D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[kenada]

So, surely the same sorts of 'judgment factors' come in when doing something like setting a DC, unless your 'skill' system is really modeling whether or not the character achieves their intent, and then PbtA-like you can kind of just say "well, its a coin toss" because you're really mostly just modeling the STORY and not the action itself (though PbtA doesn't quite put it in those terms and some moves are more 'task like' than others).

I don’t use DCs. I don’t particularly like them. I originally used a fixed DC, which is similar to how B/X does skills, but the current iteration of the system uses 3d6 with a PbtA-style range of success (9−/10–14/15+). I’m also leaning towards conflict resolution over task resolution. The actual skill list is pretty small, and skills by themselves don’t do anything. You need an appropriate speciality to be able to use a skill. Specialities are statements about what your character does with the skill. I seed some specialities via background and class (plus those that everyone generally has), but you can get more by doing things in the fiction. There is also a feat for being able to write “impossible” specialities.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don’t use DCs. I don’t particularly like them. I originally used a fixed DC, which is similar to how B/X does skills, but the current iteration of the system uses 3d6 with a PbtA-style range of success (9−/10–14/15+). I’m also leaning towards conflict resolution over task resolution. The actual skill list is pretty small, and skills by themselves don’t do anything. You need an appropriate speciality to be able to use a skill. Specialities are statements about what your character does with the skill. I seed some specialities via background and class (plus those that everyone generally has), but you can get more by doing things in the fiction. There is also a feat for being able to write “impossible” specialities.

Right, so I'm not confident I know what kind of play you are aiming for exactly. I'd think its possible to have 'skill at character building' with this sort of set up, but it probably tends to lend itself to some form of Narrative play, I'd think. Like it would be interesting to really focus on generating a B/X like narrative. I mean, Dungeon World kinda does it, but its very different with its Story Now focused design. Instead a game like this could focus on the setting conceits of dungeon exploration and survival test the PCs as a driver for generating a dungeon crawl experience. It could in one sense feel a lot like classic OSR play, but with a quite different design. But I'm not sure exactly where you are going with it.

 

[kenada]

Right, so I'm not confident I know what kind of play you are aiming for exactly. I'd think its possible to have 'skill at character building' with this sort of set up, but it probably tends to lend itself to some form of Narrative play, I'd think.

Like I said, I’m looking at drifting it towards setting-centric Story Now, so that’s intentional.

Like it would be interesting to really focus on generating a B/X like narrative. I mean, Dungeon World kinda does it, but its very different with its Story Now focused design. Instead a game like this could focus on the setting conceits of dungeon exploration and survival test the PCs as a driver for generating a dungeon crawl experience. It could in one sense feel a lot like classic OSR play, but with a quite different design. But I'm not sure exactly where you are going with it.

The agenda shift is recent, so I’m still processing what that means for the system. It originally started out as something to support “the campaign is a science experiment”, but I found that a Process Sim approach is basically unworkable. If you try to model things with rolls, you’ll be rolling to failure (and it’s boring). I have prepped very little in the last four or so sessions, and they’ve all been awesome sessions. I want to lean into the things that made that work.

If I had to elevator pitch it, I would describe it as taking Moldvay Basic drifted towards Story Now. The characters still feel very similar to D&D characters (though a bit more powerful compared to from B/X). They still have a lot of familiar elements like classes and saving throws. Combat is still more or less D&D in style. Monsters can almost be used as-is. But once you get out of combat, the system leans pretty heavily on the PCs to drive thing forward.

For example, I have a hex map. It’s skeletal. Out of 285 hexes, I have 12 of them keyed†. The entries in the key are short and describe a situation in the hex. I wrote it before the agenda shift, so I don’t know yet how or to what extent it should change. However, most of what we know has been discovered in play. For example, there’s a red dragon* to the north that visits the ruins the party is trying to rebuild. What is it doing? Don’t know yet. We’ll have to continue playing to find out.

I also want to have some “living world” stuff, but the plan is to handle that with something similar to how BitD handles factions. They’ll have assets and goals, and those things will tick down. I need to get the specifics ironed out though, so I can actually start making use of them …. (Replacing WWN’s terrible faction system was what lead me to do my own thing.)

---

* Since it uses Moldvay Basic for its bestiary, a red dragon definitely not something one should want to fight. I think if the PCs made their Reflex (DEX) saving throws against the breath attack, most of them would survive (but be badly hurt). Except the thief. Poor d4 HD thief.

