It has proven to be quite a week for gaming, this week. I've been following an interesting debate on RPGnet regarding GNS theory being considered elitist, and some very interesting points have been made during the course of the discussion.
One of the key things to come out of the discussion was that GNS theory and its successor Big Model theory aren't intrinsically elitist, but that there have been proponents of the theories who have used them in a fairly elitist manner.
This was an interesting observation, given the general vitriol and flamebait that discussing Forge-based theory tends to generate. The debate has actually been pretty level headed, with the various people managing to keep things pretty civil.
For me the upshot of the discussion has been that most people in the industry and hobby tend to see GNS and Big Model as poorly constructed theories. The blunt reality is that the methodology used to construct the theories, and the ensuing essays discussing them have been poorly planned and constructed - a view that I have held for some time now.
I've had a mixed opinion on game theory - for a while I was rabidly anti-theory because I found that many of the essayists from Forge (who were the more prominent theorists of the time) produced sloppy theories based around obscure terminology and a tendancy to borrow terminology from other disciplines without using the proper definitions.
All in all, it came across to me as a group of people who were thinking about gaming, but not using proper critical thinking skills in the process. Rather they used poor argumentation and their approach to any criticism was a near evangelical denial of rebuttals.
This has changed somewhat over the last year and a bit. Part of it has been through watching Luke's changing views on gaming. (See Gametime in the blog links) While I don't share some of his insights - I think he is allowing himself to be drawn into some flawed approaches to gaming, I am seeing how parts of his exploration has led him to finding a better way of articulating what it is that he is looking for in a game.
So I find the goal of gaming theory to be an admirable one - to create a common framework to discuss our hobby and what it is capable of. The problem is that for this to be truly effective on a broader scale, it needs proper research and a solid methodology to back up the theory.
This is where the current discussion has made interesting revelations. Ryan Dancey's research into the hobby produced a much better model of how to look at the various people in the hobby and how to approach game design.
Consider the Wizards of the Coast research into roleplaying
Now compare how this methodology looks next to GNS. While the WoTC study no doubt gets some things incorrect - there is some debate about Dancey's assertion of a perfect 22% in each of the four quandrants - the methodology is sound, and the argument both valid and well constructed.
I recently wrote a bit of a rant against GNS, I still remain unconvinced regarding it's reliability, applicability and validity. As pointed out in the RPGnet discussion, much of GNS and Big Model theory misuses common social science terminology, twisting the meaning to suit the theory, and even sometimes missing the meaning altogether. (My personal bugbear being the abusive use of Social Contract without any material or definition of what the theory means by using that term, because the implied "contract" is nothing like an actual social contract as laid out in social philosophy, sociology, psychology or political theory.)
It has been suggested by such influential writers on the hobby and Robin Laws and John Wick that there is a schism due to hit the indie game market, brought about by the methodologies instigated by the Forge theorists. It is becoming more and more apparent that the GNS model has, as an influence on the greater hobby, been very little - contrary to what many indie gamers would like to believe.
This predicted schism within the indie market has already begun, with the formation of such groups as Gamecraft, started by one of my favourite modern gaming theorists, Levi in conjunction with TonyLB - the creator of Capes, of all things.
Gamecraft's approach is much closer to how I envisage game theory being used. It aims to be practical, open, clear and focused on actual results. The methodology is improved on and building towards gentler discoveries. The key thing is that it isn't buying into a single theory and trying to prove it, but rather looks at the actual craft of gaming and game design.
If I had the time and patience I would possibly go into research myself on the topic. But there are some good minds out there aiming to bring positive developments to the hobby. Some of these people cut their teeth in the Forge when it was developing theory, but they are now moving into more productive areas.
The last couple of years saw a boom in the indie market as far as products produced, but that bubble is about to burst. The greater industry has not stood up and listened - it has developed at its own pace, and with more non-GNS focused indie businesses entering the market, the Forge and GNS are likely to become footnotes in the industry.
