What do you think are the most damaging ideas in the hobby?

[David Johansen]

Well, that one's easy: if the source books aren't compatible you have to buy them all again.

 

[Endless Flight]

The second most damaging thing to the hobby is DC Heroes being out of print. A travesty if there ever was one!

 

[AsenRG]

The second most damaging thing to the hobby is DC Heroes being out of print. A travesty if there ever was one!

Well, I think we can all agree on this account, at least!

 

[David Johansen]

There seems to be some difficulty with using the mechanics from earlier iterations of a licensed game in new versions.

 

[Acmegamer]

When the dust settles, I think we can say that whatever we think of Forge theory it does seem to have inspired people to create games.

A few bona fide hits and then the same number of good, mediocre and bad games as everyone else produces.

(Notably, I don't include any of Edwards in my list of good games to come out of the Forge. I really don't get on with his writing style which biases me).

I view it differently. He and the Forge caused a lot of damage to ttrpgs due his musings of whether we're having fun and doing it right. He gave focus to a division that's with us today.

 

[Paradigm Shaft]

I always found the ideas behind RPG theory too needlessly highbrow, and I'm an academic. I like the idea of analysing the concepts behind our games, but a lot of Forge stuff I felt like was designed to alienate people.

 

[TristramEvans]

I always found the ideas behind RPG theory too needlessly highbrow, and I'm an academic. I like the idea of analysing the concepts behind our games, but a lot of Forge stuff I felt like was designed to alienate people.

Developing ways to communicate concepts in gaming, and provide tools to improve the experience for the player and make the GM's job easier I still think are worthwhile goals and what any theory should be built around. But The Forge's approach to Theory was pretty much the opposite of both these goals, if not in intention then certainly in effect.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that they went a little overboard in challenging the standard.

Like, I think it’s good to question why things are done the way they are….I think that’s a healthy thing to do in just about everything.

But to assume that the way things are already done is always wrong…that’s not a good approach.

I wasn’t really paying much attention to online discussion for games when the Forge was active, but from what I’ve seen and heard of about it (and from the bit of the archives I’ve read), I’d say that it had some good things about it, and definitely also some bad.

 

[Voros]

Theory is a tricky thing. I don't think rpg theory neccessarily is intended to lead to better games or better GMing, that is a utilitarian goal which is worthwhile but I'm unsure if that is the purpose of any artistic theory.

Film and literary theory are not intended to lead to better films or novels, it is more about analyzing those forms for greater insight. I guess those insights could lead to better films or novels but I've never seen that claim made in the mountains of film theory, for instance, that I read in school.

The great film critic Paul Coates once noted that one reason film and literary theory was so quickly embraced by students and academics is that it provided a framework that gave the appearance of insight without actually requiring that you watch a lot of films or read a lot of books. Coates is far from anti-intellectual and wasn't dismissing theory in toto but I think he was making a good point that theory isn't a replacement for deep knowledge of the subject.

I certainly encountered that, loads of film theory that name checks Foucault and Deleuze (usually in very vague ways) but very little actual discussion of films themselves. On the opposite ends are the film formalists, like the great David Bordwell, who analyze films at a more formal, structural level, whether classic Hollywood or Hong Kong action films.

Similarly in games, theory and discussions of design can inform each other but aren't exactly the same thing. Anymore than the craft of writing and theory are the same thing.

 

[Paradigm Shaft]

I mean, yeah. I just like playing games and I know when I enjoy them because my face makes me do a smile.

 

[Ravenswing]

When the dust settles, I think we can say that whatever we think of Forge theory it does seem to have inspired people to create games.

A few bona fide hits and then the same number of good, mediocre and bad games as everyone else produces.

Sure, a number of people created games. But did it impact the hobby? I'd suggest not. When all is said and done, the same few handful of games dominate 95% of the hobby, and everyone else is chasing after that last 5%. How many Forge-inspired games have any offline name recognition at all?

Heck, here's my silly anecdote along those lines. Take Dogs In the Vineyard, one of the more prominent of those indie names. Only a couple years ago, looking it up on Wikipedia, did I see its author's name. Several years ago, Vincent Baker was a fellow parishioner at my small-town church. I'd been an acquaintance of his wife's since the 1980s. No idea Vincent was a gamer, no idea he wrote that RPG.

