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
*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: 6342943" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>In most of the rule sets I have used, actually, the 12 seconds is stated to be approximate, rather than exact. Game events happening in aliquots of time that are not mapped linearly to putative objective game-world time is a classic point of flexibility - much needed by rules trying to emulate a specific set of world-axioms - in my experience</p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree that this is a "crunch point" for Purist-for-System play priorities, but I think that the "backing away" from the rules being game-world axioms is a quite definite backing away from PFS. I think this is wirth exploring slightly more deeply; this is a bit "written as I think", so please bear with me.</p><p></p><p>In real-world physics we have a conceit - a belief, even - that there exists some set of universal axioms that really do determine how our world works - at least physically. We have the difficulty that we don't know what these axioms are - in fact, we cannot even prove that they exist at all - but have to postulate approximate "laws" of physics that fit the phenomenae that we observe. Using a process of postulating "laws" and updating them when we find a confirmed observation that disagrees with the existing "law", we have been astoundingly successful at evolving theories that fit an impressive number and range of observations - but we still don't have absolute knowledge of the underlying axioms.</p><p></p><p>Now, for a game world, there is no set of underlying axioms that are independent of ourselves. Any set of axioms must come either from the rules as written or from the imagination(s) of those playing. My understanding of PFS as proposed by Edwards is that it takes the first of these views, that the axioms of the game world are written in the rules.</p><p></p><p>The issue bound to arise with this approach, as [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] notes, is with corner cases that either are not covered or give results that "don't make sense". My argument is that using "common sense" or changing the rules for these situations represents a compromise with PFS - a retreat from it - based on another agenda; that of "realism" (for whatever game "reality" is imagined separately from the rules).</p><p></p><p></p><p>My contention is not that it is impossible to have a shared genre without "genre physics" - it is that Purist-for-System play as I'm defining it, using the rules as the axioms of the game world, is quite possible for cartoon or other genre worlds. In other words, there is nothing about PFS play that says the game world must conform to the features of real-world physics. I think you can roleplay in a setting intended to mirror the real world without using rules that explicitly model real physics, so that it should be possible for "unreal" settings seems to me to be obviously true.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Most or all cartoons that I remember have a very clear set of "cartoon gravity rules". You don't fall under gravity until you notice that you are no longer supported, and then you have a pause just long enough to express surprise and horror at your predicament (and maybe attempt to grab a ledge, if you are quick) before you fall under instant acceleration!</p><p></p><p>As an aside, here, although we generally assume that real physical rules are deterministic (although the subatomic world seems to challenge that) there is no fundamental reason that imaginary worlds' axioms should not be stochastic in nature.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, if in such a game I might try to use magic without alliteration to test whether the rules really are the world axioms or just a set of empirical guidelines to a set of axioms that the GM has as an envisioned world model <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>If the genre rules really cannot be "mathematicised" then this might be true, but I'm really hard pressed to imagine any sort of rules about physical outcomes that cannot be represented in logical/mathematical terms if fully understood.</p><p></p><p>Of course, there is a perfectly valid play style that does not want to understand or quantify the (intuitively "known") physical rules. The PTA strain of rules would generally fit here.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Tolkien may well not have troubled himself about the matter, being concerned with literary rules, and roleplayers need not trouble themselves, either. But those who explicitly want to play in a defined game world are also free to assume that there exists some explanation of these matters. If you start from the point that Middle Earth must be consistent/coherent, then it follows that there must be some aspect of the world's physics that allows for faerie queens and lembas and elves living with no apparent agriculture or whatever.</p><p></p><p>A key feature to realise with this approach, though, is that it makes no sense to say that "the elves existing like this is impossible". Tolkien said they exist like this, ergo they must exist like this. Whatever the axioms of the literary/game world may be, they MUST be such as to allow th elves of Lothlorien. This occupies the same conceptual space as an observation in real science. In other words, if the "theory" (= game rules) disagree with the observed world (= as written by Tolkien) then it's the theory that is wrong. If this means that Middle Earth's axioms cannot be those of the real world, then so be it. Any set of "physical outcomes" rules for Middle Earth that allows everything that Tolkien wrote to be true could be used as game-world axioms for a Middle Earth RPG in PFS style. That is, of course, not the only way to roleplay in Tolkien's Middle Earth.