|
|
Post by derv on May 27, 2017 14:33:56 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.  Maybe you would like to explain "Super-systemization" without discussing the latter. Or explain "Active structural mutability". How about elaborating on "Throttling Arneson's Conceptual Model" without referencing the latter? "...we are left with Arneson's conceptual model itself that is a systems architecture comprised of two interdependent components: conceptual interface and a mechanical apparatus." RJK ATG Would you like to tell us in your own words what Rob meant by "Dimensionality" or "Ongoing Systemization" without referencing the latter? "Never have we had mechanical subsystems which in turn can be reinterpreted in light of an evolving conceptual interface; nor an architecture that need not maintain its stability in the same manner as less complex systems do, this due to limitless GM and player inquiry that can manifest instant variables in real-time to promote or demote rules within the evolving conceptual structures these operate through." RJK ATG You guys need to be less dismissive of others view points. You might surprise yourself and actually learn something new. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 28, 2017 15:04:33 GMT -6
I gotta say ... folks say that OD&D is hard to read, but I think threads like these are hard to read. I start to get glassy-eyed at all of the vocab being tossed around and am never certain if I have a clue what is being discussed. Playing games is a lot more fun than the theory of playing games, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 28, 2017 19:08:04 GMT -6
I gotta say ... folks say that OD&D is hard to read, but I think threads like these are hard to read. I start to get glassy-eyed at all of the vocab being tossed around and am never certain if I have a clue what is being discussed. Playing games is a lot more fun than the theory of playing games, IMO. The language used in Rob's book is a major barrier to the casual reader. He uses System Thinking to present his theories, which uses distinct terminology to describe the concepts. What Rob doesn't do is demonstrate the System Dynamics. This would employ diagrams that show how the system structure behaves and why. Keep in mind, this is a brief text containing three linked essays. It's a shame that people will likely disregard Rob's book because of this barrier, unless someone attempts to understand and restate the concepts in clearer, more common terminology. His ideas do have a perceived implication on our understanding of the historic development of the game. I actually found it thought provoking, hence why I chose to discuss it. Here's a couple links that briefly explain System Thinking (not necessarily from a designers perspective): System Thinking: An Operational PerspectiveSystem Dynamics Wiki |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 20:58:01 GMT -6
I found those links helpful. I think the barrier is that so few (me included) have the education needed to readily understand these things. Many things are intuitive when you have the background knowledge in place, but are mind-stretchingly difficult when that background is not present.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 28, 2017 21:05:32 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. Not really in OOP programming the object has an interface and a implementation. As long as a substitute object implement the same interface it will compile fine. The overall system will think that object is a part of it. When you run it of course if the new object has a bug of course problems will arise. But the overall system has not changed. For example I write software for designing and cutting parts out of a flat sheet of metal using a plasma torch. There are dozens of brands and models of plasma torch one could purchase to use cut with. However for the purpose of my software I abstract that into a single torch interface that all torches regardless of make and model implement. The interface has a function that takes the material of the part and tells the torch to display a dialog of the cut setting so that the user can modify it if he wants. Later in the process the motion controller takes the material of the part and ask the torch how fast it should be cutting the part. Some torches just ask for cutting time and piece time (to give it time to burn through thicker material). Other torches ask about the gas setup and actually downloads everything to the torch itself. But no matter how simple or complete the actual torch is, the overall system doesn't change. Now it may not work if a object for a particular torch model has a bug. In which case I have to fix the bug. There may be times where I have to change the interface to account for new requirements. For example a series of torches from one company can cut holes better if they are shaped in a particular way. So I had to add a function that the shape library of our software can get the information it needs from the torch. If a query is made against a different model of torch, it will come up with nothing in which case the hole doesn't get modified.' In regards to tabletop roleplaying the point of this thread is to understand overall design of what make tabletop roleplaying what it is. And Dave's role in putting it together. Where there is disagreement, on my part at least, is on the nature of that system. I don't disagree that Dave Arneson deserves credit as the inventor of tabletop roleplaying. But I do disagree that it is a intricate system of 23 parts that far more straightforward. I also contend that it has nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of the rules that people traditionally focus on. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 28, 2017 22:33:05 GMT -6
