Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9207913" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't know what you mean by &quot;storygame&quot;. It's not a word I've used.The contrast between D&amp;D (and games descended from it) and free kriegsspiel-esque wargames has been discussed upthread I think. In D&amp;D, the players are in a 1:1 relationship with particular characters in the fiction, and their principal method for engaging and changing the &quot;gamestate&quot; is by saying what their characters do.I wouldn't say it's completely arbitrary. But it is not given by a formal process as in a boardgame or boardgame-type wargame.In the example of carrying a friend through a pool, the key thing is not the issue of encumbrance, but the fact that the Halfling can sit on the human's shoulders and thereby avoid being submerged in water. This is not a boardgame state - it's a feature of what is collectively imagined.And as you say, even were that codified a new situation would arise within minutes of play - eg using splintered wooden furniture to float a person, or a treasure chest, or whatever, across the pond.It was obvious to me, as a child playing D&amp;D (Moldvay Basic) for the first time in 1982 that the game was not a boardgame, and did not have &quot;fixed&quot;, predetermined rules for every action declaration. This &quot;open-ended&quot; character is what made it different from a Fighting Fantasy gamebook.It's not so much the need for adjudication, as the method of adjudication - which, as you say, is to imagine things. Eg imaging what would happen if someone tried to float a treasure chest over a pond using splintered wooden furniture.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9207913, member: 42582"] I don't know what you mean by "storygame". It's not a word I've used. The contrast between D&D (and games descended from it) and free kriegsspiel-esque wargames has been discussed upthread I think. In D&D, the players are in a 1:1 relationship with particular characters in the fiction, and their principal method for engaging and changing the "gamestate" is by saying what their characters do. I wouldn't say it's [I]completely arbitrary[/I]. But it is not given by a formal process as in a boardgame or boardgame-type wargame. In the example of carrying a friend through a pool, the key thing is not the issue of encumbrance, but the fact that the Halfling can sit on the human's shoulders and thereby avoid being submerged in water. This is not a boardgame state - it's a feature of what is collectively imagined. And as you say, [I]even were that codified[/I] a new situation would arise within minutes of play - eg using splintered wooden furniture to float a person, or a treasure chest, or whatever, across the pond. It was obvious to me, as a child playing D&D (Moldvay Basic) for the first time in 1982 that the game was not a boardgame, and did not have "fixed", predetermined rules for every action declaration. This "open-ended" character is what made it different from a Fighting Fantasy gamebook. It's not so much the [I]need[/I] for adjudication, as the [I]method[/I] of adjudication - which, as you say, is to imagine things. Eg imaging what would happen if someone tried to float a treasure chest over a pond using splintered wooden furniture. [/QUOTE]

Verification