The MAYA Design Principle, or Why D&D's Future is Probably Going to Look Mostly Like Its Past

Mistwell · Jun 5, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Mistwell Predicts?

It was called The Mistophecy. Wherein I predicted (prior to 4e's release I think) that 4e would be a success and all the 3e players would buy it and play it.

It was, perhaps, not my finest prediction ever.

Tony Vargas · Jun 5, 2019

evileeyore said:
***Nagol***
No functional system is "better" than any other...
*********
That's subjective sir.

"Better?" or "Functional?"

Fewer systems than one might think are Functional - if you take away their DM-fiat crutch and ask them to walk on their own.

Nagol · Jun 5, 2019

evileeyore said:
<snip>

That's subjective sir.

I'm a peasant. I have no title.

That differences exist between systems is objective.

Determining whether a system is functional is subjective but not necessarily biased.

Deciding one functional system is better than another is subjective and necessarily biased.

evileeyore · Jun 6, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
"Better?" or "Functional?"

Better.

Fewer systems than one might think are Functional - if you take away their DM-fiat crutch and ask them to walk on their own.

Weird definition of 'functional'. But yeah, that is also subjective, but not what I was speaking to.

Nagol said:
Determining whether a system is functional is subjective but not necessarily biased.

Of course it is. You bias it by deciding what you are judging makes it 'functional'.

Deciding one functional system is better than another is subjective and necessarily biased.

Granted. But it doesn't make your original statement any more accurate.

Everyone will have a system they say is 'better' and systems they say are 'worse'.

Tony Vargas · Jun 6, 2019

evileeyore said:
Better.
Weird definition of 'functional'. But yeah, that is also subjective, but not what I was speaking to.

"Better" is not only arguably subjective, but begs the question "better /at what/?" A 900 page rule book makes a better doorstop than a 32 page one, for instance.

And, FWIW, it wasn't a definition, it was a metaphor.

But I will stand by the assertion that RPGs get away with being a lot less functional than they're often presumed to be, because the role of GM often includes keeping the game you're running functioning, for that group, in that moment.

Of course it is. You bias it by deciding what you are judging makes it 'functional'.
Granted. But it doesn't make your original statement any more accurate.

Or any less - once you retreat into subjectivity there's not a lot of accuracy to be had.

Everyone will have a system they say is 'better' and systems they say are 'worse'.

And some, when asked to support those assertions, will quickly find themselves saying "oh, it's all subjective, anyway!"

The OP, though, points us at an article that helps us understand roots of some of that subjectivity. The human fascination with the 'advanced' in tension with the fear of the unknown/different and the comforting appeal of the familiar.

TarionzCousin · Jun 6, 2019

Joshua Randall said:
If 4e had had one quarter of the management backing and marketing resources that 5e has, we'd all still be playing it.

Uhh... not all of us. B-)

Joshua Randall · Jun 6, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
But I will stand by the assertion that RPGs get away with being a lot less functional than they're often presumed to be, because the role of GM often includes keeping the game you're running functioning, for that group, in that moment.

It's almost like the presence of a GM is a feature, not a bug....

Tony Vargas · Jun 6, 2019

Joshua Randall said:
It's almost like the presence of a GM is a feature, not a bug....

The GM isn't /part/ of the system - neither bug nor feature - but a user of the system... a super-user, compared to a player, with administrative override privileges. A lot of us are not just decent GMs, we're pretty good at tinkering with a dysfunctional system and keeping it going.
It's like you may be able to drive a car, and you may be able to change a flat, and you may be able to rebuild a transmission, but all three of those things don't always go together - and it might be a tad presumptuous of an automaker to expect anyone driving their cars to be able to rebuild the transmission... without pulling over.
But, yes, the presence of such a driver would be quite a feature!

Imaro · Jun 6, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
The GM isn't /part/ of the system - neither bug nor feature - but a user of the system... a super-user, compared to a player, with administrative override privileges. A lot of us are not just decent GMs, we're pretty good at tinkering with a dysfunctional system and keeping it going.
It's like you may be able to drive a car, and you may be able to change a flat, and you may be able to rebuild a transmission, but all three of those things don't always go together - and it might be a tad presumptuous of an automaker to expect anyone driving their cars to be able to rebuild the transmission... without pulling over.
But, yes, the presence of such a driver would be quite a feature!

IMO... the GM is akin to the hardware while the rpg is the software...

Tony Vargas · Jun 6, 2019

Imaro said:
IMO... the GM is akin to the hardware while the rpg is the software...

So if the game sucks because the system doesn't work, it's a software error, but if it sucks because the DM got sick, it's a hardware issue?

"This new edition's not too complex, you just need to upgrade your hardware!"