Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 9:25:54 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. The game world is something that unfolds through play based on the decisions and interactions between player and ref, IME as the ref I define the world with a broad brush, but develop the fine details through play. To pre-determine the setting(i.e all the fine details) would require several lifetimes and a million millions of pages to do and then you would never play it yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jun 3, 2017 10:18:03 GMT -6
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. 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. Not sure of your technical background so if you know this I apologize. There are multiple methods of diagramming a system each designed to illustrate a certain aspect of the system. I opted to diagram the architecture of tabletop roleplaying showing the various parts and their relationship. Your diagram is a process showing the same parts but as part of a process. Both types of views can be accurate. There is no one kind of flow chart. So if I were to make a pamphlet on the topic to be complete it would have to have at least these two diagram. One to show the part and their relationships, the other showing how it works as a process. There will have a third diagram showing the process of a campaign which would include the world building and rule design that some has mentioned as being omitted. My diagram assumes that been done already. * The characters probably should be inside the box, rather than outside. Character records probably do exist outside the box. Maybe, I will think on it. The referee has input into character creation after all. * 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. You make a good point, now that I look at it, my diagram looks weak on this. I will fix it up in version 2. 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. Here thing is it a tabletop roleplaying game when a has everything is pre-generated? I would argue yes. It may not one's preferences but the end result is indistinguishable from when everything is done from scratch. A person walking up to a random table and viewing what going couldn't tell if the referee and players are using pre-generated material versus material made from scratch. Unless there some external clue like you peek behind the referee's screen and see the printed module sitting there. Or the character players are using are also printed and not written up. Even then how you are know it isn't a rolled up character whose player is computer savvy enough to have typed it up on his computer? So in my view world building, rule creations are not an required part of the definition of tabletop roleplaying. Instead they are tools used to create a campaign or session where a group plays tabletop roleplayi9ng. How much world building and rules creations one does is a matter of a personal preference. Anyway I should have version 2 up this weekend along with a editable file and a link to the software one can use. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 3, 2017 14:19:55 GMT -6
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. The game world is something that unfolds through play based on the decisions and interactions between player and ref, IME as the ref I define the world with a broad brush, but develop the fine details through play. To pre-determine the setting(i.e all the fine details) would require several lifetimes and a million millions of pages to do and then you would never play it yourself. If the setting is something that unfolds through play based on player and ref interactions than it would not be a tool for adjudication. Instead, the setting would be an outcome of adjudication. Just trying to stretch others thoughts about this a little, something I think the diagrams help with. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jun 3, 2017 17:24:29 GMT -6
I would argue it could be considered a game within a game. This is more obvious in games like Classic Traveller. For some contemporary groups I would argue character creation is most of their game. (I've been in a few). Considering there is no playable system for the later editions, character creation is the only intact game design available for players to succeed at. While it's not an official score, players can discern their own successes when gaming up a character because they can see unbroken systems for character creation in those games. The final stats are their objectives and scores. The shame is there is no possible scoring in the latter "game". At least M:tG has another game after deck building. OD&D uses random Ability Score determination and no option to arrange them in part because it is not supposed to be a separate game. The two options of the game I listed are really choices about 1. what game (role) a player will actually play during the campaign. And 2. variations on the game piece before play begins - which I'll admit could be considered package options for gaming the stats rolled in relation to the class chosen. But since the variants are all limitations placed upon the default, it could be argued they're really options for a short game after poor rolls. Subclasses are more interesting. I'd say they are further defined focuses within the core choice: role. Their games are narrower, but they could actually be harder/bigger or smaller/easier then the core class's game depending upon the subclass's design. As indicated by how much XP they require to advance. So these aren't game limitations like races, more limitations on focus with the possibility that they are actually harder games. |
