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: 8634328" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I think I may be unfamiliar with your metaphor. I'm also not sure what the difference between "free-form" and "GM decides" is in games that <em>have</em> a GM calling stuff--which is what I thought "FKR" meant? That is, Free Kriegsspiel itself is...specifically a "Free" by <em>becoming</em> "GM Decides."</p><p></p><p></p><p>I am intentionally staying out of this overall conversation, but my two cents on "working" etc.: If the best you can say is "you <em>can play it</em>, and it won't <em>horribly break</em> the instant you try," that is NOT "working." That's like saying that a car that doesn't explode the instant you turn the key in the ignition is "working." (I believe you and I agree on this, I'm just singling this bit out to respond to it.)</p><p></p><p>"It's playable"/"you played it" and "it doesn't <em>prevent</em> you from having fun" are absolute, barebones, rock-bottom <em>prerequisites</em> for a working game. They are necessary conditions. They are <em>not</em> sufficient conditions. Anything which fails to meet both requirements <em>does not deserve the moniker "game."</em> Frankly, if you design a game that is so utterly bad that it literally <em>can't</em> be played, you deserve an award of some kind, because holy toledo that's achievements in awfulness. And if you somehow manage to make a game that actively <em>prevents</em> the player from having fun, you should probably look into combat applications because that sounds like straight-up <em>psychological warfare</em>.</p><p></p><p>No game, no designed entertainment/aesthetic <em>thing</em> of any kind, that fails to meet the standards of "actually permits you to engage with it <em>at all</em>" and "actually permits you to enjoy engaging with it" should ever <em>exist</em>. As a result, holding up either of those requirements as though something that meets them has <em>merited</em> anything is not merely foolish, it's patently ridiculous. It is saying that "X is broken" can only apply to something that is the exact antithesis of perfectly flawless--that "brokenness" can only refer to something <em>perfectly full of flaws</em>.</p><p></p><p>Something can be badly-made and extremely broken and still somewhat functional. A game in specific can be badly made and extremely broken and still provide entertainment value. I, for example, actually enjoy playing <em>gonzo</em> games in Pathfinder. The system is already broken, so why not <em>enjoy</em> its brokenness? It's hard to find games that actively enable nigh-infinite cheese (sometimes, <em>literal</em> cheese!)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8634328, member: 6790260"] I think I may be unfamiliar with your metaphor. I'm also not sure what the difference between "free-form" and "GM decides" is in games that [I]have[/I] a GM calling stuff--which is what I thought "FKR" meant? That is, Free Kriegsspiel itself is...specifically a "Free" by [I]becoming[/I] "GM Decides." I am intentionally staying out of this overall conversation, but my two cents on "working" etc.: If the best you can say is "you [I]can play it[/I], and it won't [I]horribly break[/I] the instant you try," that is NOT "working." That's like saying that a car that doesn't explode the instant you turn the key in the ignition is "working." (I believe you and I agree on this, I'm just singling this bit out to respond to it.) "It's playable"/"you played it" and "it doesn't [I]prevent[/I] you from having fun" are absolute, barebones, rock-bottom [I]prerequisites[/I] for a working game. They are necessary conditions. They are [I]not[/I] sufficient conditions. Anything which fails to meet both requirements [I]does not deserve the moniker "game."[/I] Frankly, if you design a game that is so utterly bad that it literally [I]can't[/I] be played, you deserve an award of some kind, because holy toledo that's achievements in awfulness. And if you somehow manage to make a game that actively [I]prevents[/I] the player from having fun, you should probably look into combat applications because that sounds like straight-up [I]psychological warfare[/I]. No game, no designed entertainment/aesthetic [I]thing[/I] of any kind, that fails to meet the standards of "actually permits you to engage with it [I]at all[/I]" and "actually permits you to enjoy engaging with it" should ever [I]exist[/I]. As a result, holding up either of those requirements as though something that meets them has [I]merited[/I] anything is not merely foolish, it's patently ridiculous. It is saying that "X is broken" can only apply to something that is the exact antithesis of perfectly flawless--that "brokenness" can only refer to something [I]perfectly full of flaws[/I]. Something can be badly-made and extremely broken and still somewhat functional. A game in specific can be badly made and extremely broken and still provide entertainment value. I, for example, actually enjoy playing [I]gonzo[/I] games in Pathfinder. The system is already broken, so why not [I]enjoy[/I] its brokenness? It's hard to find games that actively enable nigh-infinite cheese (sometimes, [I]literal[/I] cheese!) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top