|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 12, 2018 15:44:17 GMT -5
Just my 2 cps, but I would bring forth the books and then a while later publish the Commentaries separately in pdf form. Now on to my reply Going back to my quoted text, in terms of design thinking there are, I believe, many different techniques for many different designs coupled with different design goals for a multitude of different games, which could include games within games. In looking at D&D, I see many different games within the game and these different things have been given labels by many people, although that labeling may be artificially limiting our thinking. When we say things like "dungeon crawl," "hex crawl," and "domain play" to name just a few. So we could be generalizing in terms of techniques that could be applied in general to game design and the specific in terms of the techiques that could prove most fruitful for a specific design. Here in terms of generalizing I am thinking of what Arneson did, but considering D&D/Blackmoor as being only one of a entire possible class of games that utilize the transcendant system of Arneson. We already know it is one of a number of games, as the mechanics that Gygax used for D&D differ from the mechanics used by Arneson in Blackmoor, which I am assuming are only a minute portion of the ways the system can be used. There are, I assume, some broad based things/principles/techniques that apply across the board that are not limiting in and of themselves. For instance, brainstorming techniques that have been mentioned where all ideas are tossed up against the wall and only in a different phases of things are those ideas subjected to scruinty, leading to evaluation and comparison to other ideas to determine if that particular path is useful. I assume, although I don't know what they might be, that brainstorming is only one of many useful techniques of broad based application. It seems to me that the way Arneson played was a stream of consciousness, fly by the seat of the pants, chaos out of which multiple lightening strikes could and did occur. The general things, such as brainstorming, would then be followed by more specific directed thinking about a specific game, whether it is understanding the underpinnings of D&D or the preceding Blackmoor game of Dave Arneson before it was codified and written down by Gygax or whether we are going to take Arneson's ideas and system and go on to something new that is not D&D, but is its own unique game. But maybe I am getting ahead of myself here. Conceptual Realms what does that really mean. A concept is an idea or thought conceived in the mind, an abstract idea generalized from particular instances or specific example or occurrence of something. Where conceptual is relating to or consisting of concepts, note the plural. A realm is a sphere or domain, and in this context within the realm of possibility. A sphere or domain of possibilities. So by conceptual realms do you mean ideas conceived within a given realm(sphere or domain) of possibilities. This would take us back to design thinking by manipulating existent information where the existent information is the sphere or domain, the realm under consideration. I am reminded that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. Let me try a different tact. If Arneson created an entirely new system which integrated conceptual and mechanical parts as a new whole; and if that system had never before existed in the history of games or play (as I have asserted and maintain); and thus it is natural and true to state that this formed a NEW system wherein the conceptual (imagining) component was preeminent; and, further, that within such an arrangement that the mechanics were contingently subservient to it (in implementable, applied design senses and, thus, THINKING senses preceding from such applications). Thus the question MUST arise as to where we are at--when condensing this data--in relation to past thinking processes that are organized or implemented according to "standardized" methodologies that preceded such a leap. If we are beyond it (into a true paradigm shift as I have also asserted) then DESIGN THOUGHT must also have shifted, since design thinking and design output are inseparable. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 12, 2018 18:00:29 GMT -5
In notation:
If X = Standardized thought in design
And if X is superseded by Y
And Y remains unidentified as a paradigm shift when this happened
Then Y is realized only at the intuitive level (or possibly never, and risks being forgotten as it remains indescribable if unidentified)
and yet the question persists
What is this Y that supersedes X ?
We go back to the raw system structure to identify Y
The Y is applied imagination within many contingently mobile system prescriptions
What regulates a conceptual system prescription? The imagination.
So, in my estimation, Y is the imagination squared (I2)<---I have copyrighted this phrase for A New Ethos in Game Design I feel it's that important
And now to bed for me; a very long day; perhaps another day I will continue onward as to how the applied imagination under this system is used as an iterative tool for model progression, which is what Gygax did (in a low-scale incremental way) in relation to Arneson's prime base, the FFC. Ciao!
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jun 12, 2018 19:54:55 GMT -5
One has the Game-state, this being the parameters in which the game is played. A seller of game-states wants to eliminate user controlled modification under the guise that a player should know the "Rules" at one table and take it to another. Much of what we call house-rules is better classified as "Over-thinking it". The question is why should we change a rule, and how will this affect the game-state? Will it change it? As the GM we are the defenders of the Game-state, when we see an error, we have to correct it. I personally prefer the rules to be loose and independent; if I modify a rule because I judge a situation to be unethically partial, I want to do this without anything else getting affected.
