I wonder how many Forge theorists have backgrounds in Literary Theory, Film Theory, etc. and how many have backgrounds in Biological Science, Computer Science, etc instead.

Quote from: John MorrowWhen I spent time living in Japan, I stopped playing with my regular group and they ran a long campaign that all of the players enjoyed.  When I returned, I had no desire to join that campaign and I've had little interest in attempts to run other games in the same setting.  Why?  Because when people run long-term campaigns, the players develop a shared experience that's very difficult for other people to step into without changing anything.  

If I had joined that campaign after a year or more of playing, I would have changed the game simply because I would have brought a different  perspective to the table.  It would have had nothing to do with style clash or incompatible objectives.  It would have had to do with a shared history in the game, or a lack of it, and a difference in the composition of the gaming group.  A social issue.  And in my experience, such changes can cause problems even when the added person has played successful games with the same people in the past.

That's an interesting little story, John Morrow, and worth discussing in a thread of its own about new players in old groups.

Quote from: droogNo, system matters. If system did not matter, you would enjoy DitV as I do. and I would enjoy D&D as lots of people do.

Correct.  But does it matter in the sense that the Forge theory says it matters?  My issues with DitV have little to do with it's Creative Agenda (after all, I've been told that I may play games like a Narrativist), for example.  They have more to do with stance issues and a very particular issue that's not distinguished in the model (e.g., Vincent Baker does not have the same problem I have).

Quote from: droogI don't think it can be seriously entertained that system does not have a major impact on how the game plays. Now, if you're going to ignore the game and play by your own system, it still matters. It just means that system may be harder for somebody else to learn.

System (in the sense of the game rules a group uses) can certainly have a major impact on how the game plays, especially if the group uses the rules and written.  The broader question is whether it matters the way Forge theory predicts it does.

Quote from: droogNow, at a gut level, I know what DitV does for me (and everybody else I've seen play). But that's design stuff that I'm not good at addressing. Give me some time and I might be able to put a reply together, but after all I'm not getting money or paper qualifications out of this. There's a limit to how far I'm willing to go in the interests of internet debate.

Hey, whatever you have time for.  You are under no obligation to answer.

Quote from: droogI don't agree. I think there's now a general consensus on the forums that incoherency in a game can work (and the Big Model itself doesn't even address the issue). I postulated before that one effect of incoherency might be to place more responsibility on the social level for making the game work. What do you think?

The problem is that you seem to assume that incoherency normally won't work and your ealier comments make it sound as if it's some sort of miracle when it does.  Yes, I agree that putting more responsibility on the social level is one way to make it work and that's part of what I've been trying to say (e.g., compromise).  But part of what I was also trying to explain with my restaurant analogy is that if your game consists of people who can have fun in multiple styles of play, aren't bothered by other styles of play, and/or who are willing to a focus on the parts of their style that play well with other styles, an incoherent game can work very well without anyone having to work very hard at it.  

Many people don't have narrow preferences.  Even to the extent that I say I don't like things, I'm often fairly tolerant of them and can have fun with them in practice so long as they don't get excessive.  But that's exactly what following Forge theory to run a coherent game will produce -- a game that excessively favors a single style.

Quote from: droogI'd suggest that you drop trying to question my relationship with Glenn. It will get you nowhere. Consider that if I wanted to, I could have given you any impression I liked.

I never saw it as an issue of your relationship with Glenn, but I'll drop it.  I will however, point out that it's a bit unfair to drop an example into an argument and then refuse to allow others to dig into it and figure out if it fits or not and whether it proves the point or not.

Quote from: John MorrowSystem (in the sense of the game rules a group uses) can certainly have a major impact on how the game plays, especially if the group uses the rules and written.  The broader question is whether it matters the way Forge theory predicts it does.

This is a classic example of theory nonsense -- the sort of thing that ensures that RPG theory won't be taken seriously until it's cleaned up.

System Does Matter means something very specific and GNS-related in GNS/TBM.

Of course, since GNS/TBM is so badly constructued, GNS-SDM is pretty much meaningless (Proof: GNS/TBM is meaningless, so anything referencing it is meaningless).

Of course RPG Theorists know this, so when they talk about System Does Matter they mean... what?

That people can tell the difference between D&D and Traveler, and so System must matter *somehow*?

