Quote from: Elliot WilenI dunno, looks like a pretty good spread of games, though weighted a bit on the new/Forge end. From reading some of the book and seeing some of the comments here, though, I think people are getting the wrong idea. That is, it's not like the purpose is to canonize certain games or even to identify which game did X first.

No, I didn't mean to imply that the author's goal was to lionise and promote Forge games -- I'll give him that much credit.  My problem with his approach, coming from the perspective of a scientist who has to be concerned with research design, when a survey is self-selected, there's an inherent bias, whether it's intended or not.  I trust that he didn't intend to introduce a bias, but his close association with The Forge establishes it against his declared wishes.

I had a further problem with the author's approach as I was reading further last night.  On p.11, under the heading of "Pattern Name", he states:

QuoteBecause design patterns are neither “appropriate” or “inappropriate” for a game without first knowing the designer’s goals, their names should be neutral rather than render a value judgment. The pattern name should merely state what the pattern is about rather than attempt to serve as a sort of advertising. Even names such as “Rules Lite” and “Rules Heavy” may bias readers one way or another independent of any virtue or flaw the pattern may harbor and so should be avoided.

The declared position of neutrality is laudable -- don't use loaded or judgemental names that will bias the reader's opinion a priori.  However, in discussing actual patterns just a couple of pages later, his language is heavily loaded and judgemental.  Like this quote regarding the Alignment Pattern from p.14 under the heading of "Applicability":

QuoteAs a role-playing aid that gives guidance to players concerning the manner in which they should portray their characters, the Alignment pattern does a poor job. Other patterns, such as the Idiom pattern have been developed in modern games that satisfy this goal to a far better degree. It is highly recommended that you understand the Idiom pattern before deciding to use the Alignment pattern.

It's clear that his opinion of Alignment is pretty low, and that he prefers the Idiom Pattern, which, one may note, he exemplifies by mentioning the games My Life with Master, The Riddle of Steel, and Sorceror.  Notice the pattern?  He has similar problems with keeping his biases clear of his prose in later design pattern discussions, too.

Please, I don't think John Kirk wrote this book as a hatchet-job against some games or to purposefully place his favorite games on a pedestal.  However, I don't think he's done a very good job of keeping his opinions from coloring what was supposed to be an objective study.  Frankly, I rather like his analysis, but I find myself having to filter large chunks of his bias out of it.

!i!

You know, after reading the section on Alignment (even though I don't, personally, like alignments very much) I have to agree that the editorial tone there is poor and some of the analysis isn't very good either.

But I still think it's inaccurate to talk about this book as a "survey" in the sense that you are used to dealing with surveys. It's primarily a design handbook. Even if it were more comprehensive, the purpose wouldn't be to generalize from the "sample", to make conclusions about the patterns typically found in "successful" games. (Which is what's implied by your comment about sampling error.) "Successful" is just an a priori criterion for his research--a way to limit the number of games he had to read while hoping to cover a good range of mechanics that have seen actual use.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut I still think it's inaccurate to talk about this book as a "survey" in the sense that you are used to dealing with surveys. It's primarily a design handbook.

This is true, and I think the author is pretty honest from the outset that his goal is to identify and define desireable patterns of design -- desireable to his sensibilities.  And that's fine as a stated goal, but when his study applies such focus (and favorable focus at that) to his own chosen peer group, his findings at least appear to be self-fulfilling and self-congratulatory.  Part of the problem from my perspective is that he has chosen to call this a "study", which suggests a necessary objectivity, rather than a "meditation" or some other such subjective term.

I also agree with you about the editorial tone.  Folks, this is why an editor is absolutely necessary for any serious or scholarly publication.  I think the author has a lot to say, and while I don't feel I have to agree with everything he says to appreciate it, I also feel that I shouldn't have to wade through his personal biases to get to it.

!i!

I should probably read more before exposing more of my opinions, but at least in terms of goals I think he's just trying to identify patterns, regardless of whether he thinks they're desireable. E.g., alignment does make it into the list even though he thinks it's pretty useless.

But regardless of that, the more I read the thing, the more I see stuff that doesn't live up to the promise of the project--which is uneven not only in tone but in concept. Also, in spite of claiming to want to be independent of overarching theories, the book does import some of the weirder Forge jargon and contentious theories. E.g., look at the Negotiated Contest section, where the introduction takes for granted certain theories about the "essence" of role-playing and the motivation behind player interactions.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the work the author put in--it's a worthwhile collection of observations and opinions.