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6342943, member: 27160"] In most of the rule sets I have used, actually, the 12 seconds is stated to be approximate, rather than exact. Game events happening in aliquots of time that are not mapped linearly to putative objective game-world time is a classic point of flexibility - much needed by rules trying to emulate a specific set of world-axioms - in my experience I agree that this is a "crunch point" for Purist-for-System play priorities, but I think that the "backing away" from the rules being game-world axioms is a quite definite backing away from PFS. I think this is wirth exploring slightly more deeply; this is a bit "written as I think", so please bear with me. In real-world physics we have a conceit - a belief, even - that there exists some set of universal axioms that really do determine how our world works - at least physically. We have the difficulty that we don't know what these axioms are - in fact, we cannot even prove that they exist at all - but have to postulate approximate "laws" of physics that fit the phenomenae that we observe. Using a process of postulating "laws" and updating them when we find a confirmed observation that disagrees with the existing "law", we have been astoundingly successful at evolving theories that fit an impressive number and range of observations - but we still don't have absolute knowledge of the underlying axioms. Now, for a game world, there is no set of underlying axioms that are independent of ourselves. Any set of axioms must come either from the rules as written or from the imagination(s) of those playing. My understanding of PFS as proposed by Edwards is that it takes the first of these views, that the axioms of the game world are written in the rules. The issue bound to arise with this approach, as [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] notes, is with corner cases that either are not covered or give results that "don't make sense". My argument is that using "common sense" or changing the rules for these situations represents a compromise with PFS - a retreat from it - based on another agenda; that of "realism" (for whatever game "reality" is imagined separately from the rules). My contention is not that it is impossible to have a shared genre without "genre physics" - it is that Purist-for-System play as I'm defining it, using the rules as the axioms of the game world, is quite possible for cartoon or other genre worlds. In other words, there is nothing about PFS play that says the game world must conform to the features of real-world physics. I think you can roleplay in a setting intended to mirror the real world without using rules that explicitly model real physics, so that it should be possible for "unreal" settings seems to me to be obviously true. Most or all cartoons that I remember have a very clear set of "cartoon gravity rules". You don't fall under gravity until you notice that you are no longer supported, and then you have a pause just long enough to express surprise and horror at your predicament (and maybe attempt to grab a ledge, if you are quick) before you fall under instant acceleration! As an aside, here, although we generally assume that real physical rules are deterministic (although the subatomic world seems to challenge that) there is no fundamental reason that imaginary worlds' axioms should not be stochastic in nature. Well, if in such a game I might try to use magic without alliteration to test whether the rules really are the world axioms or just a set of empirical guidelines to a set of axioms that the GM has as an envisioned world model :) If the genre rules really cannot be "mathematicised" then this might be true, but I'm really hard pressed to imagine any sort of rules about physical outcomes that cannot be represented in logical/mathematical terms if fully understood. Of course, there is a perfectly valid play style that does not want to understand or quantify the (intuitively "known") physical rules. The PTA strain of rules would generally fit here. Tolkien may well not have troubled himself about the matter, being concerned with literary rules, and roleplayers need not trouble themselves, either. But those who explicitly want to play in a defined game world are also free to assume that there exists some explanation of these matters. If you start from the point that Middle Earth must be consistent/coherent, then it follows that there must be some aspect of the world's physics that allows for faerie queens and lembas and elves living with no apparent agriculture or whatever. A key feature to realise with this approach, though, is that it makes no sense to say that "the elves existing like this is impossible". Tolkien said they exist like this, ergo they must exist like this. Whatever the axioms of the literary/game world may be, they MUST be such as to allow th elves of Lothlorien. This occupies the same conceptual space as an observation in real science. In other words, if the "theory" (= game rules) disagree with the observed world (= as written by Tolkien) then it's the theory that is wrong. If this means that Middle Earth's axioms cannot be those of the real world, then so be it. Any set of "physical outcomes" rules for Middle Earth that allows everything that Tolkien wrote to be true could be used as game-world axioms for a Middle Earth RPG in PFS style. That is, of course, not the only way to roleplay in Tolkien's Middle Earth. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
More DMing analysis from Lewis Pulsipher
Top