"Gamism," The Forge, and the Elephant in the Room

[Balesir]

I'm unable to xp [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] for his last two posts in this thread; if someone would cover for me, I'd be most grateful.

His patience with the monumental task of building a response to the torrent is something I am currently in awe of!

Also: [MENTION=23240]steenan[/MENTION]'s last post reflects my experience very well, indeed.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I think basic idea of some greater unifying theory isn't bad at all. It might just been that way too eco-cetric way to push these ideas (even the wrong ones) is against scientific princible and is more way chaotic artist way to do it. And thus annoyance of bloatic personalites, internet as channel of communication and very sub-genre examples of systems coming from there. Those had extreamely low attraction value to me, and some of them suggested that creators were very troubled people.
Not perhaps truth, but that's how I assumed when I also read through other stuff on that web page.

I would say that it's nice to hear some people found something helpful from that site. I've mostly run on people whose games it ruined when one of them got too much into it. 3, mmh maybe 2 that counts occasions in RL.

But if what you say about 4th edition is true, maybe that's why I dislike 4th edition. I hate too much meta there. For some reason abtract rules living in different universe work for many other games, but not for my rpg. Maybe because I want rules to support my imagination rather than distract it. Plus I really like 3rd edition rules. I've played rpg:s with many different systems, most painful being Phoenix Command and Blue Planet. Too much complexity. And I actually rather liked Amber, though auction system for stats was almost as bad as arguing what are our own stats.

4th edition, as one forge game I own make very boring to read. Because rules relate so little into what game is actually about. Well, 4th edition is not so bad, it does have color pictures and interesting names for powers (not always a good thing). AD&D with it's lovely random rules (starting from very simple things like saves or thoc0) was still fun to read.

I probably won't be getting 5th edition, but I am interested what it will be in the end. What was 4th editions lesson to company/designers. 4th edition works for many people now, who might not be happy how 5th edition. I wonder if it's yet another market split.

Honesty most people on market prefer simple fantastic scifi/simple fantasy gaming. Look what sells now as computer games and movies. Most of us don't want to work when we play. It's relaxing hobby not quest for enlightment.

No hard working person has time to commit make every game-session good. When we all know that real problem why they are lacking is mostly too stresful life and how little time it leaves to think these imaginative worlds. That's why we play modules nowdays, while not even always agreeing with storyline, or ignoring it in some parts. What we ordinary gamers (and there isn't much young generation coming to gaming, at least not in my country) don't need is another do-it-yourself-resolutions-last-too-long-gamesystem. There must be lot of ready-to-play elements. Micromodules even within basic books. More than just the one, different examples for different themes would be cood, and that would also tell me what type of gaming that system supports well.

And there should be something that would attract new gamers. I would suggest comic book specials. People keep buying books they don't really need, if they are setting books. So it's important to create setting that will intrest people and that can be used to create that multi-parket between different attractiojn points. Do it well, like Angry Birds. If Hasbro/WotC is not willing/able to take this approach D&D story might just end. Though it will probably die lingering death. It needs desperately reboot to cool. We ramaining rpg hobby loving folk are mostly 34-76 year old. And when my still rpg playing palls get their first kid late 30 it's generation hobby transfer becomes unlikely.

I know this is mostly unrelated to this discussion and feel free to ignore me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm unable to xp [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] for his last two posts in this thread; if someone would cover for me, I'd be most grateful.

His patience with the monumental task of building a response to the torrent is something I am currently in awe of!

Also: [MENTION=23240]steenan[/MENTION]'s last post reflects my experience very well, indeed.

I think he is doing a very good job of responding to our criticisms.

 

[pemerton]

You're all making me blush!

I don't see the point of a thread like this being for me to persuade Bedrockgames, or Innerdude, or anyone else. And thery're all intelligent posters, so they can probably see that it's unlikely they'll change my basic view that Edwards has interesting things to say.

In that respect, it's like an academic colloquium. I don't go to many seminars given by people with views I disagree with, expecting to come out having my mind changed.

For me, the point (and the pleasure) is to see what others are thinking, what reasons matter to them, to get a handle on the intellectual terrain and what the range of views are that a reasonable person moving through that terrain might hold.

And likewise to put my views out there and see what sort of responses they provoke.

I also think the fact that this thread remains completely civil 11 pages in, and has had (I think) no moderation, is a terrific thing, and often not the case on these boards when these sorts of issues come up.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I have found this thread very useful to illuminate some of the issues I have with GNS. It is very interesting that there seem to be no alternative framework for examining rpg design issues though. WoTC seems to have some framework based on market research from my reading of comments by Mearls and others but aside from that old study referenced in this thread has published nothing.

 

[Umbran]

Edwards has an insistence in his viewpoint that troubles me.

Edwards has a theory about the social interactions in gaming, but also claims he lacks some critical social skills.

His lacking the skill doesn't automatically mean he is wrong. A person who cannot play basketball can still analyze basketball, after all. However, his admitted lack of understanding of social interaction does rob him of the ability to use authoritative voice in presentation.

Unfortunately, authoritative voice is about all he ever uses.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

For several years me and my friends had a problem: we enjoyed some sessions much better than others and couldn't put a finger on the difference. Some games were excellent, some were just good; we played and GMed good enough to ensure we had "good" games, but we didn't know how to aim for "excellent".

Ok, so you have time to think gaming a lot "graz". You also seem to have very balanced group, with similar idea of "fun gaming". This is not so with most groups I know/used to know. Nice thing with that is that great deal of different gaming systems/themes got tried out. But, alas, with age comes, at least in my circles tendarcy to stick with something we do well. Lack of time contributes as well.

