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: 8639756" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I'm not too concerned about an infinite regress - Lewis Carroll has an answer to that in a paper from around 130 years ago, and in my view that answer can be applied outside of the formal logical domain Carroll is concerned with to other domains in which rules operate.</p><p></p><p>But I do agree with you that it is a digression. The Lumpley Principle - ie that it is social contract that establishes the system, and that it is shared imagination that constitutes the setting, characters and situation - is (in my view) uncontroversial, and I haven't noticed anyone in this thread trying to controvert it.</p><p></p><p>But the Lumpley Principle doesn't tell us anything about what systems are possible and the differences between them. Baker himself - as per my quote upthread - clearly thinks that social contract can support a system of task resolution, in which the resolution of situations is under the control of the GM who (as [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] explained with reference to John Harper) must decide what affect (if any) the achieving of a task by a character has on the unfolding and ultimate upshot of the situation; or a system of conflict resolution, in which the resolution of situations is not under the control of the GM in the same way.</p><p></p><p>Baker (and I think [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] too) have mostly made the point that that task-resolution, "GM is the glue" approach is not very suitable for "story now". You (that is, [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]) have also made the point that such a system is not very suitable for "step on up".</p><p></p><p>We can posit exceptions. A very disciplined GM, with very transparent fiction (setting, situation, NPCs), might make task resolution work for vanilla narrativism. I don't think it will be trivial. Rolemaster looks superficially like task resolution, but some of the features of its non-combat resolution charts actually push it closer to conflict resolution in some arenas (especially social). Nevertheless, using it for vanilla narrativism still raises some of these GM-as-glue problems. I say that on the basis of nearly 20 years of experience with the system.</p><p></p><p>On the gamist side, a commitment to rock-solid prep and a tight resolution space (ie the dungeon) can make GM-as-glue gamism possible. Even here, there can be problems, for instance for some social conflicts. And take the same approach into a less confined and spartan (imagined) environment, and as I and [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] have said, the gamism will break down, because no matter how disciplined the GM is, they will have to make stuff up to preserve the logic and verisimilitude of the fiction.</p><p></p><p>I therefore don't think the rather modest exceptions refute the general point.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8639756, member: 42582"] I'm not too concerned about an infinite regress - Lewis Carroll has an answer to that in a paper from around 130 years ago, and in my view that answer can be applied outside of the formal logical domain Carroll is concerned with to other domains in which rules operate. But I do agree with you that it is a digression. The Lumpley Principle - ie that it is social contract that establishes the system, and that it is shared imagination that constitutes the setting, characters and situation - is (in my view) uncontroversial, and I haven't noticed anyone in this thread trying to controvert it. But the Lumpley Principle doesn't tell us anything about what systems are possible and the differences between them. Baker himself - as per my quote upthread - clearly thinks that social contract can support a system of task resolution, in which the resolution of situations is under the control of the GM who (as [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] explained with reference to John Harper) must decide what affect (if any) the achieving of a task by a character has on the unfolding and ultimate upshot of the situation; or a system of conflict resolution, in which the resolution of situations is not under the control of the GM in the same way. Baker (and I think [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] too) have mostly made the point that that task-resolution, "GM is the glue" approach is not very suitable for "story now". You (that is, [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]) have also made the point that such a system is not very suitable for "step on up". We can posit exceptions. A very disciplined GM, with very transparent fiction (setting, situation, NPCs), might make task resolution work for vanilla narrativism. I don't think it will be trivial. Rolemaster looks superficially like task resolution, but some of the features of its non-combat resolution charts actually push it closer to conflict resolution in some arenas (especially social). Nevertheless, using it for vanilla narrativism still raises some of these GM-as-glue problems. I say that on the basis of nearly 20 years of experience with the system. On the gamist side, a commitment to rock-solid prep and a tight resolution space (ie the dungeon) can make GM-as-glue gamism possible. Even here, there can be problems, for instance for some social conflicts. And take the same approach into a less confined and spartan (imagined) environment, and as I and [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] have said, the gamism will break down, because no matter how disciplined the GM is, they will have to make stuff up to preserve the logic and verisimilitude of the fiction. I therefore don't think the rather modest exceptions refute the general point. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top