Overstuffed Dicebag presents an interesting analysis of a semi-obscure game and discovers that mechanics can be deceiving. What characteristics distinguish Ethos from White Wolf's archetypes? It takes a careful reading to notice...
Joshua BishopRoby examines ways to cope with multiple character directions in Full Light, Full Steam, and briefly discusses theatric traditions of unity in the process.
One of the attacks of opportunity writers posts a link to an unusual type of roleplaying game, and says it's the most amazing example of Story he's ever witnessed. What relationship does this game have to the common RPG-theory use of the term 'Story'? At least one commentor denies that the game meets the requirements of 'Story Now' - is this a problem? Is the game properly excluded from the category, or does this mean the category is too narrow?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
Editorial: Most Theoryful Game Chef RPG of 2007
We are proud to announce that the most theoryful winner for Game Chef 2007 has been selected.
Most Theoryful RPG of Game Chef 2007:
Schizonauts by Fred Hicks
Runners-up: (in no particular order)
The Book of Threads by Jeff R.
Department Nine by Nick Wedig
ACTS by Nick Grant
A Penny For My Thoughts by Paul Tevis
This was a difficult decision for us, as there were a variety of RPGs contributed that showed depth of thought about role-playing itself and tried to reflect that depth in their designs.
We will post a full literature review on the winner's game, and the winner receives a playtest of a game of his choice. The runners-up will receive shorter literature reviews of their games as well. Literature reviews will showcase the RPG theory elements of the games.
We at RPG Theory Review thank all participants, both of this competition, and of Game Chef in general.
Most Theoryful RPG of Game Chef 2007:
Schizonauts by Fred Hicks
Runners-up: (in no particular order)
The Book of Threads by Jeff R.
Department Nine by Nick Wedig
ACTS by Nick Grant
A Penny For My Thoughts by Paul Tevis
This was a difficult decision for us, as there were a variety of RPGs contributed that showed depth of thought about role-playing itself and tried to reflect that depth in their designs.
We will post a full literature review on the winner's game, and the winner receives a playtest of a game of his choice. The runners-up will receive shorter literature reviews of their games as well. Literature reviews will showcase the RPG theory elements of the games.
We at RPG Theory Review thank all participants, both of this competition, and of Game Chef in general.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Weekly Review May 13th to May 19th
This week has seen several careful examinations of RPG theory and how it may be applied elsewhere.
Center of Play
Over at I would knife fight a man, Vincent Baker started a thread on the center of the Big Model theory of RPGs. Specifically, he describes the core of roleplaying as the shared consensus of the players of what happens in the game. Also at I would knife fight a man, Ben Lehman started a counter-point thread, focusing more on the social aspects of RPGs as central, and moving away from the specific Big Model perspective.
State of Design
Jonathon Walton discusses what it means for design to be on the "bleeding edge". He suggests that the state of design could be improved by an archiving of new developments and ideas. Relating such a project to this site, he argues that the practice of RPG design should be treated more seriously.
Center of Play
Over at I would knife fight a man, Vincent Baker started a thread on the center of the Big Model theory of RPGs. Specifically, he describes the core of roleplaying as the shared consensus of the players of what happens in the game. Also at I would knife fight a man, Ben Lehman started a counter-point thread, focusing more on the social aspects of RPGs as central, and moving away from the specific Big Model perspective.
State of Design
Jonathon Walton discusses what it means for design to be on the "bleeding edge". He suggests that the state of design could be improved by an archiving of new developments and ideas. Relating such a project to this site, he argues that the practice of RPG design should be treated more seriously.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Lesson: Social Context
In the Forge-ite lexicon, 'social context' is how roleplaying as an activity relates to one's social life in general.
In common usage, the term is quite a bit broader than this. The social context of an action or activity is how it relates to and is perceived by a society, culture, or social group. It follows that the social context of roleplaying depends partly on which cultural perspective you adopt. Both the wider society in which you live and the group of people with which you're gaming at any one moment have their own social contexts.
In the everyday experience of play, the social context of one's fellow players is usually the most significant and meaningful. In a wider context, roleplaying is sufficiently obscure that the action has few implications beyond marking the participants as belonging to a subculture.
Attempts to bring roleplaying into the mainstream awareness and creating a deeper general context have constituted much of the independent game design 'scene'.
In common usage, the term is quite a bit broader than this. The social context of an action or activity is how it relates to and is perceived by a society, culture, or social group. It follows that the social context of roleplaying depends partly on which cultural perspective you adopt. Both the wider society in which you live and the group of people with which you're gaming at any one moment have their own social contexts.
In the everyday experience of play, the social context of one's fellow players is usually the most significant and meaningful. In a wider context, roleplaying is sufficiently obscure that the action has few implications beyond marking the participants as belonging to a subculture.
Attempts to bring roleplaying into the mainstream awareness and creating a deeper general context have constituted much of the independent game design 'scene'.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Weekly Review May 6th to May 12th
This week has seen several theory developments, both in specific aspects of RPGs and in the use of language to discuss them.
Director Immersion
John Kim lists various developments on immersion in RPGs. He goes on to discuss a relationship between stance and immersion. Specifically, he argues that as an immersing player only having authority over your character (actor stance) can break immersion more than having some authority over the things around your character (director stance), as the later can avoid as much meta-game negotiation.
Critical Language
Elliot Wilen brings up a discussion on Story Games about the use of technical language and jargon, especially pertaining RPG theory. He suggests that jargon gets can and has been used as a way to obscure problems or disagreements in theory. He also argues that any valid technical language is also available for critical use, to evaluate and analyze RPGs, not merely design them.
Authority Models
Over at Story Games, John Laviolette has worked out a list of ways in which GM-like authority is distributed among players. He includes negotiation-based and areas of authority, as well as less common variants such as those based on time or table position.
Director Immersion
John Kim lists various developments on immersion in RPGs. He goes on to discuss a relationship between stance and immersion. Specifically, he argues that as an immersing player only having authority over your character (actor stance) can break immersion more than having some authority over the things around your character (director stance), as the later can avoid as much meta-game negotiation.
Critical Language
Elliot Wilen brings up a discussion on Story Games about the use of technical language and jargon, especially pertaining RPG theory. He suggests that jargon gets can and has been used as a way to obscure problems or disagreements in theory. He also argues that any valid technical language is also available for critical use, to evaluate and analyze RPGs, not merely design them.
Authority Models
Over at Story Games, John Laviolette has worked out a list of ways in which GM-like authority is distributed among players. He includes negotiation-based and areas of authority, as well as less common variants such as those based on time or table position.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Monthly Review April 2007
This month has generated quite a bit of interesting developments in theory. Fang Langford constrasted the concepts of Shared Imaginary Space and the Big Model, two of the most popular theory models, and suggests that they are in fact fundamentally incompatible. What does it mean for the larger goal of developing theory if the most widely-utilized models exclude each other?
Elliot Wilen questioned the importance of system to the success of RPGs, a 180-degree reversal from the most common game design perspectives. Generally, we attempt to construct mechanical systems to encourage the types of responses that we think are most important to play, based on whatever design theories we're sympathetic to. But what if we've gotten it wrong? Wilen raises excellent questions for which we really need to generate answers.
Lastly, Joshua BishopRoby explored the intriguing concept of a baseline RPG, asking just what the minimum necessary structure to run a game actually is. What's the fundamental template of game design, upon which we add elaborations? Understanding the most basic elements of roleplaying would seem to be helpful in our attempts to comprehend the topic as a whole.
Elliot Wilen questioned the importance of system to the success of RPGs, a 180-degree reversal from the most common game design perspectives. Generally, we attempt to construct mechanical systems to encourage the types of responses that we think are most important to play, based on whatever design theories we're sympathetic to. But what if we've gotten it wrong? Wilen raises excellent questions for which we really need to generate answers.
Lastly, Joshua BishopRoby explored the intriguing concept of a baseline RPG, asking just what the minimum necessary structure to run a game actually is. What's the fundamental template of game design, upon which we add elaborations? Understanding the most basic elements of roleplaying would seem to be helpful in our attempts to comprehend the topic as a whole.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Weekly Review Apr. 29th to May. 5th
This week has been a productive week in terms of theory developments, including even some work on the purposes of RPG theory in general.
