TheRPGSite

From the Oxford Dictionary - Craft - 2 [sing]all the skills needed for a particular activity.

From the Oxford Dictionary -Theory -1 a formal set of ideas that is intended to explain why sth happens or exist.

Okay, the above is a very basic definition of both craft and theory. Now this is not about the validity of either concepts...okay it could turn out to be, but my interest is more in what other players find useful.

With regards to theory, i admit that my knowledge of the subject is pretty limited. This is not to say i find the subject uninteresting or even impractical, but rather i have found much more use for discussions on craft for my games.

Mind you, i have friends who are heavy into the theory discussions, and this is reflected in the homebrew systems they create and run. Their games are interesting and informative - being someone who does not really dig the whole rules part of gaming, it is interesting to see the use of certain philosophies reflected in the rules they create. Although for the life of me i could not really describe what the philosophy behind the rules were, only that we had a lot of fun playing them.

As for craft, i'm thinking about actual advice for running games. Techniques and such. An example of this would be the advice Robin Laws has written about in articles and in his blog.

I gravitate more towards the craft aspect because..well i see more of an impact it has on the games I run. Which again, is not a slight against theory...if i was more hip to the rules aspects of rpgs and was interested in designing systems, i'm sure theory would be very helpful(I assume)

So what aspects do nutkins gravitate towards? Please feel free to redine terms and such. Like i said, my knowledge on theory is extremely limited, and as for craft, i have only my experience as a GM and articles from writers who probably have had more experience or talent to rely on.

Also i do realize that theory and craft should probably not be discussed together...but like i said, i am curious.

Regards,
David R.

Theory without craft is hollow and useless.

You have to get out there and hit the heavy-bag or else what you think about gaming really means nothing.

Hitting the heavy-bag means gaming, playing games, running games and having fun doing so.  Fun (but then, so is hitting an actual heavy bag).

I couldn't get into Robin Laws' stuff and GNS Theory in isolation leaves me pretty cold but theory, tools in my toolboxes that have made my gaming more enjoyable, that have made my craft more...crafty, I can't say, "no," to that.

i vote for craft; its far more important to have a good GM and good players who are actually roleplaying, rather than just dungeoncrawling.  A really good system with a really well written setting, plot, etc is great, right up until you put it into the hands of a GM who doesnt know is Craft.  thats a sure way to ruin any game, regardless how good its theory is.

conversely, i am a very analytical thinker, so i find myself getting caught up in the little details a lot of the time, especially as a player.  In that respect its nice for me to see a system/setting that makes sense, otherwise i get distracted pretty easliy trying to debate hazy rules explanations and such.

Quote from: Harry JoyWhile not a presented option, I vote knowledge.
 
hth

Could you please elaborate on this. Not sure what you mean by knowledge. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
David R.

I like the place where they meet, though I've been spending more time overall in craft-type-stuff lately.

Craft for me. You can have knowledge about all the theories in the world, but bugger if you can't put them to use.

On the other hand, it is possible to learn craftsmanship without getting to know the ideas behind it, relying on experience and intuition.

Perfect would be a combination of the two, but choose one, I'm gonna choose craft.

A time and a place for all things under the sun as it were.

In addition to running games, I design games. Somewhere in all that you have to have both theory and craft.

But GNS <> rational theory.

Quote from: Zombie Hunter Wozi vote for craft; its far more important to have a good GM and good players who are actually roleplaying, rather than just dungeoncrawling.

HAY GUYS ROLEPLAYING NOT ROLLPLAYING AM I RIGHT HAUGHALAUGHALUAGH

:brood:

Seriously, though: Craft. You need craft to have a good game. The only thing theory is good for, based on what I've seen, is to give chronic overanalyzers that aren't having good games (or aren't actually playing RPGs at all) something arcane and repetitive to pour their spare time into online. Try World of Warcraft, guys. It's prettier.

Next phase, new wave, dance craze, anyways, it's still rock and roll to me.

