D&D's Holistic System is NOT JUST the Mechaical Part

[robkuntz]

This thread was created to address the ideas of what D&D's holistic system is and is not, and that that view cannot be fully derived, but only partially derived, by the study of Gary's extracted mechanics use in D&D (and elsewhere).  In so isolating these past inferences (as suggested by any one viewer of these for importance) and by leaving out the total systems view as Gygax and Arneson produced, one is left with the idea that the mechanics alone represent the system, a point that has been a growing POV because that POV has been unduly stressed (due to the ease of its linear access) from one D&D platform to the next and this while sacrificing the holistic view. 

The hope here is to expand upon what D&D's (and originally what RPG's) architecture was and thus expand the idea of DM implemented and designer implemented options and view points.

[Deleted]

I look forward to reading your thoughts. What you have to say is always interesting.

[Deleted]

Rob, I agree. One analogy that comes to MY mind (after a career as a computer programmer) is that the situation is similar to confusing a computer language with the system it creates. I would have logical reasons for using this-or-that computer language to do, say, a payroll accounting system, but the system is independent of the language; I can think of at least three languages I know that would work just off the top of my head.

Note, one and all, I said "similar to," not "identical with."

[Deleted]

And, with all respect to those who have passed into the next world, when Gary said (for whatever reason, and I don't want to get into that) "you must play these rules or your game is no longer ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS," my reaction was rolling my eyes and a snort of derision. It's MY game, not his. Or Dave's, or anybody else.

[ripx187]

All of the rules that are used at the table during play are subjective unless the GM wants to play a specific system. I can't unlearn AD&D, there are things that I am just trained to do. If somebody falls off of a bridge, it will do d10 x 10s of feet fallen. This is an automatic response. A Dagger does 1d4. Why? Because that is my response. Everybody at the table agrees that a dagger does 1d4, so when any player strikes a target s/he should be able to make a calculated risk of doing so.  Of course a system could identify a dagger as doing 18d100 of damage and a sword does 1d3. If that is what everybody at the table has agreed to, then so be it.

Most of the really holistic stuff goes to design, not just the game but the very art of design. Hex grids marked by terra type is more interesting and easier to use that any other system. It allows the DM to design random encounters either randomly or to fit specific situations. A DM can take these notes and universally understand the principles at play.

Scale and the rules should be easy to use and calculate quickly. Movement Rates should allow the referee to automate the system to save time at the table. How MR interact with terra should be predictable, but one can tinker with this to simulate problems one finds during long distance travel.
 


 

[robkuntz]

Ok, I'm going to take the long road home with this one, so play along with the traveler on his journey.  All reactions and comments will lead somewhere, I assure you that there is a method and a design to my madness contained in the following catalyst:

Commentary C11 from A New Ethos in Game Design.  Copyright 2013-2018.  RJ Kuntz.  All Rights Reserved.

C11: When Howard held rein on Conan it was for the purpose of telling a story as he had imagined it; and so too for the pre-made adventure. Player characters become pre-imagined components in a plot that has already been realized, as it can only be realized, and as it must occur in order to validate itself. You cannot step outside of it; you cannot join other things to it. It is not permeable. It does not move the imagination but in limited ways according to the script and it validates itself through game mechanics and actions that must be accomplished as opposed to immersive Fantasy where the world environment is mobile and unpredictable. What little imaginative play that exists within it is mostly passive. The whole ordeal doesn’t come within a hairs-breadth of Campbell’s Heroic Discovery. At least his conception of the hero and adventure is leagued intimately with the unknown; and for the most part the premade “adventure” format has consigned the unknown to oblivion.

Worse, there is the IT Factor. As the GM you are not its creator, you know simply nothing of the whys and wherefores of what it is that you have been instructed to manipulate as a facilitator and administrator of its parts. A GM is assured through reasonable expectations that it will work. Just read it. Become familiar with it. Then repeat it. Premade adventures are mainly about “Its”. They are not about an “I’” or a “We,” like in, I am; or, We are. Nope. A premade adventure is a non-actualizing IT. And it is exactly as it is and you have no contact with it otherwise, except by way of it informing you of what to do with it.