The problem that the indie industry faces is one of longevity. Most indie games are short lived wonders - popular for a while, but ultimately not as widely played or used as the more traditional games. Look at products like Wushu and PTA - people play them from time to time, but they are not the preferred games for a majority of hobbyists.
This is not to denigrate such games - some indie games have done some very cool and interesting things that give me reason to pause and consider how I can improve my more traditional games. They are fun to play occassionally, and they have some cool structures.
But they have been built on a theory that argues one should focus a game on a single axis. WoTC's theory argues that a well-designed and successful game uses more than one axis in its design. Consider Promethean - it is built on a mix of indie and traditional design ethics, and as such is a lot more successful than, say, Capes or Primetime Adventures.
It isn't merely because it is produced by White Wolf - remember, White Wolf was once an indie game design company - rather, it is because White Wolf's staff know how to produce quality products.
The same goes for WoTC. While I'm not a big d20 fan, I have come to realise that I *do* like it. I bought d20 Modern, and Dark*Matter and I love them. Sure it is a clunky set of rules, but there is something about them that I also like. The same goes for D&D.
I don't think I'm particularly unique in this respect. I'm beginning to better understand why these games are successful and why people end up going back to them. Why Shadowrun 4e is so good. And why an indie game like Wild Talents can be so popular. Because all these traditional games have much more to offer in the long run...
Love and Huggles
Conan
Currently Reading: Eberron
Currently Playing: Exalted: Nexus of the Sun; Orpheus: Shades of Gray
Mood: Taking on gaming theory!
One of the key things to come out of the discussion was that GNS theory and its successor Big Model theory aren't intrinsically elitist, but that there have been proponents of the theories who have used them in a fairly elitist manner.
This was an interesting observation, given the general vitriol and flamebait that discussing Forge-based theory tends to generate. The debate has actually been pretty level headed, with the various people managing to keep things pretty civil.
For me the upshot of the discussion has been that most people in the industry and hobby tend to see GNS and Big Model as poorly constructed theories. The blunt reality is that the methodology used to construct the theories, and the ensuing essays discussing them have been poorly planned and constructed - a view that I have held for some time now.
I've had a mixed opinion on game theory - for a while I was rabidly anti-theory because I found that many of the essayists from Forge (who were the more prominent theorists of the time) produced sloppy theories based around obscure terminology and a tendancy to borrow terminology from other disciplines without using the proper definitions.
All in all, it came across to me as a group of people who were thinking about gaming, but not using proper critical thinking skills in the process. Rather they used poor argumentation and their approach to any criticism was a near evangelical denial of rebuttals.
This has changed somewhat over the last year and a bit. Part of it has been through watching Luke's changing views on gaming. (See Gametime in the blog links) While I don't share some of his insights - I think he is allowing himself to be drawn into some flawed approaches to gaming, I am seeing how parts of his exploration has led him to finding a better way of articulating what it is that he is looking for in a game.
So I find the goal of gaming theory to be an admirable one - to create a common framework to discuss our hobby and what it is capable of. The problem is that for this to be truly effective on a broader scale, it needs proper research and a solid methodology to back up the theory.
This is where the current discussion has made interesting revelations. Ryan Dancey's research into the hobby produced a much better model of how to look at the various people in the hobby and how to approach game design.
Consider the Wizards of the Coast research into roleplaying
Now compare how this methodology looks next to GNS. While the WoTC study no doubt gets some things incorrect - there is some debate about Dancey's assertion of a perfect 22% in each of the four quandrants - the methodology is sound, and the argument both valid and well constructed.
I recently wrote a bit of a rant against GNS, I still remain unconvinced regarding it's reliability, applicability and validity. As pointed out in the RPGnet discussion, much of GNS and Big Model theory misuses common social science terminology, twisting the meaning to suit the theory, and even sometimes missing the meaning altogether. (My personal bugbear being the abusive use of Social Contract without any material or definition of what the theory means by using that term, because the implied "contract" is nothing like an actual social contract as laid out in social philosophy, sociology, psychology or political theory.)