You can talk all you want about theory, craft, or whatever. But in the end, it's still just new ways of looking at people playing make-believe and having a good time with their friends. Intellectualize or analyze all you want, but we've been playing the same game since we were 2 years old. We just have shinier books, spend more money, and use bigger words now.

Quote from: Name LipsNext phase, new wave, dance craze, anyways, it's still rock and roll to me.

You can talk all you want about theory, craft, or whatever. But in the end, it's still just new ways of looking at people playing make-believe and having a good time with their friends. Intellectualize or analyze all you want, but we've been playing the same game since we were 2 years old. We just have shinier books, spend more money, and use bigger words now.

Quoted for truth.

Anybody quoting Billy Joel can't be all that wrong.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI like the place where they meet, though I've been spending more time overall in craft-type-stuff lately.

I extremely interested in "the place where they meet", could you give me a couple of examples? I can't seem to articulate it myself.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Technicolor DreamcoatAnybody quoting Billy Joel can't be all that wrong.

I have been saying that for the longest time. :)

Would is be safe to say that there would be no d20 without at least some theoretical musings? Surely someone must have thought that making a unified system could make things better in order for the designers to leave their, I'm sure, perfectly adequate games of AD&D and start tinkering with new mechanics.

I would also think that a game tester without an at least somewhat theoretical bent would be fairly useless, as he would just run his game and be done with it, rather than comming with sugestions on improving game mechanics.

QuoteWould is be safe to say that there would be no d20 without at least some theoretical musings? Surely someone must have thought that making a unified system could make things better in order for the designers to leave their, I'm sure, perfectly adequate games of AD&D and start tinkering with new mechanics.

Yeah, this is an interesting point. I think i may have been a tad cavalier in my description of theory. Issues such as these do indeed crop up and i assume theory plays a part in resolving them. I am sure there are folks here who know more about the inner workings behind D20, how it came about and such.I reckon they are in a better position to answer this question.

QuoteI would also think that a game tester without an at least somewhat theoretical bent would be fairly useless, as he would just run his game and be done with it, rather than comming with sugestions on improving game mechanics.

I always thought that game testing was all about familiarity with the system in question. I assume experience with the system is really what counts. I mean there are people out there testing games who do not really know much about game theory but they know a hell of a lot about the system they are testing. I am off course talking about testing of new editions of a game. As for original systems...i guess theory may play a part, but i suspect it has more to do with the question of, do the testers like the rules? do the testers think that the rules will appeal to the general gaming public?...stuff on those lines.

Regards,
David R.

Either one, without the other, is incomplete.
 
You can navel gaze all day.  If you don't do something with your wisdom, you've still got nothing.
 
On the other hand, if you have no idea why you're doing what you're doing, or what impact your actions have, then you'll never really get that good.

Quote from: David RAs for original systems...i guess theory may play a part, but i suspect it has more to do with the question of, do the testers like the rules? do the testers think that the rules will appeal to the general gaming public?...stuff on those lines.

All depends upon who you talk to or about.

Over on the Forge, there are those who claim they used the guilding light of the Big Model and GNS to create their games.

I myself have spoken to a lot of internet designers who created a range of games ranging from complete crap to actually very impressive work. And frankly none of them worked under anything close to a "theory" of design. The better of them had specific likes and dislikes in other game systems and moved towards correcting them in their own works.

Few rpg designers since the earlier days had actual experience designing any other type of game, and as a result they tend to suffer on that side of design. Modern game design is far more about the fluff favor text and 'gaming advice' then it is the hard nuts and bolts of game design.

Sadly this is true even of what would appear to be striking exceptions like modern production for HERO System.

Quote from: David RI extremely interested in "the place where they meet", could you give me a couple of examples? I can't seem to articulate it myself.

If you look at the "dozen pieces of advice" I put up - that came from about as many arguments about how to apply theory to actual play.

Quote

Quote from: gleichmanAll depends upon who you talk to or about.

Over on the Forge, there are those who claim they used the guilding light of the Big Model and GNS to create their games.

Hey Gleichman, are you saying that there is no real concrete evidence that those at the Forge used the Big Model and GNS to create their games or are you saying that there could never be any tangible evidence to the claim that theory is used in game design.

