|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 8, 2016 0:11:04 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. I didn't see your replay sandwiched between all the posting. I wish I had, you state what I feel about howandwhy assertions much more eloquently.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 8, 2016 0:12:25 GMT -5
At this point, I have to ask, who are you howandwhy99? You are new poster, and posted in this thread. Given your most recent responses it looks like you are just here to troll.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 8, 2016 0:57:35 GMT -5
I would assess that he is a hack game theorist and that would be polite. HandW continually ignores specific answers and relies on general positions in response. He attempts to have his cake and eat it too while doing so.
|
|
|
Post by DeWitt on Sept 8, 2016 1:58:29 GMT -5
I feel like the rules are just as important. Aesthetically, class restrictions etc. and experientially.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 8, 2016 8:39:38 GMT -5
Among everything else, this particular "slice" from H&W gives away his central philosophy: "...everything the DM is allowed to say must be part of the game design before it can be related." I will ask everyone to take note of the word "allowed" in relation to the DM. If this is not a telling attribute of what I have stated on here, in articles, and in my book (in signature below) nothing will be. It is a 180 degree shift from OD&D (omniscient DM) to premade content (needful/reliant DM). It is the move from actually "knowing" to "asking what is known" as I state in the book on Arneson, upcoming, as well. This is why studying systems is so important in that once they are described you can flag this sort of stuff and without all the wasted wordage.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 8, 2016 19:04:40 GMT -5
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 agree to disagree. For me, all the rules in all the early version of D&D are what they are, weighted and rated, because they are designed to be games. In other words, complete systems within which thinking players can score points and advance in level in the role they've chosen. Something any hardcore wargamer would love. BTW, I'm not here to troll at all. I mean what I say and am not looking to upset. I simply disagree. By the way, why accuse me of trolling due to my claim right after you claim all RPGs are not games? Designing any game in the middle of running it isn't an actual game. Doing that is a good method to learn what works and what doesn't for a finished game system, but ultimately the rules aren't set so the players cannot really game them. The goals are really set, they are constantly moving to the whims of someone not even playing. None of the players actions would really count to their overall score. And the score fails as a measure for goals earned as it would in an actual game. D&D is an actual completed game. OD&D is simply the first its kind where the design was hidden, cooperative, but played individually, required players to select their focusing on one single internal system players role played (gained social role mastery in), scored players individually only by the role system, actually used asymmetric design for these systems, had an overall win/loss system (live/die), and a means for the overall increase in game components whenever the players attempted actions not in the current design, but only due to their voiced attempts - not via a gaslighting "referee". D&D is an actual game and not an improv story. You can actually score goals in it and master the game. In fact, that's the point of the game (as in any actual game). It's a game system where the players scoured dungeon levels (game boards), gained treasures (abilities and resources), killed monsters (design obstacles), and can accomplishing goals in the specialty role system scoring points (experience points). I refuse to pretend the designs in the game books of OD&D are irrelevant. Just as the physical manifestations of those designs I listed above (dice, grid boards, mazes, etc.) are essential too. You can play with a different design behind the screen, but it is essential for any game. When we pretend there is no actual game to be played, then we're back to improvising into an empty space which isn't the act of gaming at all. I think we agree more than we disagree. I also understand pencil and paper to be necessary to play. But the design behind the DM screen has to be in place before the players can begin gaming it. I think immersion at best was an accident of design. It don't believe it was a concept in RPGs until people were fighting against the prejudices of GNS theory and its designer. Any game has immersion when we focus on it during play. Playing football or Axis & Allies we are immersed in the world of the game. Part of the actual design that is played in wargames and RPGs is the mathematical field. This is manifested in an football field, Axis & Allies board, or D&D maze, but that design is still part of the actual game and what the players master. Because D&D only puts out physical manifestations of its grand design a small portion at a time it's easy to think they aren't necessary. But like the nicety of a chessboard... we could play it all in our heads, but in some ways its easier to have it in front of us. (After all, that's what games and D&D are, all math all the time.) I do like your explanation of what you do. Personally, I think you can satisfy players even more if you make the design more like a game. Were the players actions in the game have consequences relating to every single thing in the game at any given moment of game time. RPG campaigns are the results of a single run through a game. They aren't reality simulators, they are games for players to seek to score points in. And what isn't covered can be incorporated according to the rules. When it cannot be it is simply doesn't happen. I agree with what you said, the rest is not a game in any shape of form.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 8, 2016 19:14:27 GMT -5