What kinda games you play? Not D&D much? Those more philosophical ones I take based on your nick.

I think it's important in these kinda discussions about gaming to tell what are games we prefer to play. Helps to get where we are coming for these conclusions.

I mostly play D&D 3.x, older editions of it too, sometimes oldie runequest, home-made very lite systems for scifi and occasionally something else. Themes ranging from basic adventuring to some weird godly stuff. I also play lot of video games.

Also what's up with names like "hollysomething god" and "feathered fowl" (given by Oathbound), they sound so stupid. Do they sound less stupid to native englishspeaker? I am honestly curious I run into these word-horrors now and then. Sometimes problem is with translation. Feathered Fowl requires imagination not to translate it into something like Chicken flock or similar.

It causes way too much hilarity when we use those terms, and late 90 early 2000 was full of systems with pretensious "secret terminalogy". White wolf games and others flogging on success like Nobilis/Immortal/Planescape "cant" even. It was sort of new and fun when it first came out, but too much is too much.

Too much rules and too much in-game-world-thematic-knowledge leads to too dense gaming experiences. Which is kinda like bad movie where lot of special effects try to cover the plot that makes no sense.

 

[LurkAway]

I will say this in the defense of Edwards' tone. I never understood it ... until I imagined myself running an RPG forum dedicated to serious inquiry and having to act as a moderator.

I don't know... Enworld mods and other RPG forum mods have been slaying trolls, quenching inflammatory posts, and warding off editions wars for years, and they're (mostly) normal.

I don't see the point of a thread like this being for me to persuade Bedrockgames, or Innerdude, or anyone else. And thery're all intelligent posters, so they can probably see that it's unlikely they'll change my basic view that Edwards has interesting things to say.

I have shifted in one respect. I think I understand better that GNS deems to describe 3 poles of roleplaying agendas. Just like nobody lives permanently in the South Pole, pure 100% Gamist agendas are surely non-existent in rpgs. Gamist roleplaying may sound like an oxymoron, but even if so, that's still only a theoretical elephant in a theoretical room.

GNS is just one possible layer of existence, so to speak. In another layer, you have the 4 poles of Thinkers, Power Gamers, Character Actors, and Storytellers. Monte's "Uniting the Editions" lists D&D playstyles as Fast and simple, Story-based, Tactical combat, Simulationist, and Heroic and High Action, and claims that D&D "needs to cater to all of [those playstyles]". Until reconciled (if possible), these paradigms co-exist as much as you want them to and each is as useful as you think it's useful.

Anyway, I don't think the elephant in the room is Gamism.

I think the elephant in the room is Ron Edwards.

I think GNS/Big Model would get a boost by ditching Edwards as its spokesperson and finding another interpretor. Edwards' unfortunate history of lack of social graces makes him, IMO, not only useless but actively subversive towards mass acceptance of GNS. If I was his agent, I would try to keep him contained with his clique at The Forge, and hire a publicist -- someone with one foot in The Forge and one foot in the real world -- to do all the talking (unnecessarily harsh, maybe, but...)

RPGs are for most people a leisure social activity. Geek internet debate is fun too, as long we're treating each other as real people with a fun agenda, not blank users digesting an academic lecture. Pretentious theorizing and rude-sounding pronouncements can be met with great hostility, maybe because it essentially undermines the fun nature of RPGs. For example, the Tommy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthus articles may lack rigorous whateveryoucallit, but it gets the tone exactly right for MtG players. A good GNS ambassador would never lose sight of the importance of presentation, clarity, empathy, humility, mututal respect, and fun.

(All of the above assumes that GNS controversy is just as it seems, which I've acknowledged I'm not fully versed in.)

So I think presentation of GNS ideas is just as important as the idea itself, and how much that can be underestimated (as witnessed, coincidentally, with the 4E marketing debacle vs countermeasures taken with 5E). With all due respect, I think taking direct quotes from Ron Edwards can inadvertently subvert your efforts IMO -- unless you were only meaning to preach to the choir?

My secondary contention -- that the scope (and thus usefulness) of interpretive theory might be limited by an author's (lack of) empathy or humility -- is speculative and I don't expect to dissuade GNS supporters with that.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't know... Enworld mods and other RPG forum mods have been slaying trolls, quenching inflammatory posts, and warding off editions wars for years, and they're (mostly) normal.

Here, the mandate is that we can be silly, drift topics somewhat (as long as it isn't a thread cap), and generally have a lot of social chit chat mixed in with the more "serious" posts. It is conversational. Imagine you are trying to moderate a forum where the mandate is to stick tightly to the point of a topic, say only what is useful on that topic, and when it is done, everyone shut up about it. Oh, and don't post off the cuff, either. Really think about what you are saying.

Now granted, maybe the problem is that the chances of pulling that off on an internet forum are worse than herding 100 cats across the breadth of Alaska during the dog sled races. And maybe someone that thinks either is a good idea should never be a moderator of a forum. I know I don't want to ever be one. Still, I can empathize with the inherent frustration of the task that they set for themselves when they decided to try it.

Another possiblity, of course, is that the person writing hard-edged critiques of gaming shouldn't also be a forum moderator, unless they are unusually easy going.

 

[LurkAway]

Imagine you are trying to moderate a forum where the mandate is to stick tightly to the point of a topic, say only what is useful on that topic, and when it is done, everyone shut up about it.

But potentially, a forum where people voluntarily design games can be fun, right? Why must there be a mandate to moderate with an iron fist? Shelly Mazzanoble's articles and the email transcripts from Worlds and Monsters hint that professional game design discussions can be fun and casual in tone -- no severely awkward moments where a guy insists with expletives that a standard valediction is imprinted with sweat and tears.