QuoteI myself have spoken to a lot of internet designers who created a range of games ranging from complete crap to actually very impressive work. And frankly none of them worked under anything close to a "theory" of design. The better of them had specific likes and dislikes in other game systems and moved towards correcting them in their own works.

But couldn't something like what you describe be considered a kind of design philosophy? Maybe not a theory...but something akin to it.

QuoteFew rpg designers since the earlier days had actual experience designing any other type of game, and as a result they tend to suffer on that side of design. Modern game design is far more about the fluff favor text and 'gaming advice' then it is the hard nuts and bolts of game design.

Okay i'm a bit confused here. You write modern game design is about the fluff favor text and gaming advice then it is about the nuts and bolts....but(i may be mistaken because my theory knowledge is pretty basic) isn't what some theories try to do is translate elements found in movies and books into concrete rules. Or is this one minor aspect of theory. Like i said, my knowledge is pretty basic.

Regards,
David R.

It's a false dichotomy.

You absolutely need craft.  Theory is one type of craft, but it isn't total and, as Judd said, it doesn't stand alone.

Why do we needs engineers anyway? Can't we just, like, build the damn bridge?

I have always favored craft myself. Practical application of tested techniques suits me nicely. However theory is a necessity! Theory begets new techniques as the theories are tested and honed. Theory alone can be beautiful and elegant, but without practical application, it is also useless. Craft is immediately useful because it is all about practical application of techniques, both in testing and in broad use, but without the purely intellectual forays of the theoreticians, craft would become hidebound and ultra-conservative. Thus even though I strongly lean towards craft, I recognize the need for theory.

Thing is, right now theory is in its infancy. It's far too nebulous and at the same time too rigid. Example: Every popular theory - not just GNS - tries to shoehorn everything into three basic groupings. Why three? Because it's beautiful and symmetric, I suppose, but each has problem areas because of this. With GNS, the practice seems to be "if it's not Gam or Nar, it must be Sim." Because Sim is not rigorously defined, it has become a dumping ground, an everything else area, a place to put everything which doesn't fit.

Because there 'must' be three creative agendas, and Gam and Nar are well defined, Sim has become impossible to adequately define within the GNS theory. The theory thus breaks down and becomes useless with everything not Nar or Gam, just as Einsteinian physics breaks down and becomes useless at the quantum level. This doesn't invalidate what GNS has done for Gam and Nar gaming, just as the quantum break doesn't invalidate the Einsteinian universe on the macro scale. It just means GNS doesn't work for anything not Gam or Nar.

Whatever. I'm trading dangerously close to theory here myself - perhaps metatheory... :D

-mcie

Quote from: bondetampWhy do we needs engineers anyway? Can't we just, like, build the damn bridge?

And he says it better than I can in less words.

High Five!

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: David R

QuoteHey Gleichman, are you saying that there is no real concrete evidence that those at the Forge used the Big Model and GNS to create their games or are you saying that there could never be any tangible evidence to the claim that theory is used in game design.

I'm not attempting to say either. I was just noting that some have made the claim and I was passing that along.

Quote from: David R

QuoteBut couldn't something like what you describe be considered a kind of design philosophy? Maybe not a theory...but something akin to it.

Not as I understand theory. Theory must be formal and open to inspection. Gut feeling for "this is better than that", really isn't either.

Quote from: David R

QuoteOkay i'm a bit confused here. You write modern game design is about the fluff favor text and gaming advice then it is about the nuts and bolts....but(i may be mistaken because my theory knowledge is pretty basic) isn't what some theories try to do is translate elements found in movies and books into concrete rules. Or is this one minor aspect of theory. Like i said, my knowledge is pretty basic.

I would agree that RPG theory should produce some sort of impact on mechanics. I know that the little (and insignificant) works that I published online were geared in that direction.

But modern game design makes little use of theory. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that RPG design lacks formal theory with rare exception- the efforts of the Forge not withstanding.

QuoteI would agree that RPG theory should find some sort of on mechanics. I know that the little (and insignificant) works that I published online were geared in that direction.