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. I'm not defending contemporary RPGs at all. They aren't really games in my book. They are people inventing fictional narratives, not game players accomplishing goals in an actual game. What they are doing isn't even gaming. To me, there isn't even a measuring of the two. OD&D is an actual game we can enjoy succeeding at it. I personally see all the mechanics in early D&D games as suggestions for the referee to put in place before the game begins. I think the core design is curvilinear, a bell curve over a linear probability roll, but it's still all about the math. The design to be played. I don't know if that relates to "linear grade matter", but... I would ask what game designs you are? But if you have to go, that's fine. I appreciate the comments even if you disagree with my take on things. Take care. EDIT: IMO, it's okay to question authority. Especially if a life time of experience suggests otherwise. I've studied game theory and systems theory, but I'm not a long time game designer as yourself. By my understanding, I am responding directly to your posts. If my answers appear off course, please reiterate what you're saying so I might better understand. To all:I don't appreciate name calling. And if people feel I am insulting them directly, that is not my intention. I love the OSR community and count myself a member. I may reject some game theories offered, but that's all they are in the end: theories.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 8, 2016 20:02:54 GMT -5
OD&D is simply the first its kind where the design was hidden, cooperative, but played individually, required players to select their focusing on one single internal system players role played (gained social role mastery in), scored players individually only by the role system, actually used asymmetric design for these systems, had an overall win/loss system (live/die), and a means for the overall increase in game components whenever the players attempted actions not in the current design, but only due to their voiced attempts - not via a gaslighting "referee". What are you trying to say here? I think that you should very carefully explain exactly what you mean by a gaslighting "referee". Especially since it is a very serious charge you are making accusing a referee making use of abusive manipulation towards his or her players.D&D is an actual game and not an improv story. You can actually score goals in it and master the game. In fact, that's the point of the game (as in any actual game). It's a game system where the players scoured dungeon levels (game boards), gained treasures (abilities and resources), killed monsters (design obstacles), and can accomplishing goals in the specialty role system scoring points (experience points). In the 41 years that I have played and refereed OD&D I have never once viewed that as the point of the game or even one of the main points. You taking something simple and trying to make it overly complex and hard to understand. I do not see the point in your approach at all. I refuse to pretend the designs in the game books of OD&D are irrelevant. Just as the physical manifestations of those designs I listed above (dice, grid boards, mazes, etc.) are essential too. You can play with a different design behind the screen, but it is essential for any game. When we pretend there is no actual game to be played, then we're back to improvising into an empty space which isn't the act of gaming at all. The game rules are not irrelevant; however, they are very open, fluid and flexible and the rules them selves by explicitly and implicitly condone and encourage tinkering/houseruling. No one has said that anyone is pretending there is no actual game to be played, that conclusion is a misunderstanding on your part. I think immersion at best was an accident of design. Immersion is the result of the referees interactions with the players through his vision and presentation of his game world. I do like your explanation of what you do. Personally, I think you can satisfy players even more if you make the design more like a game. Where the players actions in the game have consequences relating to every single thing in the game at any given moment of game time.The bolded statement is true throughout each of my game sessions even when or especially when I am "winging it". This is in my opinion one of the things that make a game session excellent. From your complete statement it appears that you do not believe that to be true and that would be a mistake. RPG campaigns are the results of a single run through a game. I have to say that this is a blatantly false premise. A campaign is a continuing series of game sessions over a period of time: some campaigns consist of a dozen game sessions over a few months (or even less) and other consist of hundreds of games over many years(or even more). A single game session with no connection to any other game sessions is called a "one shot" not a campaign.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 8, 2016 20:54:07 GMT -5
What are you trying to say here? I think that you should very carefully explain exactly what you mean by a gaslighting "referee". Especially since the charge you are making is of a referee making use of abusive manipulation. Referee is a historical role in sports and wargames and RPGs like D&D. Referees basically make a promise before running any game or sport. "I will not invent, ignore, or deliberately misinterpret the rules as you play". That's central to their role in the game. D&D referees, just like in the game Mastermind, are never allowed to change the design hidden behind the screen during play. Doing so I call gaslighting the players. What would you call it? "Winging it", in other words improvising, when done by the the referee is the opposite of a game where player actions matter. What you are talking about is like a chessboard being randomly repopulated with random pieces between each players turn. Games have been designed for 1000s of years specifically to keep this from happening. That success or failure occur from a continuity of actions. So a single game of chess (a campaign IMO) played over a series of meetings is a "campaign" for you. If play continued without break, it's a one shot? For me, a one shot is the first few hours of a game that takes 100s of hours potentially to finish. It's like a few moves in chess focusing on one's end game, start, or more aptly a tricky situation players try to overcome while they have time to play. A campaign only ends due to characters dying (playing piece removed) or players quitting the game (pieces remain, but operate under game rules, not a players actions). A TPK one way to end a campaign. Personally, I think Chess is a wargame and like the term campaign is used in wargaming my interpretation is more accurate to D&D. But use what you want.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 8, 2016 22:29:43 GMT -5
