some new essays written that cover some of the more recent discussion.

Clinton wrote: But, are you seriously asking, "Hey, I'm taking a big snag of a thread, intentionally written to be burred and pointy, and probably anathema to a lot of you, and was wondering if any of you'd like to respond?" 'Cause if so, why would anyone?

You wrote: Seriously, I am. It's a point of engagement. It seems to me that roleplaying theory either sits too far in the background or when visible is misunderstood - something which I'm quite capable of doing. I thought it might be a good chance for theorists to answer the general criticisms of elitism and distance from 'normal' roleplayers and to show the real benefits that it can bring.

I think this argument has gone further than I intended. Perhaps I shouldn't have called it refute-o-matic in my off-hand kind of way.

I still believe there is worth in an overview of theory, and those that have said they are interested, thanks for the support. "Summarize a wide range of theory in no depth" would do for me as a starter, although I think you might be allowed some depth.

As for the review of theory inspired games, I'm going to make a list of all such games that I own and contact the authors myself to ask them about the influence of theory on their work. Hopefully something interesting will come of it.

Cheers,
Steve