Quote from: TonyLBNo, that makes sense.

Say we set aside the abstract traditional role of the GM (which may, in some sense, be excluded from such theory-talk).  What we're left with is Bob, the guy who is the GM.  Bob is a target for either type of theory ... the old because he's the GM, and the new because he's a player.

Okay.  I get what you're saying, and I agree.  Thanks for clarifying!

Let's be careful about how much we agree.  

We are in agreement only to the extent that Bob is part of the group that agrees with the shift away from traditional roles. Say, for example, Bob is a traditional GM. One of his players has been unhappy about his gaming. He doesn't speak to Bob because he doesn't like confrontation. So Pete, the unhappy player, starts dabbling in theory he discovered on the Internet. He starts exploring non-traditional setups and finds he likes them more. He brings this back to his original group in the hopes of implementing this new approach in his regular group. Now I don't think Bob is so happy with New Theory. I'm not saying he's right or wrong.  I'm not saying Pete is; he found a type of game in which he finds more enjoyment - rock on Pete. But I wouldn't say that Bob is necessarily the target of the new.

He is only if you set aside, as you say, the "abstract traditional role of GM." That's a pretty big set-aside.

So, for clarification: if Bob is the kind of GM/Player who was also looking for a way to deemphasize the traditional GM role, then I agree that "new" theory discussion is geared towards Bob.

Quite honestly, it doesn't matter whether Bob was a GM or player. I'm asserting that the qualification for being a target of the current Theory is a desire to investigate/challenge/alter the traditional power structure of RPGs.

Quote from: James J SkachQuite honestly, it doesn't matter whether Bob was a GM or player. I'm asserting that the qualification for being a target of the current Theory is a desire to investigate/challenge/alter the traditional power structure of RPGs.

Oh, you're right.  We don't agree.

I would assert, contrariwise, that the qualification for being a target of the current Theory is a desire to make your game-play better by examining the way you play, and thinking about it seriously.

Taken to its ultimate extent, yeah, I suppose that means you should examine the traditional power structure of RPGs, along with pretty much everything else.  Sacred cows of any sort run the risk of becoming hamburger.  But in practice everybody gets their kicks in different areas.  I know quite serious theorists and designers who don't have any interest in changing the traditional power structure (at least within RPGs).  They pay attention to different things.

Gaming "theory" has as much to do with gaming as porn does with sex.

Most "gaming theorists" spend far more time looking at gaming, talking about it, thinking of as a concept than they do gaming.

Chuck

Tony and James your discussion so far is really cool -  by this I mean, I kinda of agree with both of you

 

QuoteOriginally posted by Maddman
I think one of the biggest weaknesses in gaming discussion is that there's little to no talk of how to make a good player.

Yeah, I think this is a pretty important point. I'm sure theory helps both gms and players, but I do think there needs to be more discussion aimed specificaly at players

Regards,
David R

I don't see much reason to get rid of/revise the traditional GM. I mean, if it ain't broke...

Although, maybe if there was a *competitive* RPG. I've done gladiator matches where the GM rarely or never had to get involved...

...but beyond that, why?

As a side note, I'd say that GMs will have more use for theory than players. Regardless of any "play focus" shifts or what have you...

Quote from: TonyLBthat the qualification for being a target of the current Theory is a desire to make your game-play better by examining the way you play, and thinking about it seriously.

This is where I agree with Maddman. The following is my perception – as I said, from a guy who admittedly came late to the party.

Until the Theory threads in the Forge were closed down, I don't think theory was aimed at making game play better. It was focused on changing the way people thought about games. Could a happy by-product be that people found ways to improve play? Abso-fucking-lutley. But the main thrust was to challenge those "sacred cows."

Now challenging sacred cows is all well and good; but often it's done without a full understanding of what to do with the hamburger (to borrow your analogy); hence terms like "unintended consequences." In this case, I think the order of priority, whether explicitly stated, unconsciously understood, or otherwise was:

• Challenge sacred cows, particularly traditional power distribution.
• Improve game play.

The order is important because the goal assumed that part of the problem with existing play was the traditional power distribution. I don't see focus on the actual play as a way to improve play.  Instead, it was, and still is to a large extent, a desire to prove the theories. Play improvement is, I suppose, assumed to follow from proving the theories, and a happy by-product.

My exposure to the subject is certainly not as extensive as others, so take my opinion FWIW. My perspective might actually be helpful to those in the theory circles as an understanding of how to improve their image to increase acceptance of their theory.  But I've seen the "I don't care what you think.  I'm not here to argue. This is my opinion so if you disagree, fuck off, I don't need to hear about it," attitude, so I doubt it would make much of a difference.

Quote from: TonyLBI know quite serious theorists and designers who don't have any interest in changing the traditional power structure (at least within RPGs).

Yeah, as I've said, I've seen plenty of that. This is why, for all of the difficulties it may or may not have entailed (as egos clashed), I was sad to see some posters here decide not to engage. If I were Pundit, I'd be doing what I could to promote that kind of theory discussion here, as a counter-balance.  Alas, it's not my forum, so I'll just do what I can as a poster.  As I've also stated, for better or worse, current "theory" discussion seems to focus on The Forge, Ron Edwards, and GNS – not necessarily in that order. So those who don't care about such things are second tier discussions.

Ya know – I'm reconsidering my position.  I think the entire discussion is a bit of a straw man.  Why? I'm not sure I agree with the division along the lines of GM and Player.

It would seem to me to be most accurate to say that all Theory is geared towards people who think about game design. This makes the entire distinction that we've been discussing a moot point.

