Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I'm still not sure what the actual use of theory is.

To jump back to the thing that caused this discussion, ever so briefly, here's a little more of where I'm going...  

If you're willing, stop by this thread on Big Purple.  It's the revised version of those explanations, at the start.  But if you skip to page 4, and roll down a bit, you'll find a draft of me discussing "Fiero".

Fiero is one of about twenty different "pusuits" - the ones from the 'manyfold'.  They are at least semi-practical discussions of things people want from gaming, how it looks, how to facilitate it, and what can go wrong.

The Big Muddle is my glossary for discussing those.

Quote from: James McMurrayIt depends on how long it takes for the thing to collapse and kill them all, which would be dependent on the builder's instinctual grasp of carpentry.

The actual engineer would be more capable of building multiple rooms, floors, slides, rope swings, leak-free roofing, etc. Will you actually have more fun? That completely depends on the kid. But one thing's for sure, I know which one gets you more kid cred when your friends come over.

I'm a terrible one to talk to about tree houses.  All of mine were built thirty feet up, were nothing more than platforms with... if you were lucky... rails around the outside, and unless you toted an extending ladder with you, the only way up was by mounting a serious expedition up the living tree, thus of all the kids only I regularly played in mine.

Of course, I also brained someone with an aluminum ladder one day, so its probably better that I DIDN"T need one to get up ye old oak tree.

I looked in on it five years ago and it was still up there. Neglected and unused but intact.  Not bad for the work of a tax accountant and a handful of small, fearless children.

Roofs and indoor plumbing are for 1st level adventurers, not REAL children. Real children are tougher sorts...

:haw:

Quote from: James McMurrayUnderstanding quantum theory is mandatory for creating a quantum computer. Likewise understanding gaming theory is mandatory for creating a great game.

The big differences are that gamers aren't as easily modelled as atomic interactions, and because of the lower complexity in a gaming model and the ability to target a subset of that model, a designer can get away with having only an instinctual idea of How Games Work.

I disagree. Your analogy is flawed in that to implement engineering principles, you must know engineering theory but in the real world, it often comes down to practical experience. To write a game, you do not need such theoretical knowledge. You can do it that way but you can also have an instinctual understanding of gaming. Alternatively, you can have practical experience in games. I am fundamentally opposed to any ideology that says it is the one true way. They are often wrong.

Ask Clash, he would state it better than me.

Bill

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!So what's it good for, really?

There are a lot of groups and individuals in this hobby that are unhappy about various things in their gaming experience but don't know why they are unhappy or how to fix it.  I think that, ideally, a good role-playing theory could work to help people understand what they like and don't like, diagnose why their games aren't fun, and figure out how to make them more fun or run more smoothly.  For example, mechanics that require heavy player-level thinking, techniques like cut scenes, and things like fudging can all make a game more fun for some people but less fun for others.  Some players love railroaded games and expect them while other players hate them.  Understanding why that is can help players and GMs understand what they shouldn't and shouldn't do to have fun, and why that nifty new technique, idea, or rule that's all the rave on some role-playing site doesn't work well with their group.

This is hardly a new idea.  Glenn Blacow's article Aspects of Adventure Gaming appeared in Different Worlds #10 in October 1980 and struck enough of a chord with others that there were three related follow-ups, including "Profiles from the Four-Fold Way" by Greg Costikyan.  In the early days of the Usenet, the popular humorous treatment of the subject was Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Loonies, and Munchkins, and that struck a chord with role-players, too, and generated variants.  You'll see four styles in the WotC Survey Data described by Ryan Dancey and Robin Laws extends Blacow's list out into seven styles in his book Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering.  And in more informal discussions, you'll see a lot of two-style dichotomies from "story-based" and "world-based" to the infamous role-play vs. roll-play.  What they all boil down to (independent of the jerks who just want to ruin games for everyone) is that basically people play for different reasons and what makes a great game for one player can make a bad game for another player.  Most role-players who have experienced any sort of style clash can see that pretty clearly.  So I think an objective and fair common vocabulary for identifying those differences, describing them, and diagnosing them could be good for the hobby, since unhappy people tend to leave it.  One of the biggest reasons why I'm unhappy about the GNS, regardless of whether it's correct or not, is that it's pretty much squatted in this theory space and makes it almost impossible to discuss an alternative.  And, yes, the GDS suffered from similar problems for a while, too.

Quote from: HinterWeltI To write a game, you do not need such theoretical knowledge. You can do it that way but you can also have an instinctual understanding of gaming. Alternatively, you can have practical experience in games. I am fundamentally opposed to any ideology that says it is the one true way. They are often wrong.

This is absolutely the case.

In design terms, thinking in abstractions is universally helpful to a given designer useful only when they want to so something really different.  And even then?  The abstractions don't need to look like theory, or even make any damn sense at all to anyone else.

For communities of design that want to explore a whole bunch of "really different" bits, though?  Or consider really fundamental changes, as opposed to incremental improvements?  Abstractions that can be shared are very handy.

Which ties really obviously into why the abstracted theory is so often tied directly to people making seriously weird-ass games.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThis is absolutely the case.

In design terms, thinking in abstractions is universally helpful to a given designer useful only when they want to so something really different.  And even then?  The abstractions don't need to look like theory, or even make any damn sense at all to anyone else.