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Jun 3, 2017 17:54:17 GMT -6
Here thing is it a tabletop roleplaying game when a has everything is pre-generated? I would argue yes. It may not one's preferences but the end result is indistinguishable from when everything is done from scratch. A person walking up to a random table and viewing what going couldn't tell if the referee and players are using pre-generated material versus material made from scratch. Unless there some external clue like you peek behind the referee's screen and see the printed module sitting there. Or the character players are using are also printed and not written up. Even then how you are know it isn't a rolled up character whose player is computer savvy enough to have typed it up on his computer? So in my view world building, rule creations are not an required part of the definition of tabletop roleplaying. Instead they are tools used to create a campaign or session where a group plays tabletop roleplayi9ng. How much world building and rules creations one does is a matter of a personal preference. Gaming is the act of code breaking to accomplish predetermined objectives (obviously not collaborative expression). This is why RPG books are secret and filled with hidden game designs utterly about the operations of an imaginary world. They are the suggested building blocks of a design the GM is to create beforehand. The design players discover through play and master upon reflection and repeated practice. The trick is, (and another genius of the originators) the generated design of a game environment supporting game play (as I define it above) doesn't need to be completely drawn out beforehand. It is contained in the algorithmic relationships of the game. Though it is true it must be used to generate out a drawn design (or used to convert something into its design, like a player suggested module) before players can actually game the design. Generating on the fly is hard and time consuming and pragmatically impossible "at the table" when refereeing, so preparations outside of game sessions are endemic to the system, especially very complex systems like we see in RPGs. This is why games had to stop when they reached the edge of the map or timeline pregenerated. Does it matter how much earlier the situational design of a game was generated? No, computers can do this very quickly. Is it discernible from a "game" with no underlying design at all? I would argue it is as the difference between language learning and meaningless babble. EDIT: sorry for being confusing. I'm using the term design in two different ways. One for the game system, and again for the generated configuration which is described to the players. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 3, 2017 19:45:59 GMT -6
The game world is something that unfolds through play based on the decisions and interactions between player and ref, IME as the ref I define the world with a broad brush, but develop the fine details through play. the generated design of a game environment supporting game play (as I define it above) doesn't need to be completely drawn out beforehand. These statements ring true for me. Sure, I've indulged in "pre-generating" game content (especially dungeon levels) as much as the next gamer. However, with the exception "one-shot" games, my experience is that pre-generated content tends to be subject to in-situ "integration" into the broader campaign anyways. I.e., it might say orcs, but lizardmen are the scourge of my setting. The main prize might be a Dragonlance, but IMC an Excalibur would be more appropriate. FWIW, I think the section on "Maintaining Freshness" (U&WA p8) explicitly encourages this kind of thing. If the setting is something that unfolds through play based on player and ref interactions than it would not be a tool for adjudication. Instead, the setting would be an outcome of adjudication. Why can't it be both? The implication of this would be that prior adjudications that impact the setting will also impact future adjudications. I.e., decisions/impacts on setting are persistent. This is, IMHO, a quintessential feature of "campaign" style game, as opposed to a "one-off" style game. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 3, 2017 21:00:55 GMT -6
