I listen to The Voice of the Revolution, a house podcast for IPR.  I'm a decent fan of the show, but this latest episode's tone really cheesed me off.  

I like and own many of the products available from IPR, and I respect both Brennan Taylor and Paul Tevis.  However, the trend of IPR to catering exclusively to Narrativist style gaming (furthering a trend on the Forge) bothers me.  It seems the theory aficionados are completely neglecting parts of the hobby that need the most study, namely the more popular play styles (Simulationism and to a degree, Gamism).  I know there are some of those aficionados of Narrativist play here, so I'd like to have a reasoned discussion on the topic.

Why is Narrativist play now the main focus of the Forge?  It's not that it's as marginal (on the internet at least) as it once was, so where's the Forgey love for the other two play styles?  Do they not deserve any sort of serious innovation with a solid theoretical basis?

Quote from: joewolzWhy is Narrativist play now the main focus of the Forge?  It's not that it's as marginal (on the internet at least) as it once was, so where's the Forgey love for the other two play styles?  Do they not deserve any sort of serious innovation with a solid theoretical basis?

Because they decided long ago that Simulationist play was impossible and illusory, and Gamism is immature and not "real" gaming.  Narrativism is the one true way.  Everything else is either illusory or the result of brain damage.

There's more to it than that, but that's the gist of it.

Quote from: joewolzWhy is Narrativist play now the main focus of the Forge?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here...because it's Big Uncle Ron's favorite?  

QuoteIt's not that it's as marginal (on the internet at least) as it once was, so where's the Forgey love for the other two play styles?

It's probably hard to get support for S games on the Forge, since they're viewed as "a cowardly retreat from the responsibilities of Narrativist play"*.

QuoteDo they not deserve any sort of serious innovation with a solid theoretical basis?

See above?

Oh, also it's all advocacy and bollocks, and what gets developed is what the Inner Circle likes to feel smart and deep for playing.

* This may be a slight misquote. But not by much. The sentiment is there, I just won't go braining my damage to find the exact words used; pretty much anybody that cares has read them, and either knows exactly what Big Uncle Ron meant by that or knows exactly what Big Uncle Ron really meant by that, no calm down, it's not offensive, you're projecting.

Well, as a non-forgie Small Press game publisher, I won't use IPR because there's nothing revolutionary about my games, "Indie" has a Forge-ish taste which doesn't apply to my games, and their whole Communist-chic look leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I feel I'm better off not deceiving customers - I don't want people picking up the game thinking it's Forge-related. That would just anger people. Maybe this relates to your problem?

-clash

Quote from: GabrielBecause they decided long ago that Simulationist play was impossible and illusory, and Gamism is immature and not "real" gaming.  Narrativism is the one true way.  Everything else is either illusory or the result of brain damage.

There's more to it than that, but that's the gist of it.

If you read the Forge, they all adamantly deny that...and continue to perpetrate it du jour if notde facto.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI'm gonna go out on a limb here...because it's Big Uncle Ron's favorite?  

It's probably hard to get support for S games on the Forge, since they're viewed as "a cowardly retreat from the responsibilities of Narrativist play"*. See above?

Oh, also it's all advocacy and bollocks, and what gets developed is what the Inner Circle likes to feel smart and deep for playing.

Is it all "advocacy and bollocks" at its heart?  I agree that Dr. Edwards has a certain...way of dealing with things on the Forge.  But, given that, why is there such an implicit prejudice amongst gamers here and RPG.net?

Is their fun that much better?

Quote from: flyingmiceWell, as a non-forgie Small Press game publisher, I won't use IPR because there's nothing revolutionary about my games, "Indie" has a Forge-ish taste which doesn't apply to my games, and their whole Communist-chic look leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I feel I'm better off not deceiving customers - I don't want people picking up the game thinking it's Forge-related. That would just anger people. Maybe this relates to your problem?

-clash

I think I will just add "What Clash Said" to my sig.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI think I will just add "What Clash Said" to my sig.

Bill

Where will that leave me with "What Bill Said!"? Won't that create an ever decreasing spiral reference that destroys the universe as we know it? :O

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceWhere will that leave me with "What Bill Said!"? Won't that create an ever decreasing spiral reference that destroys the universe as we know it? :O

-clash

hmm, I could live with that.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelthmm, I could live with that.

Bill

Then viola! Look down!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice...and their whole Communist-chic look leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

-clash

Let me tell you about my D&D character who is a Ranger that dual-wields a hammer and sickle and who's Favorite Enemy is the Bourgeoise...

Quote from: joewolzWhy is Narrativist play now the main focus of the Forge?  It's not that it's as marginal (on the internet at least) as it once was, so where's the Forgey love for the other two play styles?  Do they not deserve any sort of serious innovation with a solid theoretical basis?

I totally think that other styles deserve serious innovation with a solid theoretical basis.

Historically, I think that a lot of Forge games and thought concentrated around areas that were just flatly not being served.  Much of the stuff that gets tied together under a "narrativist" label sat squarely in that camp, six years ago.  If you wanted a game like Dogs in the Vineyard or My Life with Master you pretty well had to go out and make it yourself, 'cuz you sure weren't going to find it on the shelves.

