Quote from: GnomeWorks on May 22, 2025, 03:10:56 PMNot really intending to try to derail the thread with getting all philosophical about it, but I'm not sure I agree with this definition.

Like, as a counterpoint? All those paid GMs who popped up out of nowhere on places like roll20. I've heard enough horror stories about those paid-for games that I'd be really hesitant to universally call those GMs professionals. Some of them are, I suppose, as weird as it is to utter the phrase "professional GM," but that's the timeline we live in, I guess.

Similarly, I've got several years experience in fast food. I would be incredibly hesitant to call myself a professional in that line of work, not least of all because I'm not really sure it counts as a profession.

Professional doesn't always mean quality. 

Quote from: Ruprecht on May 22, 2025, 06:59:38 PMProfessional doesn't always mean quality.

Most damning indictment of modern civilization I've read today, thanks.

Rules expression is just as important as any other aspect of design, period. I can point to a plethora of examples but frankly all I need to do is point to the three little brown books of OD&D, Gary was a great designer but his expression of those rules sucked ass through a straw and it shows.

the fact there has been multiple ways to calculate THAC0, each easier to explain than the former also points to this notion. I mean hell in most OSR games ascending AC is mathematically identical to descending, making them the same mechanic with a different expression, but you consider ascending AC an early innovation of the OSR.

How a rule is presented or mentally modeled is important from a design perspective. it's not simply being an "editor."

Whenever someone appends the word "real" to the front of a categorization of people, you know the category is an emotional rather than a factual one. From there on, it's "no true Scotsman" all the way down.

Yet another example of a No True Scottsman fallacy.

I think it's more accurate to say OSR tends to have complacent and unambitious design. Not always, but one of the key motives many people have when choosing to design for the OSR is that your higher level design workload is significantly reduced unless you choose specifically to manually override an OSR design trope and tinker.

This is both a good and a bad thing. The good side is that because OSR generally doesn't mess with high level design, it's rare for OSR games to goof up high level design, which creates something of a quality floor for the OSR market...at least in terms of core design pillars, anyways. The bad side is that because OSR designers aren't messing with high level design, they typically lack the experience required to mess with high level design. This means that a designer coming into OSR from outside it can usually do well because they (should) have the skills they require to design an OSR game, but that the reverse is not always true and many OSR designers may have issues leaving the OSR space because non-OSR design requires a few game design skills which OSR downplays.

My point is not to say that OSR is terrible, but that it isn't all sunshine and roses, either. You need to be aware that there are skills vacuums you may need to. Some OSR designers have the knowledge required to mess with core gameplay pillars, but most don't. Almost zero predominately OSR designers have the knowledge and experience required to mess with core mechanics design purely because they don't do that often.

I would also say that OSR has notably fewer properly phony game designers than non-OSR. One of the things you will frequently see in the industry-standard convention circuit in the larger RPG space are "game designers" with effectively zero game design skills. Instead of knowing how to make a game, they instead rely on politics. Some will also rely on professional networks or internet marketing tools, but I find that notably less objectionable; it's more a generic misnomer. While I would hesitate to call this, "the majority of the market," outside of OSR, it is a notably larger problem outside of OSR than it is within it.

As to the Forge (the video):

I have many mixed feelings about The Forge. I intentionally made a decision to learn game design via video game design discussions so I could bring in a contrasting viewpoint, so even though I was active on internet forums at the time and have a longstanding interest in game design, I intentionally passed on being part of The Forge specifically so I could have a different viewpoint than other people.

I don't view The Forge as negatively as Pundit does, but there's no getting around that it didn't accomplish much of anything. The Big Model is overly complex and GNS is kinda half-baked and often mishandled by novice designers. They didn't help small publishers break into the industry in any way which broader publishing wasn't already doing, and the instant the community grew past being the small think-tank and started to sour as a result, they decided they had accomplished their mission (even though they hadn't) and put The Forge "into winter." There's no getting around the conclusion The Forge was run by a people who had strong opinions, but didn't have strong convictions.