 

[TristramEvans]

Theory is a tricky thing. I don't think rpg theory neccessarily is intended to lead to better games or better GMing, that is a utilitarian goal which is worthwhile but I'm unsure if that is the purpose of any artistic theory.

Film and literary theory are not intended to lead to better films or novels, it is more about analyzing those forms for greater insight. I guess those insights could lead to better films or novels but I've never seen that claim made in the mountains of film theory, for instance, that I read in school.

Yeah, but those are art critiques. I don't know about you, but I have zero use for art critiques of games.

I'm definitely not interested in someone's supposed "insights" on RPGs, I've said what I think would make RPG Theory useful and worthwhile, not what would make it more like film or literary criticism.

 

[zanshin]

And this is, in my book, the most damaging idea both in the hobby and outside of it!


The d20 craze also showed that this really isn't a good idea. There are genres for which the d20 chassi, for example, simply won't work, not without extreme gutting of the mechanics most people associate with it.
Like, you know, most kinds of non-D&D inspired fantasy!

I fully accept that other mechanics are viable , just that there is a cost to that of reducing access. As with all design, there are trade offs.

A lot of good stuff came out of d20. It's not my taste preference but it kicked off the OSR movement.

Lets leave it as one way to go

 

[zanshin]

Sure, a number of people created games. But did it impact the hobby? I'd suggest not. When all is said and done, the same few handful of games dominate 95% of the hobby, and everyone else is chasing after that last 5%. How many Forge-inspired games have any offline name recognition at all?

Heck, here's my silly anecdote along those lines. Take Dogs In the Vineyard, one of the more prominent of those indie names. Only a couple years ago, looking it up on Wikipedia, did I see its author's name. Several years ago, Vincent Baker was a fellow parishioner at my small-town church. I'd been an acquaintance of his wife's since the 1980s. No idea Vincent was a gamer, no idea he wrote that RPG.

Perhaps it's also about how it influenced other designers - 4e D&D and some of the theory about gamer preferences in that editions DMG definitely seem influenced by the concepts discussed at the Forge.

 

[zanshin]

Nope.

Also nope. Tell us more!

Edit- its the guy who designed FATAL - please ignore my previous remark. Don't.

 

[AsenRG]

I fully accept that other mechanics are viable , just that there is a cost to that of reducing access. As with all design, there are trade offs.

Sure, if you're talking about "new edition of a previously successful game". If we're talking about new games...nope, you're not reducing access at all.

A lot of good stuff came out of d20.

...citation needed. Especially on the "a lot" part.
'Cuz I can name less than 5 such examples that I'd play "as is".

It's not my taste preference but it kicked off the OSR movement.

Sure. But far from all OSR books are good ones, too...OSR actually shines in the "not-rulesy" part: adventures, settings, GM materials, and such (if you take the effort to adapt them to different systems).

Lets leave it as one way to go

Sure...

Also nope. Tell us more!

Edit- its the guy who designed FATAL - please ignore my previous remark. Don't.

And I was just about to paste the interview with his co-creator!

 

[zanshin]

Sure, if you're talking about "new edition of a previously successful game". If we're talking about new games...nope, you're not reducing access at all.


...citation needed. Especially on the "a lot" part.
'Cuz I can name less than 5 such examples that I'd play "as is".


Sure. But far from all OSR books are good ones, too...OSR actually shines in the "not-rulesy" part: adventures, settings, GM materials, and such (if you take the effort to adapt them to different systems).


Sure...


And I was just about to paste the interview with his co-creator!

The issue of D&D players not wanting to play/try other systems has been discussed so many times that I am pretty sure there is an issue of access there.

I have Conan d20, Slaine RPG, d20 Modern (& supplements), Mutants and Masterminds, Midnight (& many supplements), Stars without Number. All worth the price of admission to me.

I will take your word for it. OSR D&D is not my thing.

Good song. If Bon Scott wants to GM a d20 game, I'm there.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Sure, a number of people created games. But did it impact the hobby? I'd suggest not. When all is said and done, the same few handful of games dominate 95% of the hobby, and everyone else is chasing after that last 5%. How many Forge-inspired games have any offline name recognition at all?

