Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6203804" data-attributes="member: 3192">Similar distinctions could be made upon the running of processed software. The software may run on multiple varieties of hardware and even "lower" level software designs (like neuron brains and resulting sentiences). Software processing might be said to change the behavior of all different underlying components, while also being a result of them. The underlying hardware, or neurons in the case of the brain, wouldn't need to be considered free willed, but it's a difficult relationship to distinguish. When experiencing the liquidity and buoyancy of water at every moment we are also inextricably engaged with H2O particles. The two don't separate easily, but we can allow ourselves the separateness of our current comprehensions of them, even if they are ultimately unified.As I was saying above, I don't think allowing separate understandings requires we hold absurd or contradictory understandings. On the face of each, when compared to what we know for each as a particular, absurdity and contradiction might hold. I'm not suggesting we deny these experiences. But we can still accept that there is a unity between thought and psyche just as there is between liquidity and H2O molecules. That is a widely understood state of existence in Existentialism. That we aren't imagining the world around us, but instead referring constantly to our own mentally created state of affairs, and referring to those as "real". The way we might refer to a non-fiction map as as real even if we were its maker. We assert reality to escape solipsism. So this non-fiction map is our personal experience of a world beyond our imagining (you could read that a couple different ways).Neither game includes private systems to define roles for players to role play. Traveller is a simulation game with some elements of a wargame, some elements of space flight games, and includes components for character creation for players to create their playing piece, so to speak. I don't know Miller's intentions for how it was to be played, but I imagine it came out of the confusion of the late 70s in trying to figure out what  D&D was. Traveller's world generation and character generation systems are both interesting and could modified into codes for a space exploration RPG, but ultimately, yes, as it stands Traveller is something of what I called a Type B game.  Runequest is too, but it's following in the footsteps of most of the skill game designs of its time. (Designs vehemently said not to be role playing games at the time. Ultimately leading to the conflict with GURPS I believe.) Runequest's setting and adventures could be converted, maybe some other interesting mechanical options, but its play and design are largely irrelevant to role playing. If you go up thread, you'll see I agree. What is being purposefully removed by the Forge's redefinition of it is when Social Contract is explicitly not a game rule, but a table rule (most of what you mention) or the result of strategic negotiations by players playing a game - and therefore not required to be followed at all when playing the game. Negotiations between D&D Players is of major importance to its cooperative design rather than some "game collaboratively" rule. Suggested play styles or strategies are in the early Player sections of many TSR products. A big for instance includes possible ways of dividing up treasure. These are neither game rules nor table rules. Players wouldn't be breaking the game rules by not following them. These particular contracts are the results of cooperative play between players, or deceitful play perhaps. I don't know. As referees we aren't there to judge or guess at player strategies, but only to provide them a game so they can play it. So it isn't helpful when these strategies are blindly cast as "just another instance of game rules" under the Forge's misplaced, yet popularized definition.</blockquote>

Verification