D&D General FKR: How Fewer Rules Can Make D&D Better

[Snarf Zagyg]

I consider them exclusive because, more or less, you wouldn't bother with some of them if others are present, and if you do need to bother, then...I don't really think the previous was present, it just seemed to be because you had never actually run into an issue before. Which is the fundamental instability of #1 (and, to a much lesser extent, #2): "we simply have lucked into never having a conflict" is indistinguishable from "we don't have conflicts, period" up until the moment your luck runs out.

As soon as a problem has arisen, you don't have #1 anymore. As soon as "talk it out" fails to produce a resolution, your group has proven it cannot resolve problems at least some of the time purely through discussion, and needs some other backstop. It's a question of where the buck stops, not what can potentially be used at some point ever.

I would simply say that "mutually exclusive" has a meaning, and that is not the same meaning as this. Again, I think you have presented a good typology, but real life is messy, and all of these are likely to be occurring.

Moreover, depending on the authority structure of the FKR game, more than one of these might be necessarily required at different points.

Sure. This is why I take such issue with things like Finch's god-awful Quick Primer for Old School Gaming. Because if you cast the alternative in the worst light possible, and your proposal in the best light possible, you can always get a situation where something sounds absolutely amazing and enchanting. Separately, it also gets at my personal concerns with FKR--that I, personally, think rather a majority of GMs are not actually possessed of the mindset, skills, and knowledge required for effective FKR play...and that, very unfortunately, GMs that really shouldn't do FKR are going to be immensely tempted to do so.

Perhaps? That's a weird worry to have! FKR isn't a revolver being handed to children.... I don't cast this in the best light possible- instead, I recommend tables try it. Most of the games work great as one-shots. If it works, then that's something fun for people to keep doing. If not, what's one day in a life?

I mean, I would personally say that the actual issue is that there is little to discuss. You are speaking of intuition. Something that cannot, even in principle, be put into words, because it isn't a procedure or a process or a principle. It's a feeling, a reflex, a value (in the ethics sense, not the numbers sense.) How do you explain the difference between "cool" and "warm" colors to the blind? Or the legal definition of obscenity, which has actual Supreme Court opinion using the completely undefinable phrase "I know it when I see it"?

You can nibble around the edges by discussing specific case-by-case things, but the whole point of (as you phrase it) "second-order design" is that it isn't designed. By definition, it can't be; it is intentionally not a plan or structure prepared in advance, and instead entirely made of improvisation and ad hoc response. All you can really do is discuss the skills required, maybe some stuff about mindset and framing. Then go over example situations to hope that they will provide useful guidance (or practice, if you ask for responses rather than identifying potential good responses first.)

"First-order design" is simply much, much more discussable, because it is, in fact, design. Part of the point of doing first-order design is that it can be communicated, that two totally disconnected groups can achieve comparable, connected experiences because of that ability to communicate it.

I disagree with this. I've posted several examples of different FKR games. I think that the problem that I keep highlighting is that there is little to discuss for people that are focused on the design of the system. Heck, there's probably little to discuss for those who love getting caught up in debates about authority as well- as I've noted, there is no requirement for central authority. If those are things you love to argue about, there is probably little to discuss in FKR.

That said, there are intentional design decisions that are made- when I make a one-shot for FKR (like Disco Party Athletes) I do think about the design, and what I want in the minimal design to be reflected in the second-order design.

 

[Voadam]

Separately, it also gets at my personal concerns with FKR--that I, personally, think rather a majority of GMs are not actually possessed of the mindset, skills, and knowledge required for effective FKR play...and that, very unfortunately, GMs that really shouldn't do FKR are going to be immensely tempted to do so. It's not that they are bad GMs, in some sort of moral failing or the like; it's just that the requirements for effective GMing in an FKR environment are stringent, and in a world where GMs are always in short supply, a lot of them simply aren't up to the task.

While I think making DMing calls based on your own judgment instead of written guidelines or die rolls is a skill, I generally think it is a skill that is easy to use effectively for many aspects of a game.

Talking in the role of an NPC and reacting based on how you think seems to flow in the scene from the perspective of the NPC instead of based on a die roll is fairly natural.

