Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 9:31:56 GMT -6
(and there is a significant portion of the player base that refuse to play in a game with house rules), WOW!!  I could more easily understand refusing to play in a game where there were no house rules. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 30, 2017 16:02:38 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. Some of our mathematical guys on here might have a firmer grasp on this. In my understanding, dimensionality is a manner of defining a point in time and/or space. The idea being put forth is an object (or system) that has or promotes limitless points of intersection or divergence due to dimensionality. I would put it on the same page as "transcendence" as a quality- something not easily defined. I believe Rob is using the term in contrast to linearity, specifically in how Arneson arrived at his concept through trial and error. In other words, it is near impossible to attach any causation to it. He also uses it to describe the games potential in relation to the conceptual interface, basically limitless and evolving. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 30, 2017 19:15:32 GMT -6
There is something of a matrix linearity in the single d20 die roll mechanics. And how the bell curves of the Ability Scores also represent numerous underlying linear relationships also might speak to this dimensionality term.
---
PS: 9 dimensions was a gaff on my part. Those are part of Mythus, but I think they might apply to D&D as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 19:49:52 GMT -6
Dave Arneson? System architecture? Really?
From what I saw, Dave never had any of the theoretical underpinnings that the book describes. He wasn't big on theory; he was big on game play, with a lot of people laughing their heads off around the table.
Thank you all for your excellent comments and reviews, too!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on May 30, 2017 21:59:01 GMT -6
Dave Arneson? System architecture? Really? From what I saw, Dave never had any of the theoretical underpinnings that the book describes. He wasn't big on theory; he was big on game play, with a lot of people laughing their heads off around the table. Thank you all for your excellent comments and reviews, too! Rob explained in concrete terms what Arneson understood intuitively. Up until recently, no computer could compete with what humans were doing in the game of Go. Like Arneson, the intuiting employed by the humans seems nonsensical compared to the highly structured code employed by the computers, yet the humans would produce superior results. Each of the 28 leaps in game design Rob enumerates in his book are evidenced by Arnesons Blackmoor; hence Arneson had an understanding of them at some level to conceive and implement the subsystems they require. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 4:51:38 GMT -6
Dave Arneson? System architecture? Really? From what I saw, Dave never had any of the theoretical underpinnings that the book describes. He wasn't big on theory; he was big on game play, with a lot of people laughing their heads off around the table. Thank you all for your excellent comments and reviews, too! Rob explained in concrete terms what Arneson understood intuitively. Up until recently, no computer could compete with what humans were doing in the game of Go. Like Arneson, the intuiting employed by the humans seems nonsensical compared to the highly structured code employed by the computers, yet the humans would produce superior results. Each of the 28 leaps in game design Rob enumerates in his book are evidenced by Arnesons Blackmoor; hence Arneson had an understanding of them at some level to conceive and implement the subsystems they require. I agree with both of you here, whether you write it down or not and whether you can articulate it or not, if you are big on game play and a lot of people are laughing their heads off around the table, you are doing it right and you have an intuitive understanding of it (whether you know it or not) i.e. it comes naturally to you and the creativity and fun flows out of you and entrances those around you. There is a lot of this that I do not consciously understand, but I can do it at the table. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 6:15:45 GMT -6
chirinebakal elsewhere you said, IMO that is the True Genius of Dave Arneson and that is the way that I have always played and the play style that I support. Seat of the pants and create on the fly, it IMO the most fun and I think it is important that that not be lost. I don't say that other ways are bad, just that I don't have an interest in playing other ways. I support everyone doing whatever works for them, but for me the way you play is the way that I play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 11:46:24 GMT -6
Robertsconley, you perceive my programming example, thanks.
