What's the Forge and Ron Edwards fella people are bemoaning and why? I don't mind looking like an idiot and asking the questions other newbies are just thinking.
check out The Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/) website for more info on both.
I think they're unhappy that a forum ostensibly aimed at developing practical theories instead spends most of its time talking about how terrible the Forge is.
I'm getting a bit tired of it myself. Currently this forum could easily be renamed "Why the Forge and everything it stands for is an abomination upon the face of the Earth that must be cleansed" except I guess that would take too long.
This isn't a dig at you, but it is a bit sad that a bunch of us who are unpersuaded by current Forge theory spend time talking about it in a place to which it has no relevance. Those guys just don't like being attacked, and some of the people under attack are their friends. Whether you think the attacks justified, unjustified, don't know or don't care it's natural some of them will try to rebut what they see as attacks on their friends.
Edit: Bugger, I totally misunderstood the question.
The Forge is an rpg forum aimed at helping develop certain types of rpg and providing practical advice to designers of that type of rpg. Ron Edwards is a moderator there and a key proponent of particular gaming theories and styles of gaming.
This link starts off with some Edwards theory history and contains links to all the import Forge articles.
Just stop at the GNS Controversy header as you may not be interested in what follows thereafter.
http://home.comcast.net/~b.gleichman/Theory/Threefold/GNS.htm
Quote from: Mcrowcheck out The Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/) website for more info on both.
Okay I was hoping more for a summary, after all I'ld rather be reading this website....
yeah, I hate to see The RPG Site become the anti-forge site.
There have been some good games that cam from the Forge but obviously they don't suit everyones purposes. Whether you like the theroy or not, some of the games are still good.
Of course it don't help that some Forgites come off (intentionally or not) as elitist asses and that their way is the one true way.
But I would hope that this constant trashing of the forge would just end.
Quote from: BalbinusI'm getting a bit tired of it myself. Currently this forum could easily be renamed "Why the Forge and everything it stands for is an abomination upon the face of the Earth that must be cleansed" except I guess that would take too long.
Frankly I'm of the opinon that either we talk about Forge theory or we don't talk theory at all.
The real stuff is just... easy.
Basically the Forge has promoted certain theories about gaming, most famous of which is GNS which is a way of categorising certain priorities in gaming. GNS is very popular with some, equally unpopular with others, so it gets most of the attention and other theories there tend not to get much discussed outside the Forge and related blogs.
It also helps people with game designs, but generally with designs for games that are about generating certain kinds of stories, not stuff like DnD or whatever. Some people love those games and some can get a bit evangelical, some think them massively overrated, in truth they vary a lot though there are common ideas to a degree.
That help is partly in helping design the game and partly in terms of how best to physically produce it and then market it.
Quote from: BagpussOkay I was hoping more for a summary, after all I'ld rather be reading this website....
Ron Edwards has developed his own brand of theories involving games, gamers, why they play and gone so far as to say what is "right" and "wrong" in gaming.
The Forge is the forum/site where many of his devotees take up residence to collect the word from their apostle and spread it, Mormon-missionary-like, to the rest of the gaming forums on the web.
At least, that's the best summation I can give based upon the facts available to me at this time.
As someone who avoids reading the Forge, but nevertheless has been involved in discussion thereof, let me see what I can come up with.
The Forge is an internet forum dedicated to helping people publish their own, creator-controlled roleplaying games. It's been around a while, but achieved more prominence (AFAIK) when Ron Edwards took the helm.
Ron Edwards is, at the most basic, a dedicated RPG Theorist who firmly believes in what he's doing. He's written some exceedingly stupid turns of phrase, primarily centered around the concept that traditional RPGs are damaging to people's sense of story/concept of protagonism/actual physical brains (depending on who you believe), but he's a true believer in his cause one way or the other.
What's up with Forge Games? At the risk of sacrificing accuracy for brevity, they are games in which the old concepts of how an RPG works are, at the least, stepped back from and thought about; concepts like the sanctity of the character, the authority (and even existance) of the GM, the use of game mechanics as 'physics engine/world simulator', linearity of plot, etc. To some people, this represents what they want in a roleplaying game. To some other people, it represents interesting concepts to think about in their traditional gaming. To yet some other people, it represents so much sound and fury, signifying nothing. And to a small sub-set of people - you can probably think of a couple - it represents the gravest threat to their hobby that could be imagined, far exceeding B.A.D.D. and Jack Chick and FATAL-Con rolled into one. I mean, they wear the Viking Hat, goddamn it! Nothing else is right! Save vs. death magic!
:D
Okay, that last bit was just for me, but the rest is my perception.
Quote from: Mcrowyeah, I hate to see The RPG Site become the anti-forge site.
There have been some good games that cam from the Forge but obviously they don't suit everyones purposes. Whether you like the theroy or not, some of the games are still good.
Of course it don't help that some Forgites come off (intentionally or not) as elitist asses and that their way is the one true way.
But I would hope that this constant trashing of the forge would just end.
Maybe we can get Levi to explain some of his thoughts and ideas here. He usually gives a really good shot at being craft/play-based and putting things in layman's terms. For a "theory" sub-forum, I think all of us might appreciate little tips and hints on what helps improve our games. No obtuse terms, just straightforward advice on the hobby.
