And so we’ve reached the end of our five part history lesson. For those late to the series, previous entries can be found here: I, II, III, IV.
We’re currently as of this writing in the shadow years of GNS. No other set of theories have appeared with any noticeable following leaving the online world with fragments of GNS and little else. Most speaking of it today do so with little real knowledge of the theory. Of course that was always the case given its jargon and inconsistencies, but now more so than ever. A very common mistake I see is replacing its concepts with those of the older and (although flawed) much clearer Threefold.
In its wake, anyone discussing theory will hit a major barrier as the reaction by readers is near immediate dismissal. After all, the previous ‘theorists’ failed to produce anything understandable or useful. And they managed to insult nearly the entire hobby along the way. Nor does it help that others coming afterwards tend to build upon GNS or pick something far too similar.
The one bright point is that GNS now has few defenders, and while some do speak up for small parts of the theory- almost no one defends it in its entirety or its creator.
I wanted a example and so I went looking at RPGnet and grabbed the first related thread written today I came across. It shows all the traits mentioned above, but has little else of interest (I haven’t read past page 6, but these things seldom improve as they go).
Thus any new body of theory would have to overcome the resistance created by its predecessors. To manage such a task would require it to be clear and concise, and lacking the biased nature of GNS or the Threefold.
Even if such a reasonable and useful thing could be achieved, the nature of the Internet is such that it will likely be praised- and then forgotten. The simple truth is that most people don’t need RPG Theory anymore than the typical reader of the Time Best Sellers List needs an understanding of the formal schools of literature. Not everyone of course is a typical reader, so it’s not completely a lost cause. But I don’t foresee any successful Theory becoming an internet buzz word.
The prime example of this is found in the WotC's study that undermined the core of GNS. It's just not talked about anymore, although its findings were quite interesting.
Sadly there's always room online for more flamewars. Ron Edwards' one lasting achievement was a blueprint for taking over Theory discussions online. I for one, hope that the next in his footsteps will be a while in coming.
Posts
Pathfinder Second Edition
2 years ago
12 comments:
And it's done!
I'll likely collect all five of these together in one article to publish on my archive site. It will make referencing it in the future easier.
I wanted to say thanks for giving a concise overview of the history of RPG theory, I will surely reference your article(s) in some of my own upcoming posts.
I am well aware that talking theory doesn't exactly drive hordes of people to to read your work, but I find it more valuable as an exercise in understanding the underpinnings of gaming for myself.
That, and I seem to be driven by some odd obsession to apply definitions and structure to roleplaying styles. I must be crazy.
Perhaps one of the reasons why RPGs have such a poor reputation among certain elements of society (such as the people responsible for handing out research grants or tenure at universities) is that there is no real difference between "classroom" and "field" in the hobby. Chess afficionadoes can take classes and read academic journals relating to the game without actually having to touch piece to board, sailors can discuss 'fluid mechanics' and 'oceanic ecology' in between voyages, etc. Academic discussions of role-playing games must, for the most part, 'borrow' theories from other disciplines, such as psychology, literature and "game theory". (Which, to the best of my knowledge, does not include such simulations as 'D&D' or 'JAGS' or whatnot.)
Frankly, it sounds like a variation on Eddie Izzard's gag about the British Empire conquering the world by planting flags:
Academician: "We claim this activity in the name of Sociology!"
RPGamer: "But gaming includes simulations of economics and celestial mechanics..."
Acad.: "But do you have an overarching theory of your activity?"
RPGamer: "Uh... no..."
Acad.: "Well, until you can support your assertions with a research paper published in a reputable scientific journal, we claim your activity in the name of Sociology."
RPGamer: "But there *is* no reputable scientific journal who'll publish research papers relating to gaming..."
Acad.: "Aha! You see?"
RPGamer: *facepalms*
Perrin; does the International journal of role-playing not count? Here's a quote from the editorial of the first (and thus far only; a new publication) issue: "The International Journal of Role-Playing is a response
to a growing need for a place where the varied and wonderful fields of role-playing research and - development, covering academia, the industry and the arts, can exchange knowledge and research, form networks and communicate."
Here's a link: http://journalofroleplaying.org/
I'd recommend it to people who are seriously interested in academic roleplaying theory. Particularly the articles by Montola and Harviainen.
An excellent series, I've thoroughly enjoyed it. I'd like to see more of this well placed retrospective online.
I was turned off by the Forge when it berated people for not polishing their free games and pushing everyone to publish for cash. It felt like an elitist clique, which was a change from when the list of links was core and the forum was a place to chat about stuff we'd found. In theory, they would argue that publishing online for free was the same as getting something into Lulu, RPGNow or IPR but when you tried to discuss the problems affecting creating in a vacuum then you were told to stop complaining and wasting their time.