Was it more likely, in that past, that this was the GM? Sure.  But I don't think it was geared towards that group. I think, instead, it was simply geared towards people who enjoyed analyzing the games. In some groups this was the GM, on others, the Players. There were likely a myriad of reasons for exploring Theory, from wanting to be a better GM to trying to understand why play was not as enjoyable as desired. But look at the older discussions – like Gleichman – and notice the emphasis on tradeoffs and decisions with respect to design. There's almost no indication of the intended target, player or GM.

That's just one example, I'm sure there are plenty of counter-examples (particularly the more recent the Theory discussion). However, it seems that all have one thing in common. It's all geared towards people who want to design – play improvement, whether as GM tips or player empowerment, might be the goal, but I don't think that dictates the target.

Or maybe I'm just fucked in the head when I'm on the treadmill and these things some to me...

Quote from: beejazzI don't see much reason to get rid of/revise the traditional GM. I mean, if it ain't broke...

Although, maybe if there was a *competitive* RPG. I've done gladiator matches where the GM rarely or never had to get involved...

...but beyond that, why?

As a side note, I'd say that GMs will have more use for theory than players. Regardless of any "play focus" shifts or what have you...

re: bold.  I'd say a lot of the impetus for the move away from traditional GM/player designs and theory comes from people for whom that relationship was broken, and "theory" is an attempt to address why and how it is broken for them, and design new games to fix the problems they see in the traditional setup.

Quote from: apparition13re: bold.  I'd say a lot of the impetus for the move away from traditional GM/player designs and theory comes from people for whom that relationship was broken, and "theory" is an attempt to address why and how it is broken for them, and design new games to fix the problems they see in the traditional setup.

Really?

I usually see it as people saying "But we've already got so many games that organize GMs and players in this one way ... what about all the other ways it could work?  Why not try them too?"

Quote from: TonyLBReally?

I usually see it as people saying "But we've already got so many games that organize GMs and players in this one way ... what about all the other ways it could work?  Why not try them too?"

My response was directed specifically at the idea that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". For some people it is broke, and needs fixing. I didn't mean to imply it's the only motivation.

Quote from: TonyLBReally?

I usually see it as people saying "But we've already got so many games that organize GMs and players in this one way ... what about all the other ways it could work?  Why not try them too?"

For some folks sure. For others, it's the established dynamic that needs fixin' (although, I don't share this view). Personally as long as the games, interest me, I'm not too concerned with the motivations behind their creation or the inevitable dogma (from both sides) that gets spewed about in the various online rpg forums.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RPersonally as long as the games, interest me, I'm not too concerned with the motivations behind their creation or the inevitable dogma (from both sides) that gets spewed about in the various online rpg forums.

Bully for you, David.  And I mean that, it's not snark.  I'm glad that, for you, it's not important.

But for me it's not about whether or not the GM/Player dynamic being is being questioned.  It's that certain aspects of Forge-type theory seems to assign deficiencies to this and other aspects so that there can be a reason for theory to exist.

Examples?  I suppose I would point to my first thread here that dealt with Conflict Resolution and the need for it to exist. In that case, it was generally “railroading” and other similar poor GM tactics that were cited.  Perhaps this biases my view that Forge theory appears to be more a reaction to certain experiences than exploration for the sake of exploration.

Quote from: James J SkachBut for me it's not about whether or not the GM/Player dynamic being is being questioned.  It's that certain aspects of Forge-type theory seems to assign deficiencies to this and other aspects so that there can be a reason for theory to exist.

(Bolding mine) An interesting and concise expression of a point of view. I suppose there is some of this going on, esp with some of the more militant forgerites.

QuoteExamples?  I suppose I would point to my first thread here that dealt with Conflict Resolution and the need for it to exist. In that case, it was generally “railroading” and other similar poor GM tactics that were cited.  Perhaps this biases my view that Forge theory appears to be more a reaction to certain experiences than exploration for the sake of exploration.

(Bolding mine) I think reaction to certain experiences and exploration for the sake of exploration are both valid reasons with regards to the existence of theory.

A large part of my disinterest in the motivations behind certain games (Forge games in particular) is probably due to the fact, that I don't see these games changing the face of gaming that I (and many other folks) seem to enjoy.

Most theory discussions be it for or against has very little relevence (IMO) to most gamers. This view makes me a minority (I think) as far as forum subscribers go, but, I'll occasionally poke my nose into threads, where I have neither interest nor knowledge...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R(Bolding mine) An interesting and concise expression of a point of view. I suppose there is some of this going on, esp with some of the more militant forgerites.



(Bolding mine) I think reaction to certain experiences and exploration for the sake of exploration are both valid reasons with regards to the existence of theory.

A large part of my disinterest in the motivations behind certain games (Forge games in particular) is probably due to the fact, that I don't see these games changing the face of gaming that I (and many other folks) seem to enjoy.

Most theory discussions be it for or against has very little relevence (IMO) to most gamers. This view makes me a minority (I think) as far as forum subscribers go, but, I'll occasionally poke my nose into threads, where I have neither interest nor knowledge...

Regards,
David R

Theory discussions just confuse and mystify me, but, being a bear of very little brain, I keep poking my nose in and getting stung. None of it has ever done anything for me, and I can't see how it could, but some very nice people swear it has helped them, so I give it the benefit of the doubt. I keep sticking my nose in the hive, and getting stung. Anyways, I keep hoping some little technique will pop up that I can steal to make my own games better.

-clash

Quote from: David RI suppose there is some of this going on, esp with some of the more militant forgerites.

I don't know about militant - in some cases, in my personal experience, it seemed they were actually as confused about the theory as I was!

Quote from: David RI think reaction to certain experiences and exploration for the sake of exploration are both valid reasons with regards to the existence of theory.

I apologize as I see how my statement could be read that the former is not valid and the latter is valid.  The problem I have with the former is that it takes a level of rhetorical skill - apparently either not present or not sought at the Forge - to not use the former (reaction to experience) to call someone's kids ugly.