There is so much fuss around mechanics, but in order to be true, the mechanics must serve the game-state, not become it. We are simulating something, and that something isn't combat, nor casting spells; this is how we interact with the simulation, but it isn't the simulation itself. Once the players are forgetting that there are mechanics, and no longer looking to their character sheets for a way out of their problems, then they are playing the game. Do house-rules improve the playability of the game, or do they distract us from it?
|
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Jun 13, 2018 13:27:29 GMT -5
One has the Game-state, this being the parameters in which the game is played. A seller of game-states wants to eliminate user controlled modification under the guise that a player should know the "Rules" at one table and take it to another. Much of what we call house-rules is better classified as "Over-thinking it". The question is why should we change a rule, and how will this affect the game-state? Will it change it? As the GM we are the defenders of the Game-state, when we see an error, we have to correct it. I personally prefer the rules to be loose and independent; if I modify a rule because I judge a situation to be unethically partial, I want to do this without anything else getting affected. There is so much fuss around mechanics, but in order to be true, the mechanics must serve the game-state, not become it. We are simulating something, and that something isn't combat, nor casting spells; this is how we interact with the simulation, but it isn't the simulation itself. Once the players are forgetting that there are mechanics, and no longer looking to their character sheets for a way out of their problems, then they are playing the game. Do house-rules improve the playability of the game, or do they distract us from it? As the DM I don't think of myself as being a defender of the publishers "Game-State" or as correcting errors. I think of myself as molding the game to my own taste and make rulings on the fly for things that are not covered. The reason for house rules is to improve the playability of the game to my taste. House rules that don't do that are discarded. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jun 13, 2018 16:49:20 GMT -5
The publisher demanding the user to keep things "Canon" is hilarious, isn't it? But every day you see people trying to do it. They HAVE to do it, and publishers keep this farce up laughing all the way to the bank! We all know that. But, what many people don't know is that we do it with the rules too. I used to read Dragon Magazine back when it was a thing, and you'd see people writing in questions. Stupid things! Things that don't really matter. I always wondered what they were doing while they waited 3-6 months while the big brains at TSR figured out the answer (if they ever did). Did they just stop playing? Was this letter the result of a huge arguement? I know that my groups never stopped for any gap in the rules, what was going on over there? I still don't know. I assume that eventually somebody at the table wisened up and just came up with their own answer and moved on, but you never know. People are weird. You look at all of the rules for AD&D. I've got an entire bookshelf dedicated to them! It is crazy! Sadly enough, I have most of them memorized, but while calling a game, I learned that pace is far more important than what Zeb Cook says. Today I don't look anything up. I'll just figure out something in my head and forget it just as fast. If an NPC comes to me, I make the rules serve the NPC, not twist it the other way around. This is a lesson that we've learned through time. What was it? 1989 that TSR decided to kill everybody's Forgotten Realms assassin PC's? One has to wonder what happened over that. Did DM's just say OKAY! That 12th level assassin you've been playing for years just died cause TSR said so. How would you react to that? Personally, I would ignore it but if I was a DM back in 89 I don't know if I would have. The Forgotten Realms Campaign Box Set is a great product on its own, but once you add all of the years of bloat and "CANON", it becomes an unspeakable mess. Thanks to getting slapped around at this place, I've come to the conclusion that it wasn't just the settings, but the same is said for the rules systems as well. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Jun 13, 2018 17:11:19 GMT -5
Since it was Forgotten Realms, doesn't that mean that we can forget the rules?
|
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Jun 13, 2018 17:44:54 GMT -5
I never did myself nor have I ever known anyone who wrote TSR with a question. We got the SR and the first few copies of The Dragon out of curiosity and then let it go. We decided that we didn't need anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jun 13, 2018 20:48:52 GMT -5
Well, you were smarter than I was True Black Raven, I ate that stuff up. I collected a lot of stuff back in my early days, but most of it was the wrong stuff.  |
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Jun 13, 2018 23:28:21 GMT -5
I bought a ton of stuff over the years & I still have most of my 2e AD&D and 3.5 D&D atuff. But most of it gathered dust as I ended up playing in others games. I'll never use the stuff, except maybe to mine for ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 15, 2018 9:41:28 GMT -5
I never did myself nor have I ever known anyone who wrote TSR with a question. We got the SR and the first few copies of The Dragon out of curiosity and then let it go. We decided that we didn't need anything else. I was too busy having fun and imaging things to take the time to write a letter. If I had written a letter, I don't really know what I would have said beyond "Thank you!" |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 17, 2018 14:17:43 GMT -5