Design and Theory
Chris Lehrich put forward an essay on the present state of RPG theory and design, including ideas for better ways for theory to be supported by design, and in so doing drive innovative and explorative design. After introductory comments about the social situations around the Forge, he describes how theory is used in design. Commonly, theory is used to analyze existing games and as an implementation aid. He also describes how design can be used to test theory. He suggests that this is underutilized, and combined with neutral analysis of game texts and play, could be of immense help to RPG theory.
Teaching Mechanics
Troy Costisick discusses different ways in which examples can be used to help teach mechanics. In doing so he presents three classes of example text. Generic examples are just instances of a mechanic or situation, apart from any larger context. Faux-play examples show the flow of the mechanics, but don't impart social or creative structures of play. Actual play examples provide an authentic model of play, from the social to the mechanical.
Experimental Control
Joshua BishopRoby started a discussion over at Story Games about experimental controls for game testing. Specifically he suggests the use of free form, play, with only social constraints, as a possible baseline. Others point out the fluidity of any from of RPGs that could be considered a baseline - due to their minimal or non-existent rules. Which leaves the question of a baseline RPG open.
Drama, Game, and NPCs
Algi has recently translated into English several essays on RPG theory. Included have been a discussion of the dramatic game versus the parlour game in RPGs and a look at classic RPG adventures from the view of folk talk analysis. Between these is the thread of examining the purpose of Non-Player Characters (NPCs), and how they often take on vital dramatic roles more important than their mechanical presence.
Design and Theory
Chris Lehrich put forward an essay on the present state of RPG theory and design, including ideas for better ways for theory to be supported by design, and in so doing drive innovative and explorative design. After introductory comments about the social situations around the Forge, he describes how theory is used in design. Commonly, theory is used to analyze existing games and as an implementation aid. He also describes how design can be used to test theory. He suggests that this is underutilized, and combined with neutral analysis of game texts and play, could be of immense help to RPG theory.
Teaching Mechanics
Troy Costisick discusses different ways in which examples can be used to help teach mechanics. In doing so he presents three classes of example text. Generic examples are just instances of a mechanic or situation, apart from any larger context. Faux-play examples show the flow of the mechanics, but don't impart social or creative structures of play. Actual play examples provide an authentic model of play, from the social to the mechanical.
Experimental Control
Joshua BishopRoby started a discussion over at Story Games about experimental controls for game testing. Specifically he suggests the use of free form, play, with only social constraints, as a possible baseline. Others point out the fluidity of any from of RPGs that could be considered a baseline - due to their minimal or non-existent rules. Which leaves the question of a baseline RPG open.
Drama, Game, and NPCs
Algi has recently translated into English several essays on RPG theory. Included have been a discussion of the dramatic game versus the parlour game in RPGs and a look at classic RPG adventures from the view of folk talk analysis. Between these is the thread of examining the purpose of Non-Player Characters (NPCs), and how they often take on vital dramatic roles more important than their mechanical presence.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Editorial: Exploring and Building
In improving theory there are two important roles we can adopt. On one hand, we can explore new territory. This at least means, expanding the scope of existing theories, if not discovering new theories which apply in those areas. To truly explore requires equal amounts care and skepticism, after all, many frontiers are not beyond the boundaries of what exists, but found beneath what we thought we understood.
But discovering theory isn't enough. In its raw form, theory is difficult to understand and largely useless. It is equally important to build the existing theory and refine it, to make the ideas accessible and to ensure they can be and are used. Building is equally difficult to do well, involving patience, understanding, and dedication.
These two paths work best side by side, building what has been discovered, and exploring based on the inconsistencies revealed by trying to relate those discoveries. It is easy to separate them, but we must resist the urge. If you ignore building, then theory becomes incomprehensible. And if you ignore exploration, theory becomes stagnant, slavishly believed regardless of contradicting evidence.
