I would suggest that if we must use gaming theory Jargon, that we could consider the three basic principles of RPGs: System, Plot, and Setting.

These are real things, they are concrete concepts that everyone can understand. The are immediately comprehensible and the "theory" (if you must call it that) springs naturally out of the definition: some people will really care the most about the game system, some will care more than anything about having an interesting plot in their games, and some will care most about discovering and learning about the setting itself.

Is that particularly helpful? Well, not really, its pretty fucking self-evident. But at least its truth, even if its blatantly obvious truth,  unlike other theories.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI would suggest that if we must use gaming theory Jargon...

I noticed that you capitalised "Jargon".  Does that mean that "Jargon" is part of the jargon?

!i!

But DnD lacks a plot, and only has an implied setting! Certainly, on the assumption that all of these need be present, shouldn't DnD have failed?

Don't shoot the messenger. I play DnD and find it useful to be able to homebrew setting and plot. Doesn't change that the implied theory here is bunk.

Hmm, seems like a different way of saying
Game = System
Narative = Plot
Simulation = Setting.

Not trying to be difficult but does it vary that much from those three? Note: I am not versed in GNS but it would seem to follow from my limited exposure.

Bill

Quote from: beejazzBut DnD lacks a plot, and only has an implied setting! Certainly, on the assumption that all of these need be present, shouldn't DnD have failed?

So what does that tell us about RPGs?? It tells us that the answer is to make games wherein setting and plot are optional/semioptional.

And what does it tell us about theory?? How people play isn't best assessed and improved by focusing on the type of game that is designed. Its best assessed and improved by looking at gaming groups and gaming "skills" ("craft" if you must call it that).

RPGPundit

Quote from: HinterWeltHmm, seems like a different way of saying
Game = System
Narative = Plot
Simulation = Setting.

Not trying to be difficult but does it vary that much from those three? Note: I am not versed in GNS but it would seem to follow from my limited exposure.

Bill

Except that "narrativism" is nothing about plot and "simulationism" is nothing about setting.  Even though your mistake is utterly understandable. That's part of the problem; the words themselves were intentionally designed to have deceptive meanings that are not natural, so that you HAVE to read the essays.

RPGPundit

I would suggest we don't use jargon at all, but use words in their common meaning.

If someone doesn't understand, we can restate using other common English words.

Frankly, I don't deny that fields of study can merit jargon, but it evolves naturally due to need, and we already have plenty of useful jargon:

Stats
Advantages and disadvantages
Feats
Attributes and skills
GM
Player (as generally player does not include GM, even though the GM is plainly playing a game with others)

There's lots more, rpgs have evolved a jargon that most of us use without thinking about, but theory has as yet absolutely no need of jargon.  The argument is always that it aids communication, but I think we all know in this particular case it does damn all of the kind.

So, I think we are best of not creating theory terms, in fact I'd go further and say that rpg theory is at best a waste of time and that it rarely reaches its best, rpg craft is where it's at and personally I'd quite like to see the very concept of a theory forum got rid of.

I'd rename this forum Game Design and Craft.

I've thought of doing so, but the problem is that might lead to Theory Swine posting theory stuff over in the main forum, and then claiming that there's no "other place" for it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI've thought of doing so, but the problem is that might lead to Theory Swine posting theory stuff over in the main forum, and then claiming that there's no "other place" for it.

RPGPundit

That already happens to a degree, if people are inclined to behave like dicks then forum names won't stop them.

My fave piece of jargon was the term Script Supervisor for the role of ref in Golden Heroes, which comes with a rather harsh acronym! Das is good!

Or anything in Dangerous Journeys.

Quote from: BalbinusI would suggest we don't use jargon at all, but use words in their common meaning.

If someone doesn't understand, we can restate using other common English words.

Frankly, I don't deny that fields of study can merit jargon, but it evolves naturally due to need, and we already have plenty of useful jargon:

Stats
Advantages and disadvantages
Feats
Attributes and skills
GM
Player (as generally player does not include GM, even though the GM is plainly playing a game with others)

There's lots more, rpgs have evolved a jargon that most of us use without thinking about, but theory has as yet absolutely no need of jargon.  The argument is always that it aids communication, but I think we all know in this particular case it does damn all of the kind.

So, I think we are best of not creating theory terms, in fact I'd go further and say that rpg theory is at best a waste of time and that it rarely reaches its best, rpg craft is where it's at and personally I'd quite like to see the very concept of a theory forum got rid of.

I'd rename this forum Game Design and Craft.

I'm with this.  100%, down to the last syllable and punctuation mark.  This is actually what I was going to post in response yesterday, though more succinctly.

I deny that any special jargon or theory really needs to exist at all.  I've gotten on fine without it for over a decade, and there's countless gamers who've gotten on fine with out it for even longer than that.  

So bugger theory, it does fuckall for me.