Otherwise, I'm d**n glad I'm not in the business any more. Crom. A subsystem that "breaks" the system is by definition out of compliance with the interface.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 11:50:19 GMT -6
Dave Arneson? System architecture? Really? From what I saw, Dave never had any of the theoretical underpinnings that the book describes. He wasn't big on theory; he was big on game play, with a lot of people laughing their heads off around the table. Thank you all for your excellent comments and reviews, too! You're absolutely right that Dave didn't think that way. However, he ended up creating something that was different from all that had gone before, and Rob is using highly technical language to describe it. I happen to feel he's right. It's hard to describe paradigm shifts. After all, everybody... including George Lucas... has spent the last forty years trying without success to explain why a cheapie little space opera romp became one of the most popular movies of all time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 11:53:25 GMT -6
(and there is a significant portion of the player base that refuse to play in a game with house rules), WOW!! I could more easily understand refusing to play in a game where there were no house rules. I think he's right, because most people are pedantic drudges with no more imagination than a pile of rancid dung. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 31, 2017 13:52:13 GMT -6
Robertsconley, you perceive my programming example, thanks. Otherwise, I'm d**n glad I'm not in the business any more. Crom. A subsystem that "breaks" the system is by definition out of compliance with the interface. My experience it that it is more nuanced then that. If a abnormal termination results that definitely fit with being out of compliance with the interface. The basic idea of a interface that works as specified. However it nuanced because a implementation can be bug free but the customer doesn't like it. I work in a sales driven environment catering to a industry dominated by mom and pop shops. While there are HVAC standards for ductwork there are also numerous equally good ways of implementing them. In thirty years I been doing this I had to deal with a lot of quirks and making sure fixing it for one customer doesn't stomp on what I did for another customers or make the software to complicated for a sheetmetal worker to use. I got at least 15 more years of doing this. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 31, 2017 13:57:45 GMT -6
You're absolutely right that Dave didn't think that way. However, he ended up creating something that was different from all that had gone before, and Rob is using highly technical language to describe it. I happen to feel he's right. I agree with your points about Dave, I just don't agree we need highly technical language to describe it. I said it before sometimes the most difficult solutions to engineer are the simple and elegant ones. Dave accomplished it with tabletop roleplaying games. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 15:08:13 GMT -6
Robertsconley, you perceive my programming example, thanks. Otherwise, I'm d**n glad I'm not in the business any more. Crom. A subsystem that "breaks" the system is by definition out of compliance with the interface. My experience it that it is more nuanced then that. If a abnormal termination results that definitely fit with being out of compliance with the interface. The basic idea of a interface that works as specified. However it nuanced because a implementation can be bug free but the customer doesn't like it. I work in a sales driven environment catering to a industry dominated by mom and pop shops. While there are HVAC standards for ductwork there are also numerous equally good ways of implementing them. In thirty years I been doing this I had to deal with a lot of quirks and making sure fixing it for one customer doesn't stomp on what I did for another customers or make the software to complicated for a sheetmetal worker to use. I got at least 15 more years of doing this. Ah, yes, users. I could develop a much more functional system without all these users around. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 31, 2017 17:27:51 GMT -6
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. Sorry for the confusion, Rob. I was really referring to my own "gut feeling" as being subjective, not anything you were specifically talking about. 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. I do not agree that the "referee as the final arbiter" is a distinction between the two. I would fall in the camp that views this is a commonality between them. But, you did bring up something of interest that I had to reflect on. It doesn't seem that Kuntz has accounted for this component of the game- The GM's role as unbiased arbitrator. It doesn't seem to belong in the conceptual interface and it is not part of the mechanical apparatus, though it can utilize such. It is, or at least should be, rational. Where does it fit in with the system architecture? Is it another component not represented? |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 31, 2017 19:51:30 GMT -6
I do not agree that the "referee as the final arbiter" is a distinction between the two. I would fall in the camp that views this is a commonality between them. But, you did bring up something of interest that I had to reflect on. It doesn't seem that Kuntz has accounted for this component of the game- The GM's role as unbiased arbitrator. It doesn't seem to belong in the conceptual interface and it is not part of the mechanical apparatus, though it can utilize such. It is, or at least should be, rational. Where does it fit in with the system architecture? Is it another component not represented? I would say the role of the referee as an unbiased arbitrator is crucial. If Rob is not taking that into account then that is a big gaping hole. I have to re-read the book to see if it discussed. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 31, 2017 20:18:36 GMT -6
