opacitizen
Explorer
Absolutely as an aside: the compound word "Kriegsspiel" means wargame, afaik. "Krieg" is "war", "spiel" is game.
D&D General D&D's Evolution: Rulings, Rules, and "System Matters"
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
It's only "skirting" to the extent that your unspoken premise is accepted.
Given the actual conversation you were responding to ... that's not accurate (IMO).
That right there is sort of the crux; when someone states something like, "Hey, imagine this game without rules*" and your immediate feedback is, "You can't denigrate the game designers who design rules and how important playtesting is on rules quality," then you're having a failure to communicate.
I think that @see gets it- but the point isn't limited to just computers. I do think that Gygax's shift (which is well-documented) from the mid-70s as noted in Alarums and Dragon to his absolutist stance re: standardization in AD&D was driven by money, but the cycles of "simple -> complex -> overcomplicated -> simple (rinse, repeat)" seems to re-occur in most fields. Music, art, you name it.
*A brief aside on definitional issues; one thing that is always fun (for values of fun=0) are silly semantic debates. One of the ones I dsilike intensely is the one over "what is a rule." Let me explain why- there are people who delight in the semantic confusion that the use of the word causes.
For example, many people would use "rule" to mean a specific written rule in a game, something that would differentiate it from a "ruling" or a an "ad hoc decision." In other words, there is a colorable difference between the following:
A. If you roll a 15 or higher, you hit. If you roll a 14 or lower, you miss. (Rule)
B. I want to do this thing that hasn't been tried before. What is the difficulty of that task? (Ruling)
C. I announce what I do, and Frank tells me what happens (ad hoc).
Of course, the semantic game is that any of these are also rules, as in rules of decision. If a game was just two words, "Ask Frank," then that is a rule of decision or adjudication (with the implied, "Frank will tell you what happens"), but most people wouldn't consider that a "rule" in the standard sense. Further, if a game is played in a manner in which there are implied methods of adjudication that are arrived at consensually (think of many children's games, such as Cops & Robbers or other play variants) then it would be accurate to say that there are shifting social rules that govern the interactions and adjudications, but relatively purposeless to discuss rules in the standard sense of TTRPG game design.
TLDR; definitional debates usually are pointless, because it's never about understanding, it's about "winning," often through overlapping semantic meanings of words.
Puddles
Adventurer
I don't agree that D&D is crying out to be a free kriegsspiel game. I think when they say a game is about "rulings over rules" what they are trying to do is hone the focus of the game onto its core gameplay loops that are the most enjoyable (character building, combat, leveling up, acquisition of loot and dramatic storytelling) and making sure whenever the ball strays too far from that court it can be brought back as quickly as possible with a little effort as possible.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
As that was my argument, I do appreciate the opportunity to correct your misunderstanding. The rule isn't any of your A, B, C, the rule is "Bob says." When we want to figure out what happens, we look at Bob and do what he says. Then we might get A, B, or C. C isn't the rule, it's an output of what Bob says. Bob says is the rule.It's only "skirting" to the extent that your unspoken premise is accepted.
Given the actual conversation you were responding to ... that's not accurate (IMO).
That right there is sort of the crux; when someone states something like, "Hey, imagine this game without rules*" and your immediate feedback is, "You can't denigrate the game designers who design rules and how important playtesting is on rules quality," then you're having a failure to communicate.
I think that @see gets it- but the point isn't limited to just computers. I do think that Gygax's shift (which is well-documented) from the mid-70s as noted in Alarums and Dragon to his absolutist stance re: standardization in AD&D was driven by money, but the cycles of "simple -> complex -> overcomplicated -> simple (rinse, repeat)" seems to re-occur in most fields. Music, art, you name it.
*A brief aside on definitional issues; one thing that is always fun (for values of fun=0) are silly semantic debates. One of the ones I dsilike intensely is the one over "what is a rule." Let me explain why- there are people who delight in the semantic confusion that the use of the word causes.
For example, many people would use "rule" to mean a specific written rule in a game, something that would differentiate it from a "ruling" or a an "ad hoc decision." In other words, there is a colorable difference between the following:
A. If you roll a 15 or higher, you hit. If you roll a 14 or lower, you miss. (Rule)
B. I want to do this thing that hasn't been tried before. What is the difficulty of that task? (Ruling)
C. I announce what I do, and Frank tells me what happens (ad hoc).
Of course, the semantic game is that any of these are also rules, as in rules of decision. If a game was just two words, "Ask Frank," then that is a rule of decision or adjudication (with the implied, "Frank will tell you what happens"), but most people wouldn't consider that a "rule" in the standard sense. Further, if a game is played in a manner in which there are implied methods of adjudication that are arrived at consensually (think of many children's games, such as Cops & Robbers or other play variants) then it would be accurate to say that there are shifting social rules that govern the interactions and adjudications, but relatively purposeless to discuss rules in the standard sense of TTRPG game design.