It has been suggested by such influential writers on the hobby and Robin Laws and John Wick that there is a schism due to hit the indie game market, brought about by the methodologies instigated by the Forge theorists. It is becoming more and more apparent that the GNS model has, as an influence on the greater hobby, been very little - contrary to what many indie gamers would like to believe.
This predicted schism within the indie market has already begun, with the formation of such groups as Gamecraft, started by one of my favourite modern gaming theorists, Levi in conjunction with TonyLB - the creator of Capes, of all things.
Gamecraft's approach is much closer to how I envisage game theory being used. It aims to be practical, open, clear and focused on actual results. The methodology is improved on and building towards gentler discoveries. The key thing is that it isn't buying into a single theory and trying to prove it, but rather looks at the actual craft of gaming and game design.
If I had the time and patience I would possibly go into research myself on the topic. But there are some good minds out there aiming to bring positive developments to the hobby. Some of these people cut their teeth in the Forge when it was developing theory, but they are now moving into more productive areas.
The last couple of years saw a boom in the indie market as far as products produced, but that bubble is about to burst. The greater industry has not stood up and listened - it has developed at its own pace, and with more non-GNS focused indie businesses entering the market, the Forge and GNS are likely to become footnotes in the industry.
The problem that the indie industry faces is one of longevity. Most indie games are short lived wonders - popular for a while, but ultimately not as widely played or used as the more traditional games. Look at products like Wushu and PTA - people play them from time to time, but they are not the preferred games for a majority of hobbyists.
This is not to denigrate such games - some indie games have done some very cool and interesting things that give me reason to pause and consider how I can improve my more traditional games. They are fun to play occassionally, and they have some cool structures.
But they have been built on a theory that argues one should focus a game on a single axis. WoTC's theory argues that a well-designed and successful game uses more than one axis in its design. Consider Promethean - it is built on a mix of indie and traditional design ethics, and as such is a lot more successful than, say, Capes or Primetime Adventures.
It isn't merely because it is produced by White Wolf - remember, White Wolf was once an indie game design company - rather, it is because White Wolf's staff know how to produce quality products.
The same goes for WoTC. While I'm not a big d20 fan, I have come to realise that I *do* like it. I bought d20 Modern, and Dark*Matter and I love them. Sure it is a clunky set of rules, but there is something about them that I also like. The same goes for D&D.
I don't think I'm particularly unique in this respect. I'm beginning to better understand why these games are successful and why people end up going back to them. Why Shadowrun 4e is so good. And why an indie game like Wild Talents can be so popular. Because all these traditional games have much more to offer in the long run...
Love and Huggles
Conan
Currently Reading: Eberron
Currently Playing: Exalted: Nexus of the Sun; Orpheus: Shades of Gray
Mood: Taking on gaming theory!
12 comments:
Without going into the post as a whole, I would just point out that some indie games have shown longevity. Burning Wheel is the best example whose sales continue to remain strong and consistent (more so than most mainstream RPGs) since its release some 4 years ago.
Do you have any actual numbers to show the greater decline of sales for indie RPG product over mainstream ones?
I'm not talking about decline of sales - I'm talking about failure to have longevity of play. These are two very different issues.
People buy indie games, but they play them for a while and then kind of move on to the next thing.
In contrast, games like Shadowrun, World of Darkness, D&D, Traveller - they continue to be played long after their companies even cease to produce the product any more.
I never claimed that indie sales were dropping, but that the bubble is about to burst in the near future. I predict that there is going to be a) a schism as Laws and Wick predict and that this is going to lead to b) a move back to traditional game designs.
But I never said that there was a significant drop in sales of indie products.
Cool. It will be interesting to see what happens.
I am not sure that I agree with your longevity issue as I think the matter is much more complicated than simply attributing it to indie or non-indie. This seems like you are attributing this factor simply to support your main argument about the overall market trend, which I think is unnecessary.
