tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post1233956345331805914..comments2023-10-14T03:58:59.333-06:00Comments on The Tao of D&D: Structural Realities in DesignAlexis Smolenskhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-54944353632015705632014-03-26T14:29:00.911-06:002014-03-26T14:29:00.911-06:00I am working with the book to give a big picture s...I am working with the book to give a big picture solution to these questions, Barrow, without micromanaging the details. Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-2758589100450870282014-03-26T14:25:55.730-06:002014-03-26T14:25:55.730-06:00I am trying to incorporate your ideas into my own ...I am trying to incorporate your ideas into my own campaign. I am sure my players would thank you for the insightful framework that helps me create interesting content. You always put the player's experience first when sharing ways to make the DM's experience richer. <br /><br /> "why does the town exist in terms of what it enables the party to do."<br /><br />"The real work begins when you settle in to lay down in stone the processes by which your world will do those things."<br /><br />What I spend a lot of time searching for on the net are essentially templates. I thirst for a useful ways to organize campaign content. I have been running my first campaign for 2 years, I have so many notes its unbelievable. I know other people do notes better than I do. How does a person effectively prepare for their campaign? A note on a single NPC, is it a whole page, is it a few lines in a running journal of NPC's, is it input into a computer program? What about a note on a city? You have the rulers, merchants, NPC's, events, etc.. and how they interact with a PC. What is the best model to record this? What has worked so far is a large 3 ring binder, but it takes time to root out old notes at this point. This is information that is not widely published on the net. Would love to get my hands on your notes or thoughts on organization, either on the blog or in a book. <br />LTWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14280926541054573911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-72052426988779310742014-03-22T14:49:16.391-06:002014-03-22T14:49:16.391-06:00Dave,
The three terms I've been using - and a...Dave,<br /><br />The three terms I've been using - and all the terms in my book - are real terms. I am using them in the sense that every designer uses them. I didn't have to invent terms, because I did my research. There is already an ontology in existence to talk about designing and human-to-human interaction. Edwards ignored it all, because Edwards didn't research anything of what he wrote. He wrote it all from the gut.<br /><br />There's a certain 'cohesiveness' to what he wrote, but it doesn't bear up under close scrutiny because it doesn't apply to other pursuits. That makes it weak and ultimately useless. If I read Edwards, he doesn't help me understand other interpersonal relationships. Nor can I take situations from elsewhere and see where they fit into Edwards.<br /><br />I can TRY to label things in the outside world with Edwards' ontology, but it is always going to be a reach. In any case it would mean ignoring the academic ontology that exists - and can be improved upon by others in the same field. Edwards' can't be improved upon, because far too much of it is Edwards going right up his own ass.<br /><br />One final point. It has been what, 10 years since Edwards proposed his 'theory'? Where's the effect? Where's the enlightenment? Where are the tools that have been developed to apply his theory concretely? That is the proof. There aren't any tools. There is this document, and the arguments over what the document means, and that is all.<br /><br />That argument is the sign that the theory is valueless. If it were clear and helpful, there would be less argument over what his theory meant, and more effort to apply its meaning to the creation of tools.<br /><br />I hope I am not just another Edwards. Judging by the comments on this blog, where people talk about applying my statements to making their worlds better, I don't think I am.<br /><br />That is the proof in my pudding.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-61892829991387324242014-03-22T12:49:17.711-06:002014-03-22T12:49:17.711-06:00To conclude...
