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.

:rolleyes:

I thought it was a potentially interesting discussion. And as much about perceptions as definitions, which I think are of great importance in actual gameplay.

You don't want to participate, then don't. Threadcrapping is not a requirement.

James J Skach, you seem to know less about writing than you know about software. That's bad.

Quote from: DwightJames J Skach, you seem to know less about writing than you know about software. That's bad.

See what I mean, Levi?

Quote from: James J SkachSee what I mean, Levi?

That you entirely missed the point? You can call it "system" or "meta-rules" or "advice" or "butternuts on a purple pickle" but if you put it in the book it either "matters" to the subject at hand (the game), you intended to communicate (AKA influence), or you just wasted trees and the reader's time.

Quote from: DwightIf 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?

I think you are trolling but you bing up a point. In your opinion, you're listening to a stupid person...

Since you seem so inclined, I will continue. Even though your words make sense, unlike your last post, they purposely miss or ignore my point. Advice is optional. Rules are not. If my rules are complete, you can play a game. If advice is left out, all it means is they do not have my perspective, just their own to go from for play style and the like. I feel my customers can make their own decisions about a game setting. It is one of the reasons I do not feel Advice sections to be necessary. Helpful to some, but not necessary. If your advice section is necessary then it is another section of the rules and should be treated as such.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI think you are trolling but you bing up a point. In your opinion, you're listening to a stupid person...

Come on Bill, don't stoop to that.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen: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."

Levi:

I don't think you had anything to do with the derailment - but it got derailed.

-clash

Quote from: DwightThat you entirely missed the point? You can call it "system" or "meta-rules" or "advice" or "butternuts on a purple pickle" but if you put it in the book it either "matters" to the subject at hand (the game), you intended to communicate (AKA influence), or you just wasted trees and the reader's time.

Ahhh...so everything in the book matters? Is that what System Matters is supposed to mean? I mean, that doesn't sound like design advice, as much as Technical Writing 101. But to each his own.

I suppose you never say to someone, "Here's how I would do it. There are other ways, like this or that. I find that doing it this way works best for me." And then watch, in horror I assume, when they don't follow your advice.

Quote from: James J SkachSee what I mean, Levi?

Hrm.

Actually, I sort-of agree with some of what Dwight is saying.  I've seen a fuckton of stuff in games, and asked myself "Wait.  Of what use is this?  This is written from the perspective of analysing play, not from the perspective of inspiring or instructing me in techniques of play....   Wow, crappy.  Do your analysing online, outside the book, bucko."

I've caught myself at it quite a few times, too, writing games, and it's not a new thing or a theory-thing, necessarily; hell, there are parts (comparatively small, but present) of the GM "advice" in the DMG II that are basically pointless analysis.

Amber, again, remains my divine example here.  When you page through the discussions of "how to do stuff", hard rules or not, it's always instructing and inspiring.

Quote from: DwightCome on Bill, don't stoop to that.

Clash, your right. This is a really stupid thread.

Bill

Dagnabit, got caught again!

I'm out!

-clash

Quote from: James J SkachIs that what System Matters is supposed to mean?

Not sure. :shrug: Just by itself I don't think so. But Levi has more exposure to the lingo.

Quote from: flyingmiceIn Dwights view, there is no room for "optional." it is either necessary for the game, or it's dross. Yes, some advice shouldn't be in the rules, but that's the fallacy of the excluded middle again.

Yeah.  This is why I agree with some of what he's saying.

I remain very much in favor of optional, flexible, and tweakable games.

(It's actually possible to do both of these things wrong - to fill a game text with analysis and have no flexibility at all - and to still have a good game in there.)

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI 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."

I think people should worry more about whether an idea has merit than where it was born or most recently praised.

I can totally understand why people are dismissive about things like "Brain Damage" or obscure ossified terminology, but let's not be throwing out babies with bathwater.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI think people should worry more about whether an idea has merit than where it was born or most recently praised.

Or whether it's heretical or orthodox.