Quote from: Elliot Wilen;263374You are surely right about the sample, and you may be right about the other stuff, too.

In the absence of surveys, you either have to make do with anecdotes and rough judgments, or you fall back on trying to discern the interests that motivate the critique of classic D&D--since 3e and even moreso 4e are seen as critiques of the older rule set. So the question is, what interests are served by a given change?

Or you can talk about specifics from various points of view, as in "Every group I find that plays game X is a bunch of narcissistic wankers, is there another game that the cool people play?", "Our group found, playing game X, that we tended to do Y, when we'd really like to have more of Z; what's the shortest way to get to Z, whether via play tips, rules mods, or another game altogether?"

I understand what you are saying. Side point: I never felt like 3e was that different of a game. 1e was very rough. I've ALWAYS felt that if someone had taken AD&D and run it through some more play testing with people that have writing degrees, it would have turned out to be just like 3e, minus the pop culture refrenses. I'm not trying to be coy. I REALLY think that the changes from 1 to 3 were pretty trivial. They game plays and feels the same, just more polished, better even.

I think the problem with a lot of game systems isn't the game design, but the friction between its design, its display, and the ability to absorb it by the players and gm.

For example, we started playing a game of Exhalted in my sunday group right after my DnD game ended. My dnd game went to 8th level, and I run a very low powered, low magic game world. At eighth level the party was trashing cities and threatening the most powerful evil in the land.

Afterwards, the guy that started running Exhalted described the game as a super powered demigod game where the characters are far beyond normal people. There has been a couple of instances of serious friction in his game when different players wern't able to swing that power around effectivly against NPCs. As it turns out, starting Exhalted characters has the same world changing ability as 5th level dnd characters with reduced hit points. We were all geared up by the GM's hype, cover art, and back story to take on the world, and as it turned out we could barely protect ourselves and it pissed some people off.

In short, it is really hard to know what the game is, and is going to be, unless the players are really self aware and actually read the books... that doesn't happen very often.

Quote from: noisms;263381I'm not sure if the divide is between detailed combat rules and story vs. crappy rules and abuse. Basic D&D has pretty crappy combat rules but it doesn't encourage abuse in my experience, whereas Cyberpunk 2020 has pretty decent, or at least very extensive, combat rules, and the munchkinism which Cyberpunk 2020 players indulge in would put Munchkin McMunchkin the Most Munchkinist Munchkin in Munchkindom to shame.

Anyway, that's really by the by: in the end what I'm not sure about is why, or indeed if, it matters. So okay, AD&D 2e is a game about epic high fantasy riding around on a carriage built for amoral sword & sorcery. But when I play 2e to play epic high fantasy, I never feel constrained by its rules. It doesn't matter at all if they aren't designed properly for epic high fantasy.

I suppose what I mean to say is that when Eliot talks about somebody saying "Our group found, playing game X, that we tended to do Y, when we'd really like to have more of Z; what's the shortest way to get to Z, whether via play tips, rules mods, or another game altogether?", I can't really connect with it. My experience has always been, if I want more of Z, I put in more Z - and design goals take the hindmost.

If that makes sense.

I see what you are saying. For example, in Palladium combat takes a really long time because of how little damage characters do compared to their hitpoints. When I run Palladium, anyone with Supernatural Strength does x3 damage at all times, and other powers are amped up to compete. I like fast death, and I put it in every game I can. It makes it more exciting. But really... Palladium is anything but fast.

Quote from: KrakaJak;263221And Pseudo: I think the major contention with the term "Culture of Play" is that it is private jargon. I.e. only you talk about common house-rules and common play-styles using that term. I suggest you not be Humpty-Dumpty (from Alice in Wonderland) and use the words everyone else in your "subculture" are using.

You'll be better understood that way and won't have to define your personal terms in every thread that you use them.

I am in fact attempting to popularise the term. I have no problem taking the time to explain it to people, and I encourage others to use it.

Quote from: Seanchai;263232It's interesting to see old schoolers' reaction to the idea of the culture of play when, in discussions about OD&D and AD&D, they're mantra has been, "Those may be the rules, but that's not how anyone actually played the game!"

Seanchai

That was the kind of statement that led to me formulating the term in the first place, actually. There's all sorts of other ways people interact with games than just house-ruling them, and a "culture of play" is meant to collect those aspects together under a single label.

Quote from: Drew;263243That's because this has nothing to do with play culture and everything to do with the perceived failings of 4E, which are being arrived at via an inductive reading of Mearls' blog.

Pretty much.

