I love browsing blogs, although I bet some bloggers wish I didn't. Found this article today on Troll and Flame and I must comment.
The basic idea is an old one, debated back and forth I'm sure since the first days of the hobby. I saw it in endless detail first back on rec.games.frp.advocacy in the 90s, and in my own groups since the release of original D&D.
r.g.f.a called it design in play vs design at start. But who really cares at this point.
My point is that for many players, Mr. Harman is completely right. And for at least as many, he's completely wrong.
His OSR 'Agile' method would never have produced JRRT's Lord of the Rings. That was immense detail of setting before the first words of the Ring novels were ever set to page. Instead it would produce something less than the latest Dragonlance novel which at least has some consistent background to be had. An even better comparison would be between LotR and Improv night.
Yes, one may not use 95% of the developed background- but the 5% you do is consistent, and ties in with a much greater whole. The result is immense depth, and bodies of work like Middle Earth can project that depth upon the reader. The same is true of rpg campaigns.
Further such vast amount of detail impacts how the GM runs their campaign. It makes them consistent with the world and the in-game characters, and not the moment to moment desires of themselves or their players which is a hallmark IME of 'agile' campaigns.
More pointedly, I disagree with using software design concepts (a field that I'm well versed in myself) in campaign or game design. Software is very direct, highly specific and highly literal. Those factors keep reusability low.
World backgrounds, history, and people in contrast are not. They are diffused, generalized, and often subject to individual viewpoint.
It would thus be no surprise that tools for software would produce shallow results when applied as a control method for something as wide ranging as fantasy world simulation.
Not everyone is capable of the work involved in creating a complete fantasy world, and not eveyone can is capable of handling a detailed ruleset in play. Others must change their character and world at whim in order to enjoy themselves.
That's fine, but I wish they'd realize that their limits or methods don't apply to everyone.
Oh, one more thing. I'm getting real tired of the OSR label. Their 'Old School' has nothing to do with the 1970 gaming scene as I live it. Or any scene other than the Internet for that matter.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Internet doesn't tell you anything worth knowing...
...about people's tasted in rpg games. Or rather, the part of the Internet you're reading likely doesn't tell you anything.
It's all too common to make the same mistake Zachary does here. One reads a number of sites online and starts to draw conclusions from them, and then goes on to try apply them to the hobby as a whole.
And that's wrong. At best it applies to those sites you happen to run.
People are still playing HERO, it's just had a new version released. People are playing D&D 4E (in some ways, the most rules heavy version of ever). People are still playing GURPS.
It just happens that he doesn't read those forums or visit the sites of those people.
IME, light rules are what they have always been: play things of online talking heads, and a small niche in the gaming hobby at large.
It's all too common to make the same mistake Zachary does here. One reads a number of sites online and starts to draw conclusions from them, and then goes on to try apply them to the hobby as a whole.
And that's wrong. At best it applies to those sites you happen to run.
People are still playing HERO, it's just had a new version released. People are playing D&D 4E (in some ways, the most rules heavy version of ever). People are still playing GURPS.
It just happens that he doesn't read those forums or visit the sites of those people.
IME, light rules are what they have always been: play things of online talking heads, and a small niche in the gaming hobby at large.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Can you really claim to be The Resource for D&D...
...when you've never seen a PC killed in a game before?
That was the first question that came to mind when I ran across this post at the poorly subtitled "The D&D Resource Blog for DMs & Players". A more fitting subtitle would be 'a wrong-headed newbie's best guess at how things should be done'.
Maybe to be fair, I should note that they have more than one writer on that blog. The others might be better.
Other than that, the article is about one of the first conflicts new DMs encounter when first taking up the hobby. Is one manly and thus goes with the truth of the game world? Or is one a wimp that alters that reality at whim to overturn the errors of their players?
Ameron is a wimp, willing to trade anything for 'fun'. A rather good definition of hedonism if one thinks about it, and a very short-sighted approach to just about anything.
I would have done the same as the DM who was running the game with but a couple of exceptions.
First, I wouldn't have told them a thing about the number or nature of the encounters ahead. That's knowledge they should have.
And second, the player who lost his character could run (within limits) some of the NPCs they encounter later in the game. Like some of the people they were trying to save. Sure, those may not be exciting as his former PC...
...but they're alive. And the player did get his character killed afterall.
And finally, by enforcing the reality of the game world- it remains alive too.
That was the first question that came to mind when I ran across this post at the poorly subtitled "The D&D Resource Blog for DMs & Players". A more fitting subtitle would be 'a wrong-headed newbie's best guess at how things should be done'.