But discovering theory isn't enough. In its raw form, theory is difficult to understand and largely useless. It is equally important to build the existing theory and refine it, to make the ideas accessible and to ensure they can be and are used. Building is equally difficult to do well, involving patience, understanding, and dedication.
These two paths work best side by side, building what has been discovered, and exploring based on the inconsistencies revealed by trying to relate those discoveries. It is easy to separate them, but we must resist the urge. If you ignore building, then theory becomes incomprehensible. And if you ignore exploration, theory becomes stagnant, slavishly believed regardless of contradicting evidence.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Weekly Review April 22nd to April 29th
Who's the Protoganist?
John Kim has posted a short essay containing his thoughts on Story Control. If the main characters are supposed to determine the shape of stories, why are GMs the author of game sessions?
Mind and Body
Carl Craven discusses why he doesn't like letting social mechanics control his NPC's actions, and ponders whether there's a fundamental difference between mechanics that represent the physical and mental worlds.
Mainstream and Fringe
Fang Langford's earlier post on bringing RPGs to the First World yielded a bevy of responses; he reflects upon some of them in his latest post. Is trying to bring roleplaying to the mainstream a good idea? If so, what social trends can be used to accomplish this?
What Else Besides Dice?
Socratic Design has a brief review of non-polyhedral resolution mechanics.
John Kim has posted a short essay containing his thoughts on Story Control. If the main characters are supposed to determine the shape of stories, why are GMs the author of game sessions?
Mind and Body
Carl Craven discusses why he doesn't like letting social mechanics control his NPC's actions, and ponders whether there's a fundamental difference between mechanics that represent the physical and mental worlds.
Mainstream and Fringe
Fang Langford's earlier post on bringing RPGs to the First World yielded a bevy of responses; he reflects upon some of them in his latest post. Is trying to bring roleplaying to the mainstream a good idea? If so, what social trends can be used to accomplish this?
What Else Besides Dice?
Socratic Design has a brief review of non-polyhedral resolution mechanics.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Lesson: Agendas
Agendas are a recurring theme among RPG theories. Succinctly they are how and why players make decisions. But in different places agendas can mean different things.
Some uses of agenda delve into the motives of the player or players making the decisions. These are often based on identifying what a particular player or group wants from play, and then extrapolating that to their decisions during play. So, if someone wants to identify with their character, they will tend to choose to act out that character or place that character in situations where that player can learn or invent more about who the character is.
Other uses of agenda focus more on the method of play. In this case, the agenda doesn't represent the motives of the players, even shared ones. Instead it is the observed regularity of the actions of the group. These agendas often speak in the language of reinforcement, where certain decisions reinforce those same decisions due to the system. A good example of this sort of agenda are the creative agendas in the Big Model.
While agendas can discuss many different things. Some agendas focus very narrowly (delving into your character's family or getting the most points), and some are much broader (impressing others or constructing a story). Distinguishing different agendas can be very useful. But as a tool ofRPG theory, it is especially important to distinguish when an agenda is why someone makes decisions versus when it is how someone makes decisions.
Some uses of agenda delve into the motives of the player or players making the decisions. These are often based on identifying what a particular player or group wants from play, and then extrapolating that to their decisions during play. So, if someone wants to identify with their character, they will tend to choose to act out that character or place that character in situations where that player can learn or invent more about who the character is.
Other uses of agenda focus more on the method of play. In this case, the agenda doesn't represent the motives of the players, even shared ones. Instead it is the observed regularity of the actions of the group. These agendas often speak in the language of reinforcement, where certain decisions reinforce those same decisions due to the system. A good example of this sort of agenda are the creative agendas in the Big Model.
While agendas can discuss many different things. Some agendas focus very narrowly (delving into your character's family or getting the most points), and some are much broader (impressing others or constructing a story). Distinguishing different agendas can be very useful. But as a tool ofRPG theory, it is especially important to distinguish when an agenda is why someone makes decisions versus when it is how someone makes decisions.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Weekly Review Apr. 15th to Apr. 21st
This week has seen several theory developments, often building off of existing more accepted ideas.