Could you post a link to your work. It would be interesting to see what you have come up with. It would give me a better understanding of the kind of stuff you are interested in. And in discussions of rpgs - there is no such thing as insignificant. I like games period...some more than others off course.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: David RCould you post a link to your work. It would be interesting to see what you have come up with. It would give me a better understanding of the kind of stuff you are interested in. And in discussions of rpgs - there is no such thing as insignificant. I like games period...some more than others off course.

Regards,
David R.

Here you go. Suprised they haven't taken them down.

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/elements.html

QuoteWhatever. I'm trading dangerously close to theory here myself - perhaps metatheory... :D

It's okay. I always like reading what people post. Theory is a bit out of my league...but hey, it's there.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: gleichmanHere you go. Suprised they haven't taken them down.

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/collists/elements.html

Whoa...okay glanced through some of your stuff. Real heavy reading. Going to read more...but man, I get where you coming from.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: David RWhoa...okay glanced through some of your stuff. Real heavy reading. Going to read more...but man, I get where you coming from.

Regards,
David R.

I tried to warn you.

Quote from: David RIt's okay. I always like reading what people post. Theory is a bit out of my league...but hey, it's there.

Regards,
David R.

Yep! Out of my league too. I try to keep abreast of it, but I couldn't possibly make any contributions. I'm not exactly an original thinker. :D

-mice

I'm going to be contrary (it's what I do) and come at this from another angle.

If you do game design -- even something as simple as creating a new feat or spell for D&D -- then you're going into the theoretical realm.  But there is more than way to theorize.

From what I have seen, the Forge theorizes in a way that reminds me of the social "sciences" -- lots of high-falutin' concepts, intentionally confusing terminology, and unfounded assumptions taken as proven theory.  (You might be able to tell I'm not a fan.  :p )

Another way to look at RPG theory, though, is more analogous to engineering.  3e uses this sort of approach with its emphasis on "game balance".  The design philosophy is to try to make the different options of the game equal in power -- something I feel it fails miserably at.

I take the engineering-stylez approach when I'm designing things, but my emphasis is on *fun*, rather than game balance.  Exalted is a completely unbalanced game.  A Solar Exalt will have better stats, better skills, and a lot more charms (powers) than a Dragonblooded Exalt -- not to mention that the Solar's charms are better!  But the game still works and is still fun.

So, I use a lot of theory, but I'd get in a knife fight with someone from the Forge.  I'm concerned about building a better die mechanic and making powers work smoothly, not with fucking "deep meaningfulness".

Quote from: CyberzombieFrom what I have seen, the Forge theorizes in a way that reminds me of the social "sciences" -- lots of high-falutin' concepts, intentionally confusing terminology, and unfounded assumptions taken as proven theory.  (You might be able to tell I'm not a fan.  :p )

Another way to look at RPG theory, though, is more analogous to engineering.  3e uses this sort of approach with its emphasis on "game balance".  The design philosophy is to try to make the different options of the game equal in power -- something I feel it fails miserably at.

Yes, I must agree with this split. I'm starting to like you Cyberzombie. You might consider that a bad thing...

I'm however uncertain that "game balance" was the primary driving philosphy (a much better word choice for this the theory btw) behind 3rd edition. I've always consider it likely that D&D was more driven by the philosphy of niche protection first and foremost.

I imagine one would have to ask Mr. Cook to get the real thoughts behind it. And if you or another have, please let me know.

Quote from: gleichmanYes, I must agree with this split. I'm starting to like you Cyberzombie. You might consider that a bad thing...

:heh: You may consider it a bad thing, too, when you get to know me better.

Quote from: gleichmanI'm however uncertain that "game balance" was the primary driving philosphy (a much better word choice for this the theory btw) behind 3rd edition. I've always consider it likely that D&D was more driven by the philosphy of niche protection first and foremost.

I imagine one would have to ask Mr. Cook to get the real thoughts behind it. And if you or another have, please let me know.

