a protrait of an actual person (as opposed to a portrait painting of an artistic ideal of that person, a portrait of a fictional person, etc.) is still actually mathematically mdelable in geometric margins of error.
Sure, but using a different metric than the one you would use to determine "pleasing human features". Which means that "pleasing human features" is not a universal design of art, even limiting to art that depicts people.
Again, I'm not saying that nothing is measurable. Only that the measurability of something doesn't necessarily tell us why measuring it is useful.
In other words, once we identify a design goals, it may be measurable. But first we need to identify it as a design goal.
I disagree.
Could you (or anyone other tham Mr. Van Gogh, who is now dead and thus unavailable for comment) genuinely make an accurate claim to knowing the exact design intent
No, I couldn't. But I don't limit "design goals" to the designer's intent. It could also be based on the consumer's desires. However, in such a case, we must accommodate the fact that such desires may be subjective in nature and not universal. (I think this also addresses your cooking and medicine analogies.)
Still, we can analyze this piece of work in terms like color pallete, composition, placement, symmetry, likely reaction by a viewer, et al.
Sure. There are lots of things that are measurable. Not all measurable things are useful to measure. We measure things generally against either the designer's goals, and/or the consumer's desires/needs. (And just to be pedantic, we can also check to see if something comes within the definition of the subject being measured -- i.e., is the object edible, is the object a game, is the object medicine)
If we are judging things from the standpoint of the consumer -- which is perfectly valid -- then we need to acknowledge that consumer preference is subjective and there may not be one universal ideal (akin to the analysis of tomato sauce set forth in the Malcolm Gladwell video linked to earlier). While there may be some universally accepted aesthetics, such aesthetics are generally determinable, not by threads on a discussion forum, but through sociological surveys. That's why I make reference to Game Studies. That field may eventually determine that there are universal preferences in games or types of games. But they'll do it methodically. I doubt they'll do it by surveying members of a niche forum.
That would likely be because the point given by mand does not invalidate, but INCLUDE your point.
The point you have been trying to make, however, excludes many of his.
To make a more appropriate example:
Consider for a moment F.A.T.A.L. and its designers. (just a moment, and then you can stop)
Imagine that by some freak happenstance the system they wound up designing had unintentionally been one that follows the same mechanics and design precepts of 4e, perhaps with some improvements according to that standard.
Now, we would likely say that the designers had failed in some fashion at their intent, but me might also marvel at how easily adaptable that game was to less deviant intents, and I would likely own a copy of that system minus all of what their likely inserted fluff would be, and play it on a regular basis.
Judged solely according to the intended design, it would be a mess, a failure, useless and horrible. It would fail at being a horrific game made by maladjusted deviants for maladjusted deviants. It would work quite well at a number of other things, and one might well remark on its balance, composition, ease of grasp, intuitive design and layout, and many other metrics that are positive, but because the designers intended none of this, all those factors would be deemed "irrelevant."
I'm not saying that design intent is not a single method by which one may consider relevance of collected measurements, and I don't think Mand is either, although he is free to correct me in that regard.
I am saying that it is not the only method by which one may consider relevance of collected measurements, and stating that it is seems (after thorough examination) to be no more true than stating any single individual measurement is the only reference point by which any game or other piece of art or design should be judged.
To follow, a 5/0 brush designed originally for house painting is very much a poor tool for painting houses in most cases, unless one should desire some strange level of detail work in said paint. that does not mean that by measuring ergonomics, materials, absorbancy, durability, etc. that one could claim that it is wholly a bad tool for every purpose. One could, n fact, note that it is an excellently crafted tool that fails at its originally intended purpose but is exceedingly useful in other applications.
Jackonomicon™ It's not always safe for work, but it's great for play.
Imagine that by some freak happenstance the system they wound up designing had unintentionally been one that follows the same mechanics and design precepts of 4e, perhaps with some improvements according to that standard.
Again, as I said, we can judge a game by the designers' intent and/or the consumers' preferences. Here, you are hyptohtesizing as RPG that fails to meet the designers' own goals, but is attractive to a subset of RPG consumers (4e fans).
To follow, a 5/0 brush designed originally for house painting is very much a poor tool for painting houses in most cases, unless one should desire some strange level of detail work in said paint. that does not mean that by measuring ergonomics, materials, absorbancy, durability, etc. that one could claim that it is wholly a bad tool for every purpose. One could, n fact, note that it is an excellently crafted tool that fails at its originally intended purpose but is exceedingly useful in other applications.
Um. Ok? I'm not sure how that relates. I'm not discussing limited analysis based on a specifically identified consumer subset (i.e., 4e fans). I'm discussing a determination of universal game design precepts.