Note how something that is supposed to deliver insight and meaning becomes a worthless generality when someone actually tries to apply it.

The same thing happened hear, a few posts earlier, with D&D 3.5 and "Coherent." Coherent has both a general, English-language meaning and a GNS/TBM meaning. When someone's actually *using* the theory, they're using the English language definition... in an attempt to illustrate the value of the theory!

Magic! But if you know how the trick is done, it's not entertaining anymore... and it clearly doesn't support the things the theory has to say about System Mattering or Incoherence, or anything else.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.You're surprised when people take offense at a theory loaded with Brain Damage, Power-Struggle, talk of gamers being turtles -- of having gripping protagonism with "stump-fingered hands"

To be perfectly honest, I don't think that's as important as a lot of people do.  I'll explain why below.

Quote from: -E.Droog, people at The Forge (and on boards like Story Games) are *astonished* when they receive a less-than-warm reception...

Near the end of the "Golden Age", rec.games.frp.advoacy was greeted with the same sort of hostility as the terminology spilled out into other Usenet groups like rec.games.frp.misc.  For example, see this message that I wrote in 2000 explaining how the rec.games.frp.advocacy terminology developed on rec.games.frp.moderated:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.moderated/msg/e7f3772aadaf5cc6?dmode=source

...and Bruce Baugh's first two responses, before he realized what he was doing...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.moderated/msg/117bb1b745b7a589?dmode=source

...and...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.moderated/msg/b4c2063b316c67b6?dmode=source

I'm choosing this example not to pick on Bruce in particular but because his quick explosion reflects the bad feelings that many people had at the time about that model (despite all of the warm and fuzzy "Golden Age" talk you'll hear these days) and he explains why he feels that way.  

To some degree, when the Forge theories borrowed r.g.f.a terminology, it inherented this hostility.  But more importantly, the dominant face of r.g.f.a was never as nasty as the comments that you cite above.  So to be fair I think the problem runs much deeper than insults and Ron.

At the time, I was pretty astonished at the hostility people showed toward r.g.f.a theory (and to this day, I can't understand the particular hostility directed toward Mary Kuhner).  In other words, I've seen this problem from both sides (as a true believer and as an outsider).

Quote from: -E.Astonished that *anyone* could take offense at a theory that calls popular games "incoherent" (and then claims that's a neutral term) and states their popularity has nothing to do with being fun, or having a compelling setting, but is a function of "economic factors"

While I'd agree that all of those things are big problems, even if Ron had simply taken the r.g.f.a theory and used it as is, he'd have critics.  See Bruce's comments above.  Those aren't directed toward the GNS.  Those are directed toward the r.g.f.a Threefold.

As someone who has been an insider and an outsider, I think the problem is that sweeping theories like both the GDS and GNS insist on forcing things into categories that don't always fit.  In a broader sense, they often associate things that aren't tied together, split things apart that are, and miss important factors that just aren't discussed in the theory.  I do think that r.g.f.a theory was less messy than Forge theory, but I can't say that isn't just my own personal bias speaking.

Quote from: -E.But, I don't think they do -- I think the theory is popular because it draws fire. A good number of people here and other places simply get off on the conflict.

They have to be -- they're certainly not talking or thinking deeply about *games*

While I think that may always be true of certain people in the debate, I prefer to think that Forge advocates are discussing the theories in what the believe is good faith unless proven otherwise.  I do think that some of Ron's messages (the honest and "brutal" variety) and the messages of some of his appologists make me assume otherwise of individuals, but I don't assume that's true of the majority of Forge people as a whole.

Quote from: John MorrowTo be perfectly honest, I don't think that's as important as a lot of people do.  I'll explain why below.


At the time, I was pretty astonished at the hostility people showed toward r.g.f.a theory (and to this day, I can't understand the particular hostility directed toward Mary Kuhner).  In other words, I've seen this problem from both sides (as a true believer and as an outsider).

While I'd agree that all of those things are big problems, even if Ron had simply taken the r.g.f.a theory and used it as is, he'd have critics.  See Bruce's comments above.  Those aren't directed toward the GNS.  Those are directed toward the r.g.f.a Threefold.