Heck, here's my silly anecdote along those lines. Take Dogs In the Vineyard, one of the more prominent of those indie names. Only a couple years ago, looking it up on Wikipedia, did I see its author's name. Several years ago, Vincent Baker was a fellow parishioner at my small-town church. I'd been an acquaintance of his wife's since the 1980s. No idea Vincent was a gamer, no idea he wrote that RPG.

When I talk about hits to be clear I'm really talking about the big two.

I think PbtA has definite offline recognition and is one of the biggest in the 5%. And Blades in the Dark has just got a television deal which is big news.

But everything else? Yeah, I'd agree with you. (I'm leaving people like John Wick out of this because he was already established previously).

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Yeah, but those are art critiques. I don't know about you, but I have zero use for art critiques of games.

I'm definitely not interested in someone's supposed "insights" on RPGs, I've said what I think would make RPG Theory useful and worthwhile, not what would make it more like film or literary criticism.

Believe it or not, my reviews are kinda inspired by what is broadly art criticism. But mostly what they're inspired by in that area is 90s British music journalism which doesn't really have big artistic agendas.

 

[TristramEvans]

Believe it or not, my reviews are kinda inspired by what is broadly art criticism. But mostly what they're inspired by in that area is 90s British music journalism which doesn't really have big artistic agendas.

I'd classify reviews and theory as two different things in regards to RPGs.

 

[Ralph Dula]

THIS! OMG, yes, this.

I'm changing my answer to this. Whoever got the idea that a new edition of a game meant a completely new, not in any way backwards-compatible set of rules, so that they are the same game "in name only".

Hands down the worst thing in the entire hobby.

The author of a later edition of one of my favorite games flat-out said once that he was instructed to make a new edition just compatible enough to sell backstock of the previous edition, but just different enough that people would buy folks.

I watched folks from a company I already had issues with loudly proclaim of course previous editions wouldn't be compatible, because they needed to i sure fangirls of the previous edition would have to buy new stuff.

In retrospect, it’s amazing it took me as long as it did to respect my grognard friends who refused to even look at new editions.

Of course, then they got infected by 5E.

 

[AsenRG]

The issue of D&D players not wanting to play/try other systems has been discussed so many times that I am pretty sure there is an issue of access there.

You're probably right on that, though that's not what I was talking about.

I have Conan d20, Slaine RPG, d20 Modern (& supplements), Mutants and Masterminds, Midnight (& many supplements), Stars without Number. All worth the price of admission to me.

...let's just agree to disagree, OK?

 

[ScytheSong]

Sure, a number of people created games. But did it impact the hobby? I'd suggest not. When all is said and done, the same few handful of games dominate 95% of the hobby, and everyone else is chasing after that last 5%. How many Forge-inspired games have any offline name recognition at all?

Heck, here's my silly anecdote along those lines. Take Dogs In the Vineyard, one of the more prominent of those indie names. Only a couple years ago, looking it up on Wikipedia, did I see its author's name. Several years ago, Vincent Baker was a fellow parishioner at my small-town church. I'd been an acquaintance of his wife's since the 1980s. No idea Vincent was a gamer, no idea he wrote that RPG.

...Odd. D. Vincent Baker/Lumpley was very outspoken about his atheism back in his Forge days. Like, "I'm an ex-Mormon who hasn't been inside a church in over a decade" outspoken. But he is in Massachusetts now, and Meguey is a unsusual enough name that I doubt you would be thinking of a different Baker. Maybe it's the entire kill puppies for satan thing?

 

[Acmegamer]

Yeah, but those are art critiques. I don't know about you, but I have zero use for art critiques of games.

I'm definitely not interested in someone's supposed "insights" on RPGs, I've said what I think would make RPG Theory useful and worthwhile, not what would make it more like film or literary criticism.

About the only time I find an art critique useful is if I find myself stumped as to what to make of a piece of art. If that happens I'm more than happy to read someones break down that might offer me some insight. Similar if everyone I encounter talks about how they took something from a piece of art (book, painting, poem, movie, whatever), then I might also go out and seek some breakdowns or critiques of it. That's about the only time I go beyond the zero use for idea myself. It's uncommon but it does happen. heh.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Regarding Pundit. I always found the times, he talked about his experiences living in Uruguay as a foreigner great. Very interesting and insightful.

