Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls read)

[Robyn]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls read)

 

I think it's a legitimate concern as to whether theory' date=' when [b']completely[/b] divorced from practice, is really a useful tool.

 

I think that it's so difficult to identify, with the precision and absolute accuracy I ascribe to the degree of completion one step of emphasis beyond the normal word, a theory as divorced entirely from practice, that there is no practical way of deciding when it is appropriate to be concerned, however legitimate (in theory ) that concern might be.

 

Some are questions that came to me while considering different builds' date=' that I asked even if I thought it was unlikely that it was still a practical question. Others are issues that might be practical in the future, depending on the answer to the question.[/quote']

 

As a tangential thought, analysis of a system prior to actual application is one of the great time-saving and resource-saving methods we practice. This work was once done by humans, but computerized simulations are taking over in many fields, since they are both faster and cheaper than having live people do the same job. Being able to predict whether something will work properly before you invest in the manufacturing capacity to mass-produce it (mass production being another of the time-saving and resource-saving methods that humans have come up with), or even to produce a single one (in the case of, for example, a space shuttle), is at this point of practically unquestionable utility.

 

For a practical example, how would you like to go out and buy a new system from DoJ, advertised as "The system we always intended HERO to be!", and find within its pages the most confusing and self-contradictory mess you had ever seen? As their justification, there would be a small note at the end of the book saying

 

We considered thinking about what we were writing as we wrote it, but that would be a purely theoretical method; the only observations that matter are those in the field, so we leave it to you, the players, to test this system. We are confident that, with sufficient headache and experimentation and suffering and pulling of hair, the playtesters will generate enough feedback for us to refine this into the perfect system we originally envisioned it to be.

 

Looking ahead to anticipate situations that have not actually arisen yet, is the key to locating inconsistencies and contradictions within the text. This is the same method I used to come up with the core concept for Dao Sing, the Zombie; in trying to understand the idea of Invisible Power Effects, my approach was to conflate it with every other power I had seen, one by one, to see if there were any unusual results.

 

Similarly' date=' one might wonder how to stat out something "just for the sake of it," as a curiousity exercise.[/quote']

 

Not just for the sake of curiosity; when you did all those endless arithmetic sheets in class, did they have any practical application? One might as well say that those were only for the sake of grades. In reality, they both have a deeper purpose: training the mind to solve a certain type of problem, even when the individual elements may differ from instance to instance. We get better at math, we get better at statting things out in HERO.

 

Also, there's the general principle that HERO can model anything; if we test unusual constructions before they arise, we can find exceptions and modify/expand the rules to handle them.

 

The reason we commuicate is because we believe we have something to say that others may find value in.

 

Quoted for truth and Repworthiness

 

We can talk about nearly anything and find better ways to get the job of having fun done without implying that other ways are inferior or simply brain stroking and without lasting value.

 

Especially if we've taken an introductory course in Advertising, which shows us that each brand (all factors being equal) is "better", but none is "best".

 

I was saying I am frequently "guilty" of (I should put that in quotes as I did here' date=' since I didn't mean to imply a real sense of guilt, just using the colloquial phrase of that)[/quote']

 

I've seen that usage before, too:

 

Guard: "You know, I don't have to debate this with you. It's the law. You'll be held until you are found guilty or set free."

Prisoner: "Sweet! I'm not even the slightest bit guilty!"

Guard: "In this usage, "guilty" means that you committed the crime, not that you feel guilt."

Prisoner: "Oh. Never mind, then."

 

(On The Origin Of PC's, by Rich Burlew)

 

I just hope that we can enrich that by saying "and here's why it might actually matter' date=' as evidenced by (insert real world situation here)".[/quote']

 

Or, if not that, a proof-of-concept story illustrating the imagined result.

 

Anyway' date=' I want to really hit something hard[/quote']

 

 

That what you were looking for?

 

How was I to know in advance that my idea was a non-issue? I don't know.

 

Then, even if you do know, there is the question of how others would know.

[Mentor]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls rea

 

Personally' date=' when a thread is purely theoretical and clearly has no actual play application for the thread-starter (i.e., they're just brainstorming about mechanics for its own sake), I just ignore them. I won't waste my time on it, but if that's the conversation they want to have, let them. On the other hand, some discussions intended to solve a real problem, or to design something for play, really are mechanical-theoretical in nature. Examples are good, but I agree with Keith and Shrike, the best approach for presenting a particuliar problem will vary.[/quote']

 

I agree. I find myself reading builds or complaints about powers or rules and honestly wonder if they are actually playing in a game. Likewise in threads about CHA cost and "optimal" power sets, I wonder if the person posting would enjoy playing that character or allow them in agame. Game mechanics are not a set of either mathematical exactitudes nor real world physics models.

[Robyn]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls rea

 

I find myself reading builds or complaints about powers or rules and honestly wonder if they are actually playing in a game.

 

If they aren't, should they be barred from assisting those who are?

 

More to the point, is it a waste of our time to help them out? . . . and, in so doing, potentially help others out?

[Robyn]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls rea

 

If they aren't' date=' should they be barred from assisting those who [i']are[/i]?

 

More to the point, is it a waste of our time to help them out? . . . and, in so doing, potentially help others out?

 

My belief is that, if someone posts a new thread solely for the purpose of helping others out, and we refuse to participate on the grounds that any thread which does not directly apply to the game of the thread-starter is a waste of our time, we do a tremendous disservice to those others that the thread-starter was trying to help out.

 

It may still be theoretical in that we aren't sure if anyone is actually having (in practice) the problem that we foresee in theory, but this doesn't mean that we can't (or shouldn't) evaluate whether the situation could arise in a real game, and (based on that) decide to make the system into one worth playing (for the future stability) before players actually get to it.