It is therefore a thing; and even though GMs and players are not things, they are drawn irrepressibly to it. Why? For a rumor exists that it contains Fantasy; and that by the reading and repeating of it then this other thing called Fantasy will be magically transmitted via the conduit of the GM (i.e., the General Manager of IT) and to his or her players. And although a GM does not know how this is accomplished in its beginning stages let alone in its extended phases, through this adherence to a vague alchemy known only to gold-hobbled prestidigitators it is believed that Fantasy will surely manifest. Thus this mysterious process that lacks any apparent foundation must instead, and again, be ascribed to reasonable expectations.



In summary of it: Fantasy is now a thing outside of us, and it can only be realized by other things related to it that are also outside of us, which when used according to rote produce a mystical union with it. Fantasy is thus a god! But unlike the gods of bygone years, its commandments today come in different sizes, shapes and commensurate price ranges.

[ripx187]

I really like that message, Mr. Kuntz. I am with you, however, it took me a long time to catch up with you. I required more than just an idea, I needed examples and I'm always looking for and tinkering with new ways to organize data. I found the early "Setting" modules, like Dave Cook's Isle of Dread to be incredibly helpful and inspiring. There were others, but I'm not going to go into them here, the point was that I needed a bit of help to know what to do with this idea. Unfortunately, I didn't find Isle of Dread until well after I had established myself as a DM, it was this product which helped me separate "IT" from the system.

Some modules are very giving; they instruct and teach ideas which the user can then begin implementing, things that aren't necessarily in the handbooks. Things linked to the game. How much is too much? How many enemies is too little and how does the DM adjust things to keep the game's challenge on point. Assigning rewards, effective map making techniques and good symbols, what needs to be mapped and what doesn't? Modules can teach all of these skills more effectively than trial and error.

[Deleted]

But that implies that there is a "right" way to do those things. And in many cases, the "right" way is "whatever makes you and your group happy," not some Platonic model of "correctness."

[Deleted]

Feb 25, 2018 21:02:59 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

But that implies that there is a "right" way to do those things. And in many cases, the "right" way is "whatever makes you and your group happy," not some Platonic model of "correctness."

Agreed! Excise it, revise it, expand it ... the sky is the limit!

[robkuntz]

What came first, the chicken or the egg? What came first, the adventure or the re-made adventure? The rules were there in D&D for creating adventures for people, we all used our imaginations. There was no pre-made anything. Are you admitting, RPX, that you have less imagination than the next person, the thousands upon thousands who created 100% of their own matter, or is it that you followed some others pre-made formula and it was "easier" because it was accessible and expedient to do so? I am betting that the latter applies, so you really did not "catch up;" you like many others just took the linear route, and that's OK, but you can't have your cake and eat it too, not at least with me, especially after what I've seen you write at your blog. You have imagination, you just let yourself, like thousands of others in the AD&D era did, be led by other than your own models. And at no fault, really, as that is what TSR intended.

[robkuntz]

Feb 25, 2018 20:39:25 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

I really like that message, Mr. Kuntz. I am with you, however, it took me a long time to catch up with you. I required more than just an idea, I needed examples and I'm always looking for and tinkering with new ways to organize data. I found the early "Setting" modules, like Dave Cook's Isle of Dread to be incredibly helpful and inspiring. There were others, but I'm not going to go into them here, the point was that I needed a bit of help to know what to do with this idea. Unfortunately, I didn't find Isle of Dread until well after I had established myself as a DM, it was this product which helped me separate "IT" from the system.

Some modules are very giving; they instruct and teach ideas which the user can then begin implementing, things that aren't necessarily in the handbooks. Things linked to the game. How much is too much? How many enemies is too little and how does the DM adjust things to keep the game's challenge on point. Assigning rewards, effective map making techniques and good symbols, what needs to be mapped and what doesn't? Modules can teach all of these skills more effectively than trial and error.

