Quote from: John MorrowI 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.

The problem is that you're not taking my word for some things. I'm going to try once more to explain the situation:

Social: Glenn became friends with all of the group through a mutual friend in about '89. He was already a roleplayer, and played a heap of games with about a dozen other unemployed guys. In about '91, he asked if he could join our game. He wanted to hang out with us more.

If there was a social problem, it was that we couldn't bring ourselves to kick Glenn out when problems started to appear.

Setting: We were all hideous setting buffs. You have no idea how well-versed we all were in the arcane lore of Glorantha, nor how important that was in our game. Glenn didn't care. He just wanted to kick ass, or maybe have dramatic scenes, but not our slow, meandering pace where we lingered over every detail of Glorantha and made further observations and speculations.

System: We played RQ, and Glenn was a GURPS boy (those guys used GURPS for everything). We all thought RQ was a very fine system, and we bridled at complaints from Glenn. Plus, Glenn played in a very hard-core powergaming way with his other groups and he brought that edge to our gentle simulationist paradise where nobody reamed the system.

Do you see that where we clashed was in the sphere of the game? That it wasn't really anybody's fault, just mismatched agendas? That a different game could have accomodated Glenn, but this game was set along lines that couldn't be altered without destroying its texture (which we valued)?

Quote from: droogThe problem is that you're not taking my word for some things. I'm going to try once more to explain the situation:

The problem is that I see evidence in the very details that you are providing that you aren't really considering all of the relevant details.  Let's drop the whole phrase "social problem", since that seems to be a big sticking point and deal with the details I'm looking.  I'm not trying to call you, your group, or Glenn bad people.

Quote from: droogSocial: [...]If there was a social problem, it was that we couldn't bring ourselves to kick Glenn out when problems started to appear.

That's one issue, but not really the one I'm looking at.  My main point here is that there were two other paths not taken here (beyond what happened by default -- Glenn leaving the game), presuming they weren't physically impossible.  

The first was for the group to adjust the game to make it more to Glenn's liking.  Yes, I know you rejected that option and may be been quite justified in doing so, but it was an option that was rejected because you valued the continuity and continuation of your 7-year campaign over making the game more pleasant for Glenn.  I'm not judging your choice.  I'm pointing out that it was a trade-off that you made and it's a very important one when dealing with coherency.

The second is that Glenn could have tried to figure out how to enjoy your existing style of play in that campaign.  That's not always possible but I've found out that it's not always impossible, either.  And this goes to the point I was making about people with narrow preferences vs. broad preferences.  If your game wasn't Glenn's favorite style of game, he might still have enjoyed it if he were more flexible about how he played and what he enjoyed.  Again, I'm not judging Glenn for being himself.  I'm simply explaining that it was a contributing factor that's not always an issue.

So basically the three options are:

• Other players adapt to player that is unhappy to improve the game for them.
• Player that is unhappy adapts to other players and learns how to have fun with them.
• Player that feels unhappy leaves the group.

Just because your group did not use two of those three options for that game, perhaps with very good and perfectly justified reason (see my next point below), does not mean that those options don't exist for other situations and other groups.  And it's within those other options that people figure out how to make incoherent games work.

Quote from: droogSetting: We were all hideous setting buffs. You have no idea how well-versed we all were in the arcane lore of Glorantha, nor how important that was in our game. Glenn didn't care. He just wanted to kick ass, or maybe have dramatic scenes, but not our slow, meandering pace where we lingered over every detail of Glorantha and made further observations and speculations.

And my point here is that the "hideousness" of your group's style combined with the fairly narrow goals that Glenn had didn't overlap because they were narrow.  Yes, incoherent games can be a problem with groups and people like that.  But suppose your group had cared a bit less about the setting in that game and Glenn cared a bit more about it, in other words, if you were all a bit more flexible.  It would have been easier to find some overlap where you could all have fun.  

Again, that's how many people make incoherent games work.  While their primary interests are different, their broader interests overlap enough that they can find a happy compromise.  In your case, it doesn't sound like that was possible for this game, at which point not playing together may have been the only option.  That that's a very specific and (I think) in some ways fairly unusual example.

