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
D&D Older Editions
Ron Edwards on D&D 4e
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 8414449" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I agree with Aldarc in that I don't see the importance of this distinction.</p><p></p><p>If I discover a hitherto unpublished book by Newton with an unexpected result in it, I discover some new mathematical knowledge. If I discover a hitherto unpublished manuscript by Hobsbawm, I discover some historical knowledge. When Newton sits down and works out his stuff, he is creating new knowledge. When Hobsbawm wrote his anlayses of the 19th and 20th centuries, he was creating new knowledge.</p><p></p><p>The verbs I've suggested aren't the only tenable ones, but they do draw a significant distinction, between <em>learning of someone else's research</em> and <em>doing one's own</em>.</p><p></p><p>Then you have misinterpreted me. Some of the most important advances in human knowledge have been the result of careful counting (and sometimes associated measurement). Astronomy is an example.</p><p></p><p>The most interesting social scientific researcher into judicial decision-making that I've ever had the privilege of interacting with described his work as "counting things carefully". (His intention was to contrast with generalising from a less-than-total count.) The last funding application I submitted was for salary to pay RAs to count things. (In my case, occurrences of certain terms - and hence associated concepts - in particular texts.)</p><p></p><p>My point is simply that counting things is not the only way to generate knowledge. Ron Edwards does not count things, in his writing on RPGs. That does not mean that he is not generating knowledge about them.</p><p></p><p>In another active thread, on RPG salaries, it <em>seems</em> to have emerged that median salaries in Australia are significantly higher than in the US. <em>Learning that fact</em> requires, among other things, careful counting. <em>Explaining that fact</em> is also possible - but it cannot be explained by counting. Other methods - eg of the sort developed and applied by Weber - are necessary.</p><p></p><p>There are researchers who count who also produce dud results - the phlogiston theorists weren't making mistakes in their measurements! Of course measurements <em>matter</em> to the explanation of combustion, but they are not all that matters.</p><p></p><p><em>How humans, broadly, act and think</em> is crucial to explaining the difference in median wages between the US and Australia. As I said, no one will explain that difference via a method that is confined to counting, not even if supplemented with allied techniques of measurement and statistical generalisation.</p><p></p><p>There are interesting avenues of inquiry into 4e that are not yet fully explored. I'll suggest two:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">* Is it possible to reconcile the maths of combat with the maths of skill checks? Does this require abandoning AC as a defence? ([USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] has done more work on this than anyone else I know; but that might be a reflection of the state of my knowledge.)</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">* Are players able to initiate a skill challenge? Or is this solely in the domain of the GM?</p><p></p><p>On that second point, but also kinda implicating the first, here is a quote from <a href="https://adeptplay.com/sites/default/files/attachments/barbaric%20psychedelic%20stripdown.pdf" target="_blank">Edwards' campaign document</a>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Skill challenges bearing significant risk count as encounters . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Anything with consequential risks counts: foes, environment, social situations, and more. If you avoid it, i.e., find a way not to engage, then it doesn't count, but skillful evasion does, i.e., converting a fight into a skill challenge. Formal skill challenges use different rules from combat, but an encounter can shift from one to another depending on what happens in it, e.g., fighting as a tactical component of getting past and away from a foe. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[Skill challenges] can be initiated through players' announcements rather than GM planning – in other words, have your characters do motivated and skillful things, especially big things, and you level up with less fights. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">What you can't do is dodge "around" fictionally-legitimate fights via Skill Challenges – if and when an adversary decides you need to die, he or she or it will take action to make that happen.</p><p></p><p>What's the difference between <em>skilful evasion</em> and <em>dodging around</em>?</p><p></p><p>And whereas, in 4e as in other forms of D&D, <em>I shoot an arrow at it</em> tends to invoke the combat mechanics by default, how does a player initiate a skill challenge?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8414449, member: 42582"] I agree with Aldarc in that I don't see the importance of this distinction. If I discover a hitherto unpublished book by Newton with an unexpected result in it, I discover some new mathematical knowledge. If I discover a hitherto unpublished manuscript by Hobsbawm, I discover some historical knowledge. When Newton sits down and works out his stuff, he is creating new knowledge. When Hobsbawm wrote his anlayses of the 19th and 20th centuries, he was creating new knowledge. The verbs I've suggested aren't the only tenable ones, but they do draw a significant distinction, between [i]learning of someone else's research[/i] and [i]doing one's own[/i]. Then you have misinterpreted me. Some of the most important advances in human knowledge have been the result of careful counting (and sometimes associated measurement). Astronomy is an example. The most interesting social scientific researcher into judicial decision-making that I've ever had the privilege of interacting with described his work as "counting things carefully". (His intention was to contrast with generalising from a less-than-total count.) The last funding application I submitted was for salary to pay RAs to count things. (In my case, occurrences of certain terms - and hence associated concepts - in particular texts.) My point is simply that counting things is not the only way to generate knowledge. Ron Edwards does not count things, in his writing on RPGs. That does not mean that he is not generating knowledge about them. In another active thread, on RPG salaries, it [i]seems[/i] to have emerged that median salaries in Australia are significantly higher than in the US. [i]Learning that fact[/i] requires, among other things, careful counting. [i]Explaining that fact[/i] is also possible - but it cannot be explained by counting. Other methods - eg of the sort developed and applied by Weber - are necessary. There are researchers who count who also produce dud results - the phlogiston theorists weren't making mistakes in their measurements! Of course measurements [i]matter[/i] to the explanation of combustion, but they are not all that matters. [i]How humans, broadly, act and think[/i] is crucial to explaining the difference in median wages between the US and Australia. As I said, no one will explain that difference via a method that is confined to counting, not even if supplemented with allied techniques of measurement and statistical generalisation. There are interesting avenues of inquiry into 4e that are not yet fully explored. I'll suggest two: [indent]* Is it possible to reconcile the maths of combat with the maths of skill checks? Does this require abandoning AC as a defence? ([USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] has done more work on this than anyone else I know; but that might be a reflection of the state of my knowledge.) * Are players able to initiate a skill challenge? Or is this solely in the domain of the GM?[/indent] On that second point, but also kinda implicating the first, here is a quote from [url=https://adeptplay.com/sites/default/files/attachments/barbaric%20psychedelic%20stripdown.pdf]Edwards' campaign document[/url]: [indent]Skill challenges bearing significant risk count as encounters . . . Anything with consequential risks counts: foes, environment, social situations, and more. If you avoid it, i.e., find a way not to engage, then it doesn't count, but skillful evasion does, i.e., converting a fight into a skill challenge. Formal skill challenges use different rules from combat, but an encounter can shift from one to another depending on what happens in it, e.g., fighting as a tactical component of getting past and away from a foe. . . . [Skill challenges] can be initiated through players' announcements rather than GM planning – in other words, have your characters do motivated and skillful things, especially big things, and you level up with less fights. . . . What you can't do is dodge "around" fictionally-legitimate fights via Skill Challenges – if and when an adversary decides you need to die, he or she or it will take action to make that happen.[/indent] What's the difference between [i]skilful evasion[/i] and [i]dodging around[/i]? And whereas, in 4e as in other forms of D&D, [i]I shoot an arrow at it[/i] tends to invoke the combat mechanics by default, how does a player initiate a skill challenge? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Ron Edwards on D&D 4e
Top