Quote from: Zachary The FirstMaybe we can get Levi to explain some of his thoughts and ideas here. He usually gives a really good shot at being craft/play-based and putting things in layman's terms. For a "theory" sub-forum, I think all of us might appreciate little tips and hints on what helps improve our games. No obtuse terms, just straightforward advice on the hobby.
Oh great, another Levi Forge-Lite sticky at the top of the board.
One may as well rename this the Levi Forum.
Quote from: BagpussOkay I was hoping more for a summary, after all I'ld rather be reading this website....
Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_rpg#The_Forge_Community
Quote from: gleichmanFrankly I'm of the opinon that either we talk about Forge theory or we don't talk theory at all.
The real stuff is just... easy.
I'd be happy with the latter actually, I don't think every rpg forum needs a theory site and I don't think this one particularly does. I'd far rather see a Practical Tips forum.
Quote from: BalbinusI'd be happy with the latter actually, I don't think every rpg forum needs a theory site and I don't think this one particularly does. I'd far rather see a Practical Tips forum.
I would tend to agree.
A theory forum would need someone to push it. And frankly there is no non-Forge people of note who do theory online anymore.
Quote from: gleichmanFrankly I'm of the opinon that either we talk about Forge theory or we don't talk theory at all.
Eh.
It bothers me a bit that the Forge is regarded by some as the single authoritative source on gaming theory. If we just cave and never talk about gaming theory outside of the context of the forge, then it will remain the definitive source for theory ad infinatum.
I found discussion of your articles on RPGnet interesting and clear and think that many would be RPG authors would benefit from knowing about it. But if nobody ever talks about it, how are those theories going to spread. I think we should have more discussion that is not strictly linked to the forge. Possibly fairly contrasting forge theory with games and theories born outside of the Forge.
Quote from: gleichmanI would tend to agree.
A theory forum would need someone to push it. And frankly there is no non-Forge people of note who do theory online anymore.
Hey, I'm all for renaming it "Practical Tips". Let's put in the suggestion!
Quote from: Caesar SlaadEh.
It bothers me a bit that the Forge is regarded by some as the single authoritative source on gaming theory. If we just cave and never talk about gaming theory outside of the context of the forge, then it will remain the definitive source for theory ad infinatum.
True, but so what? If as many of us here think theory is basically useless, then what's the problem?
I mean, it's not like I have a rival theory to put forwards. Does anyone here have a countervailing theory? If not, what do we have to discuss save their's?
As for developing a theory of our own, why would we bother? This site primarily appeals to people who are pretty happy with games as they are now, what do we need a theory for exactly? The Forge guys need a theory because they're not happy with how games are now, so they need to work out why not and how they can fix that. That's not an issue we face.
Oh, I get the impression practical tips are supposed to go in the actual play forum, but that is really unintuitive to me. I'd much rather see a pure actual play forum and a separate Practical Tips forum.
I put in the renaming idea here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1837). Perhaps it would help facilitate a new direction?
QuoteIt bothers me a bit that the Forge is regarded by some as the single authoritative source on gaming theory. If we just cave and never talk about gaming theory outside of the context of the forge, then it will remain the definitive source for theory ad infinatum.
Indeed. I wish Ron Edwards would reopen the RPG Theory Forum (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=4.0) at the Forge, and people interested in discussing and building on those theories could do so in the logical place.
Instead, any discussion of game/RPG theory on any site I've been able to find has all the baggage of GNS+ dumped on it. I think they're good theories for a particular type of game -- but not all that helpful for games that fall outside of that narrow spectrum.
If I'm not designing a "Forge style" game, those theories aren't all that helpful to me...
Forge inspired games might be really cool, lots of fun, and worth everyone's consideration... but there are OTHER types of games as well, not to mention new types of games that might not exist yet. Why not spend some time talking about THOSE games as well?
Quote from: Caesar SlaadEh.
It bothers me a bit that the Forge is regarded by some as the single authoritative source on gaming theory. If we just cave and never talk about gaming theory outside of the context of the forge, then it will remain the definitive source for theory ad infinatum.
Until Edwards either leaves the net or dies I think that will be the case.
I think this is a freakin' crying shame. But then again I think a lot of cults are freakin' crying shames.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadI found discussion of your articles on RPGnet interesting and clear and think that many would be RPG authors would benefit from knowing about it. But if nobody ever talks about it, how are those theories going to spread. I think we should have more discussion that is not strictly linked to the forge. Possibly fairly contrasting forge theory with games and theories born outside of the Forge.
I would love to see such a thing. However the question is, who's going to do it?
RPGPundit? The guy's a clueless attack dog and wouldn't know how to break down a game design if given comic book instructions.
Myself? I'm a heavy-ruleset person, that produces near zero-interest in general rpg sites like this one.
Plus the stuff I write, people agree with and go on their way. I understand that the elements articles have actually influenced people in what games they play and even in a few cases design. But with everyone agreeing to them (including Edwards at one point), they cause no buzz and thus can't support a fourm.
It's hell being right.
I'm also just visiting the net.
There used to be a lot of people willing to talk theory. All the ones I remember burned out trying not to get steam-rolled by GNS. The net has simply lost all its other voices.
Quote from: BalbinusTrue, but so what? If as many of us here think theory is basically useless, then what's the problem?
I mean, it's not like I have a rival theory to put forwards. Does anyone here have a countervailing theory? If not, what do we have to discuss save their's?
