Quote from: Elliot Wilen;616510The main point is, what do we get by seeing RPGs as "media"? Something must be transferrable from the study of other media, or the grouping wouldn't be worthwhile.

• Here's one: Every medium has its own unique and inherent limitations and strengths. (Very often the exact same thing.) Mastery of the medium comes when we can identify each, and ameliorate the weaknesses while utilizing the strengths.

Upshot? Better play can be had if we know that the limitations of the medium are, and learn how to work around them. And if we identify what the strengths are, and exploit them.

Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of a medium is part-and-parcel of media studies, so we can apply that approach to RPG's.

• Here's another: Separate mediums are unique. (Part of the reason they're separate is because they're unique. And if something is unique, it's a good bet that it should be considered a separate medium.)

One of the worst ways to use a medium is to replicate works of other mediums, exactly as they exist in that other medium. Using TV to broadcast a radio play. (Which early television shows did.) Filming a stage play (as described here). Each time, it results in mediocre television shows, movies, and so forth.

Ergo, my experience in such matters leads me to believe that, if we attempt to exactly duplicate some other medium in RPG's, we will make mediocre RPG's. And, experience has proved it to be so.

• Here's a third: True mastery of a medium only comes when someone identifies how it functions, and develops techniques which exploit those processes. This is what happened with films, television, even drama. (See Aristotle.)

My media training would lead me to either devise techniques which do so, or to look for techniques that other people have already developed. (Mostly the latter.) By learning them, I and other players, designers, and GM's can make better games.

Those are three ways I have applied my media training to RPG's. It's a grounded, "trade-school" approach in many ways (which is inevitable, because my degree is half trade school/half academic endeavor).

But a grounded, nuts-and-bolts approach is apt for RPG's, it has practical application for people looking to make their own games better. Purely abstract descriptions are not as directly applicable, and may serve only to mislead.

EDIT: Here's a fourth. I know what storytelling is (relating events to engage in retrospective sensemaking), and what RPG's are. (Functionally speaking, as mediums.) So, when someone said "RPG's tell stories", I could explain why they don't. At all. Ever. Even a little. I could also explain why the Forgian definition of "telling stories" involved at least two mutually exclusive concepts, hence why it was wrong definitionally and practically.

RPG's don't tell stories and trying to force RPG's to become communal storytelling produces bad stories and bad RPG's. (See the second point above.)

EDIT 2: Here's a fifth. One medium can never exactly duplicate the works of another. A novel isn't a movie. You can adapt a novel to a movie, and vice verse, but there will be compromises. What you can do is to examine the specific techniques used in similar media, and see if they're applicable to your preferred medium.

This is all basic knowledge I learned in studying media, but it has applicability to RPG's.

When looking at things that might improve my gamemastering, I know that I should be looking for specific techniques used in other media, and I shouldn't be trying to duplicate that other medium in toto. RPG's are their own thing, and though specific techniques might be applicable, not everything will be.

RPG's are not video games. We shouldn't try to run them as if they were. But some techniques used in video games can be useful in RPG's. Just remember you have to adapt the techniques to your medium.

Quote from: Grymbok;616513Was D&D 3e successful in meeting its aims?

Whose aims?

I would say that 3e was relatively successful, my measurement being "If people liked it and played it, it was successful".

3e was liked and played, so much so that the successor edition (4e) lost the market leader position D&D held since the hobby was born, and lost it not to one of the other worthy contenders (GURPS, Hero System, etc.), but to Pathfinder, a 3e clone. 4e is dying, abandoned by its owners, and Pathfinder is thriving.

3e was so dominant that when D&D stopped being 3e, it stopped being dominant and a rebranded 3e took its place.

That's fairly successful, by my lights.

(Though this may be leading the thread off-topic, since it will inevitably take us away from discussing RPG criticism as an endeavor, and into edition warring.)

Thanks for that rundown. One thing I want to comment on..

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;616517EDIT: Here's a fourth. I know what storytelling is (relating events to engage in retrospective sensemaking), and what RPG's are. (Functionally speaking, as mediums.) So, when someone said "RPG's tell stories", I could explain why they don't. At all. Ever. Even a little. I could also explain why the Forgian definition of "telling stories" involved at least two mutually exclusive concepts, hence why it was wrong definitionally and practically.

RPG's don't tell stories and trying to force RPG's to become communal storytelling produces bad stories and bad RPG's. (See the second point above.)

