Re: Interesting post by George Strayton... « Reply #30 on May 5, 2011, 6:05am »
An old dwarvish saying says the only biggest thing to happen in 40yrs of gaming could be the introduction of the masculine elf: semething never seen in years of gaming.
Being serious, I am divided just between 5E (hopefully more drifted to SF than it ever was in the past) and LL (as an OGL with royalties).
Re: Interesting post by George Strayton... « Reply #35 on May 19, 2011, 12:11pm »
Quote:
Before a few months ago, I had studied everything I could get my hands on and I thought I knew everything there was to know. But I had no idea. Now I know the truth directly from the source…and it’s mind-blowing, to say the least.
calithena Moderator Official "Fight On!" Scribe member is offline
Will Withstand Adversity
Joined: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,699 Karma: 91
Re: Interesting post by George Strayton... « Reply #37 on May 19, 2011, 12:46pm »
I am curious about this, but I actually think there's simply no way of knowing in advance whether something will be 'as big as D&D' itself. Only hindsight will tell.
I suspect it will be something related to an actual game rather than a film or other meta-gaming product. But we will see...
Before a few months ago, I had studied everything I could get my hands on and I thought I knew everything there was to know. But I had no idea. Now I know the truth directly from the source…and it’s mind-blowing, to say the least.
Maybe we'll be getting Dragons in the Basement?
That's one of those projects that a certain group of gamers would love and the rest wouldn't care about, I suspect. It would be big among the OD&D players but probably not so much for 4E players.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) C&C playtester (2003) I'm partly responsible for the S&W WhiteBox Builder of the TrollBridge Master of Mutants; MA since 1976 OD&D Player since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
I'm probably a broken record by now, but I suspect he's been clued in to the PM/Post-Structuralism of the late 70's and early 80's. And how it relates to D&D as a pattern finding game. The core of ideas has resurfaced and they have bit by bit been making their way through parts of the community and the upper echelon of designers for over a decade now.
If the release has something to do with this, we might see a reality puzzle game, as I call my own, published. At the very least I expect we'll see a statement about it, perhaps one equally pertinent to the computer gaming community - one vastly larger than our own. I've already heard some talk second hand from by nephew's friends and some internet comment sources about how computer games are "not physics engines". It was largely brushed off.
Below is the quote that tipped me off:
Quote:
I’ve learned more secrets about our chosen pastime in the past few months than I have in over 30 years. Before a few months ago, I had studied everything I could get my hands on and I thought I knew everything there was to know. But I had no idea. Now I know the truth directly from the source…and it’s mind-blowing, to say the least.
It's the normal reaction for those who were kids in the 80s and not told about pattern recognition and the impossibility of games. At least that's my suspicion of what he's talking about.
I'm probably a broken record by now, but I suspect he's been clued in to the PM/Post-Structuralism of the late 70's and early 80's. And how it relates to D&D as a pattern finding game. The core of ideas has resurfaced and they have bit by bit been making their way through parts of the community and the upper echelon of designers for over a decade now.
If the release has something to do with this, we might see a reality puzzle game, as I call my own, published. At the very least I expect we'll see a statement about it, perhaps one equally pertinent to the computer gaming community - one vastly larger than our own. I've already heard some talk second hand from by nephew's friends and some internet comment sources about how computer games are "not physics engines". It was largely brushed off.
As a social scientist (anthro) I am of course, deeply steeped in theory, including Structuralism and Post Structuralism – which largely ran its course a decade ago – and I have only the vaguest idea what you are referring to. From the comment on computer games I take it you are talking about the idea that thought processes are more than merely additive or oppositional, which sounds like a gross mischaracterization of Structuralism as it arises out of linguistics, although it would not surprise me if a bunch of game designers and programmers completely miscomprehend cognitive theory. But I shouldn’t be indulging in knee jerk reactions without knowing what you are referencing; can you give a key link or two that summarizes the discussions?
I’ve learned more secrets about our chosen pastime in the past few months than I have in over 30 years. Before a few months ago, I had studied everything I could get my hands on and I thought I knew everything there was to know. But I had no idea. Now I know the truth directly from the source…and it’s mind-blowing, to say the least.
It's the normal reaction for those who were kids in the 80s and not told about pattern recognition and the impossibility of games. At least that's my suspicion of what he's talking about.
Impossibility of games? Never been much impressed by such out of context/reductionist conclusions. Rarely do you see that kind of thing coming out of actual fieldwork. Pattern recognition is culturally situated i.e. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things