|
|
Post by cadriel on May 13, 2017 10:46:31 GMT -5
Arneson is surely deserving of being classed in this manner as he bucked 2,000 years of design thinking! You keep saying that, but what 2000 year old games are you referring to? Wéiqí / go? Shatranj or some precursor of chess? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 13, 2017 10:54:10 GMT -5
Arneson is surely deserving of being classed in this manner as he bucked 2,000 years of design thinking! You keep saying that, but what 2000 year old games are you referring to? Wéiqí / go? Shatranj or some precursor of chess? Since no previous game merged open and closed systems as part of an evolving architecture I am in fact being clear in stating that he "bucked 2,000 years of design thinking," and as is explained throughout the book and specifically starting on page 11. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 14:29:07 GMT -5
" It used to be supposed that one of the functions of a critic was to help authors to write better. His praise and censure were supposed to show them where and how they had succeeded or failed, so that next time, having profited by the diagnosis, they might cure their faults and increase their virtues. " C.S. Lewis, "On Criticism" I hate the term "constructive criticism." If it's not constructive, it's not criticism; it's just bitching. The word "better" is also very subjective. Critics who have no inkling of science who say that scientific theories or notions could be written better are pretty stupid. Further, the idea that anyone, now, can write a review on GoodReads is a novel concept to some, but at least they might follow from what the book's back-matter and type note that it is. In DATG case it is: Design Philosophy, Systems Theory; RPG History. This is its classification. However, just because you can read doesn't make you a reviewer in this case, as is demonstrated by DATG's reviews where one states that the book doesn't seem to have a point. Really? There's so many points in it, like, 2,000 years of design history left behind; a system never before created, etc, that it is obvious that it's a biased review lacking substance. So, yes, there is a difference between a critique with knowledge and unbiased intent behind it, bitching, and in this illustration, outright misrepresentation. My jocular reply would be "In other words, most people are booger-eating morons." And yes, at the very least "better" would mean different things for different kinds of writing. What might make a novel "better" would have no application to a factual essay. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 13, 2017 14:55:32 GMT -5
Arneson is surely deserving of being classed in this manner as he bucked 2,000 years of design thinking! You keep saying that, but what 2000 year old games are you referring to? Wéiqí / go? Shatranj or some precursor of chess? I was actually a bit curious about this myself. This is way above my pay-grade, but it is fun to ponder. I am no game expert, but I do have some homebrewed theories. All games are ancestors of ancient games. You've got your Chess-style games, Board Racing Games, Tile-Based Games, and Dice-Based Games. All of these games pre-date the Western Calendar which begins with the death of Christ. Games evolved over time by adding different rules and different pieces, however, the games themselves are still just derivatives of these basic principles. There have been brilliant evolutions, usually due to technology and a designer who was smart enough to put the two together. Monopoly, RISK, Axis & Allies, etc. Diplomacy is an interesting one, it uses a board but a bulk of play takes place within the dialog of the players. It is a brilliant game, but no referee is required. There are no secret rules. Now we get to Rob's theory. Blackmoor eliminated the board . . . kind of. The board exists in our minds, we can draw a complex map of a dungeon and say that that is the board. What makes Blackmoor different is the secret rules. D&D (for lack of a better term) requires constant change and modifications to the rules in real time. The players do have strict rules that they have to follow, like diplomacy or any other game where each player is kept from breaking them by other players; but it is this element of secret rules that are ever changing and enforced by the referee with or without the player's knowledge where things get interesting. Is this element different enough from any other game design to be able to call it a totally new system? Rob is attempting to make the case that it is. The rules governing the game is definitely unique to it. Players are allowed to say, I'm not going into that dungeon, and instead leave the country completely, forcing the DM to make a new game designed in real time, that is just as engaging as if the players would have entered the dungeon and played the game that they were expected to play. This is different from Chainmail (a chess derivative) that is restricted to the game board, and Braunstein that is also restricted in scope, if you leave the scenario you remove yourself from play. I can't think of any other game that allows a total redesign of the game in real-time with the same pieces. That doesn't mean that it isn't out there, which is why it has been submitted to experts who will see if this is correct or not. The problem is, even though the board is imagined, and if actually drawn out could be endless, it still has a board. Does this mean that despite it all, Blackmoor is still a chess derivative or not? I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 13, 2017 16:07:39 GMT -5