Quote from: Fheredin on May 22, 2025, 09:50:48 PMThis is both a good and a bad thing. The good side is that because OSR generally doesn't mess with high level design, it's rare for OSR games to goof up high level design, which creates something of a quality floor for the OSR market...at least in terms of core design pillars, anyways. The bad side is that because OSR designers aren't messing with high level design, they typically lack the experience required to mess with high level design. This means that a designer coming into OSR from outside it can usually do well because they (should) have the skills they require to design an OSR game, but that the reverse is not always true and many OSR designers may have issues leaving the OSR space because non-OSR design requires a few game design skills which OSR downplays.

I overall agree your assessment and post, in terms of complacency within the OSR and the points on the Forge but this paragraph here is a real highlight of saying a lot without saying a thing...

What does high level design mean? truly enlighten me as to what means is this some universally accepted manner? you always allude to "principles of design" that never get elaborated upon beyond their proclamation of absence in whatever subject/individual you've decided upon.

You are always asking about credentials, but never stating what precisely outside of some arbitrary degree of media literacy...

I've recently started helping a friend of mine with some with video game stuff, mainly focused on sound design and learning to 3D model. when I posited the question of how much game design skill and TTRPG design skill carry over he had this to say.

QuoteIn some ways yes, in most ways no.

He helps on my stuff and is apart of my year long playtest group, I've shown him some of your posts and he finds the assertion of Video Game design somehow being a required background to be laughable given one medium functionally predates the other.  could it give an edge? sure but only just which rules it out as a requirement.

EDIT: I do think I know what you probably mean by " High Level Design" but I want you to actually define it for all of us.

piss meant for it to be an edit not a new post.

Quote from: GnomeWorks on May 22, 2025, 03:10:56 PMNot really intending to try to derail the thread with getting all philosophical about it, but I'm not sure I agree with this definition.

That's because the word "professional" brings a ton of baggage along with it and has a lot of implication that might not be valid. We might assume a professional chef, for instance, works 80 hours a week in the kitchen and had extensive training in France under Jacques Pepin blah blah blah, but it could just be a self-trained guy who opens up a hot dog stand in the park. But cooking hot dogs doesn't make one a chef! you say. Again the word chef implies quite a bit, but really it just means you know how to cook and also understand the principles of cooking at a high level and can create new things. Who is to say the hot dog vendor isn't a chef simply because it's not haute cuisine? Couldn't he devise "artisan hot dogs" that are unlike anything you've ever seen? In this case, it's a form of gatekeeping: cooks at expensive restaurants want to keep the word "chef" safe from being used by lowly peons who simply make meals people eat all the time. Same with being a professional. If you make money doing something, you are a professional, even if you suck at it. I know plenty of people who are really bad at their jobs and yet derive enough money from doing their jobs they can sustain themselves.

To put in terms of RPGs, I'm reading _Game Wizards_ by Jon Peterson and by all accounts Arneson was a fucking terrible professional game designer. He got paid money to make games, but actually was unable to produce a coherent rules-set without a lot of help and editing. He still made a ton of money.

Quote from: Ruprecht on May 22, 2025, 06:59:38 PMProfessional doesn't always mean quality. 

And there you go...more succinct and to the point.

...

Quote from: Fheredin on May 22, 2025, 09:50:48 PMThis is both a good and a bad thing. The good side is that because OSR generally doesn't mess with high level design, it's rare for OSR games to goof up high level design, which creates something of a quality floor for the OSR market...at least in terms of core design pillars, anyways. The bad side is that because OSR designers aren't messing with high level design, they typically lack the experience required to mess with high level design. This means that a designer coming into OSR from outside it can usually do well because they (should) have the skills they require to design an OSR game, but that the reverse is not always true and many OSR designers may have issues leaving the OSR space because non-OSR design requires a few game design skills which OSR downplays.