As for developing a theory of our own, why would we bother? This site primarily appeals to people who are pretty happy with games as they are now, what do we need a theory for exactly? The Forge guys need a theory because they're not happy with how games are now, so they need to work out why not and how they can fix that. That's not an issue we face.
I don't think theory is useless. If you do, then you need not post here.
I regard Brian's Elements of Gaming useful. I regard RGFA's Threefold model as useful. I regard Robin Laws' Types of Players as useful. I regard Brian's bit on expectations of morality in the game as useful. I regard Bankuei's tips on flag framing as useful.
I don't think there has to be a grand unified theory. Analysis and attention to what's going on and how to make the game better is useful discussion to me. If that's not what you are calling theory, then I wouldn't call it useful either. But that's the angle I come at theory from.
QuoteAs for developing a theory of our own, why would we bother? This site primarily appeals to people who are pretty happy with games as they are now, what do we need a theory for exactly? The Forge guys need a theory because they're not happy with how games are now, so they need to work out why not and how they can fix that. That's not an issue we face.
I want to see RPGs that are:
* Little to no prep work
* Can be played quickly, perhaps in as little as 2 hours
* Don't require extensive rulebooks to be memorized
* The goal(s) of the game is clear and understood by all players
* Players can play competitively and not pull their punches
* Players can focus on roleplaying their characters rather than creating the overall game narrative
* The game is more appealing to the "average person"
* The game is not seen as the exclusive domain of introverted and/or socially awkward people (aka Lawncrappers)
These are the games I want to talk about. Not just collaborative story-telling games (aka Forge games), or house rules for existing games (aka d20/D&D).
I don't mind people drawing on other games / theory when relevant, but trying to force all discussion into the context of existing theory (usually Forge theory) is not helpful if you don't want to create that style of game.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadIt bothers me a bit that the Forge is regarded by some as the single authoritative source on gaming theory. If we just cave and never talk about gaming theory outside of the context of the forge, then it will remain the definitive source for theory ad infinatum.
The problem is that every non-Forge discussion of theory starts to get talked about in Forge terms. Way back in the heyday of rec.games.frp.advocacy, I could never understand why there were so many people who were so angry about the GDS terminology but I think I can now understand their frustration at being unable to discuss a theory without it being shoehorned into another theory, whether it fits correctly or not.
And while it may just be bias, the Forge theories are even worse than the rec.games.frp.advocacy theories in that regard because even though we tended to dump on Gamism the way the GNS dumps on Simulationism , we at least listened to Brian's attempts to reform the definition of Gamism, even though the terminology was sometimes as confusing as the Forge stuff, John Kim was able to summarize the GDS Threefold, the stances, and a handful of other rec.games.frp.advocacy theories that were circulating at the time in a fairly brief FAQ rather than telling people to read dozens of long essays. We also didn't (and couldn't if we wanted to) ban anyone or close down any debates and when people did raise criticisms, a lot of us honestly tried to understand what their problem was rather than telling them to sit down, shut up, and read dozens of essays.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadI found discussion of your articles on RPGnet interesting and clear and think that many would be RPG authors would benefit from knowing about it. But if nobody ever talks about it, how are those theories going to spread. I think we should have more discussion that is not strictly linked to the forge. Possibly fairly contrasting forge theory with games and theories born outside of the Forge.
There are years of theory discussion on rec.games.frp.advocacy that's been ignored. All the current interest in "immersion"? That was gone over ad nauseum on rec.games.frp.advocacy, including tons of wonderful detailed actual play examples from Mary Kuhner. It was a part of the rec.games.frp.advocacy stances model that Ron borrowed from. He changed all the stances and just rolled Immersion into, I think, his "Auhor". In fact, his removal of that distinction along with the transformation of Simulation into a dumping ground for games Ron and his fans didn't like seem to all be part of the same problem to me, which is that some people who try to speak authoritatively on all styles of role-playing actually don't understand a few major styles of play at all.
And before those rec.games.frp.advocacy, there are years of other theories and discussions about them captured in magazines like Different Worlds (e.g., the Blacow model), the theory magazine Interactive Fantasy, and in APAs like Lee Gold's Alarums and Excursions and Paul Mason's Imazine. Perhaps the best recent theory treatment can be found in Robin Laws' Robin's Laws. Good practical advice about how to combine different play styles rather than catering only to a single style at the expense of all others. Why don't these other spread? To a large degree because the average game could care less about thick and theoretical discussions about game theory. But it's also because most of them aren't elitist and don't claim to have all the answers. That means that they don't have rabid fanboys (and fangirls) willing to push them as the end-all-be-all of game theory at every turn.
[Edit: Added word for clarity]
Quote from: StuartI want to see RPGs that are:
* Little to no prep work
* Can be played quickly, perhaps in as little as 2 hours
* Don't require extensive rulebooks to be memorized
* The goal(s) of the game is clear and understood by all players
* Players can play competitively and not pull their punches
* Players can focus on roleplaying their characters rather than creating the overall game narrative
* The game is more appealing to the "average person"
* The game is not seen as the exclusive domain of introverted and/or socially awkward people (aka Lawncrappers)
What games do you find that fit these criteria? I ask because these are things I can identify with as important to me, as well. I'm currently playtesting a new set of rules that worked very well for me and my group. Since there are similarities in our thinking, perhaps you might enjoy playtesting the same rules/settings.
