Theory The Forge - Essays on RPG Theory 2023-07-29

[TristramEvans]

Is there anything about good design that would be universal? In other words, something that people could all agree on made a game better regardless of their taste in role playing games.

An index

 

[robertsconley]

It is this kind of fannish politicing that derails so many attempts to discuss rpgs beyond 'what I like is the best way.'

It's also extremely boring and seems largely predicated on the silly idea that the only way to play rpgs is to play them all as if they were D&D.

Sandbox play is a fun way to play but I managed to figure out how to do it and GM it in my late teens, it isn't some complex or difficult lost technique it is often made out to be or the Rosetta Stone of how to play all rpgs.

You are making a lot of assumptions that are more about me than what I wrote in my reply. In addition, I made an alternative thesis that neither referenced D&D nor Sandbox campaigns.

My alternative [to Forge Theory] is to build a recipe book of RPG design patterns each saying why the pattern was attempted, how it was implemented, what happened, what was positive, and what was negative. Rather than holistic oversimplified theories of the art of RPG game design.

Finally, you are neglecting the fact that in addition to running D&D and sandbox campaigns, I have reported and documented myself running other types of campaigns with other systems. Some are very different from D&D, like GURPS and Fate. And some campaigns that are very different including LARPS and MMORPGs.

That's like saying a short story doesn't 'advance' fiction because it is more narrow than a novel. It is a nonsensical stance in literature and a nonsensical stance in rpgs.

Your analogy between short stories and novels is not relevant to my reply.

One of the reasons I am critical of Forge Theory is that it purports to cover the hobby in general. Yet most focal adherents produce similar types of
RPGs. I would be equally critical of a Theory of Literature whose adherents seemly only produce short stories with a particular focus yet it is advocated as a better understanding of a hobby. Any general theory of tabletop roleplaying must include D&D, Fate, Burning Wheels, the upcoming MCDM RPG, along anything in between. In addition, to gain credibility, the adherents of this theory need to show its usefulness for creating useful material for any type of RPG.

robertsconley - perhaps a moment of clarity here, when you talk about 'products' that are more like adventures or scenarios, what precisely are you talking about? I'm not digging for disagreement, although that may result, I'm just not sure what games you're describing as overly narrow and not advancing RPG design.

RPGs can be designed to focus on something in different ways.

1. They could be designed to be generic to cover most of what could be imagined in time and space.
2. They could be designed for a particular genre, like fantasy or science fiction.
3. They could be designed for a particular setting.
4. They could be designed for a particular situation in a particular setting.

My criticism is that most of the adherents to the Forge Theory focus their creative output on #4. Yet it is claimed by its adherents as a better way to understand the hobby as a whole.

 

[SavAce]

I don't need RPG theories to be or do anything in particular. If they lead to people making games, they are good. I can think the people into it are smug, sucking the joy out of things, or completely wrong... just... none of that matters. All that matters is that a group of people created. Regardless of the details, in the end I just hope something cool comes out of it anywhere, or if not that, someone inspired by some piece of it went on to create something cool. If nothing cool to me came out of it, hopefully something cool to someone else did, because everything isn't about me. The world is vast. Some people getting into having thoughts about RPGs in a particular way doesn't have to involve me or my feelings, because we're all living our own lives. I'll never understand people that seem to have grudges about other peoples' RPG theorizing, because you can just ignore things you don't like.

That's not to say I don't think people should be critical of RPG theories, depending on motivation. Like, RPG theory you disagree with can serve as a good foil to aid you in clarifying your own thoughts, which maybe you or others could find interesting or useful. In fact, that's kinda why I like RPG theorizing that takes some sort of hard stance about something. It gives you something firm to spark off of and think about more than someone's friendly, vague generalities that basically affirm whatever I happen to already think.

 

[Voros]

You are making a lot of assumptions that are more about me than what I wrote in my reply. In addition, I made an alternative thesis that neither referenced D&D nor Sandbox campaigns.


Finally, you are neglecting the fact that in addition to running D&D and sandbox campaigns, I have reported and documented myself running other types of campaigns with other systems. Some are very different from D&D, like GURPS and Fate. And some campaigns that are very different including LARPS and MMORPGs.


Your analogy between short stories and novels is not relevant to my reply.