For many PC declarations a GM normally just goes with it or makes their own adjudication. While older D&D required a mechanical check anytime a PC wanted to open an unlocked door in a dungeon, most DMs are fine going with it if a PC says they open the door to the tavern and go in.

So for the topic of this thread, I think most DMs in D&D can use a FKR approach to a lot of stuff in D&D without a problem.

Leaving mechanics for combat but FKRing adjudications most elsewhere can work well for a D&D game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would simply say that "mutually exclusive" has a meaning, and that is not the same meaning as this. Again, I think you have presented a good typology, but real life is messy, and all of these are likely to be occurring.

Moreover, depending on the authority structure of the FKR game, more than one of these might be necessarily required at different points.

How can you "necessarily require" a lack of conflict because everyone thinks the same?

Perhaps? That's a weird worry to have! FKR isn't a revolver being handed to children.... I don't cast this in the best light possible- instead, I recommend tables try it. Most of the games work great as one-shots. If it works, then that's something fun for people to keep doing. If not, what's one day in a life?

It isn't a revolver, but it isn't without its concerns, either. There are comparisons I could make, but which I will not, as they might be interpreted as giving offense, which is not my intent. Suffice it to say, there are certain similar patterns of behavior, "high-trust" things, that are immensely tempting to exactly a group of people that really shouldn't do them.

I disagree with this. I've posted several examples of different FKR games. I think that the problem that I keep highlighting is that there is little to discuss for people that are focused on the design of the system. Heck, there's probably little to discuss for those who love getting caught up in debates about authority as well- as I've noted, there is no requirement for central authority. If those are things you love to argue about, there is probably little to discuss in FKR.

That said, there are intentional design decisions that are made- when I make a one-shot for FKR (like Disco Party Athletes) I do think about the design, and what I want in the minimal design to be reflected in the second-order design.

Okay. What can be discussed, then? Give me examples.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

How can you "necessarily require" a lack of conflict because everyone thinks the same?

To go back to something I referenced earlier, there is often a desire to make typologies "mutually exclusive" so that being in multiple categories is (saints preserve us .....) ...... incoherent. When life usually isn't like that. Most of the time, things aren't delineated into neat categories, and things aren't, in fact, mutually exclusive. Hence the omnipresent meme, "Why not both?"

You presented a typology. I said it was pretty good. But it's not mutually exclusive. It just isn't. Having the participants agree on the shared space does not EXCLUDE having people be tactful and cooperative which does EXCLUDE having a central authority which does not EXCLUDE to group acquiescence to new rulings. In fact, all four are usually present.

Here, let's take Disco Party Athletes as an example. When I ran it after writing if for Iron DM, everyone had the same access to the shared space, and there was general agreement. The group was tactful and cooperative. There was a central authority, but such authority was tempered by the mechanics that favored shared collaborative control over the fiction. Finally, new rulings (such as when I described a setback or something bad) were taken in good faith, or when there was discussion about the parameters of the "boot and rally."

The factors are not exclusive- they're all in there. Again, you have an interesting (and arguably accurate) typology. But the factors aren't mutually exclusive.

It isn't a revolver, but it isn't without its concerns, either. There are comparisons I could make, but which I will not, as they might be interpreted as giving offense, which is not my intent. Suffice it to say, there are certain similar patterns of behavior, "high-trust" things, that are immensely tempting to exactly a group of people that really shouldn't do them.

You're hung up on high trust, because you're conflating it with arguments about authority. This isn't an argument about authority. I will refer you to Perfected, or Cthulhu Dark which states-
Who decides when to roll Insanity? Who decides when it’s interesting to know how well you do something? Who decides when something disturbs your PC? Who decides whether you might fail? Decide the answers with your group. Make reasonable assumptions. For example, some groups will let the Keeper decide everything. Others will share the decisions. These rules are designed to play prewritten scenarios, run by a Keeper. If you try improvising scenarios or playing without a Keeper, let me know.

Is the trust from the players to the GM? The GM to the players? The players to each other?

YES!

Okay. What can be discussed, then? Give me examples.

