|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 7, 2017 21:11:37 GMT -5
Thanks for your response, Perilous. Thank you, I am happy to see you in this thread. 3. Games are manifested actualities, neither fiction nor nonfiction. And making stuff up is strictly against the rules for a referee. They enforce the rules. They aren't players. The first sentence I am not sure what you are saying. Are you talking about games as in the rulebooks or are you talking about the play of the game and the interaction of the referee and the players in the imaginary world the referee creates? The second sentence I do not agree with. As the referee at least as I understand OD&D and have refereed for the last 42 years making stuff up is my job both before and during the game. My impression and belief is that I ref like what I have heard of Arneson (although not with his skill and talent) and I also ref a lot like I have heard of Hargrave of Arduin fame, I carry most of the rules I use and how I implement them around in my head and I create on the fly as I noted up thread, if my players see ten portals outlined faintly in the air in front of them there are created in my mind as I describe the portals (mine usually differ in color and other particulars) behind each one a world springs into being and I can see the planet rotating in space, the continents and islands, the oceans and deserts etc. Each one completely different with different adventures to be had on each one. If they choose to go through a portal, (and my players usually do) it is not a case of the same adventure no matter which one they choose, it is a true choice between completely different unknown to them adventures. My mind is filling with descriptions of each and more. When they make a choice my focus coalesces around the one they chose and the game continues. In the game on the fly I can do this and always have from the first time I refereed till now. Prep work before hand is labor, creating on the fly is bliss. At times over the years, I have run my game with no written material at all. The players roll to hit and I tell them if they did without looking at a table. Not one of my players have ever complained even once when I ran a game night like that. Virtually all of my magic items are unique and one of a kind. Sometimes they are small mundane looking items, but my players have learned something that looks very insignificant might be very valuable and useful. So I do not understand what you are getting at. I (the ref) am a player, I am the neutral arbiter that runs the imaginary world of my completely own unique creation (with all of the influences that have accrued in my life) and enables the imaginary world and its non-player characters and monsters, etc. to interact with the player characters without bias in favor of one or the other to the best of my ability. I don't work against the players to keep them from messing anything up, because everything they do becomes part of the reality of the imaginary world and part of the time line of its history. I play the monsters and NPCs as though they are player characters i.e. they do not win because they are omniscience or because they are made all powerful and they do not lose because I play them foolish and stupid. I play them like they are trying to survive and win within the capabilities I give them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 22:07:09 GMT -5
" making stuff up is strictly against the rules for a referee" is the actual opposite of the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 8, 2017 1:25:55 GMT -5
All this proves is that those in the threads, there, excepting for Alderron, do not understand what these are: mechanics, design, iterating, a self-evolving system, design phase states, as well as lacking the ability to understand that Arneson transmitted the system orally, by sustained play throughput, and by notation which in turn defined the initial conditions of his architecture. These were subsequently and effectively transmitted to both his group of players for 1.5 years and to us, the LGTSA, the latter in one sitting! Yep. There was no "understandable" system! Righto. Why? As it was not "codified," so is it "the" system? What does "the" mean in this instance to a designer who is in the process of iterating a self-evolving, complex system that has no end? Nothing. So, according to Simon in my book: “...It is also beside the point to ask whether the later stages of the devel- opment were consistent with the initial one whether the original designs were realized. Each step of implementation created a new situation; and the new situation provided a starting point for fresh design activity. “Making complex designs that are implemented over a long period of time and continually modified in the course of implementation has much in common with painting in oil. In oil painting every new spot of pig- ment laid on the canvas creates some kind of pattern that provides a continuing source of new ideas to the painter. The painting process is a process of cyclical interaction between painter and canvas in which cur- rent goals lead to new applications of paint, while the gradually changing pattern suggests new goals. “The Starting Point “The idea of final goals is inconsistent with our limited ability to foretell or determine the future. The real result of our actions is to establish initial conditions for the next succeeding stage of action.” [emphasis added]33 This additionally proves that Arneson was a designer who understood what type of design he had before him, and that they do not understand even that. That Gary also comprehended his prototype so readily from the same information must also burst some brains for those who would attempt to construe this as anything but their own lack of design insights and procedures. Now onto my first cup! |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 8, 2017 8:29:34 GMT -5
Here is another tangentially related thread over on ODD74, it is an analysis of the Fantasy Combat Table in Chainmail, the main discussion is between waysoftheearth and aldarron, quite interesting! FCT re-ordered |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 8, 2017 9:10:43 GMT -5
" making stuff up is strictly against the rules for a referee" is the actual opposite of the truth. Which why I criticize organized play whenever a publisher lets it infect the core product like it did with 3.5 and especially 4th edition. I have no problem with people wanting to play organized play but the things it does in order to run what it in essence a campaign with hundreds of DMs and thousands of players hopping around from event to event, it totally antithetical to the spirit of a traditional tabletop roleplaying campaign. Back in the day in my town campaign hopping started out as the norm. But it quickly broke down due to the creative differences between different campaigns. Which in my book is a good thing but that mean that different referee were doing their own thing the way they saw fit. Creativity means that people are NOT marching lockstep with each other. This issue is also the reason I gravitated toward the OD&D side of classic D&D rather than the AD&D I started out with. Because very quickly I realized that AD&D was developed in part in response to the demands of organized play (i.e. convention tournaments) while OD&D developed in the way I like to do for my own campaigns through actual play. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 8, 2017 9:29:39 GMT -5
Okay, another thought that will be unpopular.