You keep saying that, but what 2000 year old games are you referring to? Wéiqí / go? Shatranj or some precursor of chess? I was actually a bit curious about this myself. This is way above my pay-grade, but it is fun to ponder. I am no game expert, but I do have some homebrewed theories. All games are ancestors of ancient games. You've got your Chess-style games, Board Racing Games, Tile-Based Games, and Dice-Based Games. All of these games pre-date the Western Calendar which begins with the death of Christ. Games evolved over time by adding different rules and different pieces, however, the games themselves are still just derivatives of these basic principles. There have been brilliant evolutions, usually due to technology and a designer who was smart enough to put the two together. Monopoly, RISK, Axis & Allies, etc. Diplomacy is an interesting one, it uses a board but a bulk of play takes place within the dialog of the players. It is a brilliant game, but no referee is required. There are no secret rules. Now we get to Rob's theory. Blackmoor eliminated the board . . . kind of. The board exists in our minds, we can draw a complex map of a dungeon and say that that is the board. What makes Blackmoor different is the secret rules. D&D (for lack of a better term) requires constant change and modifications to the rules in real time. The players do have strict rules that they have to follow, like diplomacy or any other game where each player is kept from breaking them by other players; but it is this element of secret rules that are ever changing and enforced by the referee with or without the player's knowledge where things get interesting. Is this element different enough from any other game design to be able to call it a totally new system? Rob is attempting to make the case that it is. The rules governing the game is definitely unique to it. Players are allowed to say, I'm not going into that dungeon, and instead leave the country completely, forcing the DM to make a new game designed in real time, that is just as engaging as if the players would have entered the dungeon and played the game that they were expected to play. This is different from Chainmail (a chess derivative) that is restricted to the game board, and Braunstein that is also restricted in scope, if you leave the scenario you remove yourself from play. I can't think of any other game that allows a total redesign of the game in real-time with the same pieces. That doesn't mean that it isn't out there, which is why it has been submitted to experts who will see if this is correct or not. The problem is, even though the board is imagined, and if actually drawn out could be endless, it still has a board. Does this mean that despite it all, Blackmoor is still a chess derivative or not? I don't know. The reason that one cannot ascertain it by logical deduction visa-ve the models preceding it is as I stated, he merged open and closed systems. As I state in the book: Page 11, "But this is where Arneson’s “progress towards the goal” becomes more than just a historical milestone in design and in social impacts (the lat- ter instances which I note hereafter by way of an appended list, below). For he not only used “given ones” (systems) to create a new expression, but he transcended these by merging open and closed systems themselves. The emergent system he created from this utilized specific qualities from both system types that, in effect, cross-communicated with each other. Conversely these distinct system qualities, in isolation, cannot achieve what they do when combined within Arneson’s reorganized systems whole. This co-equal systems-interdependency characterizes a transcendent system model that defies singularly applied interpretations through either of the (open or closed) system types used in creating it."In other words, the reason that "you don't know" (and that everyone doesn't know and has been arguing about it to date) is that one is applying an old and incongruent model in an attempt to derive an understanding of a transcendent model, kinda like trying to define the evolution of the engineering of a skyscraper by way of the engineering principles involved for a hut. There is a hole in that, a gap. And that hole is the fact that this was not a lineal progression of old game models but a merger of open and closed systems that created a new beginning which cannot be described in any existing language except systems language. Once you do that you can then isolate its architecture and compare it to preceding architectures, which I have done by listing the architecture's qualities to those games that people claim are D&D's parents. This I have proven as false in both cases from a comparative systems view. You cannot define a new game form category by backward causality as there is no lineage for it. So you will always reach NULL or FALSE values in return. But you can prove through the science of systems what it is not derived from, which then isolates it in this case as a transcendent game form. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 13, 2017 16:46:41 GMT -5
ripx187 said: "That doesn't mean that it isn't out there, which is why it has been submitted to experts who will see if this is correct or not."
