The GNS ModelThe GNS Model (Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist) describing different creative agendas that players have and that are emphasized and supported more or less by different games and mechanics. There's plenty of related terminology like Participationism (players agreeing to follow along with a mostly-predetermined story) vs. Illusionism (the GM appearing to allow the players free choice, but actually shifting things around so that the players end up following the story anyway). Not all this terminology started there, but it was popularized and an attempt was made to assemble it into a coherent framework for understanding how RPGs fundamentally work (or don't).
A model for analyzing issues of group dynamics and other problems that crop up in RPGs. Fleshing out the concepts above naturally involved acknowledging that people play RPGs for different reasons and with different intents, which led to the idea that most problems and bad experiences with RPGs stem from a lack of agreement about what game is actually being played and what experience the players and GM are trying to create, aggravated by an emphasis on maintaining mystique and "immersion" at the expense of frank discussion. This consensus-based model for analyzing social issues turned out to be pretty useful, and led (on a later Forgeite blog) to the Same Page Tool, much beloved by some of us here at RPG.SE as a way to prevent (or, in a pinch, resolve) table arguments during play by agreeing in advance on what a particular game and group are going for in terms of play style, fictional style, etc. Often just pointing out that there are different styles of play, all equally valid, is a real eye-opener and helps people work out their differences. (This model also leads to a tendency to advise that groups who aren't having fun together shouldn't play together, the appropriateness of which varies.)
A focus on specialization as an attempt to avoid such problems, based on the belief that the lack of agreement outlined above kept happening partly because mainstream RPGs, as designed and written, failed to provide sufficient clarity on several questions necessary for satisfying gameplay. The conclusion of this line of thinking, which is not universally accepted in the broader RPG community, went so far as to posit that even if a given set of players could theoretically enjoy different styles, a given game can only succeed by focusing on encouraging one type of play, with the alternative being "20 minutes of fun in 4 hours" as broader games attempt to alternate between the experiences that different players want but inevitably fail due to lack of coherence as different mechanics contradict each other.
So rather than having everyone get some of what they want, typical Forgeite games are narrowly focused on giving a certain type of player exactly what they want, under the theory that players who want something else can be elsewhere playing a different game that gives them exactly what they want. Even if those players are in fact the same people at different times or in different moods, the idea is that it's best if all the instructions and mechanics are tuned toward creating a particular experience so everyone knows exactly what they're signing up for. (Focus this tight tends to also lead to shorter games designed for one or a few sessions, not campaigns of many years; the variety comes from playing different games, not trying to create different experiences within the same game.)
The opposite philosophy, as implied by advice in the D&D 5E DMG and by the existence of "universal" RPGs, is that it is possible to give everyone what they want at once, even if they want different things, for example by having compelling character- or story-based reasons for getting into combat. This is sometimes called the "Big Tent" philosophy. In between, and probably more realistic than either, you have the idea that plenty of players enjoy several different aspects of play enough to make the game enjoyable overall, even if not every moment can be their favorite, and that this is sometimes necessary given the limited number of RPG players and GMs in most areas.
A number of indie RPGs, many of which took these ideas to heart and are highly focused in terms of play experience, setting, and genre. Less definitionally but as a broad pattern, a lot of them specifically focus on the Narrativist angle and player-driven storytelling, which had arguably been neglected. Either way, they tend to specify, or provide explicit tools for specifying, parts of the game experience and social contract that more mainstream games had left unsaid. Some of these have done pretty well, and Dogs in the Vineyard is a popular example. This author also argues (right before "What are the alternatives...") that this concept of specialization is also visible in D&D 4E, and even as 5th edition returns to being a broader game, there's a bit more explicit discussion of player types and motivations than there had been, suggesting that the influence of Forge theory isn't necessarily limited to the indie games created directly by forum participants.
The GNS Model (Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist) describing different creative agendas that players have and that are emphasized and supported more or less by different games and mechanics. There's plenty of related terminology like Participationism (players agreeing to follow along with a mostly-predetermined story) vs. Illusionism (the GM appearing to allow the players free choice, but actually shifting things around so that the players end up following the story anyway). Not all this terminology started there, but it was popularized and an attempt was made to assemble it into a coherent framework for understanding how RPGs fundamentally work (or don't).
