Recently, Levi Kornelsen posted links to his personal "This-Is-How-It-Makes-Sense-To-Me" clarifications of The Big Model.  His explanations make sense, and that's great.  

I'm still not sure what the actual use of theory is.

This isn't a codemnation; it's an honest lack of understanding.  Levi says he's gonna use it fo rhis own work, by which I suppose he means designing games.  I'm just not sure how it helps.

Obviously all this theory stuff is of use and interest to someone, else they wouldn't bother.  I know that around here we don't dig on it, generally speaking, but surely we've thought about it.

So what's it good for, really?

Personally, I think that theories like GNS and The Big Model and stuff are, at best,  innocuous (if ultimately just academic) navel gazing and at worst confrontational elitism -- but that totally hinges on who's using the hammer, so to speak.  I also acknowledge that I simply do not know why it is.

Ideas?

I got nothin', doc. I looked at the thread because it was Levi, and his explanations are about 1000 times clearer that the originals, but I still got nothin'.  

-clash

Mt first thought is that you, a mod, should know better than to put theory stiff in the RPG sub-forum.

C'mon man...live up to those stripes...

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

I asked Levi this question in the "Big Muddle" thread and his answer was pretty straightforward:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenFirst, to be able to think about stuff clearly, and spot and solve problems and find potential improvements to play more easily.  This helps me with writing games, and with running them.  Helps some other people, too, or so they tell me.  Doesn't help everyone, obviously.

Second, to create a common way of expressing some stuff that's often kind of a pain in the ass to talk about at all, so that the benefits of "we all share our tips and tricks" can hit parts of play they didn't before (that's the "glossary thing" again).  

Third, to just try and figure shit out, puzzle-style.  Because figuring shit out makes me feel smart.  I try not to let that bit make me act like a dink, but I'd be full of shit if I said it wasn't in there somewhere.

That's pretty clear to me. I still believe that designing good games is a better way to achieve this than writing on theory but I respect that he sees some worth in this.

I musta missed tha.  Sold!  Thanks!  

THREAD OVER!

...now how do I move it...?

...like that, I suppose.

Nicely done, sir..

For me, the original intent of exploring "theory" was to try to get a handle on how changing dice mechanics changes odds, and then extrapolate that to how it changes the feel of a game.

Unfortunately, that was not the focus of "theory" in the intervox...

Now I've picked up some very interesting information from Gleichman, like tactics, strategy, pace of decision - stuff that was more along the lines of how I was thinking about "theory." Most of the rest of the interesting stuff I find is serendipity after slogging through a shit-storm, sometimes one in which I was an active participant.

It's why I changed focus to D20 Haven and Dunfalcon - trying to do something productive.  Sure, I still battle when the mood strikes or when I thik there's a diamond somewhere in the rough. But I really do want to start something that people can use if they no longer want to genuflect to WotC but still want to play the kinds of games from previous versions of D&D. And independent approach that doesn't require licensing issues for folks who want to home brew and distribute...

Theory of copyright is much more important than if I'm a "G" versus "S" player now...

I think theory is kind of cool the first time you stumble upon it.

I find the answer it tries to provide totally unhelpful. But the questions I have had to ask myself because of my reading on theory? They were so helpful to me, on an instinctive level.

I don't think you have to ask yourself these questions over and over. Still, I think Levi's theory attempt is cleaner than the original and thus, a new generation of gamers will have a much easier time than with the old Forge stuff. So that's good for them.

But this idea that theory is going provide the answers? Not gonna happen, IMO.

One thing is that people seem to be mixing up "theory" generally with specifically Ron Edwards "Big Model" and Levi's take on it.  

There are a lot of other theory sources which are more connected with traditional practice and design.  To take two of my theory articles as examples, there's Class and Template Mechanics and Techniques for Action Pacing.  Lots of other people have different takes on different topics.

With a healthy filter, theory can teach some interesting points. Most of them are truisms that people do intuitively, like "it's about the players, not the characters" or "if you want to the players to do something, reward it somehow", but it's helpful to see them clearly laid out.

However, I don't equalize "theory" with "big model". The Big Model itself wasn't that helpful for me, and especially GNS is a poorly understood, poorly defined and more then questionable categorization.
I've got my mileage more out of other Forge stuff as the Design Patterns, and Non-Forge stuff like Costikyans "I have no words"-essay.

Understanding 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.

OK.  Theory, I caniunderstand -- how games are built.

What I DON'T get is all this Ron Edwards humbo-lumbo.

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.

Interestingly, however, understading engineering theory is not necessary to build a treehouse.  Nor is carpentry theory for that matter.  

Would a treehouse built by someone who had advanced degrees in Engineering and carpentry theories be better than one built buy some random guy with a hammer and fond memories of the treehouses built by his forefathers?

Possibly. But would the children play in it any more than they would the other?

Quote from: SpikeInterestingly, however, understading engineering theory is not necessary to build a treehouse.  Nor is carpentry theory for that matter.  

Would a treehouse built by someone who had advanced degrees in Engineering and carpentry theories be better than one built buy some random guy with a hammer and fond memories of the treehouses built by his forefathers?

Possibly. But would the children play in it any more than they would the other?

It 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.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!OK.  Theory, I caniunderstand -- how games are built.

What I DON'T get is all this Ron Edwards humbo-lumbo.

It's just a failed attempt at useful theorizing. There's nuggets of truth in there, and it's very self-affirming if you happen to fall into the Cool Kids' group, so it built up a bit of a following.

Kinda like religion, but less likely to add Good to the world.