Quote from: Benoist;721814I'm neither a simulationist nor a narrativist nor a gamist. .

Fundamentally, I believe this is where I find myself getting frustrated when the forge comes up. If people find those categories useful for themselves, I have no issue whatsoever, but when they suggest that have to accept those categories, or tell me D&D is "gamist" or "narrativist" I just feel like I am being offered a false choice between distinctions I don't really buy into. Same when I hear people mention coherence. My sense is a lot of folks react negatively to this stuff because it is sometimes presented as gospel truth and it comes with an expectation that you also accept the jargon.

You know, to give Forge and GDS it's due (hear me out, I swear, they didn't get my brain), I feel like the main problem it was that it tried to classify gamers, rather than games. Because with all it's flaws and ideology, I think that sometimes criticising/describing a game on the basis of how well it simulates the desired world, how well it simulates the desired genre, and how abstract the mechanics is, would be useful mental shortcuts.

Quote from: Haffrung;721832Yep. Or for a graphically representation:

Typical OSR or Forge indie game:

XX

Breakout game like FATE or 13th Age:

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

D&D:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Which is why I have a good chuckle when forum wonks suggest D&D Next can't possibly succeed because WotC has lost the audience to Swords & Wizardry and 13th Age.

  D&D Next might have massive, massive sales and still be a failure.  I mean, 4e did and is widely regarded as a failure.  My understanding is that back in the day, sales of most roleplaying games put current sales to shame.  D&D made in a year back in the '70s and '80s more than the whole market probably does today over a couple of years.  D&D 4e is probably a failure relative to any edition that preceded it, and 5e will be, too, not because of S&W or 13th Age, but because D&D doesn't have the horsepower it used to because the hobby's simply not that big.  

The fact that WotC mismanaged 4e by splitting the audience with Essentials and that 5e is a big question mark isn't going to help, sure, but basically, the kind of success games had all the way through the early '90s just isn't possible anymore.    

That's why indie games work, though -- they aren't built on an assumption that the hobby can support a three-tier system or that they need to satisfy X sales to be successful.  D&D has to make money to be worth it to Hasbro, but My Greatest Indie Adventure can sell a hundred copies and the author might be happy.  D&D Next has to make a certain number of sales or Hasbro's going to try another Hail Mary like they did with Essentials to boost sales, and who knows what will happen?  But indie producers can basically set whatever metrics they want.  Shit, the metrics I used to set for my own books aren't even relevant anymore -- I used to think if I saw one of the books I co-wrote on a Borders shelf I was happy with that level of exposure, but Borders doesn't even exist.  So in a changing world, I strongly suspect that raw sales are not the metric anybody uses but the big boys.  As the industry becomes a hobby again, I suspect people will just be happy to have their game out there and played.

Quote from: Rincewind1;721849You know, to give Forge and GDS it's due (hear me out, I swear, they didn't get my brain), I feel like the main problem it was that it tried to classify gamers, rather than games. Because with all it's flaws and ideology, I think that sometimes criticising/describing a game on the basis of how well it simulates the desired world, how well it simulates the desired genre, and how abstract the mechanics is, would be useful mental shortcuts.

Did it ever try to classify gamers? That's not my reading though it's certainly a popular one. I thought it tried to classify what it called "agendas" which would be motivations or expectations, and such things could vary from moment to moment for any person. I thought the idea was, having classified agendas, to see if you could build games that more coherently target them and more effectively communicate expectations before starting play.

By using terminology that ends in "-ist", however, they generated an unnecessary but highly visible tempest. Nothing makes enemies faster than picking teams.

Quote from: Brad J. Murray;721852Did it ever try to classify gamers? That's not my reading though it's certainly a popular one. I thought it tried to classify what it called "agendas" which would be motivations or expectations, and such things could vary from moment to moment for any person. I thought the idea was, having classified agendas, to see if you could build games that more coherently target them and more effectively communicate expectations before starting play.

By using terminology that ends in "-ist", however, they generated an unnecessary but highly visible tempest. Nothing makes enemies faster than picking teams.

To be perhaps even more precise, I'd say that the problem was that what they really wanted to classify was fun - because ultimately, those agendas, as you noted, can change in a heartbeat, and a lot of times, the main agenda is "I want to hang out with people I like and do thing I like, and I can do it in many ways" - I'm a hardcore strategy guy, but it doesn't mean I won't play Jenga during a party. Trying to produce some criteria for games' classification, based on the concept of GNS minus the idealogical bent, would've probably made the whole movement less intelligently bankrupt. The classification'd by no means be perfect, many (probably including me) would reject it, but at least it'd be something much more neutral to discuss.

Quote from: Brad J. Murray;721852Did it ever try to classify gamers? That's not my reading though it's certainly a popular one.

Agreed. The original GNS/threefold thing was meant to classify gamers, and somehow metamorphed into a game system classification method which was very much a round peg in a square hole. The closest I've seen them coming to the original (and flawed, even the originator admitted as much) theory was expressing a preference for one particular type of game.

It's a wacky bundle of batshit and no mistake.

Quote from: Rincewind1;721849You know, to give Forge and GDS it's due (hear me out, I swear, they didn't get my brain), I feel like the main problem it was that it tried to classify gamers, rather than games. Because with all it's flaws and ideology, I think that sometimes criticising/describing a game on the basis of how well it simulates the desired world, how well it simulates the desired genre, and how abstract the mechanics is, would be useful mental shortcuts.