† Edit: And the situations were generated using WWN’s tags system. The PCs don’t know what those contents are, but they they do know which settlements are ruined. We covered that during the first session when they pointed to the central one and declared they wanted to loot it (the fallen capital).

 

[pemerton]

By R I mean a rule that we can point to in common, even if we have different ideas about what it means. For example, I can point to the Harden Will rule on page 137 of The One Ring 2nd ed. and normally we can both identify that rule.

By Z I mean what we take that rule to mean. On enworld there are numerous examples of disagreements as to what a commonly identified rule (an R) means (its Z.)

What we can point to is a string of English words with a widely accepted syntactic logic, and some general semantic properties. It's not uncommon for there to be multiple tenable interpretations of such a thing. In Australian law, when this comes up in the interpretation of a statute, it is called having a choice of constructions.

Over time, practice and precedent and shared understandings and expectations might change the degree of constructional choice. The wording of the non-establishment provisions in the US and Australian constitutions is very similar, but their legal effect is very different, because they have been interpreted and applied quite differently in the two jurisdictions. Where there was once constructional choice, there no longer is.

In his DMG, Gygax tells us that the reward in a dungeon (treasure) should be commensurate to the risk posed in obtaining it (monsters and traps). Does that mean that 12 kobolds in a room in the first level of a dungeon should have 100 cp, 100 sp, or 100 gp? I don't think Gygax's words, simply read as a sentence of English in accordance with their syntax and their basic semantic properties, can answer that question.

The normal way of resolving a constructional choice is to work out what the purpose of the statute is - taken as a whole, what legal effect does it aim at? How would various candidate interpretations of the particular rule in question conform with that overall logic?

In the case of statutory interpretation, a court is of course under a duty to try and get it right. In the context of game rules, there is no corresponding duty and so while the principle of working out how candidate interpretations of particular rues conform with the overall logic of the game remains a good one, we have a greater liberty to choose what we take the logic of the game to be. But that doesn't make it a free-for-all - constructional choice is not unlimited even before we zoom out to the wider context of the framework of rules within which the rule is located, and once we do zoom out we will find that the imputation of purpose and logic is not utterly open-ended either.

When I GMed a session of Wuthering Heights, I had to make decisions about calling for checks against Rage and Despair, for adjudicating the severity of the shocks that cause those stats to fluctuate, etc. Different approaches are possible here, which will affect how quickly the game escalates. But whatever the decisions made in interpreting and applying the rules, there is no way the resulting play will be much like 5e D&D play (beyond the basic fact that both games are RPGs with fairly traditional player and GM role allocations). And vice versa: however exactly someone interprets and applies the 5e D&D rules, there is no chance of the game playing like Wuthering Heights.

"Say something sensible in the context of the game" might come close to what I mean.

I mean - say what follows from fiction/description/system (in accord with your principles, where those are not part of system.) As groups can choose to follow or not follow some rules, and can have different ideas of what following some rules amounts to (for example, different ideas about what interrupts a long rest in 5e) they might have different ideas about what follows. That's also true where they hold or apply differing principles.

I don't see what you are inviting me, or anyone else, to take away from this.

In Prince Valiant, if a character is stabbed by a sword they suffer a reduction in Brawn, the precise amount being determined by the roll made by the player of the stabbing character. (A little bit like Bloody Versus in Burning Wheel.) The game has rules for determining what follows from Brawn being reduced, including being reduced to zero. Here is some of the relevant text, from pp 25-26:

If your Brawn is reduced, you throw that many fewer coins for Brawn until recovered. The loss represents damage: fatigue,​

cuts or bruises, a bad headache, etc. . . .​

​

If Brawn is reduced to zero the results are more serious. The character is temporarily helpless and incapable of further successful action. He is out of the story, for a long time or a short time depending on the circumstances, and may have suffered a serious injury.​

​

Usually being brought to zero means the character is simply stunned or exhausted, not seriously wounded, but the Storyteller decides this. Serious injuries should only occur when a deadly weapon has been used, or the character has taken severe damage (impaled by a lance, bitten by a scorpion).​

​

The Storyteller is also in charge of determining the long-term consequences, if any, of injuries. Use common sense, and refrain from maiming characters. . . .​