A model for analyzing issues of group dynamics and other problems that crop up in RPGs. Fleshing out the concepts above naturally involved acknowledging that people play RPGs for different reasons and with different intents, which led to the idea that most problems and bad experiences with RPGs stem from a lack of agreement about what game is actually being played and what experience the players and GM are trying to create, aggravated by an emphasis on maintaining mystique and "immersion" at the expense of frank discussion. This consensus-based model for analyzing social issues turned out to be pretty useful, and led (on a later Forgeite blog) to the Same Page Tool, much beloved by some of us here at RPG.SE as a way to prevent (or, in a pinch, resolve) table arguments during play by agreeing in advance on what a particular game and group are going for in terms of play style, fictional style, etc. Often just pointing out that there are different styles of play, all equally valid, is a real eye-opener and helps people work out their differences. (This model also leads to a tendency to advise that groups who aren't having fun together shouldn't play together, the appropriateness of which varies.)
A focus on specialization as an attempt to avoid such problems, based on the belief that the lack of agreement outlined above kept happening partly because mainstream RPGs, as designed and written, failed to provide sufficient clarity on several questions necessary for satisfying gameplay. The conclusion of this line of thinking, which is not universally accepted in the broader RPG community, went so far as to posit that even if a given set of players could theoretically enjoy different styles, a given game can only succeed by focusing on encouraging one type of play, with the alternative being "20 minutes of fun in 4 hours" as broader games attempt to alternate between the experiences that different players want but inevitably fail due to lack of coherence as different mechanics contradict each other.
So rather than having everyone get some of what they want, typical Forgeite games are narrowly focused on giving a certain type of player exactly what they want, under the theory that players who want something else can be elsewhere playing a different game that gives them exactly what they want. Even if those players are in fact the same people at different times or in different moods, the idea is that it's best if all the instructions and mechanics are tuned toward creating a particular experience so everyone knows exactly what they're signing up for. (Focus this tight tends to also lead to shorter games designed for one or a few sessions, not campaigns of many years; the variety comes from playing different games, not trying to create different experiences within the same game.)
The opposite philosophy, as implied by advice in the D&D 5E DMG and by the existence of "universal" RPGs, is that it is possible to give everyone what they want at once, even if they want different things, for example by having compelling character- or story-based reasons for getting into combat. This is sometimes called the "Big Tent" philosophy. In between, and probably more realistic than either, you have the idea that plenty of players enjoy several different aspects of play enough to make the game enjoyable overall, even if not every moment can be their favorite, and that this is sometimes necessary given the limited number of RPG players and GMs in most areas.
A number of indie RPGs, many of which took these ideas to heart and are highly focused in terms of play experience, setting, and genre. Less definitionally but as a broad pattern, a lot of them specifically focus on the Narrativist angle and player-driven storytelling, which had arguably been neglected. Either way, they tend to specify, or provide explicit tools for specifying, parts of the game experience and social contract that more mainstream games had left unsaid. Some of these have done pretty well, and Dogs in the Vineyard is a popular example. This author also argues (right before "What are the alternatives...") that this concept of specialization is also visible in D&D 4E, and even as 5th edition returns to being a broader game, there's a bit more explicit discussion of player types and motivations than there had been, suggesting that the influence of Forge theory isn't necessarily limited to the indie games created directly by forum participants.
The GNS Model (Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist) describing different creative agendas that players have and that are emphasized and supported more or less by different games and mechanics. There's plenty of related terminology like Participationism (players agreeing to follow along with a mostly-predetermined story) vs. Illusionism (the GM appearing to allow the players free choice, but actually shifting things around so that the players end up following the story anyway). Not all this terminology started there, but it was popularized and an attempt was made to assemble it into a coherent framework for understanding how RPGs fundamentally work (or don't).
A model for analyzing issues of group dynamics and other problems that crop up in RPGs. Fleshing out the concepts above naturally involved acknowledging that people play RPGs for different reasons and with different intents, which led to the idea that most problems and bad experiences with RPGs stem from a lack of agreement about what game is actually being played and what experience the players and GM are trying to create, aggravated by an emphasis on maintaining mystique and "immersion" at the expense of frank discussion. This consensus-based model for analyzing social issues turned out to be pretty useful, and led (on a later Forgeite blog) to the Same Page Tool, much beloved by some of us here at RPG.SE as a way to prevent (or, in a pinch, resolve) table arguments during play by agreeing in advance on what a particular game and group are going for in terms of play style, fictional style, etc. Often just pointing out that there are different styles of play, all equally valid, is a real eye-opener and helps people work out their differences. (This model also leads to a tendency to advise that groups who aren't having fun together shouldn't play together, the appropriateness of which varies.)
