Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9033183" data-attributes="member: 6696971">clearstream, I'm reading this post as a response to [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]  and as an attempt to add something to the conversation and I don't have any idea what it is happening here.  Here are things that are true that I find are problems with this response to pemerton:* In D&D 5e and in AD&D, the GM absolutely does "get to say."  If the GM feels a thing should happen via extrapolating the fiction/setting/backstory/cosmology (etc), then it happens.  If they feel a random encounter or a reaction roll is or some kind of table needs to be deployed, they'll devise that and roll dice (maybe observing the result, maybe ignoring it, maybe rolling again).  If they feel like dice need to be rolled then they might use percentile or roll under or Save vs in AD&D or maybe use some PC action resolution mechanics.  If its 5e, they might decide there is uncertainty...they might not...they might say Contest Intelligence vs Charisma...or Saving Throw vs Wisdom...or Ability Check DC x, y, z (etc)...they might give advantage or disadvantage...they might apply/reward Inspiration or they might now...they might use Success w/ Cost or Degrees of Failure...they might use Exhaustion...they might use any of the various Transformation mechanics...or they might use simple Diplomacy checks or they might use the Social Interaction procedures...or they might just have the bad guy get away because its better for the story...or they might allow Rustic Hospitality to work in this situation or they might veto it.  On and on and on and on and on.Overwhelmingly, folks like [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] and [USER=6747251]@Micah Sweet[/USER] and [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] (among many, many others) have called this a "toolkit" or "another tool in my toolbox" and described this breadth of GM say as "flexibility" or "freedom".  To examine your first paragraph above in light of this, yes, in AD&D and D&D 5e (for example), "the GM gets to say."  That is a feature for the above folks.  Its flexibility.  Its freedom.  In Apocalypse World, "the GM must say."  That is a bug for the above folks.  Its constraint.  It creates a sense of "GM disempowerment" for them.  I read what you write and it feels like you're doing one or two things.  You're either looking for the great flattening which mutes the differences of all TTRPGs such that the participants are basically doing the same things and various games lead to roughly the same experience (if not exactly the same experience).  Alternatively, perhaps you're looking for this unified theory of RPG everything whereby Apocalypse World and D&D 5e are actually the same because of this unified theory you're trying to resolve in your mind.  Regardless, it seems to lead to the same place; heterogeneity, sameness, oneness.  Do you think that they are the same?  Are you trying to put forward some kind of great flattening or unified theory of RPG everything that neatly bins them together so we can basically say "people who play D&D and AW are basically doing the same thing" or is that just a rogue takeaway by this dude (me) on the internet?* Procedure isn't a synonym for rule and, in my interactions with pemerton (public, private, live), I have never thought that he has them confused.  A procedure is a formal sequence of actions undertaken in order to derive a distinct experience and output novel to that procedure.  Whenever we undergo a formal "play loop" or resolve a sequence of actions to derive "what is the state of play at the end of this order of operations" we're following a procedure.A procedure is a subset of rules as rules entail all of the architecture that governs things said and done during play.  In Torchbearer, "Fun Once", "Play on Belief, Creed, Goal, Instinct" and "Fail Forward" are rules (while also being "techniques" which are a subset of rules) while Camp phase, Conflicts, Recovery from Conditions, and Advendure Design are both procedures and rules.  In Apocalypse World, "Play to Find Out What Happens" and "Always Say..." are rules while making moves, whether you're a player or MC, is a distinct procedure (when a move triggers and the sequence of actions undertaken to resolve it, or when a soft move turns into a hard move, etc).  In Blades in the Dark, "Act Now Plan Later" is a rule for players while "Cut to the Action" is a rule for GMs while "Setting Effect" is a procedure akin to "Factoring" in the BW family of games.* Game mechanics are anything that resolves the transition from one distinct gamestate to another.  If you're just freeform roleplaying and nothing of consequence is happening such that no gamestate transitions are occurring (like players planning their super excellent strategem or performative freeplay of tavern/bath house carousing or muffin buying at your favorite pastry shop or PC weddings or other stuff that is exclusively color without mechanical heft/conflict/or gamestate consequence)?  Well, no game mechanics are happening.[HR][/HR]You did write something above that is incisive though.  You could say that AW (and the like) are written teleologically and that categorization has some use.  The constituent parts of such systems are written with a purpose and that purpose is to give expression to a play paradigm, a premise, a particular game layer...just like D&D Hit Points.  They don't start from an orientation to causal relationships.  That is for the tables to resolve as they play the game, as fiction collides, as gamestates transition...just like D&D Hit Points.Its extremely important to note that both system design and the cognitive workspaces of the participants at the table (the GM and the players) are rather different under this orientation to system and play than it is under one whereby exploration and extrapolation via process simulation and internal causality are the apex priorities that governs system and cognitive workspaces.  The former invests play with purpose and a game layer to facilitate that while expecting the participants to figure out internal causality and continuity as they play.  The latter is predisposed toward the primacy of internal causality and continuity as substrate for world-building and exploration while expecting the GM (perhaps with some input from other participants) to invest play with purpose and a game layer to facilitate their purpose (excluding Rolemaster, Runequest, Traveller and the like here).Just like its important to note the differences between systems and play experiences whereby conflict-neutral free play without frequent or consequential gamestate transitions is quite different from systems and play experiences where they are is little to no conflict-neutral play and very frequent and consequential gamestate transitions.  Each of these things (and plenty of others) point the arrow away from a great flattening or a unified theory of TTRPG everything.</blockquote>

Verification