And note that I am not trying to say that having narrow preferences makes someone a bad person.  I'm simply saying that it makes it less likely that you'll have fun in a game with people with different preferences.  I have some very narrow preferences concerning how I like to play and it limits the range of games I can have fun in and the compromises I'm willing to make.  But there are plenty of much more flexible people out there that just don't have the same problem.

Quote from: droogSystem: We played RQ, and Glenn was a GURPS boy (those guys used GURPS for everything). We all thought RQ was a very fine system, and we bridled at complaints from Glenn. Plus, Glenn played in a very hard-core powergaming way with his other groups and he brought that edge to our gentle simulationist paradise where nobody reamed the system.

I understand why you didn't want to change your game for Glenn.  Really I do.  And you don' t have to defend it or justify it to me.  I'm simply saying that it was a choice and that there was another choice that you simply felt was worse.

With respect to system, again flexibility is an issue.  Lot's of people are willing to play all sorts of systems.  My group has played with no rules, "high rolls are good", Fudge, homebrew systems, Hero, Warhammer FRP, d20, etc.  If system isn't as important to a player, then it's easier to find compromise with others.  Again, a person isn't bad for liking only a single system, but it makes it less likely they'll have fun in a game with another system or fit in with a group that uses a different system.

Quote from: droogDo you see that where we clashed was in the sphere of the game? That it wasn't really anybody's fault, just mismatched agendas? That a different game could have accomodated Glenn, but this game was set along lines that couldn't be altered without destroying its texture (which we valued)?

I honestly never didn't see this and I wasn't trying to blame anyone in the sense of calling anyone a bad person.  But when the group made a choice not to alter the texture of the game because of how much they valued it over changing the game so that Glenn would like it more, that was a choice (even if it was entirely justified).  I'm not saying you were bad for making that choice.  I'm pointing out that it was a trade-off and that alternatives (compromise) were not physically impossible for others, who can make different choices.  It looks like Glenn was making similar trade-offs (e.g., he valued hanging out with your group more than enjoying the role-playing).  Subjective trade-offs like this aren't a "right or wrong" issue, but they are still a trade-off and a choice.

The reason all of this is important to the issue of coherency and incoherency is that there are elements of your example that I think may be coloring your assumptions about how likely it will be for an incoherent game to work and how much better coherent games are for player enjoyment.  The more flexible a player or group is, the less important coherency is going to be to them.

Again, I'm not saying you are bad, Glenn is bad, or your group is bad for having narrow preferences and being unwilling to change what you were doing.  After all, you role-play for fun and if that's how you have fun, that's fine.  What I am saying is that the lack of flexibility in this example all around produced an inability to reach a compromise without ruining the game for someone and that people who are more flexible just won't have these problems.  In other words, it's "bad" in the sense that it made it impossible for Glenn to work out with your group, assuming that's a good thing.

Compromise is how incoherent games work and compromise doesn't always mean the loss of fun that tightly focussed people assume it will mean.  The reason why coherent games are a problem, in my opinion, is that when the system is also tightly focussed, it doesn't give the players and GM room to find compromise without falling out of what the system covers.  Thus if you have a player who enjoys tactical combat in a game with an abstract conflict resolution system, you can't really make the combat more tactical for them, even if everyone at the table would be fine with that and have fun.

Quote from: droogVery 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?

That's fine.  The main point here is that I don't think anyone should assume that fun incoherent games are rare without more than anecdotal evidence to back that up.

Quote from: droogWell, 'excessively' must be relative. But yes – the general design trend around the Forge is to make highly-focused games.

And while such games offer a great deal to players looking for the tight focus, they offer very little to people with other preferences, right?

Quote from: droogThat 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.

I don't think that's true, either.  There are plenty of people who seem to have all of their needs met by a single system.

Quote from: droogWe 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.

A role-playing game is not a board game or a card game in many significan ways.  But even accepting the analogy for the sake of argument, there are people who always play the same game (e.g., Rummy or Chess or Go, sometimes every day with the same person) and there are people who do change rules if they don't like the board or card game works (e.g., growing up, we had custom versions of Stratego and Bermuda triangle and my current group of friends tends to add house rules to Uno).

Quote from: droogThese 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.

That's not the same thing as claiming that games designed that way are better than games that aren't.

Quote from: droogI'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.