What are you trying to say here? I think that you should very carefully explain exactly what you mean by a gaslighting "referee". Especially since the charge you are making is of a referee making use of abusive manipulation. Referee is a historical role in sports and wargames and RPGs like D&D. Referees basically make a promise before running any game or sport. "I will not invent, ignore, or deliberately misinterpret the rules as you play". That's central to their role in the game. D&D referees, just like in the game Mastermind, are never allowed to change the design hidden behind the screen during play. Doing so I call gaslighting the players. What would you call it? What you are referring to is not part of OD&D. Inventing rules during play is part of OD&D by design, deciding (sometimes during play) what rules you are not going to use is part of OD&D by design and that last is just a dig that you have thrown in because no one is doing that. I would call it playing OD&D the same way that Dave Arneson the guy that invented the game played the game. It is not "gaslighting" the players to use your insulting and slanderous term. "Winging it", in other words improvising, when done by the the referee is the opposite of a game where player actions matter. What you are talking about is like a chessboard being randomly repopulated with random pieces between each players turn. Games have been designed for 1000s of years specifically to keep this from happening. That success or failure occur from a continuity of actions. Are you sure that you live in the real world and are sure that you have ever actually played D&D? You seem to be saying that if you do not have time to do hours and hours of prep work and write down everything prior to when the players show up to play, then you should just not play and that if you do play that way you having terrible, horrible, bad, wrong fun. In other words you do not know anything at all about OD&D or how it can be played and you are saying that all of the people that I have played OD&D with over the year were not having fun, they were just decieved into thinking they were having fun by this horrible person (me) who abusively manipulated them into thinking they were having fun when they were really having a terrible time. Are you Ron Edwards in disguise? In other words, you are saying that you came here for the express purpose of insulting in the worst way possible the host and creator of this forum. As robkuntz , has pointed out many times, Dave Arneson broke with the " Games have been designed for 1000s of years specifically to keep this from happening.", and created something different. OD&D as originally conceived and published was designed deliberately not to be that kind of a game. The fact that TSR fairly quickly begin to move away from that and by the time AD&D came around had completely abandoned that original concept did not stop many of us from recognizing the original concept of Dave Arneson and playing that way. If your only desire is to insult and denigrate those who hold true to the original concept of the game, please understand - you are at the wrong forum. There are plenty of other forums where you can go worship in the temple of the Rigid Inflexible By the Book - all other ways are bad wrong fun cult. This forum is here to celebrate creativity of which we have many creative people that invent incredible things. I am convinced that they and others can go much further and higher with that creativity if they can get away from people that hold the viewpoints that you do. So a single game of chess (a campaign IMO) played over a series of meetings is a "campaign" for you. If play continued without break, it's a one shot? For me, a one shot is the first few hours of a game that takes 100s of hours potentially to finish. It's like a few moves in chess focusing on one's end game, start, or more aptly a tricky situation players try to overcome while they have time to play. A campaign only ends due to characters dying (playing piece removed) or players quitting the game (pieces remain, but operate under game rules, not a players actions). A TPK one way to end a campaign. Personally, I think Chess is a wargame and like the term campaign is used in wargaming my interpretation is more accurate to D&D. But use what you want. I have not been talking about Chess, I have been talking about OD&D. For some reason you want to keep inventing new definitions of your own and then you want to force the rest of us to use them. A one shot is know in D&D circles as a game session that does not share the same characters or setting with any other game session. It is not the first of many connected game sessions. Your interpretation has nothing to do with OD&D. It is only our attempt to reframe things in a way that you can falsely assert that only you are right and what everyone else does is wrong. If you are trying to convince me that you are a troll and that you are here to insult the members of this forum, in that you are succeeding.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 8, 2016 22:53:43 GMT -5
