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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8634291" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Yes, I would grant that. Theoretically, it <em>is</em> possible to work toward "freeform" S&A in a FKR sense, in that FKR does still include an extremely simple "roll for consequences" component, but it's gonna look...really weird, because of the "semi-objective" component I've referenced (hopefully every time...) I've laid out what "Score" means. A score where it's totally free-formed and fluid in the mind of a single referee would depend on <em>absolute</em> trust that the referee would never rule with bias neither for nor against (to rule with bias against would be to deny earned Achievement; with bias for, to give unearned Achievement), and that trust would have to be shared by all participants in perpetuity, something that will be difficult to maintain at best.</p><p></p><p>Again, I feel video games are an extremely useful comparison here, particularly things like speed-run competitions, tournament games, etc.: if the task is too loosey-goosey debatable, then Score is difficult or even impossible to determine, and thus the Achievement is weakened. But, critically, Score is not <em>totally</em> objective because it needs that component of "why do I, the player, care?" Someone can be extremely proud of (say) beating a shooter on the second-highest difficulty setting. They may not have the <em>highest possible</em> Achievement, but they have their <em>personal best</em>, and that can be enough--the task itself is still objectively completed, but the weight or meaning may be subjective. There are of course other things that may be perfectly objective, e.g. "world first" races to complete difficult content in MMO games (e.g. the recent world-first clear of <em>Dragonsong Reprise: Ultimate</em> in FFXIV), winning first prize in a competitive tournament, etc.</p><p></p><p>This is not to say that I think it's totally impossible to have a "systemless" S&A game (unlike G&S, where I <em>do</em> actually kinda think it's impossible, specifically because of how inherently system-centric G&S is.) It would just be....really weird. Score would not be consistent from one situation to the next, but purely contextual every time--meaning, Achievement would also have to be purely contextual every time. The players would have to trust that the fact that adjudication may not be the same each time is for a fully-justified <em>reason</em>, just one they won't be <em>told</em> because the rulebooks are invisible and therefore unutterable.</p><p></p><p>G&S though...it really, deeply, down to its <em>bones</em> is a gameplay loop about system and the manipulation thereof. In the absence of system, what is there to manipulate? This isn't a knock at either FKR or G&S, just an observation that by <em>being</em> "purist-for-<em>system</em>," it seems pretty much impossible to integrate it with the philosophy "don't use system! Use intuition!"</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>As a separate point from the above: you're correct that I'm intentionally cleaving out...well, not merely "un-systematic," which I take to have a rules-system but one that isn't necessarily clear or uniform or the like. Instead, I'm cleaving out "<em>anti-</em>systematic," game "designs" that actively eschew system (almost) entirely. Mostly because...I don't see how there's anything we can analyze. The requirements are obvious: you must trust that a human mind, using its intuitions and individual perspective, will be as consistent and "principled" (as in, adhering to a principle, whatever that principle may be, I don't mean "moral") as a set of written rules that can be examined directly. That trust will require constant and effective communication. </p><p></p><p>There is little to no "design" in this, and "tools" and "techniques" are going to be extremely difficult to spell out, because they'll ultimately (sort of how AbulAlhazred was talking earlier) just boil down to "GM says." When that is the only structure, "GM says," there's...really nothing to <em>analyze</em> there, and little to be learned. Hence...I don't see much point in analyzing openly anti-systematic games. Peraps there are still tools or techniques that may be relevant, but...it just seems like it's always going to have that phrase that I have come to so greatly dislike over the last ten years or so: "You're the DM, you decide!"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8634291, member: 6790260"] Yes, I would grant that. Theoretically, it [I]is[/I] possible to work toward "freeform" S&A in a FKR sense, in that FKR does still include an extremely simple "roll for consequences" component, but it's gonna look...really weird, because of the "semi-objective" component I've referenced (hopefully every time...) I've laid out what "Score" means. A score where it's totally free-formed and fluid in the mind of a single referee would depend on [I]absolute[/I] trust that the referee would never rule with bias neither for nor against (to rule with bias against would be to deny earned Achievement; with bias for, to give unearned Achievement), and that trust would have to be shared by all participants in perpetuity, something that will be difficult to maintain at best. Again, I feel video games are an extremely useful comparison here, particularly things like speed-run competitions, tournament games, etc.: if the task is too loosey-goosey debatable, then Score is difficult or even impossible to determine, and thus the Achievement is weakened. But, critically, Score is not [I]totally[/I] objective because it needs that component of "why do I, the player, care?" Someone can be extremely proud of (say) beating a shooter on the second-highest difficulty setting. They may not have the [I]highest possible[/I] Achievement, but they have their [I]personal best[/I], and that can be enough--the task itself is still objectively completed, but the weight or meaning may be subjective. There are of course other things that may be perfectly objective, e.g. "world first" races to complete difficult content in MMO games (e.g. the recent world-first clear of [I]Dragonsong Reprise: Ultimate[/I] in FFXIV), winning first prize in a competitive tournament, etc. This is not to say that I think it's totally impossible to have a "systemless" S&A game (unlike G&S, where I [I]do[/I] actually kinda think it's impossible, specifically because of how inherently system-centric G&S is.) It would just be....really weird. Score would not be consistent from one situation to the next, but purely contextual every time--meaning, Achievement would also have to be purely contextual every time. The players would have to trust that the fact that adjudication may not be the same each time is for a fully-justified [I]reason[/I], just one they won't be [I]told[/I] because the rulebooks are invisible and therefore unutterable. G&S though...it really, deeply, down to its [I]bones[/I] is a gameplay loop about system and the manipulation thereof. In the absence of system, what is there to manipulate? This isn't a knock at either FKR or G&S, just an observation that by [I]being[/I] "purist-for-[I]system[/I]," it seems pretty much impossible to integrate it with the philosophy "don't use system! Use intuition!" --- As a separate point from the above: you're correct that I'm intentionally cleaving out...well, not merely "un-systematic," which I take to have a rules-system but one that isn't necessarily clear or uniform or the like. Instead, I'm cleaving out "[I]anti-[/I]systematic," game "designs" that actively eschew system (almost) entirely. Mostly because...I don't see how there's anything we can analyze. The requirements are obvious: you must trust that a human mind, using its intuitions and individual perspective, will be as consistent and "principled" (as in, adhering to a principle, whatever that principle may be, I don't mean "moral") as a set of written rules that can be examined directly. That trust will require constant and effective communication. There is little to no "design" in this, and "tools" and "techniques" are going to be extremely difficult to spell out, because they'll ultimately (sort of how AbulAlhazred was talking earlier) just boil down to "GM says." When that is the only structure, "GM says," there's...really nothing to [I]analyze[/I] there, and little to be learned. Hence...I don't see much point in analyzing openly anti-systematic games. Peraps there are still tools or techniques that may be relevant, but...it just seems like it's always going to have that phrase that I have come to so greatly dislike over the last ten years or so: "You're the DM, you decide!" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top