A focus on specialization as an attempt to avoid such problems, based on the belief that the lack of agreement outlined above kept happening partly because mainstream RPGs, as designed and written, failed to provide sufficient clarity on several questions necessary for satisfying gameplay. The conclusion of this line of thinking, which is not universally accepted in the broader RPG community, went so far as to posit that even if a given set of players could theoretically enjoy different styles, a given game can only succeed by focusing on encouraging one type of play, with the alternative being "20 minutes of fun in 4 hours" as broader games attempt to alternate between the experiences that different players want but inevitably fail due to lack of coherence as different mechanics contradict each other.
So rather than having everyone get some of what they want, typical Forgeite games are narrowly focused on giving a certain type of player exactly what they want, under the theory that players who want something else can be elsewhere playing a different game that gives them exactly what they want. Even if those players are in fact the same people at different times or in different moods, the idea is that it's best if all the instructions and mechanics are tuned toward creating a particular experience so everyone knows exactly what they're signing up for. (Focus this tight tends to also lead to shorter games designed for one or a few sessions, not campaigns of many years; the variety comes from playing different games, not trying to create different experiences within the same game.)
The opposite philosophy, as implied by advice in the D&D 5E DMG and by the existence of "universal" RPGs, is that it is possible to give everyone what they want at once, even if they want different things, for example by having compelling character- or story-based reasons for getting into combat. This is sometimes called the "Big Tent" philosophy. In between, and probably more realistic than either, you have the idea that plenty of players enjoy several different aspects of play enough to make the game enjoyable overall, even if not every moment can be their favorite, and that this is sometimes necessary given the limited number of RPG players and GMs in most areas.
A number of indie RPGs, many of which took these ideas to heart and are highly focused in terms of play experience, setting, and genre. Less definitionally but as a broad pattern, a lot of them specifically focus on the Narrativist angle and player-driven storytelling, which had arguably been neglected. Either way, they tend to specify, or provide explicit tools for specifying, parts of the game experience and social contract that more mainstream games had left unsaid. Some of these have done pretty well, and Dogs in the Vineyard is a popular example. This author also argues (right before "What are the alternatives...") that this concept of specialization is also visible in D&D 4E, and even as 5th edition returns to being a broader game, there's a bit more explicit discussion of player types and motivations than there had been, suggesting that the influence of Forge theory isn't necessarily limited to the indie games created directly by forum participants.
The Forge was an RPG discussion forum with an emphasis on developing theories and terminology to describe RPGs in ways that allowed for both academic criticism, and practical advice to gamers and especially indie game designers. Setting aside some contentious personalities and statements, their main contribution to the RPG landscape seems to have been threefoldfourfold:
The GNS Model (Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist) describing different creative agendas that players have and that are emphasized and supported more or less by different games and mechanics. There's plenty of related terminology like Participationism (players agreeing to follow along with a mostly-predetermined story) vs. Illusionism (the GM appearing to allow the players free choice, but actually shifting things around so that the players end up following the story anyway). Not all this terminology started there, but it was popularized and an attempt was made to assemble it into a coherent framework for understanding how RPGs fundamentally work (or don't).
A strong emphasis on specializationmodel for analyzing issues of group dynamics based onand other problems that crop up in RPGs. Fleshing out the concepts above naturally involved acknowledging that people play RPGs for different reasons and with different intents, which led to the idea that most problems and bad experiences with RPGs stemmedstem from a lack of agreement about what game wasis actually being played and what experience the players and GM are trying to create, aggravated by an emphasis on maintaining mystique and "immersion" at the expense of frank discussion. This consensus-based model for analyzing social issues turned out to be pretty useful, and led (includingon a later Forgeite blog) to the GMSame Page Tool, much beloved by some of us here at RPG.SE as a way to prevent (or, in a pinch, resolve) were tryingtable arguments during play by agreeing in advance on what a particular game and group are going for in terms of play style, fictional style, etc. Often just pointing out that there are different styles of play, all equally valid, is a real eye-opener and helps people work out their differences. (This model also leads to createa tendency to advise that groups who aren't having fun together shouldn't play together, the appropriateness of which varies.)