I will admit that, while I have talked to Monte (he's even been a Nutkinlander in some incarnations), I have not talked to him directly on this subject.  However, I've been following 3e since before it was released (on Eric Noah's 3e site) and I think I'm pretty safe in saying that game balance was the primary concern in 3e's design.  Add in the commentary he's written on his site and in Dragon/Dungeon, and I'm thoroughly convinced 3e was all about game balance.

I won't dispute that they were out to protect and expand their market share -- that's what the d20 licence is all about, really -- but that's not really tied into the design of the rules themselves.  If, say, GURPS was the first and biggest RPG, and Wizards bought up the property, I think they would have used the same strategies.

I will say, however, that I don't think that when Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams were using the concept of "game balance" that they were thinking of it as a divine law, like the morons in ENWorld's Rules forums do.  (Okay, maybe Skip Williams did, but I don't think the other two did.)  I think that they thought of it as a useful tool to try to keep the classes equal in power.  They failed, and it has mutated into the monster of GAME BALANCE, but I don't blame them for that.  :)

I'm guessing that Gleichman, by "niche protection" was thinking more of the different roles of the members of a typical D&D party. The fighter fights, the sneak sneaks, the healer heals and so forth.

Y'all might be surprised about how much mathematical balancing effort goes into the majority of Forge designs.  I put a ton of work into mine, and I also have been "mathmonkey" for other people.  We certainly don't dismiss it.

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: Cyberzombie:heh: You may consider it a bad thing, too, when you get to know me better.

:heh:

Quote from: CyberzombieI will admit that, while I have talked to Monte (he's even been a Nutkinlander in some incarnations), I have not talked to him directly on this subject.  However, I've been following 3e since before it was released (on Eric Noah's 3e site) and I think I'm pretty safe in saying that game balance was the primary concern in 3e's design.  Add in the commentary he's written on his site and in Dragon/Dungeon, and I'm thoroughly convinced 3e was all about game balance.

I see no reason not to take your word on the matter. So for now I accept it well enough that I see no reason to go digging further.

Quote from: CyberzombieI won't dispute that they were out to protect and expand their market share -

Oh, not what I meant.

I meant niche as in class roles. To have a function in the game that was both required for success in a typical campaign, and focused primarily in the individual classes.

D&D used to be a model of this design philosophy.

3e did weaken it significantly. This adds weight to your claim that they chased Game Balance instead.

Foolish. I could have told them it wouldn't work, but they didn't ask (and wouldn't have care or believed if they did). On the other hand, it did work well enough for them to remain the top fo the heap didn't it? So they have the last laugh.

Quote from: Ben LehmanY'all might be surprised about how much mathematical balancing effort goes into the majority of Forge designs.  I put a ton of work into mine, and I also have been "mathmonkey" for other people.  We certainly don't dismiss it.

yrs--
--Ben

If that is the case, then I suggest you go smack Maddman upside the head for misrepresenting what you do.  If y'all *do* care about mechanics and not just making soap opera-style games, then y'all might well be better than what I've heard.

Quote from: gleichmanOh, not what I meant.

I meant niche as in class roles.

Gotcha.  I just automatically think marketing when I hear the word "niche".  :)  I think I understand you now.

Oh!  I assumed that Maddman was acting in the spirit of the Pundit/Swine forums, which is to say blatantly accepting our stereotypes and laughing at ourselves.

But, I mean, in the real world?  For reals?  We're basically all gearheads.  I mean, we make soap-opera games.  (My game?  Unabashedly soap.  My demo scenario is "you walk in on your wife having in bed with your commanding officer and he's possessed by her demon lover.")  But we make them in a carefully balanced, mathematically precise manner.

So, lots of theory, yes.  But a fair share of craft as well.  Like I said, they go together.  Either theory or tradition can tell you what to do, only craft can tell how to do it.

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: Ben LehmanBut we make them in a carefully balanced, mathematically precise manner.

I must laugh.

I really shouldn't. Even the simplest mechanic can and should be considered with a good dose of math before putting it into a game. And if you're using dice pools or the like, that good dose can be over the head of the typical person.

