Academic Plague in gaming

[Ferrix]

There is the problem. Philosophy, at least the typical flavors of analytical philosophy popular in the US, do tend to favor a more bare-bones type of writing. Take a trip over to the English Department, or better yet Comp Lit - You will find a much different ballgame (or at least I did back in my Graduate days).

Re: specialized "academic" language - in my experience, this is a smoke-screen for poor thought; at least in the humanities. I've heard people cry about how they can't express their ideas in "plain" English - Ha! It's because if they did it would be immediately apparent how laughable their "arguments" were.

Well considering I'm at a Canadian university where I focus most of my studies on "continental", if I'll use the word, philosophy it is still the case. Such traditions do not follow the very explicitly bare-bones, if I could just make this a set of logical cases type of analytics that is common. You can't bloat your work with drivel to make yourself sound smart, because the people who will be reading it see through it. I've spent a bit of time in the english department and I don't see the circumstances you talk about, although most of it was in the creative writing field.

Perhaps things have changed, or perhaps our experiences are different. Whatever the case, academic language has it's practicality within the fields it is applicable to. And returning to the subject of academics within RPG's, I think it's a very interesting place to study the literary, social and other aspects since it is a relatively different domain of activity which hasn't been studied in great deal up till now.

Off to class.

 

[Nisarg]

How would story-based gaming put people off? The appeal of stories is universal, no? And nothing to do with academicness. The appeal of tactical wargames is limited.

Here's where we have to get into some jargon of our own.. however, unlike Nobilis, White Wolf, or the Forge, I'll try to give the definition without resorting to unnescesarily big words or other jargon.

Story-based gaming doesn't mean gaming where there's a story. All RPG gaming has some kind of story, even if its just "you're going into the dungeon to kill stuff".
Story-based gaming is a term that describes the kind of gaming that was popular through most of the 90s, and was used by White-Wolf as its main model for setting design and marketing (though some have said it was invented by TSR in the dragonlance series.. i think that the DL modules were an example of the granddaddy of story-based gaming, true, but story-based wasn't adopted as the one-trick pony of the industry until WW's massive success with Vampire).
Story-based gaming is when the emphasis in a game is put on the story over and above the characters. The PCs become "vehicles" for the unfolding of a supposedly "really interesting" story the DM wants to tell, and while they are arguably the protagonists of the story, there is really very little freedom in what they can actually do, because story-based gaming depends upon the story actually getting told. So the DM is encouraged to force the players in a particular direction ("railroading") to make sure the story goes the way he wants/the module says so.
What's insidious about the story based gaming in the 90s is that even the DM didn't really have any power... his campaign and adventures were limited in what he could do by the fact that the settings had a story of their own (a "metaplot"), that was slowly unfolding in each new sourcebook. So if you did something different in your campaign, all the subsequent books that came out for the game could be useless.
The writers of these sourcebooks tended to put the emphasis on their own stories, and their own NPCs, something that reduced the DM to the lector of the designer's story, and reduced the PCs to cheerleaders for powerful NPCs.

That's why story-based gaming is bad. Its disempowering. It gives a bunch of second-rate failed novelists the chance to tell their b-grade stories in the form of adventures and sourcebooks, forces gamers to buy those books if they want to get all the "secrets" of the setting (by the late 90s it was so bad that there were games, like Brave New World, that weren't really a complete RPG, ever.. each sourcebook was absolutely nescessary to give you another tiny little clue as to what was REALLY going on in the world, and the main book only had about a half-dozen superpowers, if you wanted anything else you'd have to buy more books), and basically makes the players into spectators in their own game.

Nisarg

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Oh bull pucky. When the only evidence presented is from the undistributed middle odds are good that it is a snow job.

Let us count the number of times you have called it theory - going by memory, this is the first time. You have been stating it as fact.

I am pointing out that all your evidence is either anecdotal or the aforementioned fallacy. In short you are being trollish. You don't like Nobilis - fine. You don't like White Wolf - fine. But your arguments throughout this have been unsupported, yet stated as gospel. Take a look at RPG sales just before WoD, then during the period of it's popularity, I would be willing to bet on a small jump, as gaming caught the public's attention. I do know that local gaming stores saw a surge in sales. If you want actual evidence rather than anecdotal go and talk to your local game store. For that matter go and talk to your local book store, stores that had stopped carrying RPGs entirely began again because of WoD. Again something that you can check on.

And nearly everyone has come up with a 'better theory', but in the cause of your undaunted fanaticism you refuse to listen. So you sir, are being the 'creationist'. Oh, and Onanism is capitalized, go feed the birds elsewhere. (A bad pun, but I could not resist.)

The Auld Grump

 

[Nisarg]

I think threefold theory (as first seen on rec.games.frp.advocacy) moved foreward the state of RPG theory and discussion immensely. In it's most basic form, it made us aware that different people game for different reasons.