....I think we've been doing it. I've been doing it for a while. In a LOT of posts. Heck, remember the post I made about context-switching paralysis in D&D as people move from those areas that are heavily codified to those that are lightly codified?

Discuss what you'd like!

 

[clearstream]

I apologize for not getting back to you - I've been very occupied recently. That said, I wanted to address this issue in a general way before addressing the issues more specifically.

First, I think I need to explain why I don't participate in many of these conversations any more (and this is not directed at you, by the way!). One of the recurring issues I see is what I call the "Texas Two Step," when it comes to jargon, and despite devoting several posts to the issues with it, it just keeps happening. Let's use "simulation" as an example.

"Simulation" was first widely used in the threefold model (GDS). While it has various definitions, I'll just crib the one from wikipedia which is close enough for our purposes-
Simulation is concerned with the internal consistency of events that unfold in the game world, and ensuring that they are only caused by in-game factors - that is, eliminating metagame concerns (such as drama and game). Simulation is not necessarily concerned with simulating reality; it could be a simulation of any fictional world, cosmology or scenario, according to its own rules.

Notice that this is jargon. It has a specified technical meaning that arose in the context of RPGs, and it was about goals. It was trying to set it off against the "G" and "D" components.

The trouble is that while this is jargon, it also has specific connotations that people are familiar with in the real world. For example, when someone says that a pilot has 1,000 hours in a Boeing 737 simulator, a person who hears that assumes that the machine is designed to simulate the reality of flying a Boeing 737- not just some fictional world. In common parlance, simulations usually reflect our reality.

So this is where the Texas Two Step comes in, over and over and over again.

Zeno: I like playing that RPG because I like Lord of the Rings.

Achilles: Well, we all know that is a simulationist RPG. You like simulations! (Using the JARGON)

Zeno: Um, sure. I like the way the game immerses me in the feeling of Middle Earth, and the fiction of Tolkien.

Achilles: HA! How dare you say that? Don't you know that game doesn't accurately simulate the economics of Middle Earth? For that matter, how can a world exist on the same technology for thousands of years? It's not a simulation! (Using the COMMON VERNACULAR)


Unfortunately, this happens repeatedly- people that deliberately conflate jargon with more widely-understood meaning in order to berate people for differing preferences. It's the Texas Two Step- first, get people to use jargon, then use the non-jargon meaning to criticize them, and then go back to defending the jargon. Rinse, repeat.

So when I say that FKR is "simulation," I only mean that by default, it doesn't really do a great job of advancing G goals (because it relies on minimal game mechanics) or D goals (because D goals are usually created through emergent play), and instead is concerned with in-game consistency with a fictional world. And I don't say that to exclude other goals, or to say that others don't have success with it- just to relay my own experiences running it.


Okay .... now, addressing the following specifically-



I think that this is an interesting way of summarizing the push-pull that FKR illustrates. There are those that have spoken eloquently in this thread about why they prefer and enjoy rules for purposes of simulation. There is nothing wrong with that- to use an obvious example, having a common set of written and known rules is great when you have groups that are not familiar with each other and with the shared fiction. Because these models aren't internalized, or because these models are internalized differently, then FKR will probably be harder to run.

On the other hand, when internal models are close in alignment, and/or there is trust that differences in alignment can be resolved equitably by the participants, the advantages of running with a lite rulebook can shine- from speed to engagement.


I hope this answers the questions you were asking, albeit in a roundabout manner.

The issues you outline remind me of why I continue to prefer "immersionism" over "simulationism". To the extent that immersionism is concerned with models, I believe those will be analogic and symbolic rather than identical. Playful representations.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The issues you outline remind me of why I continue to prefer "immersionism" over "simulationism". To the extent that immersionism is concerned with models, I believe those will be analogic and symbolic rather than identical. Playful representations.

I love it!

That said, I've seen a lot of people that have trouble with the term immersion as well, and I can't even imagine trying to get even more phrases in. You've got my support, though, fwiw.

 

[clearstream]

I love it!

That said, I've seen a lot of people that have trouble with the term immersion as well, and I can't even imagine trying to get even more phrases in. You've got my support, though, fwiw.

Speculatively...

