Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Role-playing game theory

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: Role-playing game theory

#21

Post by andrepd »

gallerdude wrote: post #15
tomkat0789 wrote: post #11

This made me wonder: what parts of our pop culture will be studied as rigorously as historical literature? Where will RPGs and video games fit in? Will some odd history professor in 2100 awkwardly DM a game for bored future college student equivalents?

I'm under the belief that the original Star Wars will be studied alongside epics like The Iliad and The Odyssey. It was hugely impactful when released, reinterpreted the hero's journey for the 20th century, and even has its own holiday.

I strongly beg to disagree. It is massively popular, sure. In the end, however, it's just a mediocre story full of holes and inconsistencies, among shoddy worldbuilding. Cannot be put on the same level as a classical epic.

Re: Role-playing game theory

#23

Post by esoteric_wombat »

If you're interested in a more detailed survey of rpg theory I highly recommend the recently published "Role-Playing Game Studies: A Transmedia Approach" and specifically the chapter "RPG Theorizing by Designers and Players". For a much broader historical work there's also Playing at the World by Jon Peterson. For something more bite sized (and free) check out http://analoggamestudies.org/

Re: Role-playing game theory

#24

Post by forapurpose »

whatshisface wrote: post #12
sovok_x wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But can't you verify a good theory of RPG by creating a novel game that will be much appreciated or fixing some existing games making them more interesting? Like how music theory improved musicians' work and resulted in a better music, musician communication and even got used for creative AIs while music is very subjective too?

"Literary theory," as it is called, is actually not theory. It's the production of commentaries that are designed to make you say, "ah, yes." In other words it's a derivative art form like collage or remixing. You can tell the difference because there is no way to tell if a paper is right or not other than by deciding if it sounds right to you, which is no less subjective than anything else in art. In contrast, music…

> You can tell the difference because there is no way to tell if a paper is right or not other than by deciding if it sounds right to you, which is no less subjective than anything else in art.

It's true that there is no way to logically prove the value of a work of art (and who says art has or needs "value"?), but lack of proof doesn't mean something doesn't exit; it means it's harder to think about. There is no proof what will happen tomorrow, but we make judgments without it, as we do about most things: Should I take this job? Should I marry this person? Do they love me? Do I love them? Should I ask out the new neighbor? Ubuntu or Fedora?

There's no algorithm to understanding art; there are tools, but there is no certainty. Without a logic map, it can be very challenging - in the best way, IMHO, because it brings forth and develops my deepest thinking and compels me to challenge myself and my perspective. I can't prove a Miro is better than your neighbor's kid's drawing ... and I guess I don't really care to; I'm going to study the Miro.

Re: Role-playing game theory

#25

Post by forapurpose »

andrepd wrote: post #21
gallerdude wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm under the belief that the original Star Wars will be studied alongside epics like The Iliad and The Odyssey. It was hugely impactful when released, reinterpreted the hero's journey for the 20th century, and even has its own holiday.

I strongly beg to disagree. It is massively popular, sure. In the end, however, it's just a mediocre story full of holes and inconsistencies, among shoddy worldbuilding. Cannot be put on the same level as a classical epic.

> full of holes and inconsistencies, among shoddy worldbuilding

I'm not sure that is the reason for the difference. The Odyssey has plenty of gaping holes and shoddy worldbuilding, plus some inconsistencies. For example, the plot of the very end flops IMHO (and less humbly opinionated people agree); you have to strain to give it much credit.

What I think separates it from Star Wars and most other stories ever created is its reflection of humanity. The characters and social interactions are so true and so rich - not at the superficial layer, where there are gods and magic, but at the core of anger, pride, love, compromise, fear, uncertainty, joy, power, etc. - you can look at it and deep into it forever and will never run dry.

If I can run on a bit, Dante wrote, nature takes her course from the divine mind and its art ... your art, as far as it can, follows nature as the pupil the master, so that your art is to God, as it were, a grandchild.[0] The Odyssey fulfills that, IMHO; a wonder of mortal creation.

Tangentially, Odysseus is one of the most unpleasant characters in all of literature, in deed and personality. Even on Game of Thrones he would be at the bottom of the barrel.

[0] About himself! It's in Inferno; Dante conveniently put those lines in the mouth of another character speaking to the author.

EDIT: Major edits

Re: Role-playing game theory

#26

Post by PhasmaFelis »

danielvf wrote: post #14
sovok_x wrote: post #6

I see all those hypotheses but are those verifiable? Did they result in some solid explanations that allowed useful predictions to be made? Or do they play "my idea is better" game? (edit: yeah, silently downvote people asking questions... people shouldn't ask things. Or is it some sore I stepped on unknowingly?)

This is a great question! So Ron Edwards, who came up with the GNS system, realized that the there were lots of games about winning, and lots of games about simulations, but very few games about drama/stories. He published his ideas wide and far on the internet, made some games, and ran a very influential forum, "the forge". Along with a later spin off forum, story-games.com, a new breed of game designers showed up t…

Also, incidentally, there's a small group of mainstream RPG fans who get absolutely furious about anything resembling GNS or story games, for no reason I've ever been able to determine.

(But then Ron Edwards infamously said that traditional/D&D-style RPGs literally cause brain damage, so I suppose there's a lot of defensiveness to go around...)

Re: Role-playing game theory

#27

Post by adrianN »

forapurpose wrote: post #25
andrepd wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly beg to disagree. It is massively popular, sure. In the end, however, it's just a mediocre story full of holes and inconsistencies, among shoddy worldbuilding. Cannot be put on the same level as a classical epic.

> full of holes and inconsistencies, among shoddy worldbuilding I'm not sure that is the reason for the difference. The Odyssey has plenty of gaping holes and shoddy worldbuilding, plus some inconsistencies. For example, the plot of the very end flops IMHO (and less humbly opinionated people agree); you have to strain to give it much credit. What I think separates it from Star Wars and most other stories ever created…

It also has the benefit of being one of only a few epics that survived from that time.

Re: Role-playing game theory

#28

Post by dang »

sovok_x wrote: post #6

I see all those hypotheses but are those verifiable? Did they result in some solid explanations that allowed useful predictions to be made? Or do they play "my idea is better" game? (edit: yeah, silently downvote people asking questions... people shouldn't ask things. Or is it some sore I stepped on unknowingly?)

> (edit: yeah, silently downvote people asking questions...

Would you please not break the site guidelines like this? Unfair downvotes suck, but for a comment like this it's almost always the case that users will give corrective upvotes, which leaves the complaint not only against the rules but factually wrong.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Role-playing game theory

#30

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #28
sovok_x wrote: post #6

I see all those hypotheses but are those verifiable? Did they result in some solid explanations that allowed useful predictions to be made? Or do they play "my idea is better" game? (edit: yeah, silently downvote people asking questions... people shouldn't ask things. Or is it some sore I stepped on unknowingly?)

> (edit: yeah, silently downvote people asking questions... Would you please not break the site guidelines like this? Unfair downvotes suck, but for a comment like this it's almost always the case that users will give corrective upvotes, which leaves the complaint not only against the rules but factually wrong. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[deleted]
Post reply on HN