If we all agree that the conceptual framework of Blackmoor did not survive the early stages of D&D, that it was present in D&D but disappeared as TSR commercialized the game, then aren't we saying that Arneson's genius breakthrough is not the wildly popular thing we call role-playing games?
D&D Third Edition and its variants are popular. D&D Fifth Edition is current, and so popular. The original Advanced D&D, Gygax's admitted standardization of the rules, is popular among gamers who like the older rules. There are tons of other games out there with dizzyingly different rules and procedures, with varying levels of adherence to those rules required. This is the phenomenon of the RPG, and it has been happening since the late '70s.
How many people today run campaigns using the open and evolving architecture of Blackmoor? Vanishingly few, seemingly.
So wouldn't it be accurate to say that the breakthrough of Blackmoor was only a stepping-stone to the actual phenomenon, that of the closed, commercial RPG systems that nearly everyone plays? When Wizards of the Coast gives most of the credit to Gygax, isn't that essentially correct? The hugely successful thing their players are playing most closely resembles the commercial aspirations of Gygax, rather than the open and evolving systems of Arneson.
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 8, 2017 9:32:23 GMT -5
The first sentence I am not sure what you are saying. Are you talking about games as in the rulebooks or are you talking about the play of the game and the interaction of the referee and the players in the imaginary world the referee creates? Neither. I'm talking about the design of the game to be manifested before it can be played. Like the starting and finish lines of a race or bases in baseball. The D&D map or game board representing the game environment and all game objects upon it. We completely disagree here. I don't think OD&D or AD&D was designed to support what you're talking about. I don't want to antagonize your lifelong hobby. So please take this in good graces: Couldn't you simply improvise everything without using any game system or procedural rules? What would be the difference? What do you think you are gaining? And what makes that improvising a game and not a story? I think DATG is suggesting D&D is description wedded to system design learned through play, through the discovery of its operation. I attest, all games require a preexisting design to be able to game them. Experienced players can than play them skillfully. Whether the design is hidden, as in D&D RPGs and computer games, or not. I am glad to hear form robertsconley , but I do not want my ideas to interfere with the thread. We can all talk elsewhere, but I don't know if how fruitful it may be for you. Really, I'd rather keep this thread about DATG. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 8, 2017 9:44:29 GMT -5
Okay, another thought that will be unpopular. If we all agree that the conceptual framework of Blackmoor did not survive the early stages of D&D, that it was present in D&D but disappeared as TSR commercialized the game, then aren't we saying that Arneson's genius breakthrough is not the wildly popular thing we call role-playing games? D&D Third Edition and its variants are popular. D&D Fifth Edition is current, and so popular. The original Advanced D&D, Gygax's admitted standardization of the rules, is popular among gamers who like the older rules. There are tons of other games out there with dizzyingly different rules and procedures, with varying levels of adherence to those rules required. This is the phenomenon of the RPG, and it has been happening since the late '70s. How many people today run campaigns using the open and evolving architecture of Blackmoor? Vanishingly few, seemingly. So wouldn't it be accurate to say that the breakthrough of Blackmoor was only a stepping-stone to the actual phenomenon, that of the closed, commercial RPG systems that nearly everyone plays? When Wizards of the Coast gives most of the credit to Gygax, isn't that essentially correct? The hugely successful thing their players are playing most closely resembles the commercial aspirations of Gygax, rather than the open and evolving systems of Arneson. I explain this in the first essay of my book and would rather not duplicate it here. Suffice to day that it was wildly popular and then was cut for a marketing model which is quite different, and you are left with the latter only. TSR did not cut it because it was not doing well, they cut it to get into the mass market with the redacted version. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 8, 2017 10:10:59 GMT -5
For those that don't know about it a great source of information and analysis is Hidden in Shadows, aldarron's blog and it has been around since Tuesday, July 26, 2011 and a very good resource with well-thought out and researched posts. I think it is useful reading to go along with " Dave Arneson's True Genius". (As a side note, aldarron is a well-educated professional, and in an interview in relation to his day job he said this: I found this quote very interesting, as I recently read about some studies (sorry that I do not have the link) that did a lot of research into the difference between hand writing, printing and typing information. They found a significant difference in both the amount of brain activity and the total number of areas of the brain involved, the most of both occurring with hand writing and the least with printing and typing being the same. One of the conclusions they drew from the studies was that creativity and understanding were both greatly enhanced when hand writing was employed.) |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 8, 2017 10:40:22 GMT -5