 

[Ladybird]

Also nope. Tell us more!

Edit- its the guy who designed FATAL - please ignore my previous remark. Don't.

FATAL, and so many "oh this is so politically incorrect" products from so many oh so politically incorrect authors, is just... boring. It doesn't do anything with it's premise. It doesn't shock. It doesn't try to make you think, or challenge the reader, or put you in an uncomfortable position. It's the equivalent of writing every rude word you know on a tshirt; nobody cares. It's unnecessary.

I've said it before, but without the grandstanding hyperbolic RPGnet review, FATAL would have been rightly ignored and forgotten.

 

[hawkeyefan]

About the only time I find an art critique useful is if I find myself stumped as to what to make of a piece of art. If that happens I'm more than happy to read someones break down that might offer me some insight. Similar if everyone I encounter talks about how they took something from a piece of art (book, painting, poem, movie, whatever), then I might also go out and seek some breakdowns or critiques of it. That's about the only time I go beyond the zero use for idea myself. It's uncommon but it does happen. heh.

I think critique is always potentially useful, pretty much for the reasons you’ve mentioned. It may help understand a work or what others have taken from it.

I think what happens is people sometimes take critique too seriously. That’s probably not the best way to put it, but I’m not sure how else to phrase it. It’s like sometimes the response to some critique is stronger than the critique actually warrants.

Which I think is probably the case with a lot of the response to the Forge, and other RPG debates. It’s like….this is not just someone’s take on gaming, it’s an attack on the very idea of RPGing!!!!!

FATAL, and so many "oh this is so politically incorrect" products from so many oh so politically incorrect authors, is just... boring. It doesn't do anything with it's premise. It doesn't shock. It doesn't try to make you think, or challenge the reader, or put you in an uncomfortable position. It's the equivalent of writing every rude word you know on a tshirt; nobody cares. It's unnecessary.

I've said it before, but without the grandstanding hyperbolic RPGnet review, FATAL would have been rightly ignored and forgotten.

As someone who wasn’t involved in a lot of online RPG discussion during those days, I can confirm your theory. Never knew anything about FATAL until pretty recently…and it sounded like garbage and that was about all the thought I put into it.

 

[Voros]

Something like FATAL was inevitable once the net made putting your game out there so easy. Whether it was intended as a joke/troll or the product of mental illness...it received far more attention than it should have as it is the equivalent of someone rambling incoherently on a forum.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

FATAL, and so many "oh this is so politically incorrect" products from so many oh so politically incorrect authors, is just... boring. It doesn't do anything with it's premise. It doesn't shock. It doesn't try to make you think, or challenge the reader, or put you in an uncomfortable position. It's the equivalent of writing every rude word you know on a tshirt; nobody cares. It's unnecessary.

I've said it before, but without the grandstanding hyperbolic RPGnet review, FATAL would have been rightly ignored and forgotten.

Yeah, ironically I think TBP is what gave FATAL its fame.

Shock RPGs don't really work now anyway. Alma Mater and HoL might have been outrageous in their day. But we live in a world where Family Guy is mainstream television and any gross photo is merely an internet click away. Shock is just pointless now.

 

[Voros]

About the only time I find an art critique useful is if I find myself stumped as to what to make of a piece of art. If that happens I'm more than happy to read someones break down that might offer me some insight. Similar if everyone I encounter talks about how they took something from a piece of art (book, painting, poem, movie, whatever), then I might also go out and seek some breakdowns or critiques of it. That's about the only time I go beyond the zero use for idea myself. It's uncommon but it does happen. heh.

I've discovered a lot of authors and films I wouldn't have otherwise and my appreciation for a film/book has been deepened by good criticism.

I think more close readings of a game, an analysis of what it intends, its design and how it plays, would be particularly useful but I have my doubts that kind of more-or-less disinterested analysis will come often from fandom which has failed to not turn analysis into ax-grinding for their preferred style of play since the APA days.

The best game criticism of ttrpgs I've encountered so far, by Costikyan, Peterson, Paul Mason and Marcus Montola, have focused either on formalism (Costikyan, Montola) or historicism (Mason, Peterson).

 

[Acmegamer]

I've discovered a lot of authors and films I wouldn't have otherwise and my appreciation for a film/book has been deepened by good criticism.