Ask yourself ... do you have any i...To conclude...<br /><br /><i>Ask yourself ... do you have any idea what in your phone is 'needful' and what isn't? Does anyone ask you? No. It's not your business. It's the designer's business. You trust the designer by buying the phone, and if you want it to work, you adjust yourself to learning how to work the device.<br /><br />NONE of this is discussed by Edwards. Edwards is junk.</i><br /><br />Hmmm.... I think this is probably the most poignant problem with Edwards. He hinges game design on the players' needs and not on adapting to already-extant systems. In other words, if I understand you correctly, TSR gave us the phone and Edwards is off trying to invent... something else that's <i>like</i> a phone but isn't by totally going to the customer.<br /><br />I'm reminded of an episode of <i>The Simpsons</i> where a car company asks Homer to provide input on the ideal car and his suggestions result in an impossible-to-afford ridiculous, nigh-undriveable piece of junk.<br /><br />If what you're saying Ron Edwards is doing is precisely what the car company in <i>The Simpsons</i> was doing, than I totally comprehend everything you're saying. <i>I don't necessarily agree with everything...</i> but as always, you've given me a lot to think about, a lot of critiquing and analyzing (of Edwards, primarily) to do, a new tool or two with which to do it, and a lot of questions to ask myself (and Edwards).Dave Cesaranohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454928720043301400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-31248321882071927292014-03-22T12:48:50.501-06:002014-03-22T12:48:50.501-06:00My comment was too long so I have to break it down...My comment was too long so I have to break it down into more than one.<br /><br /><i>As far as creating structure goes, Edwards is junk. It doesn't help me. It doesn't give me any direction.</i><br /><br />Another "Aha!" moment for me. Edwards doesn't help you because, frankly, <i>you already know what you are doing</i>! Edwards is quite helpful to those who aren't metacognitient regarding their own game design by nudging them toward that mental state required to really start critiquing the purpose of their game's design. I'll be honest, when I ran into Edwards, I saw it as this sort of holy grail but as my own gaming has progressed, I've applied its precepts to my own games and discovered that some of the things he describes in his theories aren't actually possible. Hence, my posts examining my own game. Humorously enough, I came to the same conclusion as you when I had finished thinking about what I had written--my players had a blast, therefore I'm <i>doing it right</i>. GNS is no longer useful for me. I like to think about it... but I've come to the realization that I've left it behind since further criticism of my own style and method of running will violate the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" rule.<br /><br /><i>And like Giordanisti, it doesn't give anyone else any direction either.</i><br /><br />Well, there's something I'll disagree with as well but only slightly. It does give <i>some</i> direction but it does so through the development of more and more jargon and categories (cf. "fortune mechanics" of which there are several--"What kind of game does everyone want to play? Select an appropriate fortune mechanic."). And Edwards' ruminations on how system <i>does</i> matter are also spot-on, I think. 4th edition D&D encourages a certain style of play and simultaneously <i>discourages</i> other styles of play. I have written extensively about 4th edition in this manner.<br /><br />So, there <i>are</i> merits but to really understand what I'm getting at, let me use an analogy. Most GM manuals are kindergarten and first-grade books on shapes and colors. Ron Edwards' is early middle-school math (a smattering of geometry here, algebra there...). You are college-level Calculus. <i>No wonder</i> you have no use for Edwards' theories! (There are flaws to this analogy, I'm aware.)<br /><br /><i>My players don't approach my world and see it as 'enormously complex' because my players don't see the complexity.</i><br /><br />I wasn't certain how transparent your behind-the-DM's-Screen mechanics were. This clarifies some things.<br /><br /><i>Players don't quit my world because it is complex. Some quit my world because it is 'serious' and they can't do things willy-nilly without consequences.</i><br /><br />Some may say this is another "style-of-play" problem. I say it's more of a maturity problem. If you want to play that kind of game, be mature and upfront with your desires. I guess this goes back to being metacognitient about what you want from play. The problem I've run into, however, with many players is they lie... to me <i>and</i> to themselves and (here's part of the problem of Edwards' that I'll happily admit) they <i>use</i> GNS Theory to support it.<br /><br />I had a player that said he wanted to invest in a character and essentially play a (to use GNS Theory) Narrativist game... but came off as utterly Gamist in his actual wants and desires.<br /><br />Not only is this immaturity, it is cognitive dissonance.<br /><br />But I digress... and to be concluded....Dave Cesaranohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454928720043301400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-47882893676020616782014-03-22T12:47:58.475-06:002014-03-22T12:47:58.475-06:00As usual, Alexis, you're definitely good at na...As usual, Alexis, you're definitely good at nailing me and making me think. Which is good--my M.Ed. is nowhere near as intellectually challenging as my MA was and I feel like I'm slipping.