Maybe to be fair, I should note that they have more than one writer on that blog. The others might be better.
Other than that, the article is about one of the first conflicts new DMs encounter when first taking up the hobby. Is one manly and thus goes with the truth of the game world? Or is one a wimp that alters that reality at whim to overturn the errors of their players?
Ameron is a wimp, willing to trade anything for 'fun'. A rather good definition of hedonism if one thinks about it, and a very short-sighted approach to just about anything.
I would have done the same as the DM who was running the game with but a couple of exceptions.
First, I wouldn't have told them a thing about the number or nature of the encounters ahead. That's knowledge they should have.
And second, the player who lost his character could run (within limits) some of the NPCs they encounter later in the game. Like some of the people they were trying to save. Sure, those may not be exciting as his former PC...
...but they're alive. And the player did get his character killed afterall.
And finally, by enforcing the reality of the game world- it remains alive too.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Veteran's Day
A rare sidestep from rpgs for a moment if allowed...
Today is a important day for me. A the son of a man who served in the Army for World War II, and the father of two sons currently serving in the Coast Guard and the Navy, it's a time for reflection.
Reflection both upon the amazing man who raised me, and that I somehow managed well enough to raise my boys such they that too serve the highest ideas of my country. I stand humbled, between one great generation, and the best of the next.
Heartfelt thanks to all who serve- past, present and future.
With that sidestep, one little bit on rpgs. There have been few rpgs about military service, and sadly they didn't last long. Of them I've played two that were a significant influence on how I approach rpgs both in play and in design.
The first was SPI's game Commando from 1979. It was published as a wargame, but had in its optional rules everything needed for a kick-backside rpg campaign.
Behind Enemy Lines was published in 1982 by FASA, and while I considered it's cover rules flawed, it captured the danger of warfare, and the heroism of those who endure it.
Today is a important day for me. A the son of a man who served in the Army for World War II, and the father of two sons currently serving in the Coast Guard and the Navy, it's a time for reflection.
Reflection both upon the amazing man who raised me, and that I somehow managed well enough to raise my boys such they that too serve the highest ideas of my country. I stand humbled, between one great generation, and the best of the next.
Heartfelt thanks to all who serve- past, present and future.
With that sidestep, one little bit on rpgs. There have been few rpgs about military service, and sadly they didn't last long. Of them I've played two that were a significant influence on how I approach rpgs both in play and in design.
The first was SPI's game Commando from 1979. It was published as a wargame, but had in its optional rules everything needed for a kick-backside rpg campaign.
Behind Enemy Lines was published in 1982 by FASA, and while I considered it's cover rules flawed, it captured the danger of warfare, and the heroism of those who endure it.
People should title their posts better...
Browsing RPG bloggers can be interesting sometimes. More often it just causes one to roll their eyes.
Like this post on Justin Achilli's blog. One would think that something titled "Realism Stinks, or What's It's all About" would have something to say about realism.
But it doesn't, or rather only says it stinks in passing. The article is really just What's It's All About, and in that respect it just trots out the rather old adage that a writer doesn't put a gun in scene 1 that isn't used someplace later.
Even here the article goes off the rails.
Why? Well, that may work for books and movies, with their very limited focus. RPGs however tend to more open in what they allow. In that line, vampires interacting with the modern world may well learn how to take advantage of the toys of the modern world. And that may include hacking computers and tricking the Army into launching an Apache Gunship attack on a rival clan.
Justin's failure here is very typical of online Theory writers- too much theory, not enough experience with how people actually play rpgs. Instead of wide open vistas, they offer limited little windows that one must squeeze through.
Oh, and they whine about realism in passing without saying anything.
Like this post on Justin Achilli's blog. One would think that something titled "Realism Stinks, or What's It's all About" would have something to say about realism.
But it doesn't, or rather only says it stinks in passing. The article is really just What's It's All About, and in that respect it just trots out the rather old adage that a writer doesn't put a gun in scene 1 that isn't used someplace later.
Even here the article goes off the rails.
Why? Well, that may work for books and movies, with their very limited focus. RPGs however tend to more open in what they allow. In that line, vampires interacting with the modern world may well learn how to take advantage of the toys of the modern world. And that may include hacking computers and tricking the Army into launching an Apache Gunship attack on a rival clan.
Justin's failure here is very typical of online Theory writers- too much theory, not enough experience with how people actually play rpgs. Instead of wide open vistas, they offer limited little windows that one must squeeze through.
Oh, and they whine about realism in passing without saying anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
