Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 11:48:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 19, 2017 16:33:04 GMT -6
@rafael, is there any chance that you could migrate my comments back to this thread? I was not really intending to have a conversation about FATE and find the coherency of my ongoing thoughts about Rob's book broken by this split.
Thanks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 7:09:22 GMT -6
derv, I'll see what I can do - though the version of Proboards doesn't seem to allow single-post extraction. I'll ask Fin, though, because either I'm having a case of the dumbs, or this is really somewhat uncanny. 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 7:27:13 GMT -6
derv, I'll see what I can do - though the version of Proboards doesn't seem to allow single-post extraction. I'll ask Fin, though, because either I'm having a case of the dumbs, or this is really somewhat uncanny. Over on my forum I can move individual posts and merge them into another thread, so you should have that capability. Go to the individual post to the cog wheel over at the right of that post and the drop down gives you a number of options to move the post. (BTW you can delete this when you read it so it does not clutter up the thread)  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 9:55:22 GMT -6
Thank you, TPD! ...I should finally register at Murkhill, one of these days, I guess. -_- I'll have into look into this. I'm a stalwart Ubuntu user, and my broswer is Opera; both of these are somewhat problematic when it comes to flash.based menus. So, I think I might literally not be seeing the right menu... -_- I'll investigate this. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 21, 2017 6:13:14 GMT -6
It is possible to move a single post. My problem is that the split thread is 4 pages long and I have no idea which post should be moved back here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 13:29:11 GMT -6
It is possible to move a single post. My problem is that the split thread is 4 pages long and I have no idea which post should be moved back here. Over under the cogwheel on the upper right had side of the post is a drop down where you can link to the post in the thread or just to the post itself. If derv is willing to go through that thread and give one of you the specific link to each post he wants moved back to this thread it would be fairly quick to right click on each link in turn and then move each post one by one. That I believe would be the easiest way for the Admin to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 21, 2017 17:50:36 GMT -6
I'll let the subject rest for now. So, don't worry about moving the comments. It sounds like it's more hassle than it's worth. Maybe I'll come back to it in the future, or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 20:05:04 GMT -6
Let me see if I can throw some thoughts together. Kuntz's primary argument, as I see it, is 1. Arneson's Concept, his true genius, is found in the system architecture. 2. That architecture is a holistic system as it stands, devoid of any sub-systems (this includes Chainmail and any Chainmailisms). 3. The Arenson Concept is also found in the 3 LBB's. So, the questions might be 1. Is the Arneson Concept a holistic system? 2. Is the sub-systems associated with Chainmail inconsequential? 3. Does the Arneson Concept reside in the 3 LBB's? These are questions that are verifiable and/or falsifiable because we actually have the physical text of the 3 LBB's (not to mention the Dalluhn Manuscript). Hypothetically, we can replicate the LG experience, so to speak. How? Four experiments with two models could be ran to support or disprove Kuntz's theory. Get a sampling of people who have no experience with RPG's- preferably, they do not even know what the term means. Break them up into four test groups. First group should be of various ages. Give them a copy of the 3 LBB's and tell them to play the game. Second group should be of various ages. Give them a copy of the 3 LBB's stripped of all Chainmailism's (lightly edited for readability). This is a reductionist approach and should still contain the architecture of Arneson's Concept. Have them play the game. Third and fourth groups would contain only young children (possibly ten or under). Have these group's perform the same experiments as the first two. These two control groups will establish whether such play is intrinsic or innate among children. If Arneson's concept is evident in the 3 LBB's seperate from the sub-systems, it will be self evident. If Arneson's Concept is a holistic system, it will be playable. If such play is intrinsic, then a child should be able to apply Arneson's Concept. I might be biting off a little more than should be attempted, but heh  Part of your experiment was already done. As soon as the first copies of OD&D were sold to people outside the wargaming community and that had no contact with Arneson or Gygax, the experiment began. You question could people with with no experience with RPG's play the game. Since the term was not yet applied until IIRC at least 1976 maybe later, there were quite a few people who meet your criteria for the first test group. The group I was part of back in 1975 was one of those groups. None of us had ever played a wargame, none of us ever heard the term RPG and none of us knew anyone that had played the game before except my friend who brought the game to college with him. He played in 1974 in his senior year of high school, he and that group had never played a wargame, had never heard the term RPG and they did not have any contact with anyone who did. Neither did any of them write any letters to TSR with questions. When I got my copy of OD&D, I got it from a Columbus game store, the same place he got his. So he figured it out from the 3LBB's and only later did he get