Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6727007" data-attributes="member: 3192">In D&amp;D, it isn't the skilled GM so much as the design of the game which keeps signal to noise ratio low. The game is built so abstractions are only at the most base part and likely never to be encoutnered. I'm willing to bet everything you understand as an abstraction in D&amp;D isn't so at all, but a score meant to be assigned to an aggregated design which enables simplification of common results just waiting for players to pick it apart through in game ingenuity and find the game inside. Both tracking player additions to the design during a session and game content generation prior to each session can add up. But as long as the code that is the game is both relatively small, yet widespread in its coverage the work is simple math. However, I find generation requirements are primarily kept low because prep and play are all done in small portions at a time. Each session's game generation prep results in more accumulated design for players to play, but each actual play session only covers whatever small portion players can manage to mess with given real world time limits. So not only is the prep amount largely constant (though extraordinary teams could be considered more burdensome), but very highly complex games are made possible to challenge players at higher levels later in the campaign. Thank god for Gary and random tables. These tools not only organize everything, but randomly rolling on them removes huge amounts of potential, as you say, cognitive bias and you never know what you're going to get. And really, in depth accounting for physics and biology designs by a multidimensional cellular automata code are bread and butter for the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 6727007, member: 3192"] In D&D, it isn't the skilled GM so much as the design of the game which keeps signal to noise ratio low. The game is built so abstractions are only at the most base part and likely never to be encoutnered. I'm willing to bet everything you understand as an abstraction in D&D isn't so at all, but a [I]score[/I] meant to be assigned to an aggregated design which enables simplification of common results just waiting for players to pick it apart through in game ingenuity and find the game inside. Both tracking player additions to the design during a session and game content generation prior to each session can add up. But as long as the code that is the game is both relatively small, yet widespread in its coverage the work is simple math. However, I find generation requirements are primarily kept low because prep and play are all done in small portions at a time. Each session's game generation prep results in more accumulated design for players to play, but each actual play session only covers whatever small portion players can manage to mess with given real world time limits. So not only is the prep amount largely constant (though extraordinary teams could be considered more burdensome), but very highly complex games are made possible to challenge players at higher levels later in the campaign. Thank god for Gary and random tables. These tools not only organize everything, but randomly rolling on them removes huge amounts of potential, as you say, cognitive bias and you never know what you're going to get. And really, in depth accounting for physics and biology designs by a multidimensional cellular automata code are bread and butter for the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification