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
Creativity?
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8921567" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>When did I ever say that "it's the only thing that matters," or anything that can even be mistaken for it?</p><p></p><p>I have explicitly said that negotiation and <em>expanding</em> is fine. It's this attitude of <em>disregard</em> I cannot stand.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't understand how that can apply. Does the rule achieve the goal for which it was designed? Then it is an efficacious rule. That is unambiguous; either it does or it does not. There's room, for example, to argue that it achieves the goal partially and another achieves it more fully, but that's still an unambiguous state of affairs, a fact of the matter and not of interpretation.</p><p></p><p>An efficacious rule is a good rule if the purpose for which it was designed is a <em>worthy</em> purpose. Whether a purpose is worthy depends on two things, one subjective, one objective. The subjective element we cannot control for--appreciation and the like--and thus it is beyond the scope of design proper. (That's the realm of <em>selling someone</em> on your rules, of <em>convincing</em> them that a given purpose is in fact worthy.) The objective element, however, we can address quite well: it arises from the kind of game one intends to design. The same analysis applies to, for example, baking. "Sift flour" is an objectively worthless rule for a recipe which <em>contains no flour</em>. "Sift flour" may be <em>subjectively</em> good or bad for recipes which actually use flour, but it is <em>objectively</em> bad for a recipe which contains no flour--wasted effort, at the very least. </p><p></p><p>Similar conditions apply to TTRPGs. They are necessarily cooperative, for example, even if they may also be competitive. They are necessarily heavy on abstraction and imagination, both because they predate the technology necessary to depict the game in real time (I'm not even sure we have the tech to do it <em>now</em>) and because they involve extrapolation, adaptation, and spontaneity. They are not, contra some of the above posters, <em>necessarily</em> about story, and thus rules which (directly or indirectly) cause story are not <em>objectively</em> necessary.</p><p></p><p>There is an <em>awful lot</em> you can do with the mere statement that a game must be a cooperative fantasy tabletop roleplaying game featuring the central gameplay focuses ("pillars") of combat, exploration, and socialization. Few designers actually bother, much to my consternation.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again: That's not a game. That's "eh, if I feel like it, I'll let you do this. But I might not. But I might! But I might not."</p><p></p><p>I reject both the cage of absolute immutability (as I have <em>explicitly</em> said, several times, in this very thread) AND the cage of the utterly arbitrary. There is another way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8921567, member: 6790260"] When did I ever say that "it's the only thing that matters," or anything that can even be mistaken for it? I have explicitly said that negotiation and [I]expanding[/I] is fine. It's this attitude of [I]disregard[/I] I cannot stand. I don't understand how that can apply. Does the rule achieve the goal for which it was designed? Then it is an efficacious rule. That is unambiguous; either it does or it does not. There's room, for example, to argue that it achieves the goal partially and another achieves it more fully, but that's still an unambiguous state of affairs, a fact of the matter and not of interpretation. An efficacious rule is a good rule if the purpose for which it was designed is a [I]worthy[/I] purpose. Whether a purpose is worthy depends on two things, one subjective, one objective. The subjective element we cannot control for--appreciation and the like--and thus it is beyond the scope of design proper. (That's the realm of [I]selling someone[/I] on your rules, of [I]convincing[/I] them that a given purpose is in fact worthy.) The objective element, however, we can address quite well: it arises from the kind of game one intends to design. The same analysis applies to, for example, baking. "Sift flour" is an objectively worthless rule for a recipe which [I]contains no flour[/I]. "Sift flour" may be [I]subjectively[/I] good or bad for recipes which actually use flour, but it is [I]objectively[/I] bad for a recipe which contains no flour--wasted effort, at the very least. Similar conditions apply to TTRPGs. They are necessarily cooperative, for example, even if they may also be competitive. They are necessarily heavy on abstraction and imagination, both because they predate the technology necessary to depict the game in real time (I'm not even sure we have the tech to do it [I]now[/I]) and because they involve extrapolation, adaptation, and spontaneity. They are not, contra some of the above posters, [I]necessarily[/I] about story, and thus rules which (directly or indirectly) cause story are not [I]objectively[/I] necessary. There is an [I]awful lot[/I] you can do with the mere statement that a game must be a cooperative fantasy tabletop roleplaying game featuring the central gameplay focuses ("pillars") of combat, exploration, and socialization. Few designers actually bother, much to my consternation. Again: That's not a game. That's "eh, if I feel like it, I'll let you do this. But I might not. But I might! But I might not." I reject both the cage of absolute immutability (as I have [I]explicitly[/I] said, several times, in this very thread) AND the cage of the utterly arbitrary. There is another way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Creativity?
Top