a copy of Chainmail, after he was already in college and we did not use it in the game. I started reffing a short time after, I started playing and I reffed 70-80% of the time after that and he reffed the rest of the time. The entire time from 1974 until we graduated college, he and I were the only two people in all of that gaming that read any of the 3LBB's the rest of the group never read a page. He and I both took the game and ran with it. My style was completely different from his in about every way you could imagine. We played completely differently as players and we reffed completely differently as refs, he had his D&D and I had my D&D and we never considered it strange that we didn't have cookie cutter games that would have violated the principles in the Introduction where we were told to make it what we wanted. I don't think group two would be any different. As for groups three and four, not many ten year olds would be up to figuring the 3LBBs out without some help. They would have a better shot with Holmes basic. However, I have reffed 9 & 10 year olds and I can tell from first hand experience that kids that age have no trouble at all playing OD&D and they will try anything since no one has told them they can't. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 22, 2017 20:15:12 GMT -6
Part of your experiment was already done. As soon as the first copies of OD&D were sold to people outside the wargaming community and that had no contact with Arneson or Gygax, the experiment began. Yup. I would expect this group to have a reasonable degree of success at running a game. Dan mentioned taking a different cross section of people (comment now found in other thread). I think that would be interesting to compare and contrast too. I really didn't specify anything beyond a mix of age group's. I was thinking of those original player's of Blackmoor and Greyhawk. I don't think group two would be any different. Well, I'm not too sure. In my mind you would be cutting alot of stuff- including both combat systems, many spells and monster references, alignment, missile ranges, etc. The idea would be to strip it of it's sub-systems and see what is left. What's left should still contain Arneson's Concept. I'm not sure it would be playable. Possibly someone with a wargaming background might have a middling amount of success at building upon the system architecture. Yet, I've stumbled upon some articles in zines with comments from some of the early wargamers lamenting about OD&D. Hendrick's review, followed by Gygax's retort, is the most notable. As for groups three and four, not many ten year olds would be up to figuring the 3LBBs out without some help. They would have a better shot with Holmes basic. However, I have reffed 9 & 10 year olds and I can tell from first hand experience that kids that age have no trouble at all playing OD&D and they will try anything since no one has told them they can't. I've noticed that some of the ongoing conversation sways between two perspectives. You can look at the game from a player perspective or a GM perspective. I agree that players do not need to know much about the rules in order to play. Some argue it is better if they do not know the rules at all. But, I think running a game is another story. There is this question whether the game needs to be demonstrated or explained by someone with experience and whether the rules as written are sufficient. So, yes, this was an attempt at considering whether playing and running the game is innate or intrinsic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 21:01:35 GMT -6
There is this question whether the game needs to be demonstrated or explained by someone with experience and whether the rules as written are sufficient. So, yes, this was an attempt at considering whether playing and running the game is innate or intrinsic. My friend in college who brought the game from his senior year of high school to college did that, started with just the rules as written without ever seeing the game demonstrated or explained by someone with experience and they played every weekend until he came to college. I of course watched him ref as I played and I asked to see the books and told him I would like to ref too. So after a little while he let me see the books and then let me ref. There first time I reffed I did my own thing and it was considerably different from the way he did it, but it felt right to me and it fit the way that I think which was different from the way he thought. One little advantage he had was a near perfect memory, I have seen him read a textbook and then answer questions citing the page, the paragraph and the sentence and then giving an exact word for word quote. Perhaps I flatter myself too much, but I am convinced that I could have figured it out on my own the same as he did, had I got the game first. Hmmm! Innate and intrinsic are synonyms, how are you parsing the difference between the two? |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 23, 2017 15:24:56 GMT -6
Hmmm! Innate and intrinsic are synonyms, how are you parsing the difference between the two? They are very similar. They both refer to a core quality of an object. Yet, one relates to animate objects and the other inanimate. So, is this type of play that is represented by what Rob is calling "Arneson's Concept" innate among players and/or intrinsic of the written rules as found in the 3LBB's? Either, both, or neither. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 15:38:23 GMT -6
