Quote from: Levi KornelsenHrm.

Actually, I sort-of agree with some of what Dwight is saying.  I've seen a fuckton of stuff in games, and asked myself "Wait.  Of what use is this?  This is written from the perspective of analysing play, not from the perspective of inspiring or instructing me in techniques of play....   Wow, crappy."

I've caught myself at it quite a few times, too, writing games, and it's not a new thing or a theory-thing, necessarily; hell, there are parts (comparatively small, but present) of the GM "advice" in the DMG II that are basically pointless analysis.

Amber, again, remains my divine example here.  When you page through the discussions of "how to do stuff", hard rules or not, it's always instructing and inspiring.

My apologies, Levi - I was referring the Frustration and Bile comments from another thread. And linking that to the apparent personal attacks, twice from the same person, who now wants to tell others who reference his "stupid" comment not to "stoop" to reminding him of it.

But with respect to this particular discussion: what I hear is more of an editing issue - making sure everything in the book belongs there and what doesn't belong is not in the book. And I ask, honestly, is this what System Matters is supposed to convey?

If that's the case, how could one argue? But to define everything in the book as System seems to be the disconnect. People get confused, I think, because of the transitive property.

For many, System = Rules. If System = Everything in the Book, then System = Rules and Advice (and Setting, and etc.). So Rules = Everything. (Or the alternative, which would be that Only Rules Are In Books) With this I disagree - and it's where you get the disconnect, IMHO.

Quote from: James J SkachIs that what System Matters is supposed to mean?

Gah!

James, please - If you want my advice, when it comes to this thing, don't try to analyse "what it really means".  

Go the other direction.  

Ask "What useful stuff does this argument keep hiding?  And how can we get rid of this stupid semantic argument?"

That's where the non-semantic discussion, the good stuff, is.

EDIT: Oh, wait, you're sort of on it.  I think.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHrm.

Actually, I sort-of agree with some of what Dwight is saying.  I've seen a fuckton of stuff in games, and asked myself "Wait.  Of what use is this?  This is written from the perspective of analysing play, not from the perspective of inspiring or instructing me in techniques of play....   Wow, crappy.  Do your analysing online, outside the book, bucko."

I've caught myself at it quite a few times, too, writing games, and it's not a new thing or a theory-thing, necessarily; hell, there are parts (comparatively small, but present) of the GM "advice" in the DMG II that are basically pointless analysis.

Amber, again, remains my divine example here.  When you page through the discussions of "how to do stuff", hard rules or not, it's always instructing and inspiring.

I wasn't exactly coming at it that way but yeah that's it. Those are two sterling examples, going both ways. If it matters to how to play the rules then whether or not you call it part of the rules isn't particularly material, it explains the rules and how, where, and why to use them. It helps the reader understand them, their strengths weaknesses and so on, and even helps to apply them in non-explicitly stated ways.


P.S.  Me insulting James I don't expect agreement with one way or another.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenGah!

James, please - If you want my advice, when it comes to this thing, don't try to analyse "what it really means".  

Go the other direction.  

Ask "What useful stuff does this argument keep hiding?  And how can we get rid of this stupid semantic argument?"

That's where the non-semantic discussion, the good stuff, is.

Well, before I talk about things, I like to understand the way people are using terms. If I can figure out what Dwight means, exactly, than I can determine whether or not it's germane and impacts my take on the subject.

Would anyone, anywhere, actually argue with these bits:

The mechanics of play, the numbers-and-dice, those can change play to an extent.  The more the group uses them, the more they matter.

The methods used by the group, the way they make decisions outside of dice, those are important too.

The presentation of the material, and whether or not it's actually aimed at helping you play, also has an impact.

The play group and the way they relate?  Matters more than any of these things, when we actually get to the table.

....Yes? No?

Quote from: flyingmiceIn Dwights view, there is no room for "optional." it is either necessary for the game, or it's dross. Yes, some advice shouldn't be in the rules, but that's the fallacy of the excluded middle again.

Haha, you edited faster that I refreshed but Levi's faster than you.

But that's good because I can let you know I'm pretty sure you misread me Clash. But it looks like the thread is dead so maybe we'll get it straightened out some other day...

Quote from: Levi KornelsenWould anyone, anywhere, actually argue with these bits:

The mechanics of play, the numbers-and-dice, those can change play to an extent.  The more the group uses them, the more they matter.

The methods used by the group, the way they make decisions outside of dice, those are important too.

The presentation of the material, and whether or not it's actually aimed at helping you play, also has an impact.

The play group and the way they relate?  Matters more than any of these things, when we actually get to the table.

....Yes? No?

I've got no problem at first glance.  But I'm hungry and my younger one needs a ride to kindergarten - so I'm out for a bit.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI don't advocate that anyone else make use of the definition.

Levi, I did not see it that way in the quotes provided by Clash, and I think if you go back to them and read them, you might agree. In particular, when your write "Those are also part of the overall idea of system that the designer should be concentrating on," you're using the very redefinition that leads to all the crap. There's no upside to the redefinition that isn't handled far better, if I may humbly suggest, by referring to expectations, responsibilities, and general orientation. As far as this relates to design, it concerns instilling expectations, responsibilities and general orientation.

Quote from: Elliot WilenLevi, I did not see it that way in the quotes provided by Clash, and I think if you go back to them and read them, you might agree.

*Shrug*

Then I expressed that poorly.  Which may well be.

My big points:

1)  The semantic argument is stupid.  

2) The idea of talking about the places where "numbers-and-dice" run up against "making good decisions", and looking at how those interact, that's useful.

3) A common way to try and get (2) is to call the whole thing "system".  This leads us back to (1).  Which, again, is stupid, and means that often, talking about (2) just doesn't happen.

Let me double back to this...

I'm tempted not to respond here but make a new thread, as it seems my contributions are getting ignored anyway and it might not be topical.

But I think it is, so here goes:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHrm.

Actually, I sort-of agree with some of what Dwight is saying.  I've seen a fuckton of stuff in games, and asked myself "Wait.  Of what use is this?  This is written from the perspective of analysing play, not from the perspective of inspiring or instructing me in techniques of play....   Wow, crappy.  Do your analysing online, outside the book, bucko."

I've caught myself at it quite a few times, too, writing games, and it's not a new thing or a theory-thing, necessarily; hell, there are parts (comparatively small, but present) of the GM "advice" in the DMG II that are basically pointless analysis.

Amber, again, remains my divine example here.  When you page through the discussions of "how to do stuff", hard rules or not, it's always instructing and inspiring.

Let's see if I can phrase this is a way that I hope evades the "definition" argument. I'll kindly refer you back to the example I pulled from the SotC SRD back in post #12. Does that fit what you are talking about here? Is that pointless analysis?

I don't think it's pointless, but I don't think it's rules, either. I do think it has a place. I tend to think of RPGs as requiring some measure of GM adjudication, at least any RPG I would want to play. An RPG that tries to cover every aspect that every player would want to do with it would be hopelessly complex. So (IMO) good RPGs strike a balance between rules and GM adjudication.

But there is good adjudication and bad adjudication. Good adjudication is a technique that can be captured, analyzed, and related. But the result is not rules, per se. The don't tell you what to do, but give you guidance on judgment. IMO, this sort of material is worthy of inclusion.

Think of the rules like a tool. Say like a hammer. Advice tells you how to use that tool. Like a skilled craftman knows how to lift his hammer and strike it straight on with enough force that it will drive the nail straight with as few strokes as possible. Or a golf club... you can buy a bag full of golf clubs, but you learn which club to use when, what angle to swing your arm from, etc.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen3) A common way to try and get (2) is to call the whole thing "system".  This leads us back to (1).  Which, again, is stupid, and means that often, talking about (2) just doesn't happen.

Okay, I'm going to suggest this as humbly as possible: read my livejournal. And/or read everything you can find by Malcolm Sheppard. Jim Henley's got a good piece (with comments) also in his LJ. You may find a response to that on Vincent Baker's blog--but I only reference that because the response is completely blind to the screwed-up-ness that's been inflicted on RPG discourse by the attempt to take the gnomic LP and turn it into a foundational definition.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOkay, I'm going to suggest this as humbly as possible: read my livejournal. And/or read everything you can find by Malcolm Sheppard. Jim Henley's got a good piece (with comments) also in his LJ. You may find a response to that on Vincent Baker's blog--but I only reference that because the response is completely blind to the screwed-up-ness that's been inflicted on RPG discourse by the attempt to take the gnomic LP and turn it into a foundational definition.

I do read Jim Henley.  Constantly.  And a lot of his recent stuff is really, really, fucking good.  

I read Malcolm sometimes, and agree more often than not, but never comment, because I always want to explore side points, which annoys him (or, just the way I do it annoys him; whichever).

I was reading your journal for a while, but it's not on my list anymore.  Not sure why...   I'll go clicky that.

Thing is, even with this?  We're still having the problem.  Where someone wants to talk about this cool and valuable thing and this bit of language gets in the goddamn way.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadLI don't think it's pointless, but I don't think it's rules, either.

Given that it doesn't speak in any "optional" voice (which is IMO a pretty useless differentiator between 'rules' and 'not rules' anyway...there isn't such thing as 'rules' that are optional???) and it clearly outlines very specific steps in the process of playing, that by it's own text it says are "critically important", thinking of that as being outside the rules is....well it really underlines of uselessness, if not counterproductive nature of dividing up things that way is.

Quote from: DwightJames J Skach, you seem to know less about writing than you know about software. That's bad.

BTW James, in case you are still reading the thread, sorry about that, I thought you'd put on your Thickie Thick Hat. Looking back I think you just missed the context of my post? :shrug:

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen1)  The semantic argument is stupid.

2) The idea of talking about the places where "numbers-and-dice" run up against "making good decisions", and looking at how those interact, that's useful.

3) A common way to try and get (2) is to call the whole thing "system".  This leads us back to (1).  Which, again, is stupid, and means that often, talking about (2) just doesn't happen.

Well, here's the problem from my pov - the semantic debate is not stupid. And it's not because there's a leap made here that rubs people the wrong way. Wait. Backup.

Here - here's the problem. I'll bold it...

No - it's not common. That why so many people push back on it.  It might be common in a specific circle of people who have agree to define it as such. But when you walk out of that circle, you can't expect that everyone will agree. If you still want to discuss that cool thing that you want to address at the point between A and B, you need to explain it as such - not as "system". If you don't, then you end up in the semantic debate - which, at that point, is not stupid, but perfectly legitimate and should be expected.

Your analysis, IMHO and no disrespect intended, is exactly the problem. Why you don't expect a semantic debate when using terms that the rest of the population seems not to accept is a bit a puzzlement to me.