Quote from: noisms;263348You've completely missed the point. People aren't complaining about the idea of the 'cuture of play' - in fact Stormbringer has explicitly stated several times that it's been going on for over 30 years. The complaint is about the creation of such an idiotic term for such an utterly banal observation.

It's like saying that people eat different kinds of food in different ways (you hold a hamburger in your hands, but you cut a steak with a knife), and so there are different Cultures of Eating - a culture of eating for hamburgers, a culture of eating for steak, and also cultures of eating for pizza, spaghetti etc. And then trying to pretend that noticing how people eat hamburgers and steak differently is somehow revolutionary.  

People like to create jargon (probably because it makes them feel clever) but basically jargon is shite; 'culture of play' is a prime example.

Once again, it's not a banal insight simply because it's so often disregarded, especially on this website. The vast bulk of discussion about 4e on this website after 4e came out was wild, derogatory claims about how it was going to be played based solely on speculation about how it was designed and what the designers intended it to do. Very few people were dealing with the AP reports trickling in, and no one at any point clearly articulated the idea that people will play 4e in ways that are not fully encapsulated by the writings of Mike Mearls & co.

The term "culture of play" or "play culture" arose in contrast to the ubiquitous term "design culture" or "culture of design". It is intended to allow us to distinguish in our discussions between what we think the rules of a game (whether 4e or any other) intend and how the game is actually played.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;263355Where Pseudo and I (and some others, I suppose) keep butting heads is over the question of how far we can use the rules to discern (1) the designer's intent as to the focus of action in an RPG, (2) the play preferences of people who are attracted to the game (you might call this "identifying the influence of a prior culture of play on game design"), and (3) the expected culture(s) of play that will coalesce around the design.

Indeed. I coined the term "culture of play" to help provide a meaningful groundwork for those discussions. We haven't picked up them up since then though. In my case, I've avoided doing so because the amount of nonsense spewed about 4e on this forum poisons any attempt to address those issues.

Of course, it has to be nonsense that is poisoning the forums, because it couldn't possibly be valid critique.

Quote from: StormBringer;263444Of course, it has to be nonsense that is poisoning the forums, because it couldn't possibly be valid critique.

I think I could literally eat a bowl of alpha bits and crap out more insightful posts than you.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;263448I think I could literally eat a bowl of alpha bits and crap out more insightful posts than you.

Oh, that isn't how you post now?  I would have sworn you just hit random keys then spell-check it.

Quote from: StormBringer;263444Of course, it has to be nonsense that is poisoning the forums, because it couldn't possibly be valid critique.

It could be, but it isn't. You're one of a few people directly and personally responsible for that.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;263462It could be, but it isn't. You're one of a few people directly and personally responsible for that.

Naturally, your inability to form and defend a position is clearly someone else's fault.

Sorry, kid, you don't get to win arguments around here just for showing up.  Nor does rattling off some inchoate pseudo-intellectual wankery count as a 'point'.

Now, go off and have your little cry about mean old StormBringer messing up your forum enjoyment with his poisonous 'not agreeing with you'.

I'm just going to say that I think you can learn about as much about the way a game is played by reading the books as you can learn about Christians by reading the Bible.

I'm gonna say that after this long, I no longer care which one of you is right.

A side note, rereading this:

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;263355Where Pseudo and I (and some others, I suppose) keep butting heads is over the question of how far we can use the rules to discern (1) the designer's intent as to the focus of action in an RPG, (2) the play preferences of people who are attracted to the game (you might call this "identifying the influence of a prior culture of play on game design"), and (3) the expected culture(s) of play that will coalesce around the design.

Another way of putting (3), or you can make it a (4), would be, "How far we can ascribe the culture of play that coalesces around a game to its rules."

For example, we can look at the linearly-plotted style of play, in which the GM fudges dice rolls, switches hidden elements of prep around, etc. I think this "culture of play" developed through a combination of factors, among them the expectations of new gamers coming into the hobby and the decision by TSR to cater to the expectations/desires of people who wanted "storylines". According to what I've read, the approach got a big boost with Dragonlance. But in order to make it work, GMs were tasked with covertly undermining the existing rules. In short I've argued that this style shouldn't be ascribed to the existing rules, but to extrinsic factors. Or if you want to consider GMing advice which advocated this style to be "rules", then I'd call it an example of (2), where the influx of story-oriented desires led to the designers cobbling together new rules to satisfy them.

But conversely, when it comes to CP2020, it might well be that the game has inherent elements which attract and hold the interest of players who enjoy a certain style of play.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;263481I'm gonna say that after this long, I no longer care which one of you is right.

I'm not sure it even constitutes an argument - just semi-coherent muckslinging.