Of course, I am convinced that the theories some folk have at the forge often do become entirely academic and have little useful feedback to the state of the hobby. In the meantime, people who don't like being told that no one type of gaming is objectively correct slam on threefold theories, alongside those who think that the current state of theoretical ruminations as defined by some luminaries at the forge have evolved beyond usefulness. So often, what is ultimately an interesting and important observation about what motivates game players often gets trampled beneath the internet chatter.

The problem with the pseudointellectuals at the Forge are doing is not with threefold theory.
Its just fine to say that "there are three kinds of gaming", though you could just as easily say there are four, or two, or twelve. Its a pretty arbitrary division.
The problems with GNS are:
1. The application of GNS theory is divisive. Everyone I've ever seen who argues GNS in accordance with the Forge-dogma believes that because there are gamists, narrativists, and simulationists, "good" RPGs should be made to work only for one of the three. The idea that These three divisions are mutually exclusive is a logical leap if ever I saw one.
The forge claims that the "purpose" of GNS theory is to identify conflict in gaming groups and be able to design games that would correct this. In reality, it serves no purpose, since the premise that someone would ONLY be one of the three, and would automatically be unsatisfied playing a game or with a group that uses one of the other two models, is unfounded.
2. While we're at it, GNS theory suffers from a multiple identity disorder. Is it meant to correct gaming groups? Or correct games? If you're talking about the former, then the only response to a "problem" identified with GNS theory would be for the odd man out to leave his gaming group. That's not really a productive solution.
If the problem is with the games, then you enter into the realm of "bad fun", which is basically what the Forge ends up doing: claiming that most RPGs are actually badly designed because they do NOT strictly adhere to one of the three models.
3. Consequently, GNS theory demonstrates itself to be a failed concept... if GNS theory as applied at the forge were correct, then games made by the Forge should be far more successful and appealing than the games they identify as "badly made" (ie. D20, and most other games.. if I recall they even think WoD is "badly made" within GNS definitions).
So if the Forge's theorys were correct, THEY should be the ones designing the most popular games on the market.

The fact is that their GNS model is a load of garbage, which works really well for making the guys on the forge feel smart, and to look down on us lesser mortals who just game for fun, and its a good vehicle for the forgites to bicker with themselves over jargon and semantics. And of course, it gives Ron Edwards his little "cult" of fanatics... Edwards being (for those who haven't been to the Forge) the guy who basically designed the GNS theory, and whom everyone else at the Forge worships as a god.
Most threads on the forge involve pages and pages of people arguing semantics, always by trying to trump each other in referring to some essay or definition that Ron Edwards wrote, until Ron manifests himself and locks down the thread, usually claiming he had already resolved this question in essay #2459... its almost like a ritual at this point... "Summon Ron".

Nisarg

 

[Nisarg]

I only read the first three pages of this so....

I agree that we need to ensure teenagers are recruited. They are the best recruits any market can hope for.

As for 3E not being geared towards teenagers, they are, towards the ones who aren't afraid to read, do Math, and think on their own. The trick is to not only get these types of teens but to also get the ones who are afraid of reading, etc..... Show them they can despite what they have come to believe.

As for the evil intellectuals ruining the hobby, I don't agree. The bad ones are ignored like any piece of trash. The good ones give us Traveller, Paranoia, Shadowrun, and the others created by the few good that have ALWAYS been mixed in with the bad.

Trash will be thrown out, the jewels will persist over time.

From your mouth to great Cthulhu's ear, buddy.. lets hope you're right, but I intend to be vigilant and vocal to make sure you are, since natural selection hasn't always turned out to work in the gaming world in the past.

Nisarg

 

[Desdichado]

Although your anecdotal evidence has some validity, it's really not more than a drop in the bucket as far as the industry on the whole goes. Of all the people I gamed with back in the early 90s, I'm the only one left gaming that I know of (after 10 years off from 92-02), so my experience is similar to yours, but I'm not sure that our experiences are truly meaningful on an industry wide scale.

For what it's worth, my own anecdotal evidence is almost directly opposite Nisarg's. I left gaming in the 1e days, before even Dragonlance came out. White Wolf actually brought me back to the hobby, although I was more of an armchair gamer than a real one in those days. 3e finally brought me full circle to D&D again.

And I know a ton of people who more or less fit this model, including a fair amount of posters here.

 

[drnuncheon]

Based on the fact that Nobilis is diceless like Amber, its shiny and new, is "Sooo hot right now on RPG.net" and seems more intelligent (but is actually just way more pretentious) than Amber, I have had to fight off hordes of fanboys on the GoO website trying to argue that the rules to Amber, quite possibly some of the most brilliant RPG rules ever designed, should be scrapped and Amber 2.0 should actually use the Nobilis rules as a shell.

So they would kill a truly brilliant game, for not being as pretentious as a game that isn't actually brilliant in the least.