Hmmm! Innate and intrinsic are synonyms, how are you parsing the difference between the two? They are very similar. They both refer to a core quality of an object. Yet, one relates to animate objects and the other inanimate. So, is this type of play that is represented by what Rob is calling "Arneson's Concept" innate among players and/or intrinsic of the written rules as found in the 3LBB's? Either, both, or neither. Thanks for the clarification! IMO it is both, and while not everyone can or even wants to referee, I think (as long as the referee is reasonably competent and creative) that whether or not you like the original game says more about the individual than anything else. These days a lack of literacy in the pre-1970 fiction all the way back to the 1600's is the greatest hindrance to enjoying the real McCoy. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 23, 2017 15:55:33 GMT -6
If it is both then young children should be able to take the system architecture alone, as presented in the 3 LBB's that are stripped of the sub-systems, and run with it. Otherwise, it's hard to claim that it is innate or intrinsic. Though, it might be something that is easily taught. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 23, 2017 17:40:51 GMT -6
Some may say that is an unreasonable expectation, that it would be difficult enough for adults, let alone young children, to grasp the rules of play as written. If that is the case, that the 3 LBB's must remain as a whole to understand how to play, than the sub-systems must not be inconsequential. They become a necessity for play and to consider the system holistic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 18:46:33 GMT -6
If it is both then young children should be able to take the system architecture alone, as presented in the 3 LBB's that are stripped of the sub-systems, and run with it. Otherwise, it's hard to claim that it is innate or intrinsic. Though, it might be something that is easily taught. My experience is that it is easily taught. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 18:49:10 GMT -6
Some may say that is an unreasonable expectation, that it would be difficult enough for adults, let alone young children, to grasp the rules of play as written. If that is the case, that the 3 LBB's must remain as a whole to understand how to play, than the sub-systems must not be inconsequential. They become a necessity for play and to consider the system holistic. I would say that specific sub-systems may indeed be inconsequential. I think you could do a lot of swapping out one mechanic for a different one and it would work just was well, Gygax obviously substituted a lot of his mechanics in place of Arneson's, without changing the backdrop, the overriding structure. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 23, 2017 20:08:56 GMT -6
I would say that specific sub-systems may indeed be inconsequential. I think you could do a lot of swapping out one mechanic for a different one and it would work just was well, Gygax obviously substituted a lot of his mechanics in place of Arneson's, without changing the backdrop, the overriding structure. I'll have to point you to the other thread, once again, where I shared my thoughts about this after originally discussing this testing proposal. As you are presenting it, you are saying the mechanics are mutable. I agree with that. This does not make them inconsequential. I believe they are of consequence in understanding the game, both in how to run it and in how it developed. They are an integral part of the system. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 20:36:48 GMT -6
I would say that specific sub-systems may indeed be inconsequential. I think you could do a lot of swapping out one mechanic for a different one and it would work just was well, Gygax obviously substituted a lot of his mechanics in place of Arneson's, without changing the backdrop, the overriding structure. I'll have to point you to the other thread, once again, where I shared my thoughts about this after originally discussing this testing proposal. As you are presenting it, you are saying the mechanics are mutable. I agree with that. This does not make them inconsequential. I believe they are of consequence in understanding the game, both in how to run it and in how it developed. They are an integral part of the system. Having mechanics is integral, specific mechanics are not since they can be swapped out. Is there any one specific mechanic, what Rob referred to as a sub-system, irreplaceable by any other mechanic? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 21:13:24 GMT -6
Well, by the principles of object oriented programming systems, no. Each subsystem is a "black box" that receives certain inputs and gives certain outputs, and the process within that subsystem is of no interest to the main system.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 23, 2017 21:25:48 GMT -6
Having mechanics is integral, specific mechanics are not since they can be swapped out. Is there any one specific mechanic, what Rob referred to as a sub-system, irreplaceable by any other mechanic? I believe a blanket statement of their inconsequence is in more error than speaking to a specific mechanic. There are certainly some mechanics that are inconsequential to playing the game. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 23, 2017 21:37:30 GMT -6
Well, by the principles of object oriented programming systems, no. Each subsystem is a "black box" that receives certain inputs and gives certain outputs, and the process within that subsystem is of no interest to the main system. But is the output of importance to the function of the system? Not all sub-systems are equal. Not all sub-systems are reliable. Which makes them (and their process) a matter of consequence. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 26, 2017 10:29:51 GMT -6
It may appear that I'm nit-picking by going on about this subject. The thing is, Rob adds to his initial premise with his other essays. He gives these argument legs with the language he uses. This subject of the inconsequence of the sub-systems is one of those legs that I do not think categorically holds true.