Suffice to day that it was wildly popular and then was cut for a marketing model which is quite different, and you are left with the latter only. TSR did not cut it because it was not doing well, they cut it to get into the mass market with the redacted version. But they DID cut it, so the thing that people have been playing, the thing that everyone loves to play, is not the thing Arneson invented. It's kind of like the argument about whether Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. There's real reason to question whether the guy named Shakespeare actually wrote the stuff with his name on it, but the question itself may be meaningless. People don't think of the actual man called Shakespeare when they think of the playwright; they think of the guy who wrote those plays, who is identified by the name Shakespeare—whoever he was. Did the guy who wrote Shakespeare actually write Shakespeare? Yes. Was that guy Shakespeare? Dunno, doesn't matter, because the guy who DID write Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. I'll take your word for it that you address this in your book, and I hope someday I'll have a chance to read it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 8, 2017 11:18:28 GMT -5
Okay, another thought that will be unpopular. If we all agree that the conceptual framework of Blackmoor did not survive the early stages of D&D, that it was present in D&D but disappeared as TSR commercialized the game, then aren't we saying that Arneson's genius breakthrough is not the wildly popular thing we call role-playing games? I don't think RPGs are considered wildly popular anymore. I think nowadays they are coasting on the wild success they had in the 70s and 80s. For Wotc D&D is peanuts compared to their CCG business for example (last numbers I saw were like 25M for rpgs, 525M for CCGs). Kuntz talks about reasons for this decline in his book. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 8, 2017 11:40:48 GMT -5
If we all agree that the conceptual framework of Blackmoor did not survive the early stages of D&D, that it was present in D&D but disappeared as TSR commercialized the game, then aren't we saying that Arneson's genius breakthrough is not the wildly popular thing we call role-playing games? Well this probably be even more unpopular. The conceptual framework of Blackmoor did survive the development of D&D and commercialization of tabletop role-playing. Because the fundamental foundations developed by Dave Arneson are that resilient. Once you start focusing on have players interacting with a setting as their character with their actions adjudicated by a referee it is very hard to knock off course. The only way to even being attempt to limit what Dave Arneson develop is to limit the scope of what you cover in your RPG. Even then it takes a really drastic pruning until the resulting game is enterily deflected from what Dave developed. Let's take AD&D. We are well aware that among the reasons for its development was to standardize rules to stem the barrage of questions TSR was getting and to handle tournament play better. As result we all read various articles that were in Gygax's "corporate" voice. Yet despite all that the default in my neck of the woods was to run campaigns with AD&D stuff (classes, monsters, magic items, spells, etc) when combat and other adjudication handled in the style of B/X or OD&D. Decades later with the rise of story games with campaigns focused on narratives the best they were able to manage was to present games that would amount to a campaign supplement or a long adventure in a traditional RPGs. Their rules focus only one what needed to handle the situation being covered. For example Dogs in the Vineyard is about Mormon troubleshooters called Dogs going around Utah fighting a variety of supernatural and mundane threats in the Old West. For another interesting example, in D&D 4th edition, the corebooks are a traditional roleplaying game. In the 4e Dungeon Master's Guide you will find the same advice on making the campaign your own as many other RPGs. Where D&D 4e goes off the rails that Arneson put down is in its supplements and adventures. For a long time while it was being published the supplemental material and editorial content made D&D 4e like a boardgame focused on individual combat. A fantasy version of a game like Battletech where the point is to fight out a variety of scenario. It got the point where I could predict to the minute the beats of a convention/game store D&D 4e adventure. In a four hour period you had a intro where a little bit of roleplaying went on, the first combat scenario, then a interlude with a few minutes of roleplaying, a second larger combat scenario, and finally a wrap up. The combat scenarios would take an hour to an hour and a half to resolve. This resulted from the designers of D&D 4e going overboard on the game aspect of tabletop roleplaying. Sending the game back all the way prior to Dave's Blackmoor campaign but without the creative stew that was going on at the time. At this point I will note to establish a firm case for my thesis at the level of Jon's or Rob's work I would have to pull in a lot more examples and properly source the example I use. I writing this