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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8631430" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>These strike me as characteristics that should show up regardless of the design purpose for the game. Other than maybe "collection," but even then. That is, I can't really see a way to argue that (for example) tempo wouldn't apply to all possible purposes, whether or not my list is comprehensive. Likewise, "development" is so broad it seems to apply to anything that might claim to be a "roleplaying" game. If "development" is something that is necessary to the design of all TTRPGs, to whatever variable extent, then that would be something coming <em>before</em> my taxonomy, as opposed to the player motives, which come <em>after</em>.</p><p></p><p>Think of it like this: a "car" has to have <em>wheels</em> in order to be, y'know, a <em>car</em>. There is no conception of "car" that doesn't include "wheels" in it, at least not as the word is used in English. A framework intending to examine the classifications of cars is not going to give equal weight to the classifications of <em>wheels</em>, except maybe in a rather limited sense by saying "for this type of car, wheel choice matters a lot, whereas for that type of car, wheel choice isn't very important." Wheel choice may be a relevant thing to consider, but if discussing car classifications, wheels are likely to be a minor point at best. Meanwhile, things like "buying sports cars in order to collect them" vs "...to race them" vs "...to display conspicuous consumption" would also be outside the framework for the opposite reason, as those things "come after" the design. Designers need to take both of those things into account when designing, but that doesn't mean a classification scheme of cars (or games) themselves needs to account for underlying tech or the things users desire to <em>do</em> with the product.</p><p></p><p>This actually seems to be an ongoing issue, here: your interests seem to go quite a bit beyond what I'm talking about. I have plenty of my own ideas about what elements "role-playing games" <em>should</em> contain, as in, what are the critical things that make something a "roleplaying" game and not some other kind of game, but those thoughts necessarily come <em>before</em> asking, "what are RPGs designed to do? What <em>could</em> they be designed to do?" You can't ask what something is (or could be) designed to do if you can't actually identify the thing in question first. Conversely, "what do players <em>want to do</em> with RPGs?" is a completely different question, and frankly one I don't feel remotely qualified to answer.</p><p></p><p>Tempo, initiative, and development sound (to me) like necessary elements for making something one could validly call "an RPG." Collection I'm iffy on (as noted above), but am at least open to putting it in that same bucket. Hence, I don't really have much to say about them (...these many words notwithstanding) because they just aren't part of what my taxonomy is focused on.</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>I had suspected some of my pithy terms would raise eyebrows. When I said "define skill," I mean very specifically (as I've said) defining a <em>metric of grading success</em>. It does not <em>need</em> to be numeric, but it usually will be. Things like "collecting," in and of themselves, reflect no skill in this definition. Merely <em>possessing</em> expensive MtG cards does not say anything about one's <em>skill</em> as an MtG player, other than perhaps analytical skill in knowing what cards are worth keeping (but the existence of the Internet and being able to look up card values kinda weakens that).</p><p></p><p>"Optimization" that isn't actually seeking <em>success</em> but rather exploring a concept, has nothing really to do with Score-and-Achievement design. Instead, from the context you've described here, this form of "optimization" sounds like either Groundedness-and-Simulation (that is, following an asserted fact through all of its logical consequences) or Conceit-and-Emulation (that is, starting from something like an archetype or concept and seeking to portray or fulfill it). But I've never said (nor intended to imply) that "optimization" is exclusively an S&A thing. That said though, I do want you to unpack what it means to "optimize" "an articulation...of a concept" in a way that has <em>nothing whatsoever</em> to do with "succeed more often." Usually, I <em>do</em> understand "optimization" (in the generic, not-specifically-games sense) to mean pushing numbers as high (or as low) as they can possibly go, though that may be my math background talking. In what sense does one "optimize" a concept while assiduously avoiding any grading or metric of "this will succeed more often"?</p><p></p><p>Incidentally, part of the above is why I separate these categories. G&S design seeks to enable, as much as possible, such rational analysis, hence upthread someone mentioned wanting to play something that's <em>like</em> a "supers" game (which would normally be C&E), but instead ends up more like a <em>deconstruction</em> of a "supers" game, seriously examining the (often negative) consequences that would be expected in a world where superpowered individuals exist. C&E design instead proposes a tone or theme, and seeks to take what actions are necessary to portray or fulfill that thing. A "G&S supers" game would be designed to examine the <em>consequences</em> and <em>results</em> of living in a world where superheroes exist. A "C&E supers" game would be designed to <em>portray classic superheroes</em>, encouraging superheroic behavior and, if necessary, actively enforcing classic supers tropes (e.g. secret identities are mostly kept secret, catching someone falling off a building won't break their spine, etc.)