|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 21, 2018 17:37:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Mar 21, 2018 19:24:52 GMT -5
There is no LIKE button large enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 21, 2018 20:58:30 GMT -5
Have an Exalt Rob, looking forward to reading the rest of the interview.
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Mar 22, 2018 14:12:56 GMT -5
Here's another exalt, for the interview AND for the DATG that arrived today! Gonna go sit down and read it now - Nice photo on the back! You're the one with the mustache, yes?
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 22, 2018 15:17:25 GMT -5
Here's another exalt, for the interview AND for the DATG that arrived today! Gonna go sit down and read it now - Nice photo on the back! You're the one with the mustache, yes? Good, Good and Yes (with "I hope so") If you have any questions about DATG just pipe in at one of the related threads in the DESIGN/D&D subsection. Also of note with the interview, seems that the poster UNKNOWN, there picked up on my faint description of DA's systems architecture real quick. That is encouraging as more and more people read the book it doesn't appear as dense as critics were initially trying to make it out to be. A French review is forthcoming and will be translated to English by Nathalie and posted at the blog. Also, I have been contacted by two scientists (biology & Anthropology, one sent me a copy of their anthropology of games book, gratis they were so impressed) who have given very high praise for the book. Come on RPGers, start learning about game systems, you only play them all the time.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Archivist on Mar 31, 2018 13:48:27 GMT -5
Here's another exalt, for the interview AND for the DATG that arrived today! Gonna go sit down and read it now - Nice photo on the back! You're the one with the mustache, yes? Good, Good and Yes (with "I hope so") If you have any questions about DATG just pipe in at one of the related threads in the DESIGN/D&D subsection. Also of note with the interview, seems that the poster UNKNOWN, there picked up on my faint description of DA's systems architecture real quick. That is encouraging as more and more people read the book it doesn't appear as dense as critics were initially trying to make it out to be. A French review is forthcoming and will be translated to English by Nathalie and posted at the blog. Also, I have been contacted by two scientists (biology & Anthropology, one sent me a copy of their anthropology of games book, gratis they were so impressed) who have given very high praise for the book. Come on RPGers, start learning about game systems, you only play them all the time. Thank you for the link and letting us know about the interview!! Have an Exalt from me as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2018 11:25:40 GMT -5
Come on RPGers, start learning about game systems, you only play them all the time. Most RPGers... including DESIGNERS... don't even understand GAMES, never mind game systems!  |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 6, 2018 12:23:25 GMT -5
Come on RPGers, start learning about game systems, you only play them all the time. Most RPGers... including DESIGNERS... don't even understand GAMES, never mind game systems! Well, OK, Kreskin Gronan, that ends the attempt then as everyone is not only a booger-eating moron but ignorant, non-creative and so forth, No one can think, nor are they interested, is next in line... Sheesh. I have hundreds of sales, the reviews and comments, the emails, which prove otherwise. It may not be a quorum, a majority, but even Von Neumann started somewhere, and we aren't talking about his category of mathematical genius here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2018 13:04:08 GMT -5
I think you misunderstand me. Players and those who wish to run games need to play more games. Even if one doesn't study systems and system design, simply playing a number of different games will give most people at least an intuitive feel for how elements of games work. Modern RPGs are frequently full of rules that are factually broken; that is, if you read the description of how the rule is supposed to work, the description is at odds with actual play. Dave, and Gary, and most if not all of the people involved in the early years of what became RPGs played a huge variety of games of a huge variety of types, and this informed everything they did. Analogy is always suspect, but sometimes it is useful. Before Gene Roddenberry created "Star Trek," he was ALREADY a successful television writer. Thus, he knew HOW TELEVISION WORKED. When "Pepsi Generation" and later "Star Trek" came along, it was placed into the hands of people who had grown up as "Star Trek" fans, but never learned to write for television. A great deal of later entrants into the "Star Trek" franchise are frankly dreadful (and often violate what Roddenberry wrote in the original "Writer's Guide" for the first series!). RPGs are in a similar state. D&D was originally inspired by books and stories, and then books and stories were written about D&D, and then D&D attempted to model the books about D&D, then more books came modeling D&D, then D&D changed... etc. D&D is about to disappear up its own butt. And most RPGs are in a similar situation; the people writing the games simply do not understand basics of HOW GAMES WORK. So, you see, I was AGREEING with you. But now you made me cry.  |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 6, 2018 13:21:27 GMT -5
