TheRPGSite

As requested:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI've talked to people who are seen as saying this at some length.  So I'm going to open that box up just a little further.

A lot of the time, what comes across is "To you, designer, system matters most - the procedures, rules, techniques of play.  Because it's all you've got to work with when designing."

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail?

QuoteBefore you finish reacting to that, even rephrased, another odd shot.  

In theory, the bits of game advice in Amber, which describe techniques that aren't hard and fast rules?  Those are also part of the overall idea of  system that the designer should be concentrating on.

Mph! There's that "T" word again! :O

QuoteAs I see it, redefining system as "the whole body of stuff the group does" has an upside - it's more holistic.  The downside is that because it's a redefinition, the brain sometime slips a gear, and you get the designer who believes that, but actually goes sideways on those examples and techniques, instead just playing clever games with numbers.

The redefiining terms mania strikes again, and that makes it hard to communicate. One of the things you've always tried very hard not to do is redefine words, Levi.

Quote...When the word "system" is in there, it's a problem endemic to "indiehood".  Take the word out, and you've seen the same problem everywhere...

...How many game design discussions start with "Check out my GM advice on combat encounters!  Isn't it wicked inspiring?".


EDIT: Shit, I'm threadjacking.  Uh...   If this is an interesting topic to anyone, we can has new thread?

Do designers actually say "Check out my system for combat encounters, isn't it wicked?" I'm more likely to say "Check out my system for combat encounters, did I screw up somewhere?" :P

But OK, given the redefinition, it makes much more sense, but it doesn't talk about what the group can bring to the table. A designer doesn't know, but he can throw out some options. I always try to anyway... :D

-clash

Look - if you define everything as System, then of course System Matters - it must. Another way to look at it is that in order for System to Matter (either above all else or exclusionary), it must be defined as everything.

This, then, means that the designer of the System expects to influence, neigh control, the System - which means, given the above, that the designer controls everything. This makes me ask - where do I come in?

This is one of those little cracks, in theory, that once investigated becomes a huge chasm.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

Fuse lit...

Quote from: James J SkachLook - if you define everything as System, then of course System Matters - it must. Another way to look at it is that in order for System to Matter (either above all else or exclusionary), it must be defined as everything.

This, then, means that the designer of the System expects to influence, neigh control, the System - which means, given the above, that the designer controls everything. This makes me ask - where do I come in?

This is one of those little cracks, in theory, that once investigated becomes a huge chasm.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

Fuse lit...

Very nicely put, James!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceDo designers actually say "Check out my system for combat encounters, isn't it wicked?" I'm more likely to say "Check out my system for combat encounters, did I screw up somewhere?" :P

Some of prefer to say, "Check out my kick ass setting!"

Although, isn't that now a part of "system"?

Bill

Quote from: James J SkachLook - if you define everything as System, then of course System Matters - it must.

Everything you do to "resolve action".  That's called the Lumpley Principle, for those wanting a GNSese translation.

...

And, see, I think there's a useful point there.  Bob declares the thing his character does, , Joe tells Bob the results.

That bit where is just as important if it's GM fiat as if it's roll 3d6+19.  It should be equally valid to look at how the GM makes his fiat decision as it is to ask why 3d6+19, shouldn't it?

But calling that whole thing "system" doesn't always actually accomplish that, though it was supposed to.

Often, I find, it actually ends up obfuscating the point.

I think.

Quote from: James J SkachLook - if you define everything as System, then of course System Matters - it must. Another way to look at it is that in order for System to Matter (either above all else or exclusionary), it must be defined as everything.

One of the things I despise about the Forge and even many non-Forge Theorists is their tendency to define things in such a way to make them meaningless- and then claim that they've reach some sort of greater insight.

It's cheap, it doesn't say anything, and any child can do it.

System used to mean something simple- i.e. the sum of the mechanical rules. When it meant that, saying System indicated what one was speaking of a defined subject. One could crack open the rulebook and start from there.