I'd be careful here, if the subject is addressed at length, not to make an error of generalization when it comes to 'the Forgian definition of "telling stories"'. Do we know what that is? Is it one thing, or several (some of which may never have been articulated)? My point is that a lot of bad games and bad actual play reports may come from people carrying over extra conceptual baggage when the word "story" is brought over to RPGs. Yet there may be interpretations of the Forgian moon-language where the word is used, which do produce good games. Even if those games aren't appreciated by me or even thought of, by me, as RPGs.

Another way of putting this would be to say that even if, for the sake of argument, story-games are bad RPGs, that doesn't mean they can't be good story-games (their own form of media).

(Somehow I think there's a passage in Understanding Comics which even makes a similar point, but I don't have it in front of me at the moment.)

Quote from: CRKrueger;615964The problem with one of us writing it is that RPGs are not only a social medium, but also a mental medium.  When I am roleplaying my character at my table and my character takes an action who knows what criteria I use to make that decision?

Anything people can do can be written about. It just a matter of finding a way to write about RPGs that is useful and informative. Which is not simple to do. Like the history of filmmaking used in OP we will struggle along until a critical mass of knowledge is reached. Even then new techniques and insight will continue to be developed.

I think the best things would be author could  do at this point is just avoid any general theorizing. Just list specific observations and/or techniques, why you think they are important, when you were able to use them, and how you found it useful.

I have written a lot on writing hexcrawls and managing sandbox campaigns. I don't think what I wrote THE way to play a roleplaying campaign which I why I am careful to also write about the why and when.

I will conclude with one observation is that one of the key elements that separates tabletop roleplaying from other games and other forms of roleplaying is the human referee. In my opinion techniques and observations that make it easier to run a campaign are among the most valuable.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;616526Another way of putting this would be to say that even if, for the sake of argument, story-games are bad RPGs, that doesn't mean they can't be good story-games (their own form of media).

All good points, and this last one is especially pertinent. Playing storygames ("simming" or simming/RPG hybrid play) can be enjoyable (not for me, but for others), and there can be good and bad storygames.

The odd thing is, storygames produce bad stories, but storygames aren't designed to produce well-written fiction*. They're not meant to produce good stories.

Like RPG's, storygames are experiential. It's the experience of narrating fictional activities that storygamers are drawn to. The making is the point, not reading what was made. (Assuming they're written at all.)

Few storygamers seem to understand this and many are driven to claim that the end product is the point. Or, worse yet, that storygames and RPG's are the same thing. Neither is true.

(*For storygame output to be a well-written story, you'd have to rewrite so the voice was consistent, ensure there's a coherent plot, eliminate continuity glitches (comparing content to that of past episodes and to the current episode), ensure consistent descriptions and characterization, and do a whole lot of rewriting and editing. Niven and Pournelle wrote some excellent articles about this, vis a vis their own collaborative ventures. It's a lot of work, and storygames don't even try to do this. The written output is a log of the game, not something fit to be consumed on its own.)

Quote from: estar;616527I think the best things would be author could  do at this point is just avoid any general theorizing.

I sincerely hope not to do that. Concrete, clear statements are what I value.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;616463The distinction between high art and low art is a relatively recent one,

I did not make that distinction, and you took my meaning wrong, though I provided a link explaining what I meant.

Quoteat least in western culture. All the stuff we think of as "fine art" — Shakespearean plays, opera — were the pop culture of their day: lowbrow entertainment.

That is not the difference between fine and applied arts.  You're strawmaning me here.

QuoteThe fine art concept has deformed a lot of artistic endeavors. "High Art" means only a select few appreciate it; works that are inaccessible and opaque are prized, being clear and entertaining is derided. Low art (pop culture) is all-too-often shallow and trite.

It's frustrating to me that you've confused two different concepts, fine art and high art, and then pretended I meant high art when I clearly did not, and included a link to make sure that confusion couldn't happen.  Architecture, for example, can be simultaneously a high art and an applied art.  So can fashion.  High art and applied art are not mutually exclusive terms, nor is low art and applied art the same thing.   They are not synonyms nor antonyms.   They mean different things.  

QuoteIt used to be (and fairly recently, too) that prestige movies were blockbusters, and had meaningful themes and displayed real insight. Now prestige flicks are preachy and repetitive, and blockbusters are exciting and good looking, but mostly lacking in substance. Culture might be improved if Fine Art and pop culture were closer to each other, the way they once were.

Wow, you just want to hear yourself talk about any old bullshit, don't you.

Quote from: Lynn;616508The actual act of participation seems more like a fine art than an applied art - without being poncy

But then there is the various bits that go into the game which could be applied, or even craft (miniatures painting, etc).

Fashion designers participate in creating fashion.  Architects participate in creating architecture.  Graphic designers participate in creating graphic art.  The act of participation isn't what makes something a fine art vs. applied art.  It's about the function of the art.  It serves a primarily utilitarian function rather than a primarily aesthetic one.