I'm very curious what games you find that you enjoy, and why. :)
Quote from: John MorrowThere are years of theory discussion on rec.games.frp.advocacy that's been ignored.
To me, this was the Golden Age of Internet rpg theory. I came in on the perhaps the last half of it and wasn't every a true member of the group in my mind, but if I could pull any group of people together to talk about rpgs today it would be these.
Most now are basically gone from the internet like myself. Rare visits if any.
Quote from: StuartI want to see RPGs that are:
* Little to no prep work
* Can be played quickly, perhaps in as little as 2 hours
* Don't require extensive rulebooks to be memorized
* The goal(s) of the game is clear and understood by all players
* Players can play competitively and not pull their punches
* Players can focus on roleplaying their characters rather than creating the overall game narrative
* The game is more appealing to the "average person"
* The game is not seen as the exclusive domain of introverted and/or socially awkward people (aka Lawncrappers)
Frankly, that sounds more like you are describing a board game than a role-playing game to me. It would destroy every reason I have for preferring a role-playing game over a board game as a recreational activity to play with friends. Reducing a role-playing session to two hours or even a whole campaign to four hours would be like reducing the Lord of the Rings trilogy to a one hour movie to me or the trilogy of books into a pamphlet. All that "boring" character development, build up, and context matters if you want the players to develop an investment in what's happening in the game. Anything less, to me, is just pushing pawns around a board because that's about all they mean to me.
I didn't participate in RGFA so much as "watched with keen interest".
My "golden age" of theory discussion was my time as an active poster to the rpg-create newsgroup.
Quote from: Stuart* Little to no prep work
* Can be played quickly, perhaps in as little as 2 hours
* Don't require extensive rulebooks to be memorized
* The goal(s) of the game is clear and understood by all players
* Players can play competitively and not pull their punches
* Players can focus on roleplaying their characters rather than creating the overall game narrative
* The game is more appealing to the "average person"
* The game is not seen as the exclusive domain of introverted and/or socially awkward people (aka Lawncrappers)
You might want to look at AGON (http://www.agon-rpg.com/). It's about ancient Greek heroes, so I'm not 100% sure that it would count as "* The game is more appealing to the "average person"", but it could be. Everybody loves
Clash of the Titans, don't they?
Here (http://www.ogrecave.com/archives/004467.shtml) is a capsule review:
Quote...a crunchy game focused on Greek heroes fighting monsters. The book is gorgeous - look for the big helmet! - and no bigger than it needs to be. Even better is the character sheet, which literally puts absolutely every option a player will ever need to consider right there in front of you, in an incredibly elegant and learnable structure. No tedious poring over the rule catalogs! Death to roleplaying as shopping, just cut to the chase! Piles of awesome. And even if your character dies there's still character advancement.
Full disclosure; I've not played it, but I've heard a lot of good things about it. Mike Mearls (http://mearls.livejournal.com/129570.html?thread=1270306#t1270306) said this on his Live Journal:
"Both
Agon and
Burning Empires were held up at work today as examples of the cool RPG stuff at GenCon."
So the WotC D&D Development Team think it's cool at least :)
Quote from: John MorrowFrankly, that sounds more like you are describing a board game than a role-playing game to me. It would destroy every reason I have for preferring a role-playing game over a board game as a recreational activity to play with friends. Reducing a role-playing session to two hours or even a whole campaign to four hours would be like reducing the Lord of the Rings trilogy to a one hour movie to me or the trilogy of books into a pamphlet. All that "boring" character development, build up, and context matters if you want the players to develop an investment in what's happening in the game. Anything less, to me, is just pushing pawns around a board because that's about all they mean to me.
Whoa. We saw
exactly the
opposite in his statement!
I read it as saying the the mechanic should be secondary to character development and activity. Something you don't have to worry about. Yet, you saw
only a focus on mechanic. (A board game is, essentially, the ultimate
mechanic without any character development.) [EDIT: My experiences with D20 give me the impression of a glorified boardgame: lots of rules, very little room for player creativity. YMMV.]
I read it as saying, "I don't want a lot of books and baggage so that I can roleplay
character for two hours without flipping pages and arguing about what rule in what context."
It blows my mind that you saw a board-game (again,
all mechanic, no roleplaying) in those comments. I saw a nearly single-minded focus on roleplaying with a mechanic that services only to resolve conflicts while the roleplaying can commence.
Quote from: gleichmanFrankly I'm of the opinon that either we talk about Forge theory or we don't talk theory at all.
The real stuff is just... easy.
There are lots of types and levels of theories that might be useful to design that have nothing to with GNS. pre-Pundit, this section of the board was more along the lines of practical design considerations that were above the level of a specific game.
Questions like are ability scores useful, when would you want to use a single die or multiple dice for a die mechanic, cinematic vs traditional play style, or how to have a skill system with good coverage that isn't overburdened by skills. These are things that might actually help a someone designing a game or just adding their own houserules.
Quote from: VellorianIt blows my mind that you saw a board-game (again, all mechanic, no roleplaying) in those comments. I saw a nearly single-minded focus on roleplaying with a mechanic that services only to resolve conflicts while the roleplaying can commence.
I saw the same things John did.
A good example of how great the divide is between styles. As I recall I've even further away from you then John is.
How goes reading AoH btw, have you used it for starting fires yet?