It's odd, but I zeroed in on exactly the same parts to which Ian pointed. That is, in one breath claiming an attempt to be unbiased, in the next daming Alignments.  They were so close, it was odd.

But it should be of note that he is specifically talking about the name of the pattern when discussing attempts to be unbiased. He, as far as I've read to this point, made no claims not to judge the individual patterns.

It's been a while since I read the Gang of Four. Do they judge the various patterns? I don't recall them daming any, but I do seem to recall them making judgements on when the best cases were to use various patterns.

Having said all that, I think if written without any biases, it could be an interesting work. I quibble a bit with the criteria of which games to include, but that could be easily rectified.

Quote from: James J SkachHaving said all that, I think if written without any biases, it could be an interesting work. I quibble a bit with the criteria of which games to include, but that could be easily rectified.

I agree.  What the author needs at this point is an editor.  An objective editor.  An editor who doesn't play roleplaying games or know anything about The Forge.

!i!

"Nobilis ... is published by Hogshead Publishing Ltd." Well, that's slightly out of date.

Hmm. Incidentally, some of the information there is simply incorrect. For example, Restrictions do not give "more character points to spend", and Aspect also measures mental and social abilities in addition to "the physical prowess." Probably the single most amusing mistake is the bit about the miracle point pools refreshing at the end of each scene, though, since that would render all the usual means of regaining MPs essentially unnecessary. (By the book, they refresh at the beginning of every story, not every scene or even every session.)

Just look at the Currency pattern and tell me there's no bias.

As I said, it's a shame.  It could be a very interesting concept if done properly.  At least narrow the subject. The more I read this thing the more I think perhaps Settembrini is right - we're just playing two completely different games. This draft seems to highlight both the ways in which they are alike, and the ways in which they are very different.

Perhaps a Design Patterns of Adventure Games?

Hmmm....

I went through a few old Forge threads in which the author discussed the book, including this one on alignments...

He says "I do not want this to degrade into an opinion poll." He then immediately solicits opinions.

I think the Alignment issue is another place where Forge theory and culture has been covertly brought into a supposedly non-theory work. Basically, the author buys into the notion that any desirable behavior needs to be mechanically rewarded.

His criticism of Alignment applies equally to things like GURPS personality quirks and disads. (He does mention a similar system in Rolemaster.) He really ought to just describe the pattern in general terms and then maybe summarize the arguments pro and con. I know there are people who don't like the "Idiom" approach so it's really not appropriate to pronounce authoritatively on whether "alignment"-type personality mechanics are any good.

I think these criticisms are fair, but let's remember that it's only a beta. Would anybody like to try rewriting the Alignment section (for example) to give a more objective view?

If he'd wikify it, I might have a hand at it. Otherwise, nope, too lazy. Like I said, the guy deserves credit just for the sweat he's put in.

Quote from: droogI think these criticisms are fair, but let's remember that it's only a beta.

I keep resisting the urge to print up a full copy and mark it up with a red pencil.  Yes, it's a beta-stage product, but I'd really rather see him re-write his own sections in response to sound, objective criticism.

You know what I was just thinking?  I'd be more willing to accept his apparent bias if this work was published more as a scholarly article, especially if another party responded with a rebuttal article.  I'm sorry to say that I'm not the one to formulate such a rebuttal.

!i!

Yes, it's a beta - A year-old beta. The Alignment Patter thread in that other forum was over a year old. Would it take a year to do a re-write and start the cycle again? I'm not familiar with what that would take, so please don't take that as a criticism, it's a real question.

My copy would have a lot of red marks.  The Game Master section alone has to be completely redone. The inherent bias against having a GM is so strong that I could barely get through it last night. It makes it sound as if the natural state of affairs is to not have a GM. This may be true for many games, but it's hardly the historical roots of RPGs; nor, I think, the RPGs in which most people participate.

NOTE: I understand and applaud peoples' effort to challenge traditional thinking on RPGs.  I just don't think it's helpful to write a book about RPGs that has the attitude this one seems to - that these new games are The Way Things Should Be (tm) - as illustrated in that GM section.