In the interest of clarity I drew up this visual diagram of how tabletop roleplaying games work as a system and represents what Dave Arneson developed for his Blackmoor campaign. That regardless of genre, setting, or the details of the rules is the foundation of every tabletop roleplaying game that was made since Blackmoor including original Dungeons & Dragons. A couple of clarification Play can include acting as a different personality but that is just one option. Playing a version of yourself within the setting works just fine with the system behind tabletop roleplaying. Character represents the sum of your capabilities within the setting of the game. Does not mean that the player has to be pretend to be somebody like a actor in a movie. You could do that but that not a requirement. Describe Action - there are several ways of doing this. You can describe what your character does in first person as if you are there. But you can also describe like you would in a wargame writing down orders for a unit. Either way works as well as other alternatives. All that matter is the referee understand what you are attempting to do. Interacts with a setting - the setting is the description of where the action takes place. It can be a wilderness, a dungeon, at sea, in the air, on Barsoom, in Pellicdur, anywhere your imagination can take you can be used as a setting for a tabletop roleplaying game. Adjudication - the process by which the referee decide the result of the actions the players describes for his character. The referee can use the description of the setting, a set of wargame rules, and/or dice to arrive at a decision. All that required for tabletop roleplaying to work is that the referee has a process to resolve the actions the players describe. This system is used over and over again throughout a session of tabletop roleplaying and quite often a campaign of interlinked sessions. If you notice this is devoid of any mention of specifics. All that matters to make this work that there are characters, a setting, a human referee, and a process of adjudication. Everything else are details that can be decided on the basis of what practical and what is fun for a particular group.  |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 31, 2017 20:19:41 GMT -6
Some further comments on the above post
This may seem too simple, but I tell from thirty years of developing software for the sheet metal industry that the hardest things to come up with are the things that are simple and elegant to sue. Don't let the simplicity of this system fool you. There was a lot of groundwork that had to occur among the wargaming community of the 60s and early 70s in order to line up the piece that Dave used to put this together. And when Dave started Blackmoor there was a lot more for him to pick from then what I described here. Through his judgement and through the process of trial and error he found which pieces worked and not only made sure people had fun but created a whole new form of gaming in the process.
I strongly feel the use of System Theory over-complicates what Dave developed. That part of the reason why tabletop roleplaying spread far and wide that once exposed to what Dave Arneson developed it simplicity unlocks a whole realm of imagination that didn't exist before.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on May 31, 2017 20:33:32 GMT -6
I like it Rob. I would add another item to adjudication- using reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 1, 2017 5:27:13 GMT -6
Some further comments on the above post This may seem too simple, but I tell from thirty years of developing software for the sheet metal industry that the hardest things to come up with are the things that are simple and elegant to sue. Don't let the simplicity of this system fool you. When it comes to learning styles, I'm predominantly a visual/ physical learner. To me, simplicity adds clarity. Not to overcomplicate your effort. Such diagrams can quickly become over burdened and lose their clarity. But, it seems that there are at least three separate roles to the GM: judge/ref., creator, and player. As creator, the GM designs the setting, organizes a campaign, and house rules. As player, the GM takes the role of NPC's describing actions that interact with the setting and the player characters. I'd be interested in how you see these dynamics, if you agree or disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 1, 2017 6:29:40 GMT -6
An alternative perspective of playing an RPG might be:  But neither of these perspectives really speak to the "world building" part of the game, or to the "house ruling/rules creating" part of the game (which may be particularly relevant to this thread)... |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jun 1, 2017 6:59:20 GMT -6
First I updated the original file with reason, that was a good call. I am waiting for further feedback until I export a new image. I will also make the file available so people can mash it up for their own purpose. It was done in a program called Yed. Some further comments on the above post This may seem too simple, but I tell from thirty years of developing software for the sheet metal industry that the hardest things to come up with are the things that are simple and elegant to sue. Don't let the simplicity of this system fool you. When it comes to learning styles, I'm predominantly a visual/ physical learner. To me, simplicity adds clarity. Not to overcomplicate your effort. Such diagrams can quickly become over burdened and lose their clarity. But, it seems that there are at least three separate roles to the GM: judge/ref., creator, and player. As creator, the GM designs the setting, organizes a campaign, and house rules. As player, the GM takes the role of NPC's describing actions that interact with the setting and the player characters. I'd be interested in how you see these dynamics, if you agree or disagree. I concur in part, I view roleplaying NPCs as part of using the setting as a basis for adjudication. Having said that, when it comes to using the setting there are several overlapping but distinct processes(?) involved. Playing a NPC like a player is definitely one of them. In addition when it comes to PCs becoming involved in a large scale activity, like a mass battle, then it can be said that the referee also plays the role of an opponent of a wargame scenario, or with things like trade in Traveller or HarnManor the referee becomes a human CPU running a economics simulation. Hopefully in a entertaining way.  