I also contend that it has nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of the rules that people traditionally focus on. I believe that is actually the crux of contention on the matter. Your illustration from your work experience is only giving a limited picture of what you would consider "nuts and bolts" in a system. There are actual nuts and bolts to the machinery you are talking about. Regardless of the programming, the system comes to a stand still when the plasma torch or other components fail. So, the architecture is not altered, but it is effected; production has come to a halt. You do consider the actual machinery part of the system don't you? I'm correct to think the torch with a bug that interferes with the interface is part of the system? The reality is that the design is a sum of parts, configured, that make up the whole structure. The parts, in and of themselves, do not define the system structure. It is only when the parts and their processes are taken as a whole. A break down in the parts or processes will effect the architecture, though. According to Rob, the architecture is made up of two interdependent components- conceptual interface and mechanical apparatus. Leaving one component out is talking about something other than Arneson's model. edit: To elaborate on my last point, leave out the conceptual interface from the architecture and you are instead playing a traditional wargame or strategy game. Leave out the mechanical apparatus and you are now doing something like having a conversation, or describing a sunset, or acting. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 29, 2017 4:07:00 GMT -6
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. Not really in OOP programming the object has an interface and a implementation. As long as a substitute object implement the same interface it will compile fine. The overall system will think that object is a part of it. Code can compile perfectly well and then fail in the operational environment for any number of reasons. To run with your example, let's say I supply you an "improved" implementation of your sheet metal cutting code which which does "better curves" or whatever. Unfortunately, it now requires more memory than your hardware has. Despite my code compiling perfectly, your system is broken. Okay, so you invest in a memory upgrade to get it back on track. Only then do you find the new code takes 6 seconds to execute what was previously a 3 second job. So, while the old system used to cut 60 sheets an hour, the new system cuts only 30 sheets an hour. That's unfortunate, because what was previously a profitable system now runs at a loss. My new code sure complied great, but your sheet cutting system is no longer viable. The last point can apply directly to role-playing systems. Let's say I replace a single roll sub-system that produces a "hit or miss" result, with a complicated series of rolls, lookups, and note keeping that still produces a "hit/miss" result. It still does the job correctly, but it's so darn cumbersome that nobody would ever play it. I.e., my new sub-system "compiles", but it breaks a more important law: what's practical. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 29, 2017 6:41:17 GMT -6
Again, not having read the book, you can take my comments as uninformed and uncontextualized banter, but I thought it would be fun to comment on some of the quotes you pulled out. I am a bit confused though, because I don't think they say what you seem to be implying they say. (Also, in full disclosure, my approach to social complexity is highly informed by contingency theory, heterarchy, embodied mind, and so forth. For example, "ecosystem" was mentioned. I loath the word "Eco-system" because there is no such thing. It is quasi religious mumbo jumbo. Interdependant and independant ecologies do not a system make.) Maybe you would like to explain "Super-systemization" without discussing the latter. Or explain "Active structural mutability". How about elaborating on "Throttling Arneson's Conceptual Model" without referencing the latter? "...we are left with Arneson's conceptual model itself that is a systems architecture comprised of two interdependent components: conceptual interface and a mechanical apparatus." RJK ATG Would you like to tell us in your own words what Rob meant by "Dimensionality" or "Ongoing Systemization" without referencing the latter? "Never have we had mechanical subsystems which in turn can be reinterpreted in light of an evolving conceptual interface; nor an architecture that need not maintain its stability in the same manner as less complex systems do, this due to limitless GM and player inquiry that can manifest instant variables in real-time to promote or demote rules within the evolving conceptual structures these operate through." RJK ATG You guys need to be less dismissive of others view points. You might surprise yourself and actually learn something new. "super-systemization", "Dimensionality"? I'm not going to touch those. However, in the context of the first quoted sentence above, I read "active structural mutability" as referring to the free alteration of mechanical apparatus within a dynamic model privileging an evolving "conceptual interface" of player/referee interaction. That appears to be saying Arneson's design consisted of an accessible ideational model that requires a mechanical structure to operationalize, with both the model and the mechanics being mutable in evolutionary process. The second RJK quote seems to repeat exactly the same thing. So, from that anyway, I don't see where there is a conflict with what MM said. <shrug> |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 7:28:14 GMT -6
