Quote from: James J SkachI 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.

That's the problem I found with it, too.  From the outset, the author purports a goal of assembling a handbook of successful patterns of RPG design -- "good" or "bad" aside -- and then analysing what makes them successful to one degree or another, all with the intent of future RPG designers using the study (or meditation, as I've suggested) as groundwork for creating new games.  However, his bias toward his preferred games ends up proselytising for specialised design patterns that disregard vast tracts of the RPG landscape.  I mean, he's highly critical of the individual elements that characterise the general D&D/D20 motif, but he fails to address how such an assembly of "poor" design patterns have resulted in such an immensely popular (and therefore "successful") game.

!i!

I tell you, the more I read....

The author is talking about the Random Attribute pattern. In non-theory speak, this is rolling dice and assigning the results to your character's attributes.

QuoteThis pattern has fallen out of favor in most modern games, although it does tend to crop up from time to time.

Hmmm...

Why the use of the term modern? D&D has been around since, what 1979? Was that in the modern era? Version 3.5 of D&D was first published in 2003. Was that the modern era? Both use Random Attribute. In fact, every version of D&D uses this method.  All published in the modern era. If I might be so bold, I'd assert the most played RPG in the history of RPGs.

These are the little indicators that the author has a bias that I don't think even he knows he has.

My problem here is that I don't know enough games. I've always had a fairly small collection (I like to think of it as 'focused'). But it's my impression that, by volume if not by market share, there are a lot more games that don't use Random Attribute these days.

Quote from: droogBut it's my impression that, by volume if not by market share, there are a lot more games that don't use Random Attribute these days.

Hasn't even D&D included an alternative point-buy system for quite some time now?

Quote from: James JWhy the use of the term modern? D&D has been around since, what 1979? Was that in the modern era? Version 3.5 of D&D was first published in 2003. Was that the modern era? Both use Random Attribute. In fact, every version of D&D uses this method.  All published in the modern era. If I might be so bold, I'd assert the most played RPG in the history of RPGs.

He said "most modern games." D&D, despite its vast popularity, is still only one game.

And do you really think he means "Ancient History" (i.e. 1979) is "modern." Sure, it's modern when talking about certain branches of technology, but RPGs have a compressed timescale because of their relative youth. It seems to me that "modern" for RPGs means "in this century."

I don't imagine Mr. Skach is getting hung up on the literal meaning of any of the terms John Kirk used.  Again, it's the editorial choice of words that has the appearance of imparting bias.  For instance, rather than "modern", the words "current" or "contemporary" would probably have been better, more accurate, and more neutral terms to use.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI don't imagine Mr. Skach is getting hung up on the literal meaning of any of the terms John Kirk used.  Again, it's the editorial choice of words that has the appearance of imparting bias.  For instance, rather than "modern", the words "current" or "contemporary" would probably have been better, more accurate, and more neutral terms to use.

!i!

Bingo! Ding! Ding! Ding!

I'm just saying word choices like that indicate a certain perspective. When you are describing things, modern is usually meant to mean superior. It's the subtle implication the word carries. If I were trying to convey a more unbiased meaning I would use "contemporary" or "recent."

As for whether or not D&D has an optional point-buy system (it does) or whether there are more games that use Random Attribute than don't, my point is that if you took all the players of all games, how many are playing games that have the Random Attribute, at the very least, as an option? Do you think it's more than avoid it completely? If you think it's possible that more players participate in games that include this option, is it safe to make the assertion that they have "fallen out of favor?"

You could certainly make the point that Random Attributes are declining in use, as they used to be dominant. But even the term "fallen out of favor" implies far more than a term such as "its use is declining."

Ah, ok. I guess I just don't have that preconception of modern = superior, so it didn't cross my mind that it was a biased word.

Quote from: droogMy problem here is that I don't know enough games. I've always had a fairly small collection (I like to think of it as 'focused'). But it's my impression that, by volume if not by market share, there are a lot more games that don't use Random Attribute these days.

I think that's correct, my group uses it heavily from choice but that is a minority thing nowadays.

Partly I think people now don't understand often how it was meant to be used.  The number of times on rpg.net I've seen people complain that they couldn't create their concept with the rolls they got is absurd, but with random chargen you create concept after rolling, not before.

I think it's part of a wider shift.  Many older games worked on the assumption that the world was out there, characters were an attempt at modelling people in that world and life was often unfair.  That lent well to historical games as an assumption set.

Nowadays I think the assumption is that the characters are heroes, the world is there to showcase the heroes and unless they fuck up the heroes will win.  That leads to a different assumption set.