​

If a character has not been brought to zero, he has suffered only trivial injuries, even if stabbed or poisoned. He will recover all points of Brawn lost after a brief period of time determined by the Storyteller, usually a few hours. Any success with the Healing skill permits full recovery after a few minutes rest.​

​

Characters brought to zero have taken more significant damage. The Storyteller determines the extent of the damage. They may be able to recover on their own, or they may need the Healing skill for any improvement to take place. . . .​

​

If the Storyteller feels it necessary, he may state that a character at zero Brawn is severely injured, not just exhausted or stunned. The character may even be dying. This is where the Healing skill becomes critical. . . .​

​

Death may be inevitable under certain rare occasions. For example, a fall from the highest tower of Camelot is fatal to any character. If nothing else, a character should always have the chance to speak a few last words before expiring. The Storyteller always decides whether or not death occurs in a given situation (and it should only occur when absolutely necessary). If the Storyteller wishes to kill your Adventurer, he has the power to do so, but this sort of behavior violates the cooperative spirit of the game. Normally death is not an important part of Prince Valiant.​

I think it's pretty clear, from this, that "saying what follows" in Prince Valiant is (i) not a mechanical process, or one with a unique solution at every moment of play, but (ii) is very different from "saying what follows" in 5e D&D, or in Classic Traveller, or even in Cortex+ Heroic which in some respects is much closer to Prince Valiant as far as its principles are concerned.

As I am using the terms, snowballing is one example of momentum (a building momentum), but it is not the only example. Perhaps @Campbell counts the terms synonomous, in which case it might need to be clarified that I am talking about two related but differing concepts. Snowballing is one possible feature of momentum, as I am using it.

Well, @Campbell made it clear in his post that he was treating "momentum" as more-or-less synonymous with "moves snowball". And the latter phrase gets its meaning from its use by Vincent Baker to describe a particular feature of Apocalypse World, which is also modelled by John Harper in his diagram that Campbell posted upthread (#1599): roughly, situation => scene => conflict => scene => conflict => resolution of situation.

Here's the 5e example of play (p 2 of the Basic PDF):

Dungeon Master (DM): After passing through the craggy peaks, the road takes a sudden turn to the east and Castle Ravenloft towers before you. Crumbling towers of stone keep a silent watch over the approach. They look like abandoned guardhouses. Beyond these, a​

wide chasm gapes, disappearing into the deep fog below. A lowered drawbridge spans the chasm, leading to an arched entrance to the castle courtyard. The chains of the drawbridge creak in the wind, their rust-eaten iron straining with the weight. From atop the high strong walls, stone gargoyles stare at you from hollow sockets and grin hideously. A rotting wooden portcullis, green with growth, hangs in the entry tunnel. Beyond this, the main doors of Castle Ravenloft stand open, a rich warm light spilling into the courtyard.​

​

Phillip (playing Gareth): I want to look at the gargoyles. I have a feeling they’re not just statues.​

​

Amy (playing Riva): The drawbridge looks precarious? I want to see how sturdy it is. Do I think we can cross it, or is it going to collapse under our weight?​

​

Dungeon Master (DM): OK, one at a time. Phillip, you’re looking at the gargoyles?​

​

Phillip: Yeah. Is there any hint they might be creatures and not decorations?​

​

DM: Make an Intelligence check.​

​

Phillip: Does my Investigation skill apply?​

​

DM: Sure!​

​

Phillip (rolling a d20): Ugh. Seven.​

​

DM: They look like decorations to you. And Amy, Riva is checking out the drawbridge?​

It's hard to imagine a better example of play with no momentum, and exhibiting GM-as-glue.

There is no conflict here. There is no sense of any stakes. The properties of the gargoyles, and of the drawbridge, are being established independently of their importance (thematic, relational, emotional) to the players and their PCs. An INT check is called for but the DM doesn't tell Phillip what turns on it, nor whether or not it succeeds or fails. No soft moves are made by the GM, let alone hard ones.

The contrast with the Apocalypse World example of play, under the heading "Moves Snowball", is pretty stark. That starkness is in no way reduced by pointing out that, in both cases, the GM is saying "what follows" based on fiction, description and system.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Like I said, I’m looking at drifting it towards setting-centric Story Now, so that’s intentional.


