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="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8640275" data-attributes="member: 7026617"><p>Are we back to "only a purist stance is the stance" AA? Because its possible to favor one and still care about the other here, and I think I have a pretty good idea which one is the priority, wouldn't you think?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The problem was with OD&D you were constantly doing the sort of ad-hoc rules add-ons I've referred to. Want to climb a wall to do something? Is it even going to be possible? How hard will it be? You had absolutely nothing to base it on, because in terms of mechanics, OD&D had basically two significant things (a very schematic combat system with associated saving throws, and a slightly more elaborate spell system) and a couple of small odds and ends of supplemental mechanics for things like surprise and secret doors, but past that you were on your own.</p><p></p><p>I've argued you can play a Gamist game with no rules at all, but that doesn't mean I think its a particularly <em>desirable</em> way to play, which is why you can probably hear my eyes rolling all the way across the Internet when the "Rulings not Rules" proponents start in.</p><p></p><p>So its not the narrowness of scope that made me leave D&D; it was the fact that as far as support, what it gave me was pretty much pants.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, I think you're confusing "Have Game as a priority" with "not being willing to engage with anything else at all." A Gamist may prefer that your interpretation of an open-ended element be one he can turn to his benefit, but that doesn't mean he doesn't expect it to require some interpretation and accept that as long as it doesn't look like there's no sense of consistency and/or the interpretation is constantly against letting him do what he wants.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly. As I said, one of the elements of doing house rules is, even if something is done in a way that happen to support the GM's wants once, he's still going to deal with it being an established precedent that can be used to make gamist decisions in the future. Cynically, that's why I think at least some RNR proponents don't like having more than minimalist written rules.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's a specific game culture thing though (I do agree that early D&D spells tended to be, shall we say, "terse" in their explanations; I was never into AD&D, but I can't imagine it was worse than the one-line wonders of spell descriptions in OD&D).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8640275, member: 7026617"] Are we back to "only a purist stance is the stance" AA? Because its possible to favor one and still care about the other here, and I think I have a pretty good idea which one is the priority, wouldn't you think? The problem was with OD&D you were constantly doing the sort of ad-hoc rules add-ons I've referred to. Want to climb a wall to do something? Is it even going to be possible? How hard will it be? You had absolutely nothing to base it on, because in terms of mechanics, OD&D had basically two significant things (a very schematic combat system with associated saving throws, and a slightly more elaborate spell system) and a couple of small odds and ends of supplemental mechanics for things like surprise and secret doors, but past that you were on your own. I've argued you can play a Gamist game with no rules at all, but that doesn't mean I think its a particularly [I]desirable[/I] way to play, which is why you can probably hear my eyes rolling all the way across the Internet when the "Rulings not Rules" proponents start in. So its not the narrowness of scope that made me leave D&D; it was the fact that as far as support, what it gave me was pretty much pants. Again, I think you're confusing "Have Game as a priority" with "not being willing to engage with anything else at all." A Gamist may prefer that your interpretation of an open-ended element be one he can turn to his benefit, but that doesn't mean he doesn't expect it to require some interpretation and accept that as long as it doesn't look like there's no sense of consistency and/or the interpretation is constantly against letting him do what he wants. Exactly. As I said, one of the elements of doing house rules is, even if something is done in a way that happen to support the GM's wants once, he's still going to deal with it being an established precedent that can be used to make gamist decisions in the future. Cynically, that's why I think at least some RNR proponents don't like having more than minimalist written rules. That's a specific game culture thing though (I do agree that early D&D spells tended to be, shall we say, "terse" in their explanations; I was never into AD&D, but I can't imagine it was worse than the one-line wonders of spell descriptions in OD&D). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top