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
*TTRPGs General
Thinking About the Purpose of Mechanics from a Neo-Trad Perspective
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="Emberashh" data-source="post: 9214338" data-attributes="member: 7040941"><p>Its unintuitive but it makes sense contextually. It we define the Players in improv as being any "entity" that contributes to the overall reality of a given scene, the non-Improv Rules overwhelmingly fit that distinction alongside the colloquial Player role and the GM role. The overall structure of the game is tied to the improv mechanisms, and the additional Rules act as a Player within those mechanisms. (As such, solutions come easier if we look at certain problems as certain rules contradicting each other and not following either a heirarchical or equitable structure, either allowing improv to supercede or designing both to blend together, respectively)</p><p></p><p>Thats part of the logic in distinguishing most RPGs as hybrids. For comparison, I'd say that FKR much of the time is a non-hybrid example, being basically just a slightly elaborated on form of pure roleplaying. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Thats where the game designer comes in. The non-improv rules themselves have to be designed to cooperate with the base feedback loop. </p><p></p><p>An example of that I can point to is the Oracle system in my Exploration mechanics. The rules define different prompts to be Interpreted (improv mechanic), and provides mechanisms to determine when they're given to the colloquial Player. </p><p></p><p>Improv mechanisms then take over from there. You can interpret the Oracle however you like, up to and including substituting in your own ideas, and this kickstarts the Improv loop as all three Players (GM, cPlayers, and the Rules) provide feedback and you to them in turn, over and over until the scene is resolved. </p><p></p><p>This keeps the rules non-contradictory as they have no capability to cause blocking or otherwise break the feedback loop (short of instances where the improv leads to someone getting killed, but thats an exception). GMs and cPlayers absolutely still could, but you can't design your way around that. Either the humans cooperate or they don't. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Id agree, as improv mechanisms go well beyond covering how two or more people interact. Cooperative reality management and all that isn't limited to just talking. </p><p></p><p></p><p>This I'd not agree with at all, however. </p><p></p><p>What I assume you're referring to as PBTA is still just the higher level hybrid of improv play with other mechanisms. </p><p></p><p>And Braunstein in particular is rooted in the same improv mechanisms, even if Wesley and eventually Arneson didn't realize that's what they were doing. Braunstein could be very literally described as a session of freeform narrative improv with ~20 something Players, including Wesley and Arneson. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The issue is that there <em>isn't</em> any alternatives. Its all improv all the way down, and if it isn't, it isn't going to resemble <em>anything</em> we recognize as an (TT)RPG. </p><p></p><p>That is the inherent problem with pitching RPGs in general as unlimited play experiences, the vast bulk of which do not actually shy away from embracing that idea, <em>even when it isn't actually true</em>. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think part of the disagreement here is mostly that we don't have precise enough of a shared language, if you will. </p><p></p><p>From my perspective, you're just repeating my overall point back to me but its as though you disagree. </p><p></p><p>I don't believe we do, which I'd figure is partly why we can continue to have these talks and not have them degenerate into uh, red text lol.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Emberashh, post: 9214338, member: 7040941"] Its unintuitive but it makes sense contextually. It we define the Players in improv as being any "entity" that contributes to the overall reality of a given scene, the non-Improv Rules overwhelmingly fit that distinction alongside the colloquial Player role and the GM role. The overall structure of the game is tied to the improv mechanisms, and the additional Rules act as a Player within those mechanisms. (As such, solutions come easier if we look at certain problems as certain rules contradicting each other and not following either a heirarchical or equitable structure, either allowing improv to supercede or designing both to blend together, respectively) Thats part of the logic in distinguishing most RPGs as hybrids. For comparison, I'd say that FKR much of the time is a non-hybrid example, being basically just a slightly elaborated on form of pure roleplaying. Thats where the game designer comes in. The non-improv rules themselves have to be designed to cooperate with the base feedback loop. An example of that I can point to is the Oracle system in my Exploration mechanics. The rules define different prompts to be Interpreted (improv mechanic), and provides mechanisms to determine when they're given to the colloquial Player. Improv mechanisms then take over from there. You can interpret the Oracle however you like, up to and including substituting in your own ideas, and this kickstarts the Improv loop as all three Players (GM, cPlayers, and the Rules) provide feedback and you to them in turn, over and over until the scene is resolved. This keeps the rules non-contradictory as they have no capability to cause blocking or otherwise break the feedback loop (short of instances where the improv leads to someone getting killed, but thats an exception). GMs and cPlayers absolutely still could, but you can't design your way around that. Either the humans cooperate or they don't. Id agree, as improv mechanisms go well beyond covering how two or more people interact. Cooperative reality management and all that isn't limited to just talking. This I'd not agree with at all, however. What I assume you're referring to as PBTA is still just the higher level hybrid of improv play with other mechanisms. And Braunstein in particular is rooted in the same improv mechanisms, even if Wesley and eventually Arneson didn't realize that's what they were doing. Braunstein could be very literally described as a session of freeform narrative improv with ~20 something Players, including Wesley and Arneson. The issue is that there [I]isn't[/I] any alternatives. Its all improv all the way down, and if it isn't, it isn't going to resemble [I]anything[/I] we recognize as an (TT)RPG. That is the inherent problem with pitching RPGs in general as unlimited play experiences, the vast bulk of which do not actually shy away from embracing that idea, [I]even when it isn't actually true[/I]. I think part of the disagreement here is mostly that we don't have precise enough of a shared language, if you will. From my perspective, you're just repeating my overall point back to me but its as though you disagree. I don't believe we do, which I'd figure is partly why we can continue to have these talks and not have them degenerate into uh, red text lol. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Thinking About the Purpose of Mechanics from a Neo-Trad Perspective
Top