|
Post by Admin Pete on Aug 30, 2016 7:31:16 GMT -5
Whereas you state your own positions and clearly they are not "observations" on what Michael and I were discussing. We are discussing systems and the interpreted ranges of open and closed forms, that is, game theory and systems theory, the nuts-n-bolts of understanding the type of system, in this case, that Arneson deployed and that Gary Gygax reiterated. Thanks for your interjecting your own POV concerning your own personal summaries of what RPGs are for you and how you see them. Totally different slant, however. robkuntz : play nice or stop sharing. Thank you. robkuntz : play nice or stop sharing. Thank you. Are you kidding? I state the obvious and you call foul. Your bias is showing Tetramorph. It is you who should perhaps be playing nice. I even say "Thanks" and note the differences between the two discourses which I am personally referenced in "You two", and you still show bias. I suppose at this point I shall let PD handle it for you are indeed over the top here. Are you kidding? I state the obvious and you call foul. Your bias is showing Tetramorph. It is you who should perhaps be playing nice. I even say "Thanks" and note the differences between the two discourses which I am personally referenced in "You two", and you still show bias. I suppose at this point I shall let PD handle it for you are indeed over the top here. No, I am afraid I am not kidding. If you cannot tell the difference between tone and content, and you cannot tell when tone becomes rude, then may I suggest that you just take a break? Thank you. First let me say that I am really pressed for time this morning as I am in the first two weeks of the busiest 6 weeks of my work year. However, I have read and re-read this thread and I personally have enjoyed the content and discussion. I want to make it clear that I have the highest respect for all members and it is never my intention to play favorites - I don't like that on other boards and I don't want to do it here. I personally do not find this to be a thread that is rude and I am enjoying the discussion and the give and take between their viewpoints, as I get time I want to join in this discussion myself and I, as does robertsconley, come from the non-academic this is how I play viewpoint. So I appreciate all of the different views being brought forth. My opinion is that neither @gronanofsimmerya nor robertsconley are being mistreated and if I am wrong I invite them both to let me know. I enjoy robkuntz viewpoint and knowledge - even when sometimes I have trouble understanding what he has written. In my personal dealing with him, I have found him to reasonable and respectful. I do not believe that robkuntz is being or that he intends to be abusive or rude and that the debate is not out of bounds. I invite anyone who feels that it is to contact me and let me know. I also want to make it clear that I highly support tetramorph and have a great deal of respect and affection for him as a member and as a person I have gotten to know over the past year and a half. I appreciate his support and his advice. He has been of tremendous help to me in building this forum to where it is now. I do, however, disagree and as the Admin I am editing this thread and after everyone has had a chance to see this post I will be moving it out of this thread. It pains me to do this, because I like and respect everyone involved and do not want anyone to feel disrespected by me or anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 30, 2016 10:29:26 GMT -5
For what it worth, what I see are strongly written opinions. This is fine and I do not consider anything in this thread to be rude. I been around enough to have seen everybody who had posted in this thread at their best and their worst. So I know what I am getting into. Plus I know that some who are posting and reading here haven't interacted with me in the past or read what I written. Which is fine and I expect challenging questions especially when it comes to topics like this. I am just a guy with a few gaming books under his belt and some specific experiences when it comes to tabletop roleplaying. That is more than some had done. But it also at the same time pales compared to what others had done.
What I do know is there always more to learn and understand even when it is expressed "vigorously".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 11:24:32 GMT -5
I think where think get murky in other conversations is that people forget that there are indeed clear cut example of people playing wargame, story games, and tabletop roleplaying games. I think one of the things that makes things murky is the lack of agreement across the hobby on what a lot of the words/terms mean. "Story Game" for instance has a lot of different meanings depending on who is using the term. I agree completely about the unclear definitions, and I think it's amplified by the fact that the progression is a continuum and not discrete steps.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Aug 30, 2016 16:59:38 GMT -5
I think one of the things that makes things murky is the lack of agreement across the hobby on what a lot of the words/terms mean. "Story Game" for instance has a lot of different meanings depending on who is using the term. I agree completely about the unclear definitions, and I think it's amplified by the fact that the progression is a continuum and not discrete steps. And I do not ever believe that there will be clear definitions, either, unless it is to form some school of thought, which then, IMO, calcifies the range of differing POVs that can and will manifest due to the open nature of the beast and the interpretations inherent to the original concept as forwarded through Arneson by Gygax: “...My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rules to suit yourself and your players. DandD enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them...” -- E. Gary Gygax, Alarums & Excursions #2, 1975. AND.. “I desire variance in interpretation and, as long as I am editor of the TSR line and its magazine, I will do my utmost to see that there is as little trend towards standardization as possible. Each campaign should be a "variant", and there is no "official interpretation" from me or anyone else.” -- E. Gary Gygax, Alarums & Excursions #2, 1975. The very openness for interpretation of what a RPG is in the sense as extolled and embodied in these sentences becomes a fools quest unless left to individualistic perspectives, IOW, there is no standard and thus, according to a non-commerciaizedl view, can only amount to proclivities. Everyone's view is equal. This is why I completely reject schools of thought in the matter, for at least from a design perspective the game can take upon myriad expression paths dancing once again into, once again out of differing views, can laterally shift, or can emerge and/or morph in many different ways and directions. This was already proven by Gygax's iteration of Arneson's take: “Dave and I disagree on how to handle any number of things, and both of our campaigns differ from the "rules" found in DandD. If the time ever comes when all aspects of fantasy are covered and the vast majority of its players agree on how the game should be played, DandD will have become staid and boring indeed.” E. Gary Gygax, Alarums & Excursions #2, 1975. So if you want a story game and are content with what that means for you, then that is what it is. Difference was to be expected and encouraged under the concept. That includes major shifts, not just minor "adjustments" or variations only.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 5, 2016 23:00:23 GMT -5
D&D is a role playing game because that's what the military was calling its wargame simulations at the time, which focused on training for soldiers. I believe Gary picked up on this from the ubiquitous number of military active players in early wargames. People also in the early D&D community.
In this way D&D's design is the opposite of roleplaying games today (allocating player narration rights rather than seeking pre-existing goals in a game). D&D used to be designed, balanced and balance-tested like a wargame where every component in the game had to be built as part of the mathematical model (mapped) and balanced with every other. Hence the lengthy number of books and massive sizes (hard cover!) that grew as the system was increased in size and scope.
You couldn't just free write a narrative, a paragraph of fiction and call that a monster. Like any actual game, D&D game elements needed to be designed into mathematical objects, balanced, rated, and play-tested for accuracy.
D&D was called a roleplaying game because it has different classes for different players to gain game mastery in (as Gary called it, "role mastery"). Lots of games have playing pieces for the player to move around. That doesn't make them RPGs. Nor is moving yourself around during a sporting event fictional theater.
D&D focuses each player into a role (class) and awards points (with increases overall score) for roleplaying the class well. Dungeon! boardgame operates in a similar way, but without separate game systems to master and the board wasn't hidden behind the screen... a novelty to D&D at the time. (Well, Dungeon! lacked a number of D&D elements really...)
It's essential to remember that in no way did "roleplaying" in 1974 mean performing a fictional personality to the vast majority of people alive. That misunderstanding / reconvergence with group therapy roleplaying didn't come about until the late 70s early 80s. Roleplaying well in the D&D game means scoring higher in your class (AKA gaming well).
