Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 10:28:20 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. "Suppose there were no hypothetical questions." Unless you're an expert on all those games, you're simply being an ass. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 10:31:18 GMT -5
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. Here's my opinion. You're a buttnugget. And speaking of price, your post is overpriced even though it cost me no money. That's ten seconds of my life I'm not getting back! Though you don't have the balls to say so openly, you're attempting to corner RJK into proving a negative, which is logically absurd and intellectually dishonest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 10:39:09 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. He is attempting to invalidate your point by trying to make you prove a negative, which, of course, is logically absurd. It is also prima facae evidence of a lack of good faith. The fact that he has not actually read the book is merely the glaçage on the gâteau, as your lovely wife would say. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 11:16:06 GMT -5
Distraction aside, for good I hope. Let the storm crow elsewhere as he has been doing on SJG: forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=149968Seems to have an axe to grind with a personal agenda. Oh well, so much for sobriety... Now back to the future.... |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 16, 2017 11:53:22 GMT -5
... about people who play REALLY off-the-wall stuff from The Forge and other experimental groups?... I am surprised to see someone that "claims" to be old school appeal to Railroad Story Game Central and the philosophy of anti-everything that OD&D stands for. 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. From where I sit you look very much like a troll and the only giant ego on display is yours and those who think like you. The only thing that you got right in the above is " I think you've got a genuinely good approach to the subject of games as systems" That would have been a good place to stop since as you have stated you have no intention of buying and reading the book. “A critic is a legless man who teaches running” Channing Pollock “A critic is a man who knows the way but can’t drive the car.” Kenneth Tynan (English theatre Critic, 1927-1980) “It is better to be making the news than taking it; to be an actor rather than a critic” Winston Churchill “It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic, is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things.” Theodore Roosevelt Or to paraphrase @gronanofsimmerya , if it is not constructive criticism, it is not criticism, it is just trolling. Proboards is not verstatile enough to allow me to insert this post prior to Rob's post so as he said, Now back to the future.... |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 12:05:09 GMT -5
Poland, France, Canada, Germany, Spain, Australia, Sweden, England and the USA are now included in our bubble as these are recent smattering of the places where the book has been ordered from. It will also be on sale at NTXRPGCon (for those who actually play and design games rather than attempting to stir crap on internet boards).
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 16, 2017 16:17:35 GMT -5
Stormcrow isn't a troll, he's using his own nick and putting his credibility on the line making the statements that he is. He is a valuable member of the on-line community and he is upset. We (as a collective), ganged up on him. I am not defending his actions, simply stating that his question is valid. There is the book, and then there is what people are saying about the book. These are two different things. The book IS controversial, it makes statements, that if taken out of context and not studied as a complete work, are offensive to our beliefs about the game, and perhaps to our games themselves. What one man finds liberating, another person is going to call destabilizing. The book also gives a middle finger to the establishment, which is definitely being frowned upon. These statements make DIY types feel empowered, but these statements, taken within the context are still offensive. A very respected and important celebrity of the game says that we're doing it wrong. To address your query, Stormcrow, if it is a tabletop RPG it uses Arneson's Engine. It doesn't matter what the system is. The first commercial system was Dungeons & Dragons, other systems spawned directly from that, else directly from Blackmoor. The splintering off, and the formation of competing systems was a direct result of either people who didn't like how D&D functioned, or enjoyed making products but couldn't because TSR claimed complete ownership over the engine itself, which they couldn't because it doesn't belong to them, it doesn't belong to anyone. To say that all tabletop RPGs are derivatives of D&D, while it sounds offensive, is none the less a true statement, even if a designer hated D&D and set about to design a better system that doesn't function anything like D&D, D&D was still part of the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 16, 2017 16:47:20 GMT -5
Poland, France, Canada, Germany, Spain, Australia, Sweden, England and the USA are now included in our bubble as these are recent smattering of the places where the book has been ordered from. It will also be on sale at NTXRPGCon (for those who actually play and design games rather than attempting to stir crap on internet boards). Those are all wealthy countries, Rob. I keep contact with users who live in less wealthy countries. Because of the lack of materials originally available to them, they play the game differently, I find it fascinating. A Spanish PHB of any system found in the market is going to sell, even the English books that have made their way there sell well. PDFs and technology have made great strides in leveling this playing field, but money is the issue. Your book is of interest to many, but after you factor in the exchange rate and the cost of shipping, it is just too far above their means, even for the wealthy. They want legal copies that make sure that you are paid, and want to know if it is possible that you will ever change your stance on releasing it on PDF. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 17:00:43 GMT -5
RPX187 said: "A very respected and important celebrity of the game says that we're doing it wrong."
I never made that statement, anywhere in the book. No where inferred, implied or stated. Anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 17:05:20 GMT -5
RPX187 "Stormcrow isn't a troll, he's using his own nick and putting his credibility on the line making the statements that he is."