Sure, but using a different metric than the one you would use to determine "pleasing human features". Which means that "pleasing human features" is not a universal design of art, even limiting to art that depicts people.
Which would be why I specifically made note that I did not consider it to be a universal design of art, and also was very careful to state that it was not, has not and (now) is not and will not be my position to make this claim, nor is any argument I have made predicated on the basis that it is, should be, must be, or even could be a universal design of art.
Since I have not made any claim or taken any position which this statement would contradict, and in fact have made this exact statement (although worded differently) I am unsure why you made this statement in response to the text you quoted.
Am I really being that unclear?
Again, I'm not saying that nothing is measurable. Only that the measurability of something doesn't necessarily tell us why measuring it is useful.
I have not asserted that you have claimed nothing is measurable.
I have stated that your proposed metric for judging the relevance of measured values is one possible relevant metric among many--in that it may or may not actually be relevant to the decision.
No, I couldn't. But I don't limit "design goals" to the designer's intent. It could also be based on the consumer's desires. However, in such a case, we must accommodate the fact that such desires may be subjective in nature and not universal. (I think this also addresses your cooking and medicine analogies.)
"Consumer desires" are not design goals. They are "marketing goals" and (depending on one's level of cynicism) possible "marketing constructs."
Design: purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object Goal: The object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result
Thus, a design goal (as it applies to the design of RPGs) would be "the object of ambition or effort associated with the purpose, planning or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind a produced system, which is the RPG.
While the original designer may have had a consumer desire in mind, that would be part of the designers intent. The term "design goal" is pretty much self-limiting to "designers intent."
I am not sure exactly how you think this addressed the cookie or medicine thing. I don't think you're trying to be evasive or anything, I'm just genuinely not understanding how this would apply.
Sure. There are lots of things that are measurable. Not all measurable things are useful to measure.1 We measure things generally against either the designer's goals, and/or the consumer's desires/needs.2 (And just to be pedantic, we can also check to see if something comes within the definition of the subject being measured -- i.e., is the object edible, is the object a game, is the object medicine)
I agree in part, but not wholly. I agree that not all measurements are of the same value. Every measurement has relevance, but certain measurements are less relevant when given consideration next to the overall measurements of an object.
For instance, we can measure the exact weight of a book, and produce a hexidecimal color code for the average tone of its cover. We can do the same for the base color of the paper itself. On the other hand, "average color" and "weight" are predictably minor considerations in the vast majority of circumstances where one would evaluate the end product. Someone may purchase the PHB1 because they really enjoy the color blue, or (even less likely) because it would make a nice visual adtion to their bookshelf where that shade of blue would go nicely with the covers of surrounding books, but these considerations are generally not going to be considered by most users.
At the same time, a redesign of 3.5 (similar to earlier drafts of Pathfinder, but perhaps taken farther) that contained "wizards" and "fighters" using very separate mechanical subsystems but progressed equally in breadth and depth of available power would (as earlier drafts of Pathfinder were) be largely rejected by the community. It may, however, be immensely popular with people outside of that community despite the original intent to appeal solely to them.
If we are judging things from the standpoint of the consumer -- which is perfectly valid -- then we need to acknowledge that consumer preference is subjective and there may not be one universal ideal (akin to the analysis of tomato sauce set forth in the Malcolm Gladwell video linked to earlier).
I agree with this and have not stated otherwise. Actually i believe I have been quite careful to not only avoid stating anything in conflict with it, but have actually stated this repeatedly.
While there may be some universally accepted aesthetics, such aesthetics are generally determinable, not by threads on a discussion forum, but through sociological surveys.
Agreed. Just like one is far more likely to determine strong, factual claims of ways to improve or supplement balanced class mechanics by analyzing them and studying them off-site rather than just asking random strangers what they think.
Still, this is a forum, and a forum's design intent is discussion, and hopefully an enjoyable one. I do not think that Mand was expecting to publish world/industry changing results based on the conversation here. I see no harm in idle discussion, or even slightly more serious debate involving a forum. The fact that it takes place or originates here need not automatically invalidate any conclusions that an individual may reach, or even a point of view that is expressed or reached as a result of ideas they hear from others here. Being on an internet forum certainly increased lthe liklihood of being presented with a false premise, but it does not assure that any premise presented is false.
TL;DR: Y SO SRS?
That's why I make reference to Game Studies. That field may eventually determine that there are universal preferences in games or types of games. But they'll do it methodically. I doubt they'll do it by surveying members of a niche forum.
