An Academic-ish Approach to Game Theory?

vagrant · Post by **vagrant** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 4:15 am

http://www.mortalisrpg.com/2014/10/28/g ... mud-oh-my/

What do you guys think of the models presented? (Not my post, but a post from an RPer I know. The latter part of the post is game specific and skipabble.)

The Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist model is something I've always had a trigger warning about - perhaps unfair, but inspired by the shitty, shitty posts on RPG.net and the like, so maybe I'm just biased against the terminology.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:06 am

GNS is not a model, it's a set of undefined buzzwords which use cognitive dissonance to acheive buy-in based on what each individual audience member believes each of those three words to mean.

That mouthbreathing gobslotch doesn't just fellate GNS theory on that blogpost, but he goes so far as to add not one, but two more granfallon-inflated blow-up-dolls to it, then he triple barrels the dildos from all three of them.

I wand to call that a "fractal of stupidity", and point out even the micro-level nonsense like

Hunger, love, war, greed, sympathy all comes from conflict.

, but I fear both that the precise terminology has been overused here and that it doesn't do true justice the ineffable degree of detestation I feel towards such balderdash masquerading as insight.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:49 am

Forge Theory is not coherent and anything built on Forge Theory will also be incoherent. I couldn't even get through that bullshit because there was too much bullshit.

-Username17

vagrant · Post by **vagrant** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:11 am

Fantastic. I knew I disliked it, but I wasn't sure whether that was due to personal dislike of the player or the buzz words. Now to tease my hate into a concrete takedown be for the staff starts think is the worst of god.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:42 am

We had a discussion about GNS theory some five years ago here. Warning: thread contains Elennsar.

The basic takeaway is that GNS theory is "explained" in a series of essays to define each term that are each over ten thousand words and repeatedly self contradictory. Yes that's right, the definitions of terms are long enough to be short stories individually.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:15 am

I just want to say, I couldn't access that link when I was at work, and that is awesome. I have now seen the filter do something really good.

You can't start a grand theory* with "Okay, we can salvage from/build upon GNS theory". The whole thing is awful from the start, and just thinking there's anything useful about it means you're making a crucial error right at the very first step. If you're lucky, you'll build a structured argument that stems from a flawed premise that is just "a terrible waste of time", and if you're unlucky, every subsequent step will be just as bad as the first and it becomes a fascinating spiral of stupid.

*before we get into the general futility of making grand theories of gaming and game design.

nikita · Post by **nikita** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:53 am

There is plenty of discussion and work on games and theories of gaming. I've read more than few as part of my day job.

A good example of early Scandinavian work about these issues (eclectic mix of RPG enthusiastics and academics pondering these issues) is in here: http://www.ropecon.fi/brap/

I am not fond of Edwards and GNS because it was never more than a thought stucture without any real study behind it. Yes, it is really just a thought! There is also real lack of serious academic studies about GNS which should tell you something about its real influence...

However, there is plenty of good work about games and gaming and how people interact with games in academia and professionals outside adventure game industry. Yes, many of these thinkers are not academics (like Greg Kostikyan but his contributions are truly major to the studies of games).

Theory is very useful in game design and works well in making designers to think that steps should be taken to get good (or at least better) results by focusing the development towards goals.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:02 am

The Den has spent a lot of energy going on why AD&D, D&D4e, Exalted, D&D3e, Bear World, and other games are terrible. Maybe theory can be made based on what people overlook/tolerate in flawed design.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 1:59 pm

D&D is a completely different game, with completely different objectives and rules than, say, Polaris or Fiasco. And yet these are all sold as "RPGs".

So, at very least, we need a clearer nomenclature.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:10 pm

OgreBattle wrote:Maybe theory can be made based on what people overlook/tolerate in flawed design.

Perhaps, but it'll be a long time coming. While TTRPGs tend to fuck up in similar ways, they also have a tendency to forge forward towards new and exciting frontiers of fucking up. For example, 4E D&D was a bad game but a lot of the ways in which is was bad was unique to the rules set and its marketing strategy. I don't think any theory anyone would've constructed in Q2 2008 would've anticipated the depths of fail it was about to plunge.

silva · Post by **silva** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:34 pm

nockermensch wrote:D&D is a completely different game, with completely different objectives and rules than, say, Polaris or Fiasco. And yet these are all sold as "RPGs".

So, at very least, we need a clearer nomenclature.

Agreed. What about tactical combat roleplaying for D&D and storytelling roleplaying for Polaris and Fiasco ?

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 6:10 pm

Silva, first you will have to define those terms that you used. Second, will have to show why D&D isn't storytelling and why Polaris and Fiasco are not tactical combat. Third, you will have to find ways of describing games that don't fit either of those terms.

From what I have see from you so far, that will be as clear as mud.

Artless · Post by **Artless** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:03 pm

This reminds me, I'd like to present my new grading system that groups gamers and games into categories based on the age, region and varietal, as well as various subtle nuances noticeable to enthusiasts.