This is an incorrect restatement of why it has been submitted to systems scientists. The architecture does not exist prior to Blackmoor/D&D, PERIOD. I have proven that there is no game category that merges open and closed systems that allows the participants to create and the game and the participants to evolve in real time. NONE. I looked for models for 7 years and continue to look. ZERO. Might we find one 20 years from now in some obscure village in India or in the Andes? Anything is possible, but it remains what it is. according to updated game history to 1971 when Arneson created the architecture.
I am asking them to confirm my description of the systems architecture as this has never been modeled before and to affirm and forward the model as part of a pre-theory. I am confidant that they will confirm my findings and advance it to the next stage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 18:49:52 GMT -5
Rob, could I have a clarification?
Footnote 24, page 30, near the end says "Such a latter state, IMO, would be perceived by the current establishment (as it was for TSR's market perceptions)as less choice equals less monetary yield"
I think from context you mean "less choice equals more monetary yield"; that is, by restricting the system model, sales were increased.
Am I correct that this is a typo, or have I totally missed the complete point of that entire section?
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 13, 2017 19:07:09 GMT -5
Rob, could I have a clarification? Footnote 24, page 30, near the end says "Such a latter state, IMO, would be perceived by the current establishment (as it was for TSR's market perceptions)as less choice equals less monetary yield" I think from context you mean "less choice equals more monetary yield"; that is, by restricting the system model, sales were increased. Am I correct that this is a typo, or have I totally missed the complete point of that entire section? Yep, that was my only major mistake in the text. It should read "less choice equals more monetary yield" which is what I meant to write. That is exactly true of all markets, as less choice speeds up the throughput of decision making for purchases creating faster yield cycles. I was wondering who would catch this, so you get the cookie and we shall now post this as a correction on the site. Thumbs up, Michael.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 19:32:37 GMT -5
See? Some of us do read ALL the words.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 13, 2017 19:50:07 GMT -5
See? Some of us do read ALL the words. Those who care and are naturally attentive and inquisitive, all of which describes Gronan.  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 13, 2017 21:23:51 GMT -5
See? Some of us do read ALL the words. Those who care and are naturally attentive and inquisitive, all of which describes Gronan. Here I thought I was carefully reading ALL the words and I missed that. Sigh! Now I will have to read it again, before I make further comments. If only I were as smart, as I used to think I was as a child.  Rueful grin! |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 14, 2017 4:44:47 GMT -5
Those who care and are naturally attentive and inquisitive, all of which describes Gronan. Here I thought I was carefully reading ALL the words and I missed that. Sigh! Now I will have to read it again, before I make further comments. If only I were as smart, as I used to think I was as a child. Rueful grin! You did read them all! I just confused you at that tiny part. Gronan however made his save vs. confusion, you did not. That has been corrected and now you are immune hereafter to such slight side-trackings.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 14:51:36 GMT -5
Two words: Bambi's mother. Yum! |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 14, 2017 15:11:48 GMT -5
Two words: Bambi's mother. Yum! For all those Wisconsin white-tail deer hunters... |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 14, 2017 16:16:08 GMT -5
Do I HAVE to look at hunters' white tails?
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 14, 2017 16:22:41 GMT -5
Do I HAVE to look at hunters' white tails? They are usually orange or camouflage. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 15, 2017 19:55:50 GMT -5
French Translation of DATG Reaches a Milestone!
The first essay has been translated from English to French. My wife, who used to do stringent translation work in the UK, is now coordinating with me to assess it as some theoretical terms may be harder to translate without losing their meaning,
The translation continues under the trusted and guiding hand of Antoine Poncin who is also a D&D player and is quite a brilliant chap.