There are multiple methods of diagramming a system each designed to illustrate a certain aspect of the system. I agree. The broader question in my mind was whether a collection of diagrams detailing a software architecture from whatever perspectives could ever be truly representative of a table-top RPG, because the latter is not a computer-run game. Personally, I don't think so. Anyways, I think we have moved past that now... Here thing is it a tabletop roleplaying game when a has everything is pre-generated? I would argue yes. It may not one's preferences but the end result is indistinguishable from when everything is done from scratch. I don't know Rob. This probably touches on one of the central debates in this whole topic, but personally I don't think pre-generated content is "indistinguishable" from dynamically built content. For one thing, dynamically built content has the opportunity to build upon the interactions between the players and the setting (which is explicitly described in the D&D Introduction, M&M p4). That aside, I find it impractical to generate everything in advance; it requires a lot of work, much of which can be wasteful as the players will regularly just "pass it all by". Predetermination as a detached design phase (perhaps even in a commercial design studio) removes the "in situ" part of the referee's judgement from the design process. By "in-situ judgement" I mean judgement in the context of what's going on in this campaign, in this dungeon, on this level, in this room, at this moment. I.e., what have the players done, or not done, recently to this dungeon, this level, this room, and to these denizens? Pre-generation might be viable for some (most?) of the initial structural elements of a dungeon, but IMHO it's less suited to the ongoing structural, and the behavioural elements of a dungeon, which can be more subtle and more complex. Possibly, the debate is then around where these behavioural elements fall in terms of the intersection between design and adjudication during play. Ultimately, I think all this somewhat comes back to the U&WA section on "Maintaining Freshness", and to the idea that impacts on the game world are (ideally) persistent, and therefore should have future consequences. Obviously it's not "clear cut", or this thread wouldn't be so long or deep  |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 3, 2017 21:20:15 GMT -6
If the setting is something that unfolds through play based on player and ref interactions than it would not be a tool for adjudication. Instead, the setting would be an outcome of adjudication. Why can't it be both? The implication of this would be that prior adjudications that impact the setting will also impact future adjudications. I.e., decisions/impacts on setting are persistent. This is, IMHO, a quintessential feature of "campaign" style game, as opposed to a "one-off" style game. It's worth mentioning what we are discussing would fall under what Kuntz refers to as Ongoing Systemization. He adds that part of the design is that this can occur in real time. Why can't it be both in terms of setting? Conceivably it could be. But, practically I'm not sure it is. It really depends on what people mean when they say "broad brush", "generated game environment", "pre-determined" and "fine details". House rules could be part of arbitration or they might be considered part of the design work that can happen before play begins and can be based on the setting as the GM wants it to be. I can't think of an example off hand that wouldn't involve details. If the setting is evolving through play and considered a "rough idea" at the start, there really isn't much of a setting to base adjudications on. Your adjudications are determining the setting, not the other way around. The idea that prior judgements can and do then impact future adjudications is really saying that you have made a ruling that becomes part of the rules. Your future judgements are now based on rules, not setting. Possibly some might look at this as semantics. It becomes more relevant when you attempt to diagram the process. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 22:09:29 GMT -6
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. The game world is something that unfolds through play based on the decisions and interactions between player and ref, IME as the ref I define the world with a broad brush, but develop the fine details through play. To pre-determine the setting(i.e all the fine details) would require several lifetimes and a million millions of pages to do and then you would never play it yourself. If the setting is something that unfolds through play based on player and ref interactions than it would not be a tool for adjudication. Instead, the setting would be an outcome of adjudication. The trick is, (and another genius of the originators) the generated design of a game environment supporting game play (as I define it above) doesn't need to be completely drawn out beforehand. Why can't it be both? The implication of this would be that prior adjudications that impact the setting will also impact future adjudications. I.e., decisions/impacts on setting are persistent. This is, IMHO, a quintessential feature of "campaign" style game, as opposed to a "one-off" style game. Generating on the fly is hard and time consuming and pragmatically impossible "at the table" when refereeing, so preparations outside of game sessions are endemic to the system, especially very complex systems like we see in RPGs. This is why games had to stop when they reached the edge of the map or timeline pregenerated. Here thing is it a tabletop roleplaying game when a has everything is pre-generated? I would argue yes. It