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 means one thing, 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!



-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.