The agenda shift is recent, so I’m still processing what that means for the system. It originally started out as something to support “the campaign is a science experiment”, but I found that a Process Sim approach is basically unworkable. If you try to model things with rolls, you’ll be rolling to failure (and it’s boring). I have prepped very little in the last four or so sessions, and they’ve all been awesome sessions. I want to lean into the things that made that work.

If I had to elevator pitch it, I would describe it as taking Moldvay Basic drifted towards Story Now. The characters still feel very similar to D&D characters (though a bit more powerful compared to from B/X). They still have a lot of familiar elements like classes and saving throws. Combat is still more or less D&D in style. Monsters can almost be used as-is. But once you get out of combat, the system leans pretty heavily on the PCs to drive thing forward.

For example, I have a hex map. It’s skeletal. Out of 285 hexes, I have 12 of them keyed†. The entries in the key are short and describe a situation in the hex. I wrote it before the agenda shift, so I don’t know yet how or to what extent it should change. However, most of what we know has been discovered in play. For example, there’s a red dragon* to the north that visits the ruins the party is trying to rebuild. What is it doing? Don’t know yet. We’ll have to continue playing to find out.

I also want to have some “living world” stuff, but the plan is to handle that with something similar to how BitD handles factions. They’ll have assets and goals, and those things will tick down. I need to get the specifics ironed out though, so I can actually start making use of them …. (Replacing WWN’s terrible faction system was what lead me to do my own thing.)

---

* Since it uses Moldvay Basic for its bestiary, a red dragon definitely not something one should want to fight. I think if the PCs made their Reflex (DEX) saving throws against the breath attack, most of them would survive (but be badly hurt). Except the thief. Poor d4 HD thief.

† Edit: And the situations were generated using WWN’s tags system. The PCs don’t know what those contents are, but they they do know which settlements are ruined. We covered that during the first session when they pointed to the central one and declared they wanted to loot it (the fallen capital).

Interesting . Sounds a bit like what I was thinking of, but maybe more focused on a bit wider scale and maybe more on factions.

 

[Campbell]

@clearstream

I think we're talking about the exact opposite sort of experience here. I was speaking to (as a player or GM) actively maintaining the momentum of play, not surrendering to it. Not effortless play, but effortful play. Players playing their characters hard. GMs framing scenes to keep the focus on dramatic needs one after the other. Everyone embracing the tension. Everyone on the edge of their seat. The imperative phrase here is bring it! Keep the story feral! Grab the game by the throat!

It's a somewhat aggressive playstyle. Not towards each other, but towards the game. It's not like improv theater or jazz. We're not harmonizing. We're embracing chaos and fictional conflict. We're setting up stakes and seeing how things shake out. There is no status quo in Apocalypse World!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Frankly I'm not passing judgment either way on it. I'm not sure though, in the true classic D&D paradigm, that you can really AVOID that sort of play, except by essentially accepting the handicap that not doing it would represent.

Then we just disagree. I think there's a massive difference between what you're talking about and what I am. They're not unrelated, but the difference is as pronounced as the difference between white pepper and red.

Which I guess brings us all the way full circle to the original post, no, 5e is not gamist,

I admittedly going from second hand discussion, but I still disagree with this too. I think to claim that you need a much narrower definition of "gamist" than many people in this thread are using.

 

[pemerton]

I point out that we are making decisions - for example your creating a fiction about a shortage of oil - that operate in a decision-space that is strictly limitless. Another GM could have created a different fiction, and been equally right in doing so.

What is supposed to follow from this?

The key point @Manbearcat is making is that the outcome of the mechanical component of the resolution procedure - which is the player failing their Resources check - demands a certain response from the GM (either twist or condition), and that the previous sequence of twists and conditions strongly suggests (without quite demanding) that on this occasion it be a twist, and that the twist has to be the introduction of a new obstacle, and (as @AbdulAlhazred posted) that new obstacle should make sense in light of established fiction, Beliefs, Creeds, established relationships, etc. (This is the closest analogue, in BW or TB, to the soft/hard move dynamic of AW.)

The variety of fiction that will satisfy those constraints is - at least for practical purposes - unlimited, but that doesn't mean that there are no constraints, or that the constraints don't matter. One of the most important ones is - the PC doesn't get the thing they were hoping to purchase. Whereas in a task resolution framework - as Vincent Baker points out - the GM is free, in response to the failed check, to have the desired oil turn up in some other fashion. In that approach, the relationship between failing the check and obtaining the supplies is not dictated by the mechanical component of the resolution procedure, but is determined entirely by the GM. This is why, as per John Harper's diagrams posted by @Campbell, only GM decision making will resolve a situation, and why the GM is the "glue" that joins everything together.

