Quote from: JimBobOzThe other reason for such qualities being not universally-recognised is quite simply people.

Yes, that's my point.

They're tendancies not universal truths because the static (the game) plus the dynamic (the people and situations involved) equals different experiences at different times. What you get from the admixture depends heavily upon the dynamic.

Assuming the same printing/edition, the D6 system is always the same. If you get a light-hearted cinematic result and another group gets a frustrating, clunky experience, it's not the static (the rules) engendering these things. It's the people.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYes, that's my point.

They're tendancies not universal truths because the static (the game) plus the dynamic (the people and situations involved) equals different experiences at different times. What you get from the admixture depends heavily upon the dynamic.

Assuming the same printing/edition, the D6 system is always the same. If you get a light-hearted cinematic result and another group gets a frustrating, clunky experience, it's not the static (the rules) engendering these things. It's the people.

Seanchai

The problem with this whole argument is that you're rendering null the players' ability to evaluate what is an emergent quality of the game system and how it affects their play from what they bring to the table.

A given game may give a GM or player the impression that it will obstruct play, and then discover to their surprise that it does not.  That is not necessarily due to the group ignoring or glossing over the perceived problem, or some unique chemistry that would only apply to that specific group.  When many groups get the same (or very similar) mis-perception and results, it's a good argument that there is an emergent quality at work.

Quote from: RedFoxThe problem with this whole argument is that you're rendering null the players' ability to evaluate what is an emergent quality of the game system and how it affects their play from what they bring to the table.

Not exactly. I'm saying that there are no emergent qualities of games, only emergent qualities of groups using games. Could someone say, "Hey, we handled that better than I would have guessed?" Sure. But it's been my experience that they generally attribute such things to the game somehow being different than they thought. The game is static. If, all things being equal, one group experiences a different result with a game than another, it isn't the game engendering said result per se.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiThe game is static. If, all things being equal, one group experiences a different result with a game than another, it isn't the game engendering said result per se.

Seanchai

But it can be, and sometimes is.  Particularly when it's not just one group.

QuoteIf, all things being equal, one group experiences a different result with a game than another, it isn't the game engendering said result per se.

Okay, but why a universe of 2 game groups? Is this how people actually test for the emergent properties of a game? No it isn't. A more appropriate example would address the prospect of multiple groups turning back similar results or even the prospect of 1 or 3 patterns coming back from multiple sources. The fact that groups may experience a game differently complicates the process of gathering evidence. It most certainly does not pre-empt any claims about the properties of a game itself.

Quote from: RedFoxBut it can be, and sometimes is.

No, it's not. Again, the rules as written don't vary from group to group. Whether it's two groups or two thousand, they're all starting from exactly the same place. If they get different results using the rules, it's not because some quality of the rules made it so.

In short, 1 + X = 3, 1 + Y =5, and 1 + Z = -3 not because in each equation the value of 1 differs, but because what's being added to it is different in each case. There's no special property to the number 1 that makes it provide a different result in each equation.

Seanchai

Quote from: BrimshackOkay, but why a universe of 2 game groups?

I don't know. It's something you came up with. Why a universe of two game groups?

Quote from: BrimshackA more appropriate example would address the prospect of multiple groups turning back similar results or even the prospect of 1 or 3 patterns coming back from multiple sources.

And if multiple game groups report differing result, how is that the result of the game itself? How are 1 + X = 3, 1 + Y = 5, and X = Y all true?

Seanchai

Nevermind

Quote from: BrimshackNevermind

Yeah, pretty much.

Ah, what the hell, guys, I'll take a crack. Seanchai, your argument hinges on the semantic hangup that a thing is true in once sense, therefore it must be true in all senses. Yes, the Text is not a living thing enacting its will on play. Yes, it's a static, set, "past" thing that doesn't reach out and roll the dice for you or tell you how to play it. In that sense you're right, 100%.

But you can agree that the text does have some influence, right? People don't just get together in their living rooms with these books in hand and just play by some kind of mystical instinct without ever referring to the rules? If we can agree that roleplayers, by and large, do get together and do their thing using a published ruleset, to whatever degree "using" consists of "adhering to" (like, minimal to total), then it follows that what those rules actually say will have some impact on the game played. Even if that impact is rebellion: "No, dude, that sucks, how 'bout we do it this way instead?"

So then, given that A) the rules will impact play to some degree, B) a playtest group in particular is going to tend to follow, rather than amend the rules, so they can test how well they work, and C) humans are not omniscient* and cannot always tell how a given rule will work out in play, it follows that properties of the ruleset can emerge through play.

That's all I got. Make of it what you will.

Peace,
-Joel

*Pundit excepted, naturally.

Quote from: MelinglorBut you can agree that the text does have some influence, right?

That's not what my argument is based on. The text influences play, absolutely. But it's a static influence.

For example, the text might say to use dice pools and this might influence play by delaying actions slightly as the players gather their dice. All players everywhere have to pick up the dice, so this influence is universal.

But how the players or group will feel about dice pools, whether they'll lead to a positive or negative experience, etc., is determined by the individuals and situations involved. Some people hate them, some people love them. In some games, rolls might almost never be called for while in others, the GM is having the players pick up the dice time after time after time.

Quote from: MelinglorC) humans are not omniscient* and cannot always tell how a given rule will work out in play

While I believe that's true to a limited degree, I think the vast majority of these surprises are due to folks not carefully reading and considering the rules. Or recognizing that the emergent factors are engendered by themselves, the situation and their own preferences rather than the game itself.

Quote from: Melinglorit follows that properties of the ruleset can emerge through play.

Yeah. They're the result of adding people to the equation. They don't arise sponaneously from the rules set.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiThat's not what my argument is based on. The text influences play, absolutely. But it's a static influence.

I would disagree. The text is static but the interpretation varies. If 5 groups play a game this means five groups (hopefully) have read the rules. Their interpretations of the rules can be very helpful since it is a reflection of how consistently and clearly the rules are written. If all five interpret your combat rules differently that can indicate a problem.

Mind, I am coming at this more from a play test POV and not so much a review. However, to a lesser extent, AP reviews can be useful if presented and taken as such. Yes, one group may have an easier time with the way some rules are written. However, difficulties and successes that one group has I can take and look for in my implementation of the rules.

Bill

Well, I tried. Count me among the "Nevermind" crew.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: HinterWeltThe text is static but the interpretation varies.

Yes. But the interpretation is based on the individual. The result of adding said individual to the mix. So, again, it's not the game itself driving the emergent qualities.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYes. But the interpretation is based on the individual. The result of adding said individual to the mix. So, again, it's not the game itself driving the emergent qualities.

Seanchai

However, it is not a simple mathematical certainty that the game will always result in the same outcome. That is a factor of the quality of the writing and explanation of the rules combined with the comprehension abilities of the players reading the rules.

In one way, I am agreeing with you. However, in reference to your statement (assuming I understand your position) that it is an unchanging rule set and thus everyone should have the same outcome...I disagree. Math is determinate while role-playing and understanding complex rule sets are interpretive. To use an example of yours, 2+x=5 then  x=3. If you try to say x=4 it is demonstrably wrong. However, if you take an interpretive rule such as "Add 3% for each level" you will get some people who add 9% at third level and some that add 6%. It may break the game but most likely it will just cause different results. This is only one example and one aspect of what I am talking about. Again, my emphasis is on play testing where such items would be folded into the final rules set. However, such occurrences will occur in play regardless.

Bill