As someone who has been an insider and an outsider, I think the problem is that sweeping theories like both the GDS and GNS insist on forcing things into categories that don't always fit.  In a broader sense, they often associate things that aren't tied together, split things apart that are, and miss important factors that just aren't discussed in the theory.  I do think that r.g.f.a theory was less messy than Forge theory, but I can't say that isn't just my own personal bias speaking.

You make some good points -- and I certainly can't disagree that, with any theory, there will be critics.

Further: With any sizeable or complex body of work, people who dismiss it without reading it are irritating (I have been on both sides of this issue, as well) -- certainly Baugh's assessment of how the "typical GDS discussion" goes sounds somewhat familiar.

So if hostility toward any body of theory is a given, does that make the hostility generated by *all* theories equal?

And does that obviate the responsibility on the part of the theorists for taking part in generating a hostile dialog?

I answer "no" to both of my own questions (I'm interested to hear your answers) --

In reverse order: If I ever tell *anyone* they're in-denial about something, and I'm not their therapist or close friend, I expect dramatic hostility. If I don't *want* a fight, I need to find a different way to approach the issue (and it's best if I stop deluding myself that I'm qualified to make that diagnosis).

Let me be clear: I find you entirely reasonable and insightful; I have no idea if Bruce's accusation (in the post you linked to) was accurate or not -- and if it was accurate (i.e. if GDS-Holy-Warriors were diagnosing people across the Void of Usenet) that doesn't mean the GDS guys were *wrong* (maybe the folks arguing against the framework *were* in denial).

But it's still an approach guaranteed to generate hostility.

Anyone using that approach is responsible for the hostility they generate.

I think there are ways to frame theories -- even ones that label people -- without generating hostility... and if you can't find a way to apply a label from your theory to folks in a way that seems okay with them, it's a good bet your theory is fundamentally offensive.

The Forge guys have been told this many times -- they know it -- and they keep doing it (since the Brain Damage there has been less "you're in denial" and less "the theory isn't actually insulting... it's just you" stuff coming out).

I also know that a good deal of effort within the theory community has been spent trying to find less inflamatory ways to express some of the basic principles -- so it's not like this is a big mystery to them (if anyone's interested, I think there are a few basic changes that would make the theory 80% less inflamatory)

Finally, in terms of all-theories-finding-resistance:

There are a *lot* of theories out there. I'm sure all of them have their academic communities full of sharp swords. However, I don't know of any sizable body of people upset by Robin Law's classification of gamers. I know that the framework used in the WotC market research hasn't drawn many barbs in the places I've read (some people take issue with the research itself, but I haven't seen anyone call the categories insulting).

Clearly Forge Theory is a bit of a different animal. Why is this?

It's in the language of *revolution* -- GNS/TBM isn't here to explain how your game works or help you be a better DM.

It's the INDY REVOLUTION! It's *nuking* -- not just tipping over, but NUKING the applecart.

It's war (and if you don't believe me, look at Ron's posts at the end of the theory forums).

And it appeals to folks who want a war -- not, coincidentally, a similar group to those who enjoy RPG's but find the hugely popular and widely played games dysfunctional.

I don't detect a level of bitterness or us-v-them, or separatism (independence from... what? The big Corporate sponsorship that the mega-stars have?) in GDS. I don't see it in any of the other RPG theories I'm familiar with.

In terms of "good faith" the only places where I don't see "good faith" are in the overt appologism and posts that suggests the theorist is *knows better* but is trying to *help* disenfranchised gamers by presenting the theory instead of truth -- both of which happen --

But showing up wanting a fight isn't necessarily bad-faith: just go to any punk rock show -- it's what gets some people out of bed in the morning.

I prefer the punk-rock, in-your-face variety, however -- I prefer Brain Damage  to, "My, oh my?! Why is everyone angry at us?"

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.There are a *lot* of theories out there. I'm sure all of them have their academic communities full of sharp swords. However, I don't know of any sizable body of people upset by Robin Law's classification of gamers. I know that the framework used in the WotC market research hasn't drawn many barbs in the places I've read (some people take issue with the research itself, but I haven't seen anyone call the categories insulting).

It's because that stuff is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's saying, "going by what people have told us, this is how things look," rather than, "I reckon things are like so-and-so, so this is what you should do." The tone of the stuff is questioning, open-minded, and is overall positive about gamers. Whereas that other stuff is lecturing, closed-minded, and overall negative.

