Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4702811" data-attributes="member: 54707">It is an interesting analysis Wik, which has been followed by some interesting comments.My own personal feeling on the matter is that when it comes to RP games you basically have three distinct forms of perceiving the world, or of constructing the world and then perceiving that construction. (I'm not talking about things like were discussed in Why the World Exists, but rather things like human forms of perceptual reality and how that colors different ways of perceiving in-game-reality.)The DM might set out with one objective in creating the milieu (as regards game reality), the designer with a separate objective in creating the game, and the player with still a third way of interpreting the work of the other two. Then again all three ways might correspond in any particular game. It basically depends upon the interaction (interactivity) of the various elements, designer, referee, and player, and their various methods of interfacing with both the product and with one another.But to me there are three ways of perceiving and constructing game reality (these various ways are not mutually exclusive and sometimes all three exist simultaneously in the same game and sometimes all three are necessary components to make a good game) - Realism, Anti-Realism, and Counter (as in, on the other hand) or Hyper Realism.I am in favor of a game design pursuing all three and of a milieu pursuing all three, though not necessarily to the same degree of intensity or emphasis in any particular effort.I think your analysis in right in the main. However how many artefacts arise in a rules light system will also depend on the consistency of the DM. But I think there is one other thing that you may want to consider regarding "rule-set artefacts." And that is that such artefacts (as the name implies, both an artifice/artificial element, and a fact, a solid representation of a whole thing) can develop into a complex entity of their own which in effect becomes a competing and substratum or even sub-rosan reality. That is the basic game has a "reality set" (for lack of a better term) or an underlying, foundational reality. But in certain games, depending upon construction, and you sued some good examples in your earlier post, an entirely new reality can spring from the rule set which in effects competes against or at the very least acts in friction against the basic game reality. And you see this principle in real world mechanical objects all of the time. Let's say you develop a beautiful engine or power plant for a new jet fighter. But once installed it does not function as anticipated because other design and/or performance factors were not designed in concert, so that the whole craft does not act fluidly (the power plant may stall under certain conditions because the aerodynamic capabilities of the craft are so good that they over tax the engine in steep acceleration - the plant gives tremendous power but does not act consistently under quick oxygen depletion, or the engine may act very inefficiently in real world conditions never anticipated during the original design phase) but maneuvers inefficiently. This often hoopoes when design elements are "chopped up" and sub-contracted out, the intent being to produce the best of every possible system component. However in true interface components cannot operate smoothly as a whole. They develop counter-functions which operate against the original intent of the design parameters not because that was planned but because disparate elements were designed in isolation from the entire product. You can work to solve this problem with physical artefacts because computer simulations and prototype testing can help you reduce the inevitable discrepancies between intended design and final execution. But with a Role Playing Game you cannot anticipate every contingency of the human mind and imagination. The human mind will easily find exploits in complex psychological devices (and that is one thing that an RPG is - it is an imagination-based interactive psychological device) and then capitalize upon them. And in game design this is exactly what happened I suspect with the 3rd Edition of D&D. (In reality it happens with most things to some degree, but usually the degree of dis-pondence, as in lack of correspondence, is very minor or functionally unnoticeable, or immaterial). By designing many of the parts in isolation from one another when the package was then later assembled the complexity of the design led to the unwitting development of a number of counter-realities orbiting the underlying and overall game reality, leading to a "disruption of gravities." (Hope you don't mind the physics analogies, often when discussing behavioral conditions I slip into physics based analogical comparisons.) When one aspect was stressed over another then the "center of gravity" or emphasis shifted in one direction, when another design element was emphasized then the center of gravity shifted yet again, in effect creating a number of different game-tides (I am of course creating neologisms peculiar to this discussion in order to describe what I am intending to say). this is why I suspect that to many people the 3rd Edition especially seemed like entirely different games to different people. Not because of the overall design, but because it produced so many unwitting counter-realities within itself.Suffice it to say that if you invent a very complex rule set then no matter how realistic it is, because it is an overlay reality, and not a real world reality, then counter-relates will inevitably develop, especially if design elements are developed in isolation at different time periods. That is why it is almost imperative to build in your own counter-realities and sometimes even anti-realities as counter-ballast when developing complex rule sets governing human action. If you don't build in such counterballast from the start then you face the unenviable task of developing your counter-measures to such counter-realities piece-meal, as you go along. If effect you must then strip out much of the original and useless overcomplexity, or you must face a future of constantly making a thing more and more and more complex as you attempt to jury-rig every possible crack that develops in the seams. So, in for a penny, in for a pound. I think though that your analysis was very astute about how complex the rules are in relationship to how game realities function and how or if a number of different, counter, or even anti-realities develop.I think though it might be constructive as an exercise to list the various types of Realities, Anti-Realities, and Counter Realities that exist in game designs and then you and others can debate the relative strengths and weaknesses of each one, as well as get some idea of how they relate one to another.After all you can't really know how a thing really operates or what it really means until you define it and then compare your definitions against other testable things for analysis.Anywho, good luck. I gotta go.Sorry about the numerous typos I'm sure I made. I had to write fast cause I've got a lot of work to do tonight.By the way, if I'm not mistaken you also will be studying to become a paramedic soon? I think i read that on your blog.If that is so, then Godspeed and congratulations. I'm a trained medic myself.Medicine and biology are old scientific interests of mine.As a little kid I used to do cryogenic freezing and recovery experiments on frogs and spiders. I also experimented by developing my own emergency medical and vet kit, and then by saving wounded and sick animals in the neighborhood (I grew up in the country on my dad's estate. So I had a lot of animals to work on.)It went uphill from there though, and so I got better over time.Anywho, gotta go.</blockquote>

Verification