There is nothing wrong with the idea, per se, especially if people are having fun with it.  The problem comes from the specific claim that such focused, short, intense games produce an objectively better experience than other games with less focus, that run for a long time, and might not be as intense.  I don't think that's true at all as a general statement, even if it is true for some people.  Yet that's exactly what the claim that coherency is better than incoherency assumes.

Quote from: John MorrowYet that's exactly what the claim that coherency is better than incoherency assumes.

You're being too argumentative, John, and reading things that aren't there.

First of all, I think we've already disposed of the idea that anybody thinks a focused game is objectively 'better' (whatever that means). It will depend on the group.

Secondly, I would like you to read my posts with a little more analysis. When I say, for instance, that the Forge games go with a philosophy that no one game will satisfy everybody's needs, I do not say that this is a hard-and-fast truth for everybody. I'm saying that this is a key idea that goes with the Forge design philosophy.

Thirdly, when you say "You could have done this," it's missing the point. We didn't do that and that's all there is to it. Why didn't we do that: here are the reasons. Also, if you want to lay out all the options, you neglected playing a different game, which also would have solved it.

Fourthly, I do not see it as an issue of 'flexibility'. That would have to assume that only one game and only one style was ever preferred by any of us. The simple fact that this particular game had a particular agenda does not mean that other sorts of games were not had or enjoyed.

To return to card games for a minute, while you may house-rule poker, you don't play cribbage at the same time. I'm not saying that this analogy is a one-to-one fit with RPGs, I'm saying that to illustrate a mindset. It only stretches so far, because there is no card game equivalent to the RPG that tries to encompass all possible styles.

But even if your group made a blend of poker and cribbage, it would be a distinct game, and if somebody else came along and demanded that bridge be incorporated, you would still have to choose whether you were to keep your original game intact.

Quote from: droogYou're being too argumentative, John, and reading things that aren't there.

Earlier in the thread, you said, "The basic principle is: if you're having fun incoherently, bully for you. Somehow you make it work. Now, how reproducible are your efforts?"

Somehow we made it work?  Asking if it's reproducible?  Did you really think those were neutral comments?

Quote from: droogFirst of all, I think we've already disposed of the idea that anybody thinks a focused game is objectively 'better' (whatever that means). It will depend on the group.

Earlier in the thread, didn't you write, "Ron says incoherency is more likely than coherency to lead to dysfunction."  You don't think that a functional game should be considered objectively better than a dysfunctional game?  Do you want to argue that "dysfunctional" is a neutral word like people argue "incoherent" is?

Quote from: droogSecondly, I would like you to read my posts with a little more analysis. When I say, for instance, that the Forge games go with a philosophy that no one game will satisfy everybody's needs, I do not say that this is a hard-and-fast truth for everybody. I'm saying that this is a key idea that goes with the Forge design philosophy.

I do read your posts carefully.  You didn't say, "no one game will satisfy everybody's needs".  You said, "no one game provides for all your needs".  The former is likely true.  The latter is not.  I can only respond to what you actually say, not what you mean to say.

Quote from: droogThirdly, when you say "You could have done this," it's missing the point. We didn't do that and that's all there is to it. Why didn't we do that: here are the reasons. Also, if you want to lay out all the options, you neglected playing a different game, which also would have solved it.

It's not missing the point when we are discussing whether incoherent games work or not.  You may have had an excellent reason for not fixing the problem you had (and not wanting to risk ruining a highly successful 7 year-old campaign is at least a good reason) but that means that your example was a fairly specialized case where incoherency and different expectations weren't the only factors involved.

Quote from: droogFourthly, I do not see it as an issue of 'flexibility'. That would have to assume that only one game and only one style was ever preferred by any of us. The simple fact that this particular game had a particular agenda does not mean that other sorts of games were not had or enjoyed.

Please put the straw man down.  It would not have to assume only one game and one style was preferred.  Flexibility, in this context, means an ability to change, adjust, or compromise.  Please point out where any of you changed, adjusted, or compromised to make the game work.  Better yet, can you explain where the group or Glenn exhibited any sort of flexibility in your example?

And if this was one unique situation that's not characteristic of your gaming experiences, why are you using it as an example?