Now that it covers everything, System is no more meaningful than the "Game Discussion" group label for this part of the board. Completely worthless.

Much like i believe that pre-written adventures or campaigns do not survive contact with the playing group, i also think that most RPG systems don't, either.

I would even go so far to say that if you are trying to design a game where your design goal is to make sure that the system does survive contact with the playing group, you are really creating a straight-jacket, not a game that has wide scope and popularity. By writing those checks and balances into your system, you are, by necessity, narrowing its scope. Which explains a lot, to my way of thinking.

I don't think Levi is onto much at all.

Do designers ever say, "Check out my advice"? Yes, particularly in ashcan publishing where it's fashionable to include design notes, but play advice has occured in many rpgs, big and small (many descriptions in D&D's Monster Manuals, for example).

Do designers ever try to guide play in non-system ways? Yes, with background, fiction, and, more commonly these days with indie publishing, artwork, layout and font choice.

So, while I don't think that game designers are not necessarily obsessed with system, I do think game design forums are. In particular, both the Forge and this forum focus on this more than other forums, which shouldn't be surprising. It's common for opposed groups to share many traits and differ on only a few.

Why? The heavy theory work done at the Forge and elsewhere has given the game design community the language and structures to assess game systems. It was developed by gamers for gamers. Other aspects of design work (fiction, layout, artwork) already had language and structures for assessing them, but it developed in non-gaming fields (crit-lit, graphic design, art criticism), and are less common to gamers. We tend to discuss those things we can get the most and best feedback on.

Quote from: James J SkachThis, then, means that the designer of the System expects to influence, neigh control, the System - which means, given the above, that the designer controls everything. This makes me ask - where do I come in?

You're marely a consumer, so pony up the cash and time necessary to worship the designer.

Quote from: One Horse TownMuch like i believe that pre-written adventures or campaigns do not survive contact with the playing group, i also think that most RPG systems don't, either.

I would even go so far to say that if you are trying to design a game where your design goal is to make sure that the system does survive contact with the playing group, you are really creating a straight-jacket, not a game that has wide scope and popularity.

Or, alternately, you're writing a wargame that teaches tactics.

There's nothing wrong with playing a crunchy game that requires a particular set of tactics for in-game survival.

In fact, such a game can be good if it's educational but not otherwise entertaining.

In a similar vein:

QuoteDo you like crunch? Forget roleplaying games. Try cryptography.

Or, alternately, "Do you like crunch?  Forget tabletop roleplaying games.  Play crunchy computer games."

There are a lot of gamer euros and yen going to extremely crunchy computer games, some of which resemble CRPGs, others of which don't.  Some smart TRPG designers, like Steve Jackson, are trying to survive in the new marketplace without completely abandoning the old.

There are, however, a boatload of designers who want to be TRPG designers, and who harbor a hope of making enough money to cover their printing expenses.

Quote from: madunkiegI don't think Levi is onto much at all.

Do designers ever say, "Check out my advice"? Yes, particularly in ashcan publishing where it's fashionable to include design notes, but play advice has occured in many rpgs, big and small (many descriptions in D&D's Monster Manuals, for example).

Well, yeah. Levi himself mentioned Amber.

QuoteDo designers ever try to guide play in non-system ways? Yes, with background, fiction, and, more commonly these days with indie publishing, artwork, layout and font choice.

OK... Artwork, Layout, and font choices are supposed to guide play? :O

QuoteSo, while I don't think that game designers are not necessarily obsessed with system, I do think game design forums are. In particular, both the Forge and this forum focus on this more than other forums, which shouldn't be surprising. It's common for opposed groups to share many traits and differ on only a few.

