Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9198549" data-attributes="member: 70468">That’s the part that’s delegated to the play culture (just like with newer editions where those practices are something one has to learn as part of acquiring the skills of DMing).The culture in question is the miniature wargaming culture that existed prior to the release of OD&D and informed how it presented itself and was received. I think [USER=39199]@thomas[/USER] Shey’s comment in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/rpging-and-imagination-a-fundamental-point.701162/post-9198225" target="_blank">post #33</a> is interesting because it is illustrative how someone from a different wargaming play culture would interpret OD&D differently.I’m not following the other one very closely, so I may have missed something. You’ve described games as being hybrids between X and an RPG. I’m not trying to gatekeep. What I’m trying to do is determine what is is constitutive of being “and an RPG”. There has to be something, or it’s just a meaningless label.As far as the “improv” part goes, I’m not particularly concerned with that. Outside of our discussion of OD&D, I’ve been intentionally not using tabletop RPG examples to try to maintain clarity (since the “improv” element seems to be a pretty common trait to tabletop RPGs).I agree about explicitness. It’s an important aspect of how resolution works in my homebrew system. Who gets to say what is system-defined. There’s not a place for discretion. If the player says they want something, the referee must foreground consequences. If they do, then the uncertainty is resolved by rolling, and the referee is obligated to honor the result (meaning success must not be sabotaged with “well actually” hidden information). If the referee cannot articulate consequences, then the player gets what they want. Note also that I’m concerned with outcomes not tasks. The skill used supplies the method you use to get what you want.The system is meant to be OSR-adjacent (in that monsters should convert easily-ish and adventures definitely), though I’m going a different direction regarding rulings and the extent of the referee’s authority. I see the idea of having a neutral referee who is also obligated to play all the other characters (monsters, NPCs, etc) as having an inherit conflict of interest. I want to explore systematic approaches as an alternative to other ones.I’m a bit disappointed the Undertale example was dropped. Would I be correct in saying that playing-style reinforcement is happening when Undertale changes in response to your actions even though your abilities do not?Unless I misunderstood your reply in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/rpging-and-imagination-a-fundamental-point.701162/post-9197808" target="_blank">post #11</a>, that’s not a universal trait of RPGs, right? This is why I keep bringing up the concept of some base RPG traits that all RPGs share (tabletop, computer, etc).Thanks for the explanation and offer, but I’m not sure it would be fully appreciated without a better understanding of the diagrams and what they are supposed to communicate.I think what is considered “good GMing practices” can be variable and highly politicized. There have been some considerably lengthy threads here over that. For example, should and to what extent is the DM obligated to honor the Rustic Hospitality feature of a character’s Folk Hero background? I should also note that even phrases like “mother may I” are not without controversy (with some considering them a slur for legitimate playing styles).I was assuming you were using “improv play” with a specific connotation when it came to game design. Treating it as the plain meaning seems less useful because it groups a lot of different things together.However, I think they would refer to that as “skilled play” rather than as improvisation.</blockquote>

Verification