Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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
FKR: How Fewer Rules Can Make D&D Better
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="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9033931" data-attributes="member: 7023840"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>"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- </p><p><em>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). <u>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</u>.</em></p><p></p><p>Notice that this is <em>jargon</em>. It has a specified technical meaning that arose in the context of RPGs, and it was about <em>goals</em>. It was trying to set it off against the "G" and "D" components. </p><p></p><p>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 <em>our reality</em>.</p><p></p><p>So this is where the Texas Two Step comes in, over and over and over again.</p><p></p><p>Zeno: I like playing that RPG because I like Lord of the Rings.</p><p></p><p>Achilles: Well, we all know that is a <em>simulationist </em>RPG. You like simulations! (Using the JARGON)</p><p></p><p>Zeno: Um, sure. I like the way the game immerses me in the feeling of Middle Earth, and the fiction of Tolkien.</p><p></p><p>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)</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p><em><u>Okay .... </u></em><u>now, addressing the following specifically-</u></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I hope this answers the questions you were asking, albeit in a roundabout manner.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9033931, member: 7023840"] 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- [I]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). [U]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[/U].[/I] Notice that this is [I]jargon[/I]. It has a specified technical meaning that arose in the context of RPGs, and it was about [I]goals[/I]. 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 [I]our reality[/I]. 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 [I]simulationist [/I]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. [I][U]Okay .... [/U][/I][U]now, addressing the following specifically-[/U] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
FKR: How Fewer Rules Can Make D&D Better
Top