A focus on specialization as an attempt to avoid such problems, based on the belief that the lack of agreement outlined above kept happening partly because mainstream RPGs, as designed and written, failed to provide sufficient clarity on several questions necessary for satisfying gameplay. The conclusion (though far fromof this line of thinking, which is not universally accepted) in the broader RPG community, went so far as to posit that even if a given set of players could theoretically enjoy different styles, a given game can only succeed by focusing on encouraging one type of play, with the alternative being "20 minutes of fun in 4 hours" as broader games attempt to alternate between the experiences that different players want but inevitably fail due to lack of coherence as different mechanics contradict each other.
So rather than having everyone get some of what they want, typical Forgeite games are narrowly focused on giving a certain type of player exactly what they want, under the theory that players who want something else can be elsewhere playing a different game that gives them exactly what they want. This philosophy eventually led to the creation (on a later Forgeite blog) ofEven if those players are in fact the Same Page Tool, much beloved by some of us heresame people at RPG.SE as a way to prevent (or,different times or in a pinchdifferent moods, resolve) table arguments during play by agreeing in advance on what a particular gamethe idea is that it's best if all the instructions and groupmechanics are goingtuned toward creating a particular experience so everyone knows exactly what they're signing up for in terms of play style, fictional style, etc. (ItFocus this tight tends to also ledlead to shorter games designed for one or a tendency to advise that groups who aren't having fun together shouldn't play togetherfew sessions, the appropriatenessnot campaigns of which variesmany years; the variety comes from playing different games, not trying to create different experiences within the same game.)
The opposite philosophy, as implied by advice in the D&D 5E DMG and by the existence of "universal" RPGs, is that it is possible to give everyone what they want at once, even if they want different things, for example by having compelling character- or story-based reasons for getting into combat. This is sometimes called the "Big Tent" philosophy. In between, and probably more realistic than either, you have the idea that plenty of players enjoy several different aspects of play enough to make the game enjoyable overall, even if not every moment can be their favorite, and that this is sometimes necessary given the finitelimited number of RPG players and GMs in manymost areas.
A number of indie RPGs, many of which took the idea of specializationthese ideas to heart and are highly focused in terms of play experience, setting, and genre. Less definitionally but as a broad pattern, a lot of them specifically focus on the Narrativist angle and player-driven storytelling, which had arguably been neglected. Either way, they tend to specify, or provide explicit tools for specifying, parts of the game experience and social contract that more mainstream games had left unsaid. Some of these have done pretty well, and Dogs in the Vineyard is a popular example. This author also argues (right before "What are the alternatives...") that this concept of specialization is also visible in D&D 4E, and even as 5th edition returns to being a broader game, there's a bit more explicit discussion of player types and motivations than there had been, suggesting that the influence of Forge theory isn't necessarily limited to the indie games created directly by forum participants.
The Forge was an RPG discussion forum with an emphasis on developing theories and terminology to describe RPGs in ways that allowed for both academic criticism, and practical advice to gamers and especially indie game designers. Setting aside some contentious personalities and statements, their main contribution to the RPG landscape seems to have been threefold:
The GNS Model (Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist) describing different creative agendas that players have and that are emphasized and supported more or less by different games and mechanics. There's plenty of related terminology like Participationism (players agreeing to follow along with a mostly-predetermined story) vs. Illusionism (the GM appearing to allow the players free choice, but actually shifting things around so that the players end up following the story anyway). Not all this terminology started there, but it was popularized and an attempt was made to assemble it into a coherent framework for understanding how RPGs fundamentally work (or don't).
A strong emphasis on specialization based on the idea that most problems and bad experiences with RPGs stemmed from a lack of agreement about what game was actually being played and what experience the players (including the GM) were trying to create. The conclusion (though far from universally accepted) went so far as to posit that even if players could enjoy different styles, a given game can only succeed by focusing on encouraging one type of play, with the alternative being "20 minutes of fun in 4 hours" as broader games attempt to alternate between the experiences that different players want but inevitably fail due to lack of coherence.