Actually, both are fine and both can work, but for some reason we got mostly the first at one time and now mostly the second, and then people see it as progress whereas really it's just a different set of assumptions about what rpgs are about.

QuoteIt'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.

That's fair.  I was trying to be objective, but obviously many of my own biases found their way into the text.  I've been working on a revision to address this issue.

It might surprise you to learn, though, that I don't actually have a bias against Alignment, per se.  In fact, my primary game Legendary Quest is Alignment based.  Believe it or not, what you see in the text was my honest attempt at being unbiased.  I know, it's hard to believe given what is stated.  But, the problem isn't actually in the analysis of Alignment.  The problem is in the stated goal of Alignment.  The text states the goal as: "Provide guidance on how a player should role-play his character."  If that were the actual goal, then the analysis that follows would be fairly valid, I think.  However, that is not the actual design goal of the pattern.  Because the goal is flat wrong, the analysis that follows from it is, to put it bluntly, crap.

Since then, I have split Alignment up into two patterns.  One of these new patterns, Faction, has a goal of "Segregate characters into opposing groups to promote in-game conflict."  The other, the new Alignment pattern, has a goal of "Segregate characters into categories that differentiate how in-game events affect them physically and/or restrict their abilities."

I believe the analyses of Alignment based on these design goals will be far more useful than what is currently presented.

QuoteI 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.

A good friend of mine has agreed to edit the book and has been working on it on and off for the past year.  I have a great deal of respect in his editorial skills.  He's professionally trained as a technical writer and is a big fan of D&D (in fact, he is running the D&D 3.5 campaign I play in).  Hopefully, he will provide a good counter-balance to my own viewpoints.

I will, for one, be very interested to see the next draft. I find the idea far more helpful than most Forge Theory approach. In another thread, there is a semantic discussion about "using" theory for design.  This is a case where I think all would agree it's "usable" (assuming, of course, a more "edited" text).

While I don't have alot of case to use design patterns in my normal work, I am a software developer (BS in CS), so this fits the way my mind works. Good luck, and I'd be happy to help in any way I can.

John,

Thanks for wading in to post.  I hope it was clear, in spite of my criticisms, that I've found the book interesting and thought-provoking.  I don't expect to agree with everything, but your approach was compelling enough to make me sit down and figure out what I thought was right and wrong about it.  I'll be looking forward to the next iteration.

Cheers,
!i!

QuoteI will, for one, be very interested to see the next draft. I find the idea far more helpful than most Forge Theory approach. In another thread, there is a semantic discussion about "using" theory for design. This is a case where I think all would agree it's "usable" (assuming, of course, a more "edited" text).

Thank you.  I hope I don't let you down.  In truth, though, I think you are being a little over-generous when you say all would agree it's usable, even assuming a completely unbiased text (if that's even possible).  But, I appreciate the sentiment.  I should probably point out, though, that I don't consider RPG Design Patterns to be part of RPG Theory.  Rather, I think of it more as RPG Engineering.  I'm not trying to explain why role-playing games exist, what purpose they serve, or what qualifies as a good game.  All I am trying to do with them is to find and analyze various common solutions to individual low-level design goals so that they can be reused in future designs.

QuoteI hope it was clear, in spite of my criticisms, that I've found the book interesting and thought-provoking. I don't expect to agree with everything, but your approach was compelling enough to make me sit down and figure out what I thought was right and wrong about it. I'll be looking forward to the next iteration.

Believe me, I don't expect people to just agree with everything I say or write.  I want to be challenged, so that through discussion I gain a better understanding of whatever it is I'm doing.  I made the draft available specifically to obtain criticism so that I could make it better.  I knew it wasn't perfect or even complete.  So, I thank you for your honest critique.  You have made some valid points that I need to think about.

I really do need to get another draft out.  It shouldn't have taken me as long as it has.  But, when I released the first draft, I was already mentally exhausted from the effort.  And, I didn't really expect the flood of feedback I got.  I spent a month or so answering an endless stream of e-mails.  By the time the hoopla died down, I was so burned out on the subject I didn't even want to look at the thing.  So, I put it aside for a while and worked on other projects.  I have been chipping away at it lately, though.

Quote from: John KirkI don't consider RPG Design Patterns to be part of RPG Theory.  Rather, I think of it more as RPG Engineering.  I'm not trying to explain why role-playing games exist, what purpose they serve, or what qualifies as a good game.  All I am trying to do with them is to find and analyze various common solutions to individual low-level design goals so that they can be reused in future designs.

Which is why, if written in a completely unbiased way (or at the very least as close to that ideal as possible), it will be far more useful than trying to determine if a design is "coherent" or serves some abstract arbitrary set of "creative agendas."

I wish you well in your endeavors.