Improvisation vs "code-breaking" in D&D

[pemerton]

I didn't mention you specifically--I am talking about the culture of sucky debate the Forge engendered by growing out of a culture surrounding a bad theory. I'm not talking about you, the topic of my post was why people don't like the Forge's legacy.

OK - I misunderstood.

From my point of view the Forge legacy is some good games and some very useful GMing advice.

 

[Zak S]

Anyway, tying this back to railroading: in his AP thread, @ZakS defined "railroading" along the lines of "the constraints on play become a problem". The constraint on play introduced by typical sand-boxing is that the players have to engaged the content the GM has pre-written for them. For me that's a problem.

If your player's aren't interested in challenge or problem solving (other than in the sense that 'make up something interesting with almost no constraints' is a problem to be solved and a challenge) than this makes sense. A puzzle isn't usually a puzzle unless someone else sets it up--the solver has too much information.

Feeling "railroaded" is like feeling "too cold"--there is almost no theoretical minimum where someone is "wrong" to say they feel railroaded. It's just that someone who feels too cold when in the midst of the sun or who feels railroaded when the GMs says "There's a giant frog 3 miles to the west, not that you have to do anything about it, it's just there" is just WAY MORE SENSITIVE than the average gamer.

That's ok. There are games for those gamers.

 

[Zak S]

OK - I misunderstood.

From my point of view the Forge legacy is some good games and some very useful GMing advice.

From my POV the Forge legacy is 1 game that postForge people tend to like (Apoc World) a couple hacks of it, over a hundred games so bad that even people in that crowd don't ever seem to play them, one game that seems to be really bad and confusing but was sold really well by extraordinary effort and production values (Burning Wheel) and thousands upon thousands upon thousands of terrible terrible terrible comments, accusations, threats, derailments, threadcraps, evasions, prejudices, bigotries, cronyisms and attacks encouraged by the philosophy of the Forge itself ("jerks at your table aren't the jerks' fault, it's the game's fault", "Never assume good faith from non-Forgies") snaking through the last 10 years of game discussion like a length of razor wire hiding in a bowl of pasta because people just don't want to admit they made a big mistake 10 years ago and formed lasting social ties based on that mistake.

Take away the Forge and we wouldn't have...one lasting game postForgies like. We probably could've had Vincent Baker without the Forge so I count the Forge a net loss on every level.

 

[Umbran]

Forge theory and vocabulary is, in 2015, a bad thing that makes conversations slower and worse.

In my experience, at least around here, that is because some folks who have decided they don't like Forge Theory come in and spend time trying to get you to stop talking about it. Kind of like warlord discussions on these boards right now. It is bad for social reasons, not for technical ones.

If, instead, you just let folks who find it useful go ahead and use it without putting up a fuss, the discussion can go along quite well.

 

[Zak S]

In my experience, at least around here, that is because some folks who have decided they don't like Forge Theory come in and spend time trying to get you to stop talking about it. Kind of like warlord discussions on these boards right now. It is bad for social reasons, not for technical ones.

If, instead, you just let folks who find it useful go ahead and use it without putting up a fuss, the discussion can go along quite well.

"The reason the Earth-Air-Fire-Water theory of physics messes up conversations is because people keep disagreeing with it."

No. Forge theory is inaccurate. People should stop alluding to it. People who are alluding to it should be viewed as unreliable and arguments built on it can't ever be accurate.

 

[Umbran]

Incorrect:

Forge theory doesn't just make claims about what some people experienced. It makes broad claims about how all games work.

So what? Who cares?

You ever see someone eat a slice of pizza, but leave the crust behind, 'cause it isn't so nice? When you eat an orange, don't you leave the rind behind? Or, say I have a pocketknife. I don't drink wine, so the corkscrew on it is completely useless. But, several other things on the pocketknife work just fine, and I can ignore the corkscrew. Thus, the thing overall still has value.

Who on Earth told you that folks having a discussion using GNS theory must use *ALL* of it? Or, did the simple idea of editing never occur to you?

 

[Zak S]

So what? Who cares?

You ever see someone eat a slice of pizza, but leave the crust behind, 'cause it isn't so nice? When you eat an orange, don't you leave the rind behind? Or, say I have a pocketknife. I don't drink wine, so the corkscrew on it is completely useless. But, several other things on the pocketknife work just fine, and I can ignore the corkscrew. Thus, the thing overall still has value.

Who on Earth told you that folks having a discussion using GNS theory must use *ALL* of it? Or, did the simple idea of editing never occur to you?