The last point can apply directly to role-playing systems. Let's say I replace a single roll sub-system that produces a "hit or miss" result, with a complicated series of rolls, lookups, and note keeping that still produces a "hit/miss" result. It still does the job correctly, but it's so darn cumbersome that nobody would ever play it. I.e., my new sub-system "compiles", but it breaks a more important law: what's practical. Which is precisely why Arneson continued to tinker with the sub-systems his entire life, always looking for a better way to do things which is why the btb people are so wrong. Not wrong for playing btb, anyone can choose to limit their own fun and that is fine. What is wrong it telling other people to limit their fun because the hard core One True Way Gygaxian crowd using only the post old school positions by Gygax for btb and preach that as a mantra that you can only play btb. The original D&D was not published originally to set in stone a way to play it was published to say here is enough to get you started, off you go, innovate! Many people did just that, others took the new party line of AD&D from TSR of you can't innovate, here buy this module, buy this splat book and settled for less and they get upset when someone doesn't settle for less. To be clear, the post old school part is the btb play as the One True Way, that is the post old school part, not the game itself. |
|
|
|
Post by MormonYoYoMan on May 29, 2017 7:30:51 GMT -6
So, from that anyway, I don't see where there is a conflict with what MM said. <shrug> This has become so consulted that I no longer remember who MM is - or if there was an MM involved. Mighty Mouse? My opinion, prejudiced by my backgrounds in historical research, languages, grammar, and Boolean logic? So far, it appears that Roy's first paper has succeeded in its purpose: to postulate that the Arneson Game is a whole new thing, even when Frankensteined from used parts, and to begin a long journey of diagramming how it happened and if it's repeatable. And to get the theory out in the air to see what more data can be stirred up. It's secondary purpose, or expectation, was that it would inflame emotions and be very, very controversial. That conflict, creating challenge, will bring forth further information. Somebody always knows something they don't know they know. But it's not "just" a system. It's history. And from what I can see, Rob expected conflict and, as a historian, expects refining and correction as and if new information becomes available. This is only the beginning of a new idea about a new idea. Dave was putting together a living creature from Legos, Lincoln Logs, spit, and bailing wire. What he did by trial and error, guesswork, intuitive reasoning, spit, and bailing wire, can and is being diagrammed and dissected. It can be seen as a system now, but it surely wasn't seen as systematic at the time, as Michelangelo carved away everything from a stone which didn't look like the Pieta. (sigh) I put my foot in it again, didn't I? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 7:36:59 GMT -6
So, from that anyway, I don't see where there is a conflict with what MM said. <shrug> This has become so consulted that I no longer remember who MM is - or if there was an MM involved. Mighty Mouse? My opinion, prejudiced by my backgrounds in historical research, languages, grammar, and Boolean logic? So far, it appears that Rob's first paper has succeeded in its purpose: to postulate that the Arneson Game is a whole new thing, even when Frankensteined from used parts, and to begin a long journey of diagramming how it happened and if it's repeatable. And to get the theory out in the air to see what more data can be stirred up. It's secondary purpose, or expectation, was that it would inflame emotions and be very, very controversial. That conflict, creating challenge, will bring forth further information. Somebody always knows something they don't know they know. But it's not "just" a system. It's history. And from what I can see, Rob expected conflict and, as a historian, expects refining and correction as and if new information becomes available. This is only the beginning of a new idea about a new idea. Dave was putting together a living creature from Legos, Lincoln Logs, spit, and bailing wire. What he did by trial and error, guesswork, intuitive reasoning, spit, and bailing wire, can and is being diagrammed and dissected. It can be seen as a system now, but it surely wasn't seen as systematic at the time, as Michelangelo carved away everything from a stone which didn't look like the Pieta. (sigh) I put my foot in it again, didn't I? Great insight, have an Exalt! |
|
|
|
Post by MormonYoYoMan on May 29, 2017 8:08:41 GMT -6
Kamsamnida.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 29, 2017 8:10:42 GMT -6
This has become so consulted that I no longer remember who MM is - or if there was an MM involved. Mighty Mouse?... Sorry  , That was lazy shorthand for Mike Mornard - our very own Gronan, quoted in the post. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 29, 2017 8:18:19 GMT -6