in the context of a back and forth forum discussion hence only three examples are given. I hope you trust my work enough to give me the benefit of the doubt. But in a separate thread I will be glad to walk through the elements of my thesis. So why is Dave's vision so resilient? Because it involves the judgment of a human referee. Something that until the past decade and a half RPGs always incorporated. Most people when confronted with somebody telling them what to do with their leisure time go "OK that nice but you know what I got my own ideas on the matter." Now I will say that the default is that referee will pull most of what they use from a single rule system like OD&D, AD&D 1st, or D&D 5th. But most is not all and for the rest they kitbash whatever they want. You can tell when a referee is doing then when you hear "Nah that stupid how they do it, here what I do." and they proceed to tell you of their modification. Usually it just one or two area of their chosen rule system but some referee do wholesale changes as well. In trying to focus on the narrative this was a problem for storygames. Their solution was remove the ability of the campaign's referee to have the final word on ruling and made adjudication a collabration. The referee is in storygames is more of chairman of a committee rather than impartial referee. To summarize, Dave's Arneson vision survived the commercialization of tabletop roleplaying. Limits were not imposed by the system being published but rather by the promotion of the game and opinion written by the publisher. These were largely ineffectual until the 2000's when a series of RPGs that were drastically limited in scope started to be published. The marketing of these games as RPG 2.0 or a more "advanced" version of RPGs marks the first real threat to what Dave Arneson created. This development could have been a major issue for Dave's legacy. But it was spiked because of open content. Namely the market war between Pathfinder as a successor to 3.X and D&D 4e which D&D 4e lost. Continued use of open content for RPGs has pulled any threat to Dave's legacy moot. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 8, 2017 11:42:11 GMT -5
As far as I can tell, Dave Arneson came from competitive strategy games where players controlled multiple pieces and referees either only or primarily enforced rules and he didn't invert the central behavior of gaming (as improv storytelling "games" do), but expanded it to everything imaginable from a single person-centered point-of-view. By my understanding here are some of the basics of what must be in his architecture: 1. Instead of controlling troops, players controlled a single figure, their misnomered "character". 2. Instead of competing against the other players, the game promoted cooperative play by balancing the design towards it. - In other words, players succeeded alone or cooperatively, but stategically speaking cooperation was the best course for long term, high scoring success. 3. Like competitive games Players were still scored separately, but could share scoring when accomplishing objectives together. 4. Instead of static ability for gaming pieces, each "character" advanced in game abilities as higher point totals were achieved. - This drove players' natural instincts to win towards scoring points, so they could go up in level and accomplish even greater achievements in the game. 5. Instead of everyone playing for the same strategic goals, each player and their character focused on one of the mechanically supported classes - a set of character abilities specialized and advanced in. - By supporting multiple goal focuses and scopes within the game, players were put into the position of needing to cooperate with others even though each one's greatest success could depend upon achieving different accomplishments. - Also, while this eponymous characteristic did not define the entirety of Arneson's unique game architecture, it is why we call it a roleplaying game. 6. Instead of the players knowing the rules leading to a highly deductive affair, the procedural rule systems were hidden, never told to the players, yet still being enforced by the referee following them - leading to a highly rewarding inductive game for the players. 7. Instead of the gameboard or sand table shown to the players, the "map" was hidden and described to the players according to their characters abilities to sense it - thus making memory and note taking a major aspect of play. 8. Instead of being a finite game with a bordered field of play and game pieces set out in balanced positions between two or more competing players, the hidden map and components could be expanded in any direction and the opposing challenges were rated for difficulty and reward if overcome. - This means, there was no loss of strategic consequences when the game pieces would normally have moved off the board and a second game design begun, as in many "best of series" games. Instead, the importance of the first action in the game will still matter even upon the last action in the campaign. ...Ugh. Tons more I'm sure, but I'm interested in hearing if some of these are considered mechanical or architectural, essential or nonessential. I'm starting to think the merger of the open unstructured play of children with the closed model of a standard game is the most essential aspect of an RPG. I'm guessing that's why Kuntz listed it first on his 26 leaps of arneson... |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 8, 2017 11:43:23 GMT -5