One of the reasons I am critical of Forge Theory is that it purports to cover the hobby in general. Yet most focal adherents produce similar types of
RPGs. I would be equally critical of a Theory of Literature whose adherents seemly only produce short stories with a particular focus yet it is advocated as a better understanding of a hobby. Any general theory of tabletop roleplaying must include D&D, Fate, Burning Wheels, the upcoming MCDM RPG, along anything in between. In addition, to gain credibility, the adherents of this theory need to show its usefulness for creating useful material for any type of RPG.



RPGs can be designed to focus on something in different ways.

1. They could be designed to be generic to cover most of what could be imagined in time and space.
2. They could be designed for a particular genre, like fantasy or science fiction.
3. They could be designed for a particular setting.
4. They could be designed for a particular situation in a particular setting.

My criticism is that most of the adherents to the Forge Theory focus their creative output on #4. Yet it is claimed by its adherents as a better way to understand the hobby as a whole.

Who exactly are these supposed 'adherents' making these claims today?

For instance, show me where Emily Care Boss makes a claim about how focused storygames are 'a better way to understand the hobby as a whole.' Here is a link to her extensive documentation of rpg theory up until 2014:

Theory Roundup — Black & Green Games

From " The Hidden Art: Slouching Toward a Critical Framework for RPGs ", by Robin D. Laws, in Interactive Fantasy #1 (Inter*Action) . Role-playing games have existed for many years as an art form without a body of criticism. Reviews of RPGs have been common for nearly as long as the

www.blackgreengames.com

Note this line in the very first paragraph:

"No one view can see it all."

What I see when reading Boss is someone with real curiousity and a wide, deep knowledge and appreciation of rpgs who doesn't feel the need to disparage different modes of play as somehow more 'narrow' and not 'advancing rpg design.'

I'm frankly bored crosseyed by the endless griping about The Forge and I wasn't even there to suffer through it the first time.

Creating strawman statements without references and speaking in broad generalizations without concrete examples to grind a very dull axe is a rampant, and extremely tiresome and repetitive, issue that as Paul Mason notes in the excellent essay in the link above that has led to the failure of fan-based rpg theorizing to make much of a substantive contribution to the understanding or design of rpg design.

 

[Voros]

Is there anything about good design that would be universal? In other words, something that people could all agree on made a game better regardless of their taste in role playing games.

For rules themselves, all I could think of were really basic things like have clear rules, give examples and have an index. I could also add to make it clear if you want to allow/encourage things outside the book. For example "GM may add new skills to the skill list."

For things like adventures and setting guides, I would suggest the following:

Add some descriptive words and details to rooms and objects. No generic rooms or inns.

Give a personality and appearance to NPCs. Things like motivation, loyalty and morale might be important depending on the NPC.

Sometimes less is better. I have read things that get bogged down with too much detail.

We do not need a detailed backstory for all NPCs. You can just say "the bartender is a high level retired adventurer." We don't need to know his life story.

In games with detailed stat blocks, you don't need a full stat block for non combat NPC. Just list relevant parts. For example, skills in sense motive and negotiation for a shopkeeper.

I read something once where someone statted out all the shopkeepers, bartenders and barmaids in the town. But none of these people had any personality traits or description of appearance. I think of that as a bad design choice.

I think those are all relatively noncontroversial suggestions that would fit any game and play style. Of course, I have been slammed online before for things I had thought we pretty noncontroversial.

I think all of that would be not controversial although I'm sure the more one dug in the more disagreements may bloom.

For instance, I think we can all agree that 'layout should be designed to facilitate play.' But even that simple principle can get complicated.

As an example, I encountered an OSR designer (Gus L on his blog to be clear) who criticized the Red Box's choose your own adventure sections as somehow being the beginning of the heresy of railroading, Dragonlance, etc.

Whereas I would argue that ignores the clear design intention of the Red Box, which is achieves very well, to be a way for someone who has never played an rpg to learn how to do so on their own, without outside instruction and demostration.

This is a potential tension in rpg layout. Do you prioritize ease of reference or effectively teaching someone how to play the game?

These are two very different goals and trying to reconcile them in one book is no easy task.

These days the solution tends to be to assume that we don't need to instruct the reader on what an rpg is, how to play it, etc. Which is fine but I've seen some odd misunderstandings, like the example above, where an instructional text is criticized for not being a reference text.

This seems to have happened to a degree with Gavin Norman's excellent re-layout and formatting of the B/X sets. It isn't that the originals are poorly laid out, font size aside I think they are still well written, laid out and very effective as instructional texts. Norman's insight was that he could lay out the text better for reference at the table, not that the original texts were inferior (OD&D on the other hand...).