I also contend that it has nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of the rules that people traditionally focus on. I believe that is actually the crux of contention on the matter. Your illustration from your work experience is only giving a limited picture of what you would consider "nuts and bolts" in a system. There are actual nuts and bolts to the machinery you are talking about. Regardless of the programming, the system comes to a stand still when the plasma torch or other components fail. So, the architecture is not altered, but it is effected; production has come to a halt. You do consider the actual machinery part of the system don't you? I'm correct to think the torch with a bug that interferes with the interface is part of the system? Yes the torch is part of the system but the flaw is with that part not with the design of the system. And fixing the issue doesn't require a change in the design of the system. I believe that what Gronan is getting at, and it is what I mean when I say that the nuts and bolts of rules have little to do with design of the what makes tabletop roleplaying games unique. The reality is that the design is a sum of parts, configured, that make up the whole structure. The parts, in and of themselves, do not define the system structure. It is only when the parts and their processes are taken as a whole. A break down in the parts or processes will effect the architecture, though. There are two broad classes of problems I have to deal with. One the software does something differently than what we say it does. This is a classic bug. A torch doesn't fire, parts are misshapen and so forth and so on. The other class of issue are design shortcomings, where we need something to occur but it doesn't. For example when we were handed the spec for the torch that can do improved hole handling, the design of our software had to be altered to handled that. Sometimes a design flaw is a failure of imagination where we implemented A, B, but everybody else on the planet thinks that C should be there as well but we had a brain fart and didn't put it in. A & B work fine so it isn't a bug but rather a flaw in the design. For tabletop roleplaying the point of everything is to be entertained by pretending to be a character, including a version of yourself, doing interesting things in an imagined setting. This is enabled by the system that Dave Arneson designed. How did Dave Arneson designed it, by being a active member of the wargamming community of the Upper Midwest and having the imagination to put together the various bits and pieces that were floating around into something that by 2017 evolved into a major part of nation's culture (largely through computer games more than tabletop roleplaying). What bits and pieces Dave used? He used the idea of a human referee, wargame mechanics focused on the man to man level, a campaign of interlinked session with characters gaining in abilities from session to session if they survived, undefined victory conditions, etc. According to Rob, the architecture is made up of two interdependent components- conceptual interface and mechanical apparatus. Leaving one component out is talking about something other than Arneson's model. The machines my company sells are part of a general classes called HVAC cutting machines. The specifics of what we do differ but the overall system has long since matured. You entered the dimensions of one or more duct fitting, calculate their flat pattern layout, nest them to optimize material on flat sheets of metal. This produces one or more rectangular sheets of metal to be cut. The operates starts at the first sheet of metal cuts it, unloads it, and then repeats the process until all sheets are cut. Our machine, Vicon, differ in many details our competitors like Lockformer, AKS Cutting, Advanced Cutting, etc. But all of us have the same design as outlined above. This is what distinguishes from other metal cutting companies who at first glance make the exact type of machine we do. Except they are focused on what is called metal fabrication which is much broader than what we focus on. But metal fabrication software focuses mainly on importing parts from various CAD programs and then nest them on a flat sheet of metal. They don't have the ability to enter the dimension of HVAC duct and lay them out and do a bunch of other specific details that customers expect when it is a HVAC plasma cutting machine. Hence the HVAC metal cutting industry has more narrow range of competitors. The same with tabletop roleplaying and wargames. The rules of roleplaying games are a wargame and can be played via defining scenarios and victory condition. But if you were to play it that way, it would fell like a wargame not tabletop roleplaying. It only by setting things up like how Dave that it feel like playing a character in an imagined setting being able to whatever you want in pursuit of your goals. To me that indicate that the magic of tabletop roleplaying is in how the rules are used, not the rules themselves as most people focus on. edit: To elaborate on my last point, leave out the conceptual interface from the architecture and you are instead playing a traditional wargame or strategy game. I agree with this. Leave out the mechanical apparatus and you are now doing something like having a conversation, or describing a sunset, or acting. Except that we know that the players were not fully aware of the detail of the rules that Dave used. That from what we seen of Dave notes, he ran a lot of his campaign in a stream of conscious mode. We also know there were account after the release of D&D that there campaign where the player didn't even have a character sheet in their possession. Something I can personally attest as I seen this myself while growing up in rural NW PA. One campaign the players just had notes they kept and the referee kept everything behind the screen, the other the player had their sheet but they were not permitted (or didn't own) to bring any of the rulebooks to the table. So this where I disagree with you (and Rob). That for what