Quote from: droogTo return to card games for a minute, while you may house-rule poker, you don't play cribbage at the same time. I'm not saying that this analogy is a one-to-one fit with RPGs, I'm saying that to illustrate a mindset. It only stretches so far, because there is no card game equivalent to the RPG that tries to encompass all possible styles.

How much time have you spent playing card and board games?  There are categories of elements that attracts people to card games just as their are categories of elements that attract people to role-playing games.  In the case of card games and board games, there is luck (often in the form of randomness), strategy, memory, the social game (e.g., bluffing), gambling, and so on that games offer in different proportions which attract different kinds of players.

Chess, for example, is all about strategy and memory while Backgammon has less strategy, more luck, and a gambling component (the doubling cube).  Some board games are quick and others aren't.  Some games emphasize a single aspect and other games try to cover all of the bases.  And, yes, there are card games and board games that try to cover all of the bases offering a bit of luck, a bit of strategy, a bit of memory, a social game, some gambling, and so on.  In fact, I would argue that Magic: The Gathering does a pretty good job in that regard, which might be why it's been so popular.

Quote from: droogBut even if your group made a blend of poker and cribbage, it would be a distinct game, and if somebody else came along and demanded that bridge be incorporated, you would still have to choose whether you were to keep your original game intact.

You are mixing apples and oranges here.  Unless you are talking about blending role-playing systems, then blending specific card games isn't the issue.

If I'm playing Chess and a person tells me that they want more randomness, we can switch to Backgammon, which involves luck, strategy, memory (though weakly), bluffing (weakly), and a gambling component.  Or I can decide that I hate Backgammon, want to play chess, and tell them to take a walk.  But just because we can't both have fun playing Chess doesn't mean we can't play another board game that would give us both a reason to play and have fun.  And it's no mistake the the more popular games combine different elements are often more popular than games that are, for example, all strategy and no luck (Chess and Go) or all luck and no Strategy (children's games like Candyland and Chutes and Ladders).

Quote from: John MorrowEarlier in the thread, you said, "The basic principle is: if you're having fun incoherently, bully for you. Somehow you make it work. Now, how reproducible are your efforts?"

Somehow we made it work?  Asking if it's reproducible?  Did you really think those were neutral comments?

Yes, why not? I'm asking. How reproducible are they? Do they depend on a particular group of people or do they not? can your success be formulated?

Those are important questions in Forge design philosophy, which is what we're discussing.

QuoteEarlier in the thread, didn't you write, "Ron says incoherency is more likely than coherency to lead to dysfunction."  You don't think that a functional game should be considered objectively better than a dysfunctional game?  Do you want to argue that "dysfunctional" is a neutral word like people argue "incoherent" is?

I'm not arguing either. I was informing people of what Ron actually, currently says. Note how I say "RON says..."

As far as the word 'incoherent' goes, I'm arguing that the concept itself has some currency. If we can actually get it straight, we could move on to whether another term would be more suitable.

It seems to me that you have accepted the notion of 'coherent vs 'incoherent', and now you want to prove that incoherent is just as good. That's cool, but it's not what I'm talking about.

QuoteI do read your posts carefully.  You didn't say, "no one game will satisfy everybody's needs".  You said, "no one game provides for all your needs".  The former is likely true.  The latter is not.  I can only respond to what you actually say, not what you mean to say.

I do not see any meaningful difference between the two ways I phrased it. This'll be a dead end.

QuoteIt's not missing the point when we are discussing whether incoherent games work or not.  You may have had an excellent reason for not fixing the problem you had (and not wanting to risk ruining a highly successful 7 year-old campaign is at least a good reason) but that means that your example was a fairly specialized case where incoherency and different expectations weren't the only factors involved.

Dude – it's missing the point because I'm not trying to prove anything right now. That's why I suggested that we should leave this line of conversation alone.

QuotePlease put the straw man down.  It would not have to assume only one game and one style was preferred.  Flexibility, in this context, means an ability to change, adjust, or compromise.  Please point out where any of you changed, adjusted, or compromised to make the game work.  Better yet, can you explain where the group or Glenn exhibited any sort of flexibility in your example?

There are times when compromise is necessary and possible. There are times when it's neither. 'Flexibility' is not inherently a virtue (nor a vice).