So rather than having everyone get some of what they want, Forgeite games are narrowly focused on giving a certain type of player exactly what they want, under the theory that players who want something else can be elsewhere playing a different game that gives them exactly what they want. This philosophy eventually led to the creation (on a later Forgeite blog) of the Same Page Tool, much beloved by some of us here at RPG.SE as a way to prevent (or, in a pinch, resolve) table arguments during play by agreeing in advance on what a particular game and group are going for in terms of play style, fictional style, etc. (It also led to a tendency to advise that groups who aren't having fun together shouldn't play together, the appropriateness of which varies.)
The opposite philosophy, as implied by advice in the D&D 5E DMG and by the existence of "universal" RPGs, is that it is possible to give everyone what they want at once, even if they want different things, for example by having compelling character- or story-based reasons for getting into combat. This is sometimes called the "Big Tent" philosophy. In between, and probably more realistic than either, you have the idea that plenty of players enjoy several different aspects of play enough to make the game enjoyable overall, even if not every moment can be their favorite, and that this is sometimes necessary given the finite number of RPG players and GMs in many areas.
A number of indie RPGs, many of which took the idea of specialization to heart and are highly focused in terms of play experience, setting, and genre. Less definitionally but as a broad pattern, a lot of them specifically focus on the Narrativist angle and player-driven storytelling, which had arguably been neglected. Some of these have done pretty well, and Dogs in the Vineyard is a popular example.
The Forge was an RPG discussion forum with an emphasis on developing theories and terminology to describe RPGs in ways that allowed for both academic criticism, and practical advice to gamers and especially indie game designers. Setting aside some contentious personalities and statements, their main contribution to the RPG landscape seems to have been fourfold:
The GNS Model (Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist) describing different creative agendas that players have and that are emphasized and supported more or less by different games and mechanics. There's plenty of related terminology like Participationism (players agreeing to follow along with a mostly-predetermined story) vs. Illusionism (the GM appearing to allow the players free choice, but actually shifting things around so that the players end up following the story anyway). Not all this terminology started there, but it was popularized and an attempt was made to assemble it into a coherent framework for understanding how RPGs fundamentally work (or don't).
A model for analyzing issues of group dynamics and other problems that crop up in RPGs. Fleshing out the concepts above naturally involved acknowledging that people play RPGs for different reasons and with different intents, which led to the idea that most problems and bad experiences with RPGs stem from a lack of agreement about what game is actually being played and what experience the players and GM are trying to create, aggravated by an emphasis on maintaining mystique and "immersion" at the expense of frank discussion. This consensus-based model for analyzing social issues turned out to be pretty useful, and led (on a later Forgeite blog) to the Same Page Tool, much beloved by some of us here at RPG.SE as a way to prevent (or, in a pinch, resolve) table arguments during play by agreeing in advance on what a particular game and group are going for in terms of play style, fictional style, etc. Often just pointing out that there are different styles of play, all equally valid, is a real eye-opener and helps people work out their differences. (This model also leads to a tendency to advise that groups who aren't having fun together shouldn't play together, the appropriateness of which varies.)
A focus on specialization as an attempt to avoid such problems, based on the belief that the lack of agreement outlined above kept happening partly because mainstream RPGs, as designed and written, failed to provide sufficient clarity on several questions necessary for satisfying gameplay. The conclusion of this line of thinking, which is not universally accepted in the broader RPG community, went so far as to posit that even if a given set of players could theoretically enjoy different styles, a given game can only succeed by focusing on encouraging one type of play, with the alternative being "20 minutes of fun in 4 hours" as broader games attempt to alternate between the experiences that different players want but inevitably fail due to lack of coherence as different mechanics contradict each other.
So rather than having everyone get some of what they want, typical Forgeite games are narrowly focused on giving a certain type of player exactly what they want, under the theory that players who want something else can be elsewhere playing a different game that gives them exactly what they want. Even if those players are in fact the same people at different times or in different moods, the idea is that it's best if all the instructions and mechanics are tuned toward creating a particular experience so everyone knows exactly what they're signing up for. (Focus this tight tends to also lead to shorter games designed for one or a few sessions, not campaigns of many years; the variety comes from playing different games, not trying to create different experiences within the same game.)
The opposite philosophy, as implied by advice in the D&D 5E DMG and by the existence of "universal" RPGs, is that it is possible to give everyone what they want at once, even if they want different things, for example by having compelling character- or story-based reasons for getting into combat. This is sometimes called the "Big Tent" philosophy. In between, and probably more realistic than either, you have the idea that plenty of players enjoy several different aspects of play enough to make the game enjoyable overall, even if not every moment can be their favorite, and that this is sometimes necessary given the limited number of RPG players and GMs in most areas.