For example, you use only a few examples of traditional RPGs out of a much larger population. Many traditional RPGs have died since their inception. The RPGs you raise have succeeded for the length they have due to their high quality. However, quality is not something traditional RPGs have a monopoly on.
Also, the RPGs you mention all have a longer history than any indie game. However, there are indie RPGs that have shown similarly strong patterns in the shorter lives so far, such as Burning Wheel. In fact, from my observations, I would say that some indie games are even more robust when it comes to fads of play than many traditional RPGs. Games like PTA, Dogs inthe Vineyard, Sorcerer and Burning Wheel seem to have kept a consistent buzz as they are designed to need no other support.
Overall, I think longevity is attributable to quality and fun. Not necessarily a type of design.
I think you're missing the point of my discussion - what I am talking about is Theory and Forge-inspired games.
You've picked up on a minor point rather than the main thrust - note that I name Wild Talents, an indie game, as an example of traditional game design being a stronger model.
Other games that I would name are Weapons of the Gods, Hollow Earth Expeditions, even Spirit of the Century. Although it is worth noting that beyond RPGnet, HEX is getting a lot more buzz than SoTC has been.
Which again goes to support my argument that traditional game design is a more successful and appealing model - and that Forge-inspired design has not been the forefront of the industry, but an off-shoot that has become its own insulated market.
I think it is worth expanding on this point - the indie market and GNS/Big Model theory are not synonymous.
What I'm trying to point out is that these theories have not helped the indie industry. With the increase in non-Forge based independent publishers (Such as Eos Press, Arc Dream etc...) entering the market with more traditional game design models, while still being experimental - the Forge's theories are becoming more and more obsolete.
Furthermore, this is proving that the GNS/Big Model approach has been an offshoot that created its own market who are not representative of the Roleplaying population at all.
I don't think I am missing your point, though you are right that I am not addressing the great majority of your post, as I have no real comment on how you view the RPG industry.
My comment is limited solely to your point that somehow RPGs have that come from the Forge have inherently lower lifespans than traditional style RPGs. I disagree with this comment for the reasons stated.
If its of interest to you, I found your use of that point as a fact to actually weaken the rest of your post.
If its not of interest to you, then feel free to ignore.
Well I disagree that you have managed to weaken my point, Luke.
What happens when those rulebooks sell out. You mention Burning Wheel - but your measure of sales and penetration of the majority of roleplayers isn't nearly as big as you may think it is.
Furthermore, Burning Wheel does still have a number of traditional design aspects that have been mixed with Forge theory.
But the popularity of BW is not very high within the greater roleplaying community. Thereby still proving my point, that Forge is an offshoot market that supports itself well, but is not the forefront of the hobby developmentwise.
Further it fails to address the issue that Forge theory is flawed and poorly structured.
Some of these games can be considered successful on a small indie scale, but as for penetration of ideas into the greater roleplaying community - they have not succeeded. Regardless of what you would like to think, a majority of roleplayers don't even know about GNS or Big Model Theory.
Once again, proving that the games sell doesn't prove that point about GNS/Big Model Theory.
And as for Longevity - from a big picture perspective, these games will unlikely last. The reason for this is due to the lack of follow up products for most games. Burning Wheel is a very rare case with it's follow up games. Sorcerer is another rare example.
Yet both these games have a small penetration of the community.
I feel pretty safe in asserting that a study of the community would reveal that indie games are played by a very small percentage of the total roleplayers out there.
Longevity isn't the heart of my argument, Luke. It was a side-thought, hence it being at the end of my discussion. Even if you manage to prove that wrong, you are not answering the greater argument regarding GNS and Big Model theory's inability to produce games that appeal to the larger community of roleplayers.
Burning Wheel's sales most definitely have *not* been high enough to get decent market penetration.
You are reading my observation of one of your points into an entire rebuttal of your post. That is simply not the case.
"Well I disagree that you have managed to weaken my point, Luke."
I didn't say that I was trying to weaken your point. I said I thought that you had weakened it by making a specific claim regarding longevity.