I think more close readings of a game, an analysis of what it intends, its design and how it plays, would be particularly useful but I have my doubts that kind of more-or-less disinterested analysis will come often from fandom which has failed to not turn analysis into ax-grinding for their preferred style of play since the APA days.

The best game criticism of ttrpgs I've encountered so far, by Costikyan, Peterson, Paul Mason and Marcus Montola, have focused either on formalism (Costikyan, Montola) or historicism (Mason, Peterson).

I'm a fan of Greg Costikyan's writings and insights. Specially his insights into mmorpg game development.

 

[Ravenswing]

...Odd. D. Vincent Baker/Lumpley was very outspoken about his atheism back in his Forge days. Like, "I'm an ex-Mormon who hasn't been inside a church in over a decade" outspoken. But he is in Massachusetts now, and Meguey is a unsusual enough name that I doubt you would be thinking of a different Baker. Maybe it's the entire kill puppies for satan thing?

No, no, that really is the same Vincent Baker. Granted, we're talking the Unitarian Universalist church in Greenfield, but when all is said and done, Greenfield's a town of 17 thousand people, and where I knew Meg was from SCA days. What are the odds that there were more than one couple named Vincent and Meg Baker into geek culture in Greenfield, MA?

I've said it before, but without the grandstanding hyperbolic RPGnet review, FATAL would have been rightly ignored and forgotten.

Yeah, I've said the same thing, and butted heads with that asshat MacLennan on TBP more than once on the subject. Hah, I'll even quote myself from one instance:

Come on, folks. Almost none of you have read it. Few of you have glanced at it. The great majority of you have taken your cues from MacLennan and Sartin's holier-than-you act. And in a field where rape, torture, murder and brutality happen routinely around your gaming tables, I'm pretty damn indifferent to the knee-jerk bandwagonism that this game is is the vilest and evillest thing ever to disgrace the hobby ...

What I think myself is that it's a lame, turgid, tasteless POS created by sophomoric frat boys who thought it'd be a giggle fit to include a few hot button tables waiting for the boring loser geeks to blow a gasket. Hall and cohorts were hoping to get a rise out of us. And they sure succeeded, didn't they just?

And if we'd just reacted with a yawn and a "What a crew of tools, this is lame, stop feeding the trolls, let's move on," and did so, FATAL would've dropped into a black hole.

 

[ScytheSong]

No, no, that really is the same Vincent Baker. Granted, we're talking the Unitarian Universalist church in Greenfield, but when all is said and done, Greenfield's a town of 17 thousand people, and where I knew Meg was from SCA days. What are the odds that there were more than one couple named Vincent and Meg Baker into geek culture in Greenfield, MA?

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I just found it odd given what I knew. The church being UU makes much more sense -- My UU church has multiple gamers, including two different groups that are exclusively from the church. It also has a whole cadre of Atheists/Humanists.

 

[Ralph Dula]

Greenfield's a town of 17 thousand people, and where I knew Meg was from SCA days. What are the odds that there were more than one couple named Vincent and Meg Baker into geek culture in Greenfield, MA?

<Me thinking about getting treated like shit for years in a town of 8,000 before learning there was another gamer named Ralph Dula who stole from his employer and committed mail fraud on Magic cards in the area>

Odds are pretty good, I’d say.

 

[ffilz]

No, no, that really is the same Vincent Baker. Granted, we're talking the Unitarian Universalist church in Greenfield, but when all is said and done, Greenfield's a town of 17 thousand people, and where I knew Meg was from SCA days. What are the odds that there were more than one couple named Vincent and Meg Baker into geek culture in Greenfield, MA?

I can absolutely confirm that all of this is referencing a single Vincent and Meguey Baker. They actually have shared a fair bit on storygames.com. Oh and lots of Unitarian Universalists are atheists and denounce organized church... But I also know Vincent and Meguey taught sex ed at the church (as shared on storygames.com)...

As to the Forge and Ron Edwards...

I think Ron is a bit of a blowhard and he is often not very diplomatic in how he says things. Unfortunately that causes him to be misunderstood. From my reading and participating in the site, he really has nothing against D&D despite many claims to the contrary. The whole "fantasy heartbreaker" thing wasn't about D&D being bad, or even the games necessarily being bad, but as much that people poured their heart and soul and hard cash into publishing these games that then didn't pay off because so much was put into something that had some neat ideas, but wasn't enough different from D&D (thankfully today's PDF market makes it easy for folks to publish WITHOUT putting up so much cash). The brain damage thing, yea, that was an awful essay. But what he was trying to get at did actually make some sense.

