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
*TTRPGs General
Jon Peterson: Does System Matter?
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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8214527" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>I don't believe I made any statement that would suggest that I'm not aware of, or even disapprove of, other methods or approaches to play. I'm absolutely sure I made statements to the contrary.</p><p></p><p>I'm not arguing against however you choose to play, I'm pointing out that the justification you gave is contradictory with itself. If you care about that or not, I'm not to say, nor to judge, but if you make the argument here, it's open for discussion.</p><p></p><p>I don't, so I'm assuming that the DM in this situation is one that approaches play as you do? With that assumption, sure, you can do this, but it's not mandated or required by the rules. In other words, the system here doesn't mandate this, but rather the player's choice on how to build their world does.</p><p></p><p>This thread is about how system matters, not about choices we make that aren't related to system. A similar topic that's nearby but not directly related to system matters is the discussion about what roleplaying is or how it's expected to be done at the table -- system rarely impinges on this discussion; it's a discussion largely orthogonal to the issue of the thread. As is the players making the choice to have the game rules be discoverable in the fictional world.</p><p></p><p>I'm a strong, and vocal, proponent that system does matter. However, in this case, a system that fights your choice to make game rules discoverable in the fiction doesn't make the point you think it does. There's a fallacy here that if not b means not a, that b then means a. A game that doesn't work with with your preference doesn't mean that a game that does requires it. It's still not on the system if you choose to make game rules discoverable.</p><p></p><p>Um, what? I'm pretty sure I've followed you pretty well. My point is that the choice to make game rules discoverable in the fiction is not tied to system, but is an orthogonal choice. Yes, some systems make this much harder, or incoherent, but that doesn't mean that a system that does requires it, or even encourages it (I've largely never played this way, throughout any edition of D&D I've read or played). </p><p></p><p>And, again, my point is that this preference is largely done ad hoc and piecemeal, making it somewhat incoherent. Some rules are reified in the game world, and other are not, and some are outright ignored. This makes the concept even harder to conceive of as an approach, because it's basis is so ad hoc.</p><p></p><p>Right, I understood your comment about the lizard to be pointing out where the rules don't establish a good foundation as physics, but instead you were saying that being slapped by a massive tail not moving you at all is just the physics of this world. Ones that lead to oddities, like when a large slap does move you (as with some giant abilities) that are largely, in the fiction, not very different in scale or scope. Giants can toss you with a club swipe, but dragons cannot with a similarly sized and swung tail, because... reasons. </p><p></p><p>This was my point, that you've buried under dismissing "realism" -- that the approach you suggest contains incoherencies because the rules of D&D do a very poor job of defining a coherent physical system. And that's not another realism argument, it's pointing out that the rules are rarely even consistent. A person living in this world wouldn't discover these physics, and understand them in any real way, but would instead just deal with the chaos of the system as it comes, on an exception based concept.</p><p></p><p>To me, this is the real crux of this approach -- that the view taken is from the point of the players, where the world operates according to game rules and what Bob the GM says, but is then extrapolated, usually by Bob, into some kind of understanding in the game world of the game rules by the fictional inhabitants. The point that gets missed, here, is exactly how much of these rules are really just what Bob the GM says -- heck, 5e embraces this approach as foundational! So, in reality, the "physics" in the world are what Bob says they are, and aren't the game rules when Bob says they aren't. In this regard, it's not really the rules, but Bob that does the deciding as to what physics are represented in the game world, and Bob could decided, were he inclined to do so, with a different general understanding that what the rules might or might not say.</p><p></p><p>To sum this up, this approach isn't really any different from not treating the rules as repeatable, discoverable processes in the fiction -- it's still just about what the GM says, but tries to borrow the cloak of orthodoxy by referencing the rules. I find it doesn't. Which isn't to say that it can't be a perfectly fine approach, and that it can't generate tremendous fun, or that it's bad to do this. It's just not privileged in any way by claiming an association with the rules (which is arbitrary).</p><p></p><p>I'm not convinced your method of "thinking it through" is really anything different from being arbitrary, though. I play 5e by the book, with small house rules for each campaign to enhance themes but that rarely alter the actual rules (more add ons for additional focuses, and then even slight). I don't have any problems with how 5e works, and I absolutely don't get close to treating the game rules as discoverable physical systems in the game world. The opposite, if anything. So, your approach doesn't seem to be privileged in being able to make sense of the rules any more than a different approach, especially since I avoid anything like your preference.