Actually, the Forge designers mostly talk shop over at Storygames these days, IIRC. The people in this forum are hardly "opposed" to the Forge/Storygames crowd. They're dealing with stuff that interests them, we are dealing with stuff that interests us. We just needed a place where we could talk without being flooded with guys from the forge interested in something different. Even Pundit has no problem with storygamers per se - read the definition of "swine." There are trad swine too.

QuoteWhy? The heavy theory work done at the Forge and elsewhere has given the game design community the language and structures to assess game systems. It was developed by gamers for gamers. Other aspects of design work (fiction, layout, artwork) already had language and structures for assessing them, but it developed in non-gaming fields (crit-lit, graphic design, art criticism), and are less common to gamers. We tend to discuss those things we can get the most and best feedback on.

We don't want to use the language and structures developed by the Forge here. Those are tools they devised for their purposes, and our purposes may be different. We have explicitly rejected them as a starting point. Read the Landmarks of Gaming Theory thread for more info on that. If we need language other than accepted use English - and we haven't so far - we'll deal with that in our own way. We aren't a theory forum - we are a design forum.

-clash

Quote from: Levi KornelsenEverything you do to "resolve action".  That's called the Lumpley Principle, for those wanting a GNSese translation.

Hmmm. Consider this outtake from the FATE SRD:

Quote from: Fate SRD8.1   Setting Difficulties

Before you – the GM – call for a die roll, it is critically important that you stop and do two things:

   1. Imagine Success
   2. Imagine Failure

It sounds simple, but it can make a critical difference. Success is usually the easy part, but failure can be bit trickier. You want to make sure that both outcomes are interesting , though interesting certainly doesn't need to mean good.

If you cannot come up with a way to handle either outcome, you need to rethink the situation.

It's as simple as that, because there are few things more frustrating to a player than making a skill roll and getting told that it nets them no new knowledge, no suggested course of action, no new development for the story, and so on.

So, whenever you call for a roll, be absolutely certain you understand entails. If one or the other branch does not suggest a course of action, then calling for a roll is probably a bad idea.



Now, that said, every roll does not need to have high stakes. There should always be a consequence to failure, but there are degrees of consequence, and minor setbacks may be overcome for a larger success. If there is a large issue on the table, try not to have it hinge entirely on one roll – spread it out across the scene. Just as a roll has consequences, so does a scene, and the scene should have meaningful consequences.

The whole point of the consequences is to keep players engaged. It makes rolls into something a little more meaningful than hoping to get lucky on a die roll. That fact is the ultimate informer on how you want to set difficulties. The goal is to make any roll satisfying.

With that in mind, as a general guideline, difficulties should be set low (with a few exceptions we'll cover in this chapter). If you leave difficulties at the default of Mediocre (+0) then characters will almost always succeed, but there is still a chance for failure. What this means is that characters will rarely fail, but failure is still a possibility in most circumstances. You can increase difficulties from that, but always stop and think about why you want to do that. The answer should always be "because you want failure to be more likely" – hopefully because failure's cool too.

If you are tempted to make a roll so difficult that failure is likely, make sure you've got a solid reason why that's so, and why you're calling for a roll.

Is that "advice" or "system"? I'll admit the line is blurry, but I personally don't see it as system, because I could easily take this advice and apply it to any game I am playing.

But then, I can see many rules or mechanics bits that I could pull out of "systems" and re-implement as "advice".

On the point of definitions, I will say I am in favor of system referring to the mechanical parts of a game. If I had to come up with the different components of a game I would probably go with

Game Play which trumps

System
Setting

And I would say GM Advice falls under separate section including player advice called
Meta-rules

And I would not say the above is all inclusive, just all I can think of. I am not putting anything on those words that are not commonly held understanding or dictionary definitions.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltSome of prefer to say, "Check out my kick ass setting!"

Although, isn't that now a part of "system"?

Bill

Mechanics are intractably tied to the setting. Which way to word it? :shrug: But to pretend that something isn't part of the game because you hung a "advice" label on is to live in denial. Often harmful denial. It's in the book giving directions on how to play? Just get over the semantics. Whether you include system on it or not players will treat it as part of the game. Even if they discard parts of it, which they are want  to do no matter in the book or what label you put on it.