may not one's preferences but the end result is indistinguishable from when everything is done from scratch. I don't know Rob. This probably touches on one of the central debates in this whole topic, but personally I don't think pre-generated content is "indistinguishable" from dynamically built content. For one thing, dynamically built content has the opportunity to build upon the interactions between the players and the setting (which is explicitly described in the D&D Introduction, M&;M p4). That aside, I find it impractical to generate everything in advance; it requires a lot of work, much of which can be wasteful as the players will regularly just "pass it all by". Predetermination as a detached design phase (or a commercial design studio) removes the "in situ" part of the referee's judgement from the design process. By "in-situ judgement" I mean judgement in the context of what's going on in this campaign, in this dungeon, on this level, in this room, at this moment. I.e., what have the players done, or not done, recently to this dungeon, this level, this room, and to these denizens? Pre-generation might be viable for some (most?) of the initial structural elements of a dungeon, but IMHO it's less suited to the ongoing structural, and the behavioural elements of a dungeon, which can be more subtle and more complex. Possibly, the debate is then around where these behavioural elements fall in terms of the intersection between design and adjudication during play. Ultimately, I think all this somewhat comes back to the U&WA section on "Maintaining Freshness", and to the idea that impacts on the game world are (ideally) persistent, and therefore should have future consequences. Obviously it's not "clear cut", or this thread wouldn't be so long or deep It's worth mentioning what we are discussing would fall under what Kuntz refers to as Ongoing Systemization. He adds that part of the design is that this can occur in real time. Why can't it be both in terms of setting? Conceivably it could be. But, practically I'm not sure it is. It really depends on what people mean when they say "broad brush", "generated game environment", "pre-determined" and "fine details". House rules could be part of arbitration or they might be considered part of the design work that can happen before play begins and can be based on the setting as the GM wants it to be. I can't think of an example off hand that wouldn't involve details. If the setting is evolving through play and considered a "rough idea" at the start, there really isn't much of a setting to base adjudications on. Your adjudications are determining the setting, not the other way around. The idea that prior judgements can and do then impact future adjudications is really saying that you have made a ruling that becomes part of the rules. Your future judgements are now based on rules, not setting. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 4, 2017 18:37:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jun 4, 2017 20:59:04 GMT -6
Here my latest stab at it. Not particularly satisfied with it need to read up flow charting and diagramming been a couple of decades since I got into it by hand. As promised the file was created with Yed which can be downloaded from here. The file itself is found here on my website. Probably need to look at the style that derv is using.  |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jun 4, 2017 21:07:18 GMT -6
Here thing is it a tabletop roleplaying game when a has everything is pre-generated? I would argue yes. It may not one's preferences but the end result is indistinguishable from when everything is done from scratch. From your perspective sure. From an outsider walking up and looking at what you and your group is doing they can't tell. How they know that those papers you are using for notes is something you made it up or something that hand copied from the Tomb of Horror? You are conflating what you enjoy doing with a definition of tabletop roleplaying in general. If I go out and bought Modules, G1, G2, and G3, print out the characters from the back appendix. Handed them out and played a campaign with those modules. I am running a tabletop roleplaying campaign? And be clear I am not asking how you feel about running a campaign this way. Just asking yes or no, is what I am doing running a tabletop roleplaying campaign? Now after you answered that question, I understand where you are coming from. For example I don't care for campaign where you play monsters like Vampire or those based on the cyberpunk genre. Doesn't mean they are not playing tabletop roleplaying, just mean they are playing a genre or setting that doesn't interest me. The same with a campaign that uses nothing but published material versus somebody like you who writes up everything they uses. Bot are playing a tabletop roleplaying campaign. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jun 4, 2017 21:24:51 GMT -6