makes tabletop roleplaying unique the rules don't matter. Where the rules matter is how one ENJOYs the experience. For some people this means using the rules of OD&D like many in this forum. For other this means Harnmaster, GURPS, Microlite20, D&D 3.0, or whatever. One reason, out of many others, that enjoyment is a factor is because tabletop roleplaying is intensely imaginative. If a particular set of rules works with how you and your players think then likely that group enjoys that set of rules. For example one of my best friends despises all forms of D&D because of levels. He utterly rigid on this point. In his mind character creation should be free form based on slots or points. And D&D and other level based RPGs doesn't work with how he thinks and severely impacts his enjoyment of those games. I know said this before several times to be clear where I am coming from I view the defintation of tabletop roleplaying to be an activity where players focus playing individual characters interacting with a setting with their actions adjudicated by a referee. Everything else including the rules found in rules books is a detail to make it this happen. That the difference between a tabletop roleplaying campaign with all the bells and whistles and a wargame campaign with all the bells and whistles is one of focus not mechanics. If you try to analyze the mechanics of the two there will such little differences that you will chase yourself in circles wondering what the hoopla is about. The shift in focus to playing individual characters and making that focus pervasive throughout the campaign is in my mind the dividing line. But it is not a black and white line. It rather a broad gray smear. That ranges from say fighting Battlemach, tracking individual battlemech pilots, playing a Battletech campaign fighting out the Succession Wars, to playing Mechwarrior where the characters are Battlmech pilots, to playing Mechwarrior where the characters are spies and traders within the setting of the Battletech universe. Tell me in that sequence where you think it stops being a wargame and starts being a tabletop roleplaying game? |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 29, 2017 8:21:24 GMT -6
The last point can apply directly to role-playing systems. Let's say I replace a single roll sub-system that produces a "hit or miss" result, with a complicated series of rolls, lookups, and note keeping that still produces a "hit/miss" result. It still does the job correctly, but it's so darn cumbersome that nobody would ever play it. I.e., my new sub-system "compiles", but it breaks a more important law: what's practical. What being discussed is what make up the design of tabletop roleplaying games in the context of what was it that Dave invented? Not whether it is fun or practical to play. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 29, 2017 10:43:52 GMT -6
So, from that anyway, I don't see where there is a conflict with what MM said. <shrug> Dan, you really should read the book. It contains three related essays with separate intents. I'm not going to comment on your proclivities in your own profession. It would serve no purpose. I'll simply say that all science is philosophically based. Despite what a persons opinion is, I feel my illustration (word picture) of an ecosystem is well served in a book that claims such things as -active structural mutability -overlapping systems, abutting systems, independent systems through progressed dimensional leaps -dimensional staging for progressively applied design thinking; the dynamic ability to create a game within a game of various kinds and/or degrees One of the essays is devoted to Arneson's System of Systems. (sigh) I put my foot in it again, didn't I? Hey MYYM  I appreciate you putting forward your viewpoint. I recognize that I'm not always completely transparent in what I'm getting at and sometimes I take for granted that people understand where I'm coming from. Regardless, we seem to be on the same page or, at least, I agree with what you wrote. Honestly, I'd like this conversation to move away from an insisted academic slant, which always strikes me as elitist, and towards more practical examples of what is being said in the book. But, it seems the language used still has to be referenced to make a connection. |
|
|
|
Post by MormonYoYoMan on May 29, 2017 11:25:09 GMT -6
This has become so consulted that I no longer remember who MM is - or if there was an MM involved. Mighty Mouse?... Sorry , That was lazy shorthand for Mike Mornard - our very own Gronan, quoted in the post. Thank you - I continually forget which Alter-Egos belong to which secret identities. Peter Parker is really Superman, right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2017 11:36:59 GMT -6
The last point can apply directly to role-playing systems. Let's say I replace a single roll sub-system that produces a "hit or miss" result, with a complicated series of rolls, lookups, and note keeping that still produces a "hit/miss" result. It still does the job correctly, but it's so darn cumbersome that nobody would ever play it. I.e., my new sub-system "compiles", but it breaks a more important law: what's practical. What being discussed is what make up the design of tabletop roleplaying games in the context of what was it that Dave invented? Not whether it is fun or practical to play. But you just said this" So this where I disagree with you (and Rob). That for what makes tabletop roleplaying unique the rules don't matter. Where the rules matter is how one ENJOYs the experience. For some people this means using the rules of OD&D like many in this forum. For other this means Harnmaster, GURPS, Microlite20, D&D 3.0, or whatever. One reason, out of many others, that enjoyment is a factor is because tabletop roleplaying is intensely imaginative. If a particular set of rules works with how you and your players think then likely that group enjoys that set of rules. Enjoyment and fun are the same thing are they not? What am I missing here? I read this as contradicting yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 29, 2017 12:31:12 GMT -6