[zornwil]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls rea

 

This discussion may be a bit high' date=' lofty, and perhaps a bit over my head.[/quote']

 

Interestingly, that's the opposite of what I'm trying to accomplish. Perhaps ironically, I find conversations about mechanics for mechanics' sake to be a bit "high, lofty, and perhaps a bit over my head," (or at least they can be, not to lack humility but I won't say they're often over my head, but sometimes it certainly happens and I wonder how lost newbies who don't have a grasp of the system yet get?) and in some part my desire to try to better relate these things to actual play is so that they are more down to earth.

 

I may be perceived on these boards as the worst offender of this idea.

 

Well, I know what you mean, but I also hope you realize that my comments weren't intended to be critical, even though to Eosin's point they must have in some part come across that way. I didn't mean it was "bad," exactly, to discuss things without play reference, but, rather, that it might not be optimal, it might not properly be accomplishing what we need, which, I think (?) we can all agree is that in the end the ideas we trade result in better games (better of course can mean an awful lot of things, best to leave that defined just that broadly I feel, though - hmmm, more on this below....).

 

The only difficulty I have with the idea is that it seems to presume that the person knows in advance whether they are discussing for discussions sake or has a specific goal to achieve that will viewed as some sort of solution.

 

As for myself, when I post a proposal, I truly believe that there is a issue that needs to be addressed or there is an alternative that better than what currently exists.

 

However, what I perceive as an issue or altenative, may not be perceived that way at all by anyone else. For example: (8^D)

 

I proposed New Skill: Tunneling Maneuver as an alternative to the Tunneling Power. I truly expected to see a bunch of posts either saying, Wow Neat Solution, or, What's The Point? But I got only 1 post, and from Dave Mattingly suprisingly enough who simply noticed the similiarity to the Move Through Maneuver. I can only presume that the lack of posts meant that either no one perceived an issue with the Tunneling Power, or the issue with Tunneling Power isn't great enough to bother with an alternative.

 

How was I to know in advance that my idea was a non-issue? I don't know.

 

Now I do have two types of posts that I create on these boards.

 

1) Solution/Alternative Proposals

2) Information Gatthering

 

If I'm not sure it something is an issue, from my own point of view, or just want some opinion on a subject, then I will create a post to get other peoples opinion on the matter. These I usually identify with the text, Opinion Fluff.

 

Just Blathering

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Good blather.

 

First, I think the Tunneling one is a good example, in that I don't want to come across as asking people to repeat things or pad information for the sake of it. Various issues with tunneling have been discussed and there's an extant problem statement out there on the boards, albeit like most a bit buried among the many threads. I do think this example is a good one...I don't expect you or anyone to restate what's been stated before (though referencing the background by link or summary is nice, but gets old fast and can be unnecessary work if the intent is to address a familiar audience, not being too concerned about losing those new to it). But this example is also good in that we've talked a lot in general about inconsistencies with Tunneling but I'm not sure if we've talked about the play experience consequences, I think only somewhat. It would be really interesting to hear what people perceive from games.

 

But also, I might be misleading people - "play experience" includes play construction, it includes judgement calls, it includes planning scenarios. It's the whole ball of wax. A very legit complaint I've heard that is directly about play experience is "I don't like this construct because of how it reads" - which is exactly what you and Hugh and to a lesser extent I went around about recently. We may have used theoretical examples, but those were so close to true ones I am not concerned with the notion of trying to get that crazy about being "specific."

 

I don't have much else of a response, but anyway I think your point is valid and interesting, as have others been here.

 

Above I mentioned "better games" - and I realize, this actually dismisses something interesting, a phenomenon specific to HERO and some other, but certainly not all, games. For some, exploiting the system is fun, it is part of the game. And this is not just traditional games, you see the same explorations even with 3rd generation/indie/"progressive"/"hoidy-toidy" sorts of PRGs. Can/should we deny that as "inappropriate to our hobby"? That's a mighty uppity statement. It's not what I"m interested in, but I've seen good, actually even great, players who to one degree or another find part of their gaming satisfaction in this. And RPGs are in part GAMES, we CANNOT remove the "RP" from the "G", so this is an intrinsic part of such a field. To deny it is to demand the very recrafting of RPGs into something very different.

 

So these sorts of "play experience" things can take all manner of shapes. And if we move beyond system exploitation as fun, we see in HERO (and a few other games, mainly more complex ones) a fun built, for a few, on the purely intellectual study level. That's interesting...but, strictly speaking, that's not RPGing. And as such, it has no relationship to play experience as we understand it. It's what I referred to before as mental masturbation - and it's something I do indulge in, as I alluded to, even if not as deeply as some. That's it's own category, and I don't think much can be said about it from the angle I'm coming at this topic with. I think it falls outside the scope of what I'm suggesting, as it deliberately has no play experience component. But it is of course well within the boundaries of topics for this forum. That was a lot of words for what amounts to "shrug." (I just mean this paragraph, I am not shrugging as to the rest of this) Oh, well, most of you know this about me by now...

[Robyn]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls rea

 

I wonder how lost newbies who don't have a grasp of the system yet get?)

 

Actually . . . ironically, I knew more about the system before I tried to learn it properly; I picked up a lot just by reading these threads and trying to put it all together logically.

 

This resulted in me giving advice to others on possible builds, so effectively that I managed to inadvertently convince Thia of my familiarity with the book (I then took him by surprise in admitting that I had never read it)

 

a fun built' date=' for a few, on the purely intellectual study level. That's interesting...but, strictly speaking, that's not RPGing.[/quote']

 

How strict are we being? Keep in mind that games have been offered before which include gamer among the list of occupations; the nature of roleplaying, especially in the sense of simulation, has such a vast potential for recursiveness that it seems almost impossible to define anything as "not roleplaying". You did say "RPGing", which indicates a "game" aspect as well, but then we have to ask what a game is. You said that there is "fun", for a few, on a purely intellectual level; so, aside from the fun, what marks a game that isn't found in non-games?