</p><p></p><p>Both things can, at a really abstract and superficial level, be summarized as "articulation of a concept," but the former treats the concept as immutable fact and then procedurally determines what else <em>has</em> to be true based on what is <em>known</em> to be true, even if the consequences might be undesirable (consider how most folks feel about the Tippyverse, if you're familiar with that). The latter, meanwhile, treats the concept as <em>the target to shoot for</em>, and takes what steps are necessary to bring that about, even if some of those steps involve doing irrational or foolish things "in-universe." Simulation <em>derives</em>. Emulation <em>imitates</em>. There are similarities between deriving new truths from known ones and attempting to match the form or structure of something, but they move in extremely different directions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8631430, member: 6790260"] These strike me as characteristics that should show up regardless of the design purpose for the game. Other than maybe "collection," but even then. That is, I can't really see a way to argue that (for example) tempo wouldn't apply to all possible purposes, whether or not my list is comprehensive. Likewise, "development" is so broad it seems to apply to anything that might claim to be a "roleplaying" game. If "development" is something that is necessary to the design of all TTRPGs, to whatever variable extent, then that would be something coming [I]before[/I] my taxonomy, as opposed to the player motives, which come [I]after[/I]. Think of it like this: a "car" has to have [I]wheels[/I] in order to be, y'know, a [I]car[/I]. There is no conception of "car" that doesn't include "wheels" in it, at least not as the word is used in English. A framework intending to examine the classifications of cars is not going to give equal weight to the classifications of [I]wheels[/I], except maybe in a rather limited sense by saying "for this type of car, wheel choice matters a lot, whereas for that type of car, wheel choice isn't very important." Wheel choice may be a relevant thing to consider, but if discussing car classifications, wheels are likely to be a minor point at best. Meanwhile, things like "buying sports cars in order to collect them" vs "...to race them" vs "...to display conspicuous consumption" would also be outside the framework for the opposite reason, as those things "come after" the design. Designers need to take both of those things into account when designing, but that doesn't mean a classification scheme of cars (or games) themselves needs to account for underlying tech or the things users desire to [I]do[/I] with the product. This actually seems to be an ongoing issue, here: your interests seem to go quite a bit beyond what I'm talking about. I have plenty of my own ideas about what elements "role-playing games" [I]should[/I] contain, as in, what are the critical things that make something a "roleplaying" game and not some other kind of game, but those thoughts necessarily come [I]before[/I] asking, "what are RPGs designed to do? What [I]could[/I] they be designed to do?" You can't ask what something is (or could be) designed to do if you can't actually identify the thing in question first. Conversely, "what do players [I]want to do[/I] with RPGs?" is a completely different question, and frankly one I don't feel remotely qualified to answer. Tempo, initiative, and development sound (to me) like necessary elements for making something one could validly call "an RPG." Collection I'm iffy on (as noted above), but am at least open to putting it in that same bucket. Hence, I don't really have much to say about them (...these many words notwithstanding) because they just aren't part of what my taxonomy is focused on. --- I had suspected some of my pithy terms would raise eyebrows. When I said "define skill," I mean very specifically (as I've said) defining a [I]metric of grading success[/I]. It does not [I]need[/I] to be numeric, but it usually will be. Things like "collecting," in and of themselves, reflect no skill in this definition. Merely [I]possessing[/I] expensive MtG cards does not say anything about one's [I]skill[/I] as an MtG player, other than perhaps analytical skill in knowing what cards are worth keeping (but the existence of the Internet and being able to look up card values kinda weakens that). "Optimization" that isn't actually seeking [I]success[/I] but rather exploring a concept, has nothing really to do with Score-and-Achievement design. Instead, from the context you've described here, this form of "optimization" sounds like either Groundedness-and-Simulation (that is, following an asserted fact through all of its logical consequences) or Conceit-and-Emulation (that is, starting from something like an archetype or concept and seeking to portray or fulfill it). But I've never said (nor intended to imply) that "optimization" is exclusively an S&A thing. That said though, I do want you to unpack what it means to "optimize" "an articulation...of a concept" in a way that has [I]nothing whatsoever[/I] to do with "succeed more often." Usually, I [I]do[/I] understand "optimization" (in the generic, not-specifically-games sense) to mean pushing numbers as high (or as low) as they can possibly go, though that may be my math background talking. In what sense does one "optimize" a concept while assiduously avoiding any grading or metric of "this will succeed more often"? Incidentally, part of the above is why I separate these categories. G&S design seeks to enable, as much as possible, such rational analysis, hence upthread someone mentioned wanting to play something that's [I]like[/I] a "supers" game (which would normally be C&E), but instead ends up more like a [I]deconstruction[/I] of a "supers" game, seriously examining the (often negative) consequences that would be expected in a world where superpowered individuals exist. C&E design instead proposes a tone or theme, and seeks to take what actions are necessary to portray or fulfill that thing. A "G&S supers" game would be designed to examine the [I]consequences[/I] and [I]results[/I] of living in a world where superheroes exist. A "C&E supers" game would be designed to [I]portray classic superheroes[/I], encouraging superheroic behavior and, if necessary, actively enforcing classic supers tropes (e.g. secret identities are mostly kept secret, catching someone falling off a building won't break their spine, etc.) Both things can, at a really abstract and superficial level, be summarized as "articulation of a concept," but the former treats the concept as immutable fact and then procedurally determines what else [I]has[/I] to be true based on what is [I]known[/I] to be true, even if the consequences might be undesirable (consider how most folks feel about the Tippyverse, if you're familiar with that). The latter, meanwhile, treats the concept as [I]the target to shoot for[/I], and takes what steps are necessary to bring that about, even if some of those steps involve doing irrational or foolish things "in-universe." Simulation [I]derives[/I]. Emulation [I]imitates[/I]. There are similarities between deriving new truths from known ones and attempting to match the form or structure of something, but they move in extremely different directions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top