Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[The Little Raven]

Heh. So now it's not about the hit point essay, but some other place.

It never was about the hit point essay, because I never referenced the hit point essay until later in this (current) post.

Of course, in your quoting from 1E DMG p. 9, I notice that you have ellided out the part that I use as my signature.

I didn't feel the need to point out an additional place where Gygax states that game concerns trump realism.

They have a specific in-world-reality interpretation, as laid out on p. 82.

You mean the one where he explains that most hit points beyond the first handful primarily represent combat skill, luck, and magical forces, since he says it's ridiculous for even a fantastic fighter to take enough wounds to kill 4 warehouses?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Still though. If you want to challenge that claim, put up a compelling counter-argument.

One doesn't need to supply a counter-argument to note that an initial argument is flawed. Thinking that one does is also a fallacy.

For example, were I to claim that the moon was made of cheese, it is immaterial to the rationality of that claim whether or not you could make a compelling counter-argument. All you need to do is point out whatever makes my argument wrong.

No arguments are yellow.
No chocolate is yellow.
Therefore all arguments are chocolate!
That's what I call fallicious.

That is a poor syllogism.

A syllogism that demonstrates

A is B,
B is C,
Therefore A is C

is not flawed, except insofare that its initial premises (A is B, B is C) are flawed. Following a flawed syllogism does, indeed, lead to fallicious logic. However, following a flawed syllogism is not the only form of fallacy.

Can we leave "fallacious" behind?

As soon as we leave the fallacious reasoning behind, we can stop pointing it out.

 

[Raven Crowking]

He flat out states that some games are into realism/simulation and others are gamist, and that AD&D is definitely gamist.

I would agree that he does say so, within the context of the time. However, within the context of the time, that "gamist" is very, very simulationist. The simulationism that D&D is a "dismal failure" when compared to is simply very, very, very, very simulationist.

If you think of it in terms of a number line, where 10 is utterly simulationist, and -10 is utterly gamist, then AD&D 1e was somewhere in the area of (say) +5, being compared against things that are intended to be in the +8 or +9 range. 3e might fall near the centre of the number line. 4e, IMHO, crosses into the negative numbers.

(You can reverse that, and make gamist the positive numbers, without appreciably changing the argument.)

By that light, both Mr. Gygax's statements in the 1e DMG, and the observations of those who regularly played/play the game (re: AD&D being more simulationist than, say 3e or 4e) are both true.


RC

 

[Delta]

It never was about the hit point essay, because I never referenced the hit point essay until later in this (current) post.

Well, the discussion back in posts #151-153 was about hit points, so when you mentioned "that essay in the 1e DMG" you made it look that way.

You mean the one where he explains that most hit points beyond the first handful primarily represent combat skill, luck, and magical forces...

Precisely. That is categorically not "don't think about it".

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm taking his statement to be nonsensical, like a guy wondering whether he should eat just food or whether he should eat just vegetables. No matter what you're doing you're eating food!

Actually it's even worse than that and I'm not sure how to analogize it so here it is straight. There is no human fundamentally opposed to stories. There is no human fundamentally opposed to fun. Stories are what we tell to others and ourselves ALL THE TIME, and fun - or if you'd rather, satisfaction - is what we try to have ALL THE TIME. So being worried about whether you should try to tell a story or whether you should just try to have fun is completely at odds with the nature of a) stories b) fun c) humanity d) all of the above.

Cool. Imagine the poor fool wondering if he should just eat whatever food is offered, or become a vegetarian. There is no distinction, we are told, because both meat and vegetables are food.

Now, add into the mix the actual topic (i.e., mechanics-first or flavour-first design), and it gets truly wonky, because (obviously) this isn't a discussion where anybody is suggesting that rpgs don't create stories, but rather a discussion about what aspects of an rpg (specifically, focus on mechanics or flavour) work best toward that goal.

I.e., given the question, "Is mechanic-first or flavour-first the best way to structure an rpg to gain the greatest level of satisfaction?" the answer herein espoused is "They both tell stories, so there is no distinction."

Let's go back to Old and New Basketball. Following the logic espoused above, not only does it become "wrong" to suggest that, say, New Basketball is better than Old due to the shotclock, but it is wrong to even suggest that there is an "Old" and "New" basketball. Neither is fundamentally opposed to playing with a basketball on a basketball court, so if someone tries to discuss a distinction between the two, the point may be taken as nonsensical.

Colour me unimpressed by this line of reasoning.


RC


EDIT: BTW, satisfaction and fun are not co-equal. There are a great many things in life that might be fun without being satisfying, and likewise a great many that might be satisfying without being fun. Judging everything on the basis of "fun" alone is likely to cause a great deal of dissatisfaction.