We are really excited about this; and we foresee an Italian translation coming very soon from Mondiversi who translated and published both of my adventures Cairn of the Skeleton King and Bottle City for release at the preeminent Lucca Comics and Games show.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 15, 2017 20:08:29 GMT -5
Great news Rob! Glad to hear that is coming along. Translation is a very tricky thing, glad it is going well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2017 22:24:43 GMT -5
Woot!
I'm about to go to a railroad historical society convention and when I get back I'll write my review.
(Hint: Favorable, but I found the language tough sledding sometimes. But more to follow. "Stay tuned," as they say.)
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 5:53:19 GMT -5
For those who believe that DATG and the D&D open-systems nature that is proven therein just manifested out of thin air, think again. I have been writing about this online for many years. Here is a 2010 blog post of mine in the vein. Referring Link: lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.fr/2010/01/up-on-tree-stump-4.htmlMy research has become more refined over the years, but it links directly back to this type of information accumulation and expansion. Up on a Tree Stump™(or) All I Know about D&D™ I Learned From Life The Value of D&D's Early Creativity, Improvisation and Play©2010. Robert J. Kuntz {An edited first draft extracted from my combined essays} … There was an acute difference in game-rules being used in David Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign and in our corresponding Lake Geneva Campaign under the leadership of EGG and myself and their participants. As has been historically noted, each "Campaign" had different rules, those at first initiated by David and his players, then as revised and rewritten by EGG as we play tested the D&D game in its soon to be published form. Though there is a distinction of how the adjudications evolved in each game group, there is a thread of similarity in both which ties them tightly together: they both relied on improvisational and creative play. As there were no rules, but only notes and whatever existed in the minds-eye of each creator (or DM), spontaneous play WAS the course served. The (role)-play tests evolved to reform the rules as published, and to this day folks may still believe that this was necessarily the form we adhered to during these play tests. To that I will say: yes and no. Partial rules were always being implemented and added as the play tests discovered a new set of challenges and areas as yet uncovered, and this lead to a furtherance of the rules as written by EGG to cover these circumstances, until, one might say that he, sitting back, finally said: "This is enough, this is the core of what we’ve experienced and what is needed for gamers to experience what we just played." So, what we experienced during the play tests was the growing act of Being and Doing. The play test was a promotion of ideas that had various forms given to it by the acts themselves that varied inside our group conception of interchange. This of course continued to free us as the actors and designers within the play; and this, more importantly, allowed for a constant progression of creative and playful nuances to occur. Let me pose a simplified example of what occurred many times in that manner. Imagine wanting to climb a wall and there are no rules for it, as there were none for accomplishing this in-game task then. Let’s take a look at how we may have handled that circumstance then during the course of play (the following is a recreation only): R: 1) "I want to climb the wall." NOTE: The need is established here but not the instrument (the rule is not yet understood, and that is in turn understood on the surface by the player, as their PC has no such ability but assumes that he may be able to accomplish the feat notwithstanding). This may have been couched similarly: 2) "Can I climb the wall?" Both instances beg the DM's adjudication. The DM is the arbiter of this event as dictated by the inputs forthcoming in interchange... G: 1) "How do you accomplish that?” NOTE: or 2) "Yes, you can try." This is the first input field. This establishes "yes" it is possible, but not HOW, as we have not as yet deduced that from the inputs. R: 1) “Well, I look for jutting spots on the escarpment to cling to as I climb and I shed my armor. I climb slowly and use the hammer to lodge spikes into the wall to create perches. I proceed cautiously. Before ascending I tie the rope about the armor and attach its free end securely about my waist.” G: “Okay. What's your Dexterity?” R: “12.” G: NOTE: This is where the DM makes adjustments (+1/-1 to the inputs). As the escarpment has been described as 80' high and straight up with some protrusions, we now have a base for ascertaining an on the fly ruling. Here the DM decides to use 2 six-sided dice to ascertain the difficulty range, though in different circumstances in the LG Campaign this choice was easily substituted for different types and numbers of dice to expand or contract the numerical ranges. +0 for dex -1 for length of climb (would have been higher if the PC had not noted that they were proceeding slowly and cautiously) +0 for armor being shed. This may have been an extremely high minus if it had not been