Except that we know that the players were not fully aware of the detail of the rules that Dave used. That from what we seen of Dave notes, he ran a lot of his campaign in a stream of conscious mode. We also know there were account after the release of D&D that there campaign where the player didn't even have a character sheet in their possession. Something I can personally attest as I seen this myself while growing up in rural NW PA. One campaign the players just had notes they kept and the referee kept everything behind the screen, the other the player had their sheet but they were not permitted (or didn't own) to bring any of the rulebooks to the table. An observation I had, which was earlier discussed with PD, is that people tend to look at this discussion about Arneson's Concept from one of two perspectives- player and GM. Here you are only taking the perspective of the player. I do not feel that awareness of the mechanics is equivalent to saying they are inconsequential. To a player who does not know the rules, they may appear unimportant, yet they will still have an impact on their character and the game. This leaves me questioning why one set of rules would be more enjoyable if the underlying architecture is the same and the sub-systems are mutable. Seems like there is something left unstated or misrepresented about the mechanics and their effect on the system. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 29, 2017 16:16:11 GMT -6
This leaves me questioning why one set of rules would be more enjoyable if the underlying architecture is the same and the sub-systems are mutable. Seems like there is something left unstated or misrepresented about the mechanics and their effect on the system. Level of details and what details get focused on especially how it relates to a genre or setting. For example Riddle of Steel vs. Rolemaster vs. Harnmaster vs. GURPS. vs. D&D vs. Runequest. Varying level of details and varying difference in specifics produces games that are enjoyed by overlapping but different audiences. The overall system works the same for all of these games just like all HVAC plasma cutting machines are meant to cut flat duct patterns out sheets of steel. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 29, 2017 19:18:19 GMT -6
This leaves me questioning why one set of rules would be more enjoyable if the underlying architecture is the same and the sub-systems are mutable. Seems like there is something left unstated or misrepresented about the mechanics and their effect on the system. Level of details and what details get focused on especially how it relates to a genre or setting. For example Riddle of Steel vs. Rolemaster vs. Harnmaster vs. GURPS. vs. D&D vs. Runequest. Varying level of details and varying difference in specifics produces games that are enjoyed by overlapping but different audiences. The overall system works the same for all of these games just like all HVAC plasma cutting machines are meant to cut flat duct patterns out sheets of steel. Sure, different people like different amount of crunch in their games. I could also understand that a GM would choose a specific system because they do not want to spend a lot of time reinventing the wheel. Though I do not want to wander too far into the subjective side of things since Rob's book attempts to take an objective approach, I can't help but have a gut feeling that people are proving my point with their responses, that the sub-systems are of consequence, that they are more important than what certain individuals would want us to believe and they are willing to admit. Honestly, I do not think we can have it both ways. Rob's book argues that the rigid codification (standardization) of the rules changed the game from an open system to a closed system. Regardless of whether you accept this, it is a statement that the sub-systems altered the original system dynamics, considering the architecture's components are still present. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 30, 2017 0:52:23 GMT -6
For the sake of clarity when reading the book I've taken a shot at defining some avoided terminology, at least so far. Super-systemization"Supersystem: a system that is made up of systems" "Systemization is the act of creating a new system" So perhaps super-systemization is: the act of creating a system of systems? - Which sounds like a DM improvising game mechanics and game systems during the playing of a game. Ongoing SystemizationIf my previous definition is solid, then this sounds like a restatement of sorts. Only it applies to continually creating any kind of system. Dimensionality dimensionality (plural dimensionalities) - The state or characteristic of possessing dimensions. - (chiefly mathematics and computing) The number of dimensions something has. This term is more difficult to pin down. My own definition of dimensions is simply the number of unique metrics used to measure something. Measure it 7 different ways, you have 7 dimensions. But there are a few definitions listed on wiktionary, all of which appear potentially applicable to D&D - at least to me. (Well, except the last really) Dimension: - A single aspect of a given thing. - A measure of spatial extent in a