Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6300105" data-attributes="member: 3192">You don't have to believe it, but it's the design of almost every RPG ever made until 1-page RPGs were designed to promote an whitewashing ideology and censor and mock their publishing. RPG publishers publish game structures to provide game content so it can be used by referees to present to players. This is very similar to how every game is published. It's why adventures are essential to D&D (and unnecessary to storygames, which are built to create a story, not game a game system). "Shared fiction" is frankly is Forgite dogma that is irrelevant to all role playing games. It is part of the uniform design which identifies storygames. There has never been shared fiction in D&D. There are only the related game constructs behind the screen.In fact, there there is a valid point of view that there is no such thing as a shared fiction ever. Stories can only be "shared" ironically. D&D's design was built on this understanding, but also on the belief that people could learn to understand each other better.It's "appropriate to the game structure" of course. Not any kind of shared fiction. That didn't even exist when Gygax wrote those books. Forge theory doesn't predate its invention.It's a game. Like Chess and Go D&D was designed to enable players to achieve objectives within a pattern. In D&D the referee mediates their moves upon the hidden game board. They take measurements, roll dice, attempt to relay clearly and accurately what the positions player's pieces and have the game defined abilities to sense. The players strain their imaginations to great heights to imagine what's relayed so they can achieve outcomes more capably in the game. This is basic stuff to playing D&D. Like any game, how you play D&D matters to the outcomes in the game.Players map in their imagination the reality the DM is relating. All players must have an imagination. It's necessary to play the game. Unlike storygames however how well one is playing the game, how well one imagines the fine details and intricacies of the current game state, is vital to winning. Rapt attention is what D&D engenders. If you could care less about what's happening currently in context to past or future events, then maybe stories are for you. But even most story readers really don't want the purposefully indecipherable expression of a narrative. Stories that are written to be coherent are puzzles and readers puzzlers.So you change the definition of contrived outcome (deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously) to game mechanic. Are there non-contrived game mechanics for you? Games keep score, track game elements, are designed in almost every way to enable players to act in a gameable situation. Contrived outcomes are the antithesis of this action and the goals of virtually every game designed. This is why you're using contrived outcomes as separate from short-circuiting game play. I believe you are using the term to mean only "was the game board and game rules created by a person?" Who cares whether they were or not. The effects of a person existing isn't absolutely narrative. That dogmatism. Also, a person's expressions simply aren't undying acts. OTOH, rules are codified through all game play so actions in games aren't thrown aside the moment game play begins.Game pacing isn't narrative pacing. It's time it takes for most players to play a game. Games that don't have time limits on them often institute them if stalling becomes a common tactic. Like the 1 minute rule for turn taking in D&D too. The structural content of a game like the complexity of a puzzle determine a good deal of how long play on average will take. These aren't designed for dramatic purposes as you mentioned, but for game purposes.Look up the definition of contrived. That's not what's happening in those rules. There is nothing more dramatic about the game because 4e has healing surges as a mechanic. As I pointed out before it actually removes the importance of players care about the on goings within Encounters after the fact. Your conflating game rules themselves with contrived outcomes. Imagine if a game ever designed so. You take a turn. I take a turn. We switch to another game. No carryover whatsoever.What have theatre games got to do with anything? It's the term I believe Gygax used to refer to games that didn't promote game play, but rather pure invention.I addressed this above. Players imagine the reality the DM relates to succeed and be better players. Ones that cannot imagine can't even play.All of which speaks to what I said about role playing and not about fictional persona portrayal. Everything designed in D&D for 20-25 years (though less knowingly later) was based on military role playing, role play simuation as they're called now. They are based on the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s interpretation of role playing. That such includes the expression of a personality is irrelevant and not even a common definition until after the advent of Post-Modernism in 1980s common culture.While the design was far from ever complete or clear the ladder still makes a better ladder than a table. In the 80s there were DMs who did talk about the magic system and combat system and even used the social mechanics which the Cleric's abilities interact with better than any other. The DMG is not the rules. It was written the understanding all writings are, with shared definitions within a population Role playing didn't need to be defined like game playing didn't need to either. The DMG was suggestions, possible rules the DM could use behind the screen. Only Gygax also wanted to consolidate players for tournaments and have an identifiable ruleset. So he proposed a "true" code in AD&D. But it's simply not necessary to use in published for to play AD&D.</blockquote>

Verification