Another would be the layout for the much-praised Mothership rpg.

I really like Mothership and have seen Ben Milton of Questing Beast presents its layout as a model for rpgs but I find its 'fill every inch of the page with text' style cramped and difficult to reference or even read.

 

[Voros]

I don't need RPG theories to be or do anything in particular. If they lead to people making games, they are good. I can think the people into it are smug, sucking the joy out of things, or completely wrong... just... none of that matters. All that matters is that a group of people created. Regardless of the details, in the end I just hope something cool comes out of it anywhere, or if not that, someone inspired by some piece of it went on to create something cool. If nothing cool to me came out of it, hopefully something cool to someone else did, because everything isn't about me. The world is vast. Some people getting into having thoughts about RPGs in a particular way doesn't have to involve me or my feelings, because we're all living our own lives. I'll never understand people that seem to have grudges about other peoples' RPG theorizing, because you can just ignore things you don't like.

That's not to say I don't think people should be critical of RPG theories, depending on motivation. Like, RPG theory you disagree with can serve as a good foil to aid you in clarifying your own thoughts, which maybe you or others could find interesting or useful. In fact, that's kinda why I like RPG theorizing that takes some sort of hard stance about something. It gives you something firm to spark off of and think about more than someone's friendly, vague generalities that basically affirm whatever I happen to already think.

I agree, I don't really care if I disagree with the theories of a game designer as long as the game they produce is good.

At the same time, not all theory is about contributing to a form in a practical way but about improving the understanding of the form in a variety of contexts (e.g. political or social).

Joseph Laycock's Dangerous Games is a good example of this: he's not trying to analyze how to improve D&D or VtM but wants to look what elements of role-playing games provoked the ire of certain streams of religious fundamentalism. Some of his analysis of how rpgs function as a shared imaginative space may be of help to rpg design but that's not his focus or intention.

Some theory tries overtly to avoid qualitative judgements about the the aesthetic value of a form or specific game/artwork.

The fine sf writer/critic Damon Knight noted that it can be more interesting to not just note that a story is poorly written but to ask the bigger question 'this poorly written story is popular, what are some possible reasons that it appeals to its audience?'

 

[TristramEvans]

I'm going to be unveiling my own RPG theory on The Pub this coming year: Anvil Theory.

 

[Fenris-77]

RPGs can be designed to focus on something in different ways.

1. They could be designed to be generic to cover most of what could be imagined in time and space.
2. They could be designed for a particular genre, like fantasy or science fiction.
3. They could be designed for a particular setting.
4. They could be designed for a particular situation in a particular setting.

My criticism is that most of the adherents to the Forge Theory focus their creative output on #4. Yet it is claimed by its adherents as a better way to understand the hobby as a whole.

Interesting. I've always thought Edwards on incoherence was nonsense. You didn't answer my questions though, which are you suggesting fall into that number 4 category?

 

[Patchwork Dragon]

The fine sf writer/critic Damon Knight noted that it can be more interesting to not just note that a story is poorly written but to ask the bigger question 'this poorly written story is popular, what are some possible reasons that it appeals to its audience?'

This is an interesting thought to me since many of books I enjoy are often labeled as bad writing.

It also makes me think, if "bad" books are often more popular than critically acclaimed books, maybe we are using the wrong criteria. Or maybe we are asking the wrong questions.

For me the questions for a book are:
Did I enjoy reading it?
Does reading it make me feel good?
Does it help me forget real life problems for awhile?

I do like some of the more traditional criteria like good world building. But they are not as important as enjoyment and entertainment.

I know things I do NOT like, and many of them show up in books that are considered good:

Books that make me cry.
Books where the protagonist has a crappy life.
Books that are overall very dark. (With exceptions for some dark humor.)

 

[TristramEvans]

It also makes me think, if "bad" books are often more popular than critically acclaimed books, maybe we are using the wrong criteria.

Eh, McDonalds is way more popular than Harvey's.

 

[Patchwork Dragon]

I had not even heard of Harvey's before. I looked it up and it looks like they are only in Canada. So it isn't really the best comparison. I am not traveling to Canada just for a burger.

I think with restaurants and fast food people are looking at more than just the quality of the food. Price is a factor. How long it takes to get your food is another. Sometimes people just want something quick to go. Related to this is how far away the place is.

But maybe this analogy kind of works. Quality is not the only factor. Maybe people stick with a system they know rather than try a new one. Or they choose a game that seems easier. Or they avoid a game with a thick rule book because they don't have the time to read it.