Suppose I embrace Edwards' doctrine of incoherence? If I were to see immersion as vital to TTRPG - and according to narratologists immersion is vital to games let alone TTRPG - then I would hardly be able to concede to GIN in place of GSN. For consistency with my doctrine I can only make immersion accessible to all agendas by refusing it recognition as an agenda.

Alternatively, I might accept that all modes are hybrids - albeit with priorities in one place or another - in which case I should find it quite easy to accept that someone might prioritise immersion.

That said, you're probably right. The basic threefolds offer a useful terminology that almost always commits us to error. It might be quite hard to update that... much as it desperately needs updating!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Speculatively...

Suppose I embrace Edwards' doctrine of incoherence? If I were to see immersion as vital to TTRPG - and according to narratologists immersion is vital to games let alone TTRPG - then I would hardly be able to concede to GIN in place of GSN. For consistency with my doctrine I can only make immersion accessible to all agendas by refusing it recognition as an agenda.

Alternatively, I might accept that all modes are hybrids - albeit with priorities in one place or another - in which case I should find it quite easy to accept that someone might prioritise immersion.

That said, you're probably right. The basic threefolds offer a useful terminology that almost always commits us to error. It might be quite hard to update that... much as it desperately needs updating!

I think the problem is, "immersion" is just porous as a term.

For players seeking Score and Achievement design, "immersion" generally isn't that important, but would be something like "making effective choices comes naturally." To those seeking Groundedness and Simulation design, "immersion" means something like "the model is sufficiently smooth and seamless that you stop noticing that it is a model." For Conceit and Emulation design fans, "immersion" means something like "the core concept feels naturally integrated into the whole experience." And for fans of Values and Issues, "immersion" means something like "you're always so steeped in either the action or the investigation, you have no need to think about anything else."

In other words, "immersionism" just...doesn't seem like a particularly useful term to me. Everyone wants "immersion," but it basically just means smoothness-of-experience for whatever thing (or things) you're seeking. Much like how wisdom is not one of the virtues, but the crown thereof, because there is no such thing as an excess of wisdom, "immersion" is less a design goal in itself, and more a way to say that the design goal was well-executed. There is no such thing as executing something "too well."

 

[Aldarc]

GDS.

I believe the G is Gaming or Gamist, the S is Simulation, but what is the D in GDS?

Why it's elementary, my dear Voadam. D is for dog.

 

[clearstream]

For players seeking Score and Achievement design, "immersion" generally isn't that important, but would be something like "making effective choices comes naturally." To those seeking Groundedness and Simulation design, "immersion" means something like "the model is sufficiently smooth and seamless that you stop noticing that it is a model." For Conceit and Emulation design fans, "immersion" means something like "the core concept feels naturally integrated into the whole experience." And for fans of Values and Issues, "immersion" means something like "you're always so steeped in either the action or the investigation, you have no need to think about anything else."

I had in mind your earlier fourfold! I can write

For players seeking Score and Achievement design, "narrative" generally isn't that important, but would be something like "I have symbols I can latch onto and my choices chain together my manipulation of those progressively" To those seeking Groundedness and Simulation design, "narrative" means something like "you can narrate events consistently and meaningfully" For Conceit and Emulation design fans, "narrative" means something like "faithful depiction of the scenes will narrate our overarching conceit" And for fans of Values and Issues, "narrative" means something like "the stories told are human stories... the story of our inner lives."

Okay, slightly facetious, and not at all thought through... but perhaps it communicates my point. Which is that all of the folds are found in every game. So to single out immersion as present in every fold, but not itself able to be prioritised for play, seems arbitrary.

In other words, "immersionism" just...doesn't seem like a particularly useful term to me. Everyone wants "immersion," but it basically just means smoothness-of-experience for whatever thing (or things) you're seeking. Much like how wisdom is not one of the virtues, but the crown thereof, because there is no such thing as an excess of wisdom, "immersion" is less a design goal in itself, and more a way to say that the design goal was well-executed. There is no such thing as executing something "too well."

