What is the “thinking adventure” game and does it represent an actual school of thought? If so, who else is in this camp and what is it about?
The most I can find is Luke’s post here:
Like most of Luke’s stuff, it reads more like poetry though than a coherent statement of theory, which is fine since imo that’s what makes a lot of his stuff fun.
Interesting, I wonder if it’s Principles of Thinking (about) Adventures or Principles of Thinking-Adventures.
The one thing that really stands out to me is “tools instead of mechanisms.” I think I get what Luke is saying here but I think I end up having a different perspective from him and the circles her runs in with regards to mechanisms. As, per the way I use it, most “tools” are going to be mechanisms.
It’s a bit like when everyone got super hyped on Errant’s “Procedures not Rules” because people (assumingly) don’t have a good corpus of knowledge around mechanisms to understand that most rules themselves are a procedure (often with cultural assumptions elided).
Oh, I’m in the server named after that post. I honestly forgot about this post and just talked to the people there. It makes more sense that way. It’s more of a work ethic than a school of thought by my estimate.
It’s a general sentiment that people should probably make and publish less systems/heartbreakers. They’re everywhere and they don’t really solve any problem. There was never any problem to begin with that systems and game design could just solve.
Just make things people can use to actually start running games with practical information design and splendid writing. Adventures, bestiaries, settings, etc. Whatever people can pick-up and read then synthesize to get things going.
We don’t need 350 page systems (I don’t want as much of these either) telling us all how to “emulate different genres”. We just play.
Oh, I’m also in the server spawned by this post and such. I agree that its not a detailed school of thought, but rather an ethos to put out material that is clearly playable - whether it be a blogpost, supplement or adventure. The goal is to encourage actually playing, not planning or contemplating how to play.
That sets up some clear preferences, in practice. System-neutral or system-flexible material is king, as more people can port it to their system. Everyone hates learning a new system, so this alleviates that potential impediment.
Big flexible projects, modular bits, are in the king’s court. This allows groups to modify, modulate, and mix content to their preference, and have a campaign that can go on for years, should it be desired (it may not, of course).
Specific (restrictive) ideas of what your game should look like from the game designer is anathema - give me something I can play my way! See also: Table-Centric Design (predates TA)
There’s also a belief among those who associate with these ideas that when you do RPG stuff, you should put in the work. See: In Praise of Legwork - Sam Sorensen
That’s what I’ve gleaned from the surrounding discussion and work springing from this post.
I’m 100% on board for the spirit behind such posts and movements (I’m always trying to encourage to just run campaigns and not get bought into the hype/consumerist nature of buying a “perfect” rules text).
Unfortunately system neutral stuff sells notoriously terribly, from the perspective of someone trying to make a few bucks off the hobby. People definitely are rules-text brained, such that they tend to gravitate towards a “system,” and they will gravitate towards materials written for whatever rules text they identify with.
I wish it weren’t the case and I do think posts such as the above can help in that regard.