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 5, 2016 23:39:03 GMT -5
In this way D&D's design is the opposite of roleplaying games today (allocating player narration rights rather than seeking pre-existing goals in a game). Narration rights are not a common design feature of modern RPGs. The top five RPGs last spring (D&D 5e, Pathfinder, Star Wars, Shadowrun, and Dragon/Fantasy Age) have little to no narrative mechanics. The most popular RPG with narrative mechanics is Fate by Evil Hat. D&D is a role playing game because that's what the military was calling its wargame simulations at the time, which focused on training for soldiers. I believe Gary picked up on this from the ubiquitous number of military active players in early wargames. People also in the early D&D community. I feel Jon Peterson's Playing at the World exhaustively lays out the genesis of D&D. Military wargames were already an influence by 1970 and is the source of the idea of having a impartial referee for a wargame campaign. However the term roleplaying game didn't rise until after 1975. In fact nowhere it is used until an early issue of the Dragon. I think that would be a good topic for Peterson to tackled. You couldn't just free write a narrative, a paragraph of fiction and call that a monster. Like any actual game, D&D game elements needed to be designed into mathematical objects, balanced, rated, and play-tested for accuracy. Actually you can just "wing it" pretty much what Dave Arneson did. Now he used his experience in wargaming and research into folklore and history to get into the ballpark. There are numerous accounts of how the rules Blackmoor was continuously in flux over the life of the campaign. My impression was it was because Dave was interested in the free form nature of the campaign he was runing. The ability the players to do attempt anything their character could logically do. If he didn't have rules in his book, he made a ruling to cover it and moved on. D&D was called a roleplaying game because it has different classes for different players to gain game mastery in (as Gary called it, "role mastery"). Lots of games have playing pieces for the player to move around. That doesn't make them RPGs. Nor is moving yourself around during a sporting event fictional theater. Again D&D wasn't called a roleplaying game for a long time. It is after the fact term that grew as label to cover the games the hobby was using. And by the time it was wildly adopted you had games like Traveller and Runequest where character were defined by their skills not class. It's essential to remember that in no way did "roleplaying" in 1974 mean performing a fictional personality to the vast majority of people alive. That misunderstanding / reconvergence with group therapy roleplaying didn't come about until the late 70s early 80s. Roleplaying well in the D&D game means scoring higher in your class (AKA gaming well). I agree that tabletop roleplayiing wasn't about acting as a fictional personality in 1974. My impression from reading the various accounts was that players were basically playing themselves with the abilities of their character and maybe a fictional personality quirk or two. And many players still do that today. My opinion is that any thing that describe what D&D and roleplaying games are has to encompass both what Dave Arneson did in Blackmoor, and what Gary Gygax did in Greyhawk. In my view the hallmark of both is that both were campaign where players played individual characters interacting with a setting where their actions are adjudicated by a referee. That players, characters, settings, rules, and a human referee are what makes tabletop roleplaying, tabletop roleplaying and the package that ties all these elements is the campaign. The rules are an important tool to make the campaign happen. But the rules are not the campaign and not main point of why we are doing this.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 6, 2016 3:17:13 GMT -5
... Actually you can just "wing it" pretty much what Dave Arneson did. Now he used his experience in wargaming and research into folklore and history to get into the ballpark. There are numerous accounts of how the rules Blackmoor was continuously in flux over the life of the campaign. My impression was it was because Dave was interested in the free form nature of the campaign he was runing. The ability the players to do attempt anything their character could logically do. If he didn't have rules in his book, he made a ruling to cover it and moved on. ... ... My opinion is that any thing that describe what D&D and roleplaying games are has to encompass both what Dave Arneson did in Blackmoor, and what Gary Gygax did in Greyhawk. In my view the hallmark of both is that both were campaign where players played individual characters interacting with a setting where their actions are adjudicated by a referee. That players, characters, settings, rules, and a human referee are what makes tabletop roleplaying, tabletop roleplaying and the package that ties all these elements is the campaign. The rules are an important tool to make the campaign happen. But the rules are not the campaign and not main point of why we are doing this. As I have previously posted: Where a referee designed hex crawl falls under the heading of referee pre-designed sandbox as would a good module that can be adjusted to the campaign in question on the fly. I have done - over time - a bit of the top down design that robkuntz does (although nowhere near the extent that he has) and I tend to just 'wing it' in the Dave Arneson style in game. Also as I have previously posted: In my view, what I have said here is in substantial agreement with what I quoted from robertsconley .( emphasis added in the quote)
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 6, 2016 6:13:21 GMT -5
D&D is a role playing game because that's what the military was calling its wargame simulations at the time, which focused on training for soldiers. I believe Gary picked up on this from the ubiquitous number of military active players in early wargames. People also in the early D&D community. In this way D&D's design is the opposite of roleplaying games today (allocating player narration rights rather than seeking pre-existing goals in a game). D&D used to be designed, balanced and balance-tested like a wargame where every component in the game had to be built as part of the mathematical model (mapped) and balanced with every other. Hence the lengthy number of books and massive sizes (hard cover!) that grew as the system was increased in size and scope. You couldn't just free write a narrative, a paragraph of fiction and call that a monster. Like any actual game, D&D game elements needed to be designed into mathematical objects, balanced, rated, and play-tested for accuracy. D&D was called a roleplaying game because it has different classes for different players to gain game mastery in (as Gary called it, "role mastery"). Lots of games have playing pieces for the player to move around. That doesn't make them RPGs. Nor is moving yourself around during a sporting event fictional theater. D&D focuses each player into a role (class) and awards points (with increases overall score) for roleplaying the class well. Dungeon! boardgame operates in a similar way, but without separate game systems to master and the board wasn't hidden behind the screen... a novelty to D&D at the time. (Well, Dungeon! lacked a number of D&D elements really...) It's essential to remember that in no way did "roleplaying" in 1974 mean performing a fictional personality to the vast majority of people alive. That misunderstanding / reconvergence with group therapy roleplaying didn't come about until the late 70s early 80s. Roleplaying well in the D&D game means scoring higher in your class (AKA gaming well). D&D is a role playing game because that's what the military was calling its wargame simulations at the time, which focused on training for soldiers. I believe Gary picked up on this from the ubiquitous number of military active players in early wargames. People also in the early D&D community. "D&D is a role playing game because that's what the military was calling its wargame simulations at the time, which focused on training for soldiers. I believe Gary picked up on this from the ubiquitous number of military active players in early wargames. People also in the early D&D community." The military referred to a different waragme (Kriegspeil, at al) or simulation but to my knowledge never used the moniker 'role playing game'. Even if there was a chance occurrence the two structure are still not synonymous, as all war-games and/or simulations (that later became the two divided camps when commercialization of both occurred bitd, i.e., SPI (Simulations Publications, INC; and the others as pushed through the gamers-oriented side, such as Avalon Hill, etc.) are bounded complexity due to their scenario-driven natures, whereas Arneson's structure, almost two years in advance of it being utilized in Classic D&D, had solidly broken with this. As to the remaining part of your assessments, we never called it a RPG until many years later. It was first referred to in the LGTSA/TSR circle as FRP. The game part was added much later, so FRPG. To this day I only refer to OD&D as FRPG because it has been popularized commercially as such. The rest of it I will bow out of for now. I wrote several additional paragraphs but they ended up as summaries in my book, "Dave Arnesons True Genius" due out by the end of the year (it's finished, we are just waiting for the dust to clear on the new company launch).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 11:10:30 GMT -5
As to the remaining part of your assessments, we never called it a RPG until many years later. It was first referred to in the LGTSA/TSR circle as FRP. The game part was added much later, so FRPG. To this day I only refer to OD&D as FRPG because it has been popularized commercially as such. The rest of it I will bow out of for now. I wrote several additional paragraphs but they ended up as summaries in my book, "Dave Arnesons True Genius" due out by the end of the year (it's finished, we are just waiting for the dust to clear on the new company launch). Rob, This is something that I wish you would say a lot more about, either now or in your book. Many, many, MANY people, not just the one you quoted, insist that the term "RPG" came about as the result of some rigid taxonomic analysis that resulted in "This game has factors X, Y, and Z and therefore it is a role playing game." My memory is that we spent some time trying to come up with some blanket term for "this kind of game" whether fantasy, sf, or what have you, and that "role playing" is a term somebody suggested and it got popularized. But based on how we did things back then, I don't believe there was ever an attempt to rigidly analyze what made these games different and declare that based on certain factors, the correct term is "role playing game."