Quote from: gleichmanHow goes reading AoH btw, have you used it for starting fires yet?
No fires yet. ;)
I printed it today and hope to dig into a bit, without the eyestrain at the monitor, tonight. :)
It's interesting, but I've played games that would fit Stuart's description to a T - and all we were doing was "freeform roleplaying" while we were driving from one place to another for two hours. No manuals. No books. No mechanics. No board. No pieces. No minis. Just a raw, freeform roleplaying period.
QuoteWhat games do you find that fit these criteria? I ask because these are things I can identify with as important to me, as well. I'm currently playtesting a new set of rules that worked very well for me and my group. Since there are similarities in our thinking, perhaps you might enjoy playtesting the same rules/settings.
I think a few types of games fit
some of the criteria, but I can't think of any that fit them all. This is more or less the requirements I have for the game I'm working on. I'm very pleased with where it's at now and I hope to playtest it this winter. (I'm teaching a couple of classes this fall and there's a new baby about to arrive, so things will be busy for a while)
QuoteFrankly, that sounds more like you are describing a board game than a role-playing game to me. It would destroy every reason I have for preferring a role-playing game over a board game as a recreational activity to play with friends.
I'm very much thinking of a hybrid that combines the best qualities of a board game (fast setup and easy to learn) and a roleplaying game (great sense of being "in" the gameworld and controlling a "character"). I'm not saying this is the ultimate game concept for everyone, or the only type of game, or the future of gaming -- just a type of game that would appeal to
me and hopefully some other people as well.
QuoteReducing a role-playing session to two hours or even a whole campaign to four hours would be like reducing the Lord of the Rings trilogy to a one hour movie to me or the trilogy of books into a pamphlet. All that "boring" character development, build up, and context matters if you want the players to develop an investment in what's happening in the game. Anything less, to me, is just pushing pawns around a board because that's about all they mean to me.
A few hours is more reasonable for a lot of people (eg. Parents of small children), even if they enjoyed marathon 8+ hour gaming sessions in their younger days. ;-) I think a 2-3 hour roleplaying session is a very reasonable goal. RPGMP3 (http://www.rpgmp3.com/) sessions are 3 hours, so even D&D can be played like that (although that's just a session, not an entire game). A lot of Forge games can be played in short sessions -- but they have a different focus from what I'd like to see. Again, I don't want to be seen as evangelizing the "new way" of making RPGs -- rather I'm interesting in looking at
more ways of gaming, and making it easier to bring more people into the hobby.
Quote from: VellorianIt's interesting, but I've played games that would fit Stuart's description to a T - and all we were doing was "freeform roleplaying" while we were driving from one place to another for two hours. No manuals. No books. No mechanics. No board. No pieces. No minis. Just a raw, freeform roleplaying period.
Same here. Those periods fill in gaps and provide context to the table top sessions.
To those like me, they never replace it.
Quote"Both Agon and Burning Empires were held up at work today as examples of the cool RPG stuff at GenCon."
Yes, I've heard good things about both and will check them out.
One of the things I'm not really crazy about with many indie/forge games is the way narrative control is handled. On one hand I like the way sharing narrative control can speed up the story and reduce the prep time... but I also think it doesn't lend itself as well to these points:
* Players can play competitively and not pull their punches
* Players can focus on roleplaying their characters rather than creating the overall game narrative
Quote from: VellorianI read it as saying the the mechanic should be secondary to character development and activity. Something you don't have to worry about. Yet, you saw only a focus on mechanic. (A board game is, essentially, the ultimate mechanic without any character development.) [EDIT: My experiences with D20 give me the impression of a glorified boardgame: lots of rules, very little room for player creativity. YMMV.]
The reason why I didn't see any character development was the 2-hour requirement. Tightly edited movies that run for about two hours, even well done ones, usually have relatively shallow character development. At best, they create the illusion of character development using a handful of scenes meant to illustrate the character's personality and, even then, they are only illustrating those aspects of the character that's needed for the story. The character is ultimately as developed as the buildings on the movie set. They look real good from the angle they are filmed at but if you walk around back, it hasn't been fully developed and doesn't look very good.
Quote from: VellorianI read it as saying, "I don't want a lot of books and baggage so that I can roleplay character for two hours without flipping pages and arguing about what rule in what context."
At that point, why use rules at all. I have a pretty good idea of why I use rules and considered role-playing games an improvement over the ruleless imaginary play I was doing with toy cars and action figures as a child. Why do the rules do for you? Answer that question and you'll know what you can get rid of (and this goes back to the points some of us were making about the absence of detailed social interaction rules in games like the original D&D).
Quote from: VellorianIt blows my mind that you saw a board-game (again, all mechanic, no roleplaying) in those comments. I saw a nearly single-minded focus on roleplaying with a mechanic that services only to resolve conflicts while the roleplaying can commence.
For the record, I can role-play in a board game.
That said, it's not the mechanics that made me say board games but the superficiality that the requirements would lead to, in my opinion. Little or prep? That means I'm coming to the table with little or no context before the game starts. 2-hour session time? How much character development can you do in 2-hours? Don't require extensive rulebooks to memorize? Lots of board games have very simple rules that fit into a pamphlet. So do CCGs. A "goal" that is clear and understood by the players? Any goals that can be defined by the rules and prepared with little or no prep time are going to be fairly broad or superficial. Competition? Board games do that well. A focus on playing your own character is a tactical focus on your own position. That's a norm for most board games. Board games appeal to average people more than playing "make believe" and are considered more mainstream.
