Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8654911" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I wasn't going to come back (I think I explained most of what I had to say in the OP), but I have some general thoughts both regarding what you wrote (which I largely agree with) and what I see in this thread, which is largely the reason I wrote the OP, and to illustrate the actual concern some people have - even though this thread, has, to date, been largely productive and I think that is a credit to the people involved.In the OP, I think I acknowledged that good use came out of those discussions on the Forge. The history of TTRPGs is always smart people looking at what is around them, saying "I don't like that," coming up with a way to justify not liking it, and then making something new. That's great! That's how we get new stuff! And no matter what other opinions any person might have, a lot of new indie games (and indie game designers) were, um, forged at the Forge. In addition, while I appreciate that there are those who say it helps them with all sorts of games ... I think that there is a reason that (1) the Forge changed the terminology from GDS to GNS, and (2) all those games we specifically credit from the Forge tend to be narrativism. It's more ...gNs.But the point I keep making (and the reason I quoted you) is that the Forge officially closed a decade ago, and was "closed" in terms of vitality before that. Why are people still recycling the same quotes from 20 years ago? Why aren't we discussing anything new about new games, instead of using the same tired (and often controversial) framework to discuss new games? Why is it that when other people try and discuss TTRPG theory here, we have to discuss GNS, and Ron Edwards, and Forge principles? Always?There is a reason that modern game designers, even those that acknowledge an influence from Forge ideas, have moved away- because those ideas are associated with a specific time, place, and a strong "N" ideology and use of certain jargon that is disfavored by others. Not all of it- a lot of the ideas have continuing value. But it's kind of like seeing a picture of yourself wearing clothes from 15 years ago- yeah, you wore those, and it worked at the time, but you've moved on. (I hope ... no judgment).Look, let's say someone wanted to learn about, oh, Fiasco, or  Night Witches, or any of a number of Storygames? Would they be better served by engaging with essays from Ron Edwards from 2002?. Or going .... I don't know ... here-[URL unfurl="true"]https://heterogenoustasks.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/what-is-a-storygame/[/URL]Now, even though that's old (I mean... 2016!) you can see a few things. Sure, it has some lingering GNS influence (stating that there is little emphasis on "simulations mechanics" for example). But in other ways, it is refreshingly modern in its concerns- discussing how the underlying themes of the games matter, and how issues related to player safety and boundaries are to be negotiated (rather than assumed through norms, as you have in most traditional games), and it also strives to be inclusive of other games- rather than saying D&D isn't a story game, it just says it can be played as one, but doesn't support the style very well. I can read that, and it's clear, it's concise, and while it is descriptive (discussing a set of games by properties) instead of prescriptive (announcing a manifesto and demanding games produced to it), it's immensely more helpful.(Finally, if you look into the comments, there's a fascinating comment by the author responding to a question regarding GNS and Ron Edwards.)Simply put, this tells me more, on its own terms, about Storygames than trying to pigeonhole those games back into a model designed as a reaction to specific games and playing styles from the 90s.For that matter, did anyone here realize that others were parsing our comments to learn about transgressive monsters in D&D?[URL unfurl="true"]https://analoggamestudies.org/2021/10/the-computational-sublime-in-monster-design/[/URL][USER=1210]@the Jester[/USER]Heck, we just had the publication of a book that, for the first time, detailed the early history of TTRPG theory, discussed the shifting paradigm from wargaming to roleplaying, and showed how the debates we continue to have today are the same ones that we had at the beginning- and yet, there seems to be little interest in discussing it on its own terms (that was Peterson's Elusive Shift).And as far as I can tell ... I am the only person that seems to care that a major book was published that is an academic look at ... THE FORGE. A favorable one. The one by William J. White? The one I keep posting the link to? I know the hardcover is expensive, but I thought that at least one of the people that keeps the conversation about GNS and the Forge going would have bought the Kindle copy and posted their review. Did I miss the review?I mean ... don't wait for me to do the review. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Look- I truly appreciate that there are people that continue to use techniques that they learned to improve their games; when they are discussing that, I don't bother them. I just think it would be nifty if we could have some conversations about the ... newer ... topics  in TTRPG theory. There are a few.(Finally, allowing conversations to be dominated purely by aspects of dense jargon related to debates over aspects of gameplay privileges certain perspectives over others. This is a fraught issue, as, for example, there is a continuing debate about the influence of fluff and crunch as it relates to LGBTQA+ representation in games; it has been the case that games with significant fluff and no mechanics regarding social mechanics or gender norms (such as early D&D) were productive; it is also certainly the case the games that followed in the footsteps of "system matters" such as Monsterhearts, with explicit mechanics, were certainly representative- but this is the type of conversation we aren't seeing. Which, given the month ... maybe that's a better theory conversation to have than have another "framing" conversation).</blockquote>

Verification