particular direction, such as height, width or breadth, or depth. - A construct whereby objects or individuals can be distinguished. - (geometry) The number of independent coordinates needed to specify uniquely the location of a point in a space; also, any of such independent coordinates. - (linear algebra) The number of elements of any basis of a vector space. - (physics) One of the physical properties that are regarded as fundamental measures of a physical quantity, such as mass, length and time. - (computing) Any of the independent ranges of indices in a multidimensional array. - (science fiction, fantasy) An alternative universe or plane of existence. D&D has a number of repeated statistics which could be the multiple measurements "dimensionality" is referring to. (Are these statistics the 23 parts?) Another idea I had was the scaling effect of the design. The planar map zooms in to the world's overland map. This zooms further in to different scales, most notably outdoor travel and then city or dungeon designs. But I wouldn't stop there as finer details could be added as well. Perhaps system changes due to scaling is dimensionality? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 6:12:43 GMT -6
So perhaps super-systemization is: the act of creating a system of systems? - Which sounds like a DM improvising game mechanics and game systems during the playing of a game. OD&D in its purest form, the original way to play, the way Blackmoor was created and evolved throughout the life of its creator. AKA playtesting - this is the creative period and does not need to end but can continue for the lifetime of the ref and players, thus the purest form since it is the most alive living phase. Dimensionality - (science fiction, fantasy) An alternative universe or plane of existence. Another idea I had was the scaling effect of the design. The planar map zooms in to the world's overland map. This zooms further in to different scales, most notably outdoor travel and then city or dungeon designs. But I wouldn't stop there as finer details could be added as well. Perhaps system changes due to scaling is dimensionality? This is what I think it is. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 30, 2017 6:27:28 GMT -6
Dimensionality - (science fiction, fantasy) An alternative universe or plane of existence. Another idea I had was the scaling effect of the design. The planar map zooms in to the world's overland map. This zooms further in to different scales, most notably outdoor travel and then city or dungeon designs. But I wouldn't stop there as finer details could be added as well. Perhaps system changes due to scaling is dimensionality? This is what I think it is. You know, I remember thinking as a kid D&D had something to do with the appendix entry about 9 planar dimensions. I could see those as revealing an underlying game design. I'm still trying to puzzle out how DATG uses it. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 30, 2017 7:07:29 GMT -6
What being discussed is what make up the design of tabletop roleplaying games in the context of what was it that Dave invented? Not whether it is fun or practical to play. But you just said this" So this where I disagree with you (and Rob). That for what makes tabletop roleplaying unique the rules don't matter. Where the rules matter is how one ENJOYs the experience. For some people this means using the rules of OD&D like many in this forum. For other this means Harnmaster, GURPS, Microlite20, D&D 3.0, or whatever. One reason, out of many others, that enjoyment is a factor is because tabletop roleplaying is intensely imaginative. If a particular set of rules works with how you and your players think then likely that group enjoys that set of rules. Enjoyment and fun are the same thing are they not? What am I missing here? I read this as contradicting yourself. Sorry for the confusion and belated reply, I got one off to derv's post before I had to answer a friend call for help moving a car that took all evening. In the first I was responding to wayofearth's comment about whether it important that a subsystem works or not in how it relates to describing a design of a game. The second was about how I view how design relates to the enjoyment (or fun the same thing in this context). Let take OD&D versus GURPS. To me they are both tabletop roleplaying games, the same class of game. Why? Because both focus on playing having the players play individual characters. Both focus on providing rules to describe those characters. Both provide tools allow a human referee adjudicate what the players attempt to do as their character. Both advise the referee to create a setting, and to keep track of how the character progress from session to session. All of these traits are hallmarks of tabletop roleplaying games. However it is likely that members of this forum will not like playing in a GURPS campaign? Why? Because GURPS has a far greater level of details when it comes to creating characters, and resolving actions. Not only a greater level of detail but it also take longer to resolve many actions particularly combat due to GURPS use of one action per one second combat round, and the fact that combatant get defense rolls, and maneuver. This combination of mechanics means that combat in GURPS takes longer to resolve. Yet if you go over to the SJ Games forums you will see that many people, not a many as D&D, are successfully running GURPS campaigns. For myself my point of view originated from the fact I dragged the Majestic Wilderlands through a dozen RPG. Although to be fair only four were used extensively, AD&D 1st, Fantasy Hero, GURPS, and now OD&D + House Rules. I also recently used D&D 5th edition for two campaigns. And as we speak I am running a OD&D campaign on Thursday with a group of friend on-line using Roll20. In each campaign, the characters fought the same kinds of monsters, the D&D roster (Ankhegs, Orcs, Ropers, etc), doing the same kinds of things; mostly adventuring with some dungeon crawling in pursuit of the wealth needed to make their mark upon the setting. The rules didn't have much of an impact on what the players attempted to do, but did impact how it played out. For example when using GURPS a session can be easily consumed by a single combat encounter. Hope that clarifies things. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 30, 2017 7:14:41 GMT -6
