|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 9, 2017 6:44:08 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.  I think this would be of great value, and I think anything you provide that breaks things down and makes them more accessible to the general DM would be a very good thing. |
|
|
|
Post by grodog on May 9, 2017 14:31:05 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. This sounds very worthwhile to me, Rob. I've appreciated products that provide playtesting insights to help a DM peek behind the designer's curtain, so to speak, and this sounds similar in approach. Pagan Publishing did this very well in their Call of Cthulhu sourcebooks and scenarios throughout the 1990s, and they really helped to showcase different ways to think through how an adventure could play out differently with different groups, when different clues are found or not, when different actions succeed or fail, etc. Do you envision these design commentaries (if that's the right label to apply to them?) as similar to what we've discussed in the past as grounding the Open Form concepts through in-play examples and historical anecdotes of the same? Allan. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 9, 2017 15:31:20 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. This sounds very worthwhile to me, Rob. I've appreciated products that provide playtesting insights to help a DM peek behind the designer's curtain, so to speak, and this sounds similar in approach. Pagan Publishing did this very well in their Call of Cthulhu sourcebooks and scenarios throughout the 1990s, and they really helped to showcase different ways to think through how an adventure could play out differently with different groups, when different clues are found or not, when different actions succeed or fail, etc. Do you envision these design commentaries (if that's the right label to apply to them?) as similar to what we've discussed in the past as grounding the Open Form concepts through in-play examples and historical anecdotes of the same? Allan. Hi Allan! As to the last question that would be a yes. They will be well-targeted examples which should provide the whole idea as summarized in 'New Ethos' as the Open Form Concept. I do hope that at some point you will read the book and decide to join in the discussion.  (Say hello to the family for me--RJK) |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 9, 2017 18:55:44 GMT -5
I've written a review on Goodreads for Rob's book here: www.goodreads.com/book/show/34875598-dave-arneson-s-true-geniusThe review appears under the username "Cedgewick" and you may need to click on my name to see it. If you like the review, consider hitting the like button. I believe if enough people do this, it will move up to displace some of the other reviews, particularly the one written by the user "John" who doesn't even mention the word "system" once in his review. This isn't surprising, as he has written 438 reviews, probably most of them as superficial as the one he wrote Rob. I'm wondering what's his motivation there. If everyone on this thread gets onto goodreads and rates Rob's book, and likes the reviews they like, I am sure Rob will get a better rating, as he surely deserves. Also, I summarized all three essays in the review, so if there are some points in a particular essay that you feel that you are missing, maybe reading one of the summaries will help. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 9, 2017 19:50:40 GMT -5
I am truly puzzled by a couple of reviews earlier than yours. They seem to be personally offended, but don't address what offended them. And they seem to be discussing a different book than you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 9, 2017 20:01:36 GMT -5
I don't see any personal offense taken in those reviews. They just don't like the book, and they say why.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 9, 2017 20:08:08 GMT -5
I have to put my review in again, I just checked and it has not posted yet. My rating shows but not the review.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 9, 2017 22:18:49 GMT -5
I don't see any personal offense taken in those reviews. They just don't like the book, and they say why. John the 438 reviews guy starts off with I think it also says something about a person that writes a review for a book he cannot comprehend. I wonder if he also reviewed Einstein's book, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, and reached the same conclusion. The other guy, Robert A. wrote: Seems like an unfair assessment to me? I think he should have prefaced the first sentence with, "Of the words I can read,..." |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 10, 2017 3:56:34 GMT -5
Bonjour et merci ! An honest and revealing review, Cedgewick. I believe Nathalie wants to now translate it to French for our release of the French version in a couple of months. As for the very negative (and seemingly absent) reviews there, well, I had (and so had Gronan) predicted such spates of dismal (and dismissive) reactions--the book is polarizing extreme reactions and as it should. I really do not believe that there will be a middle ground with it in that regard. My thoughts are the same as they were to the reactions to D&D from the establishment pre-and-post 1974, and they are best summarized by Somerset Maugham: "The world in general doesn't know what to make of originality; it is startled out of its comfortable habits of thought, and its first reaction is one of anger." @pd--your review is still not showing!? You've been snookered.  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 10, 2017 5:48:20 GMT -5