By turtles all the way down I mean that if a GM is choosing fiat, then they can always choose fiat.

This is confused. In John Harper's diagram, the GM doesn't choose fiat. The game rules and procedures demand fiat, because they don't resolve the situation in any other, GM-independent, fashion.

It might turn out that our greatest disconnect is that as GM you (possibly?) do not see reasons in 5e as a system to accept constraints, while I do. If right, maybe the rest follows from there?

<snip>

What I thought we were debating is whether GM-fiat necessarily applies in 5e. You and others seemed to be saying that due to Rule 0 or for other reasons, it does necessarily apply. That's not my experience.

How, in your 5e D&D play, do you resolve situations? How do you determine (for instance) whether or not the PC who wins the fight makes it to the ship in time? Whether or not the player who turns out not to have enough cash or credit to buy oil nevertheless finds an unattended amphora of oil on the very next streetcorner? Whether or not cracking the safe will find the dirt on the villain?

As presented in its rulebooks, the answer 5e offers to all those questions is that the GM makes a decision. It's crystal clear in the example of play found in the Basic PDF that I posted not far upthread.

Following game rules is voluntary.

<snip>

Game rules are not followed simply because they are rules. Games are voluntary. Their rules are followed in view of their consequences for us (their appeal) and in view of external considerations like friendship, trust, and so on.

<snip>

One might choose not to follow a rule, and then have another explain it to you in a way that makes it more appealing, and thus decide to follow it. That is explained by knowing that the following of the rule is in view of something other than the rule itself.

<snip>

Those are excellent examples of choosing to follow rules in view of the consequences if you accept/enact them for yourself.

1. 
   [*
   • From experience, you have found that the rules reliably achieve an agenda of play that is one you find enjoyable (the appeal is the enjoyability of satisfying that agenda)
   • You find that the cognitive space is desirable (perhaps parsable, diverse, and complex enough to be stimulating)

That another could not find the achieved agenda enjoyable, or the cognitive space stimulating, is perfectly plausible. Half our play group love TB2, and the other half don't have any desire to play it again. When they don't, they choose not to accept/enact the rules concerned for themselves. It is in view of the benefits (the appeal) that we chose to follow the rules.

Another example, you chose to follow different Journey rules from those in the LMM. You explained your view that the consequences of following the different rules were appealing in some ways. The LMM rules had no power to force themselves upon you, other than that you granted them (and in this case, you did not grant them that power).


Yes, constraints are fundamentally opt-in. The characteristics are relevant because it is in view of them that we may choose to opt-in. There can be other reasons, too. For example, a player with no understanding of the rules may opt-in to them because they want to enjoy their friends' company. And may continue to follow them in order to avoid being seen as a spoilsport.

I agree with @AbdulAlhazred that this all seems self-evident. I don't know what it is supposed to be telling us about the differences between RPGs, the relationships between techniques and agendas, etc.

 

[clearstream]

What we can point to is a string of English words with a widely accepted syntactic logic, and some general semantic properties. It's not uncommon for there to be multiple tenable interpretations of such a thing. In Australian law, when this comes up in the interpretation of a statute, it is called having a choice of constructions.

Over time, practice and precedent and shared understandings and expectations might change the degree of constructional choice. The wording of the non-establishment provisions in the US and Australian constitutions is very similar, but their legal effect is very different, because they have been interpreted and applied quite differently in the two jurisdictions. Where there was once constructional choice, there no longer is.

Okay, you seem to understand what I am saying and agree that the distinction I am pointing to is one that we can see in other domains (as well as games). I'm cautious of assuming that rule-following is identical in non-identical domains.

When I GMed a session of Wuthering Heights, I had to make decisions about calling for checks against Rage and Despair, for adjudicating the severity of the shocks that cause those stats to fluctuate, etc. Different approaches are possible here, which will affect how quickly the game escalates. But whatever the decisions made in interpreting and applying the rules, there is no way the resulting play will be much like 5e D&D play (beyond the basic fact that both games are RPGs with fairly traditional player and GM role allocations). And vice versa: however exactly someone interprets and applies the 5e D&D rules, there is no chance of the game playing like Wuthering Heights

I am not saying that your version of Wuthering Heights will be the same as your version of 5e. I am saying that your version of Wuthering Heights will be different from my version of Wuthering Heights.