What you are referring to is not part of OD&D. ... Are you sure that you live in the real world and are sure that you have ever actually played D&D? ... If you are trying to convince me that you are a troll and that you are here to insult the members of this forum, in that you are succeeding. I think conversation can continue if we all take a few seconds to breathe. I've insulted absolutely no one. I understand you are disagreeing with me. My POV may appear as an insult to you, but it is accurate to the best of my understanding. I am not telling you you cannot think how you want to. In fact, I believe it is you insulting me. I would like to continue on discussing and sharing ideas, but it's your board.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 8, 2016 23:06:45 GMT -5
What you are referring to is not part of OD&D. ... Are you sure that you live in the real world and are sure that you have ever actually played D&D? ... If you are trying to convince me that you are a troll and that you are here to insult the members of this forum, in that you are succeeding. I think conversation can continue if we all take a few seconds to breathe. I've insulted absolutely no one. I understand you are disagreeing with me. My POV may appear as an insult to you, but it is accurate to the best of my understanding. I am not telling you you cannot think how you want to. In fact, I believe it is you insulting me. I would like to continue on discussing and sharing ideas, but it's your board. You have quite clearly accused me of being what you call a gaslighting referee and you said quite plainly that "Winging it"/improvising is wrong and a very bad thing to do. If you do not see either of those as being a very in your face insult - well I will stop there, if you don't see how incredibly insulting you are being then you just don't see it. You are not offering a POV, you are insisting that all other points of view are wrong and bad and should not exist. That is not discussing and sharing ideas, that is trying to dictate to the rest of us what we should believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2016 23:11:13 GMT -5
I grew up on a ranch with 95 Arabian horses.
I know horsesh*t when I see it.
I'm seeing it now.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 9, 2016 2:26:23 GMT -5
H&W "I think immersion at best was an accident of design." Tell that to Alfred Hitchcock. Listen there is no more argument. Your views are pre-establishment D&D. You need to go back and read all of Gary's many quotes and, if willing, ask me how he and I co-DMed the game. Opinion does not establish history, history does. In this case I speak from factual history.
|
|
|
Post by The Archivist on Sept 9, 2016 7:12:03 GMT -5
HandW, my 2 coppers is this, it looks to me like you came here to cause trouble. You have insulted all the members and the Admin, then you claim not to have insulted anyone. I do not believe the you are so lacking in social skills that you do not know what you have done and are doing in this thread. As the Admin says, you are not discussing anything, you are telling us all what we should believe, your way or the highway.
At this point if the Admin bans you, he has my full support and I hope the support of the membership. He has given you every opportunity to apologize and walk yourself back from the cliff you run too. Your response has been to double down.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 9, 2016 9:41:16 GMT -5
I think conversation can continue if we all take a few seconds to breathe. I've insulted absolutely no one. I understand you are disagreeing with me. My POV may appear as an insult to you, but it is accurate to the best of my understanding. I am not telling you you cannot think how you want to. In fact, I believe it is you insulting me. I would like to continue on discussing and sharing ideas, but it's your board. I myself only called you a Troll because you posted several factual errors after a series of exchanges where you repeatably ignore the points raised in my explanations. That pattern of behavior, your recent arrival, and the fact you only posted on this thread so far, lead me to conclude that you are deliberately here to troll. Now if you have another explanation I am all ears. You need to listen to what everybody telling you first. The way you think are coming across is not happening. You have posters and the admin telling you why and how why your presentation is not working the way you think is work. I will tell you flat out there are days I don't "get" why people to do the things they do or have the reaction they do. But my first rule is that if it is a negative reaction towards me, I stop, think, and ask what the problem here is. What could I be doing to cause such a reaction? If it is unwarranted I deal with it accordingly, if it not then I modify my behavior. It really that simple. This topic we are one touches on the origin of D&D and why it is distinct from its wargame progenitor. So the opinion of Mike Monard and Rob Kuntz who were there and involved in its development carries a special weight in these discussions. If they are telling your repeatably that you are off base about why RPG work the way they do, I would carefully listen to what they have to say. While I don't think they agree 100% with the assertion I made in the OP that RPGs are about the campaign not the rules. I feel they respect my reasoning as I only developed it after reading dozens of their postings, Playing at the World, Hawk & Moor, other antedotes and stories. Where time and time again the story was something like this Now you can dispute my assertion that what the wargaming community was doing circa the late 60s and early 70s. Which will render my conclusion invalid. Or if you accept that is an accurate description or come with an alternative explanation along with any additional facts that is better than mine. No matter what the end result is, it has to account for what was being done back then, account for Dave Arneson' campaign, account for Gary Gygax's Greyhawk campaign, and account for the games that came afterward that are widely accepted as tabletop roleplaying games. It is my OPINION that what was happening in the early days changed when publishing became the norm for distributing games especially for wargames which benefits greatly from doing a lot of research and design. For tabletop roleplaying it occupied a middle ground because while people started