This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Forge Theory  (Read 20922 times)

Kyle Aaron

  • high-minded hack
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9487
  • high-minded hack
    • The Viking Hat GM
Forge Theory
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2007, 05:07:59 AM »
See? Two Forgers, three opinions! You're worse than rabbis!

If you want to know about GNS, get it straight from the horse's arse - er, the horse's mouth! Read the essays.

Of course, the OP would rather that we make four hours' effort explaining it to him, than he make one hour's effort learning it for himself.
The Viking Hat GM
Conflict, the adventure game of modern warfare
Wastrel Wednesdays, livestream with Dungeondelver

-E.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 1198
Forge Theory
« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2007, 09:22:20 AM »
Quote from: Elliot Wilen
I think it was more common to talk about a "group contract". In any case, the meaning of rgfa terms was altered considerably when Edwards started using them. However I did find at least one post on rgfa, by Carl Cravens in 1996, where he spoke about a "social contract" in terms very similar to the Forge concept.
As far as I know, Edwards never participated on rgfa, although he acknowledged reading it while developing his ideas. I think the first forum where he discussed the stuff that became GNS was The Gaming Outpost. Some other theories by other participants in those discussions, such as "GENder theory", also fed into GNS.


Thanks for the clarification! I'd missunderstood the degree of his participation, then... I've read some of the r.g.f.a stuff (and summaries by folks who participated) and I *thought* I found the term social contract... maybe I missed that.

Thanks,
-E.
 

TonyLB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 2274
Forge Theory
« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2007, 10:54:08 AM »
Quote from: JimBobOz
See? Two Forgers, three opinions! You're worse than rabbis!
Those of you who know Invader Zim?  Imagine the following in his voice:  "Worse?  Or ... BETTER?" :D
Superheroes with heart:  Capes!

bobmangm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • b
  • Posts: 58
Forge Theory
« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2007, 11:11:06 AM »
Assuming OP = Original Poster

He was actually all set after post #5.  This has gone on too long already, but thank you.
********
"Science without faith is lame, faith without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

"Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is easy." - Albert Einstein

arminius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7270
    • http://ewilen.livejournal.com/
Forge Theory
« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2007, 12:35:08 PM »
Quote from: -E.
Thanks for the clarification!
No prob.
Quote
I'd missunderstood the degree of his participation, then... I've read some of the r.g.f.a stuff (and summaries by folks who participated) and I *thought* I found the term social contract... maybe I missed that.


It is there (more than I implied above, if you do a search), but I don't think it was ever "jargonized" and capitalized, while "Group Contract" did achieve that status on rgfa. Generally, "Group Contract" was/is focused pretty clearly on how the group will approach the game (stuff like "PC glow", "script immunity", etc.), while Forgean "Social Contract" expands, contracts, and mutates depending on the speaker. It's especially problematic because at some point the leading Forge theorists began including the social relations of the players in their notion of "System", which creates problems for their hierarchical model.

-E.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 1198
Forge Theory
« Reply #20 on: January 15, 2007, 01:15:27 PM »
Quote from: Elliot Wilen
No prob.

It is there (more than I implied above, if you do a search), but I don't think it was ever "jargonized" and capitalized, while "Group Contract" did achieve that status on rgfa. Generally, "Group Contract" was/is focused pretty clearly on how the group will approach the game (stuff like "PC glow", "script immunity", etc.), while Forgean "Social Contract" expands, contracts, and mutates depending on the speaker. It's especially problematic because at some point the leading Forge theorists began including the social relations of the players in their notion of "System", which creates problems for their hierarchical model.


Yeah -- my point (which I don't think I actually wrote down) is that the ideal that the set of social conventions and expectations of the group are important in play is a reasonably useful insight...

It was one of the actual, usable ideas that I credited The Forge with coming up with before I learned it had basically come out of r.g.f.a.

The Forge's... extension? Use of the concept? TBM/GNS original thought on the subject has been more muddled advocacy than thought leadership.

Certainly TBM/GNS's "model" is broken beyond usability -- but I don't think anyone's really using it anymore.

My guess is that most of the folks who used to follow Forge Theory have more or less given up on a unified body of thought -- after the colapse of the forums and the Brain Damage, it ceased to serve it's primary utility (giving a veneer of intellectual respectability to what was essentially role-v-roll-play drivel).

Cheers,
-E.
 

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
Forge Theory
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2007, 01:27:49 PM »
Fantastic analysis, E.

RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

droog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4862
Forge Theory
« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2007, 04:34:02 PM »
Quote from: Elliot Wilen
It's especially problematic because at some point the leading Forge theorists began including the social relations of the players in their notion of "System", which creates problems for their hierarchical model.

No it doesn't. Look:

Social contract
Exploration
Techniques
Ephemera

with creative agenda comprising all of the layers.

Quote from: -E.
it ceased to serve it's primary utility (giving a veneer of intellectual respectability to what was essentially role-v-roll-play drivel).

I disagree. I was able to use the model to analyse my RQ game, which supposedly falls under one of the marginalised categories (ie Sim). The model is not about 'your type of game is bad'.

Most of the furore surrounding the model does not actually stem from any ramifications of CA. It stems from dispute over techniques, eg illusionist GMing.
The past lives on in your front room
The poor still weak the rich still rule
History lives in the books at home
The books at home

Gang of Four
[/size]

-E.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 1198
Forge Theory
« Reply #23 on: January 15, 2007, 05:36:38 PM »
Quote from: droog
I disagree. I was able to use the model to analyse my RQ game, which supposedly falls under one of the marginalised categories (ie Sim). The model is not about 'your type of game is bad'.

Most of the furore surrounding the model does not actually stem from any ramifications of CA. It stems from dispute over techniques, eg illusionist GMing.


I guess we could discuss what it means to "use the model" for a purpose. People say the model has been used to analyze games, to design games, to analyze play, etc.

In RPG Theory, "using the theory" means almost nothing -- some folks would tell you they were "using the theory" if they thought about it as they wrote or played their game. Contrast this to other theories used in, say, design or even art analysis which provide far more of a framework, predictive models, etc. (TBM/GNS does provide predictive models -- it predicts power-struggle and brain damage -- these are absurd).

I don't think there's a framework which allows one to really use the theory, but let's look at your claim:

You've identifed RQ as a Sim game which, according to the theory, is shorthand for "facilitates the prioritization of the Sim agenda during play."

The Sim agenda is currently undefined -- so it's not really possible to categorize any game as SIM...

Further, the theory doesn't explain *how* a game might facilitate the Sim agenda during play -- it doesn't provide one with a framework for judging mechanics, flavor text, etc.

So any judgement that RQ is a "Sim facilitating game" (whatever that means) is purely ideosyncratic.

Btw: you see this kind of confusion all the time. Is The Riddle of Steel a Nar game or a Sim game or a Gamist-facilitating-game? There are good arguments to be made for all of them. The theory, itself, provides no good guidance... it's all a matter of analyst opinion.

And so-on.

Without knowing what kind of analysis you're performing or what insights the model you're applying delivers, it's hard for me to guess what you're doing (due to the currently-broken-nature of SIM, I doubt you're applying GNS)... What I suspect you're doing is looking at your game through the r.g.f.a lense, and getting some insight from that. Which would make sense.

In a lot of forums, you see someone come in and say, "Hey! All GNS says is that different people come to the game with different priorities! What could be  contraversial about that?!"

But, of course, GNS doesn't really say that (to the extent it does say that, r.g.f.a said it better and first) -- GNS has always worked best at the facil, trivial level of assessment. It's not really suitable for deeper analysis or design activities.

Cheers,
-E.
 

-E.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 1198
Forge Theory
« Reply #24 on: January 15, 2007, 05:37:38 PM »
Quote from: RPGPundit
Fantastic analysis, E.

RPGPundit


Thanks! I'm doing my part to add clarity and precision to the RPG Theory dialog.

Cheers,
-E.
 

Abyssal Maw

  • some random jerk!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5624
Forge Theory
« Reply #25 on: January 15, 2007, 06:43:54 PM »
One of the reasons the S in GNS remains undefined is actually the dark secret of the Forge.

Let me explain:

GNS actually comes from GDS. That's "gamism, dramatism,simulationism". This is the idea that when you observe people playing, some are more or less in it for the game elements, some are more or less in it for the simulation (of any given thing- be it cinematic kung-fu or 1812 war reenactment or whatever), and some are more or less in it for the story. GDS is actually very forgiving in that it doesn't say being into one thing excludes you from being in anything else, or that you can be more or less G-N or S all at once or at any given point.  

Ok, but you can't make marketing propaganda out of that. Because that just basicly describes normal behavior, and I don't even think it was meant to be inclusive or exclusive. It's just some general dsescriptive RGFA bullshit.

So it was subtly changed. What narrativism is currently defined as is this narrow narrow thing: those games that have a specific theme and a premise-statement (not actually a premise, but a "thematic question". Turns out Ron is a bat-penis guy, not a literature expert), and that 'create stories' by the acts of the players dealing with the premise-statement.