In an ideal world, all gamers and would be gamers would have all the time and mental energy needed to devote to games. But in real life people have work, school, chores, family commitments, etc. And then there are sometime health issues as well. Sometimes you don't have as much time as you would like. Sometimes you are mentally exhausted from real life stuff.

 

[sharps54]

I had not even heard of Harvey's before. I looked it up and it looks like they are only in Canada. So it isn't really the best comparison. I am not traveling to Canada just for a burger.

I think with restaurants and fast food people are looking at more than just the quality of the food. Price is a factor. How long it takes to get your food is another. Sometimes people just want something quick to go. Related to this is how far away the place is.

But maybe this analogy kind of works. Quality is not the only factor. Maybe people stick with a system they know rather than try a new one. Or they choose a game that seems easier. Or they avoid a game with a thick rule book because they don't have the time to read it.

In an ideal world, all gamers and would be gamers would have all the time and mental energy needed to devote to games. But in real life people have work, school, chores, family commitments, etc. And then there are sometime health issues as well. Sometimes you don't have as much time as you would like. Sometimes you are mentally exhausted from real life stuff.

and ultimately people have different tastes. Some people appreciate the height of game design, they play Palladium games, and others can’t see the genius and opt for sub optimal games like the PbtA and BitD based ones.

 

[sharps54]

In all seriousness the fact that people’s tastes differ is a big reason Forge Theory is controversial. Game design is more than mathematical equations, not all ideas appeal to all gamers. As soon as you claim something is better than something else you will unleash the latent tribalism in people and things go rapidly downhill.

 

[Voros]

This is an interesting thought to me since many of books I enjoy are often labeled as bad writing.

It also makes me think, if "bad" books are often more popular than critically acclaimed books, maybe we are using the wrong criteria. Or maybe we are asking the wrong questions.

For me the questions for a book are:
Did I enjoy reading it?
Does reading it make me feel good?
Does it help me forget real life problems for awhile?

I do like some of the more traditional criteria like good world building. But they are not as important as enjoyment and entertainment.

I know things I do NOT like, and many of them show up in books that are considered good:

Books that make me cry.
Books where the protagonist has a crappy life.
Books that are overall very dark. (With exceptions for some dark humor.)

There are certainly many fine writers who aren't popular and many poor writers who are successful but I don't think that gap is quite as consistent as you suggest.

Moby Dick was a commercial flop but is widely and correctly viewed as a masterpiece. In film, the examples are even clearer with now beloved films like John Carpenter's The Thing and The Big Lebowski failing at the box office now being critical and popular successes.

Dickens, Tolstoy, Turgenev and Checkov were writers of tremendous popularity who are still considered great writers. In a more modern example, Cormac McCarthy's The Road was a huge success and he is rightly viewed as one of the best American writers of the last 50 years, even if his intense, dark material is never going to be for all tastes.

But greatness doesn't always have to be grim, Joseph Heller's Catch 22 was a huge hit, is seen as a literary classic and is the single funniest book I've ever read.

There are many writers who were very popular in their time who are now forgtten and nearly unreadable, I've encountered a lot of terrible writing among supposed sf 'classics' for instance, as well as many underrated and near-forgetten gems of genre fiction.

A lot of what's 'popular' can be more the result of marketing than anything else, when a band on a formerly independent label gets signed to a major and sells a boat load of records, like say with The Black Keys or The White Stripes, it's not like their work notably improved, just more people got to hear it.

I do find a lot of what's popular tends towards sentimentality or some other zeitgeisty element, which often doesn't age so well past its sell-by-date. The films of Dean and Martin strike most modern viewers as desperately unfunny despite how much they raked in at the box office at the time.

I recall a lecture given by Poe where he discusses the popular writers of his time and advocates for an underrated author by the name of Nathaniel Hawthorne. The irony is that the names of the more popular writers Poe mentions are all completely forgotten whereas the slighly disreputable Poe and Hawthorne have endured.

The quality of a piece of art is always going to be subjective and subject to one's taste, I personally love books with a tragic view of life because I find that more true to life and actually invigorates me emotionally.

Prose wise there are certain standards that a piece of writing can be judged by but even that is subjective, I'm highly suspect to claims of 'objective' worth when it comes to artforms, and highly skilled writers and scholars disagree on the quality and value of a wide range of authors.