GNS for Timmy, Johnny, and Spike
Jono summarizes his view of the Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism (GNS) theory. Covering what it means for play, games, and players to interact with these three approaches to RPGs. In addition he mentions a connection between these three categories and the break down of Magic: the Gathering (the collectable card game) players used by its designers. Timmy seeks flash and fun. Johnny seeks a chance to show creativity. And Spike seeks to win the competition which is each game. Jono suggests that these are related to Simulationism, Narrativism, and Gamism respectively.
Story Leverage
Emily Care discusses a common problem for her and others, the difficulty in locating story leverage within a given situation. This is further expanded at I would knife fight a man, including suggesting that (to extend the metaphor) that the leverage remains, but the problem is a lack of fulcrum to move the story where the player wants or expects it to go.
Translating Theories
Also at I would knife fight a man, Ben Lehman relates two different theories of RPGs: Moyra Turkington's theory of sockets, goals, and payoffs and the Big Model. Much of this involves describing how the social and personal elements translate between the two theories.
GNS for Timmy, Johnny, and Spike
Jono summarizes his view of the Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism (GNS) theory. Covering what it means for play, games, and players to interact with these three approaches to RPGs. In addition he mentions a connection between these three categories and the break down of Magic: the Gathering (the collectable card game) players used by its designers. Timmy seeks flash and fun. Johnny seeks a chance to show creativity. And Spike seeks to win the competition which is each game. Jono suggests that these are related to Simulationism, Narrativism, and Gamism respectively.
Story Leverage
Emily Care discusses a common problem for her and others, the difficulty in locating story leverage within a given situation. This is further expanded at I would knife fight a man, including suggesting that (to extend the metaphor) that the leverage remains, but the problem is a lack of fulcrum to move the story where the player wants or expects it to go.
Translating Theories
Also at I would knife fight a man, Ben Lehman relates two different theories of RPGs: Moyra Turkington's theory of sockets, goals, and payoffs and the Big Model. Much of this involves describing how the social and personal elements translate between the two theories.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Editorial: Design Goals
Game design is an entire field, with many different approaches and techniques. But one of the most basic is the design goal. When you go ahead and try to craft a game, you on some level will have a goal in mind. It may be, "I want to make a version of 1st edition AD&D that works" or it could be, "I wonder if players can handle playing in four different realities at once?", or even, "I want to design a game to impress so and so." But on some level you have a direction where you want your design to go.
Many of those design goals aren't just about the game as written, they are about how the game is played. And when it comes time to make design decisions based on those goals, you run into a potential problem. How do you relate the goal with that decision, when the goal is about what happens in play?
The answer to that question is RPG theory, although often informally or even unconsciously. But the fact remains that the only way to predict what will happen from the design decision is a theory of how the game will influence play.
Nearly all that theory is just quietly built from experience of different games, unconsciously formed ideas and opinions, and the occasional piece of advice. But at its heart is theory, and every game designed to produce some kind of play has a theory inside it (sometimes more than one).
One purpose of overtly developing RPG theory is to allow communication of those ideas more clearly, to improve the quality of RPG design over all. For example, if you have a design goal of making your game easy to learn, and so you have the theory "simple mechanics are easy to learn." But communicating what you mean by "simple" isn't as easy as it first appears. RPG theory helps to build languages to communicate your inner theory more accurately.
Many of those design goals aren't just about the game as written, they are about how the game is played. And when it comes time to make design decisions based on those goals, you run into a potential problem. How do you relate the goal with that decision, when the goal is about what happens in play?
The answer to that question is RPG theory, although often informally or even unconsciously. But the fact remains that the only way to predict what will happen from the design decision is a theory of how the game will influence play.
Nearly all that theory is just quietly built from experience of different games, unconsciously formed ideas and opinions, and the occasional piece of advice. But at its heart is theory, and every game designed to produce some kind of play has a theory inside it (sometimes more than one).
One purpose of overtly developing RPG theory is to allow communication of those ideas more clearly, to improve the quality of RPG design over all. For example, if you have a design goal of making your game easy to learn, and so you have the theory "simple mechanics are easy to learn." But communicating what you mean by "simple" isn't as easy as it first appears. RPG theory helps to build languages to communicate your inner theory more accurately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)