shed Thus a +1 input on 2 six-sided dice. G: “The base is 7 and you need an 8 or better on 2 six-sided dice.” R: Rolls: “9.” G: “You make it to the top of the cliff, but your armor is still below, which I imagine you pull up.” R: “Yes.” G: “That takes a minute--there you go. Well done. Give yourself 100 experience points for good planning.” Note that this probability sequence, once used and re-used, became second nature with us. In this instancing exchanges occur quickly and deductions become normal in respect to inputs. This progresses matters for which there are no steadfast rules, or in turn belays the use of books and their referencing, expediting in all cases the action of the event and the participation of the players (both DM and PC) on a primary level. This creative improvising can be tracked from these first occurrences during play to their printed forms in the DMG’s many tables, but in my opinion, the latter provides an incomplete idea of how we in the LGC conducted such matters and to which EGG never totally adhered. …The New D&D: The Lessening of the Play Experience The built in safety net in the newest RPGs only exemplifies what is already known in that regard: Even if the rigidity of form is adopted, as in numerical expressions and tables and endless charts for myriad events or perceived game driven engagements, even if the players "feel" that there is fair and equitable treatment being proposed, in the end, the DM, however rigid and defined the system may be, can always call upon the fantastic if he or she is unfair or unyielding or selfish, breaking all barriers of pretense with but one summoned monster from the ether which demolishes said party of PCs anyway. Players may scream in the end about equality of CR levels or what not, but done is done. In retrospect OD&D assumed a standard of fairness of adjudication as its core principle in DMing the game. Thus I find that this sacrifice of play in the new D&D—and supposedly in answer to player demand or a perceived design need--has never held water with me; and it appears beneath the surface as a red herring implemented to justify new rules favoring a finite structure that in turn explode PC-dominant positions within the game. In turn, this new RPG “safety net” creates and sustains a totally manufactured and assumptive way of imagining a player and thus their regulated environment, making sure that they are not over-wounded (disfavored) in the game. This of course does not present a realistic portrayal of any event driven fiction (role) and its backlash is the need driven participation of the player to succeed time and time again. When faced with challenges or loss, they can point back at “balance or fairness,” the very things that have in fact been worked out of the game play due to structuring it in this manner. In essence, the apparent reason for this conceptual deletion of value-driven accomplishment is due to marketing and grooming of the play environment to keep players, like in computer games, happy as larks with their perceived rewards and gains. Now let's take a look at a different way of viewing this from the other end of the telescope. Immersive play furthers creative thought. When a player substitutes intuition and creativity for game mechanics only, they are not immersing themselves in a growing experience through which they become better decision makers or strategists. This very lack summons a ground of clay that makes any stance for learning or achieving beyond a redundant and non-immersive pattern impossible. Such participants instead comfortably root to where and when they will choose to implement powers and repeatable set in stone strategies. They may reach for dice with the knowledge that they have achieved a numerically advantageous position as they have before them all of the inputs in print to arrive at that calculation, so they are assured in most respects of a positive outcome. This is like opening a door. It takes little thought or planning. It's like eating a bowl of noodles. Some may dangle, but the fork can rearrange them. It is in a word boring; but the consequences for those who limit play under such a premise is more than just boring, it's frightening. If we attempted to construct a specific mechanic for each or any one of our real world actions and/or specify or attach relative times and other values for doing so based upon a multitude of raw and variable inputs, we would soon need a computer to arrive at such extrapolated deductions and also a wave of corresponding experience to make fair assessments in arriving at the derived principles. That is not possible as we are not the sum of human knowledge and worldly existence, so we must seek comparative improvisation to reach expansiveness in play rather than seeking models with built in limits that bar such creative extrapolation. The further one closes off their mind to experience, the less they participate and in turn the less value they derive from such experiences. Only value-added achievements spur growth. EGG used to welcome players at conventions to test their metal in Greyhawk Castle, especially those who claimed to have higher-leveled and well-appointed PCs. These types who were never challenged to produce efforts equal to gains in their DM's campaign soon found, much to their consternation, that their flimsy "strategies" were nullified in a DM's game