A Renaissance in Roleplaying Game Theory
For the last few years that I've been active on the independent gaming forums, I've seen a lot of people complaining about GNS and the Big Model, but no-one seemed to have a decent counter-proposal.
Just lots of sniping.
But happily, it looks like there now are a few people interested in taking the patterns of thought in new directions. There's a few interesting threads over on Story Games about dungeon design, the existence of Simulationism, even a Creative Agenda Mash-Up.
There's a lot of stuff to go through and most of it isn't for the faint-of-heart, or gaming illiterate. It will take a while to translate a lot of these ideas through my vector theory, but over the next few weeks I'll be giving it a try.
In general though, it's good to see people actually thinking about this stuff again.
Just lots of sniping.
But happily, it looks like there now are a few people interested in taking the patterns of thought in new directions. There's a few interesting threads over on Story Games about dungeon design, the existence of Simulationism, even a Creative Agenda Mash-Up.
There's a lot of stuff to go through and most of it isn't for the faint-of-heart, or gaming illiterate. It will take a while to translate a lot of these ideas through my vector theory, but over the next few weeks I'll be giving it a try.
In general though, it's good to see people actually thinking about this stuff again.
.png)
Comments
It's certainly an interesting question, but I can only wonder how much a literary critic would look at the outcome of the story, the transcript of what occurred, and make their judgements on this, rather than making assessments about the process that defines the narrative.
Would a literary critic be too highly trained and narrow minded in their understanding of theory to accept roleplaying as a valid literary device?
I'm just saying, Vector Theory seems worthwhile on it's own. I'd rather see some ideas on how applying it to existing games tells us something, rather than see it compared to other game theories.
My next few posts will go back to some more specifically grounded situations for the theory. Which might prompt some discussions.
Let's make the assumption that they take it seriously (and I don't see why not). We continue to have a means of production for the story, and a means of consumption for the story. There are all the hermeneutic factors to consider, for both the narrator and the audience, even though these roles move around the group.
Application of concepts from literary theory is not a mismatch of techniques. After all, the Big Model is known as the "Big" model. It clearly has some grandiose aspirations and so do the folks who discuss RPG theory. If the aspirations are big, then there is every reason to use serious theory and techniques to analyse it.
The way I see it is that critics engage in a derivative activity. They don't push forward into the horizon of new ideas, they just provide an interface between the visionaries and the masses. "Fan fic" writers are slightly worse because they don't even provide the masses with anything useful, they simply interface between the visionaries and other fanatics.
But I'm shooting off on tangents again.
It's a valid point, I don't know what a serious literary critic would have to say about the storytelling methods engaged in a roleplaying session. The little I've looked into literary criticism always seems to focus on the output of the endeavour, then hazards guesses at what might have been going through the authors mind when the work was composed. I studied a lot more "High Art" criticism while studying design at uni and I found a lot of the same stuff there.
1. Look at the work.
2. Look at the environment the Artist was in when they composed the work.
3. Try to find a mental correlation between the two.
4a. If nothing seems to match up quite right then look at other artists doing something similar then lump them together until a pattern emerges.
4b. If no pattern emerges, note the artist as an interesting anomaly.
Roleplaying seems to find itself squarely within the third point, somewhere between the players and the issues they are exploring (in the world, or in the fantasy). The rules help them address those issues, the play experience helps to communally resolve them.
As an example of this, "Gamer anecdotes" can be notoriously boring for people who weren't there, because the spark of the moment is gone.
I'd be fascinated to watch a literary critic observing a game in progress (a derivative action of a derivative action, if ever there was one). I don't know how such a critic would otherwise be able to assess the procedures and connections between them.