I think everyone wants narration. They want to be able to narrate their play. Self-narration of wargames, as hard-out examples of gamism, is something I've been able to discuss fruitfully with fellow gamers, who attest to also performing it. Everyone wants gamism... few to no games avoid it completely. Watching a story-game session the other day, for just one example, the gamist implications of weapon tags were given voice to. It was all pretty relaxed, but there were gamist factors contributing to the scene.

So on the one hand, I really do wonder if immersion is just not so basic to what a game is, that as you say it can't really be separated out. And on the other hand, isn't gamism basic to what a game is? Isn't narrative basic to what a TTRPG is? That said, if I accept the premise that immersion is inevitable and the others are evitable, I'd conclude as you do. So let's also consider "immersionism" as a label...

"Simulationism" doesn't quite fit because in the end it is the immersion in world, not the simulation of world, that is prioritised. Which hearks back to @Snarf Zagyg's comment: I guess one can go where one's heart takes one, but when it's niche good luck seeing one's preferred self-identification prevail.

 

[clearstream]

Why it's elementary, my dear Voadam. D is for dog.

But of course...

G then is for God!

 

[Aldarc]

But of course...

G then is for God!

What children’s alphabet books are you reading?

 

[clearstream]

What children’s alphabet books are you reading?

It also lists "S is for Sob" which makes me feel sad.

 

[Autumnal]

GNS. Git, Nogoodnik, Slob
GDS. Geek, Deontologist, Slob

Now it can be told.

 

[clearstream]

GNS. Git, Nogoodnik, Slob
GDS. Geek, Deontologist, Slob

Now it can be told.

Haha! With my apologies to the OP for a bit of a derail.

Back to FKR, for me there's been an interesting cross-pollination of thoughts between this thread and the one about the "why" of rules. On surface, one might imagine that the whys of rules should be inaccessible to FKR, to the extent that it eschews rules. It is with that in mind that I assayed a definition supplying an objective why

TTRPG rules supersede pre-existing norms and extend beyond them.

What TTRPG can then take place without rules? How might FKR play have forcefulness and extend beyond the normal, if it does?

The tools appear to be canon, principles, unwritten rules and ephemeral mechanics. Canon is the imagined truths of the imagined world: these supersede and extend on other truths. Principles operate in two ways - if you desire X you ought to do Y, and you ought to desire X and do Y. Both are important. Unwritten rules are internalised rather than externalised... connected with second-order design as @Snarf Zagyg outlined.

Ephemeral mechanics are of particular importance to FKR. This is the case where fragments of a mechanic (a compound rule) are externalised. In one long-running FKR, we all had character sheets listing a consistent set of parameters. Yet there were no written rules using those parameters. The sheets were reminders and concrete parameterisations of our unwritten rules, collectively forming mechanics.

@Snarf Zagyg I felt you might have thoughts on my notion of ephemeral mechanics.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I had in mind your earlier fourfold! I can write

For players seeking Score and Achievement design, "narrative" generally isn't that important, but would be something like "I have symbols I can latch onto and my choices chain together my manipulation of those progressively" To those seeking Groundedness and Simulation design, "narrative" means something like "you can narrate events consistently and meaningfully" For Conceit and Emulation design fans, "narrative" means something like "faithful depiction of the scenes will narrate our overarching conceit" And for fans of Values and Issues, "narrative" means something like "the stories told are human stories... the story of our inner lives."

Okay, slightly facetious, and not at all thought through... but perhaps it communicates my point. Which is that all of the folds are found in every game. So to single out immersion as present in every fold, but not itself able to be prioritised for play, seems arbitrary.

I strongly disagree. "Narrative," as meant by GNS, is not a meaningful component of G or S. "Narrative," in its colloquial meaning, has no real significance for design. It's only by trying to stand in an in-between space, where "narrative" means what you want it to mean when you want it to mean that, that you can get the above.

I have said that "immersion" effectively just means the smoothness and quality of the experience, and given what seem to be good reasons why that is a correct description. It is thus on you to demonstrate why "narrative" means something everyone wants.