I agree, but as a scientifically minded individual (at least in some fashion) I reject all authoritarianism, which is to say that I do not accept anything based solely on the source in which it presented, but neither am I willing to automatically dismiss anything based solely on its source without consideration. A "scientific" study can be just as flawed as any discussion amongst semi-literate feebs on myriad niche fora (which is not an attempt to slander or describe anyone or anything specific, just an example) and the fact that the behavior takes place in a lab or university should lend it no more creedence than taking place in some geek's basement or garage.
I can think of one advancement to come from such a source right now that I'm particularly enamored of.
Still, this is a forum, and a forum's design intent is discussion, and hopefully an enjoyable one. I do not think that Mand was expecting to publish world/industry changing results based on the conversation here. I see no harm in idle discussion, or even slightly more serious debate involving a forum. The fact that it takes place or originates here need not automatically invalidate any conclusions that an individual may reach, or even a point of view that is expressed or reached as a result of ideas they hear from others here. Being on an internet forum certainly increased lthe liklihood of being presented with a false premise, but it does not assure that any premise presented is false.
Again, as I said, we can judge a game by the designers' intent and/or the consumers' preferences. Here, you are hyptohtesizing as RPG that fails to meet the designers' own goals, but is attractive to a subset of RPG consumers (4e fans).
Indeed, and was doing so under the assumption that you were arguing design intent was the only metric to judge value.
Same thing goes with the brush.
We seem to have some misunderstandings.
Let's examine your given premise: "we can judge a game by the designers' intent and/or the consumers' preferences"
"We can judge a game by the designers' intent." I agree with this statement. Designers' intent can be very informative the way we choose to value the relevance of our measurements.
"And/or" I agree that designers' intent is not a universally applicable way to value the relevance of those measurements as well.
"the consumers' preferences." And here is the sticky bit, I think.
I think overall consumer preference is, in some fashion modelable and predictable. If it wasn't, then Game Studies would be a dead and useless field, as would anything related to marketing and advertisement. It'd all be random and unknowable...
But it's obviously not, as we have found ways (especially within the past few decades) to elicit specific desired responses from consumers by including objectively measurable properties in our products and designs. We've gone way past "sex sells" and hit on fast food restauraunts in buildings designed to elicit a hunger response from the autonomic portions of the brain and then a flight/movement response so that the individuals come in, get thier product, and then GTFO.
I don't think that you can universally model every single individual human's exact responses to every possible stimuli created by design. Let me be very clear about that. I firmly believe that if every drop of free water on the face of the earth disappeared right this instant, there would be at least one stubborn SOB who would choose to die of dehydration if the only other alternative was buying a bottle of Dasani. You cannot please everyone all the time. I do not support any thesis which promotes that you can.
But I do believe that you can predict a vast majority of given responses to particular design features, precepts, functions, and flaws given the proper time, methods of examination, and resources to process the necessary data.
Gamers are not so unique and special that they are wholly unpredictable by any model.
Jackonomicon™ It's not always safe for work, but it's great for play.
So, let me see if I can go back to the root of this discussion:
The original post posited that (for example) more balanced play is objectively and universally a superior design goal for RPGs. Objections were made to this, followed by intense rebuttals and so forth until feathers were ruffled. Is that anyone else's take on these 46 pages, or did I miss something?
So, let me see if I can go back to the root of this discussion: The original post posited that (for example) more balanced play is objectively and universally a superior design goal for RPGs. Objections were made to this, followed by intense rebuttals and so forth until feathers were ruffled. Is that anyone else's take on these 46 pages, or did I miss something? Where do the current debaters stand on this?
Same as on page one. More balanced play is not a objectively superior design goal for RPGs, but some people are still arguing that it is. At best, you can say that more balanced play is a superior design goal for those RPGs that are targeted at people who like more balanced play.
I am interested if you have any insight or opinion to share with regards to what you personally enjoy in your TTRPG. Perhaps there is an element that you enjoy or feel is well executed/implemented in another TTRPG that could be migrated into the DnD experience? I understand that your opinion, like my own, will not resonate with everyone, or maybe even anyone. However, I, for one, am still interested in hearing what your believe makes for an enjoyable TTRPG (again, in your opinion of course), and would thus like to gain some perspective from what you have to share/offer.
Personally, I would like to see WotC publish more, and more polished, story-driven content. They have some real top-notch writers, that are both familiar and passionate with the setting and lore, continuously publishing novels and new stories. I would like to see WotC contract some of this writing talent to generate some short stories which the development team can then form into playable adventures. In my opinion, 4E is slightly too combat heavy; it could use a stronger story element to make the adventures more memorable.