People like it when you show curiosity about them. It's well-known that if you want someone to find you an interesting conversationist, you should say, "tell me about yourself." "He's really interesting, he talks about me!" Questioning, like WotC and Robin Laws do, shows interest in and respect for people. People like that.

People like open-mindedness more than they like closed-mindedness. If you say, "I think this, and won't respond to any questions about it," that pisses people off. If you say, "I think this, what do you guys think?" then that interests people.

People like positiveness, hopefulness and optimism more than they like negativity, despair and pessimism. If you say, "you can probably have a great game if you do some of these things," people will be happy with it, even if they quibble over the details. If you say, "you're incapable of understanding what fun is, the whole hobby is broken," people don't like that much.

Be questioning, open-minded, and positive, and your ideas will be received enthusiatically. Be lecturing, closed-minded and negative, and your ideas will be roundly rejected except by lost and miserable people.

That's just human nature, nothing specifically rpg-ish in it.

Quote from: -E.So if hostility toward any body of theory is a given, does that make the hostility generated by *all* theories equal?

And does that obviate the responsibility on the part of the theorists for taking part in generating a hostile dialog?

I answer "no" to both of my own questions (I'm interested to hear your answers) --

Oh, I agree with you.  But my point is that at least some of the hostility would be there even if Ron didn't periodically give one of his "long and brutal" repllies that insult lots of people.

Quote from: -E.Let me be clear: I find you entirely reasonable and insightful; I have no idea if Bruce's accusation (in the post you linked to) was accurate or not -- and if it was accurate (i.e. if GDS-Holy-Warriors were diagnosing people across the Void of Usenet) that doesn't mean the GDS guys were *wrong* (maybe the folks arguing against the framework *were* in denial).

Bruce's response in that particular case was over-the-top and he admits as much later on in the thread, after some other people point out what he's doing.  But I think it reflected the general hostility floating around at the time toward the GDS and the overly enthusiastic use of that model at the time.

Quote from: -E.There are a *lot* of theories out there. I'm sure all of them have their academic communities full of sharp swords. However, I don't know of any sizable body of people upset by Robin Law's classification of gamers. I know that the framework used in the WotC market research hasn't drawn many barbs in the places I've read (some people take issue with the research itself, but I haven't seen anyone call the categories insulting).

Correct.  In fact, I think Robin Laws' classifications are probably the best out there right now.  He improved upon Glenn Blacow's model which goes back to 1980.

Quote from: -E.Clearly Forge Theory is a bit of a different animal. Why is this?

It's in the language of *revolution* -- GNS/TBM isn't here to explain how your game works or help you be a better DM.

I think it's a bit more than that, which is why I pointed out the hostility to the GDS.  Both models were used by people to tell other people what they were doing and, probably much worse, what they did or didn't find fun.  In other words, the conceit of both models is that they can tell people what they will or won't like and used by over-enthusiastic advocates, that's nearly as offensive as being told you are in denial.  

But I think the problem that bothered Bruce Baugh and others, and which I see from the outside in Forge theory, is that the theories force you to discuss issues in a certain framework and that framework warps not only how you think about thinks but what you'll think about at all.  I didn't see that from the inside on r.g.f.a but I certainly see it on the outside at The Forge.

Quote from: -E.I don't detect a level of bitterness or us-v-them, or separatism (independence from... what? The big Corporate sponsorship that the mega-stars have?) in GDS. I don't see it in any of the other RPG theories I'm familiar with.

Correct, but I don't see that bitterness or us-v-them or seperatism in all of the Forge people, either.  I think they've simply hitched their cart to a nasty horse.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect, but I don't see that bitterness or us-v-them or seperatism in all of the Forge people, either.  I think they've simply hitched their cart to a nasty horse.

I've snipped most of your reply -- it deserves a longer post and more time to think about than I have time for here.

Especially your observation that once one has adopted a language (a theory framework) it may limit what one is able to think about. I did some reading on linguistic theory a year ago or so (for a campaign, actually), and ran into a very similar notion... (well, two theories of how language might work)

However, I wanted to address the part I quoted since it's come up here and on RPG.net before:

A lot of people who participate in and support The Forge dislike the blowback they get from being... Forgistas? Forgites? People who participate in and support The Forge.