But I have to laugh anyway.

Quote from: Ben LehmanOh!  I assumed that Maddman was acting in the spirit of the Pundit/Swine forums, which is to say blatantly accepting our stereotypes and laughing at ourselves.

If you make fun of yourselves, you just gained a bunch of more points...

Quote from: Ben LehmanBut, I mean, in the real world?  For reals?  We're basically all gearheads.  I mean, we make soap-opera games.  (My game?  Unabashedly soap.  My demo scenario is "you walk in on your wife having in bed with your commanding officer and he's possessed by her demon lover.")  But we make them in a carefully balanced, mathematically precise manner.

...and if you have no illusions that you're creating crappy soap opera games, then you get even MORE points.  I still have no interest in playing your Jerry Springer wet dream fantasies, but since you KNOW that's what they are, that's cool by me.  :bow:

Laugh away, man.  I was chuckling while I posted it (and getting strange looks from the 20-something Chinese guys next to me).

yrs--
--Ben

Now, now.  Hold on.

Soap Opera has a great, long tradition of melodramatics.  I'm a fan of melodramatics.

Jerry Springer, on the other hand, is just abysmal, poorly done tripe.

I'd like to think that I produce good soap opera.  Or at least passable.

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: Ben LehmanLaugh away, man.  I was chuckling while I posted it (and getting strange looks from the 20-something Chinese guys next to me).

yrs--
--Ben

Yep, it is funny. Brings to mind images of using a Battleship to run down a rowboat.

But props to those who do it :emot-rock:

Quote from: Ben LehmanNow, now.  Hold on.

Soap Opera has a great, long tradition of melodramatics.  I'm a fan of melodramatics.

Jerry Springer, on the other hand, is just abysmal, poorly done tripe.

I'd like to think that I produce good soap opera.  Or at least passable.

yrs--
--Ben

Nah.

Besides, you've gained enough cool points for one day don't you think? You're putting the other Swine to shame.

Quote from: Ben LehmanNow, now.  Hold on.

Soap Opera has a great, long tradition of melodramatics.  I'm a fan of melodramatics.

Jerry Springer, on the other hand, is just abysmal, poorly done tripe.

I'd like to think that I produce good soap opera.  Or at least passable.

yrs--
--Ben

You'll have to forgive me.  I'm colourblind down in that spectrum.  :deviousgrin:

Quote from: Ben LehmanI also have been "mathmonkey" for other people.

Well, hey, there.  How YOU doin'?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenWell, hey, there.  How YOU doin'?

So, Levi.  I hear you pay...

(seriously, I'd be happy to do some math for you pro bono.  Send it my way via e-mail.  If you want heavy lifting, you'll need to seek out Walt Freitag, Eero Tuovinen, or Mike Holmes, though.  I'm a welterweight mathematician at best.)

yrs--
--Ben

All your replies have been pretty informative. I do note however that the subject of theory more than craft is somewhat of a touchy subject for most folks.

While i appreciate the exchanges between all the participants of this thread, what i would really like to see, perhaps using examples of actual plays or homebrew systems of the influence of craft or theory had in their making.

Now i wish i could post a system of my own creation but really as stated before, i don't have anything to post. I am not really a system guy. And the lady who does all our crews' system stuff has denied my requests(repeated i might add) to post some of her stuff.

Thats it i guess. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: David RWhile i appreciate the exchanges between all the participants of this thread, what i would really like to see, perhaps using examples of actual plays or homebrew systems of the influence of craft or theory had in their making.

And you thought that the last little bit I gave you was heavy reading. How does 200 pages sound? :heh:

I don't think I'll go there.

Instead for my own example of a design that followed many of the concepts I put forward in my articles I'll present AD&D 1st edition (as that is the one I'm most familiar with).

QuoteI don't think I'll go there.

Hey man, it's all gravy from where i looking. You dudes are serious about your stuff. I may not dig the actual stuff (my term for games ,theory, craft etc) but i do dig the passion and thought that goes into writing it down...many people like to talk but when it comes to writing it all down they demure. I am more of a i'd rather play than talk about playing guy myself, but realise that  my games have improved from what i have read...so there is that.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: David RHey man, it's all gravy from where i looking. You dudes are serious about your stuff.