By not reading the book and saying that I am full of crap... One destroys their credibility through that approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 17:30:33 GMT -5
Poland, France, Canada, Germany, Spain, Australia, Sweden, England and the USA are now included in our bubble as these are recent smattering of the places where the book has been ordered from. It will also be on sale at NTXRPGCon (for those who actually play and design games rather than attempting to stir crap on internet boards). Those are all wealthy countries, Rob. I keep contact with users who live in less wealthy countries. Because of the lack of materials originally available to them, they play the game differently, I find it fascinating. A Spanish PHB of any system found in the market is going to sell, even the English books that have made their way there sell well. PDFs and technology have made great strides in leveling this playing field, but money is the issue. Your book is of interest to many, but after you factor in the exchange rate and the cost of shipping, it is just too far above their means, even for the wealthy. They want legal copies that make sure that you are paid, and want to know if it is possible that you will ever change your stance on releasing it on PDF. Poland and Spain wealthy? They are hardly the beacons of wealth in the EU, both are subsidized very heavily by other member countries, especially Spain. As for the pdf, that usually comes later if at all so i cannot say for sure when. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 16, 2017 17:31:23 GMT -5
RPX187 said: "A very respected and important celebrity of the game says that we're doing it wrong." I never made that statement, anywhere in the book. No where inferred, implied or stated. Anywhere. You are correct, I miss-stated, but the message is there. Do It Yourself. That implication, I found to be at the heart of your book, and it is a message that I love! It is a personal philosophy which I live by: Seek no masters, seek what they themselves had sought. Perhaps I see it where it doesn't natively exist, however, I make it so. The exchanges taking place, all of it defensive, and personal, has done a lot of damage to the overall thread, which does contain great information, but you've already got to weed through several pages of bickering just to get to it. I've got to go do some stuff, but I would like to point out that this thread is going to be online FOREVER. Future readers are going to see this transaction and form opinions based upon them. It won't be Stormcrow that they'll be researching, Rob. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 17:48:30 GMT -5
RPX187 said: "A very respected and important celebrity of the game says that we're doing it wrong." I never made that statement, anywhere in the book. No where inferred, implied or stated. Anywhere. You are correct, I miss-stated, but the message is there. Do It Yourself. That implication, I found to be at the heart of your book, and it is a message that I love! It is a personal philosophy which I live by: Seek no masters, seek what they themselves had sought. Perhaps I see it where it doesn't natively exist, however, I make it so. The exchanges taking place, all of it defensive, and personal, has done a lot of damage to the overall thread, which does contain great information, but you've already got to weed through several pages of bickering just to get to it. I've got to go do some stuff, but I would like to point out that this thread is going to be online FOREVER. Future readers are going to see this transaction and form opinions based upon them. It won't be Stormcrow that they'll be researching, Rob. There is an old saying: "If one stands in the middle of the road they tend to get run over from both directions." That one is for you to ponder. I could give a shiite about people researching me or not if that is what you meant. This book was not about me. People should start and stop with the title. I am but a messenger, and I'll not have my research of 9 years and my whole life devoted to design summarized as "you are full of crap" by an agenda seeking troll. Engage me at my level, read the book, ask the questions, devote the time to positive possibilities rather than to negatively trying to tear down things like some baby denied a sweet candy. Stormcrow was slapped down because he deserved it, because he sought confrontation. Now we can return in peace to logic rather than emotion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 19:41:40 GMT -5
The book IS controversial, it makes statements, that if taken out of context and not studied as a complete work, are offensive to our beliefs about the game, and perhaps to our games themselves. Holy Shoot. That is... the craziest thing I've read in a long, long time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 19:45:54 GMT -5
Offensive to our beliefs about the game.
Beliefs. About a game.
Offensive. To beliefs. About a game.
DAPHUQUE?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 16, 2017 20:26:51 GMT -5
Why don't we drop this and get back to the book. I am looking forwards to @gronanofsimmerya take on it and to the takeaways all of the others who have read the book may have.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 20:53:04 GMT -5
The only things that are being taken out of context is what is not included in our "RPG History Classes 101":
Europa 6-8 April '75, page 22: Gary Gygax's partial response to Sandy Eisen's letter regarding D&D: "I would like to know what caused you to find the "shine" rubbing away and the game "not as open ended as it seemed to be". The campaign does rest very heavily upon the referee, but if he is doing a proper job it will be completely open-ended."
Quote, as far as I can reckon, NOT included in PATW. Imagine that...