TLDR; definitional debates usually are pointless, because it's never about understanding, it's about "winning," often through overlapping semantic meanings of words.
Rules can be things like concrete rules established beforehand, or Bob says, or consensus agreement. A rule is simple how you will resolve conflicts as they arise. Specific examples of conflict resolution aren't the rules.
In the thread this came from, @Oofta was asserting he used no rules when he was doing free roleplaying, and I was pointing out that he was -- it was Bob says. Oofta uses standard GM authority over all things not character, including NPCs, so any scene played out by a player with NPCs will ultimately be resolved by what the GM thinks should happen. So, in this case the GM is Bob, and the rule to figure out what happens is Bob says. This should be obvious, especially given the topic of this thread which is referring to one of the most famous examples of a Bob says system -- Free Kriegsspiel. Or are we saying that having the umpire decide what happens isn't actually the rule of Free Kriegsspiel? I'd be interested in that argument.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
I quite literally just made the "argument."
Words have different meaning; using the semantic drift to win "arguments" doesn't advance conversations.
If you are using the word "rule" in one sense (to mean, generally, "heuristic or system of adjudication or decision" or even more generally "the accepted principle that delineates how things are, or should be, done") and someone else is using the term "rule" in a different sense ("a fixed principle or procedure in a game that determines conduct or a decision with a predetermined result" for example), then simply asserting your preferred definition over someone else isn't productive for anyone.
Or, as I summarized it- definitional debates usually are pointless, because it's never about understanding, it's about "winning," often through overlapping semantic meanings of words.
YMMV. But hey- if you convinced Oofta, then more power to you. Did it work? Does he agree with you now? If he does, COOL! If not, well, maybe next time?
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
You're saying that there's a difference between an understood "system of adjudication or decision" and an "accepted principle that delineates how things are done," but I see no daylight here. But, I'm the one accused of a semantic argument?
How are things decided in Oofta's free roleplaying social encounters? Oofta says. Is this an accepted principle delineating how things are done or a system of adjudication or decision making?
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
...I'm not making an argument. That's why I put it in "quotes."
As I wrote, if you've convinced Oofta not only of the rightness of your definitional argument, but of the actual underlying substance, then good for you! If not, then what are you doing?
As for me- not going to in engage. I am far too stupid to understand your clever arguments about definitions, let alone the underlying substance. Enjoy!
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
They aren't that clever, but you do you.
Let me ask a different question -- does Free Kriegsspiel have any rules? If so, what are they?
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Very briefly- it depends on how you define rules. That's the only salient point.
If you don't understand, imagine the following conversation:
Snarf: Some people enjoy 5e because of the focus on rulings, not rules.
Ovi: What do you mean? 5e is all about rules, and rules.
Snarf: Huh? Everyone knows it's about rulings, not just rules.
Ovi: AHA! Don't you get it, Snarf? What is a ruling?
Snarf: Well, it can be a lot of things. For example, it can be the DM setting the DC check.
Ovi: That's a rule, Snarf. Maybe it's an ad hoc rule, maybe it's just a system of adjudication, but it's a rule.
Snarf: Um ... sure, but there is a salient difference that most people understand; there are different meanings of "rules." I feel like I just talked about this, somewhere?
Ovi: Doesn't matter. Rule rule rule. It's rules, all the way down. 5e is focused on Rules, not Rules. Game. Set. Ovi.
Snarf: Sure. What are we talking about again?
I kid, mostly, but I think you understand the point. I hope. People understand words in different contexts; rather than insisting on definitions of words, it's usually better to understand what the actual difference of opinion is instead of arguing over definitions.
"Rule" can mean different things to different people depending on context. That's why you can get joking comments like, "The only rule is I do what I want," or "The first rule is to break the rules." It's the frisson you get from the context-shift between ideas of "rule" in one sense (a more limited and formal sense) and "rule" in a second sense (a more expansive sense, as in a method of decision-making or adjudication; cf. a rule of thumb).
If you want to have a conversation with someone, it's better to discuss the underlying substance than to insist that they share your definitions. If you're going to talk to someone about 5e (for instance), you're probably going to get farther by meaningfully engaging them on the issue of ruling and rules than by insisting that rulings are rules and arguing over that.
YMMV. But seriously, I'm done. I am not getting involved any further in pointless semantic arguments.
Puddles
Adventurer
And yet, here you are
Similar Threads