"high level design". Sounds elitist. In fact, I'd argue there is no "high level design". It's just game mechanics you want to use. Nothing high or low level about it. Yes, different game mechanics have been developed over the years, but is one better (high level) than the other? I'd say no.

"Professional" game designer: in the TTRPG community has about as much weight as calling oneself UFOlogist. Anyone can put it after their name, but it doesn't really mean much outside of that community.

I would say yes. There were plenty of people who were designers for D&D for example, who didn't work on the core system but worked on modules and supplements. Their work is just more specialized on that system. Which is fine. And as Pundit points out in his video, many people in later waves of the the OSR, are stretching that system and adding to it in new ways

One major strength of the OSR is that it treats RPG elements beyond system mechanics as first-class citizens. OSR authors emphasize procedures, setting material, referee tools, clear presentation, and products directly usable at the table. These elements, adventure design, situation generation, practical referee advice, are often overlooked in mainstream designs, which tend to focus too heavily on inventing yet another mechanical framework.

The constant push toward creating new RPG systems in the larger industry largely arises from commercial constraints. Companies need recurring sales to stay viable, so they must continually attract attention by reinventing the wheel mechanically. In contrast, true innovation isn't limited to system mechanics; it encompasses expanding the diversity, variety, and sophistication of all types of RPG products, how they're presented, and how they support actual play. This includes developing ways for referees to run effective, engaging campaigns within the constraints of one's hobby time.

The OSR community isn't hampered by restrictive IP issues. As a result designers have a broader creative freedom than many other niches of the hobby. OSR designers not interested in system design can build directly upon proven, existing frameworks without having to come up with their own set of fundamental mechanics. Coupled with advancements in digital printing, advertising, and distribution, OSR creators can effectively serve all tiers of the hobby, from niche topics appealing to narrow audiences, to broader products that successfully compete in mass-market channels. To me, this combination of freedom, variety, and practical usability represents genuine innovation, and it's a significant strength of the OSR movement.

Yes, of course they are game designers.  The person in question is just a failed designer who wants to push his negativity on other people.

If you look at his videoss, they barely get views.   Ignore him  He is just a troll whos opinion does not matter.  Ignore the noise and just keep doing what you are doing.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 22, 2025, 10:38:31 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on May 22, 2025, 09:50:48 PMThis is both a good and a bad thing. The good side is that because OSR generally doesn't mess with high level design, it's rare for OSR games to goof up high level design, which creates something of a quality floor for the OSR market...at least in terms of core design pillars, anyways. The bad side is that because OSR designers aren't messing with high level design, they typically lack the experience required to mess with high level design. This means that a designer coming into OSR from outside it can usually do well because they (should) have the skills they require to design an OSR game, but that the reverse is not always true and many OSR designers may have issues leaving the OSR space because non-OSR design requires a few game design skills which OSR downplays.

I overall agree your assessment and post, in terms of complacency within the OSR and the points on the Forge but this paragraph here is a real highlight of saying a lot without saying a thing...

What does high level design mean? truly enlighten me as to what means is this some universally accepted manner? you always allude to "principles of design" that never get elaborated upon beyond their proclamation of absence in whatever subject/individual you've decided upon.

You are always asking about credentials, but never stating what precisely outside of some arbitrary degree of media literacy...

I've recently started helping a friend of mine with some with video game stuff, mainly focused on sound design and learning to 3D model. when I posited the question of how much game design skill and TTRPG design skill carry over he had this to say.

QuoteIn some ways yes, in most ways no.

He helps on my stuff and is apart of my year long playtest group, I've shown him some of your posts and he finds the assertion of Video Game design somehow being a required background to be laughable given one medium functionally predates the other.  could it give an edge? sure but only just which rules it out as a requirement.

EDIT: I do think I know what you probably mean by " High Level Design" but I want you to actually define it for all of us.