</p><p></p><p>And, suspension of disbelief doesn't require assuming game rules are discoverable physical processes in the fiction. Not at all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8214527, member: 16814"] I don't believe I made any statement that would suggest that I'm not aware of, or even disapprove of, other methods or approaches to play. I'm absolutely sure I made statements to the contrary. I'm not arguing against however you choose to play, I'm pointing out that the justification you gave is contradictory with itself. If you care about that or not, I'm not to say, nor to judge, but if you make the argument here, it's open for discussion. I don't, so I'm assuming that the DM in this situation is one that approaches play as you do? With that assumption, sure, you can do this, but it's not mandated or required by the rules. In other words, the system here doesn't mandate this, but rather the player's choice on how to build their world does. This thread is about how system matters, not about choices we make that aren't related to system. A similar topic that's nearby but not directly related to system matters is the discussion about what roleplaying is or how it's expected to be done at the table -- system rarely impinges on this discussion; it's a discussion largely orthogonal to the issue of the thread. As is the players making the choice to have the game rules be discoverable in the fictional world. I'm a strong, and vocal, proponent that system does matter. However, in this case, a system that fights your choice to make game rules discoverable in the fiction doesn't make the point you think it does. There's a fallacy here that if not b means not a, that b then means a. A game that doesn't work with with your preference doesn't mean that a game that does requires it. It's still not on the system if you choose to make game rules discoverable. Um, what? I'm pretty sure I've followed you pretty well. My point is that the choice to make game rules discoverable in the fiction is not tied to system, but is an orthogonal choice. Yes, some systems make this much harder, or incoherent, but that doesn't mean that a system that does requires it, or even encourages it (I've largely never played this way, throughout any edition of D&D I've read or played). And, again, my point is that this preference is largely done ad hoc and piecemeal, making it somewhat incoherent. Some rules are reified in the game world, and other are not, and some are outright ignored. This makes the concept even harder to conceive of as an approach, because it's basis is so ad hoc. Right, I understood your comment about the lizard to be pointing out where the rules don't establish a good foundation as physics, but instead you were saying that being slapped by a massive tail not moving you at all is just the physics of this world. Ones that lead to oddities, like when a large slap does move you (as with some giant abilities) that are largely, in the fiction, not very different in scale or scope. Giants can toss you with a club swipe, but dragons cannot with a similarly sized and swung tail, because... reasons. This was my point, that you've buried under dismissing "realism" -- that the approach you suggest contains incoherencies because the rules of D&D do a very poor job of defining a coherent physical system. And that's not another realism argument, it's pointing out that the rules are rarely even consistent. A person living in this world wouldn't discover these physics, and understand them in any real way, but would instead just deal with the chaos of the system as it comes, on an exception based concept. To me, this is the real crux of this approach -- that the view taken is from the point of the players, where the world operates according to game rules and what Bob the GM says, but is then extrapolated, usually by Bob, into some kind of understanding in the game world of the game rules by the fictional inhabitants. The point that gets missed, here, is exactly how much of these rules are really just what Bob the GM says -- heck, 5e embraces this approach as foundational! So, in reality, the "physics" in the world are what Bob says they are, and aren't the game rules when Bob says they aren't. In this regard, it's not really the rules, but Bob that does the deciding as to what physics are represented in the game world, and Bob could decided, were he inclined to do so, with a different general understanding that what the rules might or might not say. To sum this up, this approach isn't really any different from not treating the rules as repeatable, discoverable processes in the fiction -- it's still just about what the GM says, but tries to borrow the cloak of orthodoxy by referencing the rules. I find it doesn't. Which isn't to say that it can't be a perfectly fine approach, and that it can't generate tremendous fun, or that it's bad to do this. It's just not privileged in any way by claiming an association with the rules (which is arbitrary). I'm not convinced your method of "thinking it through" is really anything different from being arbitrary, though. I play 5e by the book, with small house rules for each campaign to enhance themes but that rarely alter the actual rules (more add ons for additional focuses, and then even slight). I don't have any problems with how 5e works, and I absolutely don't get close to treating the game rules as discoverable physical systems in the game world. The opposite, if anything. So, your approach doesn't seem to be privileged in being able to make sense of the rules any more than a different approach, especially since I avoid anything like your preference. And, suspension of disbelief doesn't require assuming game rules are discoverable physical processes in the fiction. Not at all. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Jon Peterson: Does System Matter?
Top