I also didn't like the audible sighing of some members when a new-to-design person turned up and said "Got this idea - dragons and space craft and vikings and ninjas and..." and although the language was never harsh or directly rude, it wasn't constructive either. I prefer communities who support their member's ideas, rather than shoot them down. Chuffnut1234 might be some 12 year old with passion and a big idea they want to play. You don't shoot those people down, you help, direct and be constructive. Now, some members on the Forge continue to be really helpful and are good chaps. I salute them, I hope with the fading of GNS, all that will remain are some jolly helpful people that can help grow and share their knowledge.
GNS was useful to me at first. When dreaming up new rules for Icar, it could be difficult for me and my players (the vicious, mono-syllabic virgin-burners they are) to articulate why a certain rule didn't quite fit the others. If you used the words Gamist, Narrativist or Simulationist, you could better place the rule and therefore work out whether it felt right for the game. That was, the game style we played. For example, I was going to bring in a more complex wounding system so that the medic had more to do than just roll some dice to fix up people gushing from orafices. It worked but... just... didn't... quite... feel... right. It helped to say that was a step down the simulation road too far. However, as your history rightly points out, GNS stopped becoming a useful language that could help designers but instead a tightly controlled religeon.
Big applause, sir. Great work, dates examples and all!
sorry but I needed to edit this post
This was a great series of articles, but you do bring up a good point, that a structured theory isn't really needed by the average gamer. I think there may be some merit in finding a genuine and concise language to talk about RPGs (again not to sound all fanboy, but the IMO, the Layers is a good example of that). Otherwise, I think a great deal of discussion between people who are into RPGs at the hobby level and tinker with their games, tend to quickly build understandings between each other and go from there.
As an aside, I think there may be a weakening of the RPG forum as a place for folks to give their opinions on RPG design, now being replaced by blogs. I think this is a good thing. It gives the speaker a place to give an unvarnished opinion that you can digest without having to immediately see the reader responses like in a thread. Once you get to the commentary the discussions still work the same way, but to read these thoughts more like articles than the first statement in a 40 post exchange works better for me. I still visit the RPGsite forum because I tend to like the dicussions there, but when I really want to know what someone thinks, I read their blogs. Most of my RPG design thought is now starting from what the blogs are discussing.
Thanks for the comments guys. I've collected the articles into a single one at my website for easy review and access. The link is listed under Core Theory articls to the right.
thanuir- that's new, only published Jan 16 of this year. I'll have to look it over before commenting to any degree.
Zweihander- I tending to agree with you, although I'm sure the message board people wouldn't. I've had much the same reaction, reading blogs is much more interesting than any the message boards currently.
Mr. Gleichman,
I am bitterly disappointed that my Retro-Stupid-Pretentious Theory was not linked in your series. I go to all the trouble to try to dumb down the discourse and this is the thanks I get? Surely it deserves mention as an example of the sort of guffawing kneejerk anti-intellectualism that comes as an inevitable response to the worst excesses of GNS evangelism. Is RPG Pundit to get all the love because he's meaner? Would it help if I started telling people that I'm deadly serious? Should I recruit asinine followers?
But in all seriousness, an excellent summary.
Mr. Rients,
It most certainly was not my intent to skip the wonderful RSP Theory, indeed I will most certainly cover it. But not in a series about where Theory got a Bad Rep. Such a work of art must appear in a more positive light.
:)
Thanuir: Sorry, I hadn't heard about the IJRPG. Thanks for posting the link!
I'm one of those people who may on occasion defend parts of GNS while disagreeing with the theory as a whole. GNS gives some very useful analysis of some of the elements of roleplaying. Like Exploration consisting of System, Setting, Situation, Character and Color. I still think System doesn't quite belong there, but it's helped me realise that I focus way too much on Setting, whereas what I really want is Character, Situation and Color. I also want more player-driven plot. Or maybe more impact of player decisions on plot. And that seems to be the domain of Narrativism, which does offer some interesting techniques for doing that, and some pitfalls to avoid.
Those bits of analysis are good and useful. Where GNS goes wrong (like you suggest in the article) is that you should focus entirely on only one of these to get the most satisfying play. My personal theory is that the trick is in striking the right balance, and not neglecting anything you consider important for your game (or system, when that's what you're designing). It's a kind of checklist. Perhaps a scale, where you can measure different aspects of your game.
Especially Rob Lang's story about Icar, and how a particular rule, though it worked fine, pushed the system too far towards Simulationism, which was not what he wanted. That sounds exactly like the balance I'm talking about.
Anyway, great series of articles! I only became aware of GNS Theory recently (despite having been a roleplayer for 25 years now, and a reader of online RPG forums for 15), so it's good to read the full history of the thing.
Post a Comment