 

Gaming can be likened to a box, with the characters being inside the box, and the players being the box; if the players aren't doing things with characters, just find a bigger box, stuff the player box inside it, and call them characters. Voila, you now have a roleplaying scenario, and quite possibly a game (but this depends on how you define it), where the "characters" are having fun with purely intellectual studies.

[zornwil]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls read)

 

Couple of thoughts on this:

 

While I love the drive toward including actual play experience as the basis for making a point, I have a strong negative reaction to using the Forge example as a case maker. Ron may be smart, but he is a total @$$ in how he communicates and shuts people down who don't format their discussions exactly to his liking. The attitude at the Forge is very discouraging (to put it as nicely as I can.)

 

Well, yes, I guess I used a bad background bit, obviously it struck emotional chords, which always is a bad way to start a post. I intended it very differently than it came across but there you go...

 

One thing I love about the Hero Boards is there ability to tangent in creative ways without becoming goof off (at least most of the time) and some very innovative analysis happens that way which I see being shut down all the time on the Forge by Ron and his cronies basically telling people to shut up if they don't frame their posts to their liking.

 

That being said, I do get highly frustrated in arguments that do not relate to actual play... because to my mind there is no common ground for discussion if we are all in the "What if?" zone. To that point, I wish we could develop some kind of "Objectives Shorthand" Some way to indicate to others, "I am addressing a specific problem experienced in play" or "I am addressing a specific inconsistency in published material" or "I am addressing a theoretical or mathematical inconsistency" or "I am just throwing out a what if with no basis in real play." Just so we know what the person is saying. So many miscommunications abound because people are just talking about different things, and don't realize it.

 

Finally... for a topic like RPGs, I don't think there is a clear line between "actual play" and "potential play" discussions. I know, in my mind, that the perceived POSSIBILITY of inconsistency or imbalance affects actual play, even if the issue isn't directly coming up. Example, for me, the 5th edition allowance of built in indirect in TK is so in violation of what I feel are the core mechanics of Hero that I find myself hating the power and avoiding it in play, even though I've only had very minor play issues in actual results. In a medium such as RPGs (medium for lack of a better word) the perception of the game IS JUST AS REAL as actual play in many cases.

 

Yes, I want to stress I'm not saying not to discuss potential issues. I just hope that people can do their best to remember to contribute anything that relates to that potential, including myself. But I acknowledge that won't always be possible.

 

To me, what we need to encourage is some way to use Actual Play as the common language when there are disagreements. "I don't see any balance issues with the indirect aspects of TK, Neil. Please tell me of an actual play experience where this was the case so I understand better where you are coming from."

 

This is more or less what I was asking after. Will you stop stating things more clearly than I do?

 

But to your prior point - I think sometimes we won't have a good answer. We'll just say "well, I think that the way the rules are in my game, (x) might happen, even though I can't tell you anything to demonstrate it necessarily will. It's just a concern." Then we are stuck in the world of, to my earlier refinement of the notion presented, "well, please come back and tell us how it worked out."

 

I think one reason this issue resonates with me is a lot about not knowing how it went - as you (plural) know, I often go for a while without reading posts, and when I catch up, I necro a lot of things. And the most frustrating thing to me is to see something for which a cool-sounding solution was proposed and not knowing how it actually worked, whether it went well, what ramifications it had.

 

And believe me, on that one, I am just as "guilty" as anyone else. (oh, crap, I think I just committed myself to going through my old posts and seeing which ones I need to update...)

 

I will say that one of the good things I've noticed on the Forge is their acceptance that play experience is not only important, but there are commonalities between play groups. I get the sense on these boards that the "commonality" of Hero is felt only to exist in the rules as written and discussed interpretations. Actual play is seen as very personal or not relevant. That may be because Hero still exists in an age where Actual Play meant "rule interaction" whereas at the Forge and with new games it is about "play experience" or "group dynamics" or "player agenda" and that kind of thing. Those concepts really drive a focus on "What behaviors did the players engage in, what was the resulting SIS, and was it effective or disfunctional?"

 

Hero remains agnostic to those concepts (wrongly so, IMO, but true none the less) and therefore make "Actual Play" difficult to address in some ways.

 

Interesting point. Basically, you are saying, if I may interpret and stretch a bit, that discussing actual play experience, while useful, is of very limited use because we run our games so individually. You know, I think you have an excellent point there and have pointed out the achilles heel, in a way, of my notion. I say that because I have lots of house rules, and we have lots of undocumented house customs, and on occassion, when proposing something, I have found that because others do not have that context, either I just abort the proposal because I realize no one can relate, or I get back answers that indicate the lack of relationship, the lack of, as you refer to it, commonality.

 

So, yeah, this is also striking food for thought.

 

It begs another point that HERO"s agnosticism may create problems on another layer, the layer of our ability to share experiences and use the system in a manner which can best build from that. Now, I don't mean it makes that impossible. But I think you're right that this is a real problem, even if not necessarily one that must be resolved (the "must" depends on your viewpoint, of course, and I can appreciate viewpoints that say this isn't so, even if I think I generally disagree with those).