A number of indie RPGs, many of which took these ideas to heart and are highly focused in terms of play experience, setting, and genre. Less definitionally but as a broad pattern, a lot of them specifically focus on the Narrativist angle and player-driven storytelling, which had arguably been neglected. Either way, they tend to specify, or provide explicit tools for specifying, parts of the game experience and social contract that more mainstream games had left unsaid. Some of these have done pretty well, and Dogs in the Vineyard is a popular example. This author also argues (right before "What are the alternatives...") that this concept of specialization is also visible in D&D 4E, and even as 5th edition returns to being a broader game, there's a bit more explicit discussion of player types and motivations than there had been, suggesting that the influence of Forge theory isn't necessarily limited to the indie games created directly by forum participants.
The Forge was an RPG discussion forum with an emphasis on developing theories and terminology to describe RPGs in ways that allowed for both academic criticism, and practical advice to gamers and especially indie game designers. Setting aside some contentious personalities and statements, their main contribution to the RPG landscape seems to have been threefold:
The GNS Model (Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist) describing different creative agendas that players have and that are emphasized and supported more or less by different games and mechanics. There's plenty of related terminology like Participationism (players agreeing to follow along with a mostly-predetermined story) vs. Illusionism (the GM appearing to allow the players free choice, but actually shifting things around so that the players end up following the story anyway). Not all this terminology started there, but it was popularized and an attempt was made to assemble it into a coherent framework for understanding how RPGs fundamentally work (or don't).
A strong emphasis on specialization based on the idea that most problems and bad experiences with RPGs stemmed from a lack of agreement about what game was actually being played and what experience the players (including the GM) were trying to create. The conclusion (though far from universally accepted) went so far as to posit that even if players could enjoy different styles, a given game can only succeed by focusing on encouraging one type of play, with the alternative being "20 minutes of fun in 4 hours" as broader games attempt to alternate between the experiences that different players want but inevitably fail due to lack of coherence.
So rather than having everyone get some of what they want, Forgeite games are narrowly focused on giving a certain type of player exactly what they want, under the theory that players who want something else can be elsewhere playing a different game that gives them exactly what they want. This philosophy eventually led to the creation (on a later Forgeite blog) of the Same Page Tool, much beloved by some of us here at RPG.SE as a way to prevent (or, in a pinch, resolve) table arguments during play by agreeing in advance on what a particular game and group are going for in terms of play style, fictional style, etc. (It also led to a tendency to advise that groups who aren't having fun together shouldn't play together, the appropriateness of which varies.)
The opposite philosophy, as implied by advice in the D&D 5E DMG and by the existence of "universal" RPGs, is that it is possible to give everyone what they want at once, even if they want different things, for example by having compelling character- or story-based reasons for getting into combat. This is sometimes called the "Big Tent" philosophy. In between, and probably more realistic than either, you have the idea that plenty of players enjoy several different aspects of play enough to make the game enjoyable overall, even if not every moment can be their favorite, and that this is sometimes necessary given the finite number of RPG players and GMs in many areas.
A number of indie RPGs, many of which took the idea of specialization to heart and are highly focused in terms of play experience, setting, and genre. ManyLess definitionally but as a broad pattern, a lot of thesethem specifically focus on the Narrativist angle and player-driven storytelling, which had arguably been neglected. Some of these have done pretty well., and Dogs in the Vineyard is a popular example.
The Forge was an RPG discussion forum with an emphasis on developing theories and terminology to describe RPGs in ways that allowed for both academic criticism, and practical advice to gamers and especially indie game designers. Setting aside some contentious personalities and statements, their main contribution to the RPG landscape seems to have been threefold:
The GNS Model (Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist) describing different creative agendas that players have and that are emphasized and supported more or less by different games and mechanics. There's plenty of related terminology like Participationism (players agreeing to follow along with a mostly-predetermined story) vs. Illusionism (the GM appearing to allow the players free choice, but actually shifting things around so that the players end up following the story anyway). Not all this terminology started there, but it was popularized and an attempt was made to assemble it into a coherent framework for understanding how RPGs fundamentally work (or don't).