I have to stress these are details of the adjudication process. The bottom line is that there has to be process of adjudication. If anything required on the using list is reason as you mentioned and the setting. The rest depends on what interests or is useful to the referee, and the players. For example some RPGs like Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game, do away with dice. Eric Wujcik figured out a process of adjudication that did not need dice to work and made it work for his campaign involving the Zelazny's Amber setting. Technically rules are optional, but I don't see that working well for most. Due to my deafness and personal interests, I would not enjoy refereeing a tabletop without at least a minimal set of rules describing what characters can do and laying out some procedures for common actions like combat. Having said, I played with or seen referee do very well with little to no rules. But it was very rare to encounter this in the forty years of playing tabletop RPG. Hope this answers your question. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jun 1, 2017 7:13:51 GMT -6
An alternative perspective of playing an RPG might be: Aside from omitted using the setting as the basis for adjudication that is a good diagram. The only other minor criticism is that you put rules, reason, and rules in the path of adjudication. They should be marked as resources a referee can draw on but lack of any of these items. (except perhaps reason) doesn't prevent the referee from adjudicating what the players attempt to do. Perhaps both of our the diagrams should graphically show the referee using reason on the basis of his experience, rules, and/or dice as the foundation for adjudication. My drawing was like how I drew the system architecture of the software I developed. Yours show more of the process that underlies a tabletop roleplaying game. I think I need to incorporate the points you illustrate to make mine more informative. Again when I am done (either tonight or tomorrow). I will post the Yed file so people can manipulate it for themselves. Again good job with the diagram. But neither of these perspectives really speak to the "world building" part of the game, or to the "house ruling/rules creating" part of the game (which may be particularly relevant to this thread)... I argue they are details, the game we outlined in both of our diagram works equally well with the referee using a setting he has written himself, or a setting that is purchased. The same with the rules, works with rules developed by the referee or works with purchased rules. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 9:00:21 GMT -6
I view the role of the referee as:
1. Creator and World Builder
2. Ongoing setting creator
3. Campaign Organizer
4. House Guidelines (beforehand and on the fly as needed)
5. Provider of information/ adventure hooks
6. Provider of unique NPC's with real motivations and agendas
7. Player of all NPC's
8. Provider of both Common and Unique Monsters with real motivations and agendas
9. Player of all Monsters
10. Impartial Unbiased Referee - favoring neither the PCs nor the NPCs nor the Monsters - fair and even-handed adjudication
11. Provides Improvisation on an ongoing basis throughout the game to complete the interaction between the players and everything else (may or may not include things like "funny voices")
12. Interprets all guidelines (from the book and from the house) and accepts player feedback (all referees will at one time or another make a mistake, fixing it should never be a big deal) (See Item 10)
13. Allows the dice to have their proper place, but not necessarily the last word in all cases
14. Other -everything else
|
|
|
|
Post by MormonYoYoMan on Jun 1, 2017 13:24:50 GMT -6
In other words, simulated god. "Small g," to quote Kurt Russell.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 1, 2017 15:35:11 GMT -6
What is well represented by waysoftheearth 's diagram is the causal loops. These loops give us a clearer picture of the process and how the variables interact with each other. I think both of the diagram's are a helpful example in understanding Kuntz's angle of system thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 2, 2017 15:44:00 GMT -6
Well, I thought the diagrams, along with the comments about creating, world building, and house ruling, would have naturally segued the conversation onto the topic of a System of systems mentioned in Kuntz's book.
It's interesting to consider how the diagrams represent how an individual views roleplaying. Consider how the rules are tied in with the idea of adjudication. This is convenient if you feel rules are arbitrary. I'm not saying they don't belong there. I'll still go on the record once again as saying I do not believe this to be categorically true.
So, another system which is frequently in the hands of the players is character creation. Character creation involves using rules, dice, and reason.
Hopefully this spurs some discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jun 2, 2017 20:51:54 GMT -6
It's not, "without rules there is no game."
It's, "without a design, where there may or may not be rules referring to it, there is no game." The game is the design.
