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
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 8637752" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Here are some typical sorts of reasons to follow the rules in a rulebook. They aren't mutually exclusive, but each is sufficient on its own:</p><p></p><p>(1) I've heard of this thing called <em>doing a crossword</em>, and I want to find out what doing crosswords is like, so I look up a description of what doing a crossword consists in (the most important rules being that each box can have only one letter even when the words cross, and that each word must be spelled out with all of its letters one per box). I now have a reason to follow those rules in virtue of them being what the rulebook told me.</p><p></p><p>(2) I know that the rules of a game solve a particular coordination problem, and I want to participate in the coordinated activity. I now have a reason to do what the rulebook for the game tells me to do, in virtue of that being what the rulebook tells me.</p><p></p><p>(3) Someone whose judgement I trust tells me that playing this particular game will be fun; and then gives me a copy of the rulebook. I now have a reason to to what the rulebook tells me to do, in virtue of that being what the rulebook tells me.</p><p></p><p>There's nothing surprising about cases (1), (2) or (3). They're fairly typical examples used to illustrate how rules can take on content-independent force.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You use the verbs <em>suspend</em>, <em>put into force</em> and <em>change</em>. All those verbs implicate <em>time</em>: there is a time at which the suspension is put into place, and that suspension has a duration; there is a time at which a rule is put into force, and the rule is in force for some or other duration; there is a time at which a change is made, and that change is temporary or permanent.</p><p></p><p>[USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER], in discussing the desiderata for successful gamist RPGing, also implicates time:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">The players must know, a priori and for certain, that their tactical and strategic moves made <strong>will be honoured</strong>, which is to say that those moves will <strong>interact with and affect the gamestate</strong> in an knowable way (either encoded, or reliably extrapolatable), and that each of these gamestate interactions will distill Skilled Play as will <strong>the collective throughline of them</strong>.</p><p></p><p>I've bolded the most important temporal components of Manbearcat's requirements.</p><p></p><p>A suspension, enforcement or change that does not upset the temporal demands of gamism (eg one that is made <em>before</em> the beginning of a "throughline" and that is known to the players before they begin) will not upset gamist play (assuming the actual content of the change still satisfies the requirements of distilling skill play in a knowable way). One that is made <em>during</em> the throughline will be far more suspect, because there is a very real risk that it will disrupt the way moves <em>interact with the gamestate</em> and hence will result in those moves <em>not being honoured</em>. Doubly so if the suspension, enforcement or change is not one that is known to the players.</p><p></p><p>There is a colloquial phrase to describe this sort of suspect suspension, enforcement or change: <em>moving the goalposts</em>. When we reflect on that, we can see that sometimes producing good gamist play might require moving the goalposts. Suppose, for instance, that we're playing football in a playground, having marked our goals with backpacks and caps, and then we discover that we mismeasured, and one of the goals is wider than the other. I can see at least two possible solutions: we change ends, so that the other side now gets the benefit of the wider goal; or we move the goalposts, to remove the unfair advantage. Moving the goalposts isn't obviously worse as a solution here, especially if no one has scored yet, and even moreso if no one has even taken a shot at goal yet.</p><p></p><p>This sort of thing has been discussed in the context of non-gameplay too: Lon Fuller and those who follow him on the rule of law in general don't like retrospective laws, but allow that sometimes they might be necessary to serve the interests of the rule of law, if there are other features of the legal system that have produced some sort of departure from rule of law demands and only retrospective law can rectify those departures.</p><p></p><p>In the context of legislation, there are normally authorised lawmakers who promulgate the change. In the case of playground football, the group as a whole will have to reach some agreement. If they can't, the game breaks up; in extreme cases, the group might break up.