Now, I have said several times (but you don't seem to be picking up on those points) that we tried, that I did various things to try and fit Glenn in. You seem to be trying to cross-examine a hostile witness.

QuoteAnd, yes, there are card games and board games that try to cover all of the bases offering a bit of luck, a bit of strategy, a bit of memory, a social game, some gambling, and so on.  In fact, I would argue that Magic: The Gathering does a pretty good job in that regard, which might be why it's been so popular.

It might be popular in the geek world, but I think you'll find poker or bridge outstrips by a long way overall.

I do not understand the point of your paragraph. I can't see it as disagreeing with my point.
 

QuoteIf I'm playing Chess and a person tells me that they want more randomness, we can switch to Backgammon, which involves luck, strategy, memory (though weakly), bluffing (weakly), and a gambling component.  Or I can decide that I hate Backgammon, want to play chess, and tell them to take a walk.  But just because we can't both have fun playing Chess doesn't mean we can't play another board game that would give us both a reason to play and have fun.  And it's no mistake the the more popular games combine different elements are often more popular than games that are, for example, all strategy and no luck (Chess and Go) or all luck and no Strategy (children's games like Candyland and Chutes and Ladders).

You seem to be agreeing that playing a different game altogether is a good solution. So what's the problem?

Are you sure it's me you're talking to?

Quote from: droogYes, why not? I'm asking. How reproducible are they? Do they depend on a particular group of people or do they not? can your success be formulated?

Those are important questions in Forge design philosophy, which is what we're discussing.

OK.  Taking this question at face value, I'll answer it (I think I already did).

Yes, they are reproducible and methods for doing so can be formulated. That's why I suggested seeing Robin Laws' book Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering.  A major point of the book is explaining how to run games for players with different agendas.

Quote from: droogI'm not arguing either. I was informing people of what Ron actually, currently says. Note how I say "RON says..."

Yes.  And Ron is the poster boy for The Forge, since the theory is largely defined by essays written by... Ron.

Quote from: droogAs far as the word 'incoherent' goes, I'm arguing that the concept itself has some currency. If we can actually get it straight, we could move on to whether another term would be more suitable.

I think the concept (broad focus vs. narrow focus) has some legitimacy, though I think another term would be more useful.

Quote from: droogIt seems to me that you have accepted the notion of 'coherent vs 'incoherent', and now you want to prove that incoherent is just as good. That's cool, but it's not what I'm talking about.

The assumption that "coherent" games are better than "incoherent" games is pretty central to the Forge ideal of tightly focused games.  If incoherent games are just as good (if not better) than coherent games, that's undermining a fairly major justification for the focus on tightly focused games.

Quote from: droogI do not see any meaningful difference between the two ways I phrased it. This'll be a dead end.

"your" is not a clear synonym for "everyone".

Quote from: droogThere are times when compromise is necessary and possible. There are times when it's neither. 'Flexibility' is not inherently a virtue (nor a vice).

Correct.  But if you are trying to avoid a dysfunctional incoherent game or create a game with broad appeal, flexibility is a virtue.

Quote from: droogNow, I have said several times (but you don't seem to be picking up on those points) that we tried, that I did various things to try and fit Glenn in.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing where you mentioned what you did to help Glenn fit in.  Can you either quote where you said that or point me to a message ID?  I'm being serious.  I just skimmed the entire thread and I'm not seeing it.

Quote from: droogIt might be popular in the geek world, but I think you'll find poker or bridge outstrips by a long way overall.

Of course they do, because they don't require players to buy hundreds of dollars of cards to pay competatively.  But both poker and bridge are games that combine a variety of elements -- luck, strategy, memory, gambling, and so on.  They are "incoherent" games.  Building a hand or taking tricks isn't akin to a creative agenda.  It's aking to using percentile dice vs. an open ended roll.  It's a mechanic.

Quote from: droogI do not understand the point of your paragraph. I can't see it as disagreeing with my point.

My point is that the card and board game equivalents of an incoherent role-playing game are generally more popular than specialized card and board games that are comparable to a coherent role-playing game.  They attrack a bigger audience because (A) they appeal to more people and (B) it's easier to get a group together to play them.

Quote from: droogYou seem to be agreeing that playing a different game altogether is a good solution. So what's the problem?