So, I'm sorry, but I see "boardgame". And to be honest, a lot of Forge games look at way to me. Reading descriptions of DitV conflict resolution, for example, looks like a game of Yahtzee to me.
Quote from: StuartI want to see RPGs that are:
* Little to no prep work
* Can be played quickly, perhaps in as little as 2 hours
* Don't require extensive rulebooks to be memorized
* The goal(s) of the game is clear and understood by all players
* Players can play competitively and not pull their punches
* Players can focus on roleplaying their characters rather than creating the overall game narrative
* The game is more appealing to the "average person"
* The game is not seen as the exclusive domain of introverted and/or socially awkward people (aka Lawncrappers)
These are the games I want to talk about. Not just collaborative story-telling games (aka Forge games), or house rules for existing games (aka d20/D&D).
Stuart,
I try not to post here about either the Forge or my own games. It seems uncouth, and I post about what people here want to talk about, and everything's happy. But, man, I see your post, and my heart cries out, "Speak truth to this guy!"
"Forge games" aren't all collaborative story-telling games. Honestly, I hate that shit. If you give me "Once Upon A Time" or an RPG that derives itself from that sort of thing, I blanch. I want Characters, with a capital C, that Do Things and Are Awesome.
I'm not going to tell you to run and read my game, The Shadow of Yesterday (http://www.crngames.com/the_shadow_of_yesterday) (text for free here (http://zork.net/~nick/loyhargil/tsoy2/book1--rulebook.html)) - ok, I am. The sort of things I want in games are
exactly what you're talking about. I want low prep, quick play, exciting moments, real characters who make decisions that matter, and non-subculture-play. By that last one, I mean that I want to play a game that isn't so immersed in its own ritual and tradition that it looks alien and bizarre to outsiders, which, honestly, most RPGs do. I also specifically enjoy games where players can send their characters up against each other, which you seem to enjoy as well.
I can recommend other games that do this better than mine, too, and can definitely point out games that go all fuzzy with the story-telling nonsense. If you're interested, let me know.
QuoteSo, I'm sorry, but I see "boardgame".
Boardgames in the hizzouse. :D
Quote from: Clinton R. Nixon"Forge games" aren't all collaborative story-telling games. Honestly, I hate that shit. If you give me "Once Upon A Time" or an RPG that derives itself from that sort of thing, I blanch. I want Characters, with a capital C, that Do Things and Are Awesome.
Clinton is absolutely correct, most (or many, I've never surveyed) Forge games are not collaborative story telling games, most of them have a GM and players.
I agree with everything else Clinton said too, but that merited underlining.
Thanks for the link Clintion -- The Shadow of Yesterday is a game I frequently see mentioned and I'll definitely check it out. :)
I like all sorts of games. Boardgames, parlour games, classic RPGs, and I'm planning on trying some of the hippy/Forge games in the winter as well (DitV I think).
What I haven't yet found in a "roleplaying game", are rules that let you *honestly* play equally, and competitively with all the other players at the table. There's usually some unspoken rule about "not going too far" (see the "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" thread here, or Ron Edwards thread about the problems with Stakes on Story Games for example). I really though Jason Morningstar's Roach game might have fit the bill -- but I think it also relies on the unspoken rule "not to go too far" to keep the game on track. I also like the idea of keeping the players focused more on exploring the narrative world rather than creating it.
Using a GM lets you step around those problems... but then one player isn't really playing the game, and might have a lot of prep work to do...
So I've been spending at least as much time looking at boardgames and wargames as I have RPGs and RPG theory. What I end up with might not even be an RPG anymore... maybe it's a boardgame with some roleplaying in it... but I'm less concerned with that than with creating a game that I think is FUN and fits all of the criteria I'd be looking for in a game.
EDIT: It should be obvious, but in case it's not: competitive play doesn't necessarily mean attacking the other player's characters. :D
Quote from: John MorrowFor the record, I can role-play in a board game.
I figured I'd provide some examples for those who think I'm insane. While I was originally thinking of simple board sames like Dogfight and Broadsides and even card games like Mille Bournes (car noises, driver personality, etc.), board games like Car Wars and the old GDW game Asteroid provide a lot of opportunity for role-playing in a board game.
So, now I'm rethinking myself...
Does this mean I like games that are essentially "roleplayed boardgames?"
Or was I reading something into Mr. Stuart's comments? When I read the "quick entry" and "two hour play," I wasn't thinking that those defined the whole of the game, but rather elements of the game.
In other words, you have an ongoing campaign. It only takes a few minutes to acclimate your players to the gameworld (quick entry) and occasionally you only have time for a couple hours of play at a time, but it's all part of a vast and ongoing campaign where the rules are only there to determine the results of a conflict or question of success (i.e. combat, magic, social encounters, etc.).
I guess what I read in was the "ongoing campaign" aspect, which changes the perception markedly.
Apologies for the tangent. (That's what I get for posting from work while trying to do a dozen things at once and peruse the board...)
I think you can find roleplaying in Monopoly (The Doggie says "woof, woof"). I used to game with two guys who did *A LOT* of roleplaying in Axis & Allies, that would threaten to turn into Live Action Roleplaying (with combat) if they got too excited / had too much to drink.