 

[TristramEvans]

I had not even heard of Harvey's before. I looked it up and it looks like they are only in Canada. So it isn't really the best comparison. I am not traveling to Canada just for a burger.

I think with restaurants and fast food people are looking at more than just the quality of the food. Price is a factor. How long it takes to get your food is another. Sometimes people just want something quick to go. Related to this is how far away the place is.

Lol, sorry, not the fast food chain, Marco Pierre White's 3 Michelin star restaurant in London:

Harveys (restaurant) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Yeah, there's certainly other factors at play, I was purely commenting on the difference between popularity and quality. You can just replace the above example with McDonalds vs "fine dining"

 

[TristramEvans]

and ultimately people have different tastes. Some people appreciate the height of game design, they play Palladium games, and others can’t see the genius and opt for sub optimal games like the PbtA and BitD based ones.

I'm now picturing a bunch of guys in top hats and tuxes playing Rifts, taking out their monacles whenever they roll dice

"I say old chap, cracking good layabout with those glitter boys, hurrah!"

 

[Voros]

Lol, sorry, not the fast food chain, Marco Pierre White's 3 Michelin star restaurant in London:

Harveys (restaurant) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Yeah, there's certainly other factors at play, I was purely commenting on the difference between popularity and quality. You can just replace the above example with McDonalds vs "fine dining"

The appeal to popularity fallacy, not something I think P Patchwork Dragon was doing btw, is always so selective.

Too often we're happy to resort to it when our tastes coincide with what's popular but ultimately our own viewpoint and tastes are the real North Star, as they should be honestly.

I'm thinking of the kind of Rush fans who will defensively point at their record sales as proof of their quality while sneering at Britney Spears despite her record sales.

One thing I do find annoying is when someone assumes that if you like something that is obscure or 'difficult,' the music of the eletronic avant-duo Coil, the jazz of John Coltrane or the noise rock of Jesus Lizard come to mind as RL examples, that you are only pretending to like it to Lord your snobbish superiority over others.

 

[TristramEvans]

Granted the McDonalds example is a bit too blunt for purpose, as despite it's popularity, I don't think anyone equates it with quality. McDonalds isnt popular because its so many peoples "favourite restuarant", its popular because it ( used to be) cheap af and easy. There are, as pointed out, numerous other factors.

At the same time, I think there are legitimate universal methods of determining quality that are very different from personal preferences, without dismissing preference as perfectly valid.

I love Gene Wolfe's writing but I also love James Howe's Bunnicula. I can absolutely see the standard of quality in an academy award winning critical Darling like, say, Mystic River, but I get more enjoyment watching Manborg or Psycho Beach Party.

 

[thebigh]

At the same time, I think there are legitimate universal methods of determining quality that are very different from personal preferences, without dismissing preference as perfectly valid.

One simple measurement is typos and grammar errors. Too many can be a sign of not enough attention to detail. Even if the author is dyslexic, or not writing in their native language, or otherwise a terrible speller, if they've shown the rules to people and done playtesting then those other early readers will have caught many of those errors. A document with poor writing quality suggests that that work hasn't been done.

 

[Fenris-77]

Cough*Palladium*cough

 

[Patchwork Dragon]

I don't generally write about my fiction reading because it is lightweight fluff people would might make fun of. Books like "Mushroom Princess," "Pampered by the Prince" and "Late Start Tamer."

On the other hand I don't usually talk about my music tastes because a lot of them might be considered snobby, like Jazz, roots revival and classical crossover.

It just occurred to me that the snobby bit is probably why my mom and some other relatives react poorly when I tell them about art exhibits I have seen.

 

[TristramEvans]

One of the reasons I am critical of Forge Theory is that it purports to cover the hobby in general.

Even way moreso than that. This is what Ron Edwards claims was the purpose and benefit of The Forge:

You can create the game you want, and you can publish it if you want. Before the Forge, nobody thought that way.

The Incoherence and Brain Damage quotes by Edwards are way more infamous, but I'd say that of anything Edwards has ever wrote in his lifetime, this quote is the apex of his delusional arrogance.

 

[Fenris-77]

Even way moreso than that. This is what Ron Edwards claims was the purpose and benefit of The Forge:



The Incoherence and Brain Damage quotes by Edwards are way more infamous, but I'd say that of anything Edwards has ever wrote in his lifetime, this quote is the apex of his delusional arrogance.