"Advice" is important, usually critically important, because the rules in an RPG are not "complete". To pretend it is something separate that you just fill some pages with, perhaps shuffled off to it's own section, is doing a disservice to everyone.

It's about the whole game, stupid.

Quote from: DwightJust get over the semantics. Whether you include system on it or not players will treat it as part of the game.

(shrug) I rather think that's where the difference actually lies. I think that many players actually consider the rules part of the game and have the expectation that the rules represent the game as it will be played under social contract, but don't extend that expectation to "advice".

But then, for contrast, I think that more active tinkerers/designers treat "rules" the way other gamers think of "advice".

Quote from: DwightMechanics are intractably tied to the setting. Which way to word it? :shrug: But to pretend that something isn't part of the game because you hung a "advice" label on is to live in denial. Often harmful denial. It's in the book giving directions on how to play? Just get over the semantics. Whether you include system on it or not players will treat it as part of the game. Even if they discard parts of it, which they are want  to do no matter in the book or what label you put on it.


"Advice" is important, usually critically important, because the rules in an RPG are not "complete". To pretend it is something separate that you just fill some pages with, perhaps shuffled off to it's own section, is doing a disservice to everyone.

It's about the whole game, stupid.

Advice (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/advice) means one thing, rule (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rule) means another. Pretending that the former is actually the  latter is doing a disservice to everyone.

Quote from: DwightMechanics are intractably tied to the setting. Which way to word it? :shrug: But to pretend that something isn't part of the game because you hung a "advice" label on is to live in denial. Often harmful denial. It's in the book giving directions on how to play? Just get over the semantics. Whether you include system on it or not players will treat it as part of the game. Even if they discard parts of it, which they are want  to do no matter in the book or what label you put on it.

Then I should never put anything like advice into my games, because I don't want people to think they are rules! Who am I to tell people how to play?

No one said advice isn't part of the game - the question is "Is advice the same as system?" I say no. It's advice, and players take it on a different level than rules.

Are optional rules part of the system? I say only if you use them.

-clash

Quote from: DwightMechanics are intractably tied to the setting. Which way to word it? :shrug: But to pretend that something isn't part of the game because you hung a "advice" label on is to live in denial. Often harmful denial. It's in the book giving directions on how to play? Just get over the semantics. Whether you include system on it or not players will treat it as part of the game. Even if they discard parts of it, which they are want  to do no matter in the book or what label you put on it.


"Advice" is important, usually critically important, because the rules in an RPG are not "complete". To pretend it is something separate that you just fill some pages with, perhaps shuffled off to it's own section, is doing a disservice to everyone.

It's about the whole game, stupid.

Emphasis mine.

At no point did I say anything like advice is not part of the game. I am not sure where you are getting that. It is not part of the system. System being the mechanical parts, the rules. If I had to group Advice anywhere I would put it under Game Play.

Now, just to be clear, I am not talking about explaining combat for instance, I am talking about general advice on how to play that particular setting and system. Your game should be complete without it and playable.

I guess part of the confusion could come from what I would consider incomplete rules. If read over the rules and setting, and truly are at a loss as to how to play a game, that game is incomplete to me. You did not explain your system adequately.  Advice is just that, advice. It should never be "required to play the game". It should be something to explain concepts to those who do not know about RPGs in general. Advice should be stuff like "You may find presenting challenges more rewarding than giving players everything they ask for" as opposed to "To run monsters faster, the system has this mook rule".

However, since I am stupid, you really should not be listening to me. ;)

Bill

Geeze, this has been discussed to death. Clash, you know I enjoy reading your contributions to this forum, but here you're just facilitating Levi's kool-aid drinking. This thread amounts to exactly the sort of definition-arguing that belongs in off-topic.

Levi, sorry to say, this is a perfect example of how your avoidance of confrontation leads to muddle. Using the "Lumpley Principle" as a general-purpose definition of system is utter crap.

It also leads directly to further crap like "Fun is portable", which in turn takes us to the ultimate crapitude infecting Forge culture: blaming the game when you don't have fun--unless it's a Forge game, whose fun is by definition portable, in which case you should blame yourself.

All of seeing one condillion dots[B[/B] all of ikklrey. Trouble of 3+6=9. A ball is a cool one. I were up to. Dwight says to James J Skach all of Cool people. Dwight says It maybe be all 21 years close enough. all of pree. 19,000,000,000,000,000 people on ruley prolls of dl. 5,330,000,000,000,000,000 bottles in a row & column 1*5,330,000,000,000,000,000=5,330,000,000,000,000,000,000. I repeat of heights. Down! Best friends.

There he goes spouting theory nonsense again....

Quote from: HinterWeltNow, just to be clear, I am not talking about explaining combat for instance, I am talking about general advice on how to play that particular setting and system. Your game should be complete without it and playable.

If it really was entirely 'complete' and your editor still let you keep adding words explaining the rules then they f*cked up. But of course that isn't the case. So why did you put it in?

Quote from: James J SkachThere he goes spouting theory nonsense again....

At least I stop every now and then. ;)

Quote from: Elliot WilenGeeze, this has been discussed to death. Clash, you know I enjoy reading your contributions to this forum, but here you're just facilitating Levi's kool-aid drinking. This thread amounts to exactly the sort of definition-arguing that belongs in off-topic.

Levi, sorry to say, this is a perfect example of how your avoidance of confrontation leads to muddle. Using the "Lumpley Principle" as a general-purpose definition of system is utter crap.

It also leads directly to further crap like "Fun is portable", which in turn takes us to the ultimate crapitude infecting Forge culture: blaming the game when you don't have fun--unless it's a Forge game, whose fun is by definition portable, in which case you should blame yourself.

You are correct, Eliot! This is definition arguing. I didn't realize that at first, but now I do. This indeed belongs in Off topic! To Siberia with you, damned thread! I'm outa here!

:D

-clash

Quote from: DwightAt least I stop every now and then. ;)

What are those posts? I've seen them before, and it's always from you (so far). Is that something on your side or the site?

Now return to your thread...

Quote from: gleichmanOne of the things I despise about the Forge and even many non-Forge Theorists is their tendency to define things in such a way to make them meaningless- and then claim that they've reach some sort of greater insight.

Yes.  If someone's jargon definition makes it harder to make legitimate distinctions rather than easier, then they are probably playing this game.  If the jargon defines things such that everything fits within the jargon definition, then they most certainly are.

Quote from: James J SkachWhat are those posts? I've seen them before, and it's always from you (so far). Is that something on your side or the site?

Now return to your thread...

That's my son, read the other thread for details (The Bard's Tales thread in the other forum). For some reason he's decided to stop switching to his own login. Second infraction, he's in deep crap now. :)

Quote from: flyingmiceYou are correct, Eliot! This is definition arguing.

Well that's why I was trying to direct it away from the semantics arguing. There is still a good point buried under it all. "If it's in the rule book it matters to the rules." If you can't truthfully say that, setting aside your modesty and humbleness ;) , then it's time to break out the Vorpal Red Pen of Editing +5.

Quote from: Elliot WilenUsing the "Lumpley Principle" as a general-purpose definition of system is utter crap.

:confused:

The hell?  

Dude, I provided said definition originally to make a point.  When the people who spend a lot of time saying "system matters" say that, they mean something different.  That was the entire point I was making, and there it is, done being made.

I don't advocate that anyone else make use of the definition.  As I stated, the downside of speaking that way sucks.  Precisely because it isn't natural.