Quote from: StuartI think you can find roleplaying in Monopoly (The Doggie says "woof, woof"). I used to game with two guys who did *A LOT* of roleplaying in Axis & Allies, that would threaten to turn into Live Action Roleplaying (with combat) if they got too excited / had too much to drink.
Axis and Allies is great for accents. Hmmm. Perhaps we need a thread on role-playing in board games and whether there is a sharp line between the two or not.
GDW's
Asteroid game was a lot like a Forge game in many ways. It had a very tight focus (a team of specialists sent to an asteroid to stop a deranged computer from crashing into the Earth). The player playing the deranged computer was a lot like a GM. It had all sorts of genre cliches that gave it a lot of flavor. The main difference is that all of the characters where already created and you had to build a team out of them (e.g., the Professor, his beautiful daughter, the McGee brothers -- Lucky and Muscles, the jewel thief, and reporter, the space dog, etc.) Good stuff.
Quote from: VellorianI guess what I read in was the "ongoing campaign" aspect, which changes the perception markedly.
Correct, but an ongoing campaign can still require a lot of prep from the GM.
QuoteAxis and Allies is great for accents. Hmmm. Perhaps we need a thread on role-playing in board games and whether there is a sharp line between the two or not.
What was this thread about again? :)
I generally find that boardgames have very clear rules that govern what you can and can't do, and players must stay within these rules in pursuit of "winning" the game. Roleplaying usually doesn't have a direct impact on "winning" the game.
Rules for RPGs are often much less clear (or much more verbose), and players are often not restricted in what they can and can't do by these rules. Many RPGs are very fuzzy about the actual goal of the game, and "winning" is often an absent concept. Ironically, roleplaying often doesn't have a direct impact on "winning" a roleplaying game either. (!)
Quote from: gleichmanOh great, another Levi Forge-Lite sticky at the top of the board.
One may as well rename this the Levi Forum.
No, actually the "Levi Forum" on here is the "Actual Play and Craft" forum, which I made specifically thinking of him. He's sort of failed to do much with it so far, though, which is a real pity.
RPGPundit
Okay thank's for the links people I've so far read the Wiki link on GNS theory and the "System Does Matter" essay.
Considering I personally have played in or run campaigns (not just tournaments) for
AD&D, D&D, D&D 3+, Cyberpunk, Everway, Conspiracy X, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, 2300AD, Traveller: The New Era, Shadowrun, Vampire, V:DA, Star Wars D6/D20, Feng Shui, Champions, Flashing Blades, Dark Conspiracy, Call of Cthulhu (BRP/D20), Cybergeneration, Star Trek. (from memory, so I've probably missed some out).
And enjoyed each and everyone, I fail to see his initial assertion
"Three player aims or outlooks have been suggested, in that a given player approaches a role-playing situation pretty much from one of them, with some, but not much, crossover possible."
Admittedly a lot of those games fall into the Gamist or Simulationist, group but then that's what most major RPG Publishing groups print, the Narrative games I have played/run I've enjoyed as I have enjoyed the Narrative aspects of other games.
Saying there is little or no crossover possible, just isn't my experience, I've been in several groups that have run a wide mix of games with several players taking turns at being GM. So I'm not the only player or GM I've come across that enjoys a variety of playing styles.
Also surely if you have an RPG that is say 50% Gamist, 30% Narrative and 20% Simulationist at least people that have a preferance to the Narrative style are supported to some degree. Not that any game has fixed percentages like that, after all a narrative player will make better use of the narrative aspects of the game, so will get more than say 30% out of it.
If a game just was 100% Narrative or 100% Gamist then I wouldn't be able to play with my friend who happens to prefer the Simulationist style if I prefered the Gamist one.
With that in mind most of the rest of his essay falls to pieces.
Sure you could have a game with 100% Narrative style, and the Narrative GM would then not need to do any work adapting the system to his prefered way of playing, but then he'ld have to find Narrative players to play with. If could well be his best mate is a bit of a Gamist, and the only Narrative players he can find are real jerks (stealing all the Cheetos!).
Surely is makes sense to design a RPG for a broad market, then GM's and players can take what they want out of it, a bit of G with their N and S.
Not only will it make it easier to find someone to buy your product as it will have appeal to G, N or S GM's (and even GN&S GM's like me) but it will make it easier for those GM's to find players, as they can appeal to G, N or S players (or GN&S players like me).
Edit: Having looked at RPGPundit's Landmark's post my ideas seem to fit well with Landmark 4.
Not to mention that GNS doesn't cover all the bases...
There are people who:
* game to hang out with their friends, socialize, or even meet romantic partners (eg. Vampire LARP)
* game to become deeply immersed in an alternate world, and forget about the troubles of everyday life (eg. Too many RPGs to name...)
* game to get an opportunity to make their friends laugh (eg. Balderdash can be played to win... or played to make everyone laugh... an RPG can be played like that too)
etc
Quote from: StuartWhat I haven't yet found in a "roleplaying game", are rules that let you *honestly* play equally, and competitively with all the other players at the table.
Amber.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditAmber.
RPGPundit
Also Rune.
Quote from: BagpussEdit: Having looked at RPGPundit's Landmark's post my ideas seem to fit well with Landmark 4.