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 6, 2016 11:35:03 GMT -5
D&D isn't a RPG, I don't think
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 6, 2016 12:06:38 GMT -5
D&D is a role playing game because that's what the military was calling its wargame simulations at the time, which focused on training for soldiers. I believe Gary picked up on this from the ubiquitous number of military active players in early wargames. People also in the early D&D community. I started playing and refereeing in the fall of 1975 and I don't remember anything about the term "role playing game" at that time or the next several years. In this way D&D's design is the opposite of roleplaying games today (allocating player narration rights rather than seeking pre-existing goals in a game). D&D used to be designed, balanced and balance-tested like a wargame where every component in the game had to be built as part of the mathematical model (mapped) and balanced with every other. Hence the lengthy number of books and massive sizes (hard cover!) that grew as the system was increased in size and scope.Emphasis added. It does not sound like you are talking about OD&D or even Classic D&D (well maybe BECMI and the RC), it sounds more like you are talking about 1st & 2nd Ed AD&D, which is fine but you should identify what you are talking about since we are primarily but not exclusively an OD&D board. As for 3E and later it is wise to remember that they are not descended from D&D they are descended from AD&D, a fact that was obscured when WOtC renamed 3rd ED AD&D to 3rd ED D&D. Fortunately OD&D owes a lot to Arneson, so it does not suffer in any great measure to the problems you identified and I highlighted in your post. You couldn't just free write a narrative, a paragraph of fiction and call that a monster. Like any actual game, D&D game elements needed to be designed into mathematical objects, balanced, rated, and play-tested for accuracy. One of the beautiful things about OD&D is that you can play it without referring to any written materials at all, not even a table. You can "wing it" for hours making up all the sandbox details as you go and when the players roll to hit you tell them if they hit. When the referee has the players trust and does not abuse it the game flow can be incredible compared to combats that take hours to resolve as some versions do. If a character dies, a new character can be created in a few minutes and a referee can bring that new character into the game in anyone of tens of thousands of ways. You can make up monsters out of whole cloth, it does not have to be written at all. To paraphrase, the rules of my campaign are continuously in flux from the beginning of the campaign to the present day and beyond. D&D was called a roleplaying game because it has different classes for different players to gain game mastery in (as Gary called it, "role mastery"). Lots of games have playing pieces for the player to move around. That doesn't make them RPGs. Nor is moving yourself around during a sporting event fictional theater. I started playing and refereeing in the fall of 1975 and I don't remember anything about the term "role playing game" at that time or the next several years. D&D focuses each player into a role (class) and awards points (with increases overall score) for roleplaying the class well. Dungeon! boardgame operates in a similar way, but without separate game systems to master and the board wasn't hidden behind the screen... a novelty to D&D at the time. (Well, Dungeon! lacked a number of D&D elements really...) With OD&D at least, what constitutes playing the role well is somewhat unique to each referee and each campaign. It's essential to remember that in no way did "roleplaying" in 1974 mean performing a fictional personality to the vast majority of people alive. That misunderstanding / reconvergence with group therapy roleplaying didn't come about until the late 70s early 80s. Roleplaying well in the D&D game means scoring higher in your class (AKA gaming well).I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I cannot speak for 1974; however, in 1975 we were not performing a fictional character we were playing a fictional character that we created ourselves and that frequently was quite different from our real world persona. That fictional character had a role to fill (fighting-man, magic-user, cleric), but was not limited by that role. (I don't view fighting-men not being able to cast spells as a limitation, that is a system feature). Are you really saying that playing a fictional character is bad-wrong-fun? We played our characters to the best of our ability as we learned the game and faced challenges and while leveling up was cool and the boundaries where real improvement of the character occurred was always welcome, leveling up was not the most important thing in our campaign bitd. The sentence that I placed in bold just was not true for our group and I don't believe that is true for my current group as well. Also playing well was first and foremost just staying alive and that is also true today. It is more important to stay alive, than it is to level up.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 6, 2016 14:11:21 GMT -5
As to the remaining part of your assessments, we never called it a RPG until many years later. It was first referred to in the LGTSA/TSR circle as FRP. The game part was added much later, so FRPG. To this day I only refer to OD&D as FRPG because it has been popularized commercially as such. The rest of it I will bow out of for now. I wrote several additional paragraphs but they ended up as summaries in my book, "Dave Arnesons True Genius" due out by the end of the year (it's finished, we are just waiting for the dust to clear on the new company launch). Rob, This is something that I wish you would say a lot more about, either now or in your book. Many, many, MANY people, not just the one you quoted, insist that the term "RPG" came about as the result of some rigid taxonomic analysis that resulted in "This game has factors X, Y, and Z and therefore it is a role playing game." My memory is that we spent some time trying to come up with some blanket term for "this kind of game" whether fantasy, sf, or what have you, and that "role playing" is a term somebody suggested and it got popularized. But based on how we did things back then, I don't believe there was ever an attempt to rigidly analyze what made these games different and declare that based on certain factors, the correct term is "role playing game." Extracted from the Preface to my upcoming book, "A New Ethos in Game Design": "When one looks at the phrase by which we both comprehend and communicate to others what we play, that is, a Role Playing Game--or more specifically, a Fantasy Role Playing Game, as I am in this sense equating the fantastic to all such RPG vehicles that operate by use of our imaginations--they perceive its whole meaning, that is, as a symbol of what we do. But if one were to separate those words and was then asked to describe how each of these is realized, or how they might even differ from their base meanings or functionality, within a RPG, then that would be another matter entirely. The latter route is what I have tasked myself with in undertaking this work. "... Copyright 2013-2106 Robert J. Kuntz. All Rights Reserved
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 6, 2016 14:15:17 GMT -5
D&D isn't a RPG, I don't think It's actually many things. Foremost it's an ongoing idea.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Sept 6, 2016 14:21:30 GMT -5
D&D isn't a RPG, I don't think After 43 years of marriage, I don't think either.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 7, 2016 14:15:46 GMT -5
My opinion is that any thing that describe what D&D and roleplaying games are has to encompass both what Dave Arneson did in Blackmoor, and what Gary Gygax did in Greyhawk. In my view the hallmark of both is that both were campaign where players played individual characters interacting with a setting where their actions are adjudicated by a referee. That players, characters, settings, rules, and a human referee are what makes tabletop roleplaying, tabletop roleplaying and the package that ties all these elements is the campaign. The rules are an important tool to make the campaign happen. But the rules are not the campaign and not main point of why we are doing this. Not characters, not setting. Game pieces in a game design with every last element rated for ability and challenge awards. Class is the essential element making D&D a roleplaying game, not persona portrayal. The campaign, any game campaign, is the ongoing alteration of a game design (mathematical design, game board, field of play, "map", etc.) which results from players actions while playing it. Players are given scores for the goals they accomplish when advancing through the game. That's the point of D&D and any actual game: objective accomplishment. Seeking goals is game play, full stop. As a term, "Campaign means a single game (one instance of play) made up of an accumulative series of smaller games. As all of D&D's modules are played within the same game board (setting) and timeline (game time) there is no break in the accumulated effects of game play. Therefore the ongoing advancement of player actions in the game can be tracked as continuous advancement, one single game. An RPG campaign is not the history of action after the fact, a future railroad players are led down, or an invention in the moment. It's the overall accumulated successes and failures of each player throughout the entire length of a game. And the rules are the game design, so yes, they are the focus of the game.* It's simply in D&D all these rules are made to appear as fantasy creatures and the designs are hidden behind a screen and revealed in small snippets. *PS: Every gamer focuses on the rules when playing a game. To not do so is likely suck at the game.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 7, 2016 14:35:20 GMT -5
My opinion is that any thing that describe what D&D and roleplaying games are has to encompass both what Dave Arneson did in Blackmoor, and what Gary Gygax did in Greyhawk. In my view the hallmark of both is that both were campaign where players played individual characters interacting with a setting where their actions are adjudicated by a referee. That players, characters, settings, rules, and a human referee are what makes tabletop roleplaying, tabletop roleplaying and the package that ties all these elements is the campaign. The rules are an important tool to make the campaign happen. But the rules are not the campaign and not main point of why we are doing this. Not characters, not setting. Game pieces in a game design with every last element rated for ability and challenge awards. Class is the essential element making D&D a roleplaying game, not persona portrayal. The campaign, any game campaign, is the ongoing alteration of a game design (mathematical design, game board, field of play, "map", etc.) which results from players actions while playing it. Players are given scores for the goals they accomplish when advancing through the game. That's the point of D&D and any actual game: objective accomplishment. Seeking goals is game play, full stop. As a term, "Campaign means a single game (one instance of play) made up of an accumulative series of smaller games. As all of D&D's modules are played within the same game board (setting) and timeline (game time) there is no break in the accumulated effects of game play. Therefore the ongoing advancement of player actions in the game can be tracked as continuous advancement, one single game. An RPG campaign is not the history of action after the fact, a future railroad players are led down, or an invention in the moment. It's the overall accumulated successes and failures of each player throughout the entire length of a game. And the rules are the game design, so yes, they are the focus of the game.* It's simply in D&D all these rules are made to appear as fantasy creatures and the designs are hidden behind a screen and revealed in small snippets. *PS: Every gamer focuses on the rules when playing a game. To not do so is likely suck at the game. "As all of D&D's modules are played within the same game board (setting) and timeline (game time) there is no break in the accumulated effects of game play. Therefore the ongoing advancement of player actions in the game can be tracked as continuous advancement, one single game." But that's only true IF one judges the playing of D&D through the limited scope of a premade kit, or "module". Otherwise it is a skewed perspective predicated upon one route alone and historically has no precedence with the beginnings of OD&D and the purpose of the game in widely general terms. If one forces a single supposition such as this, a contained and constrained experiment, you will indeed get the feedback as expected from the model, which is pure science. But outside of that model the claims you make cannot be substantiated or extended, as many models can occur and thus many differing POVs will manifest which contradict your "all" or nothing position.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 7, 2016 15:12:12 GMT -5