Bonjour et merci ! An honest and revealing review, Cedgewick. I believe Nathalie wants to now translate it to French for our release of the French version in a couple of months. As for the very negative (and seemingly absent) reviews there, well, I had (and so had Gronan) predicted such spates of dismal (and dismissive) reactions--the book is polarizing extreme reactions and as it should. I really do not believe that there will be a middle ground with it in that regard. My thoughts are the same as they were to the reactions to D&D from the establishment pre-and-post 1974, and they are best summarized by Somerset Maugham: "The world in general doesn't know what to make of originality; it is startled out of its comfortable habits of thought, and its first reaction is one of anger." @pd--your review is still not showing!? You've been snookered. Well the rating is there and I will repost the review again sometime today, likely after work, but perhaps at lunch. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 10, 2017 7:13:46 GMT -5
OK, I reposted by review and hopefully it will be visible later today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 10, 2017 8:46:52 GMT -5
John the 438 reviews guy starts off with I think it also says something about a person that writes a review for a book he cannot comprehend. I wonder if he also reviewed Einstein's book, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, and reached the same conclusion. So now Rob is Einstein? And RPGs couched in systems theory is General Relativity? Here's what I see. I see a bunch of people congratulating themselves on how smart they are compared to the unwashed masses. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 10, 2017 9:04:53 GMT -5
John the 438 reviews guy starts off with I think it also says something about a person that writes a review for a book he cannot comprehend. I wonder if he also reviewed Einstein's book, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, and reached the same conclusion. So now Rob is Einstein? And RPGs couched in systems theory is General Relativity? I do not see that as what was said, he just pointed out that giving a negative review for something you admit you did not understand is less than informative. Why did he not understand? I am not a professional designer and I did not get a lot of it the first time through, I am getting more and more as I re-read and read the discussion here. Now if I did game design for a living I would not anticipate any trouble understanding it, the language of the book is clear if not accessible to all readers who lack the requisite background knowledge. That is why the follow up document that Rob proposed for the average gamer would be of value. The book was for a select audience and I barely qualify as part of that audience despite having played and reffed OD&D for 42 years. Learning to think like a designer is not easy and is an ongoing process. Here's what I see. I see a bunch of people congratulating themselves on how smart they are compared to the unwashed masses. I do not see what you mean by this or who you think is doing this. I most certainly am not. I do take offense at the people who were not there and have no first hand knowledge at all, who have been running around for years and claiming their opinions are the facts. These are the same people who are now trashing the book; even though they are admitting, in some cases, that they have not read it and will not. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 10, 2017 9:15:03 GMT -5
Here's what I see. I see a bunch of people congratulating themselves on how smart they are compared to the unwashed masses. My point is, just because you don't understand something, or rather don't want to take the time to understand something, does that make it bad? And secondly, if you admit to not understanding it, as John the reviewer had, should you really be writing a review about it? John basically wrote "I don't understand it. Therefore the book sucks" My point with Einstein is that his books are incomprehensible to nearly all readers (including me). Does that make them bad? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 10, 2017 9:59:00 GMT -5
