Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6202226" data-attributes="member: 3192">Good to know. But 4th is still trying to be a skirmish game used as narrative resolution for a storytelling game, even if it isn't the fashionable mechanics of "Story Now, Story Only" games. The Big Model philosophy from which it was designed doesn't apply to non-narrative games (i.e. the vast majority of them) and was designed specifically to avoid any understanding of actual games, game design, and game play. ...but that doesn't mean 4e isn't a well designed game. It's has a very solid combat system only it's designed like Magic: the Gathering - exception-based design. It's not suitable for a D&D code hidden behind the screen the players attempt to learn through play. Both contemporary mainstream U.S. and British schools of Analytic Philosophy largely treat mental ideas as existing within the realm of the physical universe. As am I. Game rules, and by extension their current configuration in the field of play, are existent in and of themselves in our heads. D&D Players aren't positing propositions. They are attempting actions within an actual construct in my brain by telling me what they are trying to do. According to the code or rules I've prepared, they can, cannot, or have a chance to do so. As with any open code game like Situational Puzzles there is the possibility their action isn't covered and it is then added to the code. The truth of the action isn't relevant. It could be considered "true" if possible within the pre-existing game rules, but then it's only true relative to them. As a reference to anything outside my head like Dragons and such, of course, are a fiction. Treating any game play as "introducing content to the fiction" is immediately removing it from common game play objectives and into the Forge realm of narrative creation behavior. You are not doing this in Chess, Poker, or in D&D. You could in a storygame version of D&D, but then you don't need any rules, GM, prepared material, memory, forethought, and basically game play of any kind. "No other adequate account" sounds like your opinion isn't open to interpretation any longer, especially by yourself. I suggest, if you fall into the realm of narrative with games, you lose the act of gaming to another sphere of human existence. (Like quitting on remembering altogether and instead exclusively trying to invent). Allow yourself an "inadequate accounting" if you must in order to stop perpetuating what I believe is another's malicious understanding of games ultimately promoting their extinction by limiting all of them under a highly prejudiced model.D&D is a boardgame. It is hidden behind the screen and actually discovered by players through play. Storygames refer to"fictional positioning", D&D players refer to actual positioning like Marching Order for one.  I think you are still trapped in Forgie narrative theory if you think games have "color". Games have an "aesthetic response" too, but as that is referring to art and not The Big Model people aren't parroting it around the hobby. We are not talking about art or narrative. We are talking about games. Don't get trapped in another mode just because it attempts universality. Yeah, both those terms aren't game terms or game theory terms. So I trust what you say is in tune within Big Model philosophy, but I am talking about D&D as a game, not a fiction. And yes, D&D gets to the core of our fundamental metaphysics. In RPGs, the metaphysical understanding depends upon whether or nor you are inventing a story or playing a game. Stories and games are actualities, not fictions (i.e. non-existents). I believe the term fiction (often used to be all-encompassing in the Big Model) is confusing you because you are treating the actual thing, the game or story, as a reference to something existent besides itself. Stories and games exist in our heads, using them in communication to refer to something outside our heads which we believe is non-existent is pretending the referenced fiction is real. Loosely calling actual stories "fiction" is to speak of their reference to the world. It is not to say the stories do not actually exist, that you are in no way experiencing them. D&D requires a code be used by referee in order to retain an actual domain of play for players to engage and experience. Games rules are required too, which need to be held by all participants. Storygames require actual shared rules in order to function as well, only the Big Model refers to all game content, story, and rules, as "The Fiction" which only serves to perpetuate a diminished scope of game design and play. But that is from that community's personal vocabulary. As an opinion, it's fine. As a coherent understanding of our hobby it doesn't cover 99% of RPGs prior to Indie Storygames.I don't have an issue with people thinking of narrative tropes when designing an adventure or campaign setting. I take issue when designers neglect treating those two as material for games. Scenarios require extensive balancing, support within the game system, and in D&D resemble Advanced Squad Leader adventures rather than Act / Scene plot lines. Games are designed as games first, narrative, artistic, political, religious, and any other perspectives are secondary. They do not need those aspects to be games. Lose the understanding that you are playing a game and you've quit playing a game. You are doing something else. So, tropes are not an absolute, just as narrative is not an absolute and unnecessary for a game (and role playing as a matter of fact). Don't want tropes in your game? Don't include storytelling in your game and there won't be any. And for the record, I connect to what is posted when I share something in common with it. Not because someone attests it is "playing D&D". The "D&D is a meaningless label" ship has sailed.</blockquote>

Verification