There are multiple methods of diagramming a system each designed to illustrate a certain aspect of the system. I agree. The broader question in my mind was whether a collection of diagrams detailing a software architecture from whatever perspectives could ever be truly representative of a table-top RPG, because the latter is not a computer-run game. Personally, I don't think so. Anyways, I think we have moved past that now... The System Theory that RJK talks about using in his book is also used by software engineering. Why it called General System Theory. It applies to anything that is a system of interrelated parts. A tabletop roleplaying game is also a system of interrelated parts. The courses I took that related to flowcharting and documentation where also part of the curriculum taken by business students, and engineering students. It a tool that is applicable across a wide variety of things that people deal with that are not computer games. And so we are clear, my job isn't writing computer games, my job is integrate via software the metal cutting machines my company makes into people's sheet metal shops. The general rule is that we have to conform to whatever pen & paper system they had prior to buying our machine, and not the other way around. I have been doing this for 25 years. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jun 4, 2017 21:46:15 GMT -6
Here thing is it a tabletop roleplaying game when a has everything is pre-generated? I would argue yes. It may not one's preferences but the end result is indistinguishable from when everything is done from scratch. I don't know Rob. This probably touches on one of the central debates in this whole topic, but personally I don't think pre-generated content is "indistinguishable" from dynamically built content. For one thing, dynamically built content has the opportunity to build upon the interactions between the players and the setting (which is explicitly described in the D&D Introduction, M&M p4). That aside, I find it impractical to generate everything in advance; it requires a lot of work, much of which can be wasteful as the players will regularly just "pass it all by". If you couldn't peek behind the referee's screen, how would you know if they are using A15 Terror of the Russet Lord? And please this not about what people should or should not being doing or what you and I like. The thread has morphed in a discussion of what is tabletop roleplaying and who we can define and document it as a system. The point I am driving at is that writing one's own content is not part of the rock bottom definition. Rather it is one of several options one could opt to use to make a tabletop roleplaying campaign happen. And also I am presenting an extreme case for discussion. In reality people's campaign are a mix and match of content from a variety of sources, some written by the referee, other purchased. Predetermination as a detached design phase (perhaps even in a commercial design studio) removes the "in situ" part of the referee's judgement from the design process. By "in-situ judgement" I mean judgement in the context of what's going on in this campaign, in this dungeon, on this level, in this room, at this moment. I.e., what have the players done, or not done, recently to this dungeon, this level, this room, and to these denizens? Pre-generation might be viable for some (most?) of the initial structural elements of a dungeon, but IMHO it's less suited to the ongoing structural, and the behavioural elements of a dungeon, which can be more subtle and more complex. Those are good points but they speak to the consequences of running a campaign a certain way. I am trying to visually document what is the basic structure of a tabletop roleplaying game. The point at which where if you start removing elements it definitely no longer a tabletop roleplaying game but some other type of game. To put this issue to rest, yes or no if I ran a campaign using the G series of modules, am I playing a tabletop roleplaying campaign? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 22:52:47 GMT -6
[I completely disagree with this - IMO there is a vast gulf between pre-generated and dynamically built content as ways says below, dynamically built content meaning to me created on the fly. From your perspective sure. From an outsider walking up and looking at what you and your group is doing they can't tell. How they know that those papers you are using for notes is something you made it up or something that hand copied from the Tomb of Horror? I think an outsider can tell if they walk up and watch the game for a while. If they watch a pre-generated game (and watch it first or last makes no difference) and then they watch a game created on the fly with the only notes being ones that are made during play, mostly by the players, I think they will very quickly figure out which is which. The game created on the fly will run much faster and have virtually no dead time, as well as having a greater variety of things in the game. IMO the players in the game created on the fly will be much more engaged and the immersion will be deeper. If I go out and bought Modules, G1, G2, and G3, print out the characters from the back appendix. Handed them out and played a campaign with those modules. I am running a tabletop roleplaying campaign? And be clear I am not asking how you feel about running a campaign this way. Just asking yes or no, is what I am doing running a tabletop roleplaying campaign? Oh, I agree that we are both running a tabletop role-playing campaign, but as I noted above I think you can tell them apart. I also agree that this not about what people should or should not being doing or what you and I like. It is about noting that there is a qualitative difference that is apparent to the players and to observers between the two methods. I think it points directly to the excitement that Gygax had when Arneson ran Blackmoor for him the first time. The original way of playing is more exciting and invigorating. It is not wrong if you play differently and enjoy other methods; however, the result while mostly the same is still a bit different. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 5, 2017 3:46:19 GMT -6