Say what follows from fiction, description, system. The last subject to your grasping and upholding of it.

Well, @Campbell made it clear in his post that he was treating "momentum" as more-or-less synonymous with "moves snowball". And the latter phrase gets its meaning from its use by Vincent Baker to describe a particular feature of Apocalypse World, which is also modelled by John Harper in his diagram that Campbell posted upthread (#1599): roughly, situation => scene => conflict => scene => conflict => resolution of situation.

Here's the 5e example of play (p 2 of the Basic PDF):

Dungeon Master (DM): After passing through the craggy peaks, the road takes a sudden turn to the east and Castle Ravenloft towers before you. Crumbling towers of stone keep a silent watch over the approach. They look like abandoned guardhouses. Beyond these, a​

wide chasm gapes, disappearing into the deep fog below. A lowered drawbridge spans the chasm, leading to an arched entrance to the castle courtyard. The chains of the drawbridge creak in the wind, their rust-eaten iron straining with the weight. From atop the high strong walls, stone gargoyles stare at you from hollow sockets and grin hideously. A rotting wooden portcullis, green with growth, hangs in the entry tunnel. Beyond this, the main doors of Castle Ravenloft stand open, a rich warm light spilling into the courtyard.​

​

Phillip (playing Gareth): I want to look at the gargoyles. I have a feeling they’re not just statues.​

​

Amy (playing Riva): The drawbridge looks precarious? I want to see how sturdy it is. Do I think we can cross it, or is it going to collapse under our weight?​

​

Dungeon Master (DM): OK, one at a time. Phillip, you’re looking at the gargoyles?​

​

Phillip: Yeah. Is there any hint they might be creatures and not decorations?​

​

DM: Make an Intelligence check.​

​

Phillip: Does my Investigation skill apply?​

​

DM: Sure!​

​

Phillip (rolling a d20): Ugh. Seven.​

​

DM: They look like decorations to you. And Amy, Riva is checking out the drawbridge?​

It's hard to imagine a better example of play with no momentum, and exhibiting GM-as-glue.

There is no conflict here. There is no sense of any stakes. The properties of the gargoyles, and of the drawbridge, are being established independently of their importance (thematic, relational, emotional) to the players and their PCs. An INT check is called for but the DM doesn't tell Phillip what turns on it, nor whether or not it succeeds or fails. No soft moves are made by the GM, let alone hard ones.

The contrast with the Apocalypse World example of play, under the heading "Moves Snowball", is pretty stark. That starkness is in no way reduced by pointing out that, in both cases, the GM is saying "what follows" based on fiction, description and system.

Good. You are confirming that "synonomous" was right, and you provide an example of play without momentum (at least based on the limited picture afforded.)

 

[clearstream]

In John Harper's diagram, the GM doesn't choose fiat. The game rules and procedures demand fiat, because they don't resolve the situation in any other, GM-independent, fashion.

I'm silent here on John Harper's diagram. Perhaps we mean different things by fiat. I am using the word in a strong sense to imply making an arbitrary decision. One that - as to that precise decision - is arbitrary. How are you using it?

How, in your 5e D&D play, do you resolve situations? How do you determine (for instance) whether or not the PC who wins the fight makes it to the ship in time? Whether or not the player who turns out not to have enough cash or credit to buy oil nevertheless finds an unattended amphora of oil on the very next streetcorner? Whether or not cracking the safe will find the dirt on the villain?

As presented in its rulebooks, the answer 5e offers to all those questions is that the GM makes a decision. It's crystal clear in the example of play found in the Basic PDF that I posted not far upthread.

I believe that play examples in the free basic PDF are intended to give an uncomplicated picture of the process for novices.

I agree with @AbdulAlhazred that this all seems self-evident. I don't know what it is supposed to be telling us about the differences between RPGs, the relationships between techniques and agendas, etc.

There's likely low value in reciting the arguments. Up-thread you resisted the thought that game rules are followed when we find them appealing to follow. Elsewhere we've implicitly acknowledged the possibility of following a game system in comprehensively different ways.

I would simply urge further reflection.