Emphasis added. It does not sound like you are talking about OD&D or even Classic D&D (well maybe BECMI and the RC), it sounds more like you are talking about 1st & 2nd Ed AD&D, which is fine but you should identify what you are talking about since we are primarily but not exclusively an OD&D board. As for 3E and later it is wise to remember that they are not descended from D&D they are descended from AD&D, a fact that was obscured when WOtC renamed 3rd ED AD&D to 3rd ED D&D. Fortunately OD&D owes a lot to Arneson, so it does not suffer in any great measure to the problems you identified and I highlighted in your post. OD&D isn't AD&D not because you didn't need "rules" behind the screen, but because AD&D declared it's particular code of rules behind that screen to be "real D&D", which shuts down the referees role of determining this design before play can begin. 2nd Ed. AD&D is the inversion of the game moving rules design from behind the screen (a game of discovery) to in front of it (a game of rules lawyering). As the design itself is similar to earlier versions of D&D a lot can be borrowed if you used similar system designs. It's important to remember that at absolutely no point in a game is a referee to "improvise", but rather has all the responsibilities of implementing the rules. That's what referees do. That's why OD&D has a referee. They aren't a player. It's not even conceivable that they could play. How can you be tested in a game when you are the one tracking all the pieces on the maze behind the screen? How can you learn by trial and error what the elements of the monster/treasure/trap/etc. are when you have all those elements mapped out before you? This is completely wrong. You believed BITD you didn't need to buy the books to play D&D? Or do any preparation? The most important skill a referee has to do behind the screen is math. Counting and tracking everything is most of being a D&D referee when at the table. If you can calculate enough outcomes on the fly in mass to create another module more power to you, but it usually takes hours of preparation to roll up more design for the game. That's right, fictional characters have nothing to do with Dungeons & Dragons. THey are completely absent from its design. Nor does storytelling have anything to do with games in general. know of no game that gives points for accomplishing fictional characterization and certainly D&D does not. All of the 1000s of points in D&D are for players improving their roleplaying within their game role (class) as the act of roleplaying is a variety of system mastery (mastering a social role).
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 7, 2016 15:20:53 GMT -5
My opinion is that any thing that describe what D&D and roleplaying games are has to encompass both what Dave Arneson did in Blackmoor, and what Gary Gygax did in Greyhawk. In my view the hallmark of both is that both were campaign where players played individual characters interacting with a setting where their actions are adjudicated by a referee. That players, characters, settings, rules, and a human referee are what makes tabletop roleplaying, tabletop roleplaying and the package that ties all these elements is the campaign. The rules are an important tool to make the campaign happen. But the rules are not the campaign and not main point of why we are doing this. Not characters, not setting. Game pieces in a game design with every last element rated for ability and challenge awards. Class is the essential element making D&D a roleplaying game, not persona portrayal. I disagree. Tabletop Roleplaying Games are not games in the traditional sense. RPGs are something else that uses a game as a tool to make the campaign possible. That something else is the ability of RPGs to create a pen & paper virtual reality that is more satisfying to experience than let's pretend. It more satisfying because the use of game mechanic make accomplishing your goals a challenge rather than wish fulfillment. And it has nothing to do with persona protrayal. RPG campaigns work perfectly well with player playing themselves with the abilities of their character. It also works if you into acting as a different persona. And the whole thing is flexible enough that you can have campaign work with both types of players. And it not binary either, a lot of players including the ones I read about in the Blackmoor antidotes, play themselves with the abilities of their characters with some additional "quirks." Or the quirks develop over time due to the various humorous events and mishaps the players get themselves into. The something else part of RPGs is what makes the work of Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax genius level instead of just one more increment in the history of wargaming. The campaign, any game campaign, is the ongoing alteration of a game design (mathematical design, game board, field of play, "map", etc.) which results from players actions while playing it. Players are given scores for the goals they accomplish when advancing through the game. That's the point of D&D and any actual game: objective accomplishment. What about Classic Traveller? The only awards are what you get "in-game". Yeah you can pay for training to improve one attribute or one skill over four years. But that is a far cry in design and frequency than how OD&D recommends XP is to be awarded. Right away as of 1977 your ideas break down. In Runequest advancement is a combination of in-game rewards (playing money for training), and using the skill. Seeking goals is game play, full stop. As a term, "Campaign means a single game (one instance of play) made up of an accumulative series of smaller games. As all of D&D's modules are played within the same game board (setting) and timeline (game time) there is no break in the accumulated effects of game play. Therefore the ongoing advancement of player actions in the game can be tracked as continuous advancement, one single game. I don't see how what you are saying is any different from what I am saying. You are insisting is all one big game. I call it a campaign. The reason I do that is because after reading everything there is on history of roleplaying that the "default" mode was to kitbash multiple games, make up the remaining rules, double check against any relevant source material and use the resulting stew in a campaign. The Napoleonic Campaign in Minnepolis is a case in point. Diplomacy was mashed together with miniature wargamming rules mashed with the human referee and probably a half dozen other things to produce a campaign focused on playing out the grand scope of the Napoleonic Wars. A similar process happened with the creation of Blackmoor but because the focus was on playing individual characters not armies, nation or other abstract entities, it opened the gate to so many possibilities that the whole thing became the foundation of a distinct industry and a hobby that lasted for over forty years. *PS: Every gamer focuses on the rules when playing a game. To not do so is likely suck at the game. Well there another point that doesn't fit with out people play RPGs. It not common but there have been successful RPGS campaigns where players did not see their character sheet and rolled only when the referee told them to roll. The acted purely on their knowledge of how the setting worked. And it happens over and over again with the way most RPG campaigns work when a novice comes in. Often a novice can jump in and have fun only to pick up the actual rules a few session in. Why? Because in you pretend to be in a pretend setting doing interesting things. As far as I am concerned players treating characters like they are pieces on a game board is the bane of a good RPG campaign. I am not asking players to be actors, but I am asking to look at things as if they are standing there in the setting with the abilities of their characters and act accordingly. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 7, 2016 15:32:02 GMT -5
But that's only true IF one judges the playing of D&D through the limited scope of a premade kit, or "module". Otherwise it is a skewed perspective predicated upon one route alone and historically has no precedence with the beginnings of OD&D and the purpose of the game in widely general terms. If one forces a single supposition such as this, a contained and constrained experiment, you will indeed get the feedback as expected from the model, which is pure science. But outside of that model the claims you make cannot be substantiated or extended, as many models can occur and thus many differing POVs will manifest which contradict your "all" or nothing position. D&D, like all wargames at the time, required a design to be in place before play could begin. This is in the 3LB. Because the design IS the game. Meaning the map in D&D's case, though it is the maze of it (game design) that matters. It isn't an actual reference map. Deciphering the design of the game in order to achieve goals within it are at the heart of the passion wargamers have for wargames and also the passion early D&D players had for D&D.* They both want to WIN! To score points. To achieve victory. Beat the monster, get the treasure, and increase their score (eventually leveling up gaining game abilities to better face harder challenges in D&D). That is the greatness of games and the greatness of D&D. That you can succeed and improve personally. Referees through the 1970s and 80s said things like "I'm not making it up!" because they were not making things up. That's the point. They did not make up stuff like ACs after the fact. Players lost or succeeded on their own merits. Could some games be too difficult for the certain players? Sure, but level 1 is usually easy for a reason. Any player character (gaming piece) can still die (lose & start over) if the player is foolish or presses their luck too often. But no one walks into a 10th level game an can expect to play the game with 10th level ability. (Those were munchkins showing up with gonzo characters from monty haul campaigns - no game knowledge or prowess necessary). *You can find the same passion on computer RPGs by gamers attempting to get more resources, level up, and even beat the game. All of which are equivalent to good roleplaying (system mastery).