In notation: If X = Standardized thought in design And if X is superseded by Y And Y remains unidentified as a paradigm shift when this happened Then Y is realized only at the intuitive level (or possibly never, and risks being forgotten as it remains indescribable if unidentified) and yet the question persists What is this Y that supersedes X ? We go back to the raw system structure to identify Y The Y is applied imagination within many contingently mobile system prescriptions What regulates a conceptual system prescription? The imagination. So, in my estimation, Y is the imagination squared (I2)<---I have copyrighted this phrase for A New Ethos in Game Design I feel it's that important And now to bed for me; a very long day; perhaps another day I will continue onward as to how the applied imagination under this system is used as an iterative tool for model progression, which is what Gygax did (in a low-scale incremental way) in relation to Arneson's prime base, the FFC. Ciao! I will await your next post, thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 17, 2018 14:19:07 GMT -5
One has the Game-state, this being the parameters in which the game is played. A seller of game-states wants to eliminate user controlled modification under the guise that a player should know the "Rules" at one table and take it to another. Much of what we call house-rules is better classified as "Over-thinking it". The question is why should we change a rule, and how will this affect the game-state? Will it change it? As the GM we are the defenders of the Game-state, when we see an error, we have to correct it. I personally prefer the rules to be loose and independent; if I modify a rule because I judge a situation to be unethically partial, I want to do this without anything else getting affected. There is so much fuss around mechanics, but in order to be true, the mechanics must serve the game-state, not become it. We are simulating something, and that something isn't combat, nor casting spells; this is how we interact with the simulation, but it isn't the simulation itself. Once the players are forgetting that there are mechanics, and no longer looking to their character sheets for a way out of their problems, then they are playing the game. Do house-rules improve the playability of the game, or do they distract us from it? As the DM I don't think of myself as being a defender of the publishers "Game-State" or as correcting errors. I think of myself as molding the game to my own taste and make rulings on the fly for things that are not covered. The reason for house rules is to improve the playability of the game to my taste. House rules that don't do that are discarded. Who cares what the publishers "Game-State" is they are not the ref doing the work and running the game. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 18:09:36 GMT -5
The Umpire is the defender of their OWN game-state. And the publisher's game-state is important inasmuch as the closer it is to the umpire's desired game-state, the easier it is for the umpire. That's still one of the major reasons I glean bits of mechanics from OD&D when I need mechanics; they work for virtually any conceptual space (my game world) that uses swords and armor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 17, 2018 22:26:18 GMT -5
The Umpire is the defender of their OWN game-state. And the publisher's game-state is important inasmuch as the closer it is to the umpire's desired game-state, the easier it is for the umpire. That's still one of the major reasons I glean bits of mechanics from OD&D when I need mechanics; they work for virtually any conceptual space (my game world) that uses swords and armor. I had not considered that angle, thank you for the insight. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 17, 2018 22:26:45 GMT -5
As noted in the other threads, I am going to bow out of this thread and just lurk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 18, 2018 13:32:31 GMT -5
As noted in the other threads, I am going to bow out of this thread and just lurk. As I have been assured that I am still welcome, I will indeed re-engage. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Jun 18, 2018 14:24:47 GMT -5
As noted in the other threads, I am going to bow out of this thread and just lurk. As I have been assured that I am still welcome, I will indeed re-engage. Does your fiance know about this?  |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 18, 2018 17:39:51 GMT -5
As I have been assured that I am still welcome, I will indeed re-engage. Does your fiance know about this? Oh sure, my fiancé knows (both of them) and all seven of my wives know and the 30 concubines know too. We're all on the same page and in agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Jun 18, 2018 21:03:14 GMT -5
Does your fiance know about this? Oh sure, my fiancé knows (both of them) and all seven of my wives know and the 30 concubines know too. We're all on the same page and in agreement. You must have a really good job (or do they support you?) |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jun 19, 2018 9:04:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Jun 19, 2018 10:39:06 GMT -5
I had to Google to see if those were still being made, I haven't seen that candy in years. Everyone calls it carmel but it is really caramel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 24, 2018 16:42:17 GMT -5
Does anyone know the context of why they are holding them up to their ears and the reason for the reactions? |
|
|
|
Post by Bartholmew Quarrels on Jun 28, 2018 13:44:18 GMT -5
Sorry, I don't remember ever seeing those, we didn't get a TV until the late 60's.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jun 28, 2018 13:59:19 GMT -5
Sounds good to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartholmew Quarrels on Jun 28, 2018 15:30:57 GMT -5
?? I don't hear anything? |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Jun 28, 2018 15:58:07 GMT -5
?? I don't hear anything? Get a sugerdaddy and you'll hear it, Bart. You'll hear it and it will be glorious, and you'll be one of us . . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by Bartholmew Quarrels on Jun 28, 2018 16:49:39 GMT -5
?? I don't hear anything? Get a sugerdaddy and you'll hear it, Bart. You'll hear it and it will be glorious, and you'll be one of us . . . . Oooh, scary clowns, cool.  |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 20, 2018 9:10:51 GMT -5
See disclaimer added to the OP.
|
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Jul 21, 2018 23:14:01 GMT -5
See disclaimer added to the OP. Thank you Q Man. |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jul 25, 2018 18:37:05 GMT -5
See disclaimer added to the OP. Thank you Q Man . You are welcome. |
|