On re-reading this I am going to go out on a limb with no insult intended/  How can you write about design theory at your blog when you are espousing upon a non-open, no creation, imitative philosophy of received knowledge from others?  Design is about originality. Learning about design has more to do, then, with what NOT TO DO.  Designers are not imitative if they want to succeed as designers, they blanch at the concept that they may have imitated or could do so. What you are stating in the closing sentences would mean to me that originality (in your view) is to equated to sameness (100,000 people all play the same module and derive pretty much the same things from it as it is very limited in scope, these things, for imitative purposes).  However, with OD&D-- the dungeon crawl and other== these were created the way people wanted, there was no absolute adherence to any other design principles except as generated by each individual's own proclivities.  There certainly began an exchange of ideas in newsletters and by local meets and by mail, but this mass promulgation which was fortified by TSR's mass marketing strategy, that was way on the horizon and was not having any impact in slowing creative growth (and thus design differences) down to the consensus seeking view as occurred with the advent of standardization in design (AD&D) and which continues to this day.

I also covered some of the above here in an old blog post:

Preamble Time:

Here we go with the continued deconstruction, like RPG is a science project or something that can be dissected and then reassembled. When will the clowns learn that an RPG is a living concept? Period. The more you vest in "this must be the way it is done, because Rob, or Dave, or Hargrave, or EGG the Magnificent," did it that way, you have reached the dead end of creative and spontaneous thought and action, the very essence of the original game as composed for creative individuals. An RPG (in action) consists of applied technique and applied creative force. These two facets, one perforce mechanical and the other intuitive, discretely work in conjunction with each other. They cannot be separated without derailing their combined process and thereafter causing immersion in the sludge created by such separation.

IOW, you cannot apply the limited dimensional processes associated with scientific inquiry in order to discover the basis for an intuited creative process or its outcome. If you insist on this course, the best you will arrive at is a formula based perception spurred on by reapplied techniques that for the most part have not been intuited but which are, instead, derived second hand. This route, if persisted with, more often results in the abandonment of original form for regurgitated formula. Technique and creative force must join and stay joined in order for understanding through experience, rather than imitation, to occur. The positive outcome of this in design is progressive rather than circular or stagnant. It's not, "How was it done?" Period; end of story. It's understanding the process through experience and as ported by continuous motion to test and to even improve upon a model at hand. The creative process one undertakes can be positively compared to forwarding concepts by remolding them into new, or expanding, possibility streams which are then reasserted in an open form(at) where further inquiry can, and should, take place--that is, in the latter case, if you are a thorough designer.

An RPG has infinite creative range unless its structure is changed to a closed model; and alas, and no skin off my back, closed models seem to be the vogue of many "designers" touting their "RPG theories" on the internet these days.

Referring Link:  lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.fr/2012/09/debunking-some-fallacies-part-i-of.html

[robkuntz]

OK.  One might ascertain the following from my recent posts (which I consider to be an inline sup-topic to what I had intended with the OP, but it is always best to clarify one's position):