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 7, 2016 15:42:17 GMT -5
Like Gary said, the rules and laws can be changed to create unique and different situations. That covers all new models at one extreme and allows a paring down of the game to a simplified form on the other hand. This is the only key point that need be understood for completely dispelling the idea of "what it is". There are no standards from the beginning that can embrace such a posture. The module is only one of many possibilities, thus the variables and models are endless in regards to the imagination's interpolation of rules and structure. That's because this is an open system structure. Arguing all these other "fine" points is really a needless exercise when one is confronted up front with the systemic philosophy embedded in his quote.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 7, 2016 15:53:00 GMT -5
Like Gary said, the rules and laws can be changed to create unique and different situations. That covers all new models at one extreme and allows a paring down of the game to a simplified form on the other hand. This is the only key point that need be understood for completely dispelling the idea of "what it is". There are no standards from the beginning that can embrace such a posture. The module is only one of many possibilities, thus the variables and models are endless in regards to the imagination's interpolation of rules and structure. That's because this is an open system structure. Arguing all these other "fine" points is really a needless exercise when one is confronted up front with the systemic philosophy embedded in his quote. Any game of D&D can have different rules hidden from the players as long as those rules aren't changed during the game. And since the map is part of the rules its potential variation under the same system of rules is not changed when new design is randomly generated. But a game without rules (design) isn't a game at all. No game can happen as no pre-existing goals (like a finish line or BB hoop) is in place for players to achieve.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 7, 2016 16:11:59 GMT -5
Like Gary said, the rules and laws can be changed to create unique and different situations. That covers all new models at one extreme and allows a paring down of the game to a simplified form on the other hand. This is the only key point that need be understood for completely dispelling the idea of "what it is". There are no standards from the beginning that can embrace such a posture. The module is only one of many possibilities, thus the variables and models are endless in regards to the imagination's interpolation of rules and structure. That's because this is an open system structure. Arguing all these other "fine" points is really a needless exercise when one is confronted up front with the systemic philosophy embedded in his quote. Any game of D&D can have different rules hidden from the players as long as those rules aren't changed during the game. And since the map is part of the rules its potential variation under the same system of rules is not changed when new design is randomly generated. But a game without rules (design) isn't a game at all. No game can happen as no pre-existing goals (like a finish line or BB hoop) is in place for players to achieve. Rules can indeed be changed in game, added to and subtracted from and created anew. The DM is omniscient and can determine when and under what circumstances such changes occur. The rules are the subsystems, the players via the DM are the primary system. You are confusing a closed system structure (a map) with overall play possibilities. One needs no map to play D&D. You keep on forcing constrained environments into your arguments and I have already dispensed with these up thread as physically sampled maps are only one route for play. You are also denying that said maps have fluid environs, such as touching upon and being interactive through their boundaries in so stating their containment. You are stuck on non-open structures in every case for your arguments and D&D is in no way representative of that. As per Gary's quotes alone. What is the pre-existing goal in a Dungeon Crawl? To survive? Perhaps. The goals are all determined separately by the players and not by the rules, so one may want experience and wealth while another may just like chatting and socializing. One may want to build a house and rent to homeless peasants for nothing but the satisfaction of doing so. Once again you are attempting to paint the idea of the D&D game as a closed and reducible system, but since it is open and non-reducible your postulations lack its inclusiveness and imaginative breadth.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 7, 2016 16:47:28 GMT -5
I disagree. Tabletop Roleplaying Games are not games in the traditional sense. RPGs are something else that uses a game as a tool to make the campaign possible. That something else is the ability of RPGs to create a pen & paper virtual reality that is more satisfying to experience than let's pretend. It more satisfying because the use of game mechanic make accomplishing your goals a challenge rather than wish fulfillment. And it has nothing to do with persona protrayal. RPG campaigns work perfectly well with player playing themselves with the abilities of their character. It also works if you into acting as a different persona. And the whole thing is flexible enough that you can have campaign work with both types of players. And it not binary either, a lot of players including the ones I read about in the Blackmoor antidotes, play themselves with the abilities of their characters with some additional "quirks." Or the quirks develop over time due to the various humorous events and mishaps the players get themselves into. The something else part of RPGs is what makes the work of Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax genius level instead of just one more increment in the history of wargaming. Reality is real because we need to account for it. That isn't necessary in storytelling. It is necessary in games. D&D has every element of the game's design tracked behind the screen because it is the referee making/keeping those things real. Players must account for them without ever knowing what they are directly. It's all induction. This makes an imaginary world of fantasy actual in the way games are actual existing designs. Though the refs still have to do all the math and randomizing dice rolls for expansion and alteration over game time. Yes, the players can immerse themselves in the world. We can do that in any game design. But there exists a game where certain goals are point scored enabling individual players to focus play on particular role advancement by them. Skill games and "check" games aren't really RPGs IMO. Their "rules" never reference an actual game design. They may not even be games legitimately because of that. But there were a lot of incomplete and badly designed games in the RPG hobby over the years, some with the label D&D. I'm trying to clarify. Terms are used pretty loosely. It doesn't help that duplicitous people are attempting to conflate narrative ideas with game designs. They are two fundamentally different cultures. - "Character" means a game piece a player moves about on the board design, not a personality. - "Setting" is the part of the game design laid out as the field of play (hidden game map/game board), not a backdrop for adding stories too, but a portion of the actual game being deciphered. You listed your essentials for what makes D&D. I don't believe what Dave & Gary did at their particular tables was the way D&D was designed to be played. I think running a game at the same time you are designing it means you have to continually change and test rules. Game designers have done that through history. But that isn't the expectation for referees and players upon publishing. Maybe you could clarify what your list means for you? Setting (game map) in D&D is the majority of the game design and the biggest time sink for referees. From what you are saying, it sounds like the player's Character Record is in their head along with notes on their current understanding of the game. (Memory and imagining working together make up a lot of what players do during the game). D&D players focus their imagination on all of the revealed design so far as related by the referee. And, like any game, think up strategies based on what they currently believe, and then attempt actions to test those with understandings their character. (Actually, that's more the M-U main role focus to discover the underlying pattern whereas the fighter is the more traditional goal achiever, but every gamer does this to some degree or another in any game). IME, What your talking about is wanting players to focus on the actual game and play the game actively. Not necessarily worry about personality and relationships with the other players (though in a cooperative game like D&D that's a big part of design). I'd agree with. What I'm saying is everything the DM is allowed to say must be part of the game design before it can be related. If you can randomly roll and/or calculate all that up during a session, more power to you.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 7, 2016 17:20:25 GMT -5