 

I can definitely say that we see multiple instances where other people are playing substantially different games than each other using HERO - which of course is just as much (if not more) a strength as a weakness. Side note, I wonder how true this is with GURPS? I would imagine so with that as well, except I wonder how it differs, as GURPS makes more definitive statements on the game layer, unhesitatingly, despite its name, embracing a certain view of the players' shared reality more eagerly than HERO, even if still doing so without being consistent about that. I do think that Savage Worlds creates a more consistent play experience, based on what I've seen from players' reports and from con games and our groups' games, and this makes sense because while Savage Worlds leaves huge section of the canvass deliberately unfinished, so to speak, it is deliberately a game rather than a toolkit, quite visibly so. IMHO, I think that's a big part of the reason 2 of our GMs set aside HERO in favor of Savage Worlds for certain campaigns - because it is a game, a lot more of the work is done for them and as a game it just happens to well serve their intended particular settings/themes (both are games with strong pulp elements, though one is more sort of a mix of the Deadlands setting with late 19th century "Extraordinary Gentlemen" sort of fiction). That, and despite our talk of it here, they really feel SW gets out of their way, whereas they didn't find that with HERO (of course, it depends on what you mean by "get out of the way" - in this case they both meant systems that were very smooth in play and for which the rules systems were finely tuned already, not requiring that set-up workload and risking less attention to detail in actual play, given SW is less granular than HERO).

[zornwil]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls rea

 

Actually . . . ironically' date=' I knew more about the system [b']before[/b] I tried to learn it properly; I picked up a lot just by reading these threads and trying to put it all together logically.

 

This resulted in me giving advice to others on possible builds, so effectively that I managed to inadvertently convince Thia of my familiarity with the book (I then took him by surprise in admitting that I had never read it)

 

 

 

How strict are we being? Keep in mind that games have been offered before which include gamer among the list of occupations; the nature of roleplaying, especially in the sense of simulation, has such a vast potential for recursiveness that it seems almost impossible to define anything as "not roleplaying". You did say "RPGing", which indicates a "game" aspect as well, but then we have to ask what a game is. You said that there is "fun", for a few, on a purely intellectual level; so, aside from the fun, what marks a game that isn't found in non-games?

 

Gaming can be likened to a box, with the characters being inside the box, and the players being the box; if the players aren't doing things with characters, just find a bigger box, stuff the player box inside it, and call them characters. Voila, you now have a roleplaying scenario, and quite possibly a game (but this depends on how you define it), where the "characters" are having fun with purely intellectual studies.

 

I think that's too loose; now you're broadening the definition to the point where anything can be called an RPG, from one's work to sexual activity. At that point, I think it loses all meaning. Or you're moving in the direction of "he who should not be named" and verging on the territory of analyzing life itself via RPG tools and mechanics. I think that's what science and philosophy (not exclusively, either) more properly do. For the conversation to have meaning, I think we should stick to more commonly accepted definitions of RPGing.

[zornwil]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls read)

 

If I understand your use of the word "problem' date='" I disagree. A lot of scientific research, especially in the past, has been conducted solely to increase understanding. In the TV example, some the research in question was Willoughby Smith's regarding the photoconductivity of selenium, done simply out of curiosity (as I understand it - I'm no science historian). More modern examples probably lie in quantum physics and astronomy - there are plenty of questions, not necessarily with attached problems.[/quote']

 

I phrased my answer carefully, for the reasons you present. I indicated that research exists to solve "a problem". I left that open, because that problem is often, as you say, a simple lack of knowledge on some point. I didn't want to go down the path of that, but as you (understandably and appropriately enough) open it up, I will point out that science is about life, essentially, but only about the observable, material part, and so pretty much any understanding is good understanding, so long as it is part of that scope.

 

Regarding Hero, in my personal case at least, sometimes I read or participate in threads solely because I'm interested in the perfection of the system, whether it's as a practical tool or a theoretical construct.

 

I would like to know what you mean by "perfection"? What does that perfection look like, and what is the end result? I will say up front, my guess is that in the end this relates in some manner to playing the game.

 

For me, that perfection has a lot to do with having a system that a person can quickly and easily understand - which again is part of play experience.

 

To me, that also means we can, on some level, talk about specific problems and issues. We hear "math is hard" - that is a real play experience problem. Not to suggest that's one we need or want to fix (frankly, I don't), but it's a long-standing and well-known example. And in this case, I readily will say, so roundly known that it goes unspoken for good reason, and I certainly don't suggest we have to repeat it every time we come up with some solution that attempts to minimize the math!

 

As I think about it, that's a great compliment to the system; I wouldn't bother with a philosophical discussion about AD&D (at least the last version I played), b/c that system wasn't remotely consistent, realistic, etc., etc. Melodramatically, I might say that I admire the beauty of Hero in some of the same ways that Smith admired the beauty of nature.

[zornwil]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls read)

 

I think that it's so difficult to identify' date=' with the precision and absolute accuracy I ascribe to the degree of completion one step of [b']emphasis[/b] beyond the normal word, a theory as divorced entirely from practice, that there is no practical way of deciding when it is appropriate to be concerned, however legitimate (in theory ) that concern might be.

 

 

 

As a tangential thought, analysis of a system prior to actual application is one of the great time-saving and resource-saving methods we practice. This work was once done by humans, but computerized simulations are taking over in many fields, since they are both faster and cheaper than having live people do the same job. Being able to predict whether something will work properly before you invest in the manufacturing capacity to mass-produce it (mass production being another of the time-saving and resource-saving methods that humans have come up with), or even to produce a single one (in the case of, for example, a space shuttle), is at this point of practically unquestionable utility.

 

For a practical example, how would you like to go out and buy a new system from DoJ, advertised as "The system we always intended HERO to be!", and find within its pages the most confusing and self-contradictory mess you had ever seen? As their justification, there would be a small note at the end of the book saying

 

 

 

Looking ahead to anticipate situations that have not actually arisen yet, is the key to locating inconsistencies and contradictions within the text. This is the same method I used to come up with the core concept for Dao Sing, the Zombie; in trying to understand the idea of Invisible Power Effects, my approach was to conflate it with every other power I had seen, one by one, to see if there were any unusual results.

