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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
More DMing analysis from Lewis Pulsipher
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="Balesir" data-source="post: 6342028" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>The only limit is our imaginations, which makes the field theoretically infinite (but practically bounded, both by actual imaginations and by what we are prepared to cope with).</p><p></p><p></p><p>I would say it is entirely possible to play Toon using the system as a literal "cartoon physics" - again, it's all down to the scope of imagination. Even a world where "energy" manifests very differently would be conceivable, but difficult to make consistent and complete.</p><p></p><p>That is not to say that most players will not much prefer to play in a game-world with which they feel at least marginally familiar; Toon has help, here, in that cartoons are generally somewhat familiar. But that doesn't seem to me to change the fundamental truth that there are two quite separate mechanisms at work:</p><p></p><p>1) The desire to have the game-world fully reflected in the rules, and hence conversely have the physics of the game world defined by the rules (the rules may "dictate" the world, but the players dictate the rules used, so it really is two way - the determining direction is just a matter of timing).</p><p></p><p>2) The desire to roleplay using a setting (game-world) that is to some extent familiar and felt to be understood, which means including a healthy dollop of either "reality" or genre (or, most usually, both).</p><p></p><p>It might be interesting, too, to consider the role that the game "fluff" has in setting the expectations for the "realism" of the ruleset; it seems to me that setting genre expectations might be a vital function of "fluff".</p><p></p><p></p><p>In the sense that peasants could launch stuff into space? No, they really aren't, because that's not what the result of the rules would be; there is no "momentum" in these systems. Add some flexibility to the game-time "axis" (so that a turn length is related somewhat to the number of "chained" actions involved, at least in a field surrounding those making the chained actions) and it's not even all that difficult to envision.</p><p></p><p>More generally, I think you may well be right that many players don't really consider the implications of a "stop motion" game physics. When they do, a first instinct can be to call for "rulings", but that only actually introduces a need for another game system to be used, in effect - and that system will be very likely to introduce its own issues. So experienced players settle on ignoring the issue and handwaving it when it becomes intrusive, thus moving away from Purist-for-System.</p><p></p><p>Nevertheless, I don't think that either stop-motion or hit points make it impossible to have consistent world physics, and neither do I think that playing in what one accepts as a world defined by these systems but ignoring the fact as far as possible is actually disfunctional. Doing so and demanding certain other system elements "so that things make sense", however, might well be inconsistent.</p><p></p><p></p><p>For many players I think it probably does, or rather ought to in theory (if they didn't engage in handwaving/rationalising). It certainly introduces inconsistencies into their preferences and advocacy for other subsystems. But that is due to an (often stated) preference for "realism" (sometimes termed "believability", "verisimilitude", "reasonableness" or even "something that makes sense"), not due to a demand or preference for rules that model in-game physics.</p><p></p><p>Think of it this way, maybe: the rules of Toon, as written, model a form of cartoon reality. Few toon players object to them when playing Toon, but introduce the same rules to D&D and I'll bet many folks will be up in arms. The problem is not that the Toon rules don't model a perfectly consistent process - it's that they don't model the specific process that folks have decided up-front they want D&D rules to model. That is quite a different issue. It might even get to the heart of the "4E is not D&D" comments; to one set of folks, "let's play D&D" means "let us roleplay characters in a world that works as defined by the D&D rules", but to another set of folks it means "let's roleplay characters in a world that we envision as D&D - and we'll find some rules that approximate that world and alter them as required to fit our (GM's) view of that world". The first is PFS as I originally understood it from The Forge, the second is a variant PFS that says that "the rules" are actually what the GM (or players, in Universalis*) makes up to fit the (pre-determined) world model.</p><p></p><p>*: <span style="font-size: 9px">Universalis is actually a fascinating case, since it seems to be built to facilitate exactly this approach with no GM.</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6342028, member: 27160"] The only limit is our imaginations, which makes the field theoretically infinite (but practically bounded, both by actual imaginations and by what we are prepared to cope with). I would say it is entirely possible to play Toon using the system as a literal "cartoon physics" - again, it's all down to the scope of imagination. Even a world where "energy" manifests very differently would be conceivable, but difficult to make consistent and complete. That is not to say that most players will not much prefer to play in a game-world with which they feel at least marginally familiar; Toon has help, here, in that cartoons are generally somewhat familiar. But that doesn't seem to me to change the fundamental truth that there are two quite separate mechanisms at work: 1) The desire to have the game-world fully reflected in the rules, and hence conversely have the physics of the game world defined by the rules (the rules may "dictate" the world, but the players dictate the rules used, so it really is two way - the determining direction is just a matter of timing). 2) The desire to roleplay using a setting (game-world) that is to some extent familiar and felt to be understood, which means including a healthy dollop of either "reality" or genre (or, most usually, both). It might be interesting, too, to consider the role that the game "fluff" has in setting the expectations for the "realism" of the ruleset; it seems to me that setting genre expectations might be a vital function of "fluff". In the sense that peasants could launch stuff into space? No, they really aren't, because that's not what the result of the rules would be; there is no "momentum" in these systems. Add some flexibility to the game-time "axis" (so that a turn length is related somewhat to the number of "chained" actions involved, at least in a field surrounding those making the chained actions) and it's not even all that difficult to envision. More generally, I think you may well be right that many players don't really consider the implications of a "stop motion" game physics. When they do, a first instinct can be to call for "rulings", but that only actually introduces a need for another game system to be used, in effect - and that system will be very likely to introduce its own issues. So experienced players settle on ignoring the issue and handwaving it when it becomes intrusive, thus moving away from Purist-for-System. Nevertheless, I don't think that either stop-motion or hit points make it impossible to have consistent world physics, and neither do I think that playing in what one accepts as a world defined by these systems but ignoring the fact as far as possible is actually disfunctional. Doing so and demanding certain other system elements "so that things make sense", however, might well be inconsistent. For many players I think it probably does, or rather ought to in theory (if they didn't engage in handwaving/rationalising). It certainly introduces inconsistencies into their preferences and advocacy for other subsystems. But that is due to an (often stated) preference for "realism" (sometimes termed "believability", "verisimilitude", "reasonableness" or even "something that makes sense"), not due to a demand or preference for rules that model in-game physics. Think of it this way, maybe: the rules of Toon, as written, model a form of cartoon reality. Few toon players object to them when playing Toon, but introduce the same rules to D&D and I'll bet many folks will be up in arms. The problem is not that the Toon rules don't model a perfectly consistent process - it's that they don't model the specific process that folks have decided up-front they want D&D rules to model. That is quite a different issue. It might even get to the heart of the "4E is not D&D" comments; to one set of folks, "let's play D&D" means "let us roleplay characters in a world that works as defined by the D&D rules", but to another set of folks it means "let's roleplay characters in a world that we envision as D&D - and we'll find some rules that approximate that world and alter them as required to fit our (GM's) view of that world". The first is PFS as I originally understood it from The Forge, the second is a variant PFS that says that "the rules" are actually what the GM (or players, in Universalis*) makes up to fit the (pre-determined) world model. *: [SIZE=1]Universalis is actually a fascinating case, since it seems to be built to facilitate exactly this approach with no GM.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
More DMing analysis from Lewis Pulsipher
Top