To make this more practical, let's consider the combat systems presented in the 3 LBB's. There are two mentioned and one was claimed to be exclusively used. This recommends that either system could be used, or maybe a completely different system. In the context of the game, it's clear how the alternative combat system interacts with other parts in the game. It's less clear with the Chainmail system, but it seems to be a possibility. And, we know people have attempted to make it work. Either way, these sub-systems give us a model to work from. Consider what would happen if you did not have these models, if these sub-systems were absent from the game text. You would have a game that still has other sub-systems like levels, hit dice, hit points, maybe an armor classification of some sort, but no combat system. How would you make sense of this element of the game, especially if you were not a wargamer? Would rock, paper, scissors fit the bill? Or, flipping a coin? What does the inclusion of Chainmail and the ACS tell us about the games development? Rob wants us to conclude that it tells us little to nothing. I disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 26, 2017 15:45:14 GMT -6
What are sub-systems that are inconsequential in my opinion? One example is naming your character. It matters little to the overall game how you do this. Pick a name off the top of your head, use an online random generator, flip the pages of a dictionary and quickly jab your finger on a page, or don't even bother to name your character. It has no real bearing on the system or understanding it.
Another that has become increasingly inconsequential is that of alignment. Unless a GM makes a point of purposefully using alignment, it will be unimportant and have no effect on the overall game. Yet, Arneson seemed to use this sub-system as a tool that did have an effect on play- magic swords, dueling wizards, reaction checks, alliances, monster psychology, etc. It was open to use and apply as the GM chose. Alignment may not have a bearing on the system architecture, but it was certainly a part of the games development.
Likewise, languages are an inconsequential mechanic that gets under utilized and could easily be discarded without complication.
There are others, but as I implied with alignment, this does not necessarily mean that they were unimportant in Arneson's games.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 27, 2017 5:50:28 GMT -6
Well, by the principles of object oriented programming systems, no. Each subsystem is a "black box" that receives certain inputs and gives certain outputs, and the process within that subsystem is of no interest to the main system. An unfortunate analogy. Black-box and white-box systems can both be implemented in object-oriented and non-object-oriented programming languages. That aside, a black-box sub-system (or any sub-system for that matter) has an impact on the "main system" beyond its formal output. If nothing else it will require execution time and system resources such as memory, threads, IO ports, and more. Are these non-outputs really "of no interest to the main system", or do they determine whether the main system itself can practically employ the sub-system at all? What are sub-systems that are inconsequential in my opinion? Whether the ref or the player dices for ability scores might be a good one. It seems to me the question is at least partly around how many "sub-systems", and which specific ones, can you switch out before the whole system you're now looking at is observably different to the original system you began with. Tunnels and Trolls might be an interesting case in point; it is the same game, or a different game? If we think it's a different game, why do we think it's a different game? |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 27, 2017 6:05:27 GMT -6
It seems to me the question is at least partly around how many "sub-systems", and which specific ones, can you switch out before the whole system you're now looking at is observably different to the original system you began with. Tunnels and Trolls might be an interesting case in point; it is the same game, or a different game? If we think it's a different game, why do we think it's a different game? I touched on this in what has now become another thread, unfortunately. There I suggested that sub-systems have the ability to strengthen, weaken, or possibly, even, break the system architecture. I believe the first two are true. The last point is a question worth investigating. I concluded by asking if our understanding of D&D might include it's sub-systems, which also makes them of consequence. So, I agree with your insight. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 27, 2017 6:13:24 GMT -6
So it is apparent to me that language is again an issue. You all are talking past each other when using the word "system". Some of you are using system to refer to the overarching rubrics, the habitus of D&D game play, others of you are using the word "system" to refer to the rules architecture. My impression is that Rob's book is more about the former than the latter, but I still haven't read it.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 27, 2017 6:17:17 GMT -6
It is a merger of open and closed systems which Rob refers to as "Super-Systemization".
If I was going to make up an analogy, I think an ecosystem would be fitting.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 27, 2017 8:48:39 GMT -6
BTW, this idea of "architecture" is an abstraction. I'm trying my best to discuss things in a practical manner so people can get an idea what Rob's arguments are and where I'm coming from. Of course the discussion has to start somewhere and it's easy to run off the rails discussing other subjects like story games because the scope is actually pretty broad. We are dealing with the whole system and we are dealing with the parts (or sub-systems). Hopefully some word associations might help us understand this idea of architecture a little better.
Architecture:
Construction- structures
Interior & Exterior- design
Software- integration
Industrial- form & function
Systems- conceptual models
*Formalized language to describe System Architecture is known as "Architectural Description Languages (ADL's)", for those interested.
I personally view it all as "skeletal framing". From an anatomical perspective, a skeleton needs flesh and blood to live.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 12:46:28 GMT -6
So it is apparent to me that language is again an issue. You all are talking past each other when using the word "system". Some of you are using system to refer to the overarching rubrics, the habitus of D&D game play, others of you are using the word "system" to refer to the rules architecture. My impression is that Rob's book is more about the former than the latter, but I still haven't read it. Very much the former. |
|
