SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Brian Gleichman's elements of gaming

Started by Balbinus, September 07, 2006, 06:21:13 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

gleichman

Quote from: BalbinusAnyway though, I shall shut up about him on this thread.

No real point, things are what they are. If we don't talk about Ron, there's nothing to talk about.


This in fact was Ron's one point of brilliance. I'm firmly of the opinion that he wanted his theories to be fuzzy and wordy beyond all reason. That generates debate over the meaning allowing different people be drawn to different beliefs of what there is to be gained.

He used GNS as it's starting point because GDS already proved attactive to a certain part of the hobby- it gave him an almost rational looking hook to drag people in deeper.

Once it gained speed, anyone with a half-way decent claim to 'understanding' became one of the wise. Thus he formed the first layer of his own take on the pyramid scheme with him at the top.

It also allows him to deny any individual quotes (something he often does) by claiming that it's not in context unless you understand all ten billion words of his gibberish.

It in truth has many of the characteristics of a Cult.

I'm completely boring in comparsion.
Whitehall Paraindustries- A blog about RPG Theory and Design

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you\'ve simply abdicated the responsibility to think." - William F. Buckley.

Zachary The First

Quote from: lukeRon: Asshole, kind of crazy sometimes, closings, no bannings, crazy fans, 3 excellent games (plus 3 supplements) in 7 years with another one on the way, one influential website on which he slavishly works to help people produce their roleplaying games, tries to get internet people to talk to each other using their real names.

So long as that talk is in strict accordance with his wishes and personal philosophy. :heh:

EDIT:  And after they read 512 increasingly murky essays on said philosophy.
RPG Blog 2

Currently Prepping: Castles & Crusades
Currently Reading/Brainstorming: Mythras
Currently Revisiting: Napoleonic/Age of Sail in Space

cnath.rm

Quote from: lukeCnath.rm,
Thank you very much for your delusional, uninformed thoughts. Unlike yourself, I read the postings. Ron had a great time playing the game. Why can't you [all] accept that Ron is a fucking human being with his own idiosyncracies? He's not the devil or a saint. He's just a fellah with some ideas. The anti-Ron obession is CREEEEPY!
I have no Ron obsession, for or against.  If I have offended you I am sorry, please let me know where I once implied that Ron didn't enjoy that game? (as in session, not as in system) If you look again you will see that I said
Quote from: cnath.rmOn the plus side, his players sounded like they had fun in the first session at least, and that Edwards did as well, no game can (imho) hope for more then that.

I'm at work and haven't had time to read more then the first page, so I responded relating to that page, I have the 2nd page of that thread open and well read more when I can. Please inform me how the following statements, taken from page one, can mean something other then him loathing at least one major part of the system?
Quote from: Ron EdwardsI didn't get the Monster Manual or the DM Guide, having perused them in the past. For the former, the internet is full of cool D20 monsters, especially with the help of stalwarts like Clinton, and for the latter, I think it's mostly ass, sad but true.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsBen, regarding the Challenge Rating of the hyenas, one of my tasks this week is to read up on the Experience Points system and levelling in general, in detail. I really don't want to have to buy the DM Guide, which probably would force me to deface most of its "how to DM" pages with a thick black Sharpie out of sheer horror (gahhh! it's not even good Gamist  advice! someone stop me, please!), so is there a good summary on-line? Currently the hyenas are at CR 1, and there were seven of them, and I suppose the yelps might bump them up to CR 2 - although I don't think so, all but one character handily saved against it, and the one guy is the one who got savaged. Frankly, I think it was a good straight-up, evenly matched fight, with every ability and spell and weapon and circumstance (e.g. Cover) factored in just right.
"Dr.Who and CoC are, on the level of what the characters in it do, unbelievably freaking similar. The main difference is that in Dr. Who, Nyarlathotep is on your side, in the form of the Doctor."
-RPGPundit, discovering how BRP could be perfect for a DR Who campaign.

Take care Nothingland. You were always one of the most ridiculously good-looking sites on the internets, and the web too. I\'ll miss you.  -"Derek Zoolander MD" at a site long gone.

Balbinus

Meh, I don't agree with the conspiracy theories.  I think he genuinely wants to help people get their games to market and genuinely wants to help people get better games, I just profoundly disagree with him about what helps make better games.

I think he also has a bit of a personal crusade to take us from what he sees as a fundamentally flawed hobby on to a much better hobby he believes is out there.  I think he's wrong in his assessment of our hobby and I'm indifferent as to whether or not he finds a better one, well actually I rather hope he does as I don't see any great harm in a new hobby being created from ours much as ours was created from wargaming.  The wargamers are still about and aren't lessened by us existing, we won't be lessened if a new hobby splits off from ours.

Forge policies are a reason I don't post there much, but I have no great objection to them.  It's a private site, they can do what they want and it seems to work for them so that's fine by me.

In fact, to be clear and I appreciate I differ from many here on this, I have no great issue with Ron at all, at times he's been quite helpful to me.  It's some of his fans that fuck me off.  Ron posting something offensive is some guy posting something offensive, that happens.  RPGPundit posts things I find offensive, and yet I survive.  

