Forum > Design, Development, and Gameplay
Pistols at dawn.
RPGPundit:
I'm just coming down from one of the best gaming sessions I've done in a long time, where we concluded my epic OD&D campaign, one that started with the pcs at 1st level, and got them all the way to immortality, playing by the (sometimes confusing and obtuse) letter of the law according to the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.
It was incredible.
And it made something very clear to me. Your points are very pretty, but I would be remiss if my rebuttal actually attempted to engage your points at their level.
So my rebuttal is this: Why the fuck do you people force me to do this?
I mean, really: Gaming isn't found in sitting around doing mental wankery on internet forums. The internet should be a place to talk about the games you like, the sessions you play, house rules, systems, etc.
But trying to create grand theories that will in theory either "improve play" or "improve game design" is a fools errand.
The key to improving those things is to actually go out and do them. To see what works in practice and follow it, not to try to re-invent the fucking wheel.
And you might say "we don't force you to do anything, you like coming on here and pissing on our parade"; but that's not the case. To say that I don't "need" to be opposed to you guys, when you're trying to overtake and influence fora like this one (or like RPG.net, which you already own lock stock and barrel) or (MUCH more importantly) try to influence the direction the game "Industry" goes in (and thus directly affect the games I purchase and play), is a little like saying that you don't "have" to offer a rebuttal to the Creationists who are trying to subvert your local school board. They want to redefine science; and if you just let them have their fun/beliefs while you have yours, then pretty soon your kids are learning about the Flood and Noah when they should be learning Biology 101.
Its disingenous to say that you only want to do your thing, when what you are setting out is to prove that theories that you all invent ab ovo are the superior form of game play/design. Its an obvious point that if that premise is accepted, then talking about these theories must occupy a central place in online fora, and that promoting design based on these theories should be the direction of the industry.
We lived through that once with story-based gaming.
RPGs are games, which gamers like to play. You guys are playing a different game, which is the game of "thinking great thoughts" about RPGs. You could just as easily have been thinking great thoughts about basket weaving or astrology or how many angels dance on the head of a pin. The game for you is to show off your own intelligence to yourself and others by pondering deeply on things that are not worth pondering deeply about.
Now usually, my response to that is to use your own methods and practices against you. But interestingly enough, it got to be my turn to write this just after I played a really bitching game session in a really bitching campaign that required NO fucking theory to run well, violated pretty much all of the precepts that the Forge-gang claim must be followed to produce "functional gaming" (proof that these theories are full of shit), and could never have come about if I were to take the sort of things you claim are needed seriously.
So today, I find myself not in the mood to provide the rebuttal from the perspective of accepting the premise that this is an intellectual topic worth debating. I'm being more honest than usual today.
I will only say that, in the course of our 90 posts so far, you have failed to prove the one fundamental point to your entire argument for "your" side: that any of the stuff you talk about is in any way useful, much less necessary.
RPGPundit
Levi Kornelsen:
--- Quote from: RPGPundit ---I'm just coming down from one of the best gaming sessions I've done in a long time, where we concluded my epic OD&D campaign, one that started with the pcs at 1st level, and got them all the way to immortality, playing by the (sometimes confusing and obtuse) letter of the law according to the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.
It was incredible.
--- End quote ---
Yep, I read about that. Sounded like a great game.
--- Quote from: RPGPundit ---*Snip*
--- End quote ---
Who the fuck are you talking to with this?
Because while it may be "theorists", it sure isn't me. In the last two weeks, I've played two games and run one, as well as working on design for another one yet.
I've never called my way of gaming "superior" for anyone but me.
And I've never considered any theory I have to be a "great thought".
Sorry Pundit, but while you may have successfully kicked the shit of the air here, you didn't touch me once.
--- Quote from: RPGPundit ---I will only say that, in the course of our 90 posts so far, you have failed to prove the one fundamental point to your entire argument for "your" side: that any of the stuff you talk about is in any way useful, much less necessary.
--- End quote ---
It helps me. Others have stated that it helps them. It is, therefore, helpful.
RPGPundit:
But that is, nevertheless, the crux of our debate. I'm not expecting one or the other of us to "cave" here, but let's assess this discussion. Fundamentally, I think the key to it comes down to that argument: is gaming theory useful?
Its why the "who's winning" thread seemed so stupid to me; you could only possibly "win" if you convinced me that Gaming Theory is actually essential enough to merit its practice; and I could only "win" if I could convince you that it isn't.
