General Thoughts and Rambling

Mash and I had another debate last evening about GNS and gaming. It struck me as very interesting to hear Mash's views, because he presents good, strong reasoning for his support for GNS. The issue is that he sometimes implies that everyone shares his view, despite it being counter to the actual GNS and Big Model thesis.

Which I tried to point out was a core issue for me about GNS/Big Model theory - essentially that it's language is so steeped in ambiguity that it kind of ceases to have value. Not to mention that most GNS argumentation ends up sounding like One-True-Way style claims.

Now I don't believe that many GNS/Big Model supporters actually believe that they are arguing one true way - they don't realise that their support of the theory is creating that kind of language and implication.

Which is why plain english is a much superior mode of expression. Mash brought up a number of philosophers to try and show why my chosen discipline was just as bad. The problem is, I agree. Philosophy is full of pretentious One-True-Way schmucks who love to come up with wanky -isms and -ists to define their philosophies. It's one of the issues I hope to address if I ever get off my ass and research my thesis. I want to look at making philosophy practical - because it does have a benefit, but it needs to be aware of its limitations.

The challenge I put forward to Mash was when had roleplaying theory successfully caused a major change in mainstream roleplaying. He brought up the shift from D&D to World of Darkness in the early 90s, and I pointed out that there was no evidence theory had anything to do with it.

A lot of people credit World of Darkness with shifting the focus of roleplaying, and it did - but it wasn't something that was born wholecloth. It developed over the years because of other games at the time - like Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Elfquest... roleplaying games were already evolving in design, and it continues even today. And it happened without roleplaying theory being instrumental to that change. It happened because people were thinking about the hobby as a craft.

I agree, theory can be helpful and insightful. But outside of the indie movement, theory has had very little impact on gaming. Drama Points are from Adventure! which took them from Shadowrun's Karma system and developed them further. Ticks is from Feng Shui - and arguably Robin Law's "theory" work. However Robin Laws spent more time looking at the hobby as craft, not theory.

Buffy - took its NPC mechanics from Whispering Vault, which was an independant game that developed separate from gaming theory.

Roleplaying theory has not been at all instrumental in the big changes in the hobby. It has caused a number of periphery and specialised games to be developed - and these games have not been successful in breaking out of their limited markets. There is a reason for this.

Paranoia XP benefited from the Forge discussions, yet it is debateable about how successfully it supports the roleplaying theory that the author talks about.

Even Mike Sands' Badass Space Marines doesn't fit into the GNS/Big Model mode despite being designed by a self-proclaimed supporter of roleplaying theory. In the end, playtesting made the game what it was - not theory.

So why have theory at all? Well I'd like to think that properly formulated theory can lead to new techniques which can lead to an improvement in the craft. Just like I hope that a more practical and pragmatic approach to philosophy can lead to a new way of thinking, that everyday people can support without feeling like their are being lectured to or spoken down to.

Comes back to my whole "inclusive thinking" strategy. But none of this is going to happen as long as pro-theory types think that they have some sort of greater understanding of the hobby. Because, to put it bluntly, they don't.

What they have done is overshoot the mark and in their spiralling out into the psychology and sociology of human endeavour - missed the game aspect. Just as philosophers in all their observing and argumentation, kind of left the people behind in favour of theory.

When you're gaming is all about theory rather than having theory being about gaming - something has gone seriously wrong.

I think the key point I'm trying to make is that it is pointless talking about theory if the people it is meant to be helping can't understand a word you say. So much of human thinking had made this fundamental error.

Love and Huggles

Conan

Currently Reading: Liberty Meadows
Currently Playing: Fireborn - Rememberance; Unknown Armies - To Go; Mage: The Awakening - Threshold
Mood:Taking on the tyranny of elitst thinkers, got them in my sights!