Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Context Switching Paralysis, or Why we Will Always Have the Thief Debate
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8747971" data-attributes="member: 59082"><p>As always, nice little journey there, Snarf. I think you make an interesting connection to the thief class.</p><p></p><p>To some extent I think this issue can be elaborated by what we could call the "80-20 principle." 80% or so of the game is clearly defined by rules, and 20% by rulings. Now it isn't really or exactly 80-20...it might be 75-25 or 90-10, and probably varies by campaign, rules system, GM, etc.</p><p></p><p>But the key point is that there's this dangling portion of the game beyond the majority (80) that is unclear, that involves rulings - or rather, situations not clearly defined by rules. People who complain of MMI want to reduce that 20 to as small a number as possible, even all the way to 0 (if that's even possible). People who are more in the "playing the world" category are more comfortable with that 20 and see it as a feature and not a flaw of the whole notion of rpgs.</p><p></p><p>Why this difference exists is, well, debatable. We don't like to bring the personal into the discussion, but I suspect at least some of this is psychological which is inherently personal in nature. Different people are more or less comfortable with or without clearly defined rules. In fact, D&D even has a sub-system that touches upon this: Alignment. People who prefer following the RAW tend more towards "lawful" while those that enjoy a free form rulings paradigm are more "chaotic."</p><p></p><p>Actually, the British philosopher Alan Watts said something that I think applies:</p><p></p><p><em>There are basically two kinds of philosophy. One’s called prickles, the other’s called goo. And prickly people are precise, rigorous, logical. They like everything chopped up and clear. Goo people like it vague. For example, in physics, prickly people believe that the ultimate constituents of matter are particles. Goo people believe its waves. And in philosophy, prickly people are logical positivists, and goo people are idealists. And they’re always arguing with each other, but what they don’t realize is neither one can take his position without the other person. Because you wouldn’t know you advocated prickles unless there was someone advocating goo. You wouldn’t know what a prickle was unless you knew what a goo was. Because life isn’t either prickles or goo, it’s either gooey prickles or prickly goo.</em></p><p></p><p>So we could look at this as an argument of prickles vs goo. "Prickly people" like clearly defined rules, and want to abide by the RAW. "Goo people" like rulings, and see the RAW as just a framework to play off of.</p><p></p><p>The key point is not whether one or the other is more right, but that both exist - and there's no solving it, except through realizing that "gooey prickles" and "prickly goo" is closer to the nature of reality--or the game--than just prickles <em>or </em>goo alone. The vast majority of us lean one way or the other, but we can become "gooey but open to prickles" or "prickly but open to goo." What doesn't work, and what drives most of these debates, is advocacy for one over the other. This is fine as long as you only play with a group of like-minded people, but leads to problems when one either has a mixed group, or advocates that everyone should do things the way I think is best, which is called OneTrueWayism.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 8747971, member: 59082"] As always, nice little journey there, Snarf. I think you make an interesting connection to the thief class. To some extent I think this issue can be elaborated by what we could call the "80-20 principle." 80% or so of the game is clearly defined by rules, and 20% by rulings. Now it isn't really or exactly 80-20...it might be 75-25 or 90-10, and probably varies by campaign, rules system, GM, etc. But the key point is that there's this dangling portion of the game beyond the majority (80) that is unclear, that involves rulings - or rather, situations not clearly defined by rules. People who complain of MMI want to reduce that 20 to as small a number as possible, even all the way to 0 (if that's even possible). People who are more in the "playing the world" category are more comfortable with that 20 and see it as a feature and not a flaw of the whole notion of rpgs. Why this difference exists is, well, debatable. We don't like to bring the personal into the discussion, but I suspect at least some of this is psychological which is inherently personal in nature. Different people are more or less comfortable with or without clearly defined rules. In fact, D&D even has a sub-system that touches upon this: Alignment. People who prefer following the RAW tend more towards "lawful" while those that enjoy a free form rulings paradigm are more "chaotic." Actually, the British philosopher Alan Watts said something that I think applies: [I]There are basically two kinds of philosophy. One’s called prickles, the other’s called goo. And prickly people are precise, rigorous, logical. They like everything chopped up and clear. Goo people like it vague. For example, in physics, prickly people believe that the ultimate constituents of matter are particles. Goo people believe its waves. And in philosophy, prickly people are logical positivists, and goo people are idealists. And they’re always arguing with each other, but what they don’t realize is neither one can take his position without the other person. Because you wouldn’t know you advocated prickles unless there was someone advocating goo. You wouldn’t know what a prickle was unless you knew what a goo was. Because life isn’t either prickles or goo, it’s either gooey prickles or prickly goo.[/I] So we could look at this as an argument of prickles vs goo. "Prickly people" like clearly defined rules, and want to abide by the RAW. "Goo people" like rulings, and see the RAW as just a framework to play off of. The key point is not whether one or the other is more right, but that both exist - and there's no solving it, except through realizing that "gooey prickles" and "prickly goo" is closer to the nature of reality--or the game--than just prickles [I]or [/I]goo alone. The vast majority of us lean one way or the other, but we can become "gooey but open to prickles" or "prickly but open to goo." What doesn't work, and what drives most of these debates, is advocacy for one over the other. This is fine as long as you only play with a group of like-minded people, but leads to problems when one either has a mixed group, or advocates that everyone should do things the way I think is best, which is called OneTrueWayism. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Context Switching Paralysis, or Why we Will Always Have the Thief Debate
Top