Yeah, I think some of Edwards' thought would have been far less divisive and controversial had it been couched as here's a way to try and understand different gamers and their wants and needs instead of the (admittedly much more appropriately geeky) declarative this is the way and the light version that suggested something akin to gospel.

 

[TristramEvans]

Yeah, I think some of Edwards' thought would have been far less divisive and controversial had it been couched as here's a way to try and understand different gamers and their wants and needs instead of the (admittedly much more appropriately geeky) declarative this is the way and the light version that suggested something akin to gospel.

I think Edward's essays on Fantasy Heartbreakers and System Matters were both of great value to the hobby. The latter shows Edward's blind spots certainly (he doesn't seem to have even considered the role that familiarity with a system plays), but overall I think they both put to words some very acute observations about the Hobby.

But yeah, I agree, Forge Theory past that kinda abandoned observation and become a recursive pattern of solipsistic declarations, but at the time I think that was as much due to the echo chamber nature of the Forge forum as much as anything.

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

"Theory" in the litterary criticism/philosophy/etc realm can be understood as two distinct things. The first is the field itself. The second as a reference to a more or less specific explanatory model and set of hypothesis. I think in the case of the (young) transposition to RPGs as a medium, the first one has shown undeniable, objective effectiveness in that litterally every author of every major game has obviously iven quite the thought to the methodology. I do not yet know enough to qualify whether "Forge theory" (I've yet to even determine if that is a coherent concept) or Ron Edward's theories have provided more objective benefits that the aforementioned general benefit of having some sort of field for exchanging models and hypothesis. Though, I must say, I have not found most of what I've read from Edwards (meaning, not that much yet) to be especially enlightening, though specific points seem sound enough - even if the perspiring hubris is a bit off-putting to me.

However, I don't know if that's especially curious or if more would be fair to ask of any specific group or individual. As it copied the therm from fields that are no different : most political theorizing, or economic, is a collection or more or less argued ramblings and observations. Often interesting reads, if you're into the topic of the field, not so much otherwise. It is to be noted though, that incorrect assessments, weak models and wrong or specious hypothesis are often the reason better ones are made. In the RPG context, that seems to be verified : for every gygaxian game, there's the anti-gygaxian game, for every edwardian game, there's the anti-edwardian game, and so on and so forth. On one hand that makes influence difficult to assess, on the other it means that, by the conversational nature of design forums or the so to speak field of RPG theory, if you object to some model in particular it is not so difficult to find it's opposite, and it might be that is a few to many case, the opposite would not exist without the thing you dislike.

I find it humorous that so much of this Forge site resides in the retelling of opposition, but that's just the logical conclusion of how things work. Though, I am not much more impressed by the efforts of OSR designers and "theory", which also has it's glaring recurring issues - including one of my pet peeves, revisionism. But in the same way, that is also good enough for what it is.

I'll also say that I personally think that I would like to see RPG meta reflexion become more focused on specific implemented instances and comparisons of mechanical and thematical presentations; but also, on the other end, should a more holistic scope be chosen, focus more on the social-economic paradygms within the hobby and it's constituents. Much like the existence of spaces for design discussion IMO more important to the health and diversification of the hobby than this or that specific notion, I think the overall social-economic ecology of the hobby has more impact than any specific individual or group or their ideas about design or play.

On objective/subjective merits. I'll say a lot comes down to taste, but there are a few quasi-objective measures for a RPG book :
-Layout readability
-Coherence of design goals and mechanical execution
-Indexation
-Effective prose (as in, does it produce the ambiance it purports to convey?)
-Effort (as in, relative to scope, effort per page so to speak) which is measured by :
-Polish (typos, page design, attention to detail)
-Thematic consistency & originality/authenticity (intentionality)
-Effective visual design

 

[Patchwork Dragon]

I am curious what you mean when you talk about social economic paradymes.

Is this about some pricier games and accessories excluding some people from the gaming table?

And are game designers earning are enough to make it worthwhile for them to keep selling things.

And then there are people who have gaming podcasts that potentially make money.

Or is this about how these factors play out in games. Such as how important is character wealth.

 

[DeadBob]

I am curious what you mean when you talk about social economic paradymes.

Is this about some pricier games and accessories excluding some people from the gaming table?

And are game designers earning are enough to make it worthwhile for them to keep selling things.

And then there are people who have gaming podcasts that potentially make money.

Or is this about how these factors play out in games. Such as how important is character wealth.

Not entirely sure which post this is referencing, but part of the early stuff on The Forge also dealt with actually publishing and selling games at a time when Print on Demand and pdf (and other electronic formats) as viable options were still pretty new.