A strong emphasis on specialization based on the idea that most problems and bad experiences with RPGs stemmed from a lack of agreement about what game was actually being played and what experience the players (including the GM) were trying to create. The conclusion (though far from universally accepted) went so far as to posit that even if players could enjoy different styles, a given game can only succeed by focusing on encouraging one type of play, with the alternative being "20 minutes of fun in 4 hours" as broader games attempt to alternate between the experiences that different players want but inevitably fail due to lack of coherence.
So rather than having everyone get some of what they want, Forgeite games are narrowly focused on giving a certain type of player exactly what they want, under the theory that players who want something else can be elsewhere playing a different game that gives them exactly what they want. This philosophy eventually led to the creation (on a later Forgeite blog) of the Same Page Tool, much beloved by some of us here at RPG.SE as a way to prevent (or, in a pinch, resolve) table arguments during play by agreeing in advance on what a particular game and group are going for in terms of play style, fictional style, etc. (It also led to a tendency to advise that groups who aren't having fun together shouldn't play together, the appropriateness of which varies.)
The opposite philosophy, as implied by advice in the D&D 5E DMG and by the existence of "universal" RPGs, is that it is possible to give everyone what they want at once, even if they want different things, for example by having compelling character- or story-based reasons for getting into combat. This is sometimes called the "Big Tent" philosophy. In between, and probably more realistic than either, you have the idea that plenty of players enjoy several different aspects of play enough to make the game enjoyable overall, even if not every moment can be their favorite, and that this is sometimes necessary given the finite number of RPG players and GMs in many areas.
A number of indie RPGs, many of which took the idea of specialization to heart and are highly focused in terms of play experience, setting, and genre. Many of these focus on the Narrativist angle and player-driven storytelling, which had arguably been neglected. Some of these have done pretty well. Dogs in the Vineyard is a popular example.
The Forge was an RPG discussion forum with an emphasis on developing theories and terminology to describe RPGs in ways that allowed for both academic criticism, and practical advice to gamers and especially indie game designers. Setting aside some contentious personalities and statements, their main contribution to the RPG landscape seems to have been threefold:
The GNS Model (Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist) describing different creative agendas that players have and that are emphasized and supported more or less by different games and mechanics. There's plenty of related terminology like Participationism (players agreeing to follow along with a mostly-predetermined story) vs. Illusionism (the GM appearing to allow the players free choice, but actually shifting things around so that the players end up following the story anyway). Not all this terminology started there, but it was popularized and an attempt was made to assemble it into a coherent framework for understanding how RPGs fundamentally work (or don't).
A strong emphasis on specialization based on the idea that most problems and bad experiences with RPGs stemmed from a lack of agreement about what game was actually being played and what experience the players (including the GM) were trying to create. The conclusion (though far from universally accepted) went so far as to posit that even if players could enjoy different styles, a given game can only succeed by focusing on encouraging one type of play, with the alternative being "20 minutes of fun in 4 hours" as broader games attempt to alternate between the experiences that different players want but inevitably fail due to lack of coherence.
So rather than having everyone get some of what they want, Forgeite games are narrowly focused on giving a certain type of player exactly what they want, under the theory that players who want something else can be elsewhere playing a different game that gives them exactly what they want. This philosophy eventually led to the creation (on a later Forgeite blog) of the Same Page Tool, much beloved by some of us here at RPG.SE as a way to prevent (or, in a pinch, resolve) table arguments during play by agreeing in advance on what a particular game and group are going for in terms of play style, fictional style, etc. (It also led to a tendency to advise that groups who aren't having fun together shouldn't play together, the appropriateness of which varies.)
The opposite philosophy, as implied by advice in the D&D 5E DMG and by the existence of "universal" RPGs, is that it is possible to give everyone what they want at once, even if they want different things, for example by having compelling character- or story-based reasons for getting into combat. This is sometimes called the "Big Tent" philosophy. In between, and probably more realistic than either, you have the idea that plenty of players enjoy several different aspects of play enough to make the game enjoyable overall, even if not every moment can be their favorite, and that this is sometimes necessary given the finite number of RPG players and GMs in many areas.
A number of indie RPGs, many of which took the idea of specialization to heart and are highly focused in terms of play experience, setting, and genre. Less definitionally but as a broad pattern, a lot of them specifically focus on the Narrativist angle and player-driven storytelling, which had arguably been neglected. Some of these have done pretty well, and Dogs in the Vineyard is a popular example.