<br /><br /><i>In fact, Dave, Edwards' theories on design don't apply to the structure of my world at all.</i><br /><br />No, they don't. I agree. That's the entire problem with label-use. They're part of the human desire to organize and fit everything in a neat little taxonomy.<br /><br /><i>Ask yourself...</i><br /><br />Well... see the easiest answer is "no" to just about all of them.<br /><br /><i>Edwards' theories don't hold up except in terms of roleplaying, and only roleplaying in a very narrow conception. When you see that the logic does not apply to similar situations in other fields, you see that it is all made up. It is the invention of "ether" to explain the movement of light through space in the 19th century.</i><br /><br />Okay, <i>now</i> I totally see where you're coming from! It's that his theory doesn't apply <i>anywhere else</i> but in the extremely narrow context of table-top, pencil-and-paper role-playing and perhaps not even in that, entirely.<br /><br /><i>What my system is supposed to do is produce an emotional investment. I'm not concerned with how that is done, any more than drama today is in any way defined by an "appropriate way" to stage a play.</i><br /><br />I see where you're coming from but I'm going to disagree because of the analogy. Drama is <i>very much</i> invested in how to create an emotional response and there are definitely methods to "stage a play" appropriately... <i>according to criticism</i> and criticism of drama is older than Aristotle's <i>Poetics</i>--Aristophanes (a contemporary of Socrates) often critiqued the tragedians of 5th century Athens through his comedy. However, the established rules are there to be broken just as much as they are to be obeyed--consciously and deliberately, not accidentally and haphazardly.<br /><br />Assuming role-playing is a nascent art-form, it is less than a century old. Drama was already centuries old by the time Aristotle penned his <i>Poetics</i> (Aeschylus' first surviving work, <i>The Persians</i>, was around 140 years old when Aristotle wrote it). In comparison, tabletop role-playing games are barely in their 40s.<br /><br />What I'm saying here is not that Ron Edwards' GNS Theory remotely approaches the level of criticism and analysis of role-playing as Aristotle's <i>Poetics</i> is for Greek drama--it doesn't. However, I see value in it as a nascent stage in the development of criticism and analysis of role-playing games, design, and play.<br /><br />What I can perceive, and my perception is limited by internet-correspondence and I've yet to see actual successful applications of GNS Theory (although there are tons of anecdotes attesting to such at The Forge--these could just be gushing fanboys) or your game in practice (it seems you play online mostly and I hate online gaming). So, there is the <i>caveat emptor</i> to anything I'm saying here. I'm trying to figure this stuff out and I know that there's a metric ton of data I don't have.<br /><br />Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that theorizing, analyzing, and critiquing game design is a useful tool, especially when considering what a system is meant to <i>do</i>, especially when you are dealing with something as important and universal as combat (cf. my comments on AC/DR, HP, etc. in an earlier post). But I'll go back to responding to your statements...<br /><br />Dave Cesaranohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454928720043301400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-32234562872313530812014-03-22T11:36:00.571-06:002014-03-22T11:36:00.571-06:00In fact, Dave, Edwards' theories on design don...In fact, Dave, Edwards' theories on design don't apply to the structure of my world at all. They don't even apply to the manner in which I run my world, as words like "simulationist" are meaningless.<br /><br />Ask yourself - is G.B. Shaw a simulationist? How about Shakespeare? How about any performance artist eliciting an emotional reaction? Edwards' theories don't hold up except in terms of roleplaying, and only roleplaying in a very narrow conception. When you see that the logic does not apply to similar situations in other fields, you see that it is all made up. It is the invention of "ether" to explain the movement of light through space in the 19th century.<br /><br />What my system is supposed to do is produce an emotional investment. I'm not concerned with how that is done, any more than drama today is in any way defined by an "appropriate way" to stage a play.<br /><br />As far as creating structure goes, Edwards is junk. It doesn't help me. It doesn't give me any direction. And like Giordanisti, it doesn't give anyone else any direction either.<br /><br />My players don't approach my world and see it as "enormously complex" because my players don't see the complexity. Do you see the complexity of your phone? No. You just want to know how it serves you. My world serves the players in the exact same way. The players understand it is complex, but since they are not compelled to invest themselves in the production of the world, only in the emotional thrill of it, they don't care.<br /><br />Players don't quit my world because it is complex. Some quit my world because it is 'serious' and they can't do things willy-nilly without consequences. Like people who cannot stop downloading bad files into their phones - they just are not responsible enough to play. But they don't quit my world because it is complex.<br /><br />Ask yourself ... do you have any idea what in your phone is 'needful' and what isn't? Does anyone ask you? No. It's not your business. It's the designer's business. You trust the designer by buying the phone, and if you want it to work, you adjust yourself to learning how to work the device.