Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9288294" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Here is why I don't think we're in &quot;Dead Horse Territory.&quot;&nbsp; I agree very much with you that developing good fundamentals/platform/base + stacking technically sound &quot;reps&quot; = the best way to develop at anything.&nbsp; But that assumes that the fundamentals/platform/base that you're developing are good in the first place.&nbsp; And good assumes &quot;well-understood at the core concepts level.&quot;Upthread, <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-alexandrian%E2%80%99s-insights-in-a-nutshell.703060/post-9287299" target="_blank">I wrote a post that distinguishes core concepts in an applicable to TTRPG content generation way</a>.&nbsp; This has basically been my understanding of these concepts since I've been in contact with each of them.&nbsp; Its extremely useful because it doesn't smear/blur lines or mash them all together in to some kind of incoherent or difficult-to-disentangle gruel.&nbsp; If I'm communicating with someone who is struggling with the text of Moldvay Basic (to prep a dungeon map/key and theme/stock it) vs someone who is struggling with the text of Dogs in the Vineyard or Agon (to prep a Town or Island) vs someone who is struggling with the various forms of Trad D&amp;D (to devise a Hook-rich sandbox or an interesting setting metaplot or mash those two together), I'm going to give them very different advice and that advice is going to index those core concepts.&nbsp; If they've misunderstood or misapplied core concepts and then &quot;stacked reps&quot; that employ that misunderstanding and misapplication, they're probably in a place they don't want to be; habituated, internalized technique not fit-for-particular-purpose and causing them hardship during prep/play or both.Which is why this, what looks to me to be Pea &amp; Thimble shenigans over &quot;plot&quot; (intended or unintended), is absolutely counterproductive.&nbsp; People talk about jargon a lot?&nbsp; Borrowing from the literary or cinema version of &quot;plot&quot; when Trad D&amp;D play (or whatever) has no Edit/Cutting Room Floor phase?&nbsp; That is the absolute worst sort of usage and completely distorts what is actually happening under the hood.&nbsp; Plot Point A, B, and D being broken up by auxiliary content (a side quest, marketplace reprovisioning, tavern freeplay, muffin-baking...whatever) C (which would either (a) not remotely perturb the trajectory of the plot's throughline in any meaningful way or (b) be outright cut in the edit phase of book/cinema generation) doesn't suddenly yield an honest and meaningful appraisal of &quot;there is no plot because sequence broken.&quot;&nbsp; I can't imagine trying to put that contention forward and want to have it persist within the greater TTRPG sphere.&nbsp; That sort of distorted idea will absolutely misguide everyone as to what is happening under the hood; (a) participants at the table, (b) designers trying to design a game fit-for-particular-purpose, (c) GMs trying to hone their craft, (d) new TTRPGers wanting to learn the basics of their craft (that base/platform and those fundamentals) as it pertains to the particular game they're interested in and then stack &quot;quality reps.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9288294, member: 6696971"] Here is why I don't think we're in "Dead Horse Territory." I agree very much with you that [I]developing good fundamentals/platform/base + stacking technically sound "reps" = the best way to develop at anything[/I]. But that assumes that the fundamentals/platform/base that you're developing are [I]good[/I] in the first place. And [I]good[/I] assumes "well-understood at the core concepts level." Upthread, [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-alexandrian%E2%80%99s-insights-in-a-nutshell.703060/post-9287299']I wrote a post that distinguishes core concepts in an applicable to TTRPG content generation way[/URL]. This has basically been my understanding of these concepts since I've been in contact with each of them. Its extremely useful because it doesn't smear/blur lines or mash them all together in to some kind of incoherent or difficult-to-disentangle gruel. If I'm communicating with someone who is struggling with the text of Moldvay Basic (to prep a dungeon map/key and theme/stock it) vs someone who is struggling with the text of Dogs in the Vineyard or Agon (to prep a Town or Island) vs someone who is struggling with the various forms of Trad D&D (to devise a Hook-rich sandbox or an interesting setting metaplot or mash those two together), I'm going to give them very different advice and that advice is going to index those core concepts. If they've misunderstood or misapplied core concepts and then "stacked reps" that employ that misunderstanding and misapplication, they're probably in a place they don't want to be; habituated, internalized technique not fit-for-particular-purpose and causing them hardship during prep/play or both. Which is why this, what looks to me to be Pea & Thimble shenigans over "plot" (intended or unintended), is absolutely counterproductive. People talk about jargon a lot? Borrowing from the literary or cinema version of "plot" when Trad D&D play (or whatever) has no [I]Edit/Cutting Room Floor phase[/I]? That is the absolute worst sort of usage and completely distorts what is actually happening under the hood. Plot Point A, B, and D being broken up by auxiliary content (a side quest, marketplace reprovisioning, tavern freeplay, muffin-baking...whatever) C (which would either (a) not remotely perturb the trajectory of the plot's throughline in any meaningful way or (b) be outright [I]cut in the edit phase[/I] of book/cinema generation) doesn't suddenly yield an honest and meaningful appraisal of "[B]there is no plot because sequence broken[/B]." I can't imagine trying to put that contention forward and want to have it persist within the greater TTRPG sphere. That sort of distorted idea will absolutely misguide everyone as to what is happening under the hood; (a) participants at the table, (b) designers trying to design a game fit-for-particular-purpose, (c) GMs trying to hone their craft, (d) new TTRPGers wanting to learn the basics of their craft (that base/platform and those fundamentals) as it pertains to the particular game they're interested in and then stack "quality reps." [/QUOTE]

Verification