a)  I am not a champion of received knowledge and especially within an environment where it is not challenged or no inquiry is forthcoming to examine it or to expand upon it.  Even in the latter cases one works, in parts greater or lesser, depending,, through the base conduit of what they did not originally create and is at a loss (again, more or less) for a holistic perspective while doing so.
b)  I champion all design efforts but only original and/or unique outcomes.  In the market that is going to vary according to one's knowledge base as a consumer but takes upon other dimensions and views when it is brought under the microscope of the veteran designer's assessment. (As for that proclivity, note that I instituted the THREE CASTLES AWARD for deign excellence, so i am not being anything but pragmatic regarding that view.)
c)  I believe, and will never suspend that belief, that TSR's mass production model tremendously set back creative license (almost eradicated it in fact!!) in RPGs as noted by and through the original game.  In its place was inserted an expedient entertainment-only model of design>play (or cyclical designs and design and play thought which aligns with the market and the model driving it) and thus the very linearized thought, views, and play and design attitudes that go with that.  Rather than Arneson's table of mismatched parts and processes which led to the advent of D&D (as I note in DATG), we now have HOW TO Guides and Books everywhere and, of course, the very market-to-consumer model itself imbedded in the pre-made adventure.  We have also descended from 100% creators (1974-1977 roughly) to  the current stable of RPG fans with dodgy excuses for wanting just to be entertained such as:  I am not creative, etc., etc., or I have no time (the latter usually posted by folks who spend a lot of their lives on FB, et al).  This coincides with a general emptying of critical thought in our society, which I compare in NEiGD and which is touched upon in DATG.
d)  I watched all of this occur over 40+ years; but had been opposed to it from the onset (just like Gary initially was and Arneson definitely was).  Why? Because creative variations and more original choices spurred more great design that led to growth in the Hobby and not just to a concentration of that growth in just a handful or less of companies. It's called push-back against the entrenched establishment; but under later-TSR that design philosophy was mostly abandoned for brand eminence and market position--thus the NEW ESTABLISHMENT which I oppose to this day as I know exactly what that entails, and it isn't good for original designers in mainstream RPGs, but that's yet another subject...

Now back to my regularly scheduled topic, but as I noted in the OP, all reactions and comments would be responded to.

[ripx187]

There is a lot here to process, Mr. Kuntz. This IS the exciting stuff, and these ideas are typically what is not being discussed in RPG message boards. Everybody is so scared that THEIR game is not a game. I get told off sometimes for my thoughts: mental regurgitation about predictability laws, how unfair it is to make things up as you go, how idea X doesn't fit into system Y so, therefore, it is no good.

I realized a trend in RPG which I dubbed Module Addiction some years ago. I also see how video game influences have taken us to a specific outcome and have greatly altered expectations.  I seek to remove these influences from my game, but you are telling me that it goes further than that, right back to the system itself. Unlearning is much harder than acquiring new knowledge, it always has been. Reprograming the way that we think, we find this difficult.

The games that interest me are the unusual ones. How the game is played in prison; that is fascinating stuff! All of the materials which we take for granted are considered contraband. Tools must be improvised, new ways must be found. Necessity always gives birth to ingenuity. I also enjoy reading about games that take place where RPG literature is rare, to non-existent. They create their own unique languages and influences. They heard about the game and some even play a game based not upon the rulebooks, but from a game that a guy learned and handed down to different generations of players. How much does a DM who learned a system from a guy have in common with the guy who actually had a book? Unfortunately, the internet, while it exposes the fact that these games are still being played, is destroying them because they have that weird desire to play THE RIGHT WAY. 

[robkuntz]

Feb 26, 2018 16:55:59 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

There is a lot here to process, Mr. Kuntz. This IS the exciting stuff, and these ideas are typically what is not being discussed in RPG message boards. Everybody is so scared that THEIR game is not a game. I get told off sometimes for my thoughts: mental regurgitation about predictability laws, how unfair it is to make things up as you go, how idea X doesn't fit into system Y so, therefore, it is no good.

I realized a trend in RPG which I dubbed Module Addiction some years ago. I also see how video game influences have taken us to a specific outcome and have greatly altered expectations.  I seek to remove these influences from my game, but you are telling me that it goes further than that, right back to the system itself. Unlearning is much harder than acquiring new knowledge, it always has been. Reprograming the way that we think, we find this difficult.

The games that interest me are the unusual ones. How the game is played in prison; that is fascinating stuff! All of the materials which we take for granted are considered contraband. Tools must be improvised, new ways must be found. Necessity always gives birth to ingenuity. I also enjoy reading about games that take place where RPG literature is rare, to non-existent. They create their own unique languages and influences. They heard about the game and some even play a game based not upon the rulebooks, but from a game that a guy learned and handed down to different generations of players. How much does a DM who learned a system from a guy have in common with the guy who actually had a book? Unfortunately, the internet, while it exposes the fact that these games are still being played, is destroying them because they have that weird desire to play THE RIGHT WAY. 

