If you're willing, and I'm sorry if this comes across as thick, but what does Basic have that OD&D doesn't. I know you mean that OD&D lacks a described procedure of play, but where and what is the procedure of play in Basic which OD&D lacks? Is it simply a matter of play examples? A sample dungeon in the DMG? What, exactly? Maybe examples will help clear up the confusion.

I know one of the difficulties my 12-year old brain had when I read the Basic set--and I know I'm not the only one--was figuring out what exactly you were supposed to do with it. I had the Metzner set and the first encounter in the sample dungeon lists a variety of tactics the players might try. I had no idea that you weren't supposed to read those options aloud to the players, like a Choose Your Own Adventure. A friend of mine had the Holmes set, and he and his brother played the dungeon like a board game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;467755If you want to clarify your position, please feel free. It is possible i am misinterpreting your position (and it is an 11 page thread).But re-reading your statement you seem to be saying what i suggest. My impression is you are saying rpgs that aren't focused on a particular goal arent real games.

I'm saying that providing a toolkit, a resolution mechanic, or something similar, is not providing a finished game to the player.  I'm saying that people then take those tools and craft a game of their own out of it, which they then play at the table.  I'm not saying that people playing Original D&D or Basic Roleplaying aren't playing a game, I'm saying they've adapted the rules and created their own context for play which then becomes a game, either via in-game or out-of-game goals for play.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, especially in light of the fact that this was originally a hobby.  And much like other hobbies, we don't always get our stuff pre-assembled.  Some among us prefer to craft our own models or trains or whatever out of the tools that hobby companies provide us.  This makes the barrier for entrance harder on newbies, but it can also be more rewarding for the people who want to have a more personalized and organic experience.

Does that clear up my position at all?

Quote from: two_fishes;467758If you're willing, and I'm sorry if this comes across as thick, but what does Basic have that OD&D doesn't. I know you mean that OD&D lacks a described procedure of play, but where and what is the procedure of play in Basic which OD&D lacks? Is it simply a matter of play examples? A sample dungeon in the DMG? What, exactly? Maybe examples will help clear up the confusion.

Examples of play.  Much clearer instruction in general.  Some discussion of table-issues and running a campaign (at least in the Cyclopedia).  

It's still not as clear as Tunnels & Trolls in terms of discussing actual play, but it's a fair bit better than OD&D.

I see what you are saying now though i don't share your conclusion.

Quote from: Peregrin;467759I'm saying that providing a toolkit, a resolution mechanic, or something similar, is not providing a finished game to the player.  I'm saying that people then take those tools and craft a game of their own out of it, which they then play at the table.

How is that any different from, say, Monopoly? You don't buy a game, you buy a box with a board and some tokens and some rules, and you try to make some sense of it. And not everyone ends up playing it the same way.

It's true, I can't buy "chess." I can buy a chess set. I don't see that Dogs in the Vinyard is any more of a game than OD&D is. It's a toolkit for playing DitV type games.

Now, now. D&D really is a quite different game from DitV. DitV is only good for one narrow thing, where the setting is just a backdrop for, at most, a short run of moral-experiment-of-the-week. D&D can go anywhere from dungeon-of-the-week to a setting that takes on a life of its own. Peregrin's story-games-circa-2006-ish delineation of how trad games differ from highly-focused Forge games is meaningful--it just happens to be coming from the wrong side of the fence.

Quote from: pawsplay;467773How is that any different from, say, Monopoly? You don't buy a game, you buy a box with a board and some tokens and some rules, and you try to make some sense of it. And not everyone ends up playing it the same way.

It's true, I can't buy "chess." I can buy a chess set. I don't see that Dogs in the Vinyard is any more of a game than OD&D is. It's a toolkit for playing DitV type games.

It seems almost as if you're being intentionally thick, and taking offense where no offense is intended. Monopoly comes with very clear instructions concerning how the game is played, what the goals of the players are, and how all the pieces interact. DitV comes with very clear instructions on what the players' goals are, how they're expected to interact with each other, what the GM is supposed to do, etc. Basic D&D also comes with these sorts of instructions. These sorts of "how to play" instructions are what separates "games" from "toolkits" in a technical sense. OD&D (according to Peregrin--I haven't read it) is such a toolkit. It doesn't explain what the goals of the players are, or how they're intended to interact with each other. It just has the play-pieces. Players bring their own methods of play to OD&D, either they make them up or they import them in from a prior play-tradition. It's the difference, say, between a deck of cards and the game of Poker.