At least some of the discussion was then the practical side of how-to-publish your game without taking out costly loans to get traditional print economies of scale, especially when you (as designer) weren't sure if you even had a winner, despite how much you loved your game.

Of course, this also looped back into ideas about making shorter and more focused games, short arc games, one-off games, and so on, as these represented somewhat lower financial risk and the possibility of folks creating an unfilled niche market (within the admittedly then-niche market of RPGs).

And so that stuff tends to loop back in and reinforce one another, both the economics and the design focus.

Does that help at all?

Since that time, some of the economics has changed, including stuff like PoD and e-formats becoming viable and recognized, and also the success of crowdfunding as alternate funding options (albeit with problems of their own. Just different problems from taking a second mortgage on the family home to create a dream product).

 

[Patchwork Dragon]

Yes, that makes sense. I see a lot of pdf games that are cheap, but also pretty short. When I look at them, the price per page is significantly more than for a larger product.

So from a pure economic standpoint, the shorter documents make sense.

I also think that people may be more likely to buy something that is cheaper.

I am not sure how much of them seem suitable to a longer campaign. But at the price, it is not a big deal to use as just a one shot.

This seems to favor unusual themes that might be fun as a one shot, but not as a campaign. For example, the honey heist game.

There also seem a lot documents that add new things to existing games. These fit the same short and cheap model.

 

[DeadBob]

Yeah, and time wise it lines up pretty well with most gaming magazines that aren’t one-company magazines closing up ( they would tend to be an outlet in earlier periods).

Price per page is one of those good thing/bad thing Things ( and I admit to using it as a comparison myself on occasion).

I am not sure how much of them seem suitable to a longer campaign. But at the price, it is not a big deal to use as just a one shot.

This seems to favor unusual themes that might be fun as a one shot, but not as a campaign. For example, the honey heist game.

Yeah, that's part of that feedback loop of design and economics. Short and focused was held to be admirable, partly because it was more likely, in theory, to see play if it was relatively easy to try out. You just didn't have the same commitment requirements and pre-play work to do as a more mainstream design.

 

[TristramEvans]

I feel like the economic/layout & editing aspect isn't really anything to do with theory, in that it's just factual information. A resource for that might be nice though. We've had individual threads on typography, making pdfs, and running kickstarters, but an overall thread that brings all this info together might be good

 

[Patchwork Dragon]

I feel like the economic/layout & editing aspect isn't really anything to do with theory, in that it's just factual information. A resource for that might be nice though. We've had individual threads on typography, making pdfs, and running kickstarters, but an overall thread that brings all this info together might be good

I think that the interaction of theory and economics brings up interesting ideas, but I would be on open to making it a new thread.

On making a short page count game that sells for less:

Do the design philosophies of people naturally lead to short page count games? For example, if I made a rules light game it would naturally be shorter than a game with detailed rules. Or do I decide I want to make a short game and realize it has to be rules light to be short?

Game jams are also interesting in terms of game theory but also economic and practical terms.

Possibly another separate thread:

PDFs and short games makes it easier for people to put out games or game related material. This makes it possible for more people to participate in the process.

This is maybe not game theory, but the idea of increased participation could be called game philosophy.

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

Edit :

PDFs and short games makes it easier for people to put out games or game related material. This makes it possible for more people to participate in the process.

This is maybe not game theory, but the idea of increased participation could be called game philosophy.

So I started writing this post before you posted that and that is exactly the kind of stuff I have in mind. Broadening the scope from mechanics to general philosophy, as the term "theory" usually implies. I need to work on concision lol

Still I wrote this text wall so if anyone wants the long and rambly version :

I am curious what you mean when you talk about social economic paradymes.

Is this about some pricier games and accessories excluding some people from the gaming table?

And are game designers earning are enough to make it worthwhile for them to keep selling things.

And then there are people who have gaming podcasts that potentially make money.

Or is this about how these factors play out in games. Such as how important is character wealth.

A few of these.

I mean mainly two things. A first level would be design theory itself, as in not factoring the social aspect of the game might lead to incorrect conclusions for game design, or at least skew perception.

Take the "System matters" article. Leaving aside whether G, N and S are sound constructs, the idea that specializing games represents optimization because that way people can form gaming groups around affinity for one of the other at the exclusion of the other doesn't make sense in all social contexts. A lot of tables are just friends group bonding over games, so a generalist is probably more appealing to them, because they all care more about all having fun than each having their super specialized optimal gameplay. Likewise, people that don't live in large cities with huge gaming scenes generally have to compromise a bit if they don't want to use a VTT. The whole notion only makes sense if you divorce game design and gaming from any social context.