publishing professional material for RPG. To actually run a RPG campaign demands you use some of the techniques of the earliest days especially kitbashing stuff in and ditching what doesn't workout. That over the years this shifted back and forth because of organized play (conventions and living campaigns). There is nothing wrong with organized play as a source of fun, but it practical demands that adventures and advancements be more rigid than a RPG campaign at home. And this rigidity is very unappealing to many hobbyists. The reason I know all this stuff is that for thirty years I done the following. Played wargames before RPGs were a thing in my town and continue to play them to this day. Played tabletop RPG campaign for 30 years. This includes AD&D 1st, Hero System, FASA Star Trek, Traveller, Star Frontiers, GURPS, Top Secret, Fudge, Fate, Alternity, D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, D&D 4e, D&D 5e, OD&D, Fantasy Age, and so on and so forth. Played CRPGs from the get go ranging from SSI Gold Box series to the Dragon Age series. Played MMORPG starting with Ultima On-line to Lord of the Ring On-line and yes World of Warcraft. Ran boffer LARP events for 10 years Owned and operated a boffer LARP for 5 years. Organized a gaming club Organized small gaming conventions Ran events at gaming conventions Operated a MMORPG server for Bioware's Neverwinter Nights for 2 years. Written and got published several RPG supplements. Self published several RPG supplements. In short I have more experience than some and a whole lot less experience than others. I had some impact on the hobby and industry but other has had way more impact. I think what my experiences has granted me is a broad perspective on the possibilities of roleplaying games. And for the purpose of this forum the strength and weaknesses of tabletop RPGs in the form of OD&D.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2016 13:32:25 GMT -5
AC4, 6+2 hd, green rubbery skin, regenerates 3 points per round.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 9, 2016 13:36:18 GMT -5
AC4, 6+2 hd, green rubbery skin, regenerates 3 points per round. "It's... It's... A WITCH!!..." Remember when we saw "Monte Python's ISotHG" while I was in Minneapolis way back when?
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 9, 2016 13:50:21 GMT -5
AC4, 6+2 hd, green rubbery skin, regenerates 3 points per round. You right it says that right there in black and white on page 8 with the stats on page 3.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 9, 2016 13:59:00 GMT -5
I think conversation can continue if we all take a few seconds to breathe. I've insulted absolutely no one. I understand you are disagreeing with me. My POV may appear as an insult to you, but it is accurate to the best of my understanding. I am not telling you you cannot think how you want to. In fact, I believe it is you insulting me. I would like to continue on discussing and sharing ideas, but it's your board. You have quite clearly accused me of being what you call a gaslighting referee and you said quite plainly that "Winging it"/improvising is wrong and a very bad thing to do. If you do not see either of those as being a very in your face insult - well I will stop there, if you don't see how incredibly insulting you are being then you just don't see it. You are not offering a POV, you are insisting that all other points of view are wrong and bad and should not exist. That is not discussing and sharing ideas, that is trying to dictate to the rest of us what we should believe. I'm not accusing you of anything. Of course other points of view can and should exist. Think what you want. I've said that repeatedly. If you are insulted, I'm sorry. You run a great board. I've been here before, but normally participate elsewhere. I'd like to keep posting here and contributing, but I'll stay out of theory, which may be best for all involved. H&W "I think immersion at best was an accident of design." Tell that to Alfred Hitchcock. Listen there is no more argument. Your views are pre-establishment D&D. You need to go back and read all of Gary's many quotes and, if willing, ask me how he and I co-DMed the game. Opinion does not establish history, history does. In this case I speak from factual history. I don't think immersion as a term was used before, say, 1997 as a specific part of game theory. And immersion in a game or sport is often had by any player focusing on the game - a good idea if you want to succeed at it. But I take your word for it. D&D certainly provides the best alternate reality experience I know of. I simply believe D&D's mechanics are more about enabling deep strategy and rewarding successful game play which I believe is the same act as the term roleplaying was used for in that era, "mastering a social role" not affecting a fictional persona. I'd love to hear about how you and Gary ran the game, but I think another time given the anger others have for my opinion here. HandW, my 2 coppers is this, it looks to me like you came here to cause trouble. You have insulted all the members and the Admin, then you claim not to have insulted anyone. I do not believe the you are so lacking in social skills that you do not know what you have done and are doing in this thread. As the Admin says, you are not discussing anything, you are telling us all what we should believe, your way or the highway. At this point if the Admin bans you, he has my full support and I hope the support of the membership. He has given you every opportunity to apologize and walk yourself back from the cliff you run too. Your response has been to double down. Take it for what you want, but I don't see any kind of personal insult in what I posted. I've disagreed with other posters. I've shared a POV I think is accurate to D&D, especially early OD&D. Calling me a troll is probably an insult, but I'm not here to take offense. I just now apologized to the Administrator, but I apologize to you to.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 9, 2016 14:44:11 GMT -5
H&W Quoth: "I don't think immersion as a term was used before, say, 1997 as a specific part of game theory."