For communities of design that want to explore a whole bunch of "really different" bits, though?  Or consider really fundamental changes, as opposed to incremental improvements?  Abstractions that can be shared are very handy.

Which ties really obviously into why the abstracted theory is so often tied directly to people making seriously weird-ass games.

This is why I read theory threads when Levi writes 'em, and pretty much only then. Of course I will read anything Doc Rotwang writes, including his grocery lists...  What's this? Twinkies, Doc? :O

-clash

-clash

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThis is absolutely the case.

In design terms, thinking in abstractions is universally helpful to a given designer useful only when they want to so something really different.  And even then?  The abstractions don't need to look like theory, or even make any damn sense at all to anyone else.

For communities of design that want to explore a whole bunch of "really different" bits, though?  Or consider really fundamental changes, as opposed to incremental improvements?  Abstractions that can be shared are very handy.

Which ties really obviously into why the abstracted theory is so often tied directly to people making seriously weird-ass games.

hmm, I disagree again. You seem to think that innovative thought requires abstraction and theory. I believe it can be obtained in a number of ways, some of which have nothing to do with theory. The argument can always be made that "Sure, but you are thinking theoretically" when someone uses experience as the crux of their design. My point is simply, that theory is not the only way. Often, unfortunately, it is looked on as necessary in order to abstract and communicate with other designers. I find this an unnecessary complication when talking to designers. For instance, when Clash and I talk, it is about the mechanics of the game system. I could care less if his design goals were targeted towards gamist-simulationists. I have only a vague idea of what a bang and kicker are (they sound like a side dish at TGIF) and I could not tell you the difference between the two. Does it make me a low brow non-innovative designer? Perhaps in your estimation but I like to think that most if not all RPG designers are highly derivative in their work but then I am not popular at places like the Forge.

In the end, I want to stress, that I am just expressing my use for theory. I am not saying it is universally useless, just not very useful to me. One of the big items that has always made me raise my eyebrow is when someone will say that the systems I write are "traditional" or "not innovative" until they play them. Then it usually turns around and they say "Wow, that is kind of neat". Not everyone, but I get this often enough to have spotted a trend.

I do not follow the "System Matters" movement. To me, system does not in the way most designers mean it. To me, setting matters. System supports the groups play style but it does not "matter" in the sense that you can only use it for one particular genre or setting. This is the closest I get to theory in that I believe there are Elements to any game system. These Elements support certain play styles of which there is no finite set. Some groups have one playstyle and never venture beyond playing in one system. Others embrace a number of different Elements and thus move around in system quite a bit. I have not seen a genre that has not been played with D20. Anime, fantasy, sci-fi, post apoc, and more are all there either in official or home brew variants. The "variants" often come down to new equipment lists or a special rule or two. Still, innovative usually means you have some sort of system element rubbed in your face to an extent that it is absurd. I once described "new" mechanics as being different to be different. I stand by this assessment to this day.

The area I wish would truly be explored is that of setting. What could be done to make a different setting? The problem here is it often boils down to just "The author must come up with a different idea". It is art and craft. I hold several engineering degrees. Believe me when I say, game design does easily compare to engineering. This is wishful thinking on the part of techies hoping to quantify systematic play, hoping to minimize the hard truth. Games are more about people, a large part about setting, and a very small part about system.

However, as I said, this is my view. I would never claim that their is "One Ture Way" to do game design.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltYou seem to think that innovative thought requires abstraction and theory.

:confused:

Er....  Check again?

Abstraction.  But not theory.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen:confused:

Er....  Check again?

Abstraction.  But not theory.

I may have misunderstood your point. I apologize. I do not wish to put words in your mouth.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI may have misunderstood your point. I apologize. I do not wish to put words in your mouth.

All good; I might not have been clear.

Basically, in design terms, if I want to do really different design, I need to abstract stuff somehow - to get a different perspective.  That's not theory; that's abstraction.

If I want to communicate with others about incremental change and intelligent improvement - about using the stuff we have?  I don't even need to get abstract, but I do need a body of knowledge and experience - and theory is of no use there; it can't replace experience.

But if I want to communicate a specific and notably different perspective on the way I want to structure play to others - one that there aren't actual examples of?  I have two options.  I can either invent the damn examples as games, and then talk about the examples I've created...    or I can find some way to talk about those abstractions in my head.

That abstract language?  That's the kind of theory I play with, in addition to building games.

Is that clearer?

Quote from: flyingmiceWhat's this? Twinkies, Doc? :O

Beef Twinkies.

Stuffed with mashed potatoes.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Beef Twinkies.

Stuffed with mashed potatoes.

Ah Those are awesome wrapped in bacon!

-clash

Quote from: HinterWeltThe area I wish would truly be explored is that of setting. What could be done to make a different setting? The problem here is it often boils down to just "The author must come up with a different idea". It is art and craft. I hold several engineering degrees. Believe me when I say, game design does easily compare to engineering. This is wishful thinking on the part of techies hoping to quantify systematic play, hoping to minimize the hard truth. Games are more about people, a large part about setting, and a very small part about system.

My current thinking on the subject is that it's better to address style issues through soft general advice (similar to that in Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering) rather than trying to build style into a system and enforce it with rules.