RPG Theory- The Limits of My Language are the Limits of My World

[Thomas Shey]

I also want to put a bit of clarification on something I said in an earlier post: when I say people are unwilling or unable to unpack their assumptions, I'm not just talking about what they are, but why they're desirable. Its easy to say that you find, say, all mechanics player facing desirable, but unless you can explain why you do, its unlikely to be useful at all to someone who doesn't share that desire in regard to applying it to a system that doesn't currently do so.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think this is contrary, per se; after all, if you have four elements, and one of those engages the players, you're still doing it. The other three simply are establishing background context (and of course may engage the players at some other point). The question still ends up coming down to whether the extra material is worth the additional effort, and that still turns on whether it provides value in and of itself.

I don't really understand this point. I've started a new thread. (Well not quite yet, but am about to.) I'll @ you, but it's a no-obligation @!

 

[pemerton]

I also want to put a bit of clarification on something I said in an earlier post: when I say people are unwilling or unable to unpack their assumptions, I'm not just talking about what they are, but why they're desirable. Its easy to say that you find, say, all mechanics player facing desirable, but unless you can explain why you do, its unlikely to be useful at all to someone who doesn't share that desire in regard to applying it to a system that doesn't currently do so.

I don't know if this is always true, though.

I mean, if someone asserts In my RPGing I do such-and-such a thing, and someone else asks for elaboration or more explanation, I don't think it's incumbent on the first person to explain why the do such-and-such a thing - especially if the topic of the thread is about ways of doing such-and-such a thing, or contrasting it with other things that sit in the same functional space.

Concrete example: if I ask @FrogReaver to elaborate on the changes he (? I believe that's the right pronoun, and apologise if I'm wrong) has made to the zero hp rules in 5e, I don't think there's any burden on him to explain why he made them. Especially as it will often be pretty self-evident - eg "realism"/verisimilitude, perhaps combined with a distaste for what I've seen called the whack-a-mole aspect of dropping to zero hp in 5e.

 

[Malmuria]

edit

 

[MichaelSomething]

Getting OSR people to define OSR is like pulling teeth half the time...

 

[Fenris-77]

Getting OSR people to define OSR is like pulling teeth half the time...

Half the time?

 

[pemerton]

if you have four elements, and one of those engages the players, you're still doing it. The other three simply are establishing background context (and of course may engage the players at some other point). The question still ends up coming down to whether the extra material is worth the additional effort, and that still turns on whether it provides value in and of itself.

Btw, I think I worked this out: you mean four elements in the fiction eg four adventure sites, or four factional plots, or something like that (and obviously there might be mixing and matching different sorts of elements) - and then the three elements the players don't choose to engage with are part of background setting.

RM Campaign Law sort of touches on this, but I don't think that, on its own, it reconciles the tensions. Happy to take up further in the other thread if you like.

 

[pemerton]

Getting OSR people to define OSR is like pulling teeth half the time...

Half the time?

To me, at least, OSR seems to be a mix of (i) resolution/system framework, (ii) play goal, and (iii) aesthetic.

If they are all there - eg OSRIC and other retroclones - then no worries!

If you've got only a bit, it's trickier. Eg DW has (iii) - at least arguably - but not (i) or (ii); Torchbearer has (ii) and (iii) but not (i); AD&D 2nd ed or derivatives have (i) and maybe a splash of (iii) but not (ii). I personally don't think of any of those as OSR, but maybe others do?

There might be ways of moving in the (i) space that are still more faithful to the classics than Torchbearer; they're better candidates, I would think, to count as OSR.

 

[Yora]

OSR is OD&D, Basic/Expert D&D, and AD&D 1st Edition. What's so hard about that?

 

[Aldarc]

OSR is OD&D, Basic/Expert D&D, and AD&D 1st Edition. What's so hard about that?

Because it also can include non-retroclones and games like Maze Rats and Into the Odd.