At the exact same time as that, there are big long discussions of technique - the "stuff" that isn't actual rules - which actually do deserve time and attention.  Many of those discussions contain a lot of really good stuff.

And the semantic argument about "system"?  That's a big part of why those discussions keep fucking falling apart; it's the ultimate derailer.

That.

EDIT:

I think what I'm getting at is something that falls along the lines of "hey, this stuff?  How the fuck do we talk about it here?  Because the way they use over there - I don't think it works as well as I think they think it works."

Quote from: DwightWell that's why I was trying to direct it away from the semantics arguing. There is still a good point buried under it all. "If it's in the rule book it matters." If you can't truthfully say that, setting aside your modesty and humbleness ;) , then it's time to break out the Red Pen of Editing +5.

That is certainly a valid way of approaching the publishing of games. It's not, however, the only one. Neither are other perspectives incorrect in including both rules and advice in books. If I had to guess, I'd bet it's rather common, actually.

In today's paradigm (Bingo!), it is certainly easier to take those things out and put them online as adjunct information. But the truth remains that advice and rules are different animals. To conflate them in order to justify the editing approach you espouse is unnecessary and confuses discussion.

Quote from: Elliot WilenGeeze, this has been discussed to death. Clash, you know I enjoy reading your contributions to this forum, but here you're just facilitating Levi's kool-aid drinking. This thread amounts to exactly the sort of definition-arguing that belongs in off-topic.

:rolleyes:

I thought it was a potentially interesting discussion. And as much about perceptions as definitions, which I think are of great importance in actual gameplay.

You don't want to participate, then don't. Threadcrapping is not a requirement.

James J Skach, you seem to know less about writing than you know about software. That's bad.

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

See what I mean, Levi?

Quote from: James J SkachSee what I mean, Levi?

That you entirely missed the point? You can call it "system" or "meta-rules" or "advice" or "butternuts on a purple pickle" but if you put it in the book it either "matters" to the subject at hand (the game), you intended to communicate (AKA influence), or you just wasted trees and the reader's time.

Quote from: DwightIf it really was entirely 'complete' and your editor still let you keep adding words explaining the rules then they f*cked up. But of course that isn't the case. So why did you put it in?

I think you are trolling but you bing up a point. In your opinion, you're listening to a stupid person...

Since you seem so inclined, I will continue. Even though your words make sense, unlike your last post, they purposely miss or ignore my point. Advice is optional. Rules are not. If my rules are complete, you can play a game. If advice is left out, all it means is they do not have my perspective, just their own to go from for play style and the like. I feel my customers can make their own decisions about a game setting. It is one of the reasons I do not feel Advice sections to be necessary. Helpful to some, but not necessary. If your advice section is necessary then it is another section of the rules and should be treated as such.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI think you are trolling but you bing up a point. In your opinion, you're listening to a stupid person...

Come on Bill, don't stoop to that.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen:confused:

The hell?  

Dude, I provided said definition originally to make a point.  When the people who spend a lot of time saying "system matters" say that, they mean something different.  That was the entire point I was making, and there it is, done being made.

I don't advocate that anyone else make use of the definition.  As I stated, the downside of speaking that way sucks.  Precisely because it isn't natural.

At the exact same time as that, there are big long discussions of technique - the "stuff" that isn't actual rules - which actually do deserve time and attention.  Many of those discussions contain a lot of really good stuff.

And the semantic argument about "system"?  That's a big part of why those discussions keep fucking falling apart; it's the ultimate derailer.

That.

EDIT:

I think what I'm getting at is something that falls along the lines of "hey, this stuff?  How the fuck do we talk about it here?  Because the way they use over there - I don't think it works as well as I think they think it works."

Levi:

I don't think you had anything to do with the derailment - but it got derailed.

-clash

Quote from: DwightThat you entirely missed the point? You can call it "system" or "meta-rules" or "advice" or "butternuts on a purple pickle" but if you put it in the book it either "matters" to the subject at hand (the game), you intended to communicate (AKA influence), or you just wasted trees and the reader's time.