I would really like to see what post of mine you showed him where I said studying video game design was "mandatory." That was the path I intentionally chose, and after going some distance down it, I recommend others do the same for reasons I will get into momentarily.

I think you are misreading "high level" as "high difficulty" when it's actually about overarching concepts which apply to multiple subsystems rather than troubleshooting a specific rule. I think it's better to explain this (and your friend's non-comment) with an example. Let's discuss feedback loops.



You'll note that I am using a video game design channel as a reference here. That's because while this discussion can (occasionally) be found in some roleplaying game discussion boards if you specifically search for it, it's rare compared to the equivalent communities in video game design. Although it isn't like it's a particularly common discussion topic there, either.

For those of you not willing to click, a feedback loop is when you take the output of one subsystem and use it as an input for another subsystem. The logical interconnection between the two subsystems creates two types of feeback loops:

• Positive Feedback Loops, where you get more bad things from a bad event and more good things from a good event, and
• Negative Feedback Loops, where a bad thing turns into a good thing and vice versa.

The vast majority of balance problems in RPGs can be summed up as, "you have too many powerful positive feedback loops and not enough negative feedback loops." Designers who do not know about feedback loops tend to put a lot of positive feedback loops in because that makes intuitive sense, but intuitive design doesn't make for stable gameplay.

Unfortunately, the common tale from my perspective is that once you explain feedback loops to such a designer, they're probably already neck-deep into playtesting a fundamentally flawed 300+ page magnum opus of an WIP RPG. The sunk cost in admitting it has a flaw which runs all the way to the game's foundation is a really big deal, so upon realizing their mistake, they will either resort to an endless game of whackamole by trying to manually fix each time balance breaks, or they will drop out of the design side of the hobby outright.

This whole issue can often be prevented outright if I have an opportunity to explain feedback loops before someone writes that 300+ page magnum opus WIP RPG, but I digress.

If you think that's being elitist....

QuoteI tried to warn you that the path you took circles Ape Mountain six times before returning to the spot you started at. But you lot are just too smart for me.

Quote from: Fheredin on May 23, 2025, 04:39:54 PMI would really like to see what post of mine you showed him where I said studying video game design was "mandatory." That was the path I intentionally chose, and after going some distance down it, I recommend others do the same for reasons I will get into momentarily.

I was being somewhat hyperbolic but frankly it's a general trend with you to judge someone on every criteria except the one which qualifies them at the task they are attempting...

you'd sooner ask of an TTRPG designer to understand sudoku puzzles and magic eye images than actually understanding their own craft...

QuoteI think you are misreading "high level" as "high difficulty" when it's actually about overarching concepts which apply to multiple subsystems rather than troubleshooting a specific rule. I think it's better to explain this (and your friend's non-comment) with an example. Let's discuss feedback loops.

Unless you mean your palm or mind I can't misread something you didn't define or explain! another classical habit of yours it seems and frankly it borders on rhetorical strategy.

As for "High Level Design" in regards to the OSR I think a better way of putting it is unified vs non-unified mechanics.

OSR design rejects from the outset unified mechanics. it's literally that simple, the fact I can rip out and replace most of the individual mechanics from most OSR games and nothing consequently breaks. this is how it's possible to run flail-snail games despite all the characters being made up of different systems.

Contrast that with something like Blades In Dark where the mechanics feed into each other that removing certain ones makes the whole thing inoperable.

It's not a skill issue it's a philosophical dispute. E.g I don't judge a Windows Admin for not making their scripts posix compliant... even if that was possible outside of WSL. windows by it's natures doesn't follow the Unix philosophy and thus I wouldn't judge it on that criteria.

Quote from: Fheredin on May 23, 2025, 04:39:54 PMThis whole issue can often be prevented outright if I have an opportunity to explain feedback loops before someone writes that 300+ page magnum opus WIP RPG, but I digress.

If you think that's being elitist....

That is hardly the sole reason anyone would think your an elitist.