 

Sure, I won't talk much about this as it came up otherwise, too, and I addressed it and agree at times all we can do is speculate and engage in conjecture. But then we should be able to talk to the results, well, I said that, too...

 

Not just for the sake of curiosity; when you did all those endless arithmetic sheets in class, did they have any practical application? One might as well say that those were only for the sake of grades. In reality, they both have a deeper purpose: training the mind to solve a certain type of problem, even when the individual elements may differ from instance to instance. We get better at math, we get better at statting things out in HERO.

 

Yes, and in that case I hope we can talk about how those learnings translated. I readily admit that's hard to do.

 

Though I would wonder if that is good training - I think the best training is born out of being able to address a real-world situation. Of course, before that you have "I don't understand" sorts of questions, that's fine, and I don't mean at all that those have corresponding real-world problems and I don't expect either learnings from play experience or the like to come out of simple educational questions. I guess educational questions are pretty much out of scope of my topic.

 

Also, there's the general principle that HERO can model anything; if we test unusual constructions before they arise, we can find exceptions and modify/expand the rules to handle them.

 

But if that "anything" has no practical aspect, and is outside the scope of action-adventure gaming (or some other gaming one is bending HERO to do), I really don't think it's useful (I also think that the mentality that HERO can or should model "anything" is dead wrong, since it is an RPG and is intended to support certain types of play). If people want to do that for their own sake, that's fine, naturally, I'm not suggesting people "shouldn't" do that. But it isn't terribly useful except, I grant, to your point about skills training. And, yes, I have on occasion (though very rarely these days, I'm not looking at the thread currently running now on that, for example) read these for general interest in just how far some people will go, but it's more an amusement to me than anything else, and I tend to think (but could be wrong) that's why most people do it. And as an amusement, that's great, but if it's for amusement's sake, that's also something very different from what I'm discussing here.

[Robyn]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls read)

 

(oh' date=' crap, I think I just committed myself to going through my old posts and seeing which ones I need to update...)[/quote']

 

You only realized this now?

 

You have nearly 10,000 posts. I realized I would need to do this at roughly one thousand, and began taking notes (and making bookmarks) for every post/idea along the way.

 

I think that's too loose; now you're broadening the definition to the point where anything can be called an RPG' date=' from one's work to sexual activity. At that point, I think it loses all meaning. Or you're moving in the direction of "he who should not be named" and verging on the territory of analyzing life itself via RPG tools and mechanics. I think that's what science and philosophy (not exclusively, either) more properly do. For the conversation to have meaning, I think we should stick to more commonly accepted definitions of RPGing.[/quote']

 

Why is why I asked: how strict are we being? There's so much room for individual definition, and so few guidelines to it, that any particular selection could be deemed arbitrary; if you want to hold a discussion that adheres to limits which support your points, you should at least specify what those limits are.

 

I would wonder if that is good training - I think the best training is born out of being able to address a real-world situation.

 

It may be best to postpone raising and addressing these points until such time as we can properly define what we mean by "a real-world situation".

 

That said, the point I was making is that "virtual" (for lack of a better word) situations can train us to address a real-world situation. In many cases, this is necessary; we don't learn to survive in dangerous situations by repeatedly exposing ourselves to them, at least, not ideally. We learn through books, and by running simulations which are actually very controlled conditions. The same points above about conservation of time and resources also apply here, and a factor of risk may also enter into the equation. Finally, we can base the virtual situations off of real-world situations, and devise new virtual situations as we encounter new real-world situations, but there is a wildcard category which we cannot deal with directly: that of "unexpected situations", and the only (even, arguably, the best) way to train for encountering the unexpected is to come up with several imagined (they would have to be, since any situation which had cropped up in reality would already be among the existing training scenarios) situations, each new and (in trying to come up with it) improbable, to see how well one performs under such conditions in general, and otherwise prepare oneself for handling situations which were not covered in the book.

 

I mean "book" in the "accumulated experiences to date" sense, not in the "HERO text" sense.

[zornwil]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls read)

 

You only realized this now?

 

You have nearly 10,000 posts. I realized I would need to do this at roughly one thousand, and began taking notes (and making bookmarks) for every post/idea along the way.

 

Why is why I asked: how strict are we being? There's so much room for individual definition, and so few guidelines to it, that any particular selection could be deemed arbitrary; if you want to hold a discussion that adheres to limits which support your points, you should at least specify what those limits are.

 

Well, please don't be offended, but I don't think it's necessary to really spell out that people who are not using the text in the slightest as intended and not in a manner remotely close to what most would recognize as RPGing are not in scope. Now, I will grant we might identify where the experiential boundaries might be in question, but I think the example would have to be at least somewhat closer than that.

 

It may be best to postpone raising and addressing these points until such time as we can properly define what we mean by "a real-world situation".

 

That said, the point I was making is that "virtual" (for lack of a better word) situations can train us to address a real-world situation. In many cases, this is necessary; we don't learn to survive in dangerous situations by repeatedly exposing ourselves to them, at least, not ideally. We learn through books, and by running simulations which are actually very controlled conditions. The same points above about conservation of time and resources also apply here, and a factor of risk may also enter into the equation. Finally, we can base the virtual situations off of real-world situations, and devise new virtual situations as we encounter new real-world situations, but there is a wildcard category which we cannot deal with directly: that of "unexpected situations", and the only (even, arguably, the best) way to train for encountering the unexpected is to come up with several imagined (they would have to be, since any situation which had cropped up in reality would already be among the existing training scenarios) situations, each new and (in trying to come up with it) improbable, to see how well one performs under such conditions in general, and otherwise prepare oneself for handling situations which were not covered in the book.