They tell me it seems unfair that they should be tarred with a brush aimed at Ron Edwards and the more problematic posters.

I'm not actually qualified to judge "fair" -- but I think that anyone who realizes that the cart they've hooked up to comes with ... baggage (I feel like I'm overloading the metaphor) is responsible for remaining hooked to that cart.

And it's certainly possible to un-hook one's self.

I have some sympathy for a minority of Forge participants who *I* don't see as part-of-the-problem -- I'm thinking of the three well-known posters in the Brain Damage thread who spoke up unambigously against the nonsense.

But they aren't the ones I see complaining. In fact, the folks I've seen complain about a chilly reception tend to *agree* with a lot of the worst of the theory.

Once again, the Sword of Truth (the Brain Damage) is a good test: if you're a Forge Poster and your answer to a question like, "What do you think about the Brain Damage" would be something like:

 "Ah--see, I disagree with this little *part* of it..." or "I, ahem, wouldn't have said it that way," or, "it's just a metaphor..." you can be pretty sure that any hostility you're getting is something you've signed up for and should expect.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: JimBobOzPeople like positiveness, hopefulness and optimism more than they like negativity, despair and pessimism.

All true, and all good points -- of course there *is* a minority that responds to the Dark Side -- those who feel disenfranchised by the mainstream.

But as you've pointed out here and elsehwere, that's far from being "most gamers."

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: John MorrowBut I think the problem that bothered Bruce Baugh and others, and which I see from the outside in Forge theory, is that the theories force you to discuss issues in a certain framework and that framework warps not only how you think about thinks but what you'll think about at all. I didn't see that from the inside on r.g.f.a but I certainly see it on the outside at The Forge.

And might I just peak in to point out, that for all of the bluster and swearing and such, this is I think what Pundit tries to say about how theory should be discussed here.  That is, let's not assume a framework and see if we can talk about things without all the baggage.

It's the one thing of his (one of the few things) with which I agree...

Quote from: -E.I'm just being obliging.

Yeah, right. Look, talk or not. It's no skin off my nose. But until you can remove that big old chip, you'll have to talk to somebody else.

Quote from: StuartI wonder how many Forge theorists have backgrounds in Literary Theory, Film Theory, etc. and how many have backgrounds in Biological Science, Computer Science, etc instead.

I have some lit theory, rather more visual arts theory, and a whole lot of political theory. I wasn't a science guy at school.

Mind you, it'd be presumptuous of me to call myself a theorist.

Quote from: -E.Let me be clear: I find you entirely reasonable and insightful; I have no idea if Bruce's accusation (in the post you linked to) was accurate or not -- and if it was accurate (i.e. if GDS-Holy-Warriors were diagnosing people across the Void of Usenet) that doesn't mean the GDS guys were *wrong* (maybe the folks arguing against the framework *were* in denial).

Mmm, well.  The Threefold described some useful insights, insights critical to some people's enjoyment of play.  It obscures other aspects of play, aspects critical to other people.  (I find that it does both at once, in different ways.)

Some people who felt that it incisively described the distinctive aspects of their play, throwing into high relief what they needed to analyze, found it very useful on a practical basis, and so defended it.

Some people who seemed primarily to be interested in social power struggles defended it fiercely and obnoxiously because acceptance of the Threefold defined an in-group and an out-group: they could put down critics with most of the same sort of rubbish Forge fanatics tend to throw at critics of Forge theory ("If you think it's wrong, you obviously haven't understood it.")

Some people who criticized it did so because it insisted on a necessary antipathy between effects that they always found complementary, and therefore hindered their thinking about how to get the most out of play; or because it made it hard, rather than easy, to make distinctions they needed to make.

Some people who criticized it did so out of pretentious anti-intellectualism: "Obviously, anyone who ever classifies anything does so out of elitist snobbery, and has no other motive, and lacks the common sense and insight of Those of Us Whe Don't Need to Think Because We're So Cool We Just Automatically Get It, Unlike You, You Pretentious Cretin.  How dare you categorize and label me! (How dare you describe a difference that you see by using different words to refer to different qualities! The nerve!)"  That is, for some people being a Threefold critic was another way of asserting social status and superior virtue, belonging to a group, and getting attention.