The System Theory that RJK talks about using in his book is also used by software engineering. Why it called General System Theory. It applies to anything that is a system of interrelated parts. A tabletop roleplaying game is also a system of interrelated parts. The courses I took that related to flowcharting and documentation where also part of the curriculum taken by business students, and engineering students. It a tool that is applicable across a wide variety of things that people deal with that are not computer games. I agree that an abstract systems theory can be used to describe all kinds of systems. I agree that software is one type of practical system that can be described. I agree that RPGs are another type of practical system that can be described. My point was: this does not imply that RPGs can be meaningfully described in terms of software. E.g., plants and animals can both be described in terms of biological systems, but that doesn't imply it's meaningful to describe plants in terms of animals. Likewise, RPGs and software can both be described in terms of systems theory, but that doesn't imply it's meaningful to describe software in terms of RPGs. Nor does it imply it's meaningful to describe RPGs in terms of software. If you couldn't peek behind the referee's screen, how would you know if they are using A15 Terror of the Russet Lord? Players would realise the ref was not using exclusively pre-generated material when they observed any of: * NPCs, monsters, player-classes, treasures, and other setting-specific "dressings" they've encountered in the prior campaign occur again in this dungeon, * Plots, rivalries, mysteries, themes, etc. they've encountered in the prior campaign carry on/run into this dungeon, * The sentient things in this dungeon have heard of the players and their exploits in the campaign, and behave appropriately, * NPCs and monsters exhibit appropriate responses to the players' recent/local actions in this dungeon (e.g., negotiations, alliances, betrayal, fighting, subdual, hostage taking, and all the rest), * Their actions have had specific, lasting impact on this dungeon's structure/ecology during this delve, and when they return to it on subsequent delves, * Their actions in this dungeon have specific, lasting impacts and on the broader campaign outside it (e.g., losing 20 heavy foot in the Underworld creates tangible fear in nearby villages, irate relatives suing for their pay, neighboring armies moving in to fill the vacuum, etc.) And so on... Those are good points but they speak to the consequences of running a campaign a certain way. Which broadly speaking, is or isn't what's described in the 3LBBs? To put this issue to rest, yes or no if I ran a campaign using the G series of modules, am I playing a tabletop roleplaying campaign? Yes, if you play G series of modules you are playing a part of the RPG system. That doesn't imply that by playing the G series you're playing the whole of the RPG system. E.g., to put the issue of "whether light is blue" to rest: Yes or no, when you look at a rainbow do you see any blue? It appears (to me) robertsconley that you are arguing for a narrower definition of an RPG system than what is described in the 3lbbs. That's fine if that's what your are indeed arguing but, as per the two responses I made above, I'm not convinced that the specific case you describe necessarily implies anything about the more general case. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 10, 2017 9:34:02 GMT -6
Also, Kuntz spends some time talking about open and closed systems. He categorizes Arneson's original concept (Blackmoor) and what became original D&D (Lake Geneva campaign) as open systems. He then goes on to explain how D&D became an increasingly closed system, starting with the advent of AD&D and it's insisted codification. He claims this was due to the desire to monetize the game. As I think about it, I truly think the ground work was already laid out with OD&D. OD&D was already emerging as a closed system through Lake Geneva's re-interpretations. The more I think about how D&D moved to and was marketed as a closed system, the easier it is to think that it started with the publishing of OD&D- well before AD&D. Yes, I think it was partly monetarily motivated. Yet, I'm not completely convinced it was intentional marketing that did it. I think the C&D's and litigation's that occurred over IP early on may have been the catalyst. So, the question became "how do we protect out IP?", not "how do we further monetize the game system?" It's a different focus. |