 

I mean "book" in the "accumulated experiences to date" sense, not in the "HERO text" sense.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls read)

 

So I wonder - can we become diligent in attaching rules construction challenges to actual play experiences? Can we discuss rules theory discussions in light of actual play issues and not "this might happen..."? I don't know...one of the biggest challenges we often face is "how might newbies deal with this" and' date=' with the various changes in tone and details across the editions, relatively few of us, by definition of the type of people who indulge in these discussions, can say, as our experiences as newbies has little to no bearing in certain situations.[/quote']

 

Can we become diligent in attaching 'real game scenarios' to our discussions? I'm going to say no. Or, slightly more detailed, "not from me." I'll tell you why - because I enjoy discussing the rules for the rules' sake, and as near as I can tell, almost all of the rules discussions that I see on this board already attach real-world situations, or possible situations to them. That doesn't preclude the rules' for the rules' sake. I love the flexibility and the depth of the Hero System, and arguing rules and their permutations deepens my understanding and personal enjoyment of the system.

 

I have no problems chiming in and helping someone with "How do I build this?" or "I tried this last week and it freakin' backfired - can I get a suggestion?" But ultimately you'll likely find yourself in a pure mechanics discussion. Ultimately, everything we discuss broadens my understanding which, in turn, allows me to run cleaner, better games. How does that - the rules elements of the discussion - how does that detract from the essence of the discussion?

 

So last week in my game, I considered using the Cover rule - I had, in fact, used it without rolling the dice, but I didn't want the scene to devolve into a shootout. I'd never really discussed the rule on the boards, and at this point I think it's clear to most folk that beyond my initial n00bn355, I'm not the sort to come a'runnin' when there's a hiccup. Questions, comments, yeah, sure, all the time, but for the most part I try and sort it out mesef first, and then seek input. I'm more inclined to help people who have dramatic issues (literally: story telling issues) than mechanics issues, since the rules mongers who've been at this longer than I simply get there first, and that's my core strength. Sometimes I think ghost-angel camps the rules boards for that reason - to answer pure rules questions.

 

This discussion in part gets to the essence of preference. Most questions come from real examples, and in thesis arguments are bound to real examples, but one is not a requirement of the other. We aren't usually making college essays on the boards about how to argue our points, or develop a particular mechanic. The group as a whole is more prone to say "Well, this is HERO, there's a half dozen ways to do that." This is no different. There's a whole bunch of ways to contribute to the discussion.

 

So I have to ask. Why pidgeon hole it into a particular mold? To counter point (sorry) can you give me an example where this did not happen that detracted from the initial discussion?

[zornwil]

Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls read)

 

It's a question of improvement rather than necessarily a gap, although I think you could quickly find almost any multi-page. Maybe, not sure, hang on....

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49812&page=3

 

I don't want this to be construed as picking at anybody. I was there, too, and just made a bad joke, so I'm hardly throwing stones. Now, there's lots of examples, which is great, and there are also some behavioral references that hint to something evidenced in real life. But the examples aren't clear if they are purely hypothetical or such. I looked through quickly, so let me be also fair and point out that many of the examples were pretty straight-forward and easily imagined as occurring, so that's something to be said for helping visualize, and for this thread that probably worked. But I think if the thread were on something more fantastic we'd be more challenged to know if people were being hypothetical. And I would really be keen to know the real-world situation(s) that inspired those comments on behavior, if they can be reasonably expressed (if involving current play groups who might be here, then I acknowledge a real barrier).

[Robyn]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? newbies esp. pls read

 

Well' date=' please don't be offended, but I don't think it's necessary to really spell out that people who are not using the text in the slightest as intended and not in a manner remotely close to what most would recognize as RPGing are not in scope. Now, I will grant we might identify where the experiential boundaries might be in question, but I think the example would have to be at least somewhat closer than that.[/quote']

 

Here's the problem: you speak of "not using the text in the slightest as intended" and "not in a manner remotely close to what most would recognize as RPGing", but think that identifying the specifics of these (if necessary at all) would have to be closer to these areas than the complete lack of them. I agree in principle that second-order definitions should include at least part of their principals, but do you see the circle that you're in here? You want (us) to restrict where we look for the boundaries by the definitions that have not yet been established, and probably can't be established until the boundaries are known - or, at the earliest, these definitions would be established by identifying the boundaries. Before then, though, we have to accept prior practice. We can't simply say "this is what we don't know, but before we try to figure it out, let's first agree to consider it in light of what we think we know"; that would be sneaking our conclusions into the discussion under the guise of premises, and ultimately leads nowhere (since, if we wanted to, we could justify any conclusion, provided that we assumed its truth from the beginning of any test).

 

Sometimes I think ghost-angel camps the rules boards for that reason - to answer pure rules questions.

 

Speaking of which, where is ghost-angel? I haven't seen him reply to any threads recently.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (nope!)

 

I haven't seen him either, and that's a pretty good rebuttal of the point - we can't define what we're going to say based on what may or may not be helpful judged by the view of a third party. In other words.

 

Don't judge me for the help I may or may not give. However. I submit that might not be the OP's point, but there's a level where it sounds precisely like this:

 

"Here's how I want you (the reader) to help everyone else - in this fashion." Which, as I said, doesn't actually work for me beyond what I already do. And that isn't meant to be nearlyas sn arky as it sounds, but at the same time I take a certain amount of umbrage to being told what may or may not be best. I don't think anyone would argue that I'm a strong, helpful contributor on these boards, answering all sorts of bizarre questions and helping when & where I can. I participate in group activities and generally stay out of the NGD.

 

The concept of the post still embitters me. I'll even admit (as Robyn knows) that I interalize and make things personal, so when I see a thread that says, to me, "The help y'all give isn't 'help' at all! I want you to do it this way!" rattles my cage. It's help in an opinion neatly wrapped in my groovy writing style. Why isn't that acceptable on it's own merits? Why should I struggle to conform to a standard I don't really agree with?

