D&D General D&D's Evolution: Rulings, Rules, and "System Matters"

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think that in the bold, emphasis mine, you are laying your thumb on the scale a bit too heavily, which is a distracting detriment to the overall point you are trying to make.

Fair. I'll edit that.

EDIT-

The reason for this post is I was reflecting on what I see as a certain tension, if not irony, that underlies a few discussions. D&D, from the beginning to 5e's emphasis on "rulings, not rules," is a game that cries out to be FK, to be a game of players doing whatever they want with a neutral referee providing the results ... yet ends up encumbered by rules, cruft, and debates about RAW. As a reaction to this, you have many excellent games that arose from a different context- but instead of using the high-trust model of FK, they instead use various ways (either through explicit rules or norms) to create FK-like experiences that bind the referee.

 

[clearstream]

One of the main stumbling blocks to these discussions is the inference that thinking about or even advocating for the benefits of a particular style or type of game is implicitly or explicitly an attempt to privilege that style over others (onetruewayism and badwrongfun respectively). For me, I'm just interested in FKR as an idea that seems interesting and potentially fun, not as a way to rule out other options.

On one hand, I take it you are not making the inference that breaking down and critiquing a style or type of game means that one has to be thinking that those on the other side are aiming to privilege that style? That is, to assume that a critical analysis must be arguing against.

On the other hand, this is the internet: if someone writes something then they should be prepared for what they wrote to be addressed with sincerity. They shouldn't shield behind 'just discussion', 'just joshing', 'not advocating', because there's no way to know if that is truth or camouflage.

 

[FrogReaver]

….so, you do understand that discussion of something isn’t the same as advocacy, right?

I think that the FKR movement (and the Arnesonian antecedents) are fascinating. shrug

I'm not so sure it's that simple.

There's only so much time for discussion and you picked this one. You find it fascinating, but doesn't your fascination and the fact that you brought up this topic imply that you are advocating that it's an interesting, important and useful topic to understand. I mean, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks". So why is it interesting, important and useful? Why is it worth discussing? And isn't the 'why' there ultimately a form of advocacy for this idea?

 

[clearstream]

And as I mentioned in that thread, in practice I think this style of play works best not just with high trust of the DM, but when the gameplay involves a degree of collaboration and conversation, the kind advocated for in storygames. The difference I think is that storygames are skeptical that that style of high trust play is possible without specific mechanics that constrain the gm and empower players. But both story games and fkr are skeptical that complicated, extensive rulesets (e.g. pathfinder, prussian wargames) can enable emergent play and/or be truly managed without becoming a headache for most people.

As I noted, I see the play styles working to differing ends, and of course where that lands depends on what one takes those ends to be in the first place!

For example, one of the key ends of D&D - and I suspect part of why it is so broadly appealing - is character progression. Take a look at Cthulhu Dark, or I could link my own light game or that of friends who regularly post me their latest takes on their own games. The key progression in the CoC-genre is always to the cliff edge. There is no gaining powerful features that allow you to drive a stake into the emergent narrative. Even though the published version of CD is 200 pages long, those pages don't provide scaffolding for character advancement. If I had to put it as briefly as possible, I would say that ultralight games are in the moment - flow is crucial.

Could I write a game that was ultralight and had deep character progression. I think I could start a game on that journey with very few rules, but by the time we had gotten far - by the time characters actually had progression - we'd find we had a lot of rules in the form of things characters had done and could do again. That is what happened with a friend's "Immortals" ultralight or diceless game. At the start we had virtually no rules. Down the line, we had individual characters with small books of rules. You then have to make a decision - how much do you care about character progression, and how much do you want to get back to being in the moment? Do you want to make it possible for other players - elsewhere - to follow the arcs of progression that you did? Or will your minimal rules be the seeds of shooting stars?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm not so sure it's that simple.

There's only so much time for discussion and you picked this one. You find it fascinating, but doesn't your fascination and the fact that you brought up this topic imply that you are advocating that it's an interesting, important and useful topic to understand. I mean, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks". So why is it interesting, important and useful? Why is it worth discussing? And isn't the 'why' there ultimately a form of advocacy for this idea?

Well, the interesting thing about all of this is that in the abundance of text that I regurgitate in my posts, I usually explain WHY I am doing something. I often provide links so people can read about the topics for themselves, as well. Not that most people bother reading either the OP or the links, but that's neither here nor there.