In other words, it creates a simulation of a short story from the outside in. See, first the players define the theme and the premise, and then they just fill in the mad libs with characters who address the premise. They often don't even actually encourage in-character speech. Heck, often the players of these games don't even remember the names of their PCs. The rejection of the serial campaign as a mode of play is tied up into the desire to create a simulation of a short story. Or a TV series. (as in Indie darling PTA) : with a "producer" and "fan mail". Tell me that isn't a simulation!

In short: The reason forgies have never been able to address simulationism, (and have never been able to explain why narrativism on their terms is so narrowly defined) is because they are the simulationists.

Nearly everything else is marketing blather.
Download Secret Santicore! (10MB). I painted the cover :)

Abyssal Maw

  • some random jerk!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5624
Forge Theory
« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2007, 07:00:14 PM »
This is also the reason they worked so hard to define what a story is: you can't simulate what you can't define.

This is also the reason the definition they all arrived at for what a story is does not actually define a story, but rather a moral parable.

This also explains the weird beef they have with D&D: there is overwhelming evidence that many D&D players are creating incredible stories (because of the way campaigns are structured, they really can't help it). Because everyone knows D&D players are unwashed peasants and cavemen, this isn't really acceptable.

It just doesn't fit in the theory! This is one of those situations when they look at the chart, and then compare it to the coastline, and when the coastline looks different, they conclude that the coastline must be "wrong" somehow, rather than the chart.
Download Secret Santicore! (10MB). I painted the cover :)

Keran

  • Guest
Forge Theory
« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2007, 02:10:32 AM »
Quote from: -E.
Here's a very quick breakdown:

1) Back before there was a Forge, there was Usenet. It was a wild place. Many of the folks here, at RPG.net, and at The Forge participated in a news group calle rec.games.fantasy.advocacy (or something) -- r.g.f.a., for short.

In case nobody else mentioned this, it's rec.games.frp.advocacy.  It was set up to siphon flamewars of the "GURPS sucks!  Hero rocks!" variety from rec.games.frp.misc, but serious discussion broke out when people started trying to explain exactly why they preferred one system or approach to another.

Quote
3) Ron Edwards created The Forge to develop & advance his own ideas -- he was one of several voices in r.g.f.a -- at The Forge, thanks to his moderation style, he was / is the only one that matters.

I think someone else did mention this, but I don't ever remember Edwards posting in rgfa, and if he ever actually read it he did an amazingly poor job of it, because he screwed up practically every concept that ever came out of rgfa to such an extent that it's difficult to believe he understood the general thrust of discussion.

droog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4862
Forge Theory
« Reply #28 on: January 16, 2007, 02:33:12 AM »
Quote from: -E.
You've identifed RQ as a Sim game which, according to the theory, is shorthand for "facilitates the prioritization of the Sim agenda during play."

The Sim agenda is currently undefined -- so it's not really possible to categorize any game as SIM...

Wrong on both counts. Firstly, I did not define RQ as 'a Sim game' at any point. What I said was that our group used RQ in playing a sim agenda, and that for some time the system was an aid in that. I also provided reasons why I thought so.

Secondly, the sim agenda is defined. It's defined as Being There, Celebration, Dreaming, and any number of other phrases people have thought up; all along the same lines. 'Make-believe', you might call it. 'Escaping' would be another possibility (going on Tolkien's positive definition of escape in On Fairy Tales).

Quote from: -E.
Further, the theory doesn't explain *how* a game might facilitate the Sim agenda during play -- it doesn't provide one with a framework for judging mechanics, flavor text, etc.

There are a few answers to that, old sport. First, it's no surprise that a bunch of people uninterested in sim haven't developed much in the way of simminess.

Second. that sort of thing emerges during discussions at the Forge (sometimes other places). Mike Holmes, for instance, has said quite a lot over the years about his take on sim.

Third, if that's what you want, you could always pitch in and help develop it. It's all most definitely a work in progress. If you're no good at theorising or designing you could always do some collating (eg of various insights into sim gaming).
The past lives on in your front room
The poor still weak the rich still rule
History lives in the books at home
The books at home

Gang of Four
[/size]

Levi Kornelsen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • L
  • Posts: 2054
Forge Theory
« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2007, 02:40:46 AM »
Quote from: droog
(going on Tolkien's positive definition of escape in On Fairy Tales).


That would be a damn fine way of describing something that I have seen in games.

I don't know if it's "sim", but I get it.