where real thinking was involved. This close-mindedness often, and unfortunately, always goes back to the DM, for it is he or she who sets the examples and difficulties for their players. A closed, or oftentimes, routed mindset, allows very little expansion for abstract thinking. The more one sides with a finite approach as opposed to an open-ended play environment the more one will become reliant upon a structure that codifies itself within a box. This is fine with many game designs as all reach superimposed limits at some point, but when applied as a model on top of an RPG which in its conceptual range is based upon playing out broadly expanding fictional situations and forms, it is anathema and is in contradiction to the inherent honesty of design relating to the matter overall and on sundry understood levels. Within an open model as OD&D presents, players and DMs can choose what they need and ignore or discard the rest. They may even change what they need from within the selections and even come back to those they did not think worthy at first to re-examine them. There is always a creative flow at work within the mutable parts. Attempt to do that with closed models and their static forms are always broken if not challenged as their entire event and statistical stream must be re-imagined and re-codified. Once an RPG loses a model of play oriented expansiveness it, in my estimation, becomes at best “role assumption,” as the PLAY in the most inclusive and creative use of the term is no longer considered important to its titular description. Thus each game/rules form dictates the mode, the mode dictates the expression, and this as a combined cycle dictates the outcome. Within these there may be variances, such as what to add to any given sequence, but if these particles as a whole are on the front end designed in to perpetuate the ending cycle, then outcomes are assured no matter the available sources for input (re: as in a computer program). This is true with all devised systems. OD&D’s system was there to implement and to improvise as one experienced it. This remains its absolute strength to this day. In summary one might break down the aspects of the D&D game in its initial stage, and then the D&D game in its current stage, thusly: OD&D 1973 play test and forward: Play grows out of games and play-fiction. War games>miniature games>parlor games>make believe>story-telling. Rules mix with play but do not burden them. Play becomes the focus, to the point where EGG discards major rules as published to concentrate on his home-brew style that we both adopted in the play test version. In bringing the game to consumers this aspect is stressed more than once as a fundamental theory as there is no way to "formally" adjudicate every instance of play as play is seen as forever open-ended. Through AD&D 2nd edition this finds purchase and is on many levels adopted, spurring creative implementation of home-brew rules even in the face of TSR's attempted rules codifications for IP reasons. 3rd Edition onward to present: The game goes through drastic changes producing a new rules structure and eliminating in-house rulings. The play aspect is foreshortened, being replaced by skills and feats. The creative aspect of playing and thinking is routed into a statistical mode of balance siding with the players. The DM's use of rules improvisation is depleted as rules dependency becomes a reality due to overt, formal structuring. We no longer have open-ended play but what is now a semblance of a computerized flow-chart implemented on the table. Part miniatures game, part role-playing, but with no real extenuation of imaginative input as this is all deduced up front for the player and the DM. We now have a formula-based RPG. ADA has arrived. Now.... I climb the wall. Roll your dice... I succeed. OK, you're up. And with your feat of quantum carrying, you did so with your armor on. Don’t I get experience for negotiating that very deadly obstacle? It says so here in the book. Right. Is 500 enough?... … …RJK (Somewhere near Betelgeuse) |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 16, 2017 6:46:41 GMT -5
In the same vein, please characterize the game-play of any or all of the following games: Paranoia; Doctor Who: Adventures in Time and Space; GURPS; Savage Worlds; FUDGE; Rune; Continuum: Roleplaying in the Yet; Toon. Feel free to add any additional games to the list.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 7:21:32 GMT -5
In the same vein, please characterize the game-play of any or all of the following games: Paranoia; Doctor Who: Adventures in Time and Space; GURPS; Savage Worlds; FUDGE; Rune; Continuum: Roleplaying in the Yet; Toon. Feel free to add any additional games to the list. Generally speaking (as I have not had the opportunity to study them in depth) extant RPGs are promotions of the original RPG concept if and where they are siding with D&D's architecture and where discernible variations for the subsystems remain linear; and/or they are lateral shifts when they move from a such a model as D&D and create a real shift in design and play potential like with En Garde by GDW, which is my baseline in design for a lateral shift (i am also wanting to study Amber for that). Merely changing the axis of subsystems (like in Call of Cthl) from vertical to a horizontal does not change the throughput, but only defines the type of linearized information within it (skills in this case for C of C) that is being promoted. In C of C it is skills; in D&D it is levels, but both are promoted in stepped progressions, i.e. as linearized throughputs. That one accomplishes this within an inverted pyramid and the other as a line that stretches horizontally makes no difference in the assessment that they are both linear progressions. I cover most of this starting on page 38 of DATG, in the second essay, section 2, Understanding and Furthering Arneson's Design Attitude, which concludes that we have not strayed too far from a linear axis by comparison to his leap. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 7:56:51 GMT -5