It's a subset of his fans who annoy me, and even then the ones who do annoy me are very rarely the people who are making actual contributions in terms of new Forge games or whatever.

cnath.rm

Quote from: lukeLet's look at the scoreboard of sin:
The Pundit: Asshole, frothy rants, no closings, no bannings, no fans, one unpublished rpg, appears to hide behind screen name.
I'm going to take a guess that you meant to put a higher number of bannings for the Pundit, not sure what you mean by closings, but would be interested to know.
"Dr.Who and CoC are, on the level of what the characters in it do, unbelievably freaking similar. The main difference is that in Dr. Who, Nyarlathotep is on your side, in the form of the Doctor."
-RPGPundit, discovering how BRP could be perfect for a DR Who campaign.

Take care Nothingland. You were always one of the most ridiculously good-looking sites on the internets, and the web too. I\'ll miss you.  -"Derek Zoolander MD" at a site long gone.

Balbinus

Quote from: cnath.rmI'm going to take a guess that you meant to put a higher number of bannings for the Pundit, not sure what you mean by closings, but would be interested to know.

He means he hasn't banned anyone here, not that he hasn't been banned elsewhere.  By closings he's referring to closing threads.  The Forge has a purpose, threads which don't contribute to that purpose are closed fairly sharply, which makes it not much use to me as a forum.  Here that doesn't happen, which makes this more use to me as a forum.  Hence in part I post here, not there.

I dislike the closings, I think they have every right to moderate the board as they see fit and equally if I don't like it I can go elsewhere.  I genuinely think though that the fact I don't like it has nothing to do with their right to do it, they have every right to run their forum however they think best.

gleichman

Quote from: BalbinusMeh, I don't agree with the conspiracy theories.  I think he genuinely wants to help people get their games to market and genuinely wants to help people get better games

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, but from what I see Ron certainly isn't a honest actor given his methods.

My only question is if he understands what he's doing up front (and laughing at all the people who fell for it), or if he's just a nutcase who pulled in these methods to feed his whacked view of the world.
Whitehall Paraindustries- A blog about RPG Theory and Design

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you\'ve simply abdicated the responsibility to think." - William F. Buckley.

gleichman

Quote from: BalbinusI dislike the closings, I think they have every right to moderate the board as they see fit and equally if I don't like it I can go elsewhere.  I genuinely think though that the fact I don't like it has nothing to do with their right to do it, they have every right to run their forum however they think best.

If their stated mission wasn't the support of all indie games, I'd agree.

As it is, they are freakin' liars of the worse kind.
Whitehall Paraindustries- A blog about RPG Theory and Design

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you\'ve simply abdicated the responsibility to think." - William F. Buckley.

One Horse Town

Quote from: lukeCome here, you've got a little lint on your brown shirt. Let me dust it off.


At last, someone's talking about the shirts! Wrong target mind, but there you go...

Zachary The First

Quote from: BalbinusHe means he hasn't banned anyone here, not that he hasn't been banned elsewhere.  By closings he's referring to closing threads.  The Forge has a purpose, threads which don't contribute to that purpose are closed fairly sharply, which makes it not much use to me as a forum.  Here that doesn't happen, which makes this more use to me as a forum.  Hence in part I post here, not there.

I dislike the closings, I think they have every right to moderate the board as they see fit and equally if I don't like it I can go elsewhere.  I genuinely think though that the fact I don't like it has nothing to do with their right to do it, they have every right to run their forum however they think best.

My previous snark aside, this is part of what it comes down to.  I don't like the Forge's moderation style, discussion style, or manner of dealing with dissent, so I get no use out of it.  It has jack and shit to do with how many RPGs Pundit or Ron has written (more of that "well what have YOU written?" fun, I guess), but everything to do with what I get the most use out of.  The Forge's policies have seen to it that it is of little use to me.
RPG Blog 2

Currently Prepping: Castles & Crusades
Currently Reading/Brainstorming: Mythras
Currently Revisiting: Napoleonic/Age of Sail in Space

cnath.rm

Quote from: BalbinusHe means he hasn't banned anyone here, not that he hasn't been banned elsewhere.  By closings he's referring to closing threads.  The Forge has a purpose, threads which don't contribute to that purpose are closed fairly sharply, which makes it not much use to me as a forum.  Here that doesn't happen, which makes this more use to me as a forum.  Hence in part I post here, not there.
Ahh ok, got you. Thank you for your assistence and for pointing out my error. :)
"Dr.Who and CoC are, on the level of what the characters in it do, unbelievably freaking similar. The main difference is that in Dr. Who, Nyarlathotep is on your side, in the form of the Doctor."
-RPGPundit, discovering how BRP could be perfect for a DR Who campaign.

Take care Nothingland. You were always one of the most ridiculously good-looking sites on the internets, and the web too. I\'ll miss you.  -"Derek Zoolander MD" at a site long gone.