Your commentary deserves more time for a suitable response than I now have at the end of my day, here.  I will take that up in the next few days as I am out of town Tuesday.  Some good thoughts worth covering! (G' Night!)

[Admin Pete]

From The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, emphasis added:

AFTERWORD:

There are unquestionably areas which have been glossed over. While we deeply regret
 the necessity, space requires that we put in the essentials only, and the trimming
 will often have to be added by the referee and his players. We have attempted to
furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light,
 we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are
 absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide
how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we
 are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining
for you? Write to us and tell about your additions, ideas, and what have you.
We could always do with a bit of improvement in our refereeing.

I have always hung my hat on the fact that the rules themselves both explicitly and implicitly tell me to decide what I want and make it so and so I did and do. So many complain that D&D is not polished and "professional" enough and go on and on about it's supposed deficiencies. IMO "fixing" all the "problems" would have ruined it. The better clones are good for keeping it available and now that the pdfs are back on the market, the better clones are good for bridging the gap for those that have no background to just pick up the 3 LBBs and play. However, even the better clones have to walk a tightrope to avoid neutering the game and of course only the authors of the better clones even know the tightrope is there. The "ambiguities" and the "vague" parts are essential IMO.

[mormonyoyoman]

Feb 28, 2018 1:30:48 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

only the authors of the better clones even know the tightrope is there.

This may be the one line which could replace pages and pages of arguments on each side.

[robkuntz]

Going to enter hyperdrive Design Thinking 303:

By expanding upon the inquiry of design elements rather than closing them down through the standard routines inferred by the base structure there is revealed, and reconstituted, the varied paths that led Arneson to organize and implement the first conceptual play environ in the history of adult games. This always suggests that what we have before us at any moment is only a provisional structure--an enticing example of the “now” which is future-mobile regarding what conceptual leaps can be attained within it through different expansive inquiry routes. Thus the “A” starting point for continuing the expansion of the game’s elements and structure is not through the emulation or rearrangement of the game and its base parts, but in tracking and understanding Arneson’s mindset by way of his exampled design attitudes and then strolling beyond the base, just as he had to do with an established static base to arrive at a new and mutable base example (i.e., concerning the latter “mutable base example,” the First Fantasy Campaign (aka, the Blackmoor campaign) and then as a reiterated system structure for Classic D&D). Another way of thinking about this is to equate what Arneson did to the opening of a door upon an ever variable conceptual horizon; and to realize that, since then, most everyone’s been stuck in the doorway...

The above copyright 2013-2018, A New Ethos in Game Design, RJ KUNTZ.  All Rights Reserved.

I will address (when my writing schedule allows, but soon enough) why this attitude is paramount and as it relates to both RPX's and PD's thoughts.

[mormonyoyoman]

Loving the analogies in this! From tightropes unseen to doorways that are mistaken for the destination, we have some powerful, pursasive, and entertaining language being used. I never metaphor I didn't like.

[Traveroark]

Feb 28, 2018 5:35:33 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

I will address (when my writing schedule allows, but soon enough) why this attitude is paramount and as it relates to both RPX's and PD's thoughts.

I am looking forward to that, great thread.

[robkuntz]

I am behind on several important projects, which include my current book writing, compiling/research for another, an interview (now ongoing for 2 months, it's going to be rather large and insightful), my father-in-law's health problems (not looking good but of which I do not speak about too much), designing a convention tournament which may be on or off depending on all of the aforementioned, proposals for two translated works, etc. etc. I need, as always, to have more of me to accomplish everything that I want to.