I think perhaps we've both managed to convince the other of little things, that certain aspects of gaming theory are not without their applications, and on the other hand that many other aspects of gaming theory are indelibly tied into the frameworks of elitism that tend to float into any "hobby" area of human pursuits (or indeed, some would say any area of human pursuit period).
But fundamentally, my argument is that you haven't shown me yet that your uses of definitions, or that other theorists' uses of structured hypotheses for game design or game play, make a real difference in gaming; especially not a real difference that can't be accounted for by the gaining of overall experience and practice at the gaming table.
RPGPundit
Levi Kornelsen:
--- Quote from: RPGPundit ---But fundamentally, my argument is that you haven't shown me yet that your uses of definitions, or that other theorists' uses of structured hypotheses for game design or game play, make a real difference in gaming; especially not a real difference that can't be accounted for by the gaining of overall experience and practice at the gaming table.
--- End quote ---
My evidence, as all evidence along these lines, is anecdotal.
So it's story time.
1. Since the first draft of that little glossary on the purple site, I've recieved a total of seven PMs at that site from people thanking me - not for defining the terms clearly for use, but for giving them a way to talk to their GM about things that they want to talk about. At least two had been looking for a way to express it for years.
2. The idea of a conflict system - a rules engine that treats all conflicts in the same fashion - came from theory developments. It has made my gaming, and the gaming of quite a few other people I know locally substantially better.
3. Among my extended LARP group, I've used theory to talk to a few people about problems with different LARPs and how to work on them. I've had one game organizer, after reading it over, suddenly realize that her problem was that she was still stuck in the mode where she decided how her plots should end, and I showed her why that was a bad thing. She's been running games for many, many years, and I don't think she could have figured what I was trying to tell her if it hadn't been put into a value-neutral statement of "some different things players want".
...Would you like me to continue? I can do this all day.
RPGPundit:
--- Quote from: Levi Kornelsen ---My evidence, as all evidence along these lines, is anecdotal.
So it's story time.
1. Since the first draft of that little glossary on the purple site, I've recieved a total of seven PMs at that site from people thanking me - not for defining the terms clearly for use, but for giving them a way to talk to their GM about things that they want to talk about. At least two had been looking for a way to express it for years.
--- End quote ---
I think that's a great advocacy for bettering communication skills, but I think you can do that without gaming jargon, probably better than with; so it comes down to the "experience at the table" business. I'll give you partial credit, but as I said I'd already done that before, I'd already said that there could be some applications. But surely you're not saying that Gaming Theory is the only possible way to create better communication between players? I seriously debate that idea that it would even be the best method.
--- Quote ---
2. The idea of a conflict system - a rules engine that treats all conflicts in the same fashion - came from theory developments. It has made my gaming, and the gaming of quite a few other people I know locally substantially better.
--- End quote ---
Wait, what are you talking about here? Are you talking about a single unified mechanic in a gaming system? Like what D20 does? because I really don't think gaming theory can take credit for that!
If you're talking about something different, you'll need to explain what that is.
--- Quote ---
3. Among my extended LARP group, I've used theory to talk to a few people about problems with different LARPs and how to work on them. I've had one game organizer, after reading it over, suddenly realize that her problem was that she was still stuck in the mode where she decided how her plots should end, and I showed her why that was a bad thing. She's been running games for many, many years, and I don't think she could have figured what I was trying to tell her if it hadn't been put into a value-neutral statement of "some different things players want".
...Would you like me to continue? I can do this all day.
--- End quote ---
Well, I could talk about reams of thank you letters I've gotten from people since I started my blog, people saying that I'm saying the stuff about gaming that they've always felt but never could get around to saying; either for fear of seeming "stupid" in the light of the so-called cognoscenti, or from frustration that it wouldn't change anything, or just from an inability to express it effectively.
But its not really relevant to the point. I mean hell, Shooting Dice could probably drum up scads of people who claim that White Wolf's story-based gaming is the panacea for all the world's ills, and the guys who designed F.A.T.A.L. could probably find some dude who'd claim that it cures cancer.
But there's nothing objective in that, which you can show a skeptic like me that will be reproducible direct proof of utility.
Gaming Theory seems to be taking Astrology and trying to sell it off as Astrophysics; or alchemy sold as chemistry. There might even be a bit of a science in there somewhere, but its so surrounded by dogma and bullshit that on the whole you're mostly better off starting from scratch than trying to build on what's gone before.
RPGPundit
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page