Quote from: Levi KornelsenDidya ever actually read the whole thing?

What he said there is, yes, insulting and nasty, but also very different from what most folks think he said.

My reading of it went like this:

"Trying to force Story from a media not meant for it can fuck up your idea of what a story is, as well as being aggravating.  Conception of, appreciation for, and ability to create Story are basic human traits; having them fucked up is damaging to the mind."

I did read the whole thing. Starting with the post on Vincent's blog. Continuing to Story Games. I think there are more people misquoting him in defense of what he said than attacking it.

For example, his assertion that activities can simply shape the way you think is a very, very understated version of what he actually said. He absolutely does count inability to understand his game (and the structure of his book) in with the 'damage.'

And it's not clear where he draws the line at damage. Does GURPS V:tM which is almost certainly incoherent (Sim system, Nar premise) count? Or does it have to be V:tM advice--in which case people who came to V:tM from D&D would probably have ignored or at least read-differently the advice.

I mean, there are some sweeping statements there--and the *implications* of what he is or may be saying are pretty far reaching.

However, I think that more than what he might be saying, the post is important for what has been said before--and what is core to TBM/GNS theory. That is:

* Incoherence
* The Impossible Thing
* Absolute CA incompatibility

These are the foundations of GNS theory and I think they all revolve around the (then, at the time) unstated conclusions that were behind the Brain Damage posts. That is: I think that in the early days the theory of Brain Damage either wasn't fully formalized or simply wasn't stated for fear of turning people off--but the idea is there and is very clear: these games are *bad for you.*

That's a very strong statement and very, very questionable.

(That said, while I think the delivery was, unfortunately, very insulting--and I don't mean the choice of term Brain Damage but more stuff like singling one particular guy out by name to, um, condescend to--the actual posts represent an on-the-record honesty that puts GNS/TBM in a far stronger light with a lot more relief to it that makes it easier to look at as a whole. I welcomed the post and I think it was actually good for RPG theory as a whole since it clears up what, exactly, GNS/TBM does actually say about Vampire, for example).

-Marco

Quote from: Marco* Incoherence
* The Impossible Thing
* Absolute CA incompatibility

That's a pretty good list of "things that shouldn't be in a functional RPG theory", then, isn't it?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThat's a pretty good list of "things that shouldn't be in a functional RPG theory", then, isn't it?

That list is what made GNS the Internet juggernaut that it is.

That list:
1. Speaks to people who felt victimized by their RPG experiences (and makes it the game's fault rather than theirs).
2. Speaks to people who want to play "better" games than other people do.
3. Speaks to people who have extremely narrow tastes and felt resentment at more mixed groups.

NOTE (and I'm almost certain this won't be remembered if there's a 10pg flame-war following this): It also spoke to people who were simply unsatisfied with some element of their gaming and found, for example: an attraction to the Narrativist manifesto, the realization that people can want different things, etc.

But those core things are responsible (IMO/IME) for the popularity of GNS. Things like AGE that lack the finger to point are, I think, destined to have far fewer zealots. The "teeth" in the theory are what, I think, far too many people like it for.

And I also think that if you "believe what GNS says about Narrativism" then you are associating yourself with a lot of the above even if you think, say, mutual CA's are possible ... because GNS pretty much says they aren't and the 'N' in GNS stands for Narrativism.

I had a face-to-face conversation yesterday with a Forge poster and long-time Sorcerer player who made the case that Narrativism exists not as GNS describes it but as something that can be identified by an observer simply as being something like DITV. That is: all the text of TBM/GNS is essentially misguided--because it tries to quantify it in an objective sense--but that there is an identifiable style of gaming (along, yes, a continuum) that is what the people actually playing Nar games are talking about and the text of the theory is grounded in incorrect assumptions about linguistics.

It was a very interesting and, I think, fairly persuasive argument (even if I don't totally subscribe to it)--but this guy, who is a big fan of what he understands as Narrativist play--can't buy into the Narrativist dialog or TBM/GNS because, for him, the underlying assumptions about how almost all of the text is communicated are flawed.

I think that's an interesting perspective on the dialog (I identified with Narrativist goals immediately and found myself unable to identify with the dialog or the community in general because of what I found to be the level of negativity in it). I'm not sure how closely it matches yours--but I think that right now the theory is *very* tightly integrated on the three points I mentioned.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoAnd I also think that if you "believe what GNS says about Narrativism" then you are associating yourself with a lot of the above even if you think, say, mutual CA's are possible ... because GNS pretty much says they aren't and the 'N' in GNS stands for Narrativism.

...I'm not sure about this.

Let's say that someone from the Forge sits down in front of me and says "I do this, and this, and this, and that's Narrativist play!"

I believe him.

He says "If I do this, and this, and this, with this game, it works better as a Narrativist game!"

I believe him.  I mean, it's his style of play.

That's what I do.  And this means I believe insulting things about gameplay in general?

Marco, I think you've hit the nail square on the head.

This is what I see from the forge, being on the outside.

Add to that questionable use of subjective research and conclusions curiously resembling self justification for a pre ordained ideal and an almost religious prosthelytizing in the form of games made with the idea of subverting the hobby and spreading further the faith.

Like the whole idea of removing the GM because the GM's job is hard and therefore not good for bringing new blood into the game.

Like the whole idea of making quick pickup games in order to eliminate the commitment necessary for longer term campaigns. Commitments that new players are reluctant to endure.