Now the GNS theory, it's an interesting theory, and I see how it applies to gaming. But I think it does miss on what people actually have fun playing. I think incoherent play can actually be fun. But lots of theory about creative stuff dismisses very popular and enjoyable creative output.

As to the influence of the Forge, there are certainly a number of designers who frequented the Forge who have done quite well. Some of the ideas have even made it into games beyond the Forge. Other ideas are used by GMs running games other than those developed by Forge participants. I use some of the techniques that I learned at the Forge.

On the other hand, the division that the existence of the Forge created is not good for the hobby. It is interesting that you can find anti-Forge diatribes on so many other forums, but the reverse was not so true and if I recall, when it did come up, Ron would shut it down. Ron also shut down the Forge when it outlived its purpose rather than trying to keep something that was no longer useful alive.

 

[Ladybird]

Yeah, ironically I think TBP is what gave FATAL its fame.

Shock RPGs don't really work now anyway. Alma Mater and HoL might have been outrageous in their day. But we live in a world where Family Guy is mainstream television and any gross photo is merely an internet click away. Shock is just pointless now.

I think you can still push boundaries and be subversive, but that can't be all you've got; you have to back it up with content. Look at, say, Thirsty Sword Lesbians, which has done very well for itself recently and combines being queer as hell with some very solid game design, or Zak S's stuff before he made himself unwelcome, or LOTFP's combination of a solid core rule set accompanied by weird art and adventures, or the scuzzy biblical apocalypse of Pandemonio.

But yeah, if you just want to shock people, the time for that is over. It's been done better and nobody gives a shit now.

 

[AsenRG]

Yeah, I've said the same thing, and butted heads with that asshat MacLennan on TBP more than once on the subject. Hah, I'll even quote myself from one instance:

I'm pretty sure I was on your side back then. The butting of heads was mighty!

 

[Ravenswing]

I'm pretty sure I was on your side back then. The butting of heads was mighty!

It sure was. The ironic thing is that I'd looked through FATAL weeks before -- it was highlighted on Portal Of Evil, a site featuring bizarre and nasty websites. And reading through the posts I made on the subject, they swiftly morphed from "Ugh, this is a lame POS, idiot frat boy trolls" to startled shock (and, eventually, anger) at the idjits advocating contacting the FBI and holding book burnings.

My position, then as now, is that the knives that MacLennan, Sartin and their brainless acolytes were sharpening have been aimed at all of us. From Egbert to Dark Dungeons to Mazes and Monsters to Patricia Pulling to the Secret Service raid and forward, outsiders have wanted to serve us out in the same way. We have no business being censors ourselves.

 

[AsenRG]

It sure was. The ironic thing is that I'd looked through FATAL weeks before -- it was highlighted on Portal Of Evil, a site featuring bizarre and nasty websites. And reading through the posts I made on the subject, they swiftly morphed from "Ugh, this is a lame POS, idiot frat boy trolls" to startled shock (and, eventually, anger) at the idjits advocating contacting the FBI and holding book burnings.

My position, then as now, is that the knives that MacLennan, Sartin and their brainless acolytes were sharpening have been aimed at all of us. From Egbert to Dark Dungeons to Mazes and Monsters to Patricia Pulling to the Secret Service raid and forward, outsiders have wanted to serve us out in the same way. We have no business being censors ourselves.

I agree, FWIW. Bad games get censored by not being played...well, and many good games who're simply not popular enough, too - but I still doubt there's anyone ever who has played FATAL, other than the group which made characters on a lark!

 

[Necrozius]

I'm kind of a simpleton: if someone is going to do art critique of a table top RPG, I expect to get insightful review of the quality and competency of the illustrations, layout design and purple prose.

90s WoD books? Lots of "art" to be criticised in there (not all of it to my liking, but still). Labyrinth Lord? Not so much. Fine game though.

Then again, people can intellectualize just about ANY banal thing. There are university studies about Beyoncé, for criminy's sake.