I'm not claiming that incoherent games are a problem.  That's one way to make a group with incoherent preferences work -- to pick an incoherent game that offers something to everyone.  You said you wanted a formula for success.  If you have players with different preferences, then pick a system and scenario that gives everyone at least a little of what they want.  That's the magic formula.  Or at least one of them.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm sorry, but I'm not seeing where you mentioned what you did to help Glenn fit in.  Can you either quote where you said that or point me to a message ID?  I'm being serious.  I just skimmed the entire thread and I'm not seeing it.

I din't say exactly what I did at any point, in fact. I did say we tried (Glenn played in the game for a couple of years, after all). But why should I look back through over two hundred posts to prove it? You're pulling all sorts of quotes from earlier comments without any context – why don't you find them?

Now, would you please give me a potted summary of Robin Laws' advice, because I'm pretty sure I already know what it is, and I'm pretty sure I applied it. But first, I'll make sure I understand it.

Quote from: droogYes, why not? I'm asking. How reproducible are they? Do they depend on a particular group of people or do they not? can your success be formulated?

There's really only one question I have.  Is D&D considered Coherent?  the problem is that either answer renders the term meaningless.

Yes - then what's the point?
No - then having fun playing an Incoherent game can be reproduced and has a formula that's been around since RPG's started. And Incoherent is actually the most successful approach in RPG history.

Blech...its late and I'm going to bed...

Quote from: James J SkachThere's really only one question I have.  Is D&D considered Coherent?  the problem is that either answer renders the term meaningless.

Yes - then what's the point?
No - then having fun playing an Incoherent game can be reproduced and has a formula that's been around since RPG's started. And Incoherent is actually the most successful approach in RPG history.

Blech...its late and I'm going to bed...

There's a yes and a no there.

AD&D – somewhat incoherent (witness EGG talking about 'just a game' and at the same time talking about the importance of keeping records and making a plausible world). Gam/sim.

AD&D 2nd ed. – greater degree of incoherence due to a concentration on 'story', while keeping the underlying game the same. Gam/sim/nar.

Is it a coincidence that 2nd ed. is widely regarded as a failure? I don't know.

D&D 3.x – high degree of coherence (gam). Hugely successful.


What's the point? Analytically, it's interesting. It has no point if you think that the only reason for Forge theory is advocacy. If Forge theory is, as I claim, an analytic framework, then we ought to accept the conclusions along with the framework.

Have some people, some time in the past, made excitable comments? Absolutely. But not me. I'm just trying to show where I think the basic framework of the model is rational, and that the more inflammatory speech by Forgeniks does not logically follow from the model.

Quote from: droogI din't say exactly what I did at any point, in fact. I did say we tried (Glenn played in the game for a couple of years, after all).

That Glenn played the game for a couple of years does not necessarily mean you actually tried anything to make the game work better.  Maybe you did try things but unless you mention them, I don't know that you did, especially since you gave me plenty of reasons to assume you didn't.

Quote from: droogBut why should I look back through over two hundred posts to prove it? You're pulling all sorts of quotes from earlier comments without any context – why don't you find them?

I did go back through them.  I couldn't find what you were talking about.  Rather than assuming you are lying and never said what you claimed you said, I assumed that I simpy couldn't find what you were talking about and figured that since you should know what you wrote and probably had something in mind when you made that claim, you might be able to point me toward what you are talking about.

Quote from: droogNow, would you please give me a potted summary of Robin Laws' advice, because I'm pretty sure I already know what it is, and I'm pretty sure I applied it. But first, I'll make sure I understand it.

Robin Laws identifies seven play styles (I think I provided a link to John Kim's summary earlier in the discussion) and then provides specific advice on how to make the different styles happy in the same game that could be very roughly summarized as "give everyone a little of what they want".  For many players, that's enough to have lots of fun.

Quote from: droogD&D 3.x – high degree of coherence (gam). Hugely successful.

Ryan Dancey (confirmed by Sean K. Reynolds) specifically claims that D&D 3e was not designed to be coherent and was, in fact, designed to be incoherent.  He explained how, in great detail, in a thread on Pyramid, part of which can be found here:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html

In another message about the segments described in that message, Dancey explained:

"We believe that a game that appeals to all four differentiated segments (the people in the middle are pretty happy with a modicum of time spent out of game, and pretty happy with most aspects of RPG play in general and are therefore pretty easy to please) is a game that is likely to have strong overall sales and retain long term interest in the player community."