But it always was used in Play Theory. Now ponder that for a moment and you just might well reach an inkling why TSR used as their Trade Phrase, "Products For Your Imagination."
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 9, 2016 15:36:31 GMT -5
I think conversation can continue if we all take a few seconds to breathe. I've insulted absolutely no one. I understand you are disagreeing with me. My POV may appear as an insult to you, but it is accurate to the best of my understanding. I am not telling you you cannot think how you want to. In fact, I believe it is you insulting me. I would like to continue on discussing and sharing ideas, but it's your board. I myself only called you a Troll because you posted several factual errors after a series of exchanges where you repeatably ignore the points raised in my explanations. That pattern of behavior, your recent arrival, and the fact you only posted on this thread so far, lead me to conclude that you are deliberately here to troll. Now if you have another explanation I am all ears. You need to listen to what everybody telling you first. The way you think are coming across is not happening. You have posters and the admin telling you why and how why your presentation is not working the way you think is work. I will tell you flat out there are days I don't "get" why people to do the things they do or have the reaction they do. But my first rule is that if it is a negative reaction towards me, I stop, think, and ask what the problem here is. What could I be doing to cause such a reaction? If it is unwarranted I deal with it accordingly, if it not then I modify my behavior. It really that simple Got it. Loud and clear. Please understand I don't see myself ignoring your facts or posting deliberate factual errors. I've been here before, but not in a large capacity as my post count shows. I'm sharing because it's an interesting topic, but clearly my POV isn't agreed with and is actually considered an insult by some. I firmly believe since I've started in RPGs almost 30 years ago that the DM in no way is allowed to improvise behind the screen. That that is the promise he or she is making to the players before play begins. Sure there has been a shift to deliberately call D&D a storytelling enterprise, but IMO it never was. It's a game. It's designed and played under the precepts of Chess and wargames, though with wildly creative new designs. It has no elements of collaborative storytelling. That the preponderance of game design as mechanical components fill millions of books and the internet, at least prior to the narrative / DM fiat turn, I believe demonstrate my position. That sounds reasonable. I'm saying there is little to no difference between rules and a campaign in a game. It's a shift in context. In Forge Theory players are creating a "Fiction", a shared imaginary cloud bubble every person adds to to create a story. The GM is a player, has special "narration rights", yadda, yadda, yadda. That's cow manure from haters of D&D. I believe campaign means the progress the players have made through the design of the game. The actual mathematical design that is the game of which the rules are a synonym for. It is all code being deciphered by players to achieve objectives within. Taking what you said, that the focus is on the campaign, not the rules doesn't make much sense here. Is it that the players focus on their completed progress? And not the design situation at hand? No, I think you're talking about the campaign as somehow completely divorced from the rules as if a campaign could be had without rules, a design to be gamed, whatsoever. I'm 180 degrees away from that position. And point at all the massive number of publications in early D&D with seemingly endless lists of game mechanic components in them as proof. I like that description for early wargaming design practices, and while I wasn't alive to have experience with that scene, from my own time wargaming it sounds more than plausible. By your account they were attempting put in place game mechanics relevant to the source material depicted. That's not the only reason they chose what they did, but one of them. But I don't believe depiction is the ultimate purpose of a game, far less so wargames which are all about testing player ability. I don't believe depiction is the purpose of D&D, however pleasing the immersion is. It succeeded because it satisfied the gaming impulse: winning. Or at least succeeding and growing in competence even if you ultimately fail. Here's my thinking: In an actual game a term like soldier doesn't refer to a narrative fiction like it does in narrative theory (e.g. the Big Model), but a game piece of a particular design relating to a particular game/larger design. I.e. king, queen, bishop, knight, rook. Chess isn't about simulation or immersion either. It's a game. IOW, it's design is to enable goal seeking and accomplishment for those who play it. The same thing is happening in D&D with terms like dragon and orc and even dungeon level. They aren't referring to a depiction, but elements within the design the players can actually game, something utterly different than what happens in a story. Everything that you've learned about those dragons and orcs reveal what they are in the game. Reading the actual design books is never to be done by players as that would reveal everything and ruin the game. They're effectively