Sure, different people like different amount of crunch in their games. I could also understand that a GM would choose a specific system because they do not want to spend a lot of time reinventing the wheel. Though I do not want to wander too far into the subjective side of things since Rob's book attempts to take an objective approach, I can't help but have a gut feeling that people are proving my point with their responses, that the sub-systems are of consequence, that they are more important than what certain individuals would want us to believe and they are willing to admit. Since tabletop roleplaying games are a form of entertainment there always going to be a subjective components. But I think one can discuss the fact there a distinct class of games and try to get a handle on what makes them different than wargames. My view is that once you are done to level of armor class, passive defense, hit points, strike zones, to hit modifiers that you are in the realm of the subjective. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 30, 2017 7:33:29 GMT -6
Honestly, I do not think we can have it both ways. Rob's book argues that the rigid codification (standardization) of the rules changed the game from an open system to a closed system. Regardless of whether you accept this, it is a statement that the sub-systems altered the original system dynamics, considering the architecture's components are still present. I believe I said this before here, certainly on other forums. Is that the sum of everything that I read in the various anecdotes, and books like Playing at the World, that if you want want to play like they did back in the day, define the kind of campaign you want to run first, and then come up with the rules to run it second. If certain rules are not working then change them. That published rules are a resource and as a referee you are not beholden to use them in their entirety. Take as much or as little as YOU think best not what publishers thinks best. I can go into more details on my thought but they are probably not on-topic for this thread. Nevertheless the problem of open and closed is a problem because of how the referee chooses to run his campaign. In short it about how a referee uses a set of rules not the rules themselves. I think people are forgetting including Rob Kuntz that one of the things that makes tabletop roleplaying different than wargames is that the referee in EVERY case is the final arbiter not the rules. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 8:04:18 GMT -6
This is what I think it is. You know, I remember thinking as a kid D&D had something to do with the appendix entry about 9 planar dimensions. I could see those as revealing an underlying game design. I'm still trying to puzzle out how DATG uses it. I don't think he is talking about the 9 planar dimensions, I think the " Perhaps system changes due to scaling is dimensionality" is the part that is right. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 8:18:21 GMT -6
I think people are forgetting including Rob Kuntz that one of the things that makes tabletop roleplaying different than wargames is that the referee in EVERY case is the final arbiter not the rules. I would say that the final arbiter of the rules is not the referee, but the players. If the players don't like the rules (and there is a significant portion of the player base that refuse to play in a game with house rules), then the referee must change the rules or the game ceases to exist. I have no idea how this fits into all this system technobabble. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 30, 2017 8:53:33 GMT -6
I think people are forgetting including Rob Kuntz that one of the things that makes tabletop roleplaying different than wargames is that the referee in EVERY case is the final arbiter not the rules. I would say that the final arbiter of the rules is not the referee, but the players. If the players don't like the rules (and there is a significant portion of the player base that refuse to play in a game with house rules), then the referee must change the rules or the game ceases to exist. I have no idea how this fits into all this system technobabble. Sure it a consideration but I think more part of making a campaign happen in the first along with whether the group are socially compatible, what your work schedules are like and so on. If the players sign onto the campaign the expectation is that referee is the final arbiter. The referee is erratic in his rulings that is going to impact his reputation and ability to attract players to his campaigns. |
|
, That was lazy shorthand for Mike Mornard - our very own Gronan, quoted in the post.
I appreciate you putting forward your viewpoint. I recognize that I'm not always completely transparent in what I'm getting at and sometimes I take for granted that people understand where I'm coming from. Regardless, we seem to be on the same page or, at least, I agree with what you wrote. 