As soon as rgfa had an orthodoxy with Defenders of the Threefold Faith in one corner, and the Champions of Freedom from Categorization and That There Snobbish  Pretentious High Falutin' Analytical Thinking in the other, it became socially impossible to have a useful discussion in which the Threefold played much part, if one found it neither useless nor perfect.

... I don't know that I'd use the word 'accurate' or 'inaccurate' of Bruce Baugh's reaction.  He was one of those who didn't find the Threefold useful, and he had good social and personal reasons for his response.  On the other other hand, there were good social and personal reasons for some of the Threefold defenders to be strongly attached to the theory: some of the criticism of the Threefold really was coming from Story Uber Alles types who denied the existence or legitimacy of any preference but their own.  Problem was, that wasn't the motive or the real thrust of the argument in other superficially similar cases to which Threefold defenders reacted the same way, and that reaction added a lot of heat to the proceedings without greatly increasing the light.

From my perspective, rgfa was interesting and produced useful insights when the arguments were many-sided -- when people were arguing enough different positions that nobody could consistently identify an Us or a Them. When things consolidated enough so that there were Threefold defenders and Threefold critics as identifiable groups, the tenor of discourse changed.  It became impossible to attack or defend a position solely on its merits while avoiding association with one party or the other, and avoiding the guilt-by-association of the supercharged rhetoric of the attack dogs on both sides.

I found this frustrating because I found the Threefold both insightful and badly flawed; I wanted to explore the flaws in order to develop further insights; in the social atmosphere that prevailed in the latter days, it was impossible for me to do that in practice.  My life offline was extremely stressful and I definitely wasn't in my best debating-without-heat form, but even if I had been, I don't think I could have extracted useful discussion from the Us vs. Them dynamic.

QuoteI don't detect a level of bitterness or us-v-them, or separatism (independence from... what? The big Corporate sponsorship that the mega-stars have?) in GDS. I don't see it in any of the other RPG theories I'm familiar with.

Well, the Threefold did cause its share of flaming rows ... from one perspective.

From another, it caused nary a one of them.  It was never any theory that caused a row: it was always someone insisting that he knew more than the other person about how the other person really experienced play (no matter what he said he experienced), or how the other person really thought about it (no matter what he said he thought).

Rgfa theory had some semantic tripwires in it, things that are likely to lead to disagreements, but I don't think rgfa terminology has the attitude built into the Forge glossary, even if some of the individuals sometimes presented their position with a similar attitude.

Quote from: John MorrowThe problem is that you seem to assume that incoherency normally won't work and your ealier comments make it sound as if it's some sort of miracle when it does.  Yes, I agree that putting more responsibility on the social level is one way to make it work and that's part of what I've been trying to say (e.g., compromise).  But part of what I was also trying to explain with my restaurant analogy is that if your game consists of people who can have fun in multiple styles of play, aren't bothered by other styles of play, and/or who are willing to a focus on the parts of their style that play well with other styles, an incoherent game can work very well without anyone having to work very hard at it.

Very well. I suggest that this is where we must leave it. We agree that, in principle, a game without a coherent agenda can work. I think we'd have to look at cases before saying any more. Do you agree?

Quote from: John MorrowMany people don't have narrow preferences.  Even to the extent that I say I don't like things, I'm often fairly tolerant of them and can have fun with them in practice so long as they don't get excessive.  But that's exactly what following Forge theory to run a coherent game will produce -- a game that excessively favors a single style.

Well, 'excessively' must be relative. But yes – the general design trend around the Forge is to make highly-focused games. That goes along with the idea that no one game provides for all your needs; therefore, you will play various games of different styles instead of one game bent to different styles.

We accept this idea with board games or card games. I don't like to play poker or rummy, but I love a round of cribbage or euchre. I don't expect people to change the rules of poker so that it plays like cribbage – I just don't go to poker nights.

These sorts of games suit people for different reasons. Calithena at RPG.net finds the simplicity and charm of brown-box D&D. I find pace and intensity. Many of us appreciate games that don't take so long to play.

I'm pretty sure there's nobody who likes every single game associated with the Forge. I know I don't (and meanwhile one of my favourites seems to be languishing). But I think the idea of focused, short, intense games is an excellent one.

(On the other hand, I'm still officially running the stoners' game I started in 1984. But I will never run another game like that. I've got about forty or fifty more years on this earth and I've got to make it count.)