For example, for this topic I was reading a post by someone else that raised the issue, and it made me think about the topic some more. I find the topic interesting both because it goes to the early history of D&D (really, the proto-history) which is something I am always interested in, and it is also something that is of recent vintage (the last couple of years) that I had not seen discussed here before.

So, again, bringing up a topic is not the same as advocating for it.* Those who see it as such are just trying to internally justify their own desire to argue. If you want to argue, more power to you, but don't expect other people to want to engage with you.

*This is such a basic point it's hard to keep re-stating it. If I am on a movie discussion forum and I say, "Hey, has anyone seen the trailer for the new Wes Anderson film, The French Dispatch," that doesn't mean that I am advocating that Wes Anderson is the best director ever, that other directors suck, or that you should read the New Yorker. It just means that I saw something and thought it would make for an interesting conversation.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, the interesting thing about all of this is that in the abundance of text that I regurgitate in my posts, I usually explain WHY I am doing something. I often provide links so people can read about the topics for themselves, as well. Not that most people bother reading either the OP or the links, but that's neither here nor there.

For example, for this topic I was reading a post by someone else that raised the issue, and it made me think about the topic some more. I find the topic interesting both because it goes to the early history of D&D (really, the proto-history) which is something I am always interested in, and it is also something that is of recent vintage (the last couple of years) that I had not seen discussed here before.

So, again, bringing up a topic is not the same as advocating for it.* Those who see it as such are just trying to internally justify their own desire to argue. If you want to argue, more power to you, but don't expect other people to want to engage with you.

*This is such a basic point it's hard to keep re-stating it. If I am on a movie discussion forum and I say, "Hey, has anyone seen the trailer for the new Wes Anderson film, The French Dispatch," that doesn't mean that I am advocating that Wes Anderson is the best director ever, that other directors suck, or that you should read the New Yorker. It just means that I saw something and thought it would make for an interesting conversation.

There's a vast difference in saying, "have you seen this film trailer?" and saying, "I find this film trailer fascinating, have you seen it?"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There's a vast difference in saying, "have you seen this film trailer?" and saying, "I find this film trailer fascinating, have you seen it?"

So... what you're saying is that you read my whole post, then decided to take out a single thing and ... argue with it.

Okay! I doubt that a conversation between someone who wants to discuss things, and someone who wants to argue that all discussions are arguments, will be productive. So this conversation is done (from my perspective).

 

[FrogReaver]

Anyways, to contribute something more substantial to the conversation.

The more I think on this topic the more I think about Order vs Chaos. Codification of rules is order. Non-codified rules is chaos. Order says, what we have now works. Let's not just change on a whim. Chaos says what we have now could work better. Let's change it and find out. Order says the rules let us all know how things work. Chaos says the rules are restrictions on what can be done.

It's this order and chaos paradigm that this discussion reminds me so much of and it's applicable not just to D&D, RPG's, Wargames, but really so many facets of life, civilization and society.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Anyways, to contribute something more substantial to the conversation.

The more I think on this topic the more I think about Order vs Chaos. Codification of rules is order. Non-codified rules is chaos. Order says, what we have now works. Let's not just change on a whim. Chaos says what we have now could work better. Let's change it and find out. Order says the rules let us all know how things work. Chaos says the rules simply restrictions on what can be done.

It's this order and chaos paradigm that this discussion reminds me so much of.

I think this is not a terribly useful take. This isn't an order first that chaos is rebelling against, it's a balance between objectives and goals. Otherwise, 5e is Chaos fighting the Order that is GURPS, as GURPS has preceded 5e. While GURPS is Order fighting the Chaos of earlier editions of D&D. The reality is more that there's just different ways to do things.

 

[FrogReaver]

So... what you're saying is that you read my whole post, then decided to take out a single thing and ... argue with it.

Okay! I doubt that a conversation between someone who wants to discuss things, and someone who wants to argue that all discussions are arguments, will be productive. So this conversation is done (from my perspective).

You know, I generally find your posts fascinating and your opening post and many others here were no exception. That doesn't mean I'll stand by and watch you being dismissive of others or of me as you do here for no good reason without speaking up.

Oh and yes, this conversation is done (from my perspective as well).