So now Rob is Einstein? And RPGs couched in systems theory is General Relativity? I do not see that as what was said, he just pointed out that giving a negative review for something you admit you did not understand is less than informative. Why did he not understand? I am not a professional designer and I did not get a lot of it the first time through, I am getting more and more as I re-read and read the discussion here. Now if I did game design for a living I would not anticipate any trouble understanding it, the language of the book is clear if not accessible to all readers who lack the requisite background knowledge. That is why the follow up document that Rob proposed for the average gamer would be of value. The book was for a select audience and I barely qualify as part of that audience despite having played and reffed OD&D for 42 years. Learning to think like a designer is not easy and is an ongoing process. Here's what I see. I see a bunch of people congratulating themselves on how smart they are compared to the unwashed masses. I do not see what you mean by this or who you think is doing this. I most certainly am not. I do take offense at the people who were not there and have no first hand knowledge at all, who have been running around for years and claiming their opinions are the facts. These are the same people who are now trashing the book; even though they are admitting, in some cases, that they have not read it and will not. @ Stromcrow--A very narrow POV of course. I would not have forwarded my research points if I had thought that they did not contain what I assert. Is it possible to attain to new thoughts that contravene those put out beforehand? Considering that this is a new game form, as I have demonstrated, who has done so to date besides myself? This is not about us and them but about a different, yet readily accessible to all, approach to determination. I am no Einstein, but neither are my processes and information bases isolated to the realm of games alone; they are general systems theory-based and that I have utilized them marks a new point in the discussion and perhaps a decisive one from my view. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 10, 2017 10:56:22 GMT -5
Stromcrow--A very narrow POV of course. I would not have forwarded my research points if I had thought that they did not contain what I assert. I am not doubting or challenging the content of your book. I haven't read it. I am challenging the self-congratulatory tone of the people here who think your book is the bees knees and look down at someone who doesn't get it and says so. The reviewer doesn't say he can't comprehend the book and so doesn't like it. He says MAYBE he didn't FULLY understand it because Rob's writing style is really, really hard to understand. That is an assessment with which I completely agree. Sorry, Rob, your style IS nearly impenetrable without diagramming your sentences. Intelligent discourse does not require complicated language, and difficulty following complicated language does not betray an inability to comprehend the subject. A review of Strunk & White may be in order. He doesn't like it because he thinks it makes false assumptions. He may be wrong about that, but he doesn't dislike the book because he doesn't understand it. Or do you claim that to understand the book is to agree with it and like it? How about everyone giving the reviewer credit for apparently buying the book, reading the book, attempting to understand the book, and writing an honest, six-paragraph review about it, rather than ridiculing him for not understanding it? The gracious response would be to admit that that reviewer didn't like it, but thank you for your review. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 10, 2017 12:15:10 GMT -5
Stromcrow--A very narrow POV of course. I would not have forwarded my research points if I had thought that they did not contain what I assert. I am not doubting or challenging the content of your book. I haven't read it. I am challenging the self-congratulatory tone of the people here who think your book is the bees knees and look down at someone who doesn't get it and says so. The reviewer doesn't say he can't comprehend the book and so doesn't like it. He says MAYBE he didn't FULLY understand it because Rob's writing style is really, really hard to understand. That is an assessment with which I completely agree. Sorry, Rob, your style IS nearly impenetrable without diagramming your sentences. Intelligent discourse does not require complicated language, and difficulty following complicated language does not betray an inability to comprehend the subject. A review of Strunk & White may be in order. He doesn't like it because he thinks it makes false assumptions. He may be wrong about that, but he doesn't dislike the book because he doesn't understand it. Or do you claim that to understand the book is to agree with it and like it? How about everyone giving the reviewer credit for apparently buying the book, reading the book, attempting to understand the book, and writing an honest, six-paragraph review about it, rather than ridiculing him for not understanding it? The gracious response would be to admit that that reviewer didn't like it, but thank you for your review. Sorry, but you are mistaken. Style has little to do with initially framing a new concept as you are perforce limited by the material terms and expressions that are very specific in their use and positioning within their descriptive fields. Rather such matter has to be framed with the scientific terms that I have leveraged to definitely describe it as being what it is, or else we are in the realm of dubious generalities again; and since others are getting it your point does not hold water across the entire spectrum. Having not read the book how would you describe