Ahhh...so everything in the book matters? Is that what System Matters is supposed to mean? I mean, that doesn't sound like design advice, as much as Technical Writing 101. But to each his own.

I suppose you never say to someone, "Here's how I would do it. There are other ways, like this or that. I find that doing it this way works best for me." And then watch, in horror I assume, when they don't follow your advice.

Quote from: James J SkachSee what I mean, Levi?

Hrm.

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.

Quote from: DwightCome on Bill, don't stoop to that.

Clash, your right. This is a really stupid thread.

Bill

Dagnabit, got caught again!

I'm out!

-clash

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

Not sure. :shrug: Just by itself I don't think so. But Levi has more exposure to the lingo.

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.

Yeah.  This is why I agree with some of what he's saying.

I remain very much in favor of optional, flexible, and tweakable games.

(It's actually possible to do both of these things wrong - to fill a game text with analysis and have no flexibility at all - and to still have a good game in there.)

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI think what I'm getting at is something that falls along the lines of "hey, this stuff?  How the fuck do we talk about it here?  Because the way they use over there - I don't think it works as well as I think they think it works."

I think people should worry more about whether an idea has merit than where it was born or most recently praised.

I can totally understand why people are dismissive about things like "Brain Damage" or obscure ossified terminology, but let's not be throwing out babies with bathwater.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI think people should worry more about whether an idea has merit than where it was born or most recently praised.

Or whether it's heretical or orthodox. :p

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=196394&postcount=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 (http://jimhenley.livejournal.com/110154.html). 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 (http://jimhenley.livejournal.com/110154.html). 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. :p 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.

Quote from: DwightGiven 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 useless, if not counterproductive, dividing up things that way is.

Now there is a semantic debate not worth having...

Quote from: James J SkachNow there is a semantic debate not worth having...

Yeah, that's a big portion of why I didn't bother to reply to post #12 the first time around. :o I wasn't interested in 'debate' of it.  But there it is, someone dividing that up from the rules (and therefore 'mechanics'?) when it is crystal clear they are key steps that the author expects players to follow in the process of playing.

If being key parts of the process doesn't get you the rules tag? That's no tag I'm interested in.

Quote from: DwightYeah, that's a big portion of why I didn't bother to reply to post #12 the first time around. :o I wasn't interested in 'debate' of it.  But there it is, someone dividing that up from the rules (and therefore 'mechanics'?) when it is crystal clear they are key steps that the author expects players to follow in the process of playing.

If being key parts of the process doesn't get you the rules tag? That's no tag I'm interested in.

Apparently you and I have a lot of trouble communicating - or at least when trying to be sarcastic (caustic even!).

My point, for clarification, is that I would stipulate that you think these things should be tagged as rules. Fine. The question is, and it's a bit OT for this thread, now anyway, is if you think there are ever things in the book that aren't rules.

If not, then we will probably never come to agreement on what constitutes a "rule". Happens.

Repeat, I'm not interested. :D  Catch you in another thread.

Well, so much for that.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadWell, so much for that.

FWIW, CS, I agree with you. It's why I didn't push much back on it - I was waiting for someone who disagrees to do so.

Look at it this way - your argument was so good as to scare away the opposition! :D

Quote from: James J SkachIt 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.

Precisely, and this is the subject, largely, of my latest LJ entry.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadWell, so much for that.

Given it's void of utility? Yeah.

Quote from: DwightGiven it's void of utility? Yeah.

Given your continual stream of thread diarrhea, yeah.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadGiven your continual stream of thread diarrhea, yeah.

I was talking about the division. But sure, whatever you like. Have fun! :p

Quote from: DwightI was talking about the division. But sure, whatever you like. Have fun! :p

You already said you weren't interested in this thread, why are you still posting in it?