Rules can indeed be changed in game, added to and subtracted from and created anew. The DM is omniscient and can determine when and under what circumstances such changes occur. The rules are the subsystems, the players via the DM are the primary system. You are confusing a closed system structure (a map) with overall play possibilities. One needs no map to play D&D. You keep on forcing constrained environments into your arguments and I have already dispensed with these up thread as physically sampled maps are only one route for play. You are also denying that said maps have fluid environs, such as touching upon and being interactive through their boundaries in so stating their containment. You are stuck on non-open structures in every case for your arguments and D&D is in no way representative of that. As per Gary's quotes alone. What is the pre-existing goal in a Dungeon Crawl? To survive? Perhaps. The goals are all determined separately by the players and not by the rules, so one may want experience and wealth while another may just like chatting and socializing. One may want to build a house and rent to homeless peasants for nothing but the satisfaction of doing so. Once again you are attempting to paint the idea of the D&D game as a closed and reducible system, but since it is open and non-reducible your postulations lack its inclusiveness and imaginative breadth. IMHO, you're just wholly wrong about this. The game you are talking about needs no books. No maps. No randomizers. No tracked scores. No tracked abilities or resources. No grid board to mark positioning. And no measured abilities with ratings in the game. Every product of D&D for the first 10 years is the opposite of what you're talking about. I believe that's because you're not talking about games, aka systems. A closed loop. A game is not an empty space to be filled. Or a story to be added to. It's a pre-existing design manipulated by players to achieve goals within it. Yes, D&D is open system because it can be added to, but it is not an infinite game. Adding elements to D&D should never by someone not playing the game. Yes, that means only players may add to the game system during play, but then never to their knowledge. All novel attempts are realized into the game design as play continues as the game increases in its complexity. But at every instance of the game it is bounded and finite behind the screen. And this is so it might be balanced and weighted, tested and generated for, and most of all enable actual gaming for players within. (actual goal accomplishment, knowledge acquisition, system balancing, continuing survival due to play, and so on.) I have a whole pile of maps with markers and markings on them because I'm not omniscient. I can't remember where everything is at all times. That's not my focus anyways, that's the players' focus. I just need to make sure I am always accurately tracking everything within the design at all times and telling players the results of their actions according to the rules. That's refereeing in any game. And yes, of course a referee can cheat. They can alter the rulebook any time they want. Or make up new rules for the game on the fly. Or pretend old ones no longer matter. And on and on... But D&D is like any game system where the players gain in mastery (role mastery for D&D) as they suss out all the nuances within the game design used. D&D players do this across multiple levels within the same game. Increasing in difficulty, but with compounded accumulation within same design so players continually increase in game mastery. More over, it allows for asymmetric game focuses for each player (their class) in order so they can play the game to support different methods of play, using different mini-systems accordingly. Only with accumulated mastery of a constant design can players become masters at combat, magic use, or clerical systems. Without it, there's no point in keeping score at all. That's definitely NOT D&D. D&D is all about scoring points. We beat the monster because we mastered the game design, computer or tabletop. Not "because the DM doesn't hate us this time". That's a fool's game.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 7, 2016 17:42:57 GMT -5
"Yes, D&D is open system because it can be added to, but it is not an infinite game."
And this is where you are wrong, for Gary, myself and Arneson proved just that. You should study the concept of "initial conditions" as D&D is not a set-in-stone game, it is an initial condition that can be modified and variated to anyone's purpose for engaging the systems "as is" or how it will become under differing systemic views. By admitting that it is an open system guarantees this. You cannot have your cake and eat it too as you are attempting to do. So. An open system, as stated up thread, can go to the extreme of eternal modeling interpolation, or constraints (laws and rules) can be added to regulate the system view, in which case it would stabilize upon a "set". D&D is an initial "set" only. It only remains a stable set if one chooses to make it so, but with neither choice does it cease being a game.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 7, 2016 18:04:30 GMT -5
"Yes, D&D is open system because it can be added to, but it is not an infinite game." And this is where you are wrong, for Gary, myself and Arneson proved just that. You should study the concept of "initial conditions" as D&D is not a set-in-stone game, it is an initial condition that can be modified and variated to anyone's purpose for engaging the systems "as is" or how it will become under differing systemic views. By admitting that it is an open system guarantees this. You cannot have your cake and eat it too as you are attempting to do. So. An open system, as stated up thread, can go to the extreme of eternal modeling interpolation, or constraints (laws and rules) can be added to regulate the system view, in which case it would stabilize upon a "set". D&D is an initial "set" only. It only remains a stable set if one chooses to make it so, but with neither choice does it cease being a game. Players adding new elements like spells or items is measured using linear interpolation based upon the current relavant design boundaries within the game. E.G. Flight is higher than levitation, but lower than teleportation. Sets like populations are constantly changing too, as is activity on any area map even so mundane as a traditional dungeon level. But over time all of this increased as Gary focused on making the game more dynamic and broader in scope. But its dynamic as a game system. I believe he fought until he left against the impulse to remove the actual game aspect of D&D for play that had no strategic pay off whatsoever. I.e. playing that is not gaming. He was a wargamer through and through. D&D isn't broken when it's a closed circuit at any given moment a player attempts an action. The rest of what you are stating isn't part of gaming culture.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 7, 2016 22:15:02 GMT -5
OD&D isn't AD&D not because you didn't need "rules" behind the screen, but because AD&D declared it's particular code of rules behind that screen to be "real D&D", which shuts down the referees role of determining this design before play can begin. 2nd Ed. AD&D is the inversion of the game moving rules design from behind the screen (a game of discovery) to in front of it (a game of rules lawyering). As the design itself is similar to earlier versions of D&D a lot can be borrowed if you used similar system designs. It's important to remember that at absolutely no point in a game is a referee to "improvise", but rather has all the responsibilities of implementing the rules. That's what referees do. That's why OD&D has a referee. They aren't a player. It's not even conceivable that they could play. How can you be tested in a game when you are the one tracking all the pieces on the maze behind the screen? How can you learn by trial and error what the elements of the monster/treasure/trap/etc. are when you have all those elements mapped out before you? I do not agree with any of what you say in this post. I particularly disagree with the part that I placed in bold. This is a fact, there is no place in OD&D where it either states or implies that the referee is not allowed to "improvise"; furthermore, what OD&D does is to encourage the referee to create and to improvise. It is a fact of historical record that Arneson and Gygax both improvised in their own campaigns - back in the 70's and all the way up to the end of their lives. I do not know where you are coming up with your views from, for they are certainly not found in OD&D. This is completely wrong. You believed BITD you didn't need to buy the books to play D&D? Or do any preparation? The most important skill a referee has to do behind the screen is math. Counting and tracking everything is most of being a D&D referee when at the table. If you can calculate enough outcomes on the fly in mass to create another module more power to you, but it usually takes hours of preparation to roll up more design for the game. I know for a fact that once you have learned to play OD&D and ref OD&D that you can play without using the rulebooks or tables. I can in fact play without any preparation whatsoever. Preparation is good if you have the time to invest, but if you do not and you have the talent to improvise, you can play without the preparation. In college I carried a full course load and worked. I did not have much in the way of prep time. I once used as my prep 12 quotes, that I chose because I like the quote and then I reffed a 14 hour game for 20 players. The only prep was the quotes, I told the players where they were and the map was created on the file as they traveled after picking a direction. I gave them several different rumors and they picked on. Each rumor was something that I thought I could build something from the quotes. If they picked one rumor I would use the quotes one way and another rumor another way. They traveled across a desert to some ruins near an oasis. They entered the ruins, all along the way their decisions of created the map as they went and as I described where they were going. I do the same thing today as a married man who works full time and is involved in a number of things other than playing OD&D. The players see five portals shimmering in the air in front of them each is different color. They can choose one of the portals or go off in three other directions or back the way they came. As I describe the portals a world on the other side of each portals springs full-blown into existence, I can see each one floating in the air in front of me, the continents, the mountains, the deserts, the plains, the oceans, islands. I can see the differences between the worlds, the creatures on each, etc. If I had time would I write a lot of this out, yeah, I would. But I don't and I don't let that hinder me. If I did not