"Longevity isn't the heart of my argument, Luke. It was a side-thought, hence it being at the end of my discussion."
Exactly. As I have said, my comment was limited to this side thought only. Personally, it seemed to me like you were trying to "put the boot in" at the end of the post and detracted from your other points.
I hope that makes some sense.
I see where you're coming from - but I wasn't aiming to "put the boot in" it was simply another thought I'd had about the topic.
I certainly didn't mean to offend.
It had just occurred to me that many of these games get a lot of initial buzz and then kind of die down play wise as well as enthusiasm-wise.
I've been thinking a bit about this topic and after talking with my brother about other indie cultures, came to a realisation that the Indie RPG market is very much like indie film, music and magazines - and GNS theory actually backs up this idea.
See, most independent films, music and magazines are formed by branch groups of people who are not satisfied with what the majority of their respective social cultures find popular. So they experiment and explore other alternatives.
In doing so they create a subculture that exists off to the side and supplies to their personal tastes.
However, breakouts from their indie market are very very rare.
It seems to me that the same applies to indie roleplaying and GNS. It isn't at the forefront of roleplaying and it isn't hugely influential. Instead it has created its own market and has identified what its subculture is wanting - to experiment with the hobby and see what else can come up.
This is a great idea, but it needs to be put into context with the greater community of roleplayers. I find that a number of GNS/indie supporters have convinced themselves that it is more profound from an objective perspective than it really is.
From a purely subjective experience - i.e. personal tastes and enjoyment, I believe you can have profound gaming experiences. But these aren't because of the game so much as the matching of the game and your personal expectations. (I mean you in the neutral sense.)
This also explains how GNS and Big Model theory can be perceived by some as elitist - because, in a way, these theories exist to support a subculture's view. To those who don't relate to that subculture, it can seem elitist because it is essentially supporting a different group.
I'm not sure if I'm explaining it clearly, I need to think a little more on it if I intend to make it a more formal argument.
But at the moment, I'm processing through ideas.
See I like a number of independent games, even forge-based ones. But I don't feel that they are as profound as some others do. I certainly don't subscribe to any of the theory I've read to date from the Forge. As I mentioned before, the methodology and conclusions are not particularly impressive. I don't identify with their conclusions, and I find that a number of people who do subscribe to GNS and Big Model often shoehorn their own play styles to try and fit themselves into the theory.
So, as I said before, I don't feel that the indie movement will ever take over the hobby as a whole. I also don't feel that they are necessarily better games objectively.
There are some great games, so I'm not saying that they are worse - but they are different. An offshoot of the hobby that experiments and plays with ideas.
On very rare occassions those ideas will make it into the mainstream - but that isn't because indie is the future or ahead of game design.
Just that sometimes they can hit on a good idea that will appeal to the mainstream as well as their own subculture.
I think much of your comments here are interesting and was planning to talk to you about them.
Though I agree that the Forge RPGs are not as commercial successful as mainstream RPGs, I am not sure what that means beyond a measure of commercial success.
The indie fringe in any hobby such as music and film is never as commercially succesful as mainstream. Being indie, the drive to be commercially successful is often much less. However, this scene has a real value and a real influence on the hobby as a whole.
As with any fringe, the ratio of bad ideas to good ones remains higher than the mainstream IMO which supports what you say, but it also produces real gems and often improves the mainstream. For example, where you see Promethean as an example of the mistakes of the indie scene, I see it as a success of that scene.
Anyway, I would prefer to talk about this in person as it is too involved for the internet.
I hear ya.
Just for the record, I don't see Promethean as mistakes, I see it as an example of mainstream benefiting from observing what is going on in the indie scene. :)
However, I don't see that as an example of indie games leading the way, but rather mainstream identifying an aspect of indie design that can benefit mainstream traditional design.
I agree with that, but that's not a criticism of the indie scene. After all, it is only an indie scene if it stays out of mainstream :)
Post a Comment