looking at the maze/design behind the screen they are attempting to game as a player. IMO it's preposterous that the DM could ever be considered a player. It is the exact same set up of how the referee in Mastermind cannot game/decipher the code behind the screen he's supposed to be revealing to the players based upon the attempts they take to learn it. As unpleasant as it may appear, I did account for Dave & Gary's game when I said they were designing the game to be published. This is a radically different activity where design mechanics are swapped in and out repeatedly, rearranged, measured and remeasured, new ones tried, old ones ditched, others continually altered for effect. But I don't think the players scores in such a "game" qualify as accurate to their campaign of playing it. It's my opinion kit bashing during a game is playtesting at best. An actual game requires a decipherable design so the players can master the game as they play, that their scores mean something and that's why they are ready for higher level, more complex and difficult content. That a DM selects from suggested mechanics and puts together a system is certainly a big part of their role. But I'm firmly against refs, umpires, judges, whatever changing the rules of the game without player knowledge. I feel you are referring to my position as organized play here, which I think is tenable for D&D, but a hard thing to do nonetheless. For a tournament of D&D to happen participants need to be proficient with the same design behind the screen. I think that was the design intent behind AD&D, but OD&D has no such requirement. It isn't the "correct" mechanics to use. A referee and players can use any hidden game system design they like and I think the hobby really grew from this. That the DM was put in same role and rewarded the same skill set as game designers. That's cool, your experience is considerable. I'm hoping you can understand then my position and why it does make sense for all that early D&D game design and play. I'm not here to disprove others, but share lost ideas on why D&D is an ingenious, highly addictive and rewarding game and barely at all what the hobby has become: rule following to tell stories while pretending to be a character. That's not D&D.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 9, 2016 15:44:16 GMT -5
H&W Quoth: "I don't think immersion as a term was used before, say, 1997 as a specific part of game theory." But it always was used in Play Theory. Now ponder that for a moment and you just might well reach an inkling why TSR used as their Trade Phrase, "Products For Your Imagination." Imagination is a requirement to play OD&D because the mapboard isn't in front of the screen. If we're playing a game in our heads, we have to be able to imagine the layout, the pieces, and their positioning before we can even begin playing it. Of course for highly complex designs the players are allowed to see drawing things out or using a battlemat can work great. EDIT: I didn't think play theory was hardly that old, but I'd be interested in any material on immersion you know of.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Sept 9, 2016 15:55:00 GMT -5
That the preponderance of game design as mechanical components fill millions of books and the internet, at least prior to the narrative / DM fiat turn, I believe demonstrate my position. The millions of books exist because after TSR published a game that said, "Hey, look at this neat thing you can do with your wargame campaign...," customers responded with, "TAKE OUR MONEY!" and TSR said, "Okay, here are umpteen books we'd like to sell you." They didn't need to write all those rules; they were just responding to fans' willingness to buy more rules. They were also responding to the bewildered non-wargamers who didn't get it and wrote in, demanding, "Okay, it's medieval and fantasy, but how do you actually play it?" The referee's job is to tell the players what happens to their characters. It is the referee's responsibility to decide what happens. Books can give him tools to help him decide if he wants to use them, but they're not required.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 9, 2016 16:19:34 GMT -5
It is the referee's responsibility to decide what happens. Books can give him tools to help him decide if he wants to use them, but they're not required. The mechanics are in place to remove DM fiat from the game, not to support it. Contemporary story making "games" do the latter and players can't game them to achieve objectives as a result. (i.e. actually play them as games). I disagree with you on the part quoted. The millions of mechanics were never written as tools to create a narrative. Look at contemporary story making rules, that's what tools of that type would look like. All of the books in the hobby to which D&D belongs, gaming, have actual game mechanics that appear as game mechanics because they are for building a game system prior to play. The game is what it is so we can score points by manipulating its mathematical design, not create a story.
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 9, 2016 17:33:40 GMT -5
The rules are a black box. You put inputs into it. These inputs are the choices the referee makes and the responses the players make, and so forth. Then the referee turns the crank. Outputs emerge. These outputs are what we, down the road, call a "story."