|
|
|
Post by Cedgewick on Jun 15, 2017 0:41:43 GMT -6
Also, Kuntz spends some time talking about open and closed systems. He categorizes Arneson's original concept (Blackmoor) and what became original D&D (Lake Geneva campaign) as open systems. He then goes on to explain how D&D became an increasingly closed system, starting with the advent of AD&D and it's insisted codification. He claims this was due to the desire to monetize the game. As I think about it, I truly think the ground work was already laid out with OD&D. OD&D was already emerging as a closed system through Lake Geneva's re-interpretations. The more I think about how D&D moved to and was marketed as a closed system, the easier it is to think that it started with the publishing of OD&D- well before AD&D. Yes, I think it was partly monetarily motivated. Yet, I'm not completely convinced it was intentional marketing that did it. I think the C&D's and litigation's that occurred over IP early on may have been the catalyst. So, the question became "how do we protect out IP?", not "how do we further monetize the game system?" It's a different focus. Congrats on Rob's behalf. He says you should refer to footnote #27 in DATG, which states: "In his book, The Ghost in the Machine (1967), Arthur Koestler distinguishes between functional behaviorisms as "fixed action patterns," "acquired habits," and "stereo-typed routines of thought" and integrative tendencies, such as "flexible adaptations," "improvisations," and "creative acts which initiate new forms of behavior." The qualities of Arneson’s systems architecture are representative of both functional and integrative behavior which through continuous positive feedback evolve the systems architecture while simultaneously evolving the participants (DM + Players), the latter being a predominately omniscient system embedded within the holistic systems process" |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 15, 2017 10:28:08 GMT -6
I think I'm missing your point? Are you agreeing that the published 3 LBB's already moved Arneson's Concept towards a closed system? This footnote can easily be taken in a much more general manner than Rob's essay suggests, which points at the advent of AD&D.
Licensing to publish supplements and C&D's are already occurring in 1976. Holmes (Many consider a restatement of OD&D) is published in 1977. It's a big ad for the yet to come AD&D.
I personally have not come to any conclusion. My comment was meant to give room for dialogue on the issue. But, I think you may have missed what I'm grappling with, which is whether the turning point was with the issuance of AD&D, as Rob suggests, or with the publication of the 3 LBB's. OD&D already introduced the closing of the system where the game is no longer learned through play, but through the reading of text (rules). Consider why was it necessary for Michael to take along the Monard fragments when he moved off to school?
I think I'm actually pretty well done discussing Rob's book. Said what I wanted to say. I'll probably ponder these things more on my own. But, feel free to carry the discussion further, if you like. I'll try to respond to your comments if they're directed my way and require it.
|
|
|
|
Post by korvin0starmast on Feb 27, 2018 19:10:44 GMT -6
Derv, having begun before our group had a copy of Greyhawk, and having come to D&D from wargaming, we didn't find it that hard to pick up but we were at times puzzled by what to do -- so we did our best, and had great fun.
When Greyhawk was available in the local store (lived in VA) where we finally got our hands on funny shaped dice (we had been using plastic poker chips with numbers written on them, shaken in a bag and picked blind for (1d4, 1d8, 1d12, 1d10, 1d20) it was quite a leap into "wow, that changes things!" as the DM revealed all sorts of new and unusual stuff to us. Our Fighter suddenly did more damage with his 17 strength.
The books themselves told us to fill in the blanks, so "open" was still a part of the system. I do agree that none of us were privy to what was in Dave's head, but we didn't need to be. We were supposed to be running our own game in our own campaign world(s). The various attempts at "standardization" for whatever reason, and at a homogeous game strike me as at odds with the core value in the form, but the "shared worlds" of "adventure paths" and "Adventuerer's League" does make for commercial success ... but it does so at the cost of what IMO the big attraction to the TTRPG form is. A unique instance of a game at a given gaming table. In that respect, I think RJK has some solid points, however put, in terms of the tension between the raw creative freedom and that which is necessary to keep a game alive via publishing etc. Games are not produced in a vacuum.
The big deal for us was that with this game, Dungeons and Dragons, unlike Chess or Stratego or Sniper or Diplomacy or whatever else, There Was No Winner and Loser. This was new, this was hugely new, for us. (We were juniors and seniors in high school). It only got better when we got to college and more stuff, and more games like Traveller and Met Alpha and gamma world and C&S came out.