I think everyone wants narration. They want to be able to narrate their play. Self-narration of wargames, as hard-out examples of gamism, is something I've been able to discuss fruitfully with fellow gamers, who attest to also performing it. Everyone wants gamism... few to no games avoid it completely. Watching a story-game session the other day, for just one example, the gamist implications of weapon tags were given voice to. It was all pretty relaxed, but there were gamist factors contributing to the scene.

Again, strongly, strongly disagree. You seem to be conflating the presence of game with being about game, which is a pretty serious error IMO; the latter is actually gamism, the former is not. Saying "everyone wants gamism" is simply false, and things like the game "Perfect" that Snarf references in the OP are an example of actively shunning any amount of gamism, despite (begrudgingly) accepting that some amount of game cannot be avoided.

What does "want to narrate play" mean? I have 100% been told, directly, by an actual player-and-GM, that they genuinely could not stand the narration aspect of combat, that for them it was one of the most grating annoyances of tabletop roleplay. Just declare your intent, roll your dice, and move on, don't faff about with the 3751st iteration of a (monotonously) fancy way of saying "I stab it with my sword." So if it means describing actions in colorful ways, then no, your thesis is wrong: some players explicitly do not want that, at least some of the time. Even if it is your thesis, it seems to me you've diluted "narrate" until it becomes just as meaningless as "immerse"; of course everyone wants that, but in making it be something literally actually 100% of players want, you have to carve out all of the meaning it could have possessed. It must cover everything from half-hearted fig-leaf descriptions to wannabe Shakespearean actors to an overstuffed three-ring binder of backstory and everything in-between.

"X factors contributing to the scene" is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. What matters is what the thing was designed for, and that's why I phrased things in the way I did: players who seek out, or are fans of, designs aimed at particular goals. It would be like saying that 100% of STEM careers are actually biologists, because all of them are constantly performing personal biological analyses due to the fact that they, as Sesame Street taught me, "breathe and eat and grow, and that is how you know, ah ah, that they're alive." Or, somewhat less facetiously, that 100% of (say) physicists are actually statisticians and computer scientists because they use statistics to analyze the data and computers to both collect and make sense of said data. It's true that you need these things to do physics--but it doesn't mean that physics is suddenly a branch of computer science or vice-versa. "Contributing to the scene" is nowhere near as important as being the goal of the design.

So on the one hand, I really do wonder if immersion is just not so basic to what a game is, that as you say it can't really be separated out. And on the other hand, isn't gamism basic to what a game is? Isn't narrative basic to what a TTRPG is? That said, if I accept the premise that immersion is inevitable and the others are evitable, I'd conclude as you do. So let's also consider "immersionism" as a label...

I mean, I don't think immersion is "basic," nor that it can be "separated out." I think it's actually extremely advanced, an emergent property that is always desirable, but on different terms, depending on what the designer wants the game to achieve. Hence why I don't actually like either of GNS or GDS--I find that they get much too caught up in ideas of what games are allowed to be instead of being focused on what games are trying to be. And it is absolutely false to argue that 100% of games are trying to be about Score and Achievement, in the definitions given above.

"Simulationism" doesn't quite fit because in the end it is the immersion in world, not the simulation of world, that is prioritised. Which hearks back to @Snarf Zagyg's comment: I guess one can go where one's heart takes one, but when it's niche good luck seeing one's preferred self-identification prevail.

Sometimes it is about that. Sometimes it isn't. Again, I have been told (actually by multiple people) that 100% of the point is the simulation itself. Most such folks don't actually have the training to know the terms, but their words communicate the same idea: that what matters most, what is in fact actually more important even than "immersion," is that the system remains truly closed under its valid operations. That there is no such thing as a question you can ask, which should have a valid answer, but does not. E.g. the "square" operation is closed over the natural numbers and all supersets thereof (integers, reals, etc.), but the "square root" operation is not closed over the naturals, integers, rationals, or reals; you must use the complex numbers to get valid square roots for all possible inputs. Doing so requires sacrificing well-ordering: there is no sense in which one complex number can be truly "greater" than another, you must use a much weaker notion of comparison (e.g., comparing the squared magnitudes of two numbers.) Obtaining closure for important operations over all possible inputs is of sufficient value that most mathematicians gladly make the sacrifice in order to obtain it. Likewise, if it cost a little bit of immersion, but guaranteed that the simulation would never proverbially spit out an error, no matter what, I'm quite certain a large portion of "simulation" fans (NOT all, but many) would gladly make that trade, no questions asked.