my style in the book, which Paul Stormberg who is college educated describes as accessible and understandable? It seems to me what Cedgewick intimates is truer to the mark, that is, this is not what people expected, even though I list it as theory and systems and history on the back cover and state that I have used design and systems knowledge to describe the theoretical passages in the book, which btw, is necessary to prove that this is in fact a historical landmark in game history which has been overlooked to date. Obviously, too, this is the first broadside, though a loud one, in its further promulgation along different lines and degrees of application. So where, Stormcrow would you have suggested I start with something entirely never before understood? I'll answer that, as it was somewhat rhetorical: I started where it needed to be started at for the reason that it intersects many different knowledge categories and must be described meaningfully and once and for all from a design theory perspective; its applied ranges then can be promoted according to what follows, which I have already been about with my upcoming two books and with the one I suggested in this thread as additional to those. In fact, considering the staging of D&D through the years, I see no difference here than with it as a successive unveiling of its ranges, which did not manifest all at once for the former. My approach is also consonant with scientific methodology. Shrug. The reviewer in this case did not understand major parts of the book, so how can he like or not like it? Because he was expecting something that did not meet his expectations, and he should have admitted that he could not properly review the book because of that, unlike Cedgewick, or Stormberg,or David, who took the time and effort to understand its matter in order to do the same. SHRUG x2. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 10, 2017 13:09:42 GMT -5
Sorry, but you are mistaken. Style has little to do with initially framing a new concept as you are perforce limited by the material terms and expressions that are very specific in their use and positioning within their descriptive fields. Rather such matter has to be framed with the scientific terms that I have leveraged to definitely describe it as being what it is, or else we are in the realm of dubious generalities again; and since others are getting it your point does not hold water across the entire spectrum. Oh come on. Style has a tremendous amount to do with initially framing a new concept. People take you seriously or not based on style. People can wrestle with the new concept and not wrestle with the style. You want to express Arneson's creation in terms of systems. That's fine. Systems theory has its own jargon and you need to use that. Fine. Systems theory does not require you to use sentences like "Style has little to do with initially framing a new concept as you are perforce limited by the material terms and expressions that are very specific in their use and positioning within their descriptive fields." That's not how an engaging text reads. I can understand the underlying concept perfectly, but I have to devote a lot of mental resources to understand the mere grammar first. And let's stop calling these "scientific terms." Systems theory is a model, not science. You can use that model to do systems science, but merely stating something in terms of systems is not doing science. I do believe that you are doing systems science in your book (which I haven't read), but the STYLE doesn't depend on that. By the style of the pieces you have quoted and by your normal writing style, such as that in your most recent post. Paul Stormberg is not a disinterested party in this. Try looking to a disinterested evaluation of your style. Say, in a review by someone who doesn't know you or your online persona? Clearly, you still think I'm criticizing your use of the language of systems. I am not. I am criticizing your writing style. To answer your question: I earlier referred to Strunk and White. William Strunk's most famous exhortation was, "Omit needless words." I would begin there. He said he wasn't sure whether he understood it. Are you saying his description of it is wrong? Nooooo, he is quite clear why he doesn't like it: he thought your assumptions were wrong. Maybe you're right and he's wrong about the subject matter, but he didn't dislike it because it wasn't what he thought it would be. And herein lies my objection. He clearly DID take the time and effort to try to understand it. You say he failed. He failed even after taking the time and effort to understand it. He specifically blames this on your writing style. You are calling his conclusions uninformed and lazy. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 10, 2017 14:19:48 GMT -5
Paul Stormberg like anyone else is an interested person in D&D's history and nothing more. You are now disparaging his POV, and likely his character, based on what? Your opinion. So anyone who understands this is a rabid fan or has some ulterior purpose; and those who do not understand easily referenced scientific terms and usage are correct in their assessments that it is my style alone that fails to illustrate the content?