Not so serious here.

That mass of stuff I've done (the articles, the 200 page rulebook, etc) may look impressive, but you have to consider that it's a production that's taken 25 years.

I'm actually rather lazy about it all, and spend far more time playing than I do writing or thinking up new theories.


Now Macro, the guy who did JAGS. That guy is serious.

And so are a few people at the Forge. But I don't consider that a good thing in their case.

Quote from: David RWhile i appreciate the exchanges between all the participants of this thread, what i would really like to see, perhaps using examples of actual plays or homebrew systems of the influence of craft or theory had in their making.

Eh, when I try to explain things in that way, I usually come off as boring at best, and incomprehensible at worst.

However, if you stick around for a while, I'll probably get around to working on my vapourware game system again.  It's a system built from the ground up, influenced but not based largely on both d20 and Exalted.  It's an attempt to create a generic rules set that will cover as many different genres as possible.  Ultimately, the goal would be to be able to take characters from one genre to another and still have all the rules work.

While there are many rules sets that have the same goal, they don't work for the genres I want.  GURPS, for example, is an utter failure at D&D-style high fantasy or at superheros.  It's not a bad system; it just doesn't do what I would want.

I think that properly done, theory is the body of thought that encapsulates craft (i.e. "I am doing this and these are the general rules that apply to it.")

The problem with RPG Theory, per se, is that, almost always, it is mired, strongly, in identity politics. This makes producing a taxonomy of "what we do" very, very difficult. It means that when we distill theory from a body of craft there is, almost always, inherent biases that damage the taxonomy/predictive ability in some way.

As a result, the discussions of pure craft seem to me to be more useful than most discussions of theory.

-Marco

Quote from: gleichmanNow Macro, the guy who did JAGS. That guy is serious.

And so are a few people at the Forge. But I don't consider that a good thing in their case.

:-O

Hi Brian!
-Marco

Quote from: Marco:-O

Hi Brian!
-Marco

Hi Marco! Winner of many deserved awards!

Quote from: MarcoThe problem with RPG Theory, per se, is that, almost always, it is mired, strongly, in identity politics. This makes producing a taxonomy of "what we do" very, very difficult. It means that when we distill theory from a body of craft there is, almost always, inherent biases that damage the taxonomy/predictive ability in some way.

This is very true.

The two most widely spread rpg Theories (GDS and GNS) both suffered greatly from this.

GDS was originally created and written into its final state by Simulationists while GNS was created and written into its final state by Narratists (they likely have a different term, I couldn't care less). Both models show that clearly.

This makes sense in a way. Both models were really just one person's attempt to make the gaming world make sense to them. This is IMO the core reason why they rejected the approach of other ideas into them. They were 'other' to begin with, i.e. that which cause them to seek the comfort of a nice safe model of rpgs to begin with.

I'm really just as bad. The little body of work I've done on rpg theory is nothing more than a method of ordering my own world of highly detailed tactical rpgs.


I doubt that we'll ever see a functional theory of rpgs until people are willing to label their offshoots by a different name and break from attempting to define the 'other'.

GNS is fine for making games around Narratism. It's pity that in order to get there it has to look down it's nose at everyone else.

Quote from: MarcoAs a result, the discussions of pure craft seem to me to be more useful than most discussions of theory.

-Marco

Yeah this is what i meant. But i think it resonates (at least to my thinking)  if people who are familiar with most or at the very least the more well known theories out there say it.

Regards,
David R.

Quote from: CyberzombieHowever, if you stick around for a while, I'll probably get around to working on my vapourware game system again.  It's a system built from the ground up, influenced but not based largely on both d20 and Exalted.  It's an attempt to create a generic rules set that will cover as many different genres as possible.  Ultimately, the goal would be to be able to take characters from one genre to another and still have all the rules work.

Hey man, I'll be around, look forward to seeing your gaming stuff.

Regards,
David R.