As to the book:
The prose, as written, is and will be an obstacle to a great many readers. I've got a few college degrees, and I had to work through the prose.
The analytical framework I like. I am really looking forward to the larger work.
I'll read the book again before I comment further. It's not an easy read.
In my professional life, if I were to present a monograph or other project in that prose style, I'd get a nice big frown and "clearer or it gets shredded" as the response.
Insofar as understanding the point RJK is getting across, I think he's onto something that others will build upon.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 6, 2018 18:29:39 GMT -6
korvin0starmast, thanks for the comments. Sorry I didn't see it earlier. If you put an "@" before any ones name you can tag them and they will get a notification that someone is referring to them in a thread. I think there will be more discussion on this subject in the future and I hope people will read through this thread once again through a different lens. If I divorce myself from what Rob is implying about the history of the games development, I find I am much more open to his ideas from a design perspective alone. But, he is expressing more then system design in his book. He is making a mark in the sand and saying this is the partition point in the games development. The unstated implications and motivations for this make it harder for me to accept his ideas as a whole. And yes, I think Rob is entirely capable of expressing his ideas in a clearer fashion. It's my hope that he attempts to be in his next book. I'll probably hold off purchasing it until I hear that is the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Jul 6, 2018 16:12:15 GMT -6
Can someone who has read the book help me understand what Arneson is supposed to have come up with here? At it's core, I believe Kuntz is saying that he created a framework (architecture), not thought of before, that is not dependent upon structured rules (sub-systems) or data, yet is still complete as a system. The essence of the original concept is found in the architecture of the game. The sub-systems are inconsequential and/or mutable and do not truly define Arneson's creative leap, an ever changing and adaptive design. Best I can do A monolith vs microservices. In a monolith you have one big set of code to run an application, it may and functions and subductions, but they are all in one language and one big system — or in this case a game. When you use micro serivices, you have smaller specialized apps that run different descrete parts. They can all be in different languages, you can rip one out and replace it if you need, if one part breaks it does not take down the system. All of those independent apps need only share the same API the same way to work together. Most tech today starts as a monolith and moves to microservices because of....well humans. The complexity of the monolith gets too big for us, even a team. So we chop it up. Blackmoor started out the other way, as a set of micro services in Dave’s head. Then Gary helped turn it into a game for others, to codify it, then learned this concept is so different you have to be really specific at times, more codification and bam—AD&D. Of course it was such a monolith there are some bugs, and many people still winged it or left stuff out. After playing for years and perhaps gaining a bit of wisdom from other sources it seems some gamers start to crave loading up some micro services in their own brains and going more and more rules light. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 7, 2018 6:59:27 GMT -6
I haven't read Rob's book yet, and honestly the vocabulary is scaring me away. Everything that I've read about the book seems to focus on abstraction of game theory rather than concrete game design, and at its roots I always felt like OD&D was about as concrete as a game can be. Start with miniatures rules, let each person play a unique miniature which represents "him," put the person into situations where he can react like a character in a book or movie, that's role playing. The rules provide a structure by which we play, as opposed to "cops and robbers" where players might argue over whether a shot missed or hit. The rules clearly dictate that a roll of XX is a hit and has this specific effect. But when I read about Rob's book I get all glassy-eyed and struggle to figure out what he is trying to tell me. Very frustrating because I know that Rob has great ideas, a lot of game design experience, and has some fantastic things to teach me.  |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 7, 2018 8:20:13 GMT -6
Though Rob uses the term "inconsequential" when talking about certain rules (which I strongly dislike and disagree with from a historical perspective), I think it would be better stated that the rules are "secondary" in nature to the game. There isn't any one rule that cannot be altered or replaced. Some rules can easily be discarded all together without a problem. Simply put, you do not need Chainmail to play D&D. You do not even need the Alternative Combat System. You can use any combat resolution you want. Rob would say you are still using DA's design. Basically all RPG's share the same architecture that Arneson created.
|
|