Character Creation is different. It doesn't include playing the game before the official start. But it does offer a few options to each player for what they will be scored for when playing and the abilities of the game piece they will have.
1. Class - the overarching, most important, and most game defining choice.
2. Race - which is treated as either the default (human) or a variant (demi-human)
There could be an argument made that choosing a "Name" for the character is another choice, but it's largely irrelevant to the game. Name is an oft overlooked game element, but it's really simply so we can reliably refer to the player's particular game piece/character.
Everything else in character creation is either a score randomly determined by dice rolls or a consequence of the two choices above.
"Buying Equipment" is actually part of playing the game. It's difficult if not impossible to select game resources without an understanding of the current situation and what your goals are within it. I think it could be a kind of Background Creation step. Where the GM introduces the starting place and time of the game and what the character's "already know" - at least about the immediate situation. ...and then equipment might be purchased. Or just start the game in a town with price equivalent traders near a dungeon.
-- EDIT: (now thinking about it, since all new character arriving later in the campaign use the same pricing and starting equipment options I think "background creation" is more applicable)
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 2, 2017 21:11:15 GMT -6
Aside from omitted using the setting as the basis for adjudication that is a good diagram. The only other minor criticism is that you put rules, reason, and rules in the path of adjudication. They should be marked as resources a referee can draw on but lack of any of these items. I agree that reason, rules, and dice are tools at the referee's disposal. Probably, the ref needs to use at least one of these three tools to make a decision. Use of the setting to inform adjudication decisions can, I think, be considered a subset of sound reasoning. All that aside, I agree my diagram would ideally include a "reasoning" icon along side the dice and rulebook icons. When I first saw your diagram robertsconley, it conjured visions of a computer RPG moreso than a face to face RPG, because it appears to depict the players and ref independently operating on a game environment between them. So I wasn't surprised when you next posted: My drawing was like how I drew the system architecture of the software I developed. A couple of comments on your system architecture might be: * The characters probably should be inside the box, rather than outside. Character records probably do exist outside the box. * The "describe actions" bubble probably should be outside the box, rather than inside. * It's not obvious (to me) that the players and referee interact at all. * It's not obvious (to me) exactly what the referee adjudicates. Of course these diagrams are highly conceptual, so different people will read different things into them. If I was going to dive down to the next level of detail, I would start separating real and imagined things. I.e., the players have a real record of a character, but the character itself is an imagined thing that only exists in an imagined game world. The referee maintains a record of that game world, which is quite separate from the game world which the players imagine. And so on. But neither of these perspectives really speak to the "world building" part of the game, or to the "house ruling/rules creating" part of the game (which may be particularly relevant to this thread)... I argue they are details, the game we outlined in both of our diagram works equally well with the referee using a setting he has written himself, or a setting that is purchased. The same with the rules, works with rules developed by the referee or works with purchased rules. Perhaps, but i gather one of the central debates in this thread is around whether the game rules are entirely purchased/developed prior to play (as you suggest), or continue to be further developed during play. My personal gaming experience tells me the latter is a more realistic view of what actually happens in play. If we believe that is so, then rules development is an element of the game that legitimately should be represented on the above diagrams. I view in situ world building more or less the same way. E.g., if an important NPC, monster, or treasure is randomly rolled up during play, it becomes a part of the game world thereafter. For me, that's (a part of) world building... YMMV. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 3, 2017 7:06:57 GMT -6
It's not, "without rules there is no game." It's, "without a design, where there may or may not be rules referring to it, there is no game." The game is the design. Character Creation is different. It doesn't include playing the game before the official start. But it does offer a few options to each player for what they will be scored for when playing and the abilities of the game piece they will have. I would argue it could be considered a game within a game. This is more obvious in games like Classic Traveller. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 3, 2017 7:18:09 GMT -6
If we believe that is so, then rules development is an element of the game that legitimately should be represented on the above diagrams. I agree, and think the idea of house ruling may fall in more than one location on the diagrams. It is something that can happen before play begins and during play, if the rules do not cover an issue that pops up during the game. This covers some of what people are talking about when they speak about "improvisation". Then there is the whole idea of the setting being pre-determined before hand or, in contrast, something that unfolds through play based on the decisions and interactions between player and GM. |
|
I could more easily understand refusing to play in a game where there were no house rules.
