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
On Behavioral Realism
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: 7956310" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Not sure I follow you. My point is that the poker game you're talking about is a metagame for poker. It's like claiming that character optimization is part of D&D. it is, and it isn't. It's an extra game that only exists when the first game does, and it's focused on gaming the underlying game. I think it's an excellent distinction to note the game presented from a metagame that exists on top of it. And that's what you're illustrating with your poker example.</p><p></p><p>It's a good point. Metagames almost always exist. But, I don't think it correlates to discussing how games function within their rulesets. It's, well, extra.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I disagree. I think noting something is a game about playing a game is a pretty big distinction from discussing how a game plays by itself. As I said, I can play poker without bluffing -- this is pretty much what happens when you play against a computer. Certainly we can't claim that my inability to read the computer or bluff it means I'm not playing poker. The meta-level of games, where you play a game on top of the game, is very interesting, but, again, not actually part of the underlying game. Poker is separate from bluffing, but bluffing in poker requires poker to exist. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I'd disagree on the first, somewhat, and agree strongly on the second.</p><p></p><p>Re, the first point, having robust rules for a thing usually will mean that a game will focus on that thing over an area that has weak or no rules. Take D&D. Granted, you can have a session that focuses on roleplaying, or shopping, or building a castle, but how much occurs how quickly there? Combat slows down and gets granular whenever it shows up in D&D -- it demands more focus for resolutions, and resolutions are always very precise and complete. D&D directs focus to the combat rules across lots of segements, from character build, to equipment, to strategic play, to tactical play in the combat engine. There's even the combat swoop, where you shift from the more freeform exploration/social pillars to the combat engine via the initiative roll, which particularizes timing and structure in a way the other pillars usually do not.</p><p></p><p>Does this always hold? No, it's general statement, not an absolute one. If a game system invests in robust rules to adjudicate an area of play, though, that area is usually going to be a focus for play, unless there's a strong effort to thwart this and use the system in other ways. That's something you can do, but then the system fights you a bit by not providing the robust systems while you avoid it's most robust systems.</p><p></p><p>On the second party, absolutely. More rules does not mean better rules. Or better outcomes. Heck, look at Palladium systems -- lots of rules, not great outcomes. You have to hack that system a bit to get it to even work.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Goodness, no. I have no idea why anyone would assume that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed. Usually when people do choose those definitions, though, it's pretty clear they're either engaged in a bit of one-true-wayism or just trying to derail the discussion. I do think that most systems leave roleplaying as an exercise for the players to develop rather than a place to provide operationalization. Just some light constraints and incentives and a bit of authority granting and that's it. 5e does this through the background system (which is an operationalization with incentives), the usual genre constraints, and authorities to the player for action declaration and the GM for resolution. This is enough, though, to get to roleplaying, and open enough to accommodate a number of definitions and styles of roleplaying.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7956310, member: 16814"] Not sure I follow you. My point is that the poker game you're talking about is a metagame for poker. It's like claiming that character optimization is part of D&D. it is, and it isn't. It's an extra game that only exists when the first game does, and it's focused on gaming the underlying game. I think it's an excellent distinction to note the game presented from a metagame that exists on top of it. And that's what you're illustrating with your poker example. It's a good point. Metagames almost always exist. But, I don't think it correlates to discussing how games function within their rulesets. It's, well, extra. I disagree. I think noting something is a game about playing a game is a pretty big distinction from discussing how a game plays by itself. As I said, I can play poker without bluffing -- this is pretty much what happens when you play against a computer. Certainly we can't claim that my inability to read the computer or bluff it means I'm not playing poker. The meta-level of games, where you play a game on top of the game, is very interesting, but, again, not actually part of the underlying game. Poker is separate from bluffing, but bluffing in poker requires poker to exist. I'd disagree on the first, somewhat, and agree strongly on the second. Re, the first point, having robust rules for a thing usually will mean that a game will focus on that thing over an area that has weak or no rules. Take D&D. Granted, you can have a session that focuses on roleplaying, or shopping, or building a castle, but how much occurs how quickly there? Combat slows down and gets granular whenever it shows up in D&D -- it demands more focus for resolutions, and resolutions are always very precise and complete. D&D directs focus to the combat rules across lots of segements, from character build, to equipment, to strategic play, to tactical play in the combat engine. There's even the combat swoop, where you shift from the more freeform exploration/social pillars to the combat engine via the initiative roll, which particularizes timing and structure in a way the other pillars usually do not. Does this always hold? No, it's general statement, not an absolute one. If a game system invests in robust rules to adjudicate an area of play, though, that area is usually going to be a focus for play, unless there's a strong effort to thwart this and use the system in other ways. That's something you can do, but then the system fights you a bit by not providing the robust systems while you avoid it's most robust systems. On the second party, absolutely. More rules does not mean better rules. Or better outcomes. Heck, look at Palladium systems -- lots of rules, not great outcomes. You have to hack that system a bit to get it to even work. Goodness, no. I have no idea why anyone would assume that. Agreed. Usually when people do choose those definitions, though, it's pretty clear they're either engaged in a bit of one-true-wayism or just trying to derail the discussion. I do think that most systems leave roleplaying as an exercise for the players to develop rather than a place to provide operationalization. Just some light constraints and incentives and a bit of authority granting and that's it. 5e does this through the background system (which is an operationalization with incentives), the usual genre constraints, and authorities to the player for action declaration and the GM for resolution. This is enough, though, to get to roleplaying, and open enough to accommodate a number of definitions and styles of roleplaying. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
On Behavioral Realism
Top