D&D, grown from a Midwestern species, is a long-standing commonality at many hobbyist tables that has notes of narrativist passages while maintaining an uneven but sharply gamist core, with hints of cherry and chocolate rounding everything out to a slightly bitter finish. It pairs well with Mountain Dew or Pepsi Vintage, pretzels and Domino's pizza.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:36 pm

That's it we totally need a biology style taxinomic order for this shit.

So D&D would be like

Entertainment
Social
Physical
Cooperative
Tactical
Turn Based

and so on and so forth.

Lokathor · Post by **Lokathor** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:55 pm

I'd say that the game experiences are more "tag" based, and also a lot of the tags are "usually" and "maybe" rather than "always".

DnD can be physical, but is just as often not. DnD is usually tactical, but the entire tactical system is often thrown out the window.

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:22 pm

The thing about trying to define a game like D&D is there's a way it's set up and a way it's played. There are so many houserules and kludges that it's a completely different beast from table to table sometimes.

At it's heart though, it is a tactical, physical game. Most all TTRPGs are social entertainment by nature so those aren't useful metrics.

silva · Post by **silva** » Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:45 am

How its played is irrelevant for such an analysis. What matters is how its meant to be played, which is solely informed by the game text and rules.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:14 am

I'm not convince that GNS terms are meaningless or useless. They're not specific, and I can't envision using them in a requirements document, but they are still helpful at quickly sketching something.

For analogy, I might say I drive a "fast" car (hey, it could happen). "Fast" is not a specific or concrete descriptor, but it's not semantically void.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:44 am

fectin wrote:For analogy, I might say I drive a "fast" car (hey, it could happen). "Fast" is not a specific or concrete descriptor, but it's not semantically void.

Try using actual GNS to describe anything your car does, instead of "fast", which is a real word with real meanings that don't rack up into the 10s of thousands of words of contradictory drivel.

There is a world of difference between the minor vagaries of the definition of fast and the endless contradictory insanity of GNS terms and theories. It's the difference between "how fast" and "thing which both is a GNS term, is the antithesis of that GNS term, and is also all the other GNS terms and antithesis of all other GNS terms all simultaneously".

So, as a better anology, use GNS to describe your car, then watch everyone point out how fucking wrong your GNS description of car attributes is.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:47 am

Okay, better example then: I have a cute dog.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:54 am

You could say "gamist" and have it mean something. But GNS theory explicitly does not do that, and instead just uses "this isn't for gamists" as an excuse to blame the writer's inability to provide the promised experience on the players for "doing it wrong." At this point the terms are so toxic using them is basically pissing all over your own credibility, and the fact is that they don't answer any helpful questions about your product. Either the rules create the intended experience or not, and talking about GNS is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors between that simple question and its answer that helps you excuse failures with contradictory weasel words and blame-shifting.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:55 am

fectin wrote:Okay, better example then: I have a cute dog.

I don't think the contradictions and vagueness of cute are sufficiently large to be truly analogous to GNS terms.

However I will note that they are sufficiently analogous at least for me to point out that "Cute" is too vague a term to be useful as a way of categorizing gamers or RPGs. Stating that "D&D is a cute style RPG for cute gamers who enjoy cute gaming" is wrong, stupid and useless.

Even though it STILL at least has a stronger consistent meaning than saying the same thing with Narratavist as the descriptive term.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Thu Oct 30, 2014 3:09 am

GNS theory does indeed appear useless. That doesn't mean that all their terms are useless, even granting that those terms are broad and qualitative.

For example, we can say that Amber Diceless is almost entirely narrative, or that Danger Patrol is zany, but very gamist, and convey information about either. However, you would still rightly deride an attempt to build a "for narrativists," just as you would any attempt to make a product "for cute dogs only."

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Thu Oct 30, 2014 3:25 am

fectin wrote:even granting that those terms are broad and qualitative.

The fucking point is they are NOT just "broad a qualitative" they are gibberish and contradictory.

For example, we can say that Amber Diceless is almost entirely narrative, or that Danger Patrol is zany, but very gamist, and convey information about either.

NO WE CANNOT. That is the larger part of the whole fucking point. DID YOU NOT GET THAT ALREADY.

The definitions of Narrative and Gamist and so on are INTERNALLY CONTRADICTORY, NOT EXCLUSIVE OF EACH OTHER, and FUCKING INSANE. So we cannot ever define a game as "almost entirely" or "very" any one of those fucking things.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:55 am

Here's a quick list of elements in various ways people like/dislike their RPG sessions to be, what else could be added in?

DM is god<---->Players have Agency
Rocket Launcher Tag<---->Padded Sumo
Simple "I attack" conflict resolution<----->"I put 5 dice in evasion and 4 in thrust" complex maneuvers in conflict resolution
Fast character creation<----->Really long character creation
Counting squares of movement with minis<---->All in your head
On rails<---->In a sandbox
Only act on your turn<--->Interruption maneuvers

Encounters contain:
-Violence
-Social Combat
-Kingdom building
-Exploring
-Crafting
-Sex
-Furries