My personal opinions on what I want? Sure. I can provide that: I have gotten really burnt out on 4e (I still love the game, but I need a break from it). Existing 4e adventurs feel like dungeon crawls to me, whether they are in a dungeon or not. They seem to be little more than a string of combat encounters tied together by a badly written skill challenge. I got tired of taking the time to make them play like the 50/50 combat/non-combat always RP heavy mix I was looking for. I also got a little tired of the 4e combat mechanics. The constant counting of squares, and the total lack of incentive to narrate your actions in a verbal format, was starting to make me feel like I was playing a boardgame (again, I am not saying 4e is a board game. It is actually one of my favorite RPGs. But, I need a break from playing it right now). So, I started looking for a game that would slate my RPG thirst...
I found Warhammer FRPG 3e. I am loving it. I don't know that these mechanics can (or should) be ported into D&D, let alone 4e D&D, but these are the things that I have found to be great fun:
1) Its adventures. They are well written, sandbox style, RP heavy, and a ton of fun to run.
2) Its spotlight design. Every character ends up having an important way to contribute to the group's activities overall, but the game makes no attempt to try and balance people in a microcosmic encounter based fashion; some characters rock as social abilities, some characters rock in combat, it is very possible to have a character who is good at one but not the other; even better, combat is little more than another type of skill. Specifically, melee weapons, ballistic weapons, arcane magic, and priestly magic, are all just skills. Whether you are in social encounters, or in a fight, you are pretty much using the same mechanics either way.
3) The game has a strong focus on increasing your chances of success via good narration. Any time someone takes the time to narrate an activity in a smart fashion, they get extra white luck dice (more on dice in a moment). Any time someone does something stupid, like ignoring the descriptions given by the GM and trying to do something that is unlikely to succeed in the context of the narrative, just because they have an action card that they think will trump the situation they find themselves in, they incur black misfortune dice. The result seems to be a larger focus on narration in terms of actual play experience. I really like that.
4) Its resolution mechanic is image based instead of math based. It uses game specific dice that have symbols on them. Certain symbols cancel each other out. Once everything is canceled out you are looking to have certain symbols to succeed, certain symbols to grant minor benefits (whether you succeed or not), certain symbols to incur minor hindrances (whether you succeed or not), and so on and so forth. I find that this system is a lot faster to use than more math heavy systems, such as the d20 system. I just find it much faster to look at symbols and quickly interpret them than I do to roll dice and count totals.
5) It is very gritty. It has a really neat wound mechanic that allows for the sort of injury people face in D&D (minor flesh wounds and strained muscles that don't really impact you mechanically), deadly critical hits (broken arms, twisted ankles, broken ribs, and mechanical effects that model the pain), and permanent injury (nasty scars, loss of limbs, and the like). I am a big fan of gritty settings.
6) The game is card based. Not as in "random booster pack" card based, but as in all the talents (feats), actions (powers), injuries, diseases, mutations, spell misscasts, and the like, are all printed on cards. The game is primarily composed of boxed sets that include both rule books, and new cards. All the rules you need for any effect are always present on a card in front of you. This makes the game run very smoothly during play (though, it means that I have to spend a lot of time prepping the table and cleaning up, which is a downside).
7) There is not a huge discrepancy in power between higher rank and lower rank characters. The result of this is that you can face the same creatures at all levels (weaker creatures just become easier to kill, and less of a threat, as you advance. They never stop being a threat, however).
8) The game is much more mechanically tied to its fluff. I am really enjoying this change of pace after 4e's very fluff divorced mechanics.
9) At the end of every session a character gains a mechanical benefit to their character. You get 1 EXP which equals 1 advance per session (or act, if you play very long sessions). That 1 EXP equals one advance. An advance can be used to increase your wound threshold, gain a new action, gain a new talent, buy a permanent luck die for a particular stat, or a particular use of a skill, and so on and so forth. This means that you feel like your character grows measurably all the time.
10) Its magic system is very cool. Its a sort of channeling based magic system that reminds me very much of a cross between the Wheel of Time and Dragon Age. Spellcasters can see the "winds of magic" (which are very much like the weaves of the Wheel of Time). This can come in hand when the group is investigating the use of magic (as casters can potentially see remains of disturbed winds after a spell has been cast, much the way characters can in Wheel of Time). However, each time you cast you risk causing yourself great harm. You can both over-channel, harming your body physically, much the way you can in Wheel of Time. But, even worse, when you miscast you open yourself up to demonic influence. This can result in corruption which can, potentially, result in Dragon Age style mutation and abomination
11) Characters grow organically, and you can choose exactly how you want to advance. You never gain levels, and you don't gain fixed benefits from a level. Instead, you use your advances to purchase benefits. You gain only the benefits you have chosen to purchase. This allows you to figure out exactly what you keep trying to do in game (because you happen to enjoy doing a particular activity in game), and to advance in ways that benefits those activities. You never advance in anything that you don't want to advance in.
Yea. I don't know. That is what I am enjoying right now.