 

Back to the original question. What's wrong with discussing the rules' for the rules' sake? When a person posts a problem, it usually begins like so: "No sh-t, there I was, trying to (build a power, execute a plan, finish a fight) when ALL OF A SUDDEN dot dot dot, X happens!" And then that question gets answered and then a new question is asked and a discussion is born. As I said prior, this isn't a board for writing essays - it's a gaming board that appeals to gamers to express their opinions, of whatever stripe that may be.

 

Why try and influence it, when to be fair, all I see here is a battle you can't win? Me being me, I'll do what I do - I'll give examples and dialogue and amuse everyone while I present my ideas, but that may not even be helpful for some folk. Who am I to say what they find useful?

[Robyn]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (nope!)

 

I haven't seen him either' date=' and that's a pretty good rebuttal of the point[/quote']

 

Not having seen ghost-angel? Or did you mean the other part of my reply?

 

we can't define what we're going to say based on what may or may not be helpful judged by the view of a third party.

 

That's drifting a bit, too. To my mind, the question of exactly who viewed RPGing as RPGing is an unnecessary level of concretization; it can be left abstract, because whether it's me or zornwil or someone else who is viewing the gaming we do, we still shouldn't be saying "This answer is the right answer." as our first step in the process of establishing a foundation by which to even ask the question.

 

I don't think anyone would argue that I'm a strong' date=' helpful contributor on these boards, answering all sorts of bizarre questions and helping when & where I can.[/quote']

 

Well, then, you're not thinking (probably about your wording ) I, for one, would certainly argue that you are a strong, helpful contributor on these boards, answering all sorts of bizarre questions and helping when & where you can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What?

[Robyn]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (nope!)

 

When a person posts a problem' date=' it usually begins like so: "No sh-t, there I was, trying to (build a power, execute a plan, finish a fight) when ALL OF A SUDDEN dot dot dot, X happens!" And then that question gets answered and then a new question is asked and a discussion is born.[/quote']

 

What happens then? - in light of the definition you gave me for a discussion?

[zornwil]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? newbies esp. pls read

 

Here's the problem: you speak of "not using the text in the slightest as intended" and "not in a manner remotely close to what most would recognize as RPGing"' date=' but think that identifying the specifics of these (if necessary [i']at all[/i]) would have to be closer to these areas than the complete lack of them. I agree in principle that second-order definitions should include at least part of their principals, but do you see the circle that you're in here? You want (us) to restrict where we look for the boundaries by the definitions that have not yet been established, and probably can't be established until the boundaries are known - or, at the earliest, these definitions would be established by identifying the boundaries. Before then, though, we have to accept prior practice. We can't simply say "this is what we don't know, but before we try to figure it out, let's first agree to consider it in light of what we think we know"; that would be sneaking our conclusions into the discussion under the guise of premises, and ultimately leads nowhere (since, if we wanted to, we could justify any conclusion, provided that we assumed its truth from the beginning of any test).

 

 

 

Speaking of which, where is ghost-angel? I haven't seen him reply to any threads recently.

 

I have no clue how the activity of studying an RPG for its own sake, devoid of any interest or intent to play, can be confused with any of the definitions of RPGing out there, any more than that would be true of any other form of gaming. I have no idea what you're getting at and frankly this post makes no sense to me, sorry.

[zornwil]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (nope!)

 

I haven't seen him either, and that's a pretty good rebuttal of the point - we can't define what we're going to say based on what may or may not be helpful judged by the view of a third party. In other words.

 

Don't judge me for the help I may or may not give. However. I submit that might not be the OP's point, but there's a level where it sounds precisely like this:

 

"Here's how I want you (the reader) to help everyone else - in this fashion." Which, as I said, doesn't actually work for me beyond what I already do. And that isn't meant to be nearlyas sn arky as it sounds, but at the same time I take a certain amount of umbrage to being told what may or may not be best. I don't think anyone would argue that I'm a strong, helpful contributor on these boards, answering all sorts of bizarre questions and helping when & where I can. I participate in group activities and generally stay out of the NGD.

 

The concept of the post still embitters me. I'll even admit (as Robyn knows) that I interalize and make things personal, so when I see a thread that says, to me, "The help y'all give isn't 'help' at all! I want you to do it this way!" rattles my cage. It's help in an opinion neatly wrapped in my groovy writing style. Why isn't that acceptable on it's own merits? Why should I struggle to conform to a standard I don't really agree with?

 

Back to the original question. What's wrong with discussing the rules' for the rules' sake? When a person posts a problem, it usually begins like so: "No sh-t, there I was, trying to (build a power, execute a plan, finish a fight) when ALL OF A SUDDEN dot dot dot, X happens!" And then that question gets answered and then a new question is asked and a discussion is born. As I said prior, this isn't a board for writing essays - it's a gaming board that appeals to gamers to express their opinions, of whatever stripe that may be.

 

Why try and influence it, when to be fair, all I see here is a battle you can't win? Me being me, I'll do what I do - I'll give examples and dialogue and amuse everyone while I present my ideas, but that may not even be helpful for some folk. Who am I to say what they find useful?

 

As to your embitterment, I've already answered Eosin's well-articulated points to the same and recognized that I miscommunicated and specifically apologized. You certainly don't have to acknowledge that, but at this point it's equally unfair now of you to accuse me of saying you (plural or singular) "don't help". Or if you want more of an apology or explanation, I can only say I don't know what to add, I can only say that so many ways, and if you are still upset I'm afraid there's nothing I can do, then.

