Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
At the Intersection of Skilled Play, System Intricacy, Prep, and Story Now
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8592252" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>You've shifted goalposts, but we can address this anyway. For analysis to occur you have to have a deeper base of examples to compare against or a theory to evaluate against. Both require more that a single example and are, in fact, testing a general theory against a specific example. Exploration of capacity requires some understanding of the prevalence of the capacity, else this argument suggests it's prefecture fine to, say, create a 7 finger glove company because the only man you met had 7 fingers. The reality here is that while humans have the capacity to have 7 fingers, it is an extremely rare mutation and one that has no regular expression when it happens. Blind extrapolation from specific examples to general assumption is not valuable. </p><p></p><p>And none of this actually addresses the initial complaint I made -- that requiring only play examples vice theory is a poor way to approach discussion of how play works in general. This allows things like playing a game that is not structured as Story Now to be declared Story Now based on what appears to be the participants feelings on the matter. Both you and [USER=99817]@chaochou[/USER] declare your play in games where consensus resolution was present as Story Now with no examples of play that supported this assertion, but [USER=99817]@chaochou[/USER] is insisting that my arguments have to be paid with acceptable play examples and you're defending the idea. Please practice what you peach. </p><p></p><p>Total non sequitur, and please provide evidence that laws were assumed immeasurable and when it was discovered there were not. Because, no. </p><p></p><p>Edwards examined actual play, yes, but this claim means he did no thinking outside of those examples -- ir, forming hypothesis about play and then testing it by examining more play and running his ideas. Edwards absolutely did NOT form his thinking based on a single play example and routinely uses play examples to illuminate his thinking, not as individual basis.</p><p></p><p>Soecific as a wird is doing work, here. Pkease acknowledge that work and stop replacing it with karfer data sets and tgeory.</p><p></p><p>Where did I say that experience cannot teach? Another strawman. I said you cannot argue from specific example to general state. This isn't at all about learning through experience. It's saying that given a play example in isolation we cannot make general statements about play (aside from the banal "it can hapoen"). You haven't done so. You're relying on far more than just the example when you make claims here -- you're 100% relying on non-example theory to analyze and evaluate that play. You are, in fact, using the general to evaluate the specific. </p><p></p><p>Another non sequitur strawman. Nothing I've said conjures this, but again you're relying on a general theory of what matters to evaluate the specific example. Absent the general theory if what matters (and there are competing theories here) the example does not reveal much of anything. And, depending on the theory used, the example reveals different things. We cannot then say that there us some general truth to the example if the theory used to evaluate it (already we're logically unsound in this example) results in different and conflicting comclusions.</p><p></p><p>And now a change of topic, but okay. If there is a fixed endpoint to the game, then we have a couple of things that are added to the game:</p><p>A. There is now a set of potential play that is in theme and genre that is not allowed, and Force (either GM or system) must be deployed to deny and actions in that set. The defense here is that players agree to not engage this set of actions or do so with expectation they will be denied through Force. Which is a solution, but doesn't really mean that Force is absent, just that everyone agrees to it. I find this different from genre adherence because while genre also constrains the set of permissible actions, it isn't doing so to create specific outcomes. </p><p></p><p>B. The fixed scenario introduces pacing and spotlighting needs. Since there is a fixed endpoint and play must move towards it, there is now a pressure to ensure pacing towards that so that the scenario end is putting the necessary time pressure on play. Further, since play is limited, there's a need to make sure each player gets enough time in play to address their wants. These combine to create pressure on fiction first and thereby Story Now play. Pacing is either going to be via GM enforcement or system enforcement. Both distort play. GM enforcement has obvious distorting effects as the GM will be making choices for play not based on following play and driving to PC dramatic needs but on story shape and timing. That cuts against Story Now. Spotlighting has similar issues, but I'll readily admit these are lesser. </p><p></p><p>If the pacing structure is system enforced, then it will built to drive a more traditional story arc. It has to, because it's enforcing a structure to play. Enforced structure clearly cuts against following the dramatic need to the characters.