Now, however, I think that things are in a different phase, where such games get created for a different reason.  The simple fact is that, in the process of creating a number of such games, quite a few folks have gotten a handle on what it takes to do them ... and more importantly they have put that understanding into words in a way that other people can (often) pick up on.  There's a mass of game-designing craft around such games, it's all very open and accessible, and if you like that sort of thing then you can grab it and go.

Strange as it seems, games about judgment and hard choices started out harder to design than games like D&D, but I think they have become the low-hanging fruit for independent designers.

If you want to make a game about moral choices, it's known territory.  People on the Forge and elsewhere will give you a ton of advice, help you pin down exactly the structure you need to back up the moral quandaries, and you're off to the races.

Interestingly, the same is true if you want a game about competition and strategy ... you just need different sources.  Boardgamegeek is good, as are the academic fields of game-theory.

On the other hand, games about just being, and savoring the richness of experience without casting judgment on it ... man, those are hard.  To do that, an author has to start from the ground up, because there are very few practical formulae.  Yes, there are all those games already out there, and there's even a ton of theory (from the days of r.p.g.a) but there is a genuine dearth of game-design craft.  There are people who know how to make these games, but they haven't codified those skills so that they can be easily picked up by a novice.

In my experience, that makes it harder to get a draft of such a game that even begins to work properly.  I'm making a game that will probably be labelled "simulationist."  It's been hard going.  I've had to invent a lot of stuff, and analyze a lot of things that everybody sorta-kinda-almost knows, but which they can't hang words on.

It's hard and sometimes frustrating.  I think it will be worth it, but I can certainly understand that if a person just wants to make a game then the styles that are better mapped out are awfully tempting.

Does that make sense?

Quote from: joewolzWhy is Narrativist play now the main focus of the Forge?

I thought people making, owning and distributing their own games Fugazi-style was the main focus of the Forge? :confused:

Quote from: TonyLBI totally think that other styles deserve serious innovation with a solid theoretical basis.

Historically, I think that a lot of Forge games and thought concentrated around areas that were just flatly not being served.  Much of the stuff that gets tied together under a "narrativist" label sat squarely in that camp, six years ago.  If you wanted a game like Dogs in the Vineyard or My Life with Master you pretty well had to go out and make it yourself, 'cuz you sure weren't going to find it on the shelves.

Now, however, I think that things are in a different phase, where such games get created for a different reason.  The simple fact is that, in the process of creating a number of such games, quite a few folks have gotten a handle on what it takes to do them ... and more importantly they have put that understanding into words in a way that other people can (often) pick up on.  There's a mass of game-designing craft around such games, it's all very open and accessible, and if you like that sort of thing then you can grab it and go.

Strange as it seems, games about judgment and hard choices started out harder to design than games like D&D, but I think they have become the low-hanging fruit for independent designers.

If you want to make a game about moral choices, it's known territory.  People on the Forge and elsewhere will give you a ton of advice, help you pin down exactly the structure you need to back up the moral quandaries, and you're off to the races.

Interestingly, the same is true if you want a game about competition and strategy ... you just need different sources.  Boardgamegeek is good, as are the academic fields of game-theory.

On the other hand, games about just being, and savoring the richness of experience without casting judgment on it ... man, those are hard.  To do that, an author has to start from the ground up, because there are very few practical formulae.  Yes, there are all those games already out there, and there's even a ton of theory (from the days of r.p.g.a) but there is a genuine dearth of game-design craft.  There are people who know how to make these games, but they haven't codified those skills so that they can be easily picked up by a novice.

In my experience, that makes it harder to get a draft of such a game that even begins to work properly.  I'm making a game that will probably be labelled "simulationist."  It's been hard going.  I've had to invent a lot of stuff, and analyze a lot of things that everybody sorta-kinda-almost knows, but which they can't hang words on.

It's hard and sometimes frustrating.  I think it will be worth it, but I can certainly understand that if a person just wants to make a game then the styles that are better mapped out are awfully tempting.

Does that make sense?

Do I hear a call for yet another Forum wherein we can discuss the design theory of Simulation/Immersion games and how they are teh b3st evar!!! and we can look down on people who don't play that way?

All kidding aside, it's an interesting observation.

Quote from: James J SkachDo I hear a call for yet another Forum wherein we can discuss the design theory of Simulation/Immersion games and how they are teh b3st evar!!! and we can look down on people who don't play that way?

Uh ... I wasn't calling, actually.  I don't think anything new is needed.  My experience is that most people on the forums I already visit are pretty interested in helping out with this sort of thing.

'course, I don't say "Hey, give me help with my Grand Unified Simulationist theory!", I just say stuff like "Hey, what kind of patterns would you expect to see in how people express opinions about each other?  What kind of reward mechanics can we create that will help players to create those patterns without having to consciously keep all this junk in mind?"

Maybe if they knew my dark purpose, people would hound me with pitchforks and torches.  That could be fun!