On another level, there are the structural questions. While I am aware that publishing advice has been discussed quite a lot on the Forge, and is not too rare on any other forum either, most of what I've seen is at the financial optimization level rather than a more active reflexion about economic models and the future of the hobby.

Coming from the french perspective, where the RPG scene is much more aligned to the non profit french associative model, in the english speaking global discourse I've seen very little such things discussed. The way I was taught is that anyone can make a system on the fly, it's that easy. To call back to "System does matter" contrast that with the attitude that alteration is difficult, or represents some sort of talent from special gms. That strikes me as a self-interested idea that is, here, an embedded premise, yet is not sustained by any argument or metric.

Because that's probably the truest criticism of this sort of theorizing I've seen, that it often blurrs the line between intellectual pursuit and marketting device. And at a larger scale, there are eminent weaknesses in the production methodology, both financial (in that most of the financial optimization requires limited scopes or siloing through this or that dominant IP) and ethical (notably thinking of the exploitative nature of models like Kickstarter, which have lead to numerous ripp-offs). Or even just annoyances like shock marketteers or extreme shills appropriating way too much space in the conversation compared to others who might even have cooler ideas but lack the marketting sense.

I think, if there is a greater theory of rpgaming that might bring virtuous impact accross the board, it would concern itself with a creative approach to financing and diffusion models we have now. I tend to think smaller creators should gain from discussing alternative methods and forms of association.

There are other interesting things which could be meant by the sentence, but here that is what I meant. Hopefully I have clarified rather than made my meaning more confusing. I guess a crude but simple way to put it is that for RPG theory to live up to the name it should try to not just adress design but also describe and counteroffer to the structural issues - preferably within a reasonable frame.

 

[Exploderwizard]

Theory is all crap. Actual play is where its at. The best bit of wisdom I have ever heard that can be applied to rpg play comes from Spinal Tap keyboardist Viv Savage. " Have a good time all the time."

 

[sharps54]

I don’t know that all theory is crap BUT I do agree that play is where it’s at and if we spent more time playing and less time theorizing we would be better players.

 

[Fenris-77]

Theory is all crap. Actual play is where its at. The best bit of wisdom I have ever heard that can be applied to rpg play comes from Spinal Tap keyboardist Viv Savage. " Have a good time all the time."

No.

 

[Alai]

I don't think all theory is crap, but I think it's good to be clear in one's own mind what any given theory is actually for. Is it an engineering manual to tell you how to "build" a game in the first place? How to litcrit them? As a "people who liked this game also liked [...]" buyer's/player's guide? I don't think The Forge was ever clear in its own mind which of those it wanted to be when it grew up, and if it was, it didn't successfully communicate that to others. Much like it failed to communicate a lot of things. In fact, one might wonder if its real "purpose" was like the Charismatic Wisdom skill in a certain RuneQuest cult format: a manner of speech that exists purely to define who's in the In Group, their status within, and who isn't. Or perhaps it just ended up like Douglas Adams' theory of the universe: someone accidentally understood it fully, at which instant it was immediately replaced by something else that was even more needlessly complex.

 

[Fenris-77]

Allow me to clarify. The Forge is mostly crap. Theory generally is not. I agree that you need to know what job a given tool is for though, for sure.

 

[Exploderwizard]

No.

What types of theory craft are valuable in your opinion?

 

[Fenris-77]

What types of theory craft are valuable in your opinion?

Lots of them for many different purposes. I was primarily talking here about design theory and TTRPGs. The games we all enjoy aren't designed in a vacuum, they are designed (with various amounts of fidelity) to set of design principles and desired outcomes. Some games are better designed than others and produce a better (or perhaps more specifically targeted) play experience. If I understand the underlying design principles (or theory) that were used to design a game I will probably be better at running it, and I will definitely be in a better place to hack it effectively.

Theory about what is actually happening at the table when people play TTRPGs is also useful for many of the same reasons. Powered by the Apocalypse, for example, whether you like it or not, is a very tightly designed game and that's because Vincent Baker had a very clear theory set about how RPGs work and how he wanted his game to work within that theoretical system.

 

[sharps54]

I think theory is much more useful to a game designer than the average consumer whether they are the DM or a player.