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
*TTRPGs General
System matters and free kriegsspiel
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="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8425263" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>Can [USER=86653]@overgeeked[/USER] , [USER=6972053]@Numidius[/USER] , [USER=7030755]@Malmuria[/USER] , or [USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER] unpack what the difference is between "play worlds, not rules" from the credibility test that takes place for each component of situation framing > action declaration > consequence handling in all games governed by genre logic that are emulating said genre?</p><p></p><p>Is it the same thing? Subtly different?</p><p></p><p>If its the same thing, then the only difference would be:</p><p></p><p>"play worlds <strong><em>and </em></strong>rules"</p><p></p><p>vs </p><p></p><p>"play worlds <strong><em>not </em></strong>rules"</p><p></p><p>So, for instance, in the former the procedure of play would be the following:</p><p></p><p>* GM performs internal credibility test when framing a situation/obstacle (is this genre appropriate)? GM then interacts with whatever rules come into play for mechanizing the conflict so players can manage the cognitive workspace of their characters and navigate the decision-space.</p><p></p><p>* Player then makes an action declaration informed by genre logic, whatever thematic/dramatic/tactical/strategic trappings that are inherent to system/character, and interacts with the system architecture to see how it resolves.</p><p></p><p>* GM adjudicates action/conflict resolution results, performs the necessary internal credibility test (what is the most compelling and appropriate consequence for the game in question that hews to genre logic?), and changes the gamestate and orientation of the relevant component parts of the shared imagined space.</p><p></p><p>[HR][/HR]</p><p></p><p>So that is the typical procedure/loop for most of the games I've GMed in the last 65 million years (the KT Boundary Event was actually the beginning of TTRPGing...bit of trivia for everyone to pop out at your next dinner party...you're welcome). </p><p></p><p>What is, in your mind, the concrete difference between the <strong><em>and </em></strong>and the <strong><em>not </em></strong>here?</p><p></p><p>I mean...if I'm a person in real life, I don't do this genre appropriate/logic step. But I certainly make intense observations about the situation before me and then orient myself to the relevant parameters before deciding how to approach it (if I'm climbing, I'm measuring distance/examining holds/considering routes/evaluating moveset/measuring and rationing the various aspects of my gastank...if I'm running, I'm evaluating pace/heart rate/topography/gas tank...if I'm trying to settle a dispute or lower the temperature in the room I'm considering the audience/how we got here/what makes each of these people tick/will humor disarm or is another manner of de-escalation required/how do they feel about me and my various approaches socially/how much do I even want to get involved...etc). I don't need rules for that in real life that regulates my cognitive workspace and encodes my observation > orientation > decision process. I'm there. But in a game, I have to have something...so we come up with means to regulate and encode that stuff. So we use rules (FKR does the same, they're just iterated in real time at the table rather than digested and assimilated prior).</p><p></p><p></p><p>So...what am I missing...what am I wrong about here (if anything)?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8425263, member: 6696971"] Can [USER=86653]@overgeeked[/USER] , [USER=6972053]@Numidius[/USER] , [USER=7030755]@Malmuria[/USER] , or [USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER] unpack what the difference is between "play worlds, not rules" from the credibility test that takes place for each component of situation framing > action declaration > consequence handling in all games governed by genre logic that are emulating said genre? Is it the same thing? Subtly different? If its the same thing, then the only difference would be: "play worlds [B][I]and [/I][/B]rules" vs "play worlds [B][I]not [/I][/B]rules" So, for instance, in the former the procedure of play would be the following: * GM performs internal credibility test when framing a situation/obstacle (is this genre appropriate)? GM then interacts with whatever rules come into play for mechanizing the conflict so players can manage the cognitive workspace of their characters and navigate the decision-space. * Player then makes an action declaration informed by genre logic, whatever thematic/dramatic/tactical/strategic trappings that are inherent to system/character, and interacts with the system architecture to see how it resolves. * GM adjudicates action/conflict resolution results, performs the necessary internal credibility test (what is the most compelling and appropriate consequence for the game in question that hews to genre logic?), and changes the gamestate and orientation of the relevant component parts of the shared imagined space. [HR][/HR] So that is the typical procedure/loop for most of the games I've GMed in the last 65 million years (the KT Boundary Event was actually the beginning of TTRPGing...bit of trivia for everyone to pop out at your next dinner party...you're welcome). What is, in your mind, the concrete difference between the [B][I]and [/I][/B]and the [B][I]not [/I][/B]here? I mean...if I'm a person in real life, I don't do this genre appropriate/logic step. But I certainly make intense observations about the situation before me and then orient myself to the relevant parameters before deciding how to approach it (if I'm climbing, I'm measuring distance/examining holds/considering routes/evaluating moveset/measuring and rationing the various aspects of my gastank...if I'm running, I'm evaluating pace/heart rate/topography/gas tank...if I'm trying to settle a dispute or lower the temperature in the room I'm considering the audience/how we got here/what makes each of these people tick/will humor disarm or is another manner of de-escalation required/how do they feel about me and my various approaches socially/how much do I even want to get involved...etc). I don't need rules for that in real life that regulates my cognitive workspace and encodes my observation > orientation > decision process. I'm there. But in a game, I have to have something...so we come up with means to regulate and encode that stuff. So we use rules (FKR does the same, they're just iterated in real time at the table rather than digested and assimilated prior). So...what am I missing...what am I wrong about here (if anything)? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
System matters and free kriegsspiel
Top