I wish I had the certainty to both characterize and dismiss the things I have never read, by people I was unfamiliar with.
I didn't dismiss it. I expressed a view about the relationship between sociology of gaming, and game design. I teach theoretical sociology, and read work in social philosophy and sociology, which informs my view about whether and how sociology of RPGing bears upon the sort of technical design
@AbdulAlhazred was talking about.
The last time I read one of the academic articles you linked to I found it pretty uninspiring (it was ch 4 of the Roleplaying Studies collection published by Routledge). I didn't think its analysis of the relationship between participants, fiction and external materials (dice, etc) was very powerful. (Vincent Baker's is better, in my view.) And going back to it now, I see that Torner is one of the authors!
For instance, consider this from pp 65 and 66 of that chapter:
Any given game is more or less completely described qua game by its setting and system.
Setting is defined as "The fictional background against which the adventures of the PCs are set or the world in which the game takes place."
Adventure is defined as
A play scenario enacted as a sequence of in-game events in a TRPG that, in retrospect, can be said to comprise a narrative arc or plot trajectory, with a beginning, middle, and end.In its simplest form, this consists of a hook (a reason for the PCs to get involved or take action, such as finding a treasure map or being hired by a patron), in-play development (eg the exploration of a dungeon and identification of its important features, puzzle, or dangers or interaction with key non-player characters (NPCs) to gather information and extern influence), climax (eg a showdown fight with a major villain or the solution of a central mystery or problem), and aftermath (eg gathering treasure and returning to town or being rewarded or betrayed by a patron).
And
system is defined as
The procedures by which elements in the fiction are introduced, modified, changed or removed. These include strictly game-mechanical procedures, such as combat rules and character generation processes, as well as implicit procedures for scenario or adventure design and worldbuilding. More broadly, it can be taken to mean the broader set of behavioural norms and performative conventions that guide participation in the game, which will vary by play group.
There's nothing true here that wasn't already said by Vincent Baker, who is not cited in this chapter (Baker is cited in some later chapters -chh 10 and 11 - including by Torner: his work is described as "para-academic"). But it is not as good as what Baker says. The notion of system doesn't seem to be extended to consequences, and doesn't explore the relationship between mechanics and principles; the notions of setting and adventure are very narrow and don't seem to cover some phenomena which would count as RPGs.
Here is the reference to Baker in ch 11:
indie TRPGs and larps have begun experimenting with using RPGs as events that re-present - reflect and critique society - and events that model - through stoking morally transformative experiences but also directly, eg by raising moral questions for players, as in the TRPG Dogs in the Vineyard (Baker 2004) or LARP collection #Feminism Nano-Games (Bushyager, Stark, and Westerling 2106) or by situtaing larps in public space as a form of protest, such as Amerika, a Weltschmerz Network larp (2000).[/i]
People who are familiar with Edwards work, and DitV, already knew this was happening!