<br /><br />NONE of this is discussed by Edwards. Edwards is junk.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-4817723789530996062014-03-22T11:03:15.342-06:002014-03-22T11:03:15.342-06:00Do you see system and world design as synonymous o...Do you see system and world design as synonymous or intrinsically linked? Because that is where I think your break from Edwards and GNS theory takes place.<br /><br />Edwards' theories on design aren't about the <i>world</i> so much as the <i>system</i> and really distinguishes between the two based on what the individual players perceive as "fun." If I applied GNS theory to your design methods, you'd be the sort of GM a Simulationist would love, for example. In other words, Edwards asks, "What is this system supposed to <i>do</i>?" and then evaluates it based on that question. Not everybody wants to play in a highly-defined world with immense systems for trade, work, and sages, especially if they feel that these things needlessly 1) slow the game down and 2) they aren't so worried about GM fiat in order to keep things moving. Notice I'm talking about <i>hypothetical people</i> and their <i>hypothetical feelings</i>, although I do have enough anecdotal evidence to provide in these areas. I still recognize the flaws in my discussion.<br /><br />That's what I think Ron's theories are getting at. Some people might approach your world and see it as needlessly complex. "Why do you need to know how blades of grass function in your world?" they might ask. "If necessary, we can resolve that issue when we arrive at it with a simple ruling that 'blades of grass do thus and such' and move on."<br /><br />This player doesn't care much for your perceived need to ensure the elimination of GM arbitration from a lot of situations. Does this make him a bad player? Edwards would say, "No, just a player <i>with different goals</i> and a <i>different concept of fun</i>."Dave Cesaranohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454928720043301400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-43904799330132541752014-03-22T10:56:27.616-06:002014-03-22T10:56:27.616-06:00Of course, Alan.
Writing the book has meant needi...Of course, Alan.<br /><br />Writing the book has meant needing a lot of definitive terms to describe exactly what I am trying to say, and in many cases, particularly regarding presentation, design and aesthetics, business terms have been the most serviceable.<br /><br />In fact, it has occurred to me that a business candidate would not do at all bad to read this book, as it discusses creating excitement, handling stress and dealing with people in depth.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-20741094090068593602014-03-21T20:30:42.566-06:002014-03-21T20:30:42.566-06:00With reference to Giordanisti's post, a system...With reference to Giordanisti's post, a system for NPC interaction might become foundational if your intent is to explore an "alien" culture. Bruce Galloway's much-maligned Fantasy Wargaming may (do I recall correctly?) have incorporated an interaction system that a young teenager found hideously and needlessly complex... but considered now as an attempt to impose on modern players the consequences of a medieval mindset, perhaps those rules were adequate.<br /><br />Somewhat off-topic: your comments on the difference between "marketing" and "design" would be well-quoted to certain of my clients. May I?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-35633635972046586742014-03-21T16:56:36.319-06:002014-03-21T16:56:36.319-06:00I see. Well that's certainly a relief, as the ...I see. Well that's certainly a relief, as the last few posts are making me thirsty as hell for the manual whose lack you're describing. My confusion with the posts starts in trying to figure out what parts of the metaphor refer to the parts of the game I'm familiar with. Is a trade table an app or a circuit board? How foundational an element is, say, a system for interacting with npcs? While your metaphor makes general sense, and makes me look at design differently, I have tremendous difficulty figuring out on my own which pieces of the puzzle are most important. Clearly, this is THE primary issue, as the dnd blogosphere is concentrating entirely on the will o wisps. Obviously your book itself will make these distinctions clear, but at present, this is what concerning me.Giordanistihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18375496443176258588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-16446774525555656092014-03-21T15:29:19.667-06:002014-03-21T15:29:19.667-06:00This is exactly what my book intends to address. ...This is exactly what my book intends to address. I'm only writing these three posts, function, behavior and structure, to try to get a handle on the <i>language</i> I need to use in the book. Comments are very helpful, in telling me where I'm making sense and where I am not.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-4265918565736289152014-03-21T15:26:52.884-06:002014-03-21T15:26:52.884-06:00Is this the sort of thing your book is intending t...Is this the sort of thing your book is intending to address, or is it more of a "now that you have a fully designed game and world, here's how to best use it"-type manual? Because I know my world- and game-building is inadequate, and I feel just as capable of figuring out how to make a phone from scratch as design a world from scratch. It seems a monumental task, and I haven't the faintest notion where to start. I just keep hacking away, hoping for some insight, but the lack of structure to my approach worries me. Anyway, great metaphor, this is a revealing post.Giordanistihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18375496443176258588noreply@blogger.com