Indeed it does. One of the fundamental self-evident truths that I've noticed is that far more gamers actually play and enjoy playing with multiple different "agendas", sometimes switching from one to another, and sometimes at the same time; and that this can and does often work for them. The idea that the different "agendas" have to be exclusive seems contrary to how most people Roleplay and how most people enjoy roleplaying.
RPGPundit
Bagpuss, two bits that might be helpful.
1) Levi Kornelson wrote a theoretical paper that had some similarities but got rid of such things as declaring games to be entirely one camp. You might prefer it, if I had a link to it, I'd put it up (can someone help me out?)
2) Of the little that I've read, Maddman is by far the best at extracting useful bits out of theoretical frameworks and stating them in simple terms. He's given examples of how narrativist elements have improved his cinematic Buffy game. Try searching for threads started by him here and at Nothingland, especially dealing with Buffy. There's a big thread where he tried to explain his cinematic approach to P&P that has some interesting bits if you can slog through it.
Quote from: RPGPunditAmber
I find that hard to believe, Pundit,
unless one assumes the GM is really good at separating what they think should happen from what they want to have happen. I don't think that's too much too assume (I disagree with those who bandy around the term "GM Fiat"), but it is a requirement that has to be filled by the people and isn't supplied by the game. Unlike say Chess, where you can play fully competitively and if somebody breaks a rule, you can point it out to them and if they disagree, you don't have to doubt whether they're a jerky idiot (or an idiotic jerk).
To be honest, Stuart, as long as "roleplaying game" means either "freeform procedures" (as with Roach) or "interpretation of the mechanics is more important than the mechanics themselves" (as with My Life with Master)--a competitive RPG is going to fundamentally rely on the integrity of the GM and/or the players in interpreting and managing their powers and responsibilities in the game.
OTOH Rune I don't know enough about to judge, so it might prove me wrong. I
suspect that if Rune is an RPG, then so are the wonderful old TFT solo adventures/modules, as well as probably the new stuff being made for Dark City's Legends RPG.
Quote from: BalbinusAlso Rune.
Would "The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen" and "Pantheon and other Roleplaying Games" also fall into this category?
Quote from: Nicephorus2) Of the little that I've read, Maddman is by far the best at extracting useful bits out of theoretical frameworks and stating them in simple terms....
Yes I do follow a lot of Maddman's posts over at Nothingland, but I try to keep quiet about it, don't want to give him a big head. :D
Except the GM has to play referee.
The more time I spend working on my game, the less it looks like a traditional RPG and the more it looked like other things (CCG, Boardgame, Gamebook).
I think authority for narrative control / rules moderation has to rest someplace, and there seems to be 3 choices:
1) A Game Master -- like in traditional RPGs like D&D, Amber, etc
2) Shared amongst all the players -- like Dogs in the Vineyard etc
3) The game itself -- like a boardgame, CCG, or what I'm thinking of
In many ways what I'm working on / talking about has more in common with Talisman than D&D.
Quote from: BagpussWould "The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen" and "Pantheon and other Roleplaying Games" also fall into this category?
Possibly, but they are very different. Rune is a fairly rules intense cod-vikings game based on the Ars Magica rules. The others are more storytelling games and are doing something very different.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadI don't think there has to be a grand unified theory. Analysis and attention to what's going on and how to make the game better is useful discussion to me.
I agree with this on all counts.
Also to chime in with some grizzled beard scratching, the Golden Age of rpg theory for me was actually
before rec.games.frp.advocacy made its appearance, and especially before all the fights over Theatrix. Important advancements were made later but the narrower audience meant there were fewer paradigm clashes to muddy the waters. Once Theatrix made its appearance everybody started arguing from first principles about a very broad subject, and it hasn't stopped to this day. (Another factor was likely the socalled "Eternal September" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September) of 1993.)
Erm which page did my thread go off on a tangent, it grew so quickly and I was too busy at work to follow it?
Quote from: StuartExcept the GM has to play referee.
The more time I spend working on my game, the less it looks like a traditional RPG and the more it looked like other things (CCG, Boardgame, Gamebook).
I think authority for narrative control / rules moderation has to rest someplace, and there seems to be 3 choices:
1) A Game Master -- like in traditional RPGs like D&D, Amber, etc
2) Shared amongst all the players -- like Dogs in the Vineyard etc
3) The game itself -- like a boardgame, CCG, or what I'm thinking of
In many ways what I'm working on / talking about has more in common with Talisman than D&D.
Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about. It's also what I raised with Luke in the thread about Burning Empires being a "competitive game". I think Luke is speaking in good faith but I also suspect that what BE will turn out to be, when I see it, is a game with an excellent dynamic framework that can act as a "skeleton" to guide and compartmentalize the freeform aspects of the game. But not a game like Chess, where there's a clear bright line to differentiate an unsportsmanlike arsehole from someone who plays as hard as they can for every advantage.
QuoteBut not a game like Chess, where there's a clear bright line to differentiate an unsportsmanlike arsehole from someone who plays as hard as they can for every advantage.
Yes, this is where I'm spending all of my time. The clear bright line. :)
Quote from: BagpussErm which page did my thread go off on a tangent, it grew so quickly and I was too busy at work to follow it?
About post 14.
Sorry about that, the posts before that are probably useful though.
However, the ceaseless debate after post #14 is a valuable lesson in the discussion of RPG theory and why you should never enter into it.