As the question and answer I gave are both derived from my views as expressed in the book and the supporting materials that lead up to it I find it confusing why my thread has been split into two parts. I answered generally and in systems views and do not see the a contradiction, PD, that would necessitate moving the thread and thereby confusing the ongoing information stream in the primary thread??
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 8:07:09 GMT -5
I know that finarvyn is an Amber fan and I believe both a Ref and player of it. If he checks in perhaps he will speak to Amber for us. The purpose of my response was to speak in general of extant RPG systems, and was not promoting any games or games specifically, as that is impossible given the scope of all that was asked. I did not start this topic as there is none to specifically pursue, as I answered it the only way I could. I find this very confusing.  |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 16, 2017 8:14:08 GMT -5
Generally speaking (as I have not had the opportunity to study them in depth) So you don't really know. You're just generalizing about games you haven't read or played. Other games could have come along with their own fundamental breakthroughs that make them more than mere variations on D&D's subsystems, but you'd be wholly ignorant of them. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 8:36:09 GMT -5
Generally speaking (as I have not had the opportunity to study them in depth) So you don't really know. You're just generalizing about games you haven't read or played. Other games could have come along with their own fundamental breakthroughs that make them more than mere variations on D&D's subsystems, but you'd be wholly ignorant of them. I know the general systems of games, yes, and if you'd read my book and stop taking things out of context you'd understand that. I have studied more games than you ever will from a designer's view and I am finding your hit and run tactics tiresome to say the least. Note: Promotions, lateral shifts and Emergent forms are defined in whole in my book. There is no emergent form as yet exampled that takes another leap of D&D's kind that created another era in games; so RPGs are at present either promotions or lateral hoots. Next time read (and quote) my whole post or since you are not here to learn but rather to attempt to disprove through contextual omission, don't bother. N.B. For those following my other thread, if you want to know why there are no emergent forms and how I know this I will explain in detail in design and systems parlance in my primary thread, but not here. I am asking the admin to reinstate the posts and answers here to the original thread and to close this one. I will not have my thread derailed by constant trolling on Stormcrow's part, and when I answer such questions, even from him, they will be in the context of the whole thread that this originated from. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 16, 2017 9:14:47 GMT -5
I have moved things back the way there were and I am moving the thread to robkuntz's forum area. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 9:54:06 GMT -5
Now, as I was saying... and here is the caveat. All that we know of games has been researched by countless people over history and they have categorized these and explained their systems through game theory. This is always done generally, so many games today can be adduced even without playing them, this from reviews, the game description as forwarded by the publisher, from Wikipedia articles, from BGG reports, play reports in 'zines (a big information source bitd) et al. If one knows systems and game theory, both of which I am familiar with, they can derive a general knowledge of the games that they read up upon, in game journals, at game theory or game history sites, et al, are either promotions and/or lateral shifts of existing models. As Arneson and Gygax are accorded with being authors of a commercial game form to create a yet another first order game category, there must be a solid departure from the D&D type of model in order to create a new emergence as with D&D. Speculation regarding that emergence (which might create yet another first order game category) is useless, just as speculation of this sort did not exist prior to D&D's advent. So, until that occurs all RPGS proceeding D&D can be generally categorized under the new RPG category that D&D started; and whether they break from that Category and create their own category is the only thing that is relevant in determining whether there has been a transcendent leap of the type witnessed with D&D.