Suffice to day that it was wildly popular and then was cut for a marketing model which is quite different, and you are left with the latter only. TSR did not cut it because it was not doing well, they cut it to get into the mass market with the redacted version. But they DID cut it, so the thing that people have been playing, the thing that everyone loves to play, is not the thing Arneson invented. It's kind of like the argument about whether Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. There's real reason to question whether the guy named Shakespeare actually wrote the stuff with his name on it, but the question itself may be meaningless. People don't think of the actual man called Shakespeare when they think of the playwright; they think of the guy who wrote those plays, who is identified by the name Shakespeare—whoever he was. Did the guy who wrote Shakespeare actually write Shakespeare? Yes. Was that guy Shakespeare? Dunno, doesn't matter, because the guy who DID write Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. I'll take your word for it that you address this in your book, and I hope someday I'll have a chance to read it. Yes, it is a redacted version of it. The architecture is the same, its implementation is through the premade interface exclusively under the mass marketing model. This only minimized the return value from his impacts by making it almost exclusively an entertainment model. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 8, 2017 11:44:25 GMT -5
Okay, another thought that will be unpopular. If we all agree that the conceptual framework of Blackmoor did not survive the early stages of D&D, that it was present in D&D but disappeared as TSR commercialized the game, then aren't we saying that Arneson's genius breakthrough is not the wildly popular thing we call role-playing games? I don't think RPGs are considered wildly popular anymore. I think nowadays they are coasting on the wild success they had in the 70s and 80s. For Wotc D&D is peanuts compared to their CCG business for example (last numbers I saw were like 25M for rpgs, 525M for CCGs). Kuntz talks about reasons for this decline in his book. You are correct however remember that the past decade has been a 2nd golden age for boardgames (Carssonae (sp?), Settlers of Catan, etc). What I been seeing in game stores in my area is a small but steady stream of younger gamers trying out tabletop roleplaying because of these. RPGs are part of gaming, they see the organized play groups, and they start looking into it. The key to move them further into the RPG hobby is to have older gamers involved in the local gaming community. Which is why I run game store session once a month or so. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 8, 2017 11:50:38 GMT -5
As far as I can tell, Dave Arneson came from competitive strategy games where players controlled multiple pieces and referees either only or primarily enforced rules and he didn't invert the central behavior of gaming (as improv storytelling "games" do), but expanded it to everything imaginable from a single person-centered point-of-view. By my understanding here are some of the basics of what must be in his architecture: 1. Instead of controlling troops, players controlled a single figure, their misnomered "character". 2. Instead of competing against the other players, the game promoted cooperative play by balancing the design towards it. - In other words, players succeeded alone or cooperatively, but stategically speaking cooperation was the best course for long term, high scoring success. 3. Like competitive games Players were still scored separately, but could share scoring when accomplishing objectives together. 4. Instead of static ability for gaming pieces, each "character" advanced in game abilities as higher point totals were achieved. - This drove players' natural instincts to win towards scoring points, so they could go up in level and accomplish even greater achievements in the game. 5. Instead of everyone playing for the same strategic goals, each player and their character focused on one of the mechanically supported classes - a set of character abilities specialized and advanced in. - By supporting multiple goal focuses and scopes within the game, players were put into the position of needing to cooperate with others even though each one's greatest success could depend upon achieving different accomplishments. - Also, while this eponymous characteristic did not define the entirety of Arneson's unique game architecture, it is why we call it a roleplaying game. 6. Instead of the players knowing the rules leading to a highly deductive affair, the procedural rule systems were hidden, never told to the players, yet still being enforced by the referee following them - leading to a highly rewarding inductive game for the players. 