Storygames, on the other hand, might be said to be a fine art, but I mean that in the snarkiest of ways.

Quote from: Mistwell;616556I did not make that distinction, and you took my meaning wrong,

I apologize, I misunderstood to what you were referring. That was my fault.

I thought about deleting my response, as it was off-topic, and I probably should have. Just to be clear, I wasn't discounting what you were saying (or even what I thought you were saying). I wasn't saying you were wrong.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Cheers!

EDIT: I've gone back and edited my post, to rectify the misunderstanding.

EDIT 2: I've also replied to our original post, here.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;615916[Pt. 1 of a multi-part message. More to come.]Thesis: No medium is exactly like another. The strengths and weaknesses of each are utterly different. Even if they have some small resemblance, they are not identical. Treating them as identical is foolish, and wastes the strengths of the medium.

RPG's are a medium distinct from all others. (A coupled medium, actually.) They are not comics, movies, or novels. They may resemble some of these in certain respects, but are not identical. Understanding and mastering the various aspects of RPG's must start with a recognition that they are a unique medium, unlike any other.

Period. Full Stop. If you don't agree, or don't understand, none of what I say after this point will make any sense.

Yep. One of my classic wailing points. Some designers say they are going for "genre emulation", when what they are actually doing in many cases is engaging in media emulation.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;616559I apologize, I misunderstood to what you were referring. That was my fault.

I thought about deleting my response, as it was off-topic, and I probably should have. Just to be clear, I wasn't discounting what you were saying (or even what I thought you were saying). I wasn't saying you were wrong.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Cheers!

Oh, come ON, now!
Mistwell was clearly trying to start petty personal shit with you for no good reason, and you responded by being respectful and diplomatic!

Now you've just kicked the legs out from under him!

JG

Quote from: beejazz;616516The fact that a game plays differently depending on the idiosyncrasies of how one plays isn't totally new. It's a common feature of this type of game. Hardly worth calling a failure. But again, the success or failure of a goal isn't always relevant. The nature and potential use of these new modes of play is what's interesting and useful.

I just happen to think that D&D 3e is a particularly interesting example to explore in this regard because of the nature, reasons and outcomes of the two predominant modes of play.

I would submit, however, that for RPG Designers, surely it is relevant to have an understanding of which games have and have not been successful in promulgating the designer's goals/intended mode of play, and looking at the reasons for that? I suppose it comes down to whether you're looking to improve the quality of RPG rule books as "teaching aids", or whether you're looking to identify new and improved RPG rules. My thinking in this thread has mostly been around the former.

QuoteAnd see, this is why I don't see that kind of success/failure thing as the pertinent question to ask moving forward. Setting goals before making a thing and assessing these questions of success after the completion of a work are important. But the information you get out of this kind of analysis isn't very portable to new works with different goals.

In general I'd agree that this isn't always going to be useful. But I think there are going to be specific cases where it's interesting to examine this. The obvious examples to me are games where people end up not playing them "in the manner the author intended". This suggests a failure of communication in the rule book, but of course it may not be the only issue. D&D 3e is (IMO) a particularly interesting example in this regard since a) the majority of players started playing the game in the ways the author intended - the drift happened later, b) the game is arguably more functional in the original play mode than in the one that evolved and c) they produced a revised edition of the game which tried to patch the new mode of play, rather than coaxing people back to the older one.

Quote from: Mistwell;616557Fashion designers participate in creating fashion.  Architects participate in creating architecture.  Graphic designers participate in creating graphic art.  The act of participation isn't what makes something a fine art vs. applied art.  It's about the function of the art.  It serves a primarily utilitarian function rather than a primarily aesthetic one.

Those fashion designers and architects aren't usually participating for the sake of participation, but to produce something. Applied art is the art of craft.

I dislike using wikipedia, but this is a functional definition:

"Applied art is the application of design and aesthetics to objects of function and everyday use. Whereas fine arts serve as intellectual stimulation to the viewer or academic sensibilities as well as produced or intended primarily for beauty; the applied arts incorporate design and creative ideals to objects of utility, such as a cup, magazine or decorative park bench."

There are applied arts that invest in the meaning of participation and process, such as using time honored traditional ways or unique methodologies to produce something.

The process of playing an RPG is that the participation isn't to produce a reward, but that the participation in the process is the reward.

I'm staggered by this thread, DW. Awesome stuff.
 
If its not too premature, what might be some of the limitations/strengths of the medium in your opinion, and how they affect of the structure of a session?
 
