S/Z: On the Difficulties of RPG Theory & Criticism

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[darkbard]

(do Americans have the slang "to chuck" meaning "to throw"?)

Yes. Yes, we do. It gets used all the time in American football slang, but I rarely hear it used when describing baseball, despite its closer similarities to cricket. Which isn't to say it doesn't get used when describing baseball but that one usually hears terms like "hurl" or "throw[er]" to connotate power over finesse rather than "chuck."

/linguistic tangent

 

[Hussar]

Yeet?

 

[pemerton]

Baker obviously has a debt to Forge, and obviously thinks PbtA is a different thing. I thought I'd said that pretty clearly. Anyway, not independent, no.

Not only not independent but follows from. It's right there in the rulebook - it follows from Edwards's "Story Now" essay. Unless you think that Baker was wrong when he wrote that.

In the blog you link Baker outlines what he calls the Forge approach to design: "a more-or-less specified situation of conflict, freeform character traits, and a universal conflict resolution system". AW is not that, but that approach is not the only thing that can follow from Forge theory. What's the basis for this claim? Besides the fact that it's almost self-evident, that neither AW nor BW is an instance of such an approach, yet both are clearly derived from thinking at the Forge about (what is called) "narrativist design".

 

[pemerton]

It helps that my time was not ever spent there.

I wonder how many people posting in this thread, or those who assert that The Forge is a waste of time, ever actually posted there?

I never did. I read a number of essays, and some threads that looked interesting and useful.

 

[Arilyn]

I wonder how many people posting in this thread, or those who assert that The Forge is a waste of time, ever actually posted there?

I never did. I read a number of essays, and some threads that looked interesting and useful.

I never posted either, but have also enjoyed the writing and posts on The Forge. Sure, Edwards can be abrasive but he contributed a lot to getting the indie movement up and running. I have the annotated edition of Sorcerer, which has great insights into the design of the game. Troll Babe is a marvel of a streamlined rpg.

The Forge was originally set up as an aid for designers to self publish. Edwards shut it down when he felt that goal was reached. And yes, it became a repository of indie theory and discussion. But that was pretty cool. Definitely not a waste of space or time.

 

[Numidius]

I have the annotated edition of Sorcerer, which has great insights into the design of the game. Troll Babe is a marvel of a streamlined rpg.

I'm gonna point out also Elfs, from
Edwards, with its humourous take on actor/author stances right in the stats on char sheets of those little, pranky elfs.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, on this I would add a caveat. I think people do universalize preferences. Not just in RPGs, but in general. It's part of human condition.

I think this is true a lot of the time.

Recently I've begun to think that the reason these discussions are so difficult to have is actually the medium of forums and social media. I've noticed a tendency in myself and others, when posting in a discussion like this one, to see it more as a debate than a discussion. And it is almost like a game where a person posts something and you have to post a response that has the aim of moving you towards a win condition. However, when I talk with the same people face to face (say on Skype or in person) it is always more of a conversation, and there is more mutual empathy and understanding. Additionally there is less of a tendency for people to box themselves into strange stances. I've also noticed if you go to a person's youtube channel, instead of reading what they post on a blog or in a forum, the effect is completely different. Not saying we shouldn't have these discussions on forums. But lately I've been getting a lot more out of live conversations with people than from forum threads.

 

[Fenris-77]

Not only not independent but follows from. It's right there in the rulebook - it follows from Edwards's "Story Now" essay. Unless you think that Baker was wrong when he wrote that.

In the blog you link Baker outlines what he calls the Forge approach to design: "a more-or-less specified situation of conflict, freeform character traits, and a universal conflict resolution system". AW is not that, but that approach is not the only thing that can follow from Forge theory. What's the basis for this claim? Besides the fact that it's almost self-evident, that neither AW nor BW is an instance of such an approach, yet both are clearly derived from thinking at the Forge about (what is called) "narrativist design".

The blog post makes it pretty clear that over here you have Forge games and then over here is PbtA, which is a different thing according to Baker. The fact that Baker might owe a debt to Narrativist design theory at some point in his development as a designer doesn't mean that Baker is always and forever forced to make 'Forge' games. He thinks it's different enough to make a point of it, but apparently you want to read something else into that? I don't get it.

He took some ideas first examined in Forge theory and then did his own thing with them. Forge theory identified Narrativist as an idea, but doesn't have a monopoly on it. Perhaps I'm missing something about your argument, but I read it and it sounds like you're saying Jaques Derrida's Deconstruction should be read entirely in light of the debt he owes to Lacan, or Heidegger, or whomever. I'm not trying to directly equate RPGs with literature, but that was the comparison that jumped to mind first.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*