7. Instead of the gameboard or sand table shown to the players, the "map" was hidden and described to the players according to their characters abilities to sense it - thus making memory and note taking a major aspect of play. 8. Instead of being a finite game with a bordered field of play and game pieces set out in balanced positions between two or more competing players, the hidden map and components could be expanded in any direction and the opposing challenges were rated for difficulty and reward if overcome. - This means, there was no loss of strategic consequences when the game pieces would normally have moved off the board and a second game design begun, as in many "best of series" games. Instead, the importance of the first action in the game will still matter even upon the last action in the campaign. ...Ugh. Tons more I'm sure, but I'm interested in hearing if some of these are considered mechanical or architectural, essential or nonessential. I'm starting to think the merger of the open unstructured play of children with the closed model of a standard game is the most essential aspect of an RPG. I'm guessing that's why Kuntz listed it first on his 26 leaps of arneson... Well it's true, as I had pre-noted that merger on pages preceding the list. In essay three, Accounting of Arneson's Conceptual Interface also extended it. And it is described in essay 2 as the primary part of the general two-part architecture. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 8, 2017 11:58:12 GMT -5
I don't think RPGs are considered wildly popular anymore. I think nowadays they are coasting on the wild success they had in the 70s and 80s. For Wotc D&D is peanuts compared to their CCG business for example (last numbers I saw were like 25M for rpgs, 525M for CCGs). Kuntz talks about reasons for this decline in his book. You are correct however remember that the past decade has been a 2nd golden age for boardgames (Carssonae (sp?), Settlers of Catan, etc). What I been seeing in game stores in my area is a small but steady stream of younger gamers trying out tabletop roleplaying because of these. RPGs are part of gaming, they see the organized play groups, and they start looking into it. The key to move them further into the RPG hobby is to have older gamers involved in the local gaming community. Which is why I run game store session once a month or so. The reason that board games are doing well is because they have become more innovative in design than RPGs, the latter which are stuck in the same design-to-marketing cycle for too long. In fact I have myself moved back to designing boardgames with two around the corner within the next year. This is even more true in Europe. Until RPGs innovate (which I am not seeing the sparks of to date) they will decline as CRPG continues to replace them. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 8, 2017 12:12:54 GMT -5
Is your list entirely in order of importance? I'm thinking we can use it to arrive at the minimum requirements of an RPG. The hybrid aspect is not enough- charades would meet that requirement I would think
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 8, 2017 12:23:36 GMT -5
Is your list entirely in order of importance? I'm thinking we can use it to arrive at the minimum requirements of an RPG. The hybrid aspect is not enough- charades would meet that requirement I would think Somewhat, it was more just as I deduced them, but without the conceptual/creative part of the architecture the game would not be what we first characterized as a RPG. Perhaps it would be better tif you and I take this out of the thread for discussion. Every time something is posted here I feel as though I have to respond to it immediately. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 8, 2017 12:47:38 GMT -5
Is your list entirely in order of importance? I'm thinking we can use it to arrive at the minimum requirements of an RPG. The hybrid aspect is not enough- charades would meet that requirement I would think Somewhat, it was more just as I deduced them, but without the conceptual/creative part of the architecture the game would not be what we first characterized as a RPG. Perhaps it would be better tif you and I take this out of the thread for discussion. Every time something is posted here I feel as though I have to respond to it immediately. LOL I know the feeling, I was feeling that way last week. Here I am watching my daughter play in the park with only my phone and this interesting idea howandwhy99 proposed, musing out loud with neither your book nor other suitable materials to aggressively tackle it. Sorry about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 8, 2017 13:00:36 GMT -5
The first sentence I am not sure what you are saying. Are you talking about games as in the rulebooks or are you talking about the play of the game and the interaction of the referee and the players in the imaginary world the referee creates? Neither. I'm talking about the design of the game to be manifested before it can be played. Like the starting and finish lines of a race or bases in baseball. The D&D map or game board representing the game environment and all game objects upon it. Ah, I would understand this as my saying to the players, "You were here (where ever here happened to be) when we concluded our last game night and so we will pick up here where you left off." Which would define the starting point and something similar for defining the starting point of a new campaign. We completely disagree here. I don't think OD&D or AD&D was designed to support what you're talking about. I don't want to antagonize your lifelong hobby. So please take this in good graces: Couldn't you simply improvise everything without using any game system or procedural rules? What would be the difference? What do you think you are gaining? And what makes that improvising a game and not a story? Improvising is not a story since it is in no sense a railroad without real choices for the players. The re-telling of the players action and the refs re-actions and vice versa after the fact is when it becomes a story and only after the