I reject Forge terminology and theory as qualifying both of gamers AND games. The real problem to me is that these terms and the concepts behind them have become popular enough in some quarters of the industry and community that people refer to them as ubiquitous - they are not. The concepts they are trying to pin down are artificial and grossly stereotyped, in the absolute best case scenario.

Well to an extent there ARE types of gamers.

On one extreme: char op freaks.
On another: people who want stuff that resembles freeform theatre with minimal if any rules.

Less extreme versions:

People who want to play fantasy superheroes vs people who want fantasy survival Horror.

People who enjoy tight storylines vs people who prefer hexcrawls.

And much more.

The GNS model classified agendas which players might prioritise at a moment of play. They always used to shout you down if you said it classified gamers or games, despite the fact that what the Forge used GNS for was producing games which were designed to support exclusively one agenda.

I don't agree with GNS but several recent posts are mistaken. The original core creators of the theory have said that it can be used to classify gamers. Also that it can classify designs. Also that it can classify "modes of fun" or "CAs". (They and their followers didn't necessarily say all of the above at the same, which may be a mark of evolution or confusion.)

Actually it all flows from the latter; the idea was if you preferred one CA, you were an -ist. If a game tended to facilitate a CA, it was an -ist design. The most influential part of GNS theory, and the most controversial, was that if a design facilitated more than one CA (was "incoherent") it would inevitably lead to power struggle and misery. Therefore games should not encourage fun outside the main CA.

I'm not going to get into all the other consequences of this line of reasoning or all the ways it can be critiqued. It's been proved wrong empirically (while power struggle is an issue, it's not inevitable, likely, or even wholly destructive, as borne out by millions of hours of play).

Also, GNS and GDS are different, particularly in the coherence and facilitation angle. I don't see eye to eye with John Kim on many things these days, but you could do far worse than to look at his site on RPG theory if you want to know the history of it all.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;721851That's why indie games work, though -- they aren't built on an assumption that the hobby can support a three-tier system or that they need to satisfy X sales to be successful.  D&D has to make money to be worth it to Hasbro, but My Greatest Indie Adventure can sell a hundred copies and the author might be happy.  D&D Next has to make a certain number of sales or Hasbro's going to try another Hail Mary like they did with Essentials to boost sales, and who knows what will happen?  But indie producers can basically set whatever metrics they want.  Shit, the metrics I used to set for my own books aren't even relevant anymore -- I used to think if I saw one of the books I co-wrote on a Borders shelf I was happy with that level of exposure, but Borders doesn't even exist.  So in a changing world, I strongly suspect that raw sales are not the metric anybody uses but the big boys.  As the industry becomes a hobby again, I suspect people will just be happy to have their game out there and played.

But the problem is that most indie games aren't supported with setting and adventure material. They're great if you're committed to creating all the content besides the system and maybe the outline of a setting. But if you're trying to manage a D&D game once or twice a month between taking your kids to soccer and building a back deck, or if you simply don't have the inclination to make your own material, then indie games are little more than thought-inspiring curiosities.

My impression is that most indie games are owned by hardcore RPG enthusiasts who have 10-50 different game systems sitting on a shelf. Some people love that variety. But a lot of people just want to play the same system for years, and have it supported by all of the adventure, setting, monster, treasure, map, and sourcebook material that they need to run the game with as little work on their part as possible.

There are only a handful of companies in the RPG industry with the heft to provide a steady flow of professionally-produced support material. If those companies fail, the hobby will shrivel to the hardcore forum crowd. It's not just that FATE only sold 10,000 copies. It's that most of those went onto the shelves of collectors, and most of the rest were played once or twice by a group of existing, long-time RPG players. I doubt the game has brought in more than 100 new players to the hobby. A new edition of D&D brings in tens of thousands. Not as many as the 70s and 80s, but still enough to keep the hobby commercially viable.

Quote from: The Ent;721865Well to an extent there ARE types of gamers.

On one extreme: char op freaks.
On another: people who want stuff that resembles freeform theatre with minimal if any rules.

Less extreme versions:

People who want to play fantasy superheroes vs people who want fantasy survival Horror.

People who enjoy tight storylines vs people who prefer hexcrawls.

And much more.

That analysis is more useful than the sum of everything put forward on the Forge, because it speaks in plain English about things that people see in real play.

Which goes back to the original answer to the question: How do you fight a Forgeist?

Take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Quote from: Arminius;721873I don't agree with GNS but several recent posts are mistaken. The original core creators of the theory have said that it can be used to classify gamers. Also that it can classify designs. Also that it can classify "modes of fun" or "CAs". (They and their followers didn't necessarily say all of the above at the same, which may be a mark of evolution or confusion.)

The original core idea had one creator as I recall, and it was entirely about gamers. I haven't got a link handy though. Anyone?

Quote from: The Traveller;721880The original core idea had one creator as I recall, and it was entirely about gamers. I haven't got a link handy though. Anyone?

I don't know how original this is since it reeks of heavy revision but it certainly explicitly disavows using it to label people: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/

Edit: sort of; and it's clearly commenting on some prior work that I can't find.