Huh. I loved the Amber books (the first series more than the second, and the knockoffs not at all) and hated the game system, which boiled down to "convince the GM that even if your number is lower, you should win".

The mental image of a spastic Benedict constantly parrying attacks from invisible people that might be there just served to emphasize what was wrong with the system. (If you haven't read the RPG, there's an example of play where an invisible PC surprise attacks Benedict, the best warrior ever. The DM says that he fails, because Benedict is so good that he's constantly thinking about how to parry attacks from invisible attackers.)

Takes all kinds, though.

J

 

[Nisarg]

And sometimes that 'smokescreen' has a purpose, which is shared definition of what those terms mean. (To deliberately use double-talk, connotation as well as notation.) A shared vocabulary is important in any endeavor, even gaming has the shared terms that outsiders do not understand, but everone in gaming comprehends, sometimes as acronyms. If I say NPC or nonplayer character pretty much every English speaking gamer understands what I am saying. having no common vocabulary means mistakes creeping in because of poor definition. If I say 'hand me a D6' you know what to reach for, you don't grab a D12. I have even heard ths called 'gamer speak'.

What you're talking about is "jargon", and of course jargon is important.. a set of terms that everyone in a particular study, practice, hobby,club etc. understands, a set of definitions that wouldn't nescessarily mean anything to an outsider but that people on the inside understand.

The problem is when you start creating unnescessary jargon (which many of the kind of academic plague situations.. be they in academia or gaming, do), making up words for things that could be described with regular words without any lesser efficiency. Ie. if instead of "house" you say "chancel", or instead of speed you say "celerity". This is often done pretentiously by using more archaic words or by using real or fake latinate. Whether its in a paper or an RPG, whenever you see someone replacing common anglo-saxon words with more esoteric latin, greek or sanskrit terms, you can be pretty certain that they've caught the academic plague.
Also, you've really created an intellectual cesspool once you start defining jargon with other jargon.

I had an argument with a pagan once who claimed he was a 'werewolf', having created his own definition for the term. What he was describing was animistic shamanism, but because he had no grounding in religion he did not have the vocabulary to understand the phrase. But if you were to walk up to Joe J. Fuddy on the street and say 'I am a werewolf' he has a very different vision of what you mean than what you might think that you are saying. Whereas if you say 'I am an animistic shaman' he will just look at you funny and wonder what you are talking about.

Sorry about being longwinded, but poor definition of terms is a real problem sometimes.

The Auld Grump

Yes, the use of common terms in uncommon ways is another surefire sign of academic plague. This is a problem that's found often on the Forge and in GNS theory, where terms like "narrativist" or "gamist" don't really mean what one would intuitively take them to mean. Ron Edwards does this almost constantly.

Nisarg

 

[pogre]

Edwards being (for those who haven't been to the Forge) the guy who basically designed the GNS theory, and whom everyone else at the Forge worships as a god.
Most threads on the forge involve pages and pages of people arguing semantics, always by trying to trump each other in referring to some essay or definition that Ron Edwards wrote, until Ron manifests himself and locks down the thread, usually claiming he had already resolved this question in essay #2459... its almost like a ritual at this point... "Summon Ron".

Nisarg

I have not "hung out" at the forge, but this is the funniest thing I have read for a while!

 

[painandgreed]

Incidentally, I also have more than enough personal anecdotal evidence. Of a group of about 20 friends of mine that I was gaming with since I was 12 years old, I am one of only 2 who continues to game, and all the rest left during that era. For many of them, there were certain mitigating circumstances that caused them to leave (marriage, school, work), but all have told me repeatedly that if they had been making games in that time that were worth playing, and not angsty-wankfests they would have persevered.
I myself quit playing for about 6 months, finally burnt out of trying to buy or run decent games in an era where everything was about metaplot and "splatbooks" and railroaded adventures made to show off failed novelists' writing talents, rather than actually involved the players proactively, I just got tired of it all.

Here we get to the heart of the problem, which isn't WW or any trend in gaming, but rather that none of you were decent DMs. With any game, it's usually not the system, its the DM. If you didn't like what they were givign you, why didn't you simply create your own stuff? Hell, with D&D, I've been making my own dungeons since 7th grade. With WW, i too hate most of the metalot changes, and you know what? I didn't use all of them. Lodin is still up and alive, the Asian vampires didn't overrun LA, there are till tremere in the Sabbat and Gangrel in the Camarilla. My games been going on for the past ten years and I've never run one of their adventures. I haven't even used their city books except for NPCs. It's my goal to get the PCs to Chicago at some point so I can finally use the second V:tM book I ever bought. I do the same thing I D&D. Unless running a purposly cheezy "classic hack and slash' game, I don't use the standard modules much. I make my own. If the material you were getting wasn't to your tastes, then all you had to do was make your own. That most of you decided to quit rather than take the mantle of responsibility upon yourself says more about yourselves than the game publishers.