Because NO part of it is worthwhile, though, even if it might've had some therapeutic value for some gamers.

It is like phrenology: even if phrenology incidentally had some good impact on some person's life (it taught them to make precise measurements or use a protractor or read a chart), all arguments drawn from these principles are bad as they rest on faulty premises.

And most of what we do on game forums is discuss what's true and false. So if the conversation is about what actually works and what actually doesn't, then the person who starts using phrenological ideas is not making a good argument and this should be pointed out and they should stop so that we can move on and real progress can be made.

As articulated, in its strong form, GNS is simply wrong. It makes bad predictions that don't match reality.

In its weak form (where we ignore what it says and just use the buzzwords) it simply says "Some gamers like different things in games" which is what every other theory of games says.

So there's no part of it that's useful. It is all rind.

 

[pemerton]

Forge theory is inaccurate. People should stop alluding to it. People who are alluding to it should be viewed as unreliable and arguments built on it can't ever be accurate.

I disagree with this, for basic methodological reasons.

Newton's physics is inaccurate, and is certainly false, yet people using it can send rocket ships to the moon. Ptolemy's astronomy is even more false (assuming degrees of falsehood make sense) but my understanding is that 19th century American nautical almanacs were prepared using Ptolemaic methods of calculation.

In the social sphere, most 19th and early 20th century sociology theories are false theories, in the sense that they assert generalities that don't hold and they make particular claims about historical events that aren't true. Some of those theories are nevertheless very powerful and full of useful insight.

In the case of mathematical physics, the main reason for the utility of falsehoods is because numbers that are wrong, and that are generated by way of a model that is not at all correct, might nevertheless be approximately equal to the correct numbers.

In the case of sociology, a theory whose generalities don't hold and which makes some mistaken historical claims might still be powerful and insightful because some of its generalities and interpretations hold for a more narrow set of cases, or because - while it misunderstands the nature of some phenomenon - it nevertheless has a lot of true and insightful things to say about that phenomenon.

one game that seems to be really bad and confusing but was sold really well by extraordinary effort and production values (Burning Wheel)

What does "seems to be really bad" mean here, other than "I don't like it" or "I don't want to play it?"

 

[pemerton]

Because NO part of it is worthwhile, though, even if it might've had some therapeutic value for some gamers.

<snip>

As articulated, in its strong form, GNS is simply wrong. It makes bad predictions that don't match reality.

I pointed to two predications above, though, that do match reality.

Edwards correctly predicts that initiative will be a big issue in hard-sim games like Rolemaster and Runequest. He makes a similar prediction about hit locations. And, in fact, when you look at the play communities for those games, and the sorts of debates they have, and the sorts of supplemental rules that get published, he's right. And he's right about the particular fault-lines that emerge.

I also pointed to his discussion of techniques that are more common in G and N games than sim games. That one paragraph, as I said, encapsulates the whole of the 4e-era debate about "dissociated" mechanics.

The subject matter of these predictions may not be important to you - I get the sense (maybe wrong?) that you're not into hard-sim games of the RM/RQ sort, and that nor are you into 4e. But because I am into those games (and hence into BW, which is a sort of meld of the two styles), those predictions are relevant to me.

 

[pemerton]

If your player's aren't interested in challenge or problem solving (other than in the sense that 'make up something interesting with almost no constraints' is a problem to be solved and a challenge) than this makes sense. A puzzle isn't usually a puzzle unless someone else sets it up--the solver has too much information.

My players are interested in challenges, and also problem solving. I posted an actual play example upthread, where the challenge was "Seal the Abyss" and the problem to be solved was "Within the play space defined by (i) the 4e mechanics and (ii) the current fictional situation, how can I generate enough bonuses on my d20 roll to have a decent chance of making 41 starting with a base +20?"

The relationship between challenges and problem solving, and sandboxing or non-sandboxing, is orthogonal as far as I can see.

Feeling "railroaded" is like feeling "too cold"--there is almost no theoretical minimum where someone is "wrong" to say they feel railroaded. It's just that someone who feels too cold when in the midst of the sun or who feels railroaded when the GMs says "There's a giant frog 3 miles to the west, not that you have to do anything about it, it's just there" is just WAY MORE SENSITIVE than the average gamer.

Sure, given the financial success of Paizo's APs obviously I'm more sensitive than the average gamer.

But I don't think it's hard to see the issue. Having the GM mention all his/her giant frogs 3 miles to the west sucks up time, attention and energy at the table. And that time, attention and energy is not being devoted to stuff that the players have signalled their interest in.