Hence why I say "immersion" is a description of the quality of the experience, rather than a direct experience in and of itself. In technical terms, immersion supervenes on all possible game-design-purposes. It is extremely similar to the relationship between sound design and timbre. That is, sound design considers factors like volume, pattern, pitch, consistency, frequency, directionality, etc., but all sounds should have good timbre for the purpose they serve (e.g., a siren should be shrill, a noir femme fatale's voice should be sultry and breathy, a violin played by Holmes should sound rich and warm and sweet, etc.) To say that you do sound design in order to achieve timbre would be ridiculous; better, more natural timbre is always desirable, in all sounds, because good timbre means the sound has the shape and effect that it should. Likewise, the way people actually use the term "immersion," it just means the game succeeded so well at its designed purpose, they got lost in the process of play--it felt so natural, so effortless, so flowing, that the gap between the self and the imagined space faded away.

 

[clearstream]

I strongly disagree. "Narrative," as meant by GNS, is not a meaningful component of G or S. "Narrative," in its colloquial meaning, has no real significance for design. It's only by trying to stand in an in-between space, where "narrative" means what you want it to mean when you want it to mean that, that you can get the above.

Well, it is true that each of those labels is given a special meaning. In the same way, I'd like to give "immersion" a special meaning.

I have said that "immersion" effectively just means the smoothness and quality of the experience, and given what seem to be good reasons why that is a correct description. It is thus on you to demonstrate why "narrative" means something everyone wants.

This skirts a Texas Two Step, where I adhere to special meanings for narrative but then insist immersion be assesseed on its general meaning. I can fall in line with the Two Step by resisting adherence to any special meaning for narrative and standing up my point that it exists in all TTRPG. To avoid that, let's going forward suppose a special meaning for "immersion".

Sometimes it is about that. Sometimes it isn't. Again, I have been told (actually by multiple people) that 100% of the point is the simulation itself. Most such folks don't actually have the training to know the terms, but their words communicate the same idea: that what matters most, what is in fact actually more important even than "immersion," is that the system remains truly closed under its valid operations.

Here I am saying that it is the immersion in world, not the simulation of world, that I prioritise. That's not arguable, but I can concede that - like the G, the N and the S - I ought to propose a special meaning for my I.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, it is true that each of those labels is given a special meaning. In the same way, I'd like to give "immersion" a special meaning.


This skirts a Texas Two Step, where I adhere to special meanings for narrative but then insist immersion be assesseed on its general meaning. I'd can in line with the Two Step by resisting adherence to any special meaning for narrative and standing up my point that it exists in all TTRPG. To avoid that, let's going forward suppose a special meaning for "immersion".

Well, my notion was that I had already given a clear definition for my position: that "immersion" is ill-defined, and the only things which actually unite it, based on how it is used, are that it is a smooth, effortless experience of...something, whatever the intent may be.

Here I am saying that it is the immersion in world, not the simulation of world, that I prioritise. That's not arguable, but I can concede that - like the G, the N and the S - I ought to propose a special meaning for my I.

Okay. I don't get what "immersion in world" means that is not "the simulation is really good, so that I don't really notice that it's a simulation." So...what is that, exactly? What do you mean by being "immersed"? The literal definition is irrelevant (no dipping into liquids here), the relevant meaning is metaphorical: to be "deeply involved," synonyms: engross, absorb, bury, consume, wrap up, spellbind, etc. Hence why I speak of smoothness and effortlessness: nothing distracts from the experience of play, and thus, for some few moments, the world falls away, leaving nothing but thoughts about the imagined space. But design solely directed at "remove distractions" isn't going to get you anywhere; it is like designing a car exclusively for comfort, without considering what the car needs to do. No one wants a vehicle to be any more uncomfortable than they can afford--more comfort is always better than less, assuming money permits. Yet a vehicle designed only for comfort, with genuinely no other concern, lacks an engine. And "comfort" varies; a comfortable mini-van is spacious and flexible, able to hold many passengers without feeling like you're being squeezed into a tin can, while a comfortable sports car may literally only seat two, but handle like a dream and so smoothly accelerate you feel like you're one with the vehicle.