fact. IF the story comes first you have a railroad aka play or novel not a game. Also the thing that makes Blackmoor/OD&D special is that you can play it without access to the rulebook, if it is desired or necessary. Since Dave and Gary both improvised, I think it is a bit off to argue that OD&D was not designed to support it. I think DATG is suggesting D&D is description wedded to system design learned through play, through the discovery of its operation. I attest, all games require a preexisting design to be able to game them. Experienced players can than play them skillfully. Whether the design is hidden, as in D&D RPGs and computer games, or not. I am glad to hear form robertsconley , but I do not want my ideas to interfere with the thread. We can all talk elsewhere, but I don't know if how fruitful it may be for you. Really, I'd rather keep this thread about DATG. IF you have a thread title in mind, pm me and I will start a new thread.  |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 8, 2017 13:09:49 GMT -5
Somewhat, it was more just as I deduced them, but without the conceptual/creative part of the architecture the game would not be what we first characterized as a RPG. Perhaps it would be better tif you and I take this out of the thread for discussion. Every time something is posted here I feel as though I have to respond to it immediately. LOL I know the feeling, I was feeling that way last week. Here I am watching my daughter play in the park with only my phone and this interesting idea howandwhy99 proposed, musing out loud with neither your book nor other suitable materials to aggressively tackle it. Sorry about that. What he notes is covered under variations in the open system nature of the game idea; as is noted by the fact that a story game version (Vampire for instance) is still a RPG. The interesting factor about the creative component is that these "variants" that Gary proposed (in A&E #2) can be iterated into full blown versions of new games, as we essentially have a self-evolving editable "framework". Thus stepping it in time within the current framework or stepping outside to create, in essence, a promoted form or a lateral shift, depending on the design trajectory one takes. Most iterations on this board, for example, are promotions, as they do not attain to overlapping systems. Gary and I and even Dave had proved this possible in the pre-rlease (i.e., I created a God Game model (1974) which can be embedded as a lateral shift in the design scope, or, could be played separately as a stand alone RPG model). The point of this all? Well, You can ether think of D&D as an initial condition platform OR take it literally, AS IS, and with all of the ranges in between that include dimensional shifts and overlapping systems. So that could be equated with the "hidden game" but probably should not have been if Gary had just not used passing sentences at milestone points in the ms as to "make it your own" and had instead included examples of what he and I had been doing in that realm (i cover that in New Ethos in section 1, CH 3, and as outlined in the back matter of DATG for the work). He was, however, in a rush to get out the ms. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 8, 2017 13:19:34 GMT -5
Maybe I'm asking too much, but is it possible to post the list of 26?
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 8, 2017 13:21:24 GMT -5
Maybe I'm asking too much, but is it possible to post the list of 26? Rather take this offline if you have a point you're pursuing by relation. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 8, 2017 13:36:15 GMT -5
Good to know. Mea culpa
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 8, 2017 14:36:46 GMT -5
No problem. Fine discussion! |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 8, 2017 15:09:53 GMT -5
The reason that board games are doing well is because they have become more innovative in design than RPGs, the latter which are stuck in the same design-to-marketing cycle for too long. In fact I have myself moved back to designing boardgames with two around the corner within the next year. This is even more true in Europe. Until RPGs innovate (which I am not seeing the sparks of to date) they will decline as CRPG continues to replace them. Consider this, where do you innovate for an RPG? With a board game the point is to play by the rules. So you can innovate with the rules, with the components, and/or the presentation. It not easy to come up with a new idea for a board game but it well understood what goes into the "package" so to speak. I am not sure that a valid comparison to look at what happening with board games. What we have for RPGs? The way I see it we have 1) The rule system 2) The setting 3) The campaign Yes you could look at all three a part of a overall system that originated with Dave Arenson. But hear me out on this. Most people when they think of RPGs only think of #1. The Players Handboox, Traveller Book 1 Character, Runequest 2nd Edition, and of course Dave's notebook. Stuff that say if you want to hit somebody roll 2d6 + skill - range modifier and if it is a 8 or better you hit the target with the weapon. In that way RPGs are like boardgames and their wargame progentitor but where Dave takes it to a higher plane is with mixing it with a campaign of interlinked sessions and a setting that is the background of the campaign. Finally he shifts the focus to players interacting with the setting and doing ANYTHING that their character can logically do. Decide to make a left turn and talk to the herbalist instead of tarvenkeep. No problem even if the Dave didn't have anything about the herbalist other than the name and what street she was one. Sometimes it not even that. would propose that while innovation can occur with the rules in #1 they can also occur with the following 1) Referee tools to handle the player's shifting interests 2) Referee tools to allow them create materials for their campaign quicker within the time they have for the hobby. 