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 9, 2016 17:55:30 GMT -5
H&W Quoth: "I don't think immersion as a term was used before, say, 1997 as a specific part of game theory." But it always was used in Play Theory. Now ponder that for a moment and you just might well reach an inkling why TSR used as their Trade Phrase, "Products For Your Imagination." Imagination is a requirement to play OD&D because the mapboard isn't in front of the screen. If we're playing a game in our heads, we have to be able to imagine the layout, the pieces, and their positioning before we can even begin playing it. Of course for highly complex designs the players are allowed to see drawing things out or using a battlemat can work great. EDIT: I didn't think play theory was hardly that old, but I'd be interested in any material on immersion you know of. Perhaps you should read my upcoming book (the manuscript was finished as of 6 weeks ago): "Dave Arneson's True Genius" through my new company, Three Line Studio www.threelinestudio.com/It will explain a lot. This will be out no later than the end of the year following the release of my DVD collected works in approximately 1 week. Cheers and happy gaming! RJK
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Sept 9, 2016 19:08:10 GMT -5
Newspeak may be all the rage among the smart set, but as I recall - one person hasn't the authority to change the definition of specific words. The words "role," "playing," and "game" mean what they say and none of them were required to be bound to any specific point system. When brought together (even when preceded by the word "fantasy," because after all - they were ALL fantasy for awhile) they have always defined what we call "improvisational theater" as grown-ups and "let's pretend" when kids.
But there's always someone who absolutely wants a mule to be a fiery white horse with the speed of light. Or vice versa.
So tempting to quote Inigo Montoya's second best quote.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Sept 9, 2016 19:29:29 GMT -5
Perhaps you should read my upcoming book (the manuscript was finished as of 6 weeks ago): "Dave Arneson's True Genius" through my new company, Three Line Studio www.threelinestudio.com/It will explain a lot. This will be out no later than the end of the year following the release of my DVD collected works in approximately 1 week. Cheers and happy gaming! RJK One week? That's seriously great news. Thank you. I will be buying copies of all of them and reading them. I know it may seem counter intuitive, but I am a huge fan and (I think) own at least one of everything you've published. I hope there's no hard feelings. Good gaming.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 9, 2016 19:44:05 GMT -5
howandwhy99 , I am going to make a few responses here and I am not looking for any reply in this thread as will be made clear. I'd like to keep posting here and contributing, but I'll stay out of theory, which may be best for all involved. I think this is a good idea and I suggest that you stop posting in this thread. In regard to posting and contributing, for now that option is open; however, I suggest that you take to heart the comments below. Take it for what you want, but I don't see any kind of personal insult in what I posted. I've disagreed with other posters. I've shared a POV I think is accurate to D&D, especially early OD&D. Calling me a troll is probably an insult, but I'm not here to take offense. I just now apologized to the Administrator, but I apologize to you to. Just take our word for it, you are free to share your POV as are the other posters, what you are not free to do is to continue to present it as you have in this thread. Please stop stating things as absolutes and coming across as though only your view has any validity. Tone it down, say (not literally but in presentation style) here is what I believe and YMMV. I'm sharing because it's an interesting topic, but clearly my POV isn't agreed with and is actually considered an insult by some. The presentation and the way that you state things - how you are coming across is what we are finding insulting and offensive. It is like you are the prosecuting attorney and we are the guilty on trial. That kind of vinegar is not going to convince anyone. I firmly believe since I've started in RPGs almost 30 years ago that the DM in no way is allowed to improvise behind the screen. That that is the promise he or she is making to the players before play begins. Sure there has been a shift to deliberately call D&D a storytelling enterprise, but IMO it never was. It's a game. It's designed and played under the precepts of Chess and wargames, though with wildly creative new designs. It has no elements of collaborative storytelling. Let me ask you something and you can reply by pm, if you wish. Did you start with AD&D and did you start with a DM that was strictly BtB? If so that would explain a lot. I believe though I don't know for sure that you are trying to project your beliefs about AD&D onto OD&D and that does not work because they are different games, with different values. OD&D is firmly based on the Ref/DM improvising. You may not believe or accept that; however, I believe that and I think others do too. In addition, OD&D was a deliberate break from the strictures of Chess and other gaming straitjacket features. You may not believe or accept that; however, I believe that and I think others do too. So lets leave it at that. The mechanics are in place to remove DM fiat from the game, not to support it. Again I think you are taking things that are true about AD&D and projecting them on OD&D where they are not true. In OD&D DM fiat or freedom to mold the game are encouraged not forbidden. I mean fiat in a good way as having authority to define how the game is played at your own table not authority to abuse players. So by all means post in some other thread and show us a friendlier touch that we have perceived in this thread.
|
|