11-23-2015, 06:50 AM
We could also subtitle this the Praxeology of RPGs, or Logic vs Models.
There's been a good volume of work on RPG theory. The problem is it's so couched in jargon and models that it's 1) difficult to get up to speed to take part in the discussion, 2) the existing models and lexicons have banked-in assumptions that is fundamental to the theory but not fundamental to RPGs.
In the reading I've done to analyze difficult, real-life, non-RPG topics, there are schools of thought that prefer logical deduction and plain English over models and jargon. Some of these sources do translate well over into RPGs. I long thought Richard Cantillon's essay on economics in general make a great basis not only for RPG economies, but its opening chapters almost read like it could be some sort of world-builder guide.
The most fundamental fact about RPGs is that they are games. Players do make choices. And they make choices for the fictional characters they play. Thus it only seems natural that praxeology, the study of human action in the real world, could have something to say about actions in RPGs and can translate over nicely. I've begun writing a short essay, "The Anatomy of Action" that leads directly into two contributions I've recently made on this forum, the ones on Persuasion and Initiative.
The overview is I break down action into 5 essential parts. Means, Ends, Opportunity, Uncertainty, and Time (ME-OUT). The former two, the means-ends relationship, deals mainly with inner space (ME), thoughts, motives, intentions, and so forth. This is the focus of the sort of actions that involve persuasion and cooperation. The latter three deal with the constraints of the outside world on action, the availability of opportunity, the fact of uncertainty, and the taking of time (OUT). This is the focus of combat, interaction with the physical world, and conflict.
One distinct advantage I'm noticing by doing things this way is the theory is more descriptive than prescriptive. Whereas something like GNS theory will tell you you're "incoherent" by trying to satisfy all three corners of the triangle simultaneously, implying from the theory a right and wrong way to play, what I'm doing is making it clear how RPGs with radically different systems compare.
I don't know if anyone is familiar with Dark Conspiracy. In that game, the Initiative stat is all-important. It's not that hard to build a character who begins with a 6, who will have 6 times as many attacks per round than one who only has 1. The way it does it is a little sloppy, though, requiring exceptions for low initiative people who are doing nothing but moving throughout the entire round. The initiative system that flows naturally from analysis of action, on the other hand, would handle Dark Conspiracy's system more consistently, but also understanding a Dark Conspiracy character and one from Dungeons & Dragons using the same language.
What I'm wondering is this. People who are interested in theory are already invested in a body of RPG theory, even though it's crappy. I don't know many would be open to something that throws all that out in the garbage. That would leave everybody else. And many of "everybody else" are completely turned off by theorizing. But perhaps that's only because theory is so disconnected from reality that it proves of little worth to people who just want to play. Would people be interested in a new game theory paradigm?
There's been a good volume of work on RPG theory. The problem is it's so couched in jargon and models that it's 1) difficult to get up to speed to take part in the discussion, 2) the existing models and lexicons have banked-in assumptions that is fundamental to the theory but not fundamental to RPGs.
In the reading I've done to analyze difficult, real-life, non-RPG topics, there are schools of thought that prefer logical deduction and plain English over models and jargon. Some of these sources do translate well over into RPGs. I long thought Richard Cantillon's essay on economics in general make a great basis not only for RPG economies, but its opening chapters almost read like it could be some sort of world-builder guide.
The most fundamental fact about RPGs is that they are games. Players do make choices. And they make choices for the fictional characters they play. Thus it only seems natural that praxeology, the study of human action in the real world, could have something to say about actions in RPGs and can translate over nicely. I've begun writing a short essay, "The Anatomy of Action" that leads directly into two contributions I've recently made on this forum, the ones on Persuasion and Initiative.
The overview is I break down action into 5 essential parts. Means, Ends, Opportunity, Uncertainty, and Time (ME-OUT). The former two, the means-ends relationship, deals mainly with inner space (ME), thoughts, motives, intentions, and so forth. This is the focus of the sort of actions that involve persuasion and cooperation. The latter three deal with the constraints of the outside world on action, the availability of opportunity, the fact of uncertainty, and the taking of time (OUT). This is the focus of combat, interaction with the physical world, and conflict.
One distinct advantage I'm noticing by doing things this way is the theory is more descriptive than prescriptive. Whereas something like GNS theory will tell you you're "incoherent" by trying to satisfy all three corners of the triangle simultaneously, implying from the theory a right and wrong way to play, what I'm doing is making it clear how RPGs with radically different systems compare.
I don't know if anyone is familiar with Dark Conspiracy. In that game, the Initiative stat is all-important. It's not that hard to build a character who begins with a 6, who will have 6 times as many attacks per round than one who only has 1. The way it does it is a little sloppy, though, requiring exceptions for low initiative people who are doing nothing but moving throughout the entire round. The initiative system that flows naturally from analysis of action, on the other hand, would handle Dark Conspiracy's system more consistently, but also understanding a Dark Conspiracy character and one from Dungeons & Dragons using the same language.
What I'm wondering is this. People who are interested in theory are already invested in a body of RPG theory, even though it's crappy. I don't know many would be open to something that throws all that out in the garbage. That would leave everybody else. And many of "everybody else" are completely turned off by theorizing. But perhaps that's only because theory is so disconnected from reality that it proves of little worth to people who just want to play. Would people be interested in a new game theory paradigm?