have to work for a living, I might have some of the hours for prep work that you talk about. I do not and I do not know anyone offline who does. That's right, fictional characters have nothing to do with Dungeons & Dragons. THey are completely absent from its design. Nor does storytelling have anything to do with games in general. know of no game that gives points for accomplishing fictional characterization and certainly D&D does not. All of the 1000s of points in D&D are for players improving their roleplaying within their game role (class) as the act of roleplaying is a variety of system mastery (mastering a social role). Are you sure you have read the OD&D books? There is no place in OD&D where it says you are playing yourself and that you game character represents the real world and that it can not be fictional. No, a character is either the real world (which you can choose to pretend that the character is you) or it is fictional and OD&D does not prohibit either from occurring. Many of my players over the years have chosen, as have I, to play a character that ranges from a little different from the real person all the way to a completely different personality. Railroading/storytelling is not part of my OD&D, but there are many people who do make that a feature of their games you can read about them all over the internet. Every character that I have ever played in an OD&D game has been a fictional - i.e. not a real world person. The campaign, any game campaign, is the ongoing alteration of a game design (mathematical design, game board, field of play, "map", etc.) which results from players actions while playing it. Players are given scores for the goals they accomplish when advancing through the game. That's the point of D&D and any actual game: objective accomplishment. IMC in OD&D the players determine their own objectives as the play and those frequently change during the game as things happen. That is not the way players game experience IMC. There are many different ways to do that. Seeking goals is game play, full stop. As a term, "Campaign means a single game (one instance of play) made up of an accumulative series of smaller games. As all of D&D's modules are played within the same game board (setting) and timeline (game time) there is no break in the accumulated effects of game play. Therefore the ongoing advancement of player actions in the game can be tracked as continuous advancement, one single game. I have to reject you definitions and your assumptions. My players explore, they seldom have an definite goals, unless play reveals a worthwhile goal that they can choose to pursue or not. IMC we play once a month and the current campaign has been running since July 2009. Some peoples campaigns run much, much longer. I have never used a module in a game, I have played in another refs game and played through B-2 Keep on the Borderlands. We took the kobolds as subordinate allies and used them to scout everything else. We as 6 first level characters, killed the owlbear and the minotaur without anyone dying. We befriended the medusa and she fought on our side. Those were my tactics leading the group. Modules are not required ever; however, there is nothing wrong with using on if you want to and if I did I would always tweak it to suit myself. And game are not always on the same world or plane of existence and sometimes in my game the characters have traveled in time. They have even been stuck in time loop and had to figure out how to break free of it. Well there another point that doesn't fit with out people play RPGs. It not common but there have been successful RPGS campaigns where players did not see their character sheet and rolled only when the referee told them to roll. The acted purely on their knowledge of how the setting worked. And it happens over and over again with the way most RPG campaigns work when a novice comes in. Often a novice can jump in and have fun only to pick up the actual rules a few session in. Why? Because in you pretend to be in a pretend setting doing interesting things. As far as I am concerned players treating characters like they are pieces on a game board is the bane of a good RPG campaign. I am not asking players to be actors, but I am asking to look at things as if they are standing there in the setting with the abilities of their characters and act accordingly. Quoted for truth! (immediately above) D&D, like all wargames at the time, required a design to be in place before play could begin. This is in the 3LB. Because the design IS the game. Meaning the map in D&D's case, though it is the maze of it (game design) that matters. It isn't an actual reference map. The only thing required is a referee with an imagination and players that have come to play allow their own imaginations to interact with the imagination of the referee. But that's only true IF one judges the playing of D&D through the limited scope of a premade kit, or "module". Otherwise it is a skewed perspective predicated upon one route alone and historically has no precedence with the beginnings of OD&D and the purpose of the game in widely general terms. If one forces a single supposition such as this, a contained and constrained experiment, you will indeed get the feedback as expected from the model, which is pure science. But outside of that model the claims you make cannot be substantiated or extended, as many models can occur and thus many differing POVs will manifest which contradict your "all" or nothing position. Like Gary said, the rules and laws can be changed to create unique and different situations. That covers all new models at one extreme and allows a paring down of the game to a simplified form on the other hand. This is the only key point that need be understood for completely dispelling the idea of "what it is". There are no standards from the beginning that can embrace such a posture. The module is only one of many possibilities, thus the variables and models are endless in regards to the imagination's interpolation of rules and structure. That's because this is an open system structure. Arguing all these other "fine" points is really a needless exercise when one is confronted up front with the systemic philosophy embedded in his quote. Rules can indeed be changed in game, added to and subtracted from and created anew. The DM is omniscient and can determine when and under what circumstances such changes occur. The rules are the subsystems, the players via the DM are the primary system. You are confusing a closed system structure (a map) with overall play possibilities. One needs no map to play D&D. You keep on forcing constrained environments into your arguments and I have already dispensed with these up thread as physically sampled maps are only one route for play. You are also denying that said maps have fluid environs, such as touching upon and being interactive through their boundaries in so stating their containment. You are stuck on non-open structures in every case for your arguments and D&D is in no way representative of that. As per Gary's quotes alone. What is the pre-existing goal in a Dungeon Crawl? To survive? Perhaps. The goals are all determined separately by the players and not by the rules, so one may want experience and wealth while another may just like chatting and socializing. One may want to build a house and rent to homeless peasants for nothing but the satisfaction of doing so. Once again you are attempting to paint the idea of the D&D game as a closed and reducible system, but since it is open and non-reducible your postulations lack its inclusiveness and imaginative breadth. And this is where you are wrong, for Gary, myself and Arneson proved just that. You should study the concept of "initial conditions" as D&D is not a set-in-stone game, it is an initial condition that can be modified and variated to anyone's purpose for engaging the systems "as is" or how it will become under differing systemic views. By admitting that it is an open system guarantees this. You cannot have your cake and eat it too as you are attempting to do. So. An open system, as stated up thread, can go to the extreme of eternal modeling interpolation, or constraints (laws and rules) can be added to regulate the system view, in which case it would stabilize upon a "set". D&D is an initial "set" only. It only remains a stable set if one chooses to make it so, but with neither choice does it cease being a game. Quoted for Truth!(immediately above) I'm trying to clarify. Terms are used pretty loosely. It doesn't help that duplicitous people are attempting to conflate narrative ideas with game designs. They are two fundamentally different cultures. - "Character" means a game piece a player moves about on the board design, not a personality. - "Setting" is the part of the game design laid out as the field of play (hidden game map/game board), not a backdrop for adding stories too, but a portion of the actual game being deciphered. I do not accept you definitions. And I do not appreciate you charge of duplicitous people. That does not apply to any of the existing group at this board. You keep going back to BtB fundamentalism and that is not what this board is about. There are lots of places that you can go and find support for BtB fundamentalism. This is not one of them. I don't believe what Dave & Gary did at their particular tables was the way D&D was designed to be played. Here you make a complete break with reality, the original Dungeons & Dragons was designed and intended to run exactly like Dave & Gary did at their particular table, completely wide open in Dave's case and a bit more restrained in Gary's case. Deviation from that early ideal occurred after OD&D was published and released into the wild once it had moved beyond the original target audience. Some like robkuntz who was there, never departed from the original vision, other like Dave Hargrave of Arduin fame also embraced the original ideal. Others wanted nothing to do with the original ideal. Dave Arneson was the gold standard of OD&D. He created it. The game you are talking about needs no books. No maps. No randomizers. No tracked