I am done with this converse Stormcrow as you are not only channelling it as you see fit according to what you do not know but assuming that anyone who does not take the effort to dig into the work is indeed my fault and the fault of others who otherwise do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 10, 2017 14:27:20 GMT -5
Hey guys, I am at work and will be leaving in a few to take my wife to her dialysis appointment. I will be back online around 6-630PM. Please don't burn the place down in the meantime. If someone/anyone wants to pm me about anything please do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 10, 2017 14:43:14 GMT -5
Hey guys, I am at work and will be leaving in a few to take my wife to her dialysis appointment. I will be back online around 6-630PM. Please don't burn the place down in the meantime. If someone/anyone wants to pm me about anything please do so. I may be a trailblazer but I'm not a pyromaniac.  |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 10, 2017 15:37:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 10, 2017 15:58:48 GMT -5
Uh-Oh! You're obviously a "rabid fan" or have an "ulterior motive" for you (apparently) understood it! (sarc/) (rolls eyes). Will read it and see what you derived; the reactions have been, so far, stimulating. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 10, 2017 16:07:07 GMT -5
A fair and balanced review. I am happy you comprehended it and was able to pass your perspectives onto others. Here's to the future made possible by the past! |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on May 10, 2017 16:36:17 GMT -5
I think the reviewer "John" raised one question that I also had while reading the book: has Rob read Playing at the World? I know it's out of date in certain respects, but I find that it's directly relevant to the ideas Rob is presenting, and it's unfortunate that Dave Arneson's True Genius doesn't reference PatW at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 10, 2017 16:53:19 GMT -5
Uh-Oh! You're obviously a "rabid fan" or have an "ulterior motive" for you (apparently) understood it! (sarc/) (rolls eyes). Will read it and see what you derived; the reactions have been, so far, stimulating. Oh yes, I got all of that too. I believe that the exact term was "Salesman". You're a trouble-maker, Rob. You do it well! If you don't stir the pot all of the good stuff sinks to the bottom. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 10, 2017 17:00:00 GMT -5
I think the reviewer "John" raised one question that I also had while reading the book: has Rob read Playing at the World? I know it's out of date in certain respects, but I find that it's directly relevant to the ideas Rob is presenting, and it's unfortunate that Dave Arneson's True Genius doesn't reference PatW at all. Why? The ideas I am addressing are etched in my own history and are derivable through my own research; there was no need for referencing PATW for if there was I would have done so (  ) |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 10, 2017 17:09:37 GMT -5
Uh-Oh! You're obviously a "rabid fan" or have an "ulterior motive" for you (apparently) understood it! (sarc/) (rolls eyes). Will read it and see what you derived; the reactions have been, so far, stimulating. Oh yes, I got all of that too. I believe that the exact term was "Salesman". You're a trouble-maker, Rob. You do it well! If you don't stir the pot all of the good stuff sinks to the bottom. I am usually the second one to stir the pot, really, I just use my own spoon. I am no trouble-maker, but I tend to be like Barney Fife by "nipping it in the bud." I also tend to call out hypocrisy when I see or sense it, like it or not, this notion of PC (not meaning 'Player Character' btw) has long been used to emasculate the truth and guard against rebuttal in its wake. Remember, Gary was my mentor and he never (Note: NEVER) backed down from a challenge, EVER... I'm a bit more balanced in that regard, but when I feel that people cross the line, oops... Enough of the third degree, however, the folks here deserve more incisive commentary and less distraction. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 10, 2017 19:10:18 GMT -5
Paul Stormberg like anyone else is an interested person in D&D's history and nothing more. You are now disparaging his POV, and likely his character, based on what? Your opinion. So anyone who understands this is a rabid fan or has some ulterior purpose; and those who do not understand easily referenced scientific terms and usage are correct in their assessments that it is my style alone that fails to illustrate the content? I am done with this converse Stormcrow as you are not only channelling it as you see fit according to what you do not know but assuming that anyone who does not take the effort to dig into the work is indeed my fault and the fault of others who otherwise do. Gimme a break. I didn't say any of that. I didn't disparage Paul Stormberg or his character; I said he was not a disinterested reviewer. I didn't say anyone who understands your book is a rabid fan or has an ulterior purpose; I challenged the notion that anyone who DOESN'T understand it is an ignorant moron. Systems theory is NOT scientific terminology, and I repeatedly said that it is your writing style that is cumbersome, not the systems terminology. I, too, am quite done with this thread. You do not listen to anything except glowing praise. I think you'll find it scarce outside the little bubble of this community. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 10, 2017 19:20:11 GMT -5
We have basically 3 classes: the traditional fighting man, several varieties of Spell Users, & a skill based archetype. That has been the way that it is for the last 40 years. Sure we mix them up, reclassify them and what not, but they are essentially the same thing regardless of what we want to call them. Why have we not been able to add more? The Thief is the most modern, but even it came out shortly after OD&D, since that, nothing. Even Races as we know them are derivatives of the 3 basic classes.
If we compare them to the color wheel, do you feel that they are R, B, & Y, or do you suspect that there are more, we just haven't discovered them yet?
|
|
(Say hello to the family for me--RJK)
)