</p><p></p><p>When it comes to RPGing, who decides what game we are going to play? The group. Who decides what rules to use? The group. Who decides whether or not a suspension of, enforcement of, or change to some rule is needed <em>during a throughline</em>? The group. The GM has no special function here. So reflections on when we adopt and change rules has no particular bearing upon [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]'s not-AW, which is a RPG which specifies a particular function for the GM, and in virtue of that is not very good for gamist play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8637752, member: 42582"] Here are some typical sorts of reasons to follow the rules in a rulebook. They aren't mutually exclusive, but each is sufficient on its own: (1) I've heard of this thing called [i]doing a crossword[/i], and I want to find out what doing crosswords is like, so I look up a description of what doing a crossword consists in (the most important rules being that each box can have only one letter even when the words cross, and that each word must be spelled out with all of its letters one per box). I now have a reason to follow those rules in virtue of them being what the rulebook told me. (2) I know that the rules of a game solve a particular coordination problem, and I want to participate in the coordinated activity. I now have a reason to do what the rulebook for the game tells me to do, in virtue of that being what the rulebook tells me. (3) Someone whose judgement I trust tells me that playing this particular game will be fun; and then gives me a copy of the rulebook. I now have a reason to to what the rulebook tells me to do, in virtue of that being what the rulebook tells me. There's nothing surprising about cases (1), (2) or (3). They're fairly typical examples used to illustrate how rules can take on content-independent force. You use the verbs [i]suspend[/i], [i]put into force[/i] and [i]change[/i]. All those verbs implicate [i]time[/i]: there is a time at which the suspension is put into place, and that suspension has a duration; there is a time at which a rule is put into force, and the rule is in force for some or other duration; there is a time at which a change is made, and that change is temporary or permanent. [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER], in discussing the desiderata for successful gamist RPGing, also implicates time: [indent]The players must know, a priori and for certain, that their tactical and strategic moves made [b]will be honoured[/b], which is to say that those moves will [b]interact with and affect the gamestate[/b] in an knowable way (either encoded, or reliably extrapolatable), and that each of these gamestate interactions will distill Skilled Play as will [b]the collective throughline of them[/b].[/indent] I've bolded the most important temporal components of Manbearcat's requirements. A suspension, enforcement or change that does not upset the temporal demands of gamism (eg one that is made [i]before[/i] the beginning of a "throughline" and that is known to the players before they begin) will not upset gamist play (assuming the actual content of the change still satisfies the requirements of distilling skill play in a knowable way). One that is made [i]during[/i] the throughline will be far more suspect, because there is a very real risk that it will disrupt the way moves [i]interact with the gamestate[/i] and hence will result in those moves [i]not being honoured[/i]. Doubly so if the suspension, enforcement or change is not one that is known to the players. There is a colloquial phrase to describe this sort of suspect suspension, enforcement or change: [i]moving the goalposts[/i]. When we reflect on that, we can see that sometimes producing good gamist play might require moving the goalposts. Suppose, for instance, that we're playing football in a playground, having marked our goals with backpacks and caps, and then we discover that we mismeasured, and one of the goals is wider than the other. I can see at least two possible solutions: we change ends, so that the other side now gets the benefit of the wider goal; or we move the goalposts, to remove the unfair advantage. Moving the goalposts isn't obviously worse as a solution here, especially if no one has scored yet, and even moreso if no one has even taken a shot at goal yet. This sort of thing has been discussed in the context of non-gameplay too: Lon Fuller and those who follow him on the rule of law in general don't like retrospective laws, but allow that sometimes they might be necessary to serve the interests of the rule of law, if there are other features of the legal system that have produced some sort of departure from rule of law demands and only retrospective law can rectify those departures. In the context of legislation, there are normally authorised lawmakers who promulgate the change. In the case of playground football, the group as a whole will have to reach some agreement. If they can't, the game breaks up; in extreme cases, the group might break up. When it comes to RPGing, who decides what game we are going to play? The group. Who decides what rules to use? The group. Who decides whether or not a suspension of, enforcement of, or change to some rule is needed [i]during a throughline[/i]? The group. The GM has no special function here. So reflections on when we adopt and change rules has no particular bearing upon [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]'s not-AW, which is a RPG which specifies a particular function for the GM, and in virtue of that is not very good for gamist play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top