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8592252, member: 16814"] You've shifted goalposts, but we can address this anyway. For analysis to occur you have to have a deeper base of examples to compare against or a theory to evaluate against. Both require more that a single example and are, in fact, testing a general theory against a specific example. Exploration of capacity requires some understanding of the prevalence of the capacity, else this argument suggests it's prefecture fine to, say, create a 7 finger glove company because the only man you met had 7 fingers. The reality here is that while humans have the capacity to have 7 fingers, it is an extremely rare mutation and one that has no regular expression when it happens. Blind extrapolation from specific examples to general assumption is not valuable. And none of this actually addresses the initial complaint I made -- that requiring only play examples vice theory is a poor way to approach discussion of how play works in general. This allows things like playing a game that is not structured as Story Now to be declared Story Now based on what appears to be the participants feelings on the matter. Both you and [USER=99817]@chaochou[/USER] declare your play in games where consensus resolution was present as Story Now with no examples of play that supported this assertion, but [USER=99817]@chaochou[/USER] is insisting that my arguments have to be paid with acceptable play examples and you're defending the idea. Please practice what you peach. Total non sequitur, and please provide evidence that laws were assumed immeasurable and when it was discovered there were not. Because, no. Edwards examined actual play, yes, but this claim means he did no thinking outside of those examples -- ir, forming hypothesis about play and then testing it by examining more play and running his ideas. Edwards absolutely did NOT form his thinking based on a single play example and routinely uses play examples to illuminate his thinking, not as individual basis. Soecific as a wird is doing work, here. Pkease acknowledge that work and stop replacing it with karfer data sets and tgeory. Where did I say that experience cannot teach? Another strawman. I said you cannot argue from specific example to general state. This isn't at all about learning through experience. It's saying that given a play example in isolation we cannot make general statements about play (aside from the banal "it can hapoen"). You haven't done so. You're relying on far more than just the example when you make claims here -- you're 100% relying on non-example theory to analyze and evaluate that play. You are, in fact, using the general to evaluate the specific. Another non sequitur strawman. Nothing I've said conjures this, but again you're relying on a general theory of what matters to evaluate the specific example. Absent the general theory if what matters (and there are competing theories here) the example does not reveal much of anything. And, depending on the theory used, the example reveals different things. We cannot then say that there us some general truth to the example if the theory used to evaluate it (already we're logically unsound in this example) results in different and conflicting comclusions. And now a change of topic, but okay. If there is a fixed endpoint to the game, then we have a couple of things that are added to the game: A. There is now a set of potential play that is in theme and genre that is not allowed, and Force (either GM or system) must be deployed to deny and actions in that set. The defense here is that players agree to not engage this set of actions or do so with expectation they will be denied through Force. Which is a solution, but doesn't really mean that Force is absent, just that everyone agrees to it. I find this different from genre adherence because while genre also constrains the set of permissible actions, it isn't doing so to create specific outcomes. B. The fixed scenario introduces pacing and spotlighting needs. Since there is a fixed endpoint and play must move towards it, there is now a pressure to ensure pacing towards that so that the scenario end is putting the necessary time pressure on play. Further, since play is limited, there's a need to make sure each player gets enough time in play to address their wants. These combine to create pressure on fiction first and thereby Story Now play. Pacing is either going to be via GM enforcement or system enforcement. Both distort play. GM enforcement has obvious distorting effects as the GM will be making choices for play not based on following play and driving to PC dramatic needs but on story shape and timing. That cuts against Story Now. Spotlighting has similar issues, but I'll readily admit these are lesser. If the pacing structure is system enforced, then it will built to drive a more traditional story arc. It has to, because it's enforcing a structure to play. Enforced structure clearly cuts against following the dramatic need to the characters. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
At the Intersection of Skilled Play, System Intricacy, Prep, and Story Now
Top