Open system, open architecture, open thoughts, open minds, open design, open futures. OPEN-ENDED, What Arneson gifted to us and what Gygax recognized as TRUTH to POWER.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 17, 2017 7:12:01 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. , since you seem to have played and be very familiar with these games, why don't you pick one (or more) of these games and you characterize the game-play of the game(s)? Would that not be a more productive and less combative approach. If we were on a forum that you primarily hang out on, wherever that might be, and you started a thread and one of us came in that thread to disagree with you, I would imagine that a combative approach would not fly very well. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 17, 2017 7:23:11 GMT -5
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 [Attack on forum members removed by Admin] this time. You go right ahead and tell me how ignorant and wrong I am. , not all of us have any idea what this "The Forge" is or what other "experimental groups" there are, please provide reference links. I found the "The Forge" and it looks to have died. What are some of the other groups you speak of? The next paragraph, if I were robkuntz I would take a lot of offense at this. That is what my dad would call "fightin' words", maybe you should think about rephrasing that? I think that we all take offense at being called a "l[Attack on forum members removed by Admin] ", I don't see anyone here worshiping at the feet of robkuntz . Does his word carry weight because of his history, he was there at the beginning after all, and with off of his doings over the years, of course it carries weight. We still have to make our own decisions if we agree or not. I have yet to see anyone say they agree with him on everything or even most things. Each of us will test his words on our own scale. As for you many of us have no idea who you are, what is your history. Some of us young folks would like to know who the main players in this thread are. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 17, 2017 7:29:50 GMT -5
Sorry we don't offer a soup-line for internet scavengers and malcontents. I was having breakfast when I read this and I almost choked due to laughter. I am not sure that it will win anyone over to your side, but it did make me laugh! Until you can, spare me your incessant babble. I understand why you are testy and I even agree with you, but perhaps a bit too blunt. 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 would not have called him an idiot, and even in my short life I have encountered many who are much worse idiots, be honest you have too!  I do agree that arguing your points without actually reading the book first is jumping the sharp with spurs on. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 17, 2017 8:33:14 GMT -5
Ah, Darci, there is no such thing as being too blunt. You either are or you are not.
As for the rest, I am glad that something of mine made you laugh, but also that you were able to finish the meal, perhaps made more enjoyable due to that!
The final take is, as they say, now history.
Bon Appetite!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 17, 2017 8:59:24 GMT -5
Oh I agree with that as I was raised. However, my parents also taught me that there are some situations when tact should go hand in hand with being blunt and honest. They described as forcefully stomping on someones toes without ruining the shine on his shoes. Bluntness and honesty is easy, tact is very difficult.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 9:40:18 GMT -5
Tact? Bah.
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, hear the lamentations of their women.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 17, 2017 9:42:13 GMT -5
Oh I agree with that as I was raised. However, my parents also taught me that there are some situations when tact should go hand in hand with being blunt and honest. They described as forcefully stomping on someones toes without ruining the shine on his shoes. Bluntness and honesty is easy, tact is very difficult. There is an old saying: "When in Rome..." Another: "Eye for an Eye". My own: "Turn the cheek too often and soon you will be minus a face." --- RJK @ RoM, 17 May, 2017 (for all those that are citation happy). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 10:21:09 GMT -5
Of course, there is "Never wrestle with a pig, you'll get dirty and the pig will enjoy it..."
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 17, 2017 10:44:03 GMT -5
Of course, there is "Never wrestle with a pig, you'll get dirty and the pig will enjoy it..." This is priceless! Mark Twain wasn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 17, 2017 15:21:34 GMT -5
Tact? Bah. Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, hear the lamentations of their women. Laminating the women can get expensive. You need a very sturdy laminating machine and you still have to flatten the women first.  |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 17, 2017 15:55:24 GMT -5
Notice. One Discoverer, a Mr. Mormonyoyoman. Once a true seeker of facts, now about to find out that fact is but one step in his excursion in the Twilight Zone.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 17, 2017 16:15:46 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) This brings up an interesting topic. I started with 2nd Edition, Non-Weapon Prof, or skills are part of the optional rules, which everyone seemed to use at the time. The logic is that there is stuff that we know, and there is stuff that our characters know. I couldn't figure out how skills were managed prior to the system; which I now find limited in scope, but keep it as a necessary evil. How much leeway was given? The AD&D system has very practical applications of skills and places limits on how many of them that we can be really good at. If it isn't there, can't the players bs their way through it? What is stopping them? Also, how do we separate our modern skills from the archaic? 3e got really fussy with this system, to the point that it took over. I am nervous about dropping it completely, I feel that it is necessary, but I also don't really go by the book either. Once you told the DM how to climb walls, could all of your characters and all of the players at the game repeat this action? |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 17, 2017 16:28:49 GMT -5
One Discoverer, a Mr. Mormonyoyoman. Once a true seeker of facts, now about to find out that fact is but one step in his excursion in the Twilight Zone. ? Evidently Mr Rob is as much a follower of John Newland as of Mr Sterling? www.tv.com/shows/one-step-beyond/ |
|
I do agree that arguing your points without actually reading the book first is jumping the sharp with spurs on.