JamesV

To steer the car back on to the road, and to give gleichman something to chew on from Elements of Game Design: Realism Truths and Myths
QuoteAs an example from the above game system list, it is on this point that D&D takes major realism hits. It has weapons impacting according to the die rolls but due to the abstraction of its HP system- they aren't really hitting home. Even so, the mental image created is that of weapons bouncing off the chests of characters leaving nothing more than bruises.

This leads us to make an important statement about realism-

It is impossible to determine the realism of those things we don't know about, but to the extent that a game system conflicts with what we do know- we can stay that it is unrealistic.

I might be nitpicking, but in the above example D&D isn't conflicting with what we know about realistic combat. Isn't it instead conflicting with what we feel should be intuitive about combat in RPGs, that one roll = one attack? I think it's worth considering that sometimes our gripes with realism are bound to what we feel should be the natural urge to associate a die roll with one specific result instead of some personal knowledge about a subject.
Running: Dogs of WAR - Beer & Pretzels & Bullets
Planning to Run: Godbound or Stars Without Number
Playing: Star Wars D20 Rev.

A lack of moderation doesn\'t mean saying every asshole thing that pops into your head.

gleichman

Quote from: JamesVI might be nitpicking, but in the above example D&D isn't conflicting with what we know about realistic combat. Isn't it instead conflicting with what we feel should be intuitive about combat in RPGs, that one roll = one attack?

The conflict in D&D isn't 1 roll = 1 attack, rather it's that the system has stated the we've hit and that we've done damage- but the character itself is basically unharmed.

To someone unused to D&D, the idea that you could hit someone with a sword as hard as you can- but do no physical damage is the counter-intuitive part. If we're not hitting, what are we rolling To Hit for? If we're not doing damage, why are we rolling damage?

Why is it that the rolls at the end of a combat end it, while better rolls at the beginning can't?

Without explaining the abstraction D&D uses, the uninformed player is clueless.

This is the source of the old D&D Hit Points complaints.



Quote from: JamesVI think it's worth considering that sometimes our gripes with realism are bound to what we feel should be the natural urge to associate a die roll with one specific result instead of some personal knowledge about a subject.

I would agree.

They also are often due to a lack of understanding about what abstraction does and does not do.

It pays to keep in mind that abstraction is meant to give reasonable *outcomes*, not a reasonable path to that outcome.

PS: Thanks for the bone.
Whitehall Paraindustries- A blog about RPG Theory and Design

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you\'ve simply abdicated the responsibility to think." - William F. Buckley.

JamesV

Quote from: gleichmanThe conflict in D&D isn't 1 roll = 1 attack, rather it's that the system has stated the we've hit and that we've done damage- but the character itself is basically unharmed.
To someone unused to D&D, the idea that you could hit someone with a sword as hard as you can- but do no physical damage is the counter-intuitive part. If we're not hitting, what are we rolling To Hit for? If we're not doing damage, why are we rolling damage?
Why is it that the rolls at the end of a combat end it, while better rolls at the beginning can't? Without explaining the abstraction D&D uses, the uninformed player is clueless.

This is the source of the old D&D Hit Points complaints.
So, knowing you as a person who is interested in complexity in their game, what do you see as an acceptable solution to the problem? Is it in more rules, creating a system of hit locations with their own HPs, etc., or is it simply making sure that the abstraction is well understood by the players?

For me, I'm inclined to the latter. I like my combats to be fast and well-paced, and as far as my GMing style goes, complexity threatens to bog things down.
Running: Dogs of WAR - Beer & Pretzels & Bullets
Planning to Run: Godbound or Stars Without Number
Playing: Star Wars D20 Rev.

A lack of moderation doesn\'t mean saying every asshole thing that pops into your head.

arminius

Quote from: gleichmanIt pays to keep in mind that abstraction is meant to give reasonable *outcomes*, not a reasonable path to that outcome.
I'll cop to having not read much of your articles but this resonates strongly with me. Unless you are creating a completely abstract game, I think it's generally harmful to introduce mechanics which require elaborate interpretation to translate them into the game-world causality.

E.g.,

Mechanics: The huge warrior gets a hit with his great ax, in spite of my plate mail, and does 1d12 points of damage plus 4 points for his strength, giving a total in this case of 11 points. I mark this off my character sheet, leaving me with 33 points.

Translation: The huge warrior (does something) and now I'm a bit closer to dead. The exact translation in terms of the contribution of armor, defensive skill, physical toughness, or even "favor of the gods" is utterly obscure. Given that, why are we bothering with a complex extended resolution system?

The degree to which representational objects (AC from armor, AC from Dex, HP from class/level, HP from Con, weapon damage, damage bonus, attacker skill) are put in blender to output a result of "damaged" leads me to believe that one would be better off with something like Heroquest or a single roll that just took all those elements as factors in finding a column and diceroll modifer on a wargame-like CRT.

In answer to JamesV, I think the latter approach is something hasn't been explored extensively enough. (Though come to think of it, T&T may have something like that from what I've heard.)