Further,The baseline of Arneson's initial system and D&D notes that games within games and systems within systems can manifest, that essentially anything can be done to it in design contexts as it is an open model. This is indeed what was accomplished bitd, what was promoted (by down-spinning it) in further editions, and what occurred in En Garde, T&T, etc, including story games, etc. These are all facilitated by the sculptability of the open-ended concept, backing it down, to speeding it up, by excising, repositioning, chopping, adding, etc. So the D&D RPG is the base-line as it can cover all contingent variations from simple to complex within its own scope. What are any number of OSR games but previously throttled personal use variants? If we vary the subsystems we still have mechanics. If we do not remove the conceptual interface we still have that coming from Arneson. So what will distinguish a breakthrough that surmounts the architecture currently known? Hell if I know. We'll know it when we see it (just like with D&D) and it isn't here yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 16, 2017 10:05:44 GMT -5
I know the general systems of games, yes, and if you'd read my book and stop taking things out of context you'd understand that. I'll tell you what. You send me a free copy of your overpriced book and I'll read it very, very carefully and give you my honest-to-goodness opinion of the science it presents. How do you know that? I'm not denying it; I want to know how you have managed to count the games I have studied from a designer's view. You haven't answered my question. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? I'll bet you haven't even HEARD OF half the games I listed, let alone know anything about them beyond what you can quickly get off of Wikipedia or RPGGeek. And I wasn't even trying to find obscure games, or games that are particularly special, just a sampling of games that I know or have played that I can knowledgeably talk about. ("Yes I have" will be your empty reply, though you will undoubtedly add a few dozen more words.) And if my relatively small and eclectic experience of RPGs is foreign to you, how about people who play REALLY off-the-wall stuff from The Forge and other experimental groups? I'm not trolling you; I just think you're full of crap. I think you've got a genuinely good approach to the subject of games as systems, and you're ruining it with nigh-impenetrable text, a laughable price, and an ego the size of the Pacific Ocean. No one outside of this forum is taking your book seriously, and that's a real shame, but it's all your own doing. Okay, I promise to REALLY stay out of your love-fest of [Attack on forum members removed by Admin] this time. You go right ahead and tell me how ignorant and wrong I am. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 10:20:31 GMT -5
As I said, and you misquote again, I said had not studied them in depth, not that I was unfamiliar with them.
See the post above you for my answer.
As for the rest of your nonsense about over-priced, how do you know that the book is over-priced? Are you sure? We are selling it rather steadily. Sorry we don't offer a soup-line for internet scavengers and malcontents.
Next, how do you know that these games you supposedly have played are breakthroughs if you are so familiar with game design and D&D's (though you show no ability of that to date)? I can go to wikipedia right now and reconfirm what each and every type of game that you listed is or is not, but you cannot. Until you can, spare me your incessant babble. You couldn't prove that they are even if you read both D&D and either one of them side-by-side. I am not here to confirm your ignorance nor to hand out free books.
If you do not want to order the book but yet insist on arguing my points are not covered within said book, then you sir are perhaps the worst idiot that I have encountered to date. I suggest you do not post here for that reason alone.
|
|
Rueful grin!
