I guess my overarching warning is not to miss the forest for the trees; theory is just a tool to make your games better but many people take it WAY too far.

Game on!

I hear ya man. I hear ya.

But.

The reason I delve into theory is grabbing those aids, those prompts that encourage THE PASSION to be UNLEASHED!!!!

I’ve played games too long that mechanically are dinosaours. They have no way of supporting Flags, Keys, Co-GM stance, etc. All of those things are designed to get to the Passion of the players. To engage the players. To make it matter.

So, while I hear ya… I don’t agree with you entirely.

I do understand your point that focusing too much on technique is counter-productive to keeping in tune with the emotional state of your game, and I agree to an extent, but as a DM who has seen a LOT of technical improvement over the years, I feel safe in saying that the better your technical game (if seemless) the easier it is for your players to have fun. Like all things there’s a point of diminishing returns whenin you’re doing a fine job and too much fiddling or effort won’t be worth the effort and concentration you put into them, but it’s hard to claim you’ve reached that point.

I think Joshua’s 64 skills is a somewhat different than most of what I’m used to seeing in that it’s likely of primary use to players. Most technical help is for GMs because they’re bringing the most to the table. Players are largely expected to show up and a most update their character sheet betwen games. While Joshua’s list COULD be used by DMs it seems so unweildy for this purpose that it would immediately breach the point of diminishing returns. I do think for a player seeking to improve themselves (Independantly. I’d be pretty insulted if my DM handed it to me and told me to improve my play.) that it could be a useful tool in the same way as a GM naughty list is helpful for a GM to evaluate their own performance.

I fear that Joshua’s “64 skills” may be getting a bad rap here; it’s just one item in a long list of theory discussions (GNS anyone?) that distract us from the key issue at the heart of the discussion: Having fun.

After reading your intro bit on Treasure Tables I had an immediate reaction and started writing. I quickly realized that I had a strong, emotional drive behind my words and stopped censoring them. Unfortunately it seemed ill-suited for your site and, frankly, a bit juvenile for me to use TT to “take a dump” and express my opinion. Hence the rant here.

Like you, I’m probably more in the “middle of the road” way of thinking, but sometimes too much theory can actually be “too much;” I think people need to take a step back as the industry is stuck in one of the worst ruts in many years. Are we (gamers) the solution, or the problem? I suspect more the latter.

At this year’s E3 (Entertainment Expo) both Sony and Microsoft duked it out head-to-head with their ultra-hardcore, high-definition video game consoles, the PS3 and the Xbox 360. Both will set you back $500 or more, closer to $1,000 once you add on some games, controllers, etc.

Meanwhile, Nintendo, currently in third place in the console wars, is ignoring HD, ignoring “gee wiz” features and CPU processing power and focusing solely on one thing: FUN. Sure, they have a new interface, but their mantra continues to be to make fun, accessible games that apply to everyone without a steep learning curve or pricing their customers out of the marketplace.

I think the hobby and game industry has more than a few things to learn from Nintendo.

Your point about becoming “more sophisticated” really strikes home for me, as there is this point in what I consider the “gamer lifecycle” where you become self-aware of your gaming style and preferences. If you run games, it also includes your GMing style and such. At that point we start drawing less from our emotional side (passion, enjoyment) and rely on our intellectual side to craft a good game. Our society is such that we can map out the perfect diet and computerize matchmaking services to find your soul mate, so why not build the perfect RPG game/campaign?

I used to also (until very recently) ask for player recaps as an opportunity to jumpstart the session and as a carrot to earn additional XP. Instead it was work for the players, who really had no interest in doing a recap, *and* they did it badly, defeating the entire purpose of the recap. It’s not that they weren’t interested in the game, it’s just that it’s only a *game* and in that intervening week they had finals, an argument with their significant other, stress at work or any of a million things that we all deal with daily in our lives. Now here I am, on a night that we’re supposed to be relaxing and having fun and I’m giving them more stress and work! What an absolutely horrible idea! (Hindsight, 20:20 and all.)

The next game I run the watchword (for me) will be “fun.” No, I’m not going to try to work too hard to make the game fun, but instead try to let fun happen on its own and foster an environment where it can grow and nurture. I want my next game to have a chance to make my next “Top Ten” list, and worry less about structure, motivation, or any of the crap that gets in the way of just having a good game.

1) I appreciate that my profanity-laden tirade was taken in the spirit in which it was intended: nothing more than a well-meaning rant, interposed with a bit of humor and an actual point or two.

2) I think a post for a later date — perhaps this week — will be my thoughts on gaming theory in general. This rant kind of puts the cart before the horse and many people don’t know where I’m coming from. By reading the above, you’re probably fairly convinced that I detest gaming theory and that’s not true.

3) After re-reading my post, aside from some structural errors, my feelings haven’t changed on the matter. That’s A Good Thing™, as I’d hate to find myself feeling totally different after that emotional release of near epic proportions and be obligated to backpedal today.

The funny thing is, after posting this on Friday, I *really* did want to game *so badly* and was looking forward to our group’s Saturday game. Mere hours before I became violently ill and had to cancel. Damn karma! =)

We’re working so hard to try to build the perfect gaming experience by making sure our campaigns are perfectly crafted, our systems model everything we need, and that our players are comfortable setting the proper “stakes” that it’s akin to trying to create the perfect snowflake; it doesn’t exist. When you do find it, it’s not through painstaking research, categorizing your players into personality silos, or spending 12 hours on game prep…it’s through happenstance and the magic that takes place at the table. The magic that you could not have possibly foreseen.

I think you’re wrong. Not on the entire point of your rant. I think you’re dead on that the point of our hobby is to have fun and by too much theory and not enough practice we can loose sight of that. But with this last part you’re essentially saying “There’s no point to theory” And that’s where I have to disagree. There’s ALWAYS neww stuff for me to learn out there as a GM and there ARE definable things that we can study to make our games better. Knowing those things (including knowing our players and tailoring our games to them) is a good way to improve.

That being said, as in all other things there’s a proper balance and chances are, making up a report card with the 64 player skills for each of your players to fill out about each of your other players, then compile and hand back to each player so they can “improve themselves” is a bit too far on the “too far” side. On the other hand, if you, as a player, want to read that list, identify a few things to work on personally, and try to improve, that would be fine. Like so many other things, moderation is the key.

The only worthwhile insights I’ve ever had about gaming have been either at the table or through reflection of stuff that happened at the table. Talking about gaming without actually gaming is nonsense; designing games without playing them is sheer lunacy.

And I’ll be right there with you when a GM tries to grade me on my player skills — right out the door.