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 LIVE! 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="clearstream" data-source="post: 8644944" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>I point out that we are making decisions - for example your creating a fiction about a shortage of oil - that operate in a decision-space that is strictly limitless. Another GM could have created a different fiction, and been equally right in doing so.</p><p></p><p></p><p>By turtles all the way down I mean that if a GM is choosing fiat, then they can always choose fiat. Following game rules is voluntary. (Games are typically regarded as a voluntary activity. That is one reason why the appeal of a game rule matters to the following of it.) The intended implication here is that if a GM is <u>not</u> choosing fiat, then they can always not choose fiat.</p><p></p><p></p><p>If you are able to write down what those things are, you will see that agreement to a rule isn't located in the rule. It can be located in view of the consequences of the rule. And it can be located in view of the consequences of agreement to the system as a whole.</p><p></p><p>Game rules are not followed simply because they are rules. Games are voluntary. Their rules are followed in view of their consequences for us (their appeal) and in view of external considerations like friendship, trust, and so on. We can find ourself in a game where some participants don't follow rules that we have chosen to follow, or follow them in a different way (and thus in view of the consequences of following them that way.)</p><p></p><p>It's not all or nothing. Opt-in is not automatic: intrinsic to the rule. One might choose not to follow a rule, and then have another explain it to you in a way that makes it more appealing, and thus decide to follow it. That is explained by knowing that the following of the rule is in view of something other than the rule itself.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That is <em>why</em> I cite Torchbearer. Because I mean to illustrate that we are able to follow constraints even while working in decision-spaces that are strictly limitless.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It might turn out that our greatest disconnect is that as GM you (possibly?) do not see reasons in 5e as a system to accept constraints, while I do. If right, maybe the rest follows from there?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Those are excellent examples of choosing to follow rules in view of the consequences if you accept/enact them for yourself.</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">From experience, you have found that the rules reliably achieve an agenda of play that is one you find enjoyable (the appeal is the enjoyability of satisfying that agenda)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You find that the cognitive space is desirable (perhaps parsable, diverse, and complex enough to be stimulating)</li> </ol><p>That another could <strong>not</strong> find the achieved agenda enjoyable, or the cognitive space stimulating, is perfectly plausible. Half our play group <em>love</em> TB2, and the other half don't have any desire to play it again. When they don't, they choose not to accept/enact the rules concerned for themselves. It is in view of the benefits (the appeal) that we chose to follow the rules.</p><p></p><p>Another example, you chose to follow different Journey rules from those in the LMM. You explained your view that the consequences of following the different rules were appealing in some ways. The LMM rules had no power to force themselves upon you, other than that you granted them (and in this case, you did not grant them that power).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, constraints are fundamentally opt-in. The characteristics are relevant because it is in view of them that we may choose to opt-in. There can be other reasons, too. For example, a player with no understanding of the rules may opt-in to them because they want to enjoy their friends' company. And may continue to follow them in order to avoid being seen as a spoilsport.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In that case, it's possibly not at all clear to me what we're arguing <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So what GMing any RPG, from minimalist to Torchbearer2, is like from me is</p><p></p><p>That includes 5e. There is no smuggling in. Rather I think sensitivity to what the system offers and adherence to principles. Looking for the best in a system - taking advantage of its strengths.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>What I thought we were debating is whether GM-fiat necessarily applies in 5e.</strong> You and others seemed to be saying that due to Rule 0 or for other reasons, it does necessarily apply. That's not my experience.</p><p></p><p>Frex, I use Rule 0 in play to make rulings in case of lacunae. I note such rulings and after play the group agrees whether (or not) that will be our houserule for the rest of the campaign. I use Rule 0 out of play to author or revise rules in ways that can better serve the group, and such rules become constraints from there. I <em>never</em> use Rule 0 to arbitrarily disapply constraints consistent with "system-directed, system-constrained, rule-and-principles-and-best-practice-observing, conscientious GMing".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8644944, member: 71699"] I point out that we are making decisions - for example your creating a fiction about a shortage of oil - that operate in a decision-space that is strictly limitless. Another GM could have created a different fiction, and been equally right in doing so. By turtles all the way down I mean that if a GM is choosing fiat, then they can always choose fiat. Following game rules is voluntary. (Games are typically regarded as a voluntary activity. That is one reason why the appeal of a game rule matters to the following of it.) The intended implication here is that if a GM is [U]not[/U] choosing fiat, then they can always not choose fiat. If you are able to write down what those things are, you will see that agreement to a rule isn't located in the rule. It can be located in view of the consequences of the rule. And it can be located in view of the consequences of agreement to the system as a whole. Game rules are not followed simply because they are rules. Games are voluntary. Their rules are followed in view of their consequences for us (their appeal) and in view of external considerations like friendship, trust, and so on. We can find ourself in a game where some participants don't follow rules that we have chosen to follow, or follow them in a different way (and thus in view of the consequences of following them that way.) It's not all or nothing. Opt-in is not automatic: intrinsic to the rule. One might choose not to follow a rule, and then have another explain it to you in a way that makes it more appealing, and thus decide to follow it. That is explained by knowing that the following of the rule is in view of something other than the rule itself. That is [I]why[/I] I cite Torchbearer. Because I mean to illustrate that we are able to follow constraints even while working in decision-spaces that are strictly limitless. It might turn out that our greatest disconnect is that as GM you (possibly?) do not see reasons in 5e as a system to accept constraints, while I do. If right, maybe the rest follows from there? Those are excellent examples of choosing to follow rules in view of the consequences if you accept/enact them for yourself. [LIST=1] [*]From experience, you have found that the rules reliably achieve an agenda of play that is one you find enjoyable (the appeal is the enjoyability of satisfying that agenda) [*]You find that the cognitive space is desirable (perhaps parsable, diverse, and complex enough to be stimulating) [/LIST] That another could [B]not[/B] find the achieved agenda enjoyable, or the cognitive space stimulating, is perfectly plausible. Half our play group [I]love[/I] TB2, and the other half don't have any desire to play it again. When they don't, they choose not to accept/enact the rules concerned for themselves. It is in view of the benefits (the appeal) that we chose to follow the rules. Another example, you chose to follow different Journey rules from those in the LMM. You explained your view that the consequences of following the different rules were appealing in some ways. The LMM rules had no power to force themselves upon you, other than that you granted them (and in this case, you did not grant them that power). Yes, constraints are fundamentally opt-in. The characteristics are relevant because it is in view of them that we may choose to opt-in. There can be other reasons, too. For example, a player with no understanding of the rules may opt-in to them because they want to enjoy their friends' company. And may continue to follow them in order to avoid being seen as a spoilsport. In that case, it's possibly not at all clear to me what we're arguing :) So what GMing any RPG, from minimalist to Torchbearer2, is like from me is That includes 5e. There is no smuggling in. Rather I think sensitivity to what the system offers and adherence to principles. Looking for the best in a system - taking advantage of its strengths. [B]What I thought we were debating is whether GM-fiat necessarily applies in 5e.[/B] You and others seemed to be saying that due to Rule 0 or for other reasons, it does necessarily apply. That's not my experience. Frex, I use Rule 0 in play to make rulings in case of lacunae. I note such rulings and after play the group agrees whether (or not) that will be our houserule for the rest of the campaign. I use Rule 0 out of play to author or revise rules in ways that can better serve the group, and such rules become constraints from there. I [I]never[/I] use Rule 0 to arbitrarily disapply constraints consistent with "system-directed, system-constrained, rule-and-principles-and-best-practice-observing, conscientious GMing". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top