I tried thinking over this, so far to start with I have:
 
*limited, but usually known 'audience'; the GM can adjust content and style to the players. Ability to absorb feedback from players and adjust is important (queue argument on how much 'adjustment' is appropriate).
 
*imagination-based: thankfully unlike say an MMO or movie, no need to do tons of coding or shooting to generate most content.
 
*mechanization: mechanics describe and partly control game events, with inputs from dice rolls to ensure fairness. This is something you don't see in literature very often (there was a book written with the I Ching), although MMOs and the like have mechanics. Combat in a book can be dull since we expect the hero is going to make it out alive; in an RPG there's tension since surviving isn't a sure thing.
 
*preparation for game events by the GM is limited and imperfect. Forward preparation increases exponentially with number of player choices, and not every detail can be prepared for in advance. Hence why canned adventures are often a bit railroady, if their scope isn't limited some other way e.g. a small area. (I've been struck by the difference between normal pen & paper vs. play-by-post, where its easy to build whatever you need, whenever you need it).
 
*PC Centred: action is heavily centred on certain characters. (although, I remember one game where the PCs handed the problem to the city guard, and we played their adventures instead for a short while, and a couple of other games which were purported to be 'tie-in miniseries' but where we never found out the connection...). Related to this, splitting the party is usually a bad idea.
 
*uncontrolled cast of characters for the adventure: unlike where shooting a movie or writing a book, the guy building the world and dropping adventure hooks doesn't design the heroes (imagine what Star Wars would've been like if the main hero was Conan).

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;616518Whose aims?

I would say that 3e was relatively successful, my measurement being "If people liked it and played it, it was successful".

3e was liked and played, so much so that the successor edition (4e) lost the market leader position D&D held since the hobby was born, and lost it not to one of the other worthy contenders (GURPS, Hero System, etc.), but to Pathfinder, a 3e clone. 4e is dying, abandoned by its owners, and Pathfinder is thriving.

OK. In the context of attempting to bring criticism to RPGs, that seems an odd measurement to use, to me.

Even so, I don't think the rise of Pathfinder means that 3e was an unqualified success - it just means the 3e-4e transition was a failure. From a critical thinking perspective, it would be interesting I'm sure to examine why that transition failed and contrast it with why the AD&D->3e one succeeded.

That aside - I agree completely that 3e is undeniably a popular RPG. But if we're going to think critically about RPGs, then to my mind two of the questions to be considered are "how effectively can an RPG author teach the play of their RPGs?", and "to what degree can an RPG ruleset enforce a desired mode of play?". 3e seems an interesting case study in this regard.

Other interesting questions (which I can see others in this thread are more interested in, potentially) include "how can we teach GMing?" and "how can RPG rule books better support fun at the table?/what non-rule elements form part of play and should be in RPG rulebooks?"

Quote from: Grymbok;616581I just happen to think that D&D 3e is a particularly interesting example to explore in this regard because of the nature, reasons and outcomes of the two predominant modes of play.

I don't disagree that 3e is potentially interesting. I just see it as a common-ish phenomenon. Vampire is often cited for its discrepancies between fluff (which is taken as designer intent) and actual play, to give another example.

QuoteI would submit, however, that for RPG Designers, surely it is relevant to have an understanding of which games have and have not been successful in promulgating the designer's goals/intended mode of play, and looking at the reasons for that? I suppose it comes down to whether you're looking to improve the quality of RPG rule books as "teaching aids", or whether you're looking to identify new and improved RPG rules. My thinking in this thread has mostly been around the former.

I think it's more just a different way of looking at and categorizing a similar thing. For a new game, a designer may recognize (say) that people actually wanted something like the new mode of play. It would be more useful to analyze and clean up what made the new thing tick than to worry over designer intent in this case. 3x might not be the best example here, but would you rather clone Vampire to match the tone of the fluff? Or to match the emergent play?

QuoteIn general I'd agree that this isn't always going to be useful. But I think there are going to be specific cases where it's interesting to examine this. The obvious examples to me are games where people end up not playing them "in the manner the author intended". This suggests a failure of communication in the rule book, but of course it may not be the only issue. D&D 3e is (IMO) a particularly interesting example in this regard since a) the majority of players started playing the game in the ways the author intended - the drift happened later, b) the game is arguably more functional in the original play mode than in the one that evolved and c) they produced a revised edition of the game which tried to patch the new mode of play, rather than coaxing people back to the older one.

In c) are you talking about 3.5 or 4? 'Cause if 4 was meant to patch 3's new mode of play, it failed in exactly the same way (by producing a third mode of play). But at the same time I can't see this as unexpected because of the much more deliberate alteration of the pace (among other things) in 4.