So: What does "immersion in world" mean? What do you do to have it, which is distinct from articulating a world with such smooth, natural presentation that one cannot help but forget about the material world for a time?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

TTRPG rules supersede pre-existing norms and extend beyond them.

What TTRPG can then take place without rules? How might FKR play have forcefulness and extend beyond the normal, if it does?

...

Ephemeral mechanics are of particular importance to FKR. This is the case where fragments of a mechanic (a compound rule) are externalised. In one long-running FKR, we all had character sheets listing a consistent set of parameters. Yet there were no written rules using those parameters. The sheets were reminders and concrete parameterisations of our unwritten rules, collectively forming mechanics.

@Snarf Zagyg I felt you might have thoughts on my notion of ephemeral mechanics.

I do, but not just about ephemeral mechanics! With apologies to Ronald Coase, I feel somewhat like I just saw you give a lecture at UChicago with the first part quoted in italics.

Allow me to explain- usually, when we talk about rules qua fiction, most people talk about the ways in which rules establish the fiction. Which makes sense- the rules provide the shared framework for the participants to interact with the fiction. But I think that what you've said might actually be the correct way of viewing rules- they don't establish the fiction (especially w/r/t norms), they supersede the fiction.

Let me dig a little deeper though. The reason I think that there is a difference between the two terms (establish and supersede) is the following:

"The fiction" that we keep talking about is just a highfalutin' term for the imaginary world in which the game occurs- the playing space that is created during the game. Every participant in the game in the game has their own version of this imaginary world, and the intersection of these versions is "the Fiction."

I would say that the Fiction exists separately from the rules- that is to say that the rules, alone, cannot establish the fiction. However, they can not only establish fiction, they can supersede the fiction (the norms that the participants might have). Which is what you're saying, although I haven't thought about it that way.

Arguably, many conflicts in D&D occur because the rules, for various reasons (usually "game" reasons), supersede the fiction that participants have. A classic example of this is conversations about hit points and falling damage. In the world of 5e, high level characters can survive massive falls automatically. This often doesn't map on to the fiction that people have, but the rules supersede the fiction.

So that's just my initial, albeit unformed, thoughts on the matter.


Anyway, w/r/t ephemeral mechanics, I think that's accurate. I would say that it's fairly common in FKR games for participants to note something on the character sheet, and for that something to have "an effect," without that effect being a written rule.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Arguably, many conflicts in D&D occur because the rules, for various reasons (usually "game" reasons), supersede the fiction that participants have. A classic example of this is conversations about hit points and falling damage. In the world of 5e, high level characters can survive massive falls automatically. This often doesn't map on to the fiction that people have, but the rules supersede the fiction.

So that's just my initial, albeit unformed, thoughts on the matter.

I would say that's only usually true, or at least it comes up enough in Dungeons and Dragons to feel like it. Good, well-designed rules, when used with the correct understanding of what kind of fiction they're trying to produce/emulate/whatever, should not have cause to supersede the fiction. The Fiction and the rules should mesh, if the game is well-designed and the game book is well-written.

This seems to me to be why PbtA games work so well so often: by defining the Fiction rather narrowly, they can do a much better job tailoring the rules to match, which in turn means you don't get a lot of rules/Fiction dissonance.

But the ideal situation of everyone being in the same Fiction and the rules matching that Fiction is not permanently sustainable. Conflict of some kind isn't something that might happen, it's something that will happen eventually. Good design and good communication combined can put it off, but they only delay. Conflict will occur.

When it does, we generally grant authority for rules - or referees - to pick a side and thus resolve the discrepancy by superseding one or the other, even if the ideal game experience has this not happening. Also, in the ideal platonic ttrpg experience, everyone is imagining the same Fiction and we're all playing in good faith. The latter is achievable, but the first two are things we hold onto as long as we can rather than expect to last forever. So we have rules/referees/procedures in place to deal with the inevitable conflict as smoothly as possible.