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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Creativity?
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="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8930396" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>I don't disagree here. But what I'll say is that the <strong>game system and GM</strong> should both be well aware of (a) exactly what they're trying to do, (b) the limits of human computing power and mental bandwidth when it comes to modeling complex systems and extrapolating, (c) the limits of the ability of the participants at the table to transcribe their mental models and extrapolations into a mutually shared and mutually understood User Interface for the imagined space.</p><p></p><p>I'm running 4 games right now. Each and everyone of those games can feature a climbing conflict (as its within the purview of these games) but they all handle such a conflict differently. I'm the only climber among them. </p><p></p><p>What do you think would happen if I started talking about "developing beta," "this route starts as an underhang with equal parts slopers and underclings and the crux involves a heel hook and a big dino where you have to immediately flag right on the catch or you'll barn door", "but this other route is like a V7 slab...very crimpy so you're apt to get pumped and fail but if you can find a knee bar halfway through you can maybe rest" or I started talking about gear and the intricacies of belaying. </p><p></p><p>I'm confident I could develop an engaging climbing conflict resolution system and run that with the fellow friends I have who are climbers. Or Brazillian Jiujitsu. But folks who aren't acquainted with the consequential intricacies of the decision-space and consequences around climbing and grappling (both things that are common in a game like D&D!)? Its gibberish. Its gibberish because their is a mental model mismatch happening. So we have to bridge that mental model mismatch. That is what abstraction is for. You build out a system that does the necessary work of abstracting the intricate decision-space of such things and you devise techniques and principles for GMs (such as loading out the players with multiple possible courses to chart, replete with divergent obstacles that each have their own unique consequence-space for players to mull and fold into their cognitive loop).</p><p></p><p>The above is why I'm hugely skeptical of the approach of <strong>suss out and Game the GM's conception and extrapolation of a complex (and dynamically interacting) system. </strong>I'm skeptical at all layers of it; the GM's mental modelling > the GM's extrapolation > the participants expertise > the collective communication/transcription of the varying complexities > the player's sussing. There are so many failure points along the way. </p><p></p><p>So intentful, rigorous systemization that abstracts all that is necessary while aiming for retention of "the core components" of the thing while suffering as little information loss as possible (while also accepting there is going to be a fairly good-sized chunk) + GM's being humble and disciplined in their technical execution of the game's play loop + player's being aware of "the game's meta" and playing hard.</p><p></p><p>But the whole thing, from start to finish, requires significant self-awareness and transparency (which is why my games are all as table-facing as games can be).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8930396, member: 6696971"] I don't disagree here. But what I'll say is that the [B]game system and GM[/B] should both be well aware of (a) exactly what they're trying to do, (b) the limits of human computing power and mental bandwidth when it comes to modeling complex systems and extrapolating, (c) the limits of the ability of the participants at the table to transcribe their mental models and extrapolations into a mutually shared and mutually understood User Interface for the imagined space. I'm running 4 games right now. Each and everyone of those games can feature a climbing conflict (as its within the purview of these games) but they all handle such a conflict differently. I'm the only climber among them. What do you think would happen if I started talking about "developing beta," "this route starts as an underhang with equal parts slopers and underclings and the crux involves a heel hook and a big dino where you have to immediately flag right on the catch or you'll barn door", "but this other route is like a V7 slab...very crimpy so you're apt to get pumped and fail but if you can find a knee bar halfway through you can maybe rest" or I started talking about gear and the intricacies of belaying. I'm confident I could develop an engaging climbing conflict resolution system and run that with the fellow friends I have who are climbers. Or Brazillian Jiujitsu. But folks who aren't acquainted with the consequential intricacies of the decision-space and consequences around climbing and grappling (both things that are common in a game like D&D!)? Its gibberish. Its gibberish because their is a mental model mismatch happening. So we have to bridge that mental model mismatch. That is what abstraction is for. You build out a system that does the necessary work of abstracting the intricate decision-space of such things and you devise techniques and principles for GMs (such as loading out the players with multiple possible courses to chart, replete with divergent obstacles that each have their own unique consequence-space for players to mull and fold into their cognitive loop). The above is why I'm hugely skeptical of the approach of [B]suss out and Game the GM's conception and extrapolation of a complex (and dynamically interacting) system. [/B]I'm skeptical at all layers of it; the GM's mental modelling > the GM's extrapolation > the participants expertise > the collective communication/transcription of the varying complexities > the player's sussing. There are so many failure points along the way. So intentful, rigorous systemization that abstracts all that is necessary while aiming for retention of "the core components" of the thing while suffering as little information loss as possible (while also accepting there is going to be a fairly good-sized chunk) + GM's being humble and disciplined in their technical execution of the game's play loop + player's being aware of "the game's meta" and playing hard. But the whole thing, from start to finish, requires significant self-awareness and transparency (which is why my games are all as table-facing as games can be). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Creativity?
Top