3) Settings to use as a background for a campaign. 4) Setting elements that referee can incorporate in their campaign's setting. 5) How to run campaigns that focus on different things 6) Campaign elements that can be use as building block or add-ons for the referee own campaign. 7) Different types of characters a player can roleplay. I am sure more can be added to the list. Or the list can be changed. But overall my point that the list of where you can innovate for RPGs is different than it is for board games. And again because of open content and digital technology hobbyist don't need the good graces of the major publishers to do innovative stuff either just sharing or commercially. In fact I have myself moved back to designing boardgames with two around the corner within the next year. Hope you do well with this. It is a great time to be releasing board games. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 8, 2017 15:39:28 GMT -5
The reason I say this has to do with stagnation created by using the same model over and over with very little variation off its axis; it is essentially the same with all of the major companies who impact RPG the most, WotC, Paizo, being the biggest in that arena. They change the features but there is no real innovation with the base concept, two different things entirely. It's also predominantly a closed model that CRPGs can leverage faster and with the spiffy graphics substituting for imagining. Such is the way of expedient entertainment models, they run their courses if you do not innovate and they are predominantly short-term market models. TSR got caught in this cycle and paid the price for it.
Yep. And thanks. It's been a boardgame market for years now.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 8, 2017 18:36:05 GMT -5
I have been thinking of writing the following and would appreciate some opinions on the matter. The work would be far-ranging example in a format akin to an adventure but that illustrates through shifts in design thought and direction the actual scope of Arneson's open form create/design-as-you nature. I would assemble it much like an adventure segment for each phase and with accompanying design text noting the types/ranges/kind and degrees of thought and procedure being brought to bear for each part. This would provide a good sampling of the concepts range. It has parallels to the book I was writing concurrently with New Ethos, "New Models for RPGs" but with more attention to the reasonably apparent in-game matter available to even the general DM, so it would skirt the extreme of full blown models of NMfRPGs. I don't imagine it being larger than a 48-64 page adventure, with diagrams and the explanatory design notations and text. Its main point would be illustrative to get readers thinking in dimension (as per the second essay in DATG). Opinions welcome and desired.  |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 9, 2017 3:38:16 GMT -5
I have been thinking of writing the following and would appreciate some opinions on the matter. The work would be far-ranging example in a format akin to an adventure but that illustrates through shifts in design thought and direction the actual scope of Arneson's open form create/design-as-you nature. Opinions welcome and desired. (Thumbs up) Showing how it done your way is always a plus in my book. I would have it in two sections, one a "clean" text of the adventure that is ready to run. The second section the commentary and notes. With Scourge of the Demon Wolf I divided it into an adventure front half and a supplement back half. The locales of the adventure only had the relevant detail needed to use them as part of the adventure. The supplement half fully fleshed out the locales and detailed every inhabitant and building. The point of this to make the physical product useful beyond the adventure without having the referee feeling he needed to read through a village worth of detail to run it. The same with your idea. The first half should be clean and ready to run and focus only what needed to run the adventure/situation/scenario. The second half should be as detailed as you need to illustrate your points. I should have omitted emphasizing the "adventure" part in my explanation, as what I am proposing are examples of using the concepts I describe in the book, which are in turn design thinking and systems thinking principles. So, this is not a How To? Nor Even a How I Do It, as I am using design and systems information already extant, but I am proposing providing examples of How it Could Work in Many Ways according to setting one's mind to and understanding the generally applied principles and by way of semi-linked examples, all of which would be adventure/world-based cut-aways. I am not attempting to transmit anything other than an orientation of focus that may not be apparent; the examples' main goal would be to get the reader thinking in design dimension if it is not already apparent for them. |
|