 

We all seek advice and (I'm simply going to assume) in some fashion use that advice to influence our games for the better. Why should we not talk about ways to improve giving and getting advice? We ask people to critique our posting style, we ask people to critique our GM style, we ask people to critique our decisions: I see no difference with examining the methodology by which we explore rules. In fact, I would argue that methodology in analysis is extremely important and on-topic.

 

So, I answered your question as you asked for an example. I did not post that to insist you see it "my way" (which, given I have clarified since that initial post that the purpose was to determine if the proposed layer of communication requested would be useful and in the initial post questioned my own ability to fulfill it, anyway, can hardly be called "my way"), I posted it because you asked me to.

 

As you say, "Who am I to say what they find useful?" Exactly. They are the ones who have to judge what they find useful. And in this thread, I am speaking as "they," as can you, since (I assume) you do not only give advice but you get advice, whether by solicitation or simply reading these threads. Thus you should (I would think) comment on what might make receiving that advice even better. Others have in this thread.

 

PS - and to be as clear as possible, that's why I posted this as a question and food for thought. So that people would answer IF this would work for them - as I have clarified in subsequent posts.

[Mentor]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls rea

 

My belief is that' date=' if someone posts a new thread [i']solely[/i] for the purpose of helping others out, and we refuse to participate on the grounds that any thread which does not directly apply to the game of the thread-starter is a waste of our time, we do a tremendous disservice to those others that the thread-starter was trying to help out.

 

It may still be theoretical in that we aren't sure if anyone is actually having (in practice) the problem that we foresee in theory, but this doesn't mean that we can't (or shouldn't) evaluate whether the situation could arise in a real game, and (based on that) decide to make the system into one worth playing (for the future stability) before players actually get to it.

 

I don't like the approach of banning or preventing any kind of expression of opinions or ideas, regardless of my opinion as to their utility. For one thing, there are so many really smart individuals on these boards that i can count on some of them to come up with great ideas I would never have conceived of. Some individuals have a fascination for the the mathematical structures and others for the philosophical gaming design structures of Hero or other systems, neither of which are shared by me.

 

I am more relating to the meaning of the build in the contextual melieu of the play based on the stated actions of the players and game masters involved. Theoretical damage or hitting capabilities in a character which in play would never get close enough to the heroes or villains in the story are only probably intersting in the vaccuum of the discussion and may look foolish when applied to a game universe.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences?

 

Zornwil: You should know by now that I often don't read the bulk of the posts that come before my post - I read the OP and base my thoughts on that. If you addressed my initial concerns in another post, I did not read it, and was thusly unaware. Thank you for claryifying.

 

Since I have no problem with how I receive or give help - for me, the onus to the right question, and filter the response, is entirely on the question asker, and not the answer giver. I can't hold you responsible for what you say, I can only hold myself responsible for what I take away from it (before things like arguments start, but I'm talking basics of speech here). So I doubt that I have a lot to contribute to this particular discussion - but if you need me, you know where to find me.

[Robyn]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? newbies esp. pls read

 

I have no clue how the activity of studying an RPG for its own sake' date=' devoid of any interest or intent to play, can be confused with any of the definitions of RPGing out there, any more than that would be true of any other form of gaming. I have no idea what you're getting at and frankly this post makes no sense to me, sorry.[/quote']

 

It was several posts back, so I'll quote myself from when I originally raised this point, to refresh the context:

 

a fun built, for a few, on the purely intellectual study level. That's interesting...but, strictly speaking, that's not RPGing.

 

How strict are we being? Keep in mind that games have been offered before which include gamer among the list of occupations; the nature of roleplaying, especially in the sense of simulation, has such a vast potential for recursiveness that it seems almost impossible to define anything as "not roleplaying". You did say "RPGing", which indicates a "game" aspect as well, but then we have to ask what a game is. You said that there is "fun", for a few, on a purely intellectual level; so, aside from the fun, what marks a game that isn't found in non-games?

 

Gaming can be likened to a box, with the characters being inside the box, and the players being the box; if the players aren't doing things with characters, just find a bigger box, stuff the player box inside it, and call them characters. Voila, you now have a roleplaying scenario, and quite possibly a game (but this depends on how you define it), where the "characters" are having fun with purely intellectual studies.

 

We're not studying "the RPG" for its own sake; that's a drift from the original idea, which was "the mechanics" (for their own sake). You worded it in a way that would disqualify as RPGamers anyone who derived their enjoyment solely from the intellectual study aspect. [Where is RDU Neil to argue that RPG's are identified by the fun we have with them, no matter where in the (chrono)logical sequence it actually occurs?] Since many of the activities which many people engage in for gaming, can be taken up by their characters instead, I'm asking you to clarify how you define RPGing.

 

Keep in mind that, if you begin by establishing definitions (conditions to meet) which clearly reflect your existing beliefs, the demonstration will "prove" exactly what you thought all along - but such "conclusion as premise" logic, while useful in convincing people of your case, fails to actually prove anything; it is rhetorical, not dialectical. It is, to borrow your words, little more than mental masturbation (that "little" being the pleasure you give to other people by tricking them into thinking that your case has any support other than itself).

[Robyn]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences? (newbies esp. pls rea

 

Theoretical damage or hitting capabilities in a character which in play would never get close enough to the heroes or villains in the story are only probably intersting in the vaccuum of the discussion and may look foolish when applied to a game universe.

 

Until someone says "Hey, that looks interesting . . . " and reshapes their game universe to let it happen

[Robyn]

Re: Can we relate these discussions to direct play experiences?

 

I can't hold you responsible for what you say' date=' I can only hold myself responsible for what I take away from it (before things like arguments start, but I'm talking basics of speech here).[/quote']

 

But you don't argue, Thia

 

I say something, then you tell me it ain't so. That's what a discussion is. Or so you told me, anyway