D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Snarf Zagyg]

I’m not sure because it seems like we have very different ideas of what “completeness” means. I do think being incomplete, as I understand it, is a bad thing for an RPG because it would make the game unplayable in certain circumstances.

Any consistent formal game (D&D) within which a certain amount of elementary gameplay can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of D&D which can neither be proved nor disproved.

The Rules Lawyer's Incompleteness Theorem

 

[TwoSix]

You may not like the direction they took, but these kind of things will always be on a spectrum. On the one end you have the dice flip, on the other end you have a board game like Murder in Baldur's Gate or one of the miniature skirmish games WOTC has come out with. The dice flip is close to what the video was talking about that still called it D&D while 3.x and 4E were closer to the board game end of the spectrum than 5E.

I never said I didn't like it. It's a hypothetical.

 

[TwoSix]

I’m not sure because it seems like we have very different ideas of what “completeness” means. I do think being incomplete, as I understand it, is a bad thing for an RPG because it would make the game unplayable in certain circumstances.

Then yes, we have different meanings of "completeness".

 

[Charlaquin]

Any consistent formal game (D&D) within which a certain amount of elementary gameplay can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of D&D which can neither be proved nor disproved.

The Rules Lawyer's Incompleteness Theorem

Hmm… I’m not sure I follow. Could you give me an example of such a statement?

 

[Oofta]

I never said I didn't like it. It's a hypothetical.

My real point was that there is a default resolution mechanic if you even want to use a mechanic.

 

[Oofta]

Then yes, we have different meanings of "completeness".

Outside of a literal board game, is there any way an RPG could have "completeness"?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Outside of a literal board game, is there any way an RPG could have "completeness"?

Fate? Aspects cover pretty much literally everything, from the properties of locations and inanimate objects to the deepest inner secrets of a being to supernatural powers.

 

[gorice]

Compare to say, Blades in the Dark where you are expected to be a pretty specific group in a pretty specific city. That's the sort of scene framing that @gorice was referring to.

Actually, I think the stuff in Moldvay (or Mentzer or Denning, which are the two I'm familiar with) works pretty well. I think the word 'scene' might be a red herring here: it could just mean answering basic questions like 'wait, where are we?' and 'are there any bugbears here?'.

 

[TwoSix]

Outside of a literal board game, is there any way an RPG could have "completeness"?

Sure. I defined it a few posts up as the coin-flip game. No actually played RPG is complete, though.

Let me try to clarify. I'm defining completeness as "all mechanical resolutions within the game (pass-fail, degrees of success) are contained within the specified rules, and not delegated to the determination of the participants." The coin-flip game is complete, because every possible action's success is contained within the coin-flip. A pure Free Kriegspiel game, on the other hand, is entirely incomplete, because the success or failure of every action is determined entirely by one of the participants.

To expand the hyopthetical, let's add one rule to coin-flip game. "The fictional persona, the character, must possess a helmet." With the addition of that rule, the game has now become incomplete, as there is no resolution method described for what happens when that rule is violated. The determination of the resolution must then be resolved ad-hoc by the participants.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sure. I defined it a few posts up as the coin-flip game. No actually played RPG is complete, though.

Let me try to clarify. I'm defining completeness as "all mechanical resolutions within the game (pass-fail, degrees of success) are contained within the specified rules, and not delegated to the determination of the participants." The coin-flip game is complete, because every possible action's success is contained within the coin-flip. A pure Free Kriegspiel game, on the other hand, is entirely incomplete, because the success or failure of every action is determined entirely by one of the participants.

To expand the hyopthetical, let's add one rule to coin-flip game. "The fictional persona, the character, must possess a helmet." With the addition of that rule, the game has now become incomplete, as there is no resolution method described for what happens when that rule is violated. The determination of the resolution must then be resolved ad-hoc by the participants.

So .... how is a system that entirely relies upon ad hoc adjudication not complete? Let's use your example, slightly modified.

1) There is a player and a DM.
2) The player makes a fictional persona, i.e. a character. The DM explains what is happening to the character, a scene.
3) The player explains what the character is going to attempt.
4) The DM narrates the effect of the player's actions. and presents a new scene.

That is a complete system!

In order to understand why, we can see that everything is specified- all the adjudication needed and required is specified within the rules. If that doesn't seem right, we can extrapolate using the "Chinese Room" analogy from AI ....

Imagine that the DM is (unbeknownst to the player) just using a coin flip to determine success/fail. The hidden coin flip would be equivalent to the ad hoc adjudication from the system perspective..... we are just subbing in "DM Brain" for "hidden coin flip" as a specified means.

Just something to think about.