I think you misunderstand me. Players and those who wish to run games need to play more games. Even if one doesn't study systems and system design, simply playing a number of different games will give most people at least an intuitive feel for how elements of games work. Modern RPGs are frequently full of rules that are factually broken; that is, if you read the description of how the rule is supposed to work, the description is at odds with actual play. Dave, and Gary, and most if not all of the people involved in the early years of what became RPGs played a huge variety of games of a huge variety of types, and this informed everything they did. Analogy is always suspect, but sometimes it is useful. Before Gene Roddenberry created "Star Trek," he was ALREADY a successful television writer. Thus, he knew HOW TELEVISION WORKED. When "Pepsi Generation" and later "Star Trek" came along, it was placed into the hands of people who had grown up as "Star Trek" fans, but never learned to write for television. A great deal of later entrants into the "Star Trek" franchise are frankly dreadful (and often violate what Roddenberry wrote in the original "Writer's Guide" for the first series!). RPGs are in a similar state. D&D was originally inspired by books and stories, and then books and stories were written about D&D, and then D&D attempted to model the books about D&D, then more books came modeling D&D, then D&D changed... etc. D&D is about to disappear up its own butt. And most RPGs are in a similar situation; the people writing the games simply do not understand basics of HOW GAMES WORK. So, you see, I was AGREEING with you. But now you made me cry. Well, there are currently at least six theories regarding RPGs (at Wikipedia no less) BUT do note that they are, ALL of THEM, contingent upon the idea that there was no change in systems (from open to closed, from OD&D/FFC to AD&D/CURRNT groupings). So what is missing here is not an understanding of game systems (it is really easy to understand the zero-sum model even in its altered form via Rules<>Adventure complicity), but the complete picture. The problem path is, as I noted in DATG, that there was a change and that the views, whether theory, design and/or play have all been exclusively concentrated on the latter (closed) form alone, with the misunderstanding that this is what it was at the beginning and thus by extenuation what it is now. WRONG. The solution is to note the differences in system qualities (as I did in DATG) to conclude not only what a RPG is (seemingly missed by the readers as I have answered that age-old question, finally) but also to forward a new starting point before the redaction occurred; and to thus continue to iterate the concept so that its extensibility (and the language it uses) can manifest, just as the language manifested for game theory, which is what all games preceding D&D used as a common denominator. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 6, 2018 15:14:17 GMT -5
Most RPGers... including DESIGNERS... don't even understand GAMES, never mind game systems! Well, OK, Kreskin Gronan, that ends the attempt then as everyone is not only a booger-eating moron but ignorant, non-creative and so forth, No one can think, nor are they interested, is next in line... Sheesh. I have hundreds of sales, the reviews and comments, the emails, which prove otherwise. It may not be a quorum, a majority, but even Von Neumann started somewhere, and we aren't talking about his category of mathematical genius here. As long as the most prominent voices in the "old school D&D world" continue to claim that to play like Dave (and Gary and Rob) did back in the beginning His requirements are a strawman and none of those things is necessary. Almost any ref could pull it off if he has not been convinced to not even try. That is not the reason the paradigm shifted. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Apr 6, 2018 16:03:32 GMT -5
Well, OK, Kreskin Gronan, that ends the attempt then as everyone is not only a booger-eating moron but ignorant, non-creative and so forth, No one can think, nor are they interested, is next in line... Sheesh. I have hundreds of sales, the reviews and comments, the emails, which prove otherwise. It may not be a quorum, a majority, but even Von Neumann started somewhere, and we aren't talking about his category of mathematical genius here. As long as the most prominent voices in the "old school D&D world" continue to claim that to play like Dave (and Gary and Rob) did back in the beginning His requirements are a strawman and none of those things is necessary. Almost any ref could pull it off if he has not been convinced to not even try. That is not the reason the paradigm shifted. My lead in quote from NEIGD's chapter: "The Need for Standardization and the Closed Model?" ©2013-2018 RJ Kuntz. All Rights Reserved. (I might post this chapter in my Design sub-forum, but for now the quote which relates to why the paradigm shifted): Like resilience, self-organization is often sacrificed for purposes of short-term productivity and stability. Productivity and stability are the usual excuses for turning creative human beings into mechanical adjuncts to production processes. – Donella H. Meadows, Thinking in Systems
|
|
