By the criteria posited here, i suspect that a goodly number of game designers are 'lawn crappers' then. I doubt that many of them simply started creating stuff fully-formed for publication. I expect many hours were first spent creating stuff for the hell of it, as well as for use in gaming sessions. How many of these attempts started of with the 'intent' of becoming published. I wonder...

Quote from: blakkieExploring really.

I don't think you've made that clear.  Your first post is ... well, let me be blunt ... it's a travesty of the english language.  I can't tell from it whether you're trying to ask a question, or make a statement, or just list some provocative noun-phrases.

When something's got that many gaps in meaning, the reader needs to bring their own expectations along for the ride in order to construct something sensible.

I suspect that some people here have interpreted your first post as saying "People who write up characters in the privacy of their own home are lawncrappers."  You have done nothing to discourage that interpretation of your words, and quite a bit to support it.

At this point, I'm hard pressed to interpret what you've written as "exploring."  You come across as having your mind made up.  That may not be what you're trying to convey, but I think that's by far the easiest way to read what you've written.

Quote from: One Horse Town...i suspect that a goodly number of game designers are 'lawn crappers' then...

And there is at least one thread here listing them by name.

However I didn't say anything about being published. But intent towards the social act of playing. "Rules are meant to be played."

Quote from: TonyLBYour first post is ... well, let me be blunt ... it's a travesty of the english language.  I can't tell from it whether you're trying to ask a question, or make a statement, or just list some provocative noun-phrases.

QFT

Quote from: TonyLBI don't think you've made that clear.  Your first post is ... well, let me be blunt ... it's a travesty of the english language.  I can't tell from it whether you're trying to ask a question, or make a statement, or just list some provocative noun-phrases.

It was just sort of some thoughts I was trying to get out there. That quote from Zachary hit me and triggered a process. So what you gathered is actually a very accurate conveying of my mind at the time. For better or worse. But yeah, I should have been more explicit about that initially.

QuoteAt this point, I'm hard pressed to interpret what you've written as "exploring."  You come across as having your mind made up.  That may not be what you're trying to convey, but I think that's by far the easiest way to read what you've written.

The back-and-forth ongoing in the thread has helped clarifying it for me. To help me get it into words and develop the thoughts.

Quote from: blakkieHowever I didn't say anything about being published. But intent towards the social act of playing. "Rules are meant to be played."

Oh, i know. But i expect that not everything created by designers is run by them is it? Therefore where do you draw the line? I tried to seperate the intent of getting published from the act of creation in my post for that very purpose. Designers don't spring full-formed from the ground. Therefore, they probably create much that never sees the light of day, either at their table or anyone elses. I can't speak for any of them, but i suspect that a goodly few of them have done exactly what is decried in the OP. Designers tend to be enthusiastic gamers, why would they write otherwise?

EDIT: Substituted "they" for "you".

Quote from: blakkieHowever I didn't say anything about being published. But intent towards the social act of playing. "Rules are meant to be played."

I'm always toying around with campaign ideas in my spare time. I always discuss these ideas with my players. Sometimes we use them ,sometimes the interest just isn't there. I consider this part of the social aspect of gaming. To me the social aspect of gaming encompasses more than just the use of rules.

Regards,
David R

Also, where do you draw the line between physically creating something (i.e., writing it down) with no intent to use it and idle thought exercises? Some people are kinesthetic or visual learners - they have to do it or see it to glean whatever they want out of it. It might be as simple as plugging it into a brainstorm program or something to see what happens, but it still means creating with intent to never use it.

Quote from: Dominus NoxNah, it's not a turd at all, it's just Jimboboz.

Don't worry, common mistake.

What's your main malfunction?

There is already a "jim bob is a shithead" thread going someplace here, take your BS over there and leave this thread alone.

Quote from: David RI'm always toying around with campaign ideas in my spare time. I always discuss these ideas with my players. Sometimes we use them ,sometimes the interest just isn't there. I consider this part of the social aspect of gaming. To me the social aspect of gaming encompasses more than just the use of rules.

What I meant there was that that the rules would likely be assembled for the purpose of them being played. If that wasn't the focus somehow I would expect less than enjoyably playable rules as accidentally nailing it seems very unlikely.

Bad assumption?

Quote from: One Horse TownBut i expect that not everything created by designers is run by them is it?

That someone wrote a game that they never actually played? I'd expect that to be rare. Any examples?  I think I saw a thread where somebody leveled that accusation at the guy putting together Rifts and that it was the source cause of the existance of the MDC/GI Joe rule.

So the expectation seems to be designers that play what they create. If not out and out really enjoy gaming. Is that a bad assumption?

Quote from: WilIt might be as simple as plugging it into a brainstorm program or something to see what happens, but it still means creating with intent to never use it.

I'm not sure exactly where the line is. *shrug* But the above seems a pretty natural source of progress used by a designer.

I think the whole 'designer' aspect is a bit of a deadend path here, as it is likely to be seen as separate from the game itself as well as inherently a very solidly direct preparation.

Quote from: blakkieThat someone wrote a game that they never actually played?

I think the second half of my post explained what i meant by that statement.

To design, you have to get experience writing stuff for game systems. I would be surprised if this starting work is ever picked up, either by the designer himself or others before they are published writers. As such, much of that formative work can be compared to what you are questioning. IE That of an entusiastic gamer creating stuff for the love of it.

As i said, i can't talk for others, but i created shedloads of stuff for WFRP for my own enjoyment before i started writing for others and the game itself.

Quote from: One Horse TownI think the second half of my post explained what i meant by that statement.

I missed it then. But if they did? Well flyingmouse apparently not, if you read his post in that thread. Others? Maybe. *shrug*

Quote...but i created shedloads of stuff for WFRP for my own enjoyment...

As in nothing to do with actually playing with other people but instead for it's own sake, but you hung the "RPG" label on it?

Historically many rpgs were designed to allow solo play, in the same way many wargames permit solo play.

I'm thinking D&D, Traveller, T&T, I'm sure there were others.

That side of the hobby has largely died out, but it was part of the hobby and not at all seen as an odd part.

Just thought I'd mention that, otherwise, great thread title.

Quote from: blakkieThat someone wrote a game that they never actually played? I'd expect that to be rare. Any examples?  I think I saw a thread where somebody leveled that accusation at the guy putting together Rifts and that it was the source cause of the existance of the MDC/GI Joe rule.

So the expectation seems to be designers that play what they create. If not out and out really enjoy gaming. Is that a bad assumption?

Sergio Macarenhas on rpg.net had (possibly has) a game design column on rpg.net, he is now I think on his second rpg design in it.  He doesn't play, not just his own games, at all.  Frankly it shows, the designs are I think unworkable and show that they are designed in the absence of play.

No, I don't know why he does it.  You'd have to ask him.

Otherwise, there are apparently a great many rpg designers who don't play the games they design for and who in some cases don't play at all.  I understand it's depressingly common.  That said, in the indie scene which you may be thinking of it's actually very rare for the designer not to play, the phenomenon does exist but not where the prejudiced tend to assume it does.

Oh, some of the CoC scenario writers that I know of I know didn't actually play, again, I think it showed.  The name Keith Herber springs to mind, though I may be misremembering who it was in particular.

Edit:  One problem I've encountered, every time I've said that there are designers who don't play people mentally seem to add the word indie into the sentence.  I'm not that polite, if I meant indie designers I would have said that.  The indie guys do play, by and large, it's the non-indie ones who contain non-playing designers among their midst.