scores. No tracked abilities or resources. No grid board to mark positioning. And no measured abilities with ratings in the game. Exactly, that is one of an infinite number of ways to play OD&D and a fun way to play at that. You should try it sometime. Every product of D&D for the first 10 years is the opposite of what you're talking about. No, OD&D is the product being talked about correctly. All of the "D&D" games after that up to the current day departed from the original vision. ( I am not saying that B/X or BECMI or AD&D are not fun, I am saying they play differently from OD&D unless you choose to play them the same as OD&D.) Players adding new elements like spells or items is measured using linear interpolation based upon the current relavant design boundaries within the game. E.G. Flight is higher than levitation, but lower than teleportation. Sets like populations are constantly changing too, as is activity on any area map even so mundane as a traditional dungeon level. But over time all of this increased as Gary focused on making the game more dynamic and broader in scope. But its dynamic as a game system. I believe he fought until he left against the impulse to remove the actual game aspect of D&D for play that had no strategic pay off whatsoever. I.e. playing that is not gaming. He was a wargamer through and through. D&D isn't broken when it's a closed circuit at any given moment a player attempts an action. The rest of what you are stating isn't part of gaming culture. First AD&D did nothing at all to make the game more dynamic and broader in scope. It did make the game less broad in scope as it and future versions steadily decreased players and referee options. What is being stated is gaming culture, just not the one that you are familiar with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2016 22:25:58 GMT -5
Some random peener-puller on the Internet telling one of the authors of Original D&D what D&D is, is absolutely freakin' hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 7, 2016 23:59:04 GMT -5
"Yes, D&D is open system because it can be added to, but it is not an infinite game." And this is where you are wrong, for Gary, myself and Arneson proved just that. You should study the concept of "initial conditions" as D&D is not a set-in-stone game, it is an initial condition that can be modified and variated to anyone's purpose for engaging the systems "as is" or how it will become under differing systemic views. By admitting that it is an open system guarantees this. You cannot have your cake and eat it too as you are attempting to do. So. An open system, as stated up thread, can go to the extreme of eternal modeling interpolation, or constraints (laws and rules) can be added to regulate the system view, in which case it would stabilize upon a "set". D&D is an initial "set" only. It only remains a stable set if one chooses to make it so, but with neither choice does it cease being a game. Players adding new elements like spells or items is measured using linear interpolation based upon the current relavant design boundaries within the game. E.G. Flight is higher than levitation, but lower than teleportation. Sets like populations are constantly changing too, as is activity on any area map even so mundane as a traditional dungeon level. But over time all of this increased as Gary focused on making the game more dynamic and broader in scope. But its dynamic as a game system. I believe he fought until he left against the impulse to remove the actual game aspect of D&D for play that had no strategic pay off whatsoever. I.e. playing that is not gaming. He was a wargamer through and through. D&D isn't broken when it's a closed circuit at any given moment a player attempts an action. The rest of what you are stating isn't part of gaming culture. Not gaming culture whatever that is, but exclusively game theory, no. Now figure that one out and you will have learned something. Arneson broke with immutable game theories, even non-zero sum, with the merger of systems. But do remain in your corner citing general POVs that OD&D vaulted beyond 40 and more years ago. It summarily proves my points about why mainstream D&D as it now stands commercially is in no way equal to its originator, because the system, starting with AD&D, was standardized and changed into pure linear grade matter, which is where all of your positions derive from. Toodles.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 8, 2016 0:07:24 GMT -5
I disagree. Tabletop Roleplaying Games are not games in the traditional sense. RPGs are something else that uses a game as a tool to make the campaign possible. That something else is the ability of RPGs to create a pen & paper virtual reality that is more satisfying to experience than let's pretend. It more satisfying because the use of game mechanic make accomplishing your goals a challenge rather than wish fulfillment. And it has nothing to do with persona protrayal. RPG campaigns work perfectly well with player playing themselves with the abilities of their character. It also works if you into acting as a different persona. And the whole thing is flexible enough that you can have campaign work with both types of players. And it not binary either, a lot of players including the ones I read about in the Blackmoor antidotes, play themselves with the abilities of their characters with some additional "quirks." Or the quirks develop over time due to the various humorous events and mishaps the players get themselves into. The something else part of RPGs is what makes the work of Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax genius level instead of just one more increment in the history of wargaming. Reality is real because we need to account for it. That isn't necessary in storytelling. It is necessary in games. D&D has every element of the game's design tracked behind the screen because it is the referee making/keeping those things real. Players must account for them without ever knowing what they are directly. It's all induction. This makes an imaginary world of fantasy actual in the way games are actual existing designs. Though the refs still have to do all the math and randomizing dice rolls for expansion and alteration over game time. Yes, the players can immerse themselves in the world. We can do that in any game design. But there exists a game where certain goals are point scored enabling individual players to focus play on particular role advancement by them. We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't view RPG as games, rather I view them as tools to help me run a campaign where players play characters interacting with a setting. The tool in question is a game and can be played as a wargame focused on individual characters. You can setup scenarios and victory conditions and have at it like in Panzerblitz, or better yet Squad Leader. However when used as part of campaign it becomes something different. Skill games and "check" games aren't really RPGs IMO. Their "rules" never reference an actual game design. They may not even be games legitimately because of that. But there were a lot of incomplete and badly designed games in the RPG hobby over the years, some with the label D&D. Now you are just trolling in calling out Runequest and Traveller as not being RPGs. There is no reply to this other than to say nobody uses your definition other than you. I'm trying to clarify. Terms are used pretty loosely. It doesn't help that duplicitous people are attempting to conflate narrative ideas with game designs. They are two fundamentally different cultures. - "Character" means a game piece a player moves about on the board design, not a personality. - "Setting" is the part of the game design laid out as the field of play (hidden game map/game board), not a backdrop for adding stories too, but a portion of the actual game being deciphered. You listed your essentials for what makes D&D. I don't believe what Dave & Gary did at their particular tables was the way D&D was designed to be played. Did I read that right? Do you not know that OD&D are the rules that Gary Gygax developed for Greyhawk? That if any campaign on this planet represents the way D&D ought to be played it would be Greyhawk circa 1973. Maybe you could clarify what your list means for you? What I am good at is using the setup of a roleplaying campaign to send people to another time and place as another person through the use of imagination. I don't make something to passively experience but enable the players to actively shape the events and circumstances that they are part of. That it is not an exercise in wish fulfillment because I use a game to make the outcome of their actions uncertain and to limit their resources. By doing this it becomes a challenge to achieve whatever goal they aspire too. And if they accomplish that goal, then they will feel a sense of sanctification and fun for achieving it. That what it mean to me. And thanks to Dave and Gary figuring it out I don't have to wait for the Holodeck to be invented, I can do it with dice, pen, and paper. IME, What your talking about is wanting players to focus on the actual game and play the game actively. Not necessarily worry about personality and relationships with the other players (though in a cooperative game like D&D that's a big part of design). I am talking about immersion and how to achieve it without jamming it down the player's throat. I'd agree with. What I'm saying is everything the DM is allowed to say must be part of the game design before it can be related. If you can randomly roll and/or calculate all that up during a session, more power to you. Well that won't work. Because RPG campaign operate as a slice of life of its settings. Like in real life player do all kinds of things as your characters. No set of rules can encompass the range of possibilities in a RPG campaign. What you can hope for with the rules you use is to cover the common situations, along with the situations you want a lot of detail for. The rest, you have to use your judgment based on the notes you made for your NPCs, and setting. Which are not a game in any shape or form.
|
|