 

[GlaziusF]

Your claim that your choice of game/edition/playstyle is better.

Well, that's because it is.

For me.

And it's haaaaaaaaard to go back and find all the places where I should have added that. Also as has been hinted at before I want responses, and I don't believe I will get them if I qualify my positions because it will look like I'm setting up defenses and fallback points.

Ideally what I want is for someone to say "well I'm using system Q to do events R and S and it works well for reasons T, U, V, and W" and somewhere in there is something I can shamelessly steal to increase my own fun. Hopefully they will also have been crafty enough to draw RSTUVW out of me and are contemplatively weighing their loot bag o' ideas.

 

[LostSoul]

I would agree that he does say so, within the context of the time. However, within the context of the time, that "gamist" is very, very simulationist. The simulationism that D&D is a "dismal failure" when compared to is simply very, very, very, very simulationist.

What do you mean when you say gamist and when you say simulationist?

 

[Raven Crowking]

What do you mean when you say gamist and when you say simulationist?

In this particular case, following what I believe TLR means (because I am quoting him), simulationist is an attempt to follow "in world" logic to simulate something external to the game itself, whereas gamist deals specifically with rules structure itself, in an attempt to create a game format that "works".

In Gygax's quoted bit in the DMG, what hit points are meant to represent is as close to simulationist as he can get without interupting the flow of the game, but they are a gamist construct in that the flow of the game is more important that accurate (or even close) representation.

"Hit points" in D&D are a construct of the game, which can be painted any flavour you like. They have an objective rules meaning, but have no objective meaning within the the "in world" simulation that flavours the game (though they may take several subjective meanings).

Contrast this with the Wandering Prostitutes table at the back of the DMG. On the surface, this may seem a purely gamist element (as some have claimed in this thread!). However, the chart offers a variety that has no objective meaning within the rules of the game. Only in the "in world" simulation element does any entry on that chart gain any meaning whatsoever.

To me (and YMMV), the degree of gamism vs. simulationism in 1e hit points and 4e hit points is quite drastically changed. IMHO, 4e hit points are far more divorced from the simulationist aspects Gary described in the 1e DMG. Whereas others think 4e hit points have solved simulationist problems, I think they have created far more problems than they have "solved" (and I don't see them as having really solved any). Again, YMMV, based upon what you are looking for from the game.


RC

 

[The Little Raven]

In this particular case, following what I believe TLR means (because I am quoting him), simulationist is an attempt to follow "in world" logic to simulate something external to the game itself, whereas gamist deals specifically with rules structure itself, in an attempt to create a game format that "works".

I view it more as attempting to explain how the in-game "reality" works through the lens of the rules aka "rules as the physics of the game world".

To me (and YMMV), the degree of gamism vs. simulationism in 1e hit points and 4e hit points is quite drastically changed.

The first handful of 1e hit points are a factor of potential physical wounds, while the rest are a factor of combat skill, luck, or magical power. This is according to the description of them given in the 1e DMG.

4e hit points are a factor of combat skill, luck, or magical power, and the negative hit points are more a factor of potential wounds. This is according to the description of them given in the 4e PHB.

The only drastic change I see between the two is the number of hit points, not their purpose or what they are supposed to represent.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Cool. Imagine the poor fool wondering if he should just eat whatever food is offered, or become a vegetarian. There is no distinction, we are told, because both meat and vegetables are food.

Isn't Glazius suggesting that we don't try to reason about being a vegetarian or not, but about the hows and whys?

I value my choice OF edition highly enough to spend 8 hours a week prepping and playing it. I'm betting you do too. But the only person I can ever prove it's "more right" to is myself. I'm like a guy pretending to hold a conversation with his dog because it helps him think, only everybody here is filling in for the dog.

Why stick my reasons out here? That's an easy one too. Lemme hit you with a little Karl Marx: thesis + antithesis = synthesis. Pitting an idea against its opposite knocks the crud off of both of them and makes what remains stronger. And I want my idea to be strong, so that when my players pitch me a curveball I can be less "what do I do?! O mama! O papa!" and more "try to keep up. This is gonna be awesome."

Waving a spongy little equivocation out there is like saying that choice doesn't matter. Like saying my choice doesn't matter. 'course it matters! It's MY choice, and I made it for MY own reasons, so they'd better be GOOD ones! Yes, when other people make choices, they make them for THEIR own reasons, and I don't doubt that at least some of THOSE reasons are GOOD reasons for the person making that choice. But here's the thing: some of those other people's good reasons? They might be REALLY good reasons FOR ME to do something different, and if I don't get them out in the open how am I going to find them at all?