"Games that lack support for one of the four differentiated segments struggle, and games that lack support for more than one are rarely played (though frustratingly for some such a game may be the >perfect< game for one of the subgroups; the problem is finding two or more people of the same inclination to play the game regularly)."

What he's saying here is that incoherent games sell, highly specialized coherent games don't.  This whole discussion makes it clear that, D&D 3e was designed to be incoherent.  So on what basis do people claim it's coherent?  That it's successful?  Is the assumption here that WotC set out to create an incoherent game and failed utterly in their objectives and created a highly coherent game, instead?

Also according to Dancey, in that discussion:

"When surveyed, the #1 game-related reason people cited for not continuing to play RPGs was 'couldn't find anyone to play with'."

"'Found a game that was more satisfying' and 'dissatisfied with the rules or game world' didn't even make the top 10.'"

Quote from: droogIf Forge theory is, as I claim, an analytic framework, then we ought to accept the conclusions along with the framework.

And what conclusions does Forge theory make about coherency, again?

Quote from: John MorrowRobin Laws identifies seven play styles (I think I provided a link to John Kim's summary earlier in the discussion) and then provides specific advice on how to make the different styles happy in the same game that could be very roughly summarized as "give everyone a little of what they want".  For many players, that's enough to have lots of fun.

Right – I thought as much.

That is indeed the sort of thing I tried. As far as it went, it was successful enough. But when you have five other players, all of whom enjoy doing a certain thing, and a sixth player who does not enjoy doing that same thing, it's difficult to pull off. At some point I realised it wasn't working as well as our game had worked before.

You are trying to second-guess me here, and it's rather irritating.

Quote from: droogYou are trying to second-guess me here, and it's rather irritating.

No.  And I think we've both said enough on the topic that anyone reading along can draw their own conclusions about our respective positions.

Quote from: Abyssal MawOh boy. More "prove it to me" from Joel. I suspect a desperate move to derail the thread by sending people off to find links. Then he's denying the links say what they say.

There's the dishonesty that comes from outright lying, and then there's the dishonesty that comes from pretending you can't see the obvious or never saw it.

Y'know, I didn't put a gun to anyone's head to hunt links. It was just a request. You can believe you want about motive, but I really did just honestly want to see the evidence for people's claims. If anyone's not willing to provide it, hey, no obligation.

I am going to more or less bow out after this post, though, because I don't want to derail the thread. The main discussion, bwetween Droog and John and others, has been pretty interesting, and I'd like to see it continue uncluttered. Also, that shit about the Rfga is hot. I'm very interested in the history, as I'm largely ignorant of it.

In response to others:

Lee: Fair enough, but given that I don't see it, I was hoping someone might provide other examples. Like, the Brain Damage thread may be impossible to agree on, so where else is this trend exhibited?

Note on the above sentence: All I'm saying here is that I don't think Brain Damage exhibits this particular phenomenon; it may have other problems but I'm not interested in discussing them here.

Elliot: I did come across that statement, though it took me a second pass to spot it. Thing is, that's a statement of personal experience: "most roleplayers I encounter. . ." JimBob argues that Ron's personal experience is not representative, but still, this statement is not claiming a universal reality.

Anyway. This whole thing has ballooned. I'm now being painted as a Ron-disciple, an undercover Forger, a threadcrapper, and a liar. I never meant to have a knock-down, drag-out on whether Ron Edwards is the nicest and smartest man to walk God's green earth, or whether the Forge theory is an infallible body of brilliant scholarly thought. I just wanted to get to the bottom of one specific issue that jumped out at me as I read the thread. It doesn't look like that's going to happen. I let myself get sucked into a frenetic posting war (two,actually), and that's nobody's fault but mine. But I'm calling a halt now, for my part. I'll be interested in anyone's further feedback, but I have no interest in continuing any flame wars.

Peace,
-Joel

PS. I do find it odd, being characterized as a sneaky little Forge spy. If I'd come on preacing GNS and spewing jargon around everywhere, I imagine I'd get a pretty hostile reception. So is this a case of damned if I do, damned if I don't?