Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="thefutilist" data-source="post: 9314864" data-attributes="member: 7044566">It’s bad theory and I think there needs to be a name for it, the functional fallacy or something like that. There’s an osr blog post, and it’s a brilliant post, just utterly wrong, it’s called something like ’rules elide’, that has a similar take. Or the old one, ‘I use rules that get out of the way.’So to my way of thinking, you’re resolving ‘something’ and you’re approaching the thing that needs to be resolved in a certain way. I mean the first and most obvious thing is that you’re including the thing in the game at all. Then the second is, that whatever mechanic you use is going to have ‘some’ impact.D&amp;D combat takes time, Brennan isn’t using a universal resolution mechanic combat to solve it in a roll or two. Why is that? Why focus on the very granular stuff D&amp;D does, in the way that D&amp;D does?So anyway it’s a fallacy if we turn it on it’s head. I don’t use the social mechanics from say Monsterhearts, because I need to figure out how to do social stuff, I.E make it functional. I use them because it offers a specific play experience. Which is true for all mechanics, it’s just people no longer see it because they’ve become so used to their way of doing things they’ve developed a parochial view. Or put another way, how D&amp;D does things is considered the standard.And I’m not knocking doing what Brennan is doing. If you need to use some rules for combat or whatever then fine, it’s just at one point the specifics of those rules were a choice and there are many other ways of doing the thing you need doing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="thefutilist, post: 9314864, member: 7044566"] It’s bad theory and I think there needs to be a name for it, the functional fallacy or something like that. There’s an osr blog post, and it’s a brilliant post, just utterly wrong, it’s called something like ’rules elide’, that has a similar take. Or the old one, ‘I use rules that get out of the way.’ So to my way of thinking, you’re resolving ‘something’ and you’re approaching the thing that needs to be resolved in a certain way. I mean the first and most obvious thing is that you’re including the thing in the game at all. Then the second is, that whatever mechanic you use is going to have ‘some’ impact. D&D combat takes time, Brennan isn’t using a universal resolution mechanic combat to solve it in a roll or two. Why is that? Why focus on the very granular stuff D&D does, in the way that D&D does? So anyway it’s a fallacy if we turn it on it’s head. I don’t use the social mechanics from say Monsterhearts, because I need to figure out how to do social stuff, I.E make it functional. I use them because it offers a specific play experience. Which is true for all mechanics, it’s just people no longer see it because they’ve become so used to their way of doing things they’ve developed a parochial view. Or put another way, how D&D does things is considered the standard. And I’m not knocking doing what Brennan is doing. If you need to use some rules for combat or whatever then fine, it’s just at one point the specifics of those rules were a choice and there are many other ways of doing the thing you need doing. [/QUOTE]

Verification