Like the whole idea of making small cheap simple games with a single mechanic so that games are more like simple boardgames in order to more easily appeal to new gamers.

Maybe laudable goals but failing endeavors largely because those games, to many, resemble a private dildo collection. Strange and perverse games turning new gamers off even more so than D&D.

However, I could just be a prude.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen...I'm not sure about this.

Let's say that someone from the Forge sits down in front of me and says "I do this, and this, and this, and that's Narrativist play!"

I believe him.

He says "If I do this, and this, and this, with this game, it works better as a Narrativist game!"

I believe him.  I mean, it's his style of play.

That's what I do.  And this means I believe insulting things about gameplay in general?

This is very close to the conversation I had with the guy. No--I think a general identification of play that conforms to a (badly defined--but still very recognizable)  thing that could be called Narrativism exists implies believing some of the more questionable stuff.

But I also think it's not fair to say "that's what The Forge says about Narrativism." The Forge says quite a few very concrete things about Narrativism (Nar is one of 3 mutually exclusive CA's, yadda, yadda). This concrete set of ideas is very closely tied to TITBB, Incoherence, and mutual-exclusivity.

This may be the same problem with terms like 'Forge Theory' that mean some very clearly defined things to a lot of people (the Articles section, TBM, GNS) and very, very general things to others (any thread that was started on TF).

What you are saying, I agree with. I think there is something that can be identified as Narrativism--and it's something I empathize with and enjoy (and I found Sorcerer to be a very interesting game I'd like to play again--ditto for DitV). But when I look at the actual theory that purports to describe these games, I think there are problems (maybe on the linguistic level as my friend suggested, maybe just on a good-old-fashioned us-vs-them level which is what I initially perceived).

-Marco

• Making the GM's job easier.
• Making it easier to get playing quickly.
• Making it possible to play quick pickup games instead of committing to a long-term campaign.
• Making games that borrow from the successes of card games and boardgames.

These are all rock solid goals, and have nothing to do with Forge Theory (GNS, Big Model) itself.  

A lot of "Forge Theorists" and/or Evangelists are on the right track with these good ideas -- it's just the RPG theory they're trying to model their games on that's mistaken.

Quote from: Marco* Incoherence
* The Impossible Thing
* Absolute CA incompatibility

That list is what made GNS the Internet juggernaut that it is.

That list:
1. Speaks to people who felt victimized by their RPG experiences (and makes it the game's fault rather than theirs).
2. Speaks to people who want to play "better" games than other people do.
3. Speaks to people who have extremely narrow tastes and felt resentment at more mixed groups.

100% Correct. This is my exact perception as well. The truest of the true believers definitely have an undercurrent of resentful, victimized, but somehow still superior.

As an example: there's a discussion going on right now about what games "hippie gamers" (wince) can "still enjoy", and certain people are talking about how mad gaming used to get them, (victimized, then resentful) so now they can't play anything but indie games (superior).

It's not just a one-time, one-person thing either; it's a very long-standing pattern.

Can someone explain the "Hippy Game" thing?  How are they Hippy games?  The 60s were cool and so are our games?  I don't get it.

Well, it used to be these claims about being "punk" (individualist and DIY aesthetic), but I guess they eventually dropped that as they became more of a collectivist ideology.

Now me, I'm a caveman gamer.

Quote from: Stuart

• Making the GM's job easier.
• Making it easier to get playing quickly.
• Making it possible to play quick pickup games instead of committing to a long-term campaign.
• Making games that borrow from the successes of card games and boardgames.

These are all rock solid goals, and have nothing to do with Forge Theory (GNS, Big Model) itself.  

A lot of "Forge Theorists" and/or Evangelists are on the right track with these good ideas -- it's just the RPG theory they're trying to model their games on that's mistaken.

I agree with you but only because of the way you've stated or couched those goals. They seem far removed from what the actual forge goals seem to be.

For instance it isn't really Making the GM's job easier but Dilute or eliminate the GM's role. If it were really the prior we would see a LOT more tools and ideas to help GM's in trad games instead of a desire to have completely different games competing for time and mind share.

I don't mean to be all bent out of shape over 'forgers' and their movement, I think that there have been some cool things. The game Faery's Tale for example (isn't it claimed as a triumph of forge theory?) is a great game. I like it largely because it retains most of what make the trad games so great.

Maybe it is Forge theory that is distorting those goals into what I see and don't care for. I suspect though that it's more fundamental, along the lines of what Marc was saying.

In the light of the goals that Marc illuminated, the Forge 'movement' makes much more sense to me.

Maybe, though, I'm just projecting or am paranoid.

Faey's Tale is 100% independent of the Forge.

Here's some music described as being "Hippy":


LIE: The Love & Terror Cult


The Family Jams

I still don't get the Hippy Games connection... :confused:

Quote from: Abyssal MawFaey's Tale is 100% independent of the Forge.

Really? I think that's good. Regardless, I like the game. Maybe I misunderstand but are not the ideal of really simple rules and mechanics geared toward empowering the players with their own fiat borrowed from the forge?

Quote from: darReally? I think that's good. Regardless, I like the game. Maybe I misunderstand but are not the ideal of really simple rules and mechanics geared toward empowering the players with their own fiat borrowed from the forge?

Thats the usual ad copy. In reality, what the forge is about involves replacing a perception of GM fiat (where it may or may not exist) with Game Designer fiat. Since Faery's Tale doesn't tell players what their characters should be moralizing or thematicizing (if that's even a word?) about, it doesn't quite count.