So, I will leave the following comment for now regarding the slant of this topic and let those here, at their leisure, maybe paste together, for now, what I have been getting at. Sure, this is leading, but then again I do not teach anything (remmmber that I dislike received knowledge):

C39: In a conceptual system like Classic D&D, the GM is storyteller, is the one who along with the players immerses them in the environment, and is the game adjudicator. All of these many facets, and more, combine to become immersion “in” Fantasy rather than entertainment through it, even though we are entertained in the process. We can say it’s entertainment only and thus make it our whole object with no distinct particulars involved that are actually working in unison to the contrary. But that’s a choice based upon proclivity; and just like with a joke, some might be immersed and laugh by its telling and some may shrug due to their proclivity for certain jokes only.

The distinction is that Fantasy is supposed to be as immersive as jokes are intended to be, but only through the proper wielding of it can we actually produce the “In,” in that immersion; and if we don’t, hey, it was at least entertaining, right? But when Fantasy combines with fun we have a special sort of experience that has merged from many different directions at once and seemingly transcends mere fun. Because as you come down from this particular experience you instantly realize that you are no longer where it was that you’ve been and you yearn to be there again. It may immerse us, it may transport us, and it may speak to us in humorous tones at times, but Fantasy will announce itself by our feeling both absent and present at the same time; and this is what will always separate it from entertainment sprinkled with Fantasy motifs only.

The above copyright 2013-2018, A New Ethos in Game Design, RJ KUNTZ. All Rights Reserved.

[antoine]

I propose another analogy: the volcano.

Actual role-playing is like an erupting volcano. Playing the RPG in real time is like a river of lava. Lava is hot, liquid and luminescent. As such it is always changing, polymorphing as it advances - creativity at is best.

What remains after the game is like the basalt. The play has produced some rules, these rules are the lava which has became cold, solid and dark. They are stones, but sometime fantasticaly shaped stones.

And those stones can be sold. In contrast, the lava cannot be sold. Actually, when you buy a box of rulebooks, even the 1974 OD&D, you are just buying stones. But what you want is to experiment the lava.

For some gamers the stones are THE thing, the REAL thing (but it is not). It is no wonder that they cannot figure that these cold, solid and dark stones were before hot, liquid and luminescent... and they cannot experiment the creativity of the lava, they are just playing with blocks of stone: their games remain dark, solid and cold.

[Admin Pete]

Jun 19, 2018 15:27:25 GMT -5 antoine said:

I propose another analogy: the volcano.

Actual role-playing is like an erupting volcano. Playing the RPG in real time is like a river of lava. Lava is hot, liquid and luminescent. As such it is always changing, polymorphing as it advances - creativity at is best.

What remains after the game is like the basalt. The play has produced some rules, these rules are the lava which has became cold, solid and dark. They are stones, but sometime fantasticaly shaped stones.

And those stones can be sold. In contrast, the lava cannot be sold. Actually, when you buy a box of rulebooks, even the 1974 OD&D, you are just buying stones. But what you want is to experiment the lava.

For some gamers the stones are THE thing, the REAL thing (but it is not). It is no wonder that they cannot figure that these cold, solid and dark stones were before hot, liquid and luminescent... and they cannot experiment the creativity of the lava, they are just playing with blocks of stone: their games remain dark, solid and cold.

Have an Exalt antoine, great comments and thank you for reviving this thread. With health events I missed the last several posts in this thread and it is great to come back to it.

I have said in other threads that I have never run a module ever, all the games I have run have been 100% my creation and influences at a sub conscious level by everything I have experienced. I have never set out to recreate anything specific I just start with an idea and let it grow wherever it takes me and the players. I liken those cold, solid, and dark stones to tectonic plates and the hot, liquid and luminescence that they float on is your imagination. The roleplaying then is as you say the volcano and the rivers of lava, earthquakes, floods, storms and all other chaotic activity that manifests in what we call creativity. Yes, great analogy of the volcano!

But to carry this a bit further, the difference between OD&D and many other games is that the blocks of stone that make up OD&D are optimized to float and are sized so as to interact and allow the volcanic eruption. Some games have stones that will not float and on top of that they are sticky and they stick together and block the volcanic eruptions and prevent the flow of lava. The more sticky the stones the more board game like is the "rpg". Modules are designed to play using the sticky stones and they come with fake lava that can fool the naive into thinking they have the real thing.