Quote from: two_fishes;467776OD&D (according to Peregrin--I haven't read it) is such a toolkit. It doesn't explain what the goals of the players are, or how they're intended to interact with each other. It just has the play-pieces. Players bring their own methods of play to OD&D, either they make them up or they import them in from a prior play-tradition.

That is just flat-out wrong. OD&D does describe what the game is about, how you're supposed to go about exploring dungeons and build them, then goes on explaining what happens when you try to detect a door, or walk within X miles from a keep in the wilderness, etc. It's actually one of the most complete and clearest versions of the D&D game in this regard. It does assume the reader is part of a certain audience (familiar with Chainmail and miniatures wargaming) with the logical approach that goes with it, however.

It's a difference in context.

Like I said, I haven't read it, so I can't vouch either way. Pawsplay seemed to be butting his head against the simple principles that Peregrin had been saying and getting his hackles up over it.

I know, Mark.

The whole DITV vs. OD&D thing strikes me as a bit silly. I think any issues with how its expressed would be pretty much due to it being the first of its kind.

I'm somewhat curious as to what theories the forge generates to defend how heavily focussed its designs are? To me the whole Rejection of Simulationism seems to be an abandonment on the part of its designers to attempt to create rules-heavy systems because this is beyond them.

Many new RPG systems have, perhaps, one good idea: its traditional for most - the ones Edwards' labelled 'heartbreakers' - to integrate this one new idea into a matrix of systems modelled after existing systems, if the designers couldn't think of anything else revolutionary.
By contrast, for example, DiTV is one possibly good idea - the social conflict mechanics which are essentially made into the only rule the game has - with the scope of the game narrowed until it becomes defensible that its the only mechanic.  

Its sort of like if the only rule for D&D was "You can reroll a failed Diplomacy check with a +4 violence bonus, but if you fail your target automatically gets to punch you in the face", with everything else removed on the pretext that the game is about exploring how badly the Diplomacy rules don't work.

Micro designs were (and still are in some indie circles, to an extent) a trend.  They're not mandated by theory.  You see "micro" variations of a medium in a lot of other indie markets, because the barrier for entry is lower, and micro-designs/art/whatever are easier to produce.  People have been making micro-RPGs focused on specific things for years now, it's just that the whole indie-movement thing brought focus on them, so a few peeps decided to cash in on it.

Second, they're not the "Forge's" games as if they're all in the same ideological club.  Otherwise the diaspora wouldn't have happened.  They argue just as much as we do, just about different shit.

Quote from: two_fishes;467776It seems almost as if you're being intentionally thick, and taking offense where no offense is intended.

I was not offended. Perhaps you are taking offense where none is intended. I think it's reasonable to ask Peregrin to justify a very peculier definition.

QuoteMonopoly comes with very clear instructions concerning how the game is played, what the goals of the players are, and how all the pieces interact.

Are you allowed to collude with other players? How do you decide who gets to play which piece? Is there such a thing as so-and-so's token? These are contentious rules issues which have come up before when I have played Monopoly.

QuoteDitV comes with very clear instructions on what the players' goals are, how they're expected to interact with each other, what the GM is supposed to do, etc.

Does it come with enough pre-made adventures to last a lifetime?

Swine Theory doesn't absolutely demand micro-games but it certainly encourages them, by suggesting that a well-rounded fully-functional RPG that appeals to a large number of different gamers is "Incoherent" and an example of bad design.

The opposite of that design (you know, the one that actually sells) is to make a micro-game, as insipidly tiny in scope as you can manage.

RPGPundit

Quote from: pawsplay;467854Are you allowed to collude with other players? How do you decide who gets to play which piece? Is there such a thing as so-and-so's token? These are contentious rules issues which have come up before when I have played Monopoly.

Interesting read in context :

http://stevieb1972.com/you-hate-monopoly-for-all-the-wrong-reasons