[Deleted]

Here's another analogy:

Buying a musical instrument vs buying a CD of music.

[antoine]

Jun 19, 2018 23:50:28 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

But to carry this a bit further, the difference between OD&D and many other games is that the blocks of stone that make up OD&D are optimized to float and are sized so as to interact and allow the volcanic eruption. Some games have stones that will not float and on top of that they are sticky and they stick together and block the volcanic eruptions and prevent the flow of lava. The more sticky the stones the more board game like is the "rpg". Modules are designed to play using the sticky stones and they come with fake lava that can fool the naive into thinking they have the real thing.

Right, some games are better than others to allow the rise of creativity. OD&D rules are not broken as some people think, the same players want to fix them but they are just building a wall of stones which prevent any creativity.

You're right, the blocks of OD&D rules can be heaten with your imagination and can become lava again! I could not have said it better.

[robkuntz]

Jun 20, 2018 0:53:59 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Here's another analogy:

Buying a musical instrument vs buying a CD of music.

Yes.  They could go on:  teaching a person to fish rather than handing them a fish, etc.

1) Create, participate, learn, rather than 2) buy, remain static and never learn.

But, that is where one finally realizes that this open, creative model is NOT compatible with what the market wants from the consumer which is #2.

[mormonyoyoman]

Inevitably it leads to Perpetual CPR vs Breathing On One's Own.

Seriously, the analogy of buying a musical instrument vs buying a CD is apt in so many ways. Most people don't WANT to learn how to create music. That's all right; we don't each need to be a musician. It gets irritating when willfully tone-deaf people insist that the sounds they hear are One True Music.

It would be obvious, if most non-musicians insisted that they are musicians - or worse, experts on the history and basics of music - all while producing nothing. In rolegaming, as in many disciplines, everybody is their own favorite expert - and woe to blasphemers who don't agree with the majority opinion.

This is why I'm grateful the United States united as a republic instead of as a democracy. Mobs believe that history can be voted on. Who needs messy facts?

[Admin Pete]

Jun 20, 2018 4:16:01 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

Jun 20, 2018 0:53:59 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Here's another analogy:

Buying a musical instrument vs buying a CD of music.

Yes.  They could go on:  teaching a person to fish rather than handing them a fish, etc.

1) Create, participate, learn, rather than 2) buy, remain static and never learn.

But, that is where one finally realizes that this open, creative model is NOT compatible with what the market wants from the consumer which is #2.

Those are the two competing philosophies in every realm of human endeavor. Freedom vs slavery, that is the choice that it always comes down to. Enslaving minds is just as evil as enslaving bodies and ultimately much easier to do, because those whose minds are enslaved do not know they are slaves and end up supporting their own slavery.

[robkuntz]

C19: A GM who creates their own realities, who studies volumes of texts for facts and oddities that relate to their future application in game terms, who draws a multitude of maps for world, regional, planar, city and dungeon environs, who imagines a panoply of elements into being and then sluices these into play, and who juggles various data concerning all of these interrelated parts, well, these people earn the title of ‘Master. Those others today who just manage premade products are, generally, more like game administrators who have been conferred with the title of ‘Master due to their ability to purchase it. -- ©2014-2018. RJ Kuntz. All Rights Reserved

[Deleted]

Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll spend all his spare time sitting in a boat drinking beer.

[Admin Pete]

Jun 20, 2018 10:00:40 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

C19: A GM who creates their own realities, who studies volumes of texts for facts and oddities that relate to their future application in game terms, who draws a multitude of maps for world, regional, planar, city and dungeon environs, who imagines a panoply of elements into being and then sluices these into play, and who juggles various data concerning all of these interrelated parts, well, these people earn the title of ‘Master. Those others today who just manage premade products are, generally, more like game administrators who